In eJewishPhilanthropy’s exclusive opinion column The 501(C) Suite, leading foundation executives share what they are working on and thinking about with the wider philanthropic field. 

There is a lot on my mind right now.

First and foremost, of course, is the war in the Middle East where millions of our sisters and brother’s daily lives in Israel are disrupted as they seek shelter from rockets so they can stay alive. They do this while trying to navigate through their day, raising kids, taking care of the elderly and myriad other necessary tasks. They are built differently than me, with such unimaginable resilience. No article about Jewish life should be written during this war without acknowledging them. I hope they can soon return to their normal routines in safety.

What I write below may appear trivial in this moment, but something is pushing me to share these thoughts now. I have been thinking about them for some time.

I have written before about VUCA — volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity — and about the pace of change reshaping our world and Jewish communal life. In this environment, professionals have had to adapt. Many have. They have become more agile, more responsive and more comfortable making decisions in real time.

If the world around our institutions has changed so dramatically and so quickly, compelling our professionals to change, it begs a question: have the systems through which we govern our Jewish institutions changed as well? The answer, in many cases, is not nearly enough.

Jewish organizations spend enormous energy talking about innovation in programs, strategy and engagement. We spend far less time asking whether our governance architecture enables those ambitions or quietly impedes them.

Together, professionals and lay leaders need to build a culture in which governance is designed, not merely inherited, so we can navigate these VUCA times.

Practically speaking, this design process will probably include redefining committee charters, clarifying which decisions belong where, reducing unnecessary approvals, reshaping meetings around strategy rather than reporting, creating clearer lanes between oversight and execution and minimizing the distance between emerging reality and institutional response. In other words, it means treating governance as a living operating system, not a permanent artifact. Leading Edge is doing important work in this area via its Board Leadership Accelerator program and other workshops and resources it produces. 

To be clear, I am not arguing against lay leadership, or for sidelining boards or to diminish volunteers. On the contrary, we need to ask whether we are using lay leadership as well as we can for their highest and best use.

In some ways, many institutions in our field face the ultimate innovator’s dilemma. The very qualities that make institutions trusted, stable and effective can also make them inflexible. Structures built for stewardship can become too slow for moments that also demand speed, judgment and responsiveness. Habits that once served the institution well can quietly become sources of friction. That does not mean those structures were wrong. It means the world moved on, and many of our governance models did not move enough with it.

Many Jewish communal organizations still operate with governance models that prized deliberation, sequencing, committee process and broad consensus. There was real wisdom in that and, at times, there still is.

Today, however, opportunities emerge faster. Risks escalate faster. Public expectations form faster. Crises unfold faster. Yet in too many places, the distance between issue and response, between opportunity and action, between strategic clarity and execution, is too long. Getting a “yes” or a “no” quickly is a blessing that rarely transpires in our Jewish world. Either answer — even the no — is a better outcome than a long, drawn-out process.

Boards and professionals need to ask each other some honest questions:

• Are lay leaders and professionals engaging each other in ways that accelerate judgment and action, or in ways that unintentionally slow things down?
• Are there too many layers between what the moment requires and an institution’s decisions?
• What decisions truly require lay involvement?
• Where are lay leaders uniquely positioned to shape direction, open doors, build trust and strengthen communal legitimacy, and where do those efforts impede on work that professionals are hired to do?

These are critical stewardship questions. We spend a lot of time exploring these questions at the Jim Joseph Foundation. While we’re certainly far from perfect in this area, we have adapted and built strong governance into our DNA and will continue to try and do so. This focus allowed us to adapt quickly with new structures during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks.

Speed, clarity and decisions rights — who gets to make decisions over certain matters in certain situations — matter. We can balance those needs without being reckless and abandoning consultation. Not every important decision is a board decision; not every opportunity should need to travel through layer after layer before action can be taken. 

Having this conversation requires humility from everyone. Professionals need to recognize when they need help and guidance, and that volunteer partnership is not a nuisance — it’s a source of legitimacy and perspective to be valued. Lay leaders in turn need to ask whether inherited roles and committee structures and expectations still help the institution now, or whether they simply reflect what has long been familiar. When positioned most optimally, lay leaders can help speed up actions, ask hard questions that lead to improved decision-making and encourage the organization to set stretch goals and take risks even though they might fail. Lay leaders can give both permission and protection.

Jewish communal life needs both preservation and redesign. The future strength of our institutions will depend on the quality of our mission, the generosity of our supporters and whether lay leaders and professionals can reimagine together how leadership can be most effective at any given moment. Even strong institutions lose momentum when governance lags behind the moment. 

Together, let’s ensure we don’t fall behind.

Barry Finestone is the president and CEO of the Jim Joseph Foundation.