If you've got other things to share on the topic of the closure of nonprofits, put it here. There's plenty to be said!

Mark

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.

Kat: Thanks for a great post! It's good to have your experience and thoughtfulness in this discussion.

Two comments or questions that I'd like to hear your reaction to...

First is the idea of hospice for our beloved organizations. It's been said that Americans don't deal very well with death... we have an unhealthy attitude toward it, and we don't face it very well when it comes. After having conversations with a number of nonprofit managers whose nonprofit organizations "closed", I'd say that we don't deal very well with the death of our nonprofits either. I suspect this has something to do with our competitive "win" culture, so we don't like to be associated with anything that is "failing." As a result, there's something like a mean, sticky ugliness that surrounds an organization in decline. That makes it hard to talk about celebration and parting ceremonies. What can we do?

Second, I'd like to hear you say more about life cycles and how you believe it applies here. Personally, I've stayed away from the life cycles concept because I think it implies too much about an inevitable series of events that organizations have to go through. But I think it's been a useful idea for you, so I'd like to hear more about it.

Mark

Amen to the first point! What I didn't write about in my original post (since it was already so long) was that just mentioning "hospice care" for organizations has elicited nervous and uncomfortable laughter - from third parties! Just the concept seems to make folks uncomfortable even when their organization is not in such a place! I do wonder about being perceived as an angel of (organizational) death or the Dr. Kevorkian of nonprofits.

I think normalizing the conversation in the best of times – so it’s part of our vocabulary in all times – would help. I think it’s our role to say things that we ourselves may be uncomfortable saying and/or that others are uncomfortable hearing. Often, there’s a sense of relief when one person breaks that ice too. There’s an acknowledgement that this matters and that we take it seriously. It requires courage on all our parts, and integrity, and authenticity. I would argue those are – or should be – practices in the non-profit sector in all things. There’s a great little book on this called The Thin Book of Naming Elephants: How to Surface Undiscussables for Greater Organizational Success. I recommend it.

Also, using the _meta_phor of the Phoenix can help too. Which brings me to your second point.

I absolutely agree that life cycle stage models are limiting, and imply inevitable outcomes, and linear, sequential, chronological processes that aren’t always true. For me, this model is useful – to a point. I don't take this one so literally – I see the change processes as iterative and cyclical, not linear and progressive. There are trends and momentum that move things around and can move things towards specific outcomes, but there is also a lot of randomness and unpredictability. Creativity means there are choice points along the way. Reality means we have a lot less control than we like to think.

Using a Phoenix _meta_phor with a life cycle model allows for the life cycle model to be more palatable "when the end is near" (as the Phoenix is, after all, a symbol of resurrection). It also corrects that drawback – the implication that there are only limited inevitable outcomes that you reference above. Using the Phoenix _meta_phor could look like what I described in my first posting: taking the kernel, the best of the old organization, and figuring out how to give it new life (in that case, by moving it into another nonprofit organization). It's about the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. It's an accessible _meta_phor too since you don't have to buy into religious concepts of resurrection or rebirth, you can simply look at how seeds of new plants grown from the decay of rotting old ones. I recast it as a life cycle model _base_d in the natural world, the seasons, and the Phoenix collapses the seasons of Winter and Spring and, most importantly, the transition from Winter to Spring.

I'm very much enjoying this conversation.

This is such a timely article and addresses an issue that many of us in the non profit field don't like addressing. I'm also looking at the possibility of changing the direction of an organization and closing is one option. Merging with a like organization is another and I am exploring both. I admit, all of this makes people uncomfortable especially if they begin to think it's because of something they (board members) have or haven't done to prevent this. But it's also uncomfortable because people just don't like admitting that something may be at the end of its natural life span. The de_script_ion of disengaged board members was right on target--also the issue that some board members have been around forever and don't see a problem while some newer members may see things with a fresh view. I'm looking forward to reading more responses.

I think that the lifecycle concept and language is very valuable in getting a number of people who have different roles and knowledge to develop a shared understanding of an organization's siuation and reality. The most helpful materials and research on lifecycles that I have used all include several variations at the point when nonprofits start to lose support, leadership or energy. One possibility is the decline and die. Another, though, is to rise like the phoenix and essentially create a rebirth. In my experience that requires a champion - usually new to the organization or newly empowered - with great personal commitment and confidence. It's a role that take fortitude, also, because you have to say many things that no one wants to hear. If the nonprofit is serving an important community need, though, it's important. The best candidates for the role are also able to set the stage for a process of considering options, which may include closing, merging or restructuring. When I think of the organizations I've worked with or been involved with that have closed, there hasn't been this champion, or insurmountable obstacles have prevented any progress.

Kat, Karen, Kate... thanks for your thoughts!

I think I'm still squarely on the other side of the fence. Karen comments that "people just don't like admitting that something may be at the end of its natural life span." But I don't think organizations have a natural life span... it's that darn life cycle _meta_phor that tricks us into thinking that they do.

This isn't to say that organizations may not run to the end of their usefulness. They might do everything they set out to do, or the environment might change such that they don't have a purpose any more, or another organization might spring up that is more competitive or useful. But I prefer the concepts of goal attainment, fit with the environment, and competition when describing these situations. Life cycle just doesn't help me.

I know, I know, consultants have been using the idea for a decade or better, and some have gotten a lot of mileage out of it. Keep on! But the idea got dismissed from the study of management before it caught fire in consulting arenas. In 1980, John Kimberly wrote "Death is an inevitable feature of biological life. The same cannot be said of organizations. There is nothing about organizational life in itself that, of necessity, implies organizational death. There is no inevitable linear sequence of stages in organizational life, although there may be remarkable similarities among the developmental patterns of certain clusters of organizations. If there are laws that govern the development of organizations, analogous to those that apparently govern the development of organisms, they are yet to be discovered." Since then, it's been almost completely absent from theory and research on organizations.

But in the real world, it seems to have some currency. Kate calls the concept and language "very valuable." Maybe that's evidence of the gap between what's talked about in business schools and what's talked about in the real world.

Mark

Hello!
The thing that caught my attention most in the case study was the varying dedication of the board members. In the de_script_ions of board member reactions during the final meeting, it was clear what the outcome of the vote would be. With the passionate board members having left with former Executive Director Chris, it seemed that the remaining board members were either disattached or so new that they had yet to develop a passion for the organization.
Who wants to be a part of an organization when it is not enjoyable to be serving on the board? All organizations face critical times in their lifecycle, but board members need to feel positive social capital in order to feel the drive to make an organization succeed. With some members having a history in the organization that has worn them out over the years, enthusiasm is going to continue to dwindle. If the organization was to try and continue, I think this negativity would only escalate. -Especially as problems increased and debt began to be a greater issue. Remaining board members simply don't have the investment in the organization that is needed to see it through hard times. Even if there are solutions that would make sustainability possible, there needs to be a drive felt from the board.
Joanna

Thank you everyone for this discussion. I think that the reputation of the organization and the board members and employees should also be taken into consideration. I am curious about the next career steps that former board members and employees explored afterward. Does the reputation of an organization that just did not cut it follow them throughout their careers? I know that to some this may seem petty, but I have a real curiosity about the lives of those who previously worked at organizations that have since dissolved. I think that it was crucial to mention that as Americans we sometimes have a hard time dealing with death. I agree this too can be considered when thinking about past employees and board members of no longer existing organizations. My question is does that bad taste in their mouths continue to impact the work they do with other nonprofits and how can that be prevented? Is there a way to do as this organization did and involve your employees in this process? Yes, I agree that some organizations need to discontinue their work, but what happens to those former employees who may have been a lot like the clients that are served, at say a social service organization, do they receive that same ultimate peace that those less entangled receive to see an organization go out of business.

Takara: I'm not qualified to speculate about the psychology of people who live through these kinds of experiences. That said, I suspect that the people who are most susceptible are the ones with some kind of real investment in the organization. As far as we know from the story, there are only two... Chris, who had already been dismissed and had to deal with the ignominy of being fired from the dream that he founded, and Peter, who participated in public protests but ultimately agreed that closure was the right decision. There might have been a few other committed people among the staff, but it's not clear from the case that there were any others left among the board. For Jonathan and Eric, I think this was just a way to be involved in their community.

So, I'm guessing that that even if people had to deal the psychological implications of failure, it likely didn't impact their careers too much. Chris was a mover that doesn't care what others think... he'll just go create something new. Peter was a CPA by day, and the media aspects that he loved were spun off as new organizations. Hopefully the staff members were able to find new work, as people are looking for new jobs all the time.

Mark