Mark, at your suggestion, I'm reposting my response to your article here to get the ball rolling. Thanks again.

This is something I've been meaning to write about for years now; thus my post will be a longer one! Thank you for opening an "undiscussable" topic!

I served as executive director of an organization 15 years ago – it was in a financially precarious position when I took the helm (the full extent of which was not made known to me when I was hired and the Board wasn't aware of this at that time either, tho I made them well aware of it during my tenure).

During my time there, I saw that one very real and possible (and perhaps the most appropriate) future for the organization was dissolution. As part of my strategic planning work, I looked at alternative scenarios and one was the organization's demise. I envisioned how to preserve the two key programs. They brought in the lion's share of dedicated funding – and were the two programs whose demise would harm people because each provided unique crisis-oriented social services to a client _base_ unserved elsewhere. I ensured that our relationships with potential host NPOs were strong, that those organizations were in good shape – just in case. When I left, the organization was still whole, but a few years later, it unraveled. I was happy to note that the two critical programs survived by relocating to two of the host organizations I had identified.

Since then, I regularly talk about and assess organizational life cycles, having learned a big lesson back then. In fact, when I sense an organization is nearing the end of its useful life, I think of it as in need of hospice care. This _meta_phor and analogy works well, and suggests very helpful courses of action and guiding principles for how to respond. Hospice care is about the easing of unnecessary suffering through palliative care, and in an organizational context this looks like opening facilitated conversations, creating safety for discussing undiscussables, respectfully hearing all points of view. It is also about celebrating the life of the dying person or in this case, organization, by honoring the founders, staff, and memorializing the organization's good work – rites of passage are an important part of this. Many hospice patients plan their own memorial services and intentionally say goodbye to important people; organizations too can do the same. Hospice care involves conscious planning for the end of life; in organizations this can take the form of intentional and mindful dissolution discussions and planning for dissolution over time (even in a crisis or short time _frame_, planning can be part of it). A big part of hospice care is making peace with those to be left behind and in organizations this means closure with clients, programs, staff, and the public. “Setting your affairs in order" is an important step in hospice care, and the organization described in Mark Hager’s case study did this: ensuring that financial debts are settled, funders informed, and viable programs spun off (divesting resources) – this is akin to writing a will and disbursing property before probate.

Last, but certainly not least, spiritual and emotional support is critical in hospice care. For me, this is perhaps the most important part for terminally ill patients and their loved ones, and is so in the case of organizational dissolution too. The emotional and spiritual aspects of an organization’s demise – especially a mission-driven one, founded by passion or need, as most NPOs are – can be very painful and difficult. In mergers, it's tough enough – think divorce/remarriage and how that impacts kids – and for the organization being merged, the following dynamics also apply. In dissolutions, especially those that end without planning and conscious, articulated intention, it can feel like a murder – particularly if there are strong voices opposing, if a founder or founders don’t agree, or if the boundaries between the organization and the members’ identities or lives is a thin or blurry one. There is a need for recognizing and facilitating Kubler-Ross' stages of grief, the need for facilitating a process towards acceptance. Ultimately, there is a need for letting go – which allows for the release of energy. The least surprising aspect of the case study presented was the amount of energy released when the suggestion to dissolve was made. It is key to recognize that this, like everything else, is a process, a dynamic, and it can be facilitated well or poorly. There is no one right way, but there are certainly bad ideas. In my opinion, openly discussing the real possibilities and fostering an environment where Cassandra can speak (even if she sounds like Chicken Little), is key.

Thanks NPQ for opening the conversation here by bringing Mark Hager’s work to us.