Missing the Mandate

Politicians love to talk about the mandate they’ve been given by the people.

But in most cases that really represents barely a majority of votes cast, if a majority at all, and if you consider the vast number of people who don’t vote it’s really not close. And given how it seems many active voters don’t really consider the policy platforms of candidates and parties beyond their long term loyalty and maybe a couple catchy slogans, it’s fairly absurd to pretend that there is really any clear direction from the public.

And yet an enormous amount of decision making is justified by the idea of that mandate.

As charity leaders (and in other sectors too of course) we need to be cautious about how we determine what our mandate is and how we follow it.

Often for first chair leaders (CEO, President, Executive Director…) the mandate is found in a strategic plan, a Vision/Mission/Values statement, and/or specific instruction from the Board of Directors. For other leaders it typically comes from their supervisor.

But how strong is that mandate and how long should it be followed?

A struggling organization might tell a new ED that the priority is to increase fundraising revenue. That probably makes sense if there’s financial insecurity. But how much effort should go into that objective alongside program delivery, staff development, systems improvement, advocacy, etc.? And what’s the magic number of revenue that tells us to shift our focus to other things?

The danger of a mandate is that it can become the identity and personality of an organization when it should be seen and treated as a temporary priority.

Too often I’ve seen organizations hang on too long to mandates that have outlived their effectiveness.

What this really causes is a type of mission drift. (Which is a phrase I kinda hate because it is thrown around too easily as a critique of almost any change in direction). We become focused on the temporary priority of our organization instead of the enduring cause we are supposed to be about. Essentially, we take a necessary season of internal improvement and make it more important than our actual mission.

It happens subtly, under pressure, and then often becomes accidentally permanent.

Breaking out of a mandate that has dug in too deeply takes significant awareness and effort. In many cases it requires the departure of the leader (or even several leaders) who have held the mandate most clearly.

This is probably the reason so many organizations follow a long leadership tenure with a much shorter one. The second leader is given a mandate to prioritize whatever the long term predecessor didn’t; but they aren’t suited, or aren’t able, to shift their focus to the deeper mission when it needs to happen.

I often ask new leaders what they understand their mandate to be. It helps them start well when they have a clear sense of what needs to be emphasized during their first year or so. But they also need to understand, and be encouraged and accountable, to keep the temporary focus in its appropriate place as transitional within the more profound and lasting purpose for the organization.