Ep 215: The Worst Headline Just Hit The New York Times. Now What? (with Seth Chalmer)

Summary

Podcast Summary: Ep 215: The Worst Headline Just Hit The New York Times. Now What? (with Seth Chalmer)

Title: Nonprofits Are Messy: Lessons in Leadership | Fundraising | Board Development | Communications
Host: Joan Garry
Guest: Seth Chalmer, Senior Director of Communications at Leading Edge
Release Date: November 9, 2024

---

1. Introduction to the Episode

In Episode 215 of Nonprofits Are Messy, host Joan Garry engages in a profound conversation with Seth Chalmer, Senior Director of Communications at Leading Edge. The discussion centers around how nonprofit leaders can navigate the complexities of taking public stances on contentious social issues without deviating from their mission.

Joan Garry [00:00]: "Nonprofit organizational leaders are just that, leaders in their communities, their states, their sectors. They're actually expected to have opinions on significant issues of the day."

---

2. Navigating a Polarized Environment

Garry opens by addressing the current landscape rife with divisive and polarizing issues. She emphasizes the expectation placed on nonprofit leaders to articulate positions on significant societal matters, which often leads to internal and external conflicts.

Joan Garry [00:00]: "We live in a world crawling with controversy... Now, nonprofit organizational leaders are ... expected to have opinions on significant issues of the day."

---

3. Seth Chalmer’s Journey and Role at Leading Edge

Seth Chalmer shares his eclectic professional background, from performing in Sesame Street Live to his extensive work within Jewish nonprofits. At Leading Edge, Seth focuses on improving leadership and organizational culture by enhancing communication strategies.

Seth Chalmer [03:37]: "I've always loved the theater... But for the last 13 years, I've been working in the communications world in the world of Jewish nonprofits."

---

4. The Complexity of Issuing Statements

A central theme of the episode is the intricate decision-making process behind whether a nonprofit should issue a public statement in response to significant events. Seth argues that this decision is far from simple, involving layers of personal emotions, interpersonal dynamics, and strategic organizational considerations.

Seth Chalmer [07:08]: "There are hidden questions underneath that question. There's the personal emotions layer... There's the strategic layer for the organization, which is its own kind of complex."

---

5. Establishing Organizational Clarity and Charity

Seth introduces a framework from a Stanford Social Innovation Review piece, focusing on two primary goals for organizations facing controversial issues: clarity and charity. Clarity involves defining the organization's stance and advocacy strategies, while charity emphasizes respectful and constructive internal conversations.

Seth Chalmer [08:14]: "My biggest two goals really are clarity and charity. We have to meet each other with charity in the tough conversation."

---

6. Stance vs. Tolerance Range

The conversation delves into distinguishing between an organization's stance on an issue and its tolerance range for internal and external disagreements. Seth highlights that neutrality itself is a stance and that organizations must carefully consider how accepting they are of differing opinions within their ranks.

Seth Chalmer [11:22]: "Neutral is a stance very much. And if we're thinking about that Alphabet, if your stance is G and my stance is J and Someone else is neutral... Neutral doesn't mean, you know, I'm not answering this question."

---

7. Case Study: Responding to Roe v. Wade Overturn

Joan shares a real-world example from her experience running GLAAD, where the overturning of Roe v. Wade prompted internal debates about issuing a statement. Seth provides insights on how having predefined stances and advocacy strategies can aid organizations in making informed decisions swiftly.

Joan Garry [15:02]: "When the Supreme Court decision came down striking down Roe, we had an internal conversation about whether or not we would put out a statement."

Seth Chalmer [20:53]: "I think people tend to lean on this status of it has not come up for us... But there are many issues where ... we know that the Middle East exists. So I think that leaders of an organization ought to know what are our stances on the big hot button things."

---

8. Developing and Communicating Stances

Joan and Seth discuss the importance of leadership in defining and communicating organizational stances. Clear articulation of values and stances upfront ensures that members understand the organization's position, reducing ambiguity during crises.

Joan Garry [24:15]: "Do you have a sense of what's the ideal way for an organization to develop a stance?"

Seth Chalmer [25:13]: "The stance should be in service of that [mission]."

---

9. The Role of Diversity of Opinion in DEI

The podcast explores how diversity of opinion is a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Seth emphasizes creating safe spaces for diverse viewpoints to foster a truly inclusive organizational culture.

Seth Chalmer [10:11]: "I think that diversity of opinion is perhaps one of the more neglected forms of diversity."

---

10. Final Thoughts: Balancing Clarity and Charity

As the conversation concludes, Seth offers poignant advice on maintaining a balance between holding firm on organizational values while also practicing empathy and understanding towards differing opinions. This balance is essential for fostering a resilient and cohesive nonprofit organization.

Seth Chalmer [45:34]: "We have so much passion in this field, and the one hope that I have for the field is that we can hold those passions and those values... but maybe hold our certainties that we are right and others are wrong just a little bit more lightly so that we don't mistake other people's disagreements for bad intentions."

---

Conclusion

Episode 215 provides invaluable insights for nonprofit leaders grappling with the decision to publicly engage with contentious issues. Seth Chalmer's expertise underscores the necessity of strategic clarity and compassionate dialogue within organizations to navigate the "messiness" inherent in nonprofit leadership.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Joan Garry [00:00]: "Nonprofit organizational leaders... are expected to have opinions on significant issues of the day."

• Seth Chalmer [07:08]: "There are hidden questions underneath that question... personal emotions layer... strategic layer for the organization."

• Seth Chalmer [10:11]: "Diversity of opinion is perhaps one of the more neglected forms of diversity."

• Seth Chalmer [45:34]: "We can hold those passions and those values just as tightly as ever, but maybe hold our certainties that we are right and others are wrong just a little bit more lightly."

---

For more insights and resources on nonprofit leadership, visit joengarry.com and nonprofitleadershiplab.com.

Transcript

[Joan Gary]

We live in a world crawling with controversy, where disagreements are so much more than that. They're divisive, polarizing. Quite ugly, actually. It feels like we're barraged daily with news events that evoke polarizing points of view. Now, nonprofit organizational leaders are just that, leaders in their communities, their states, their sectors. They're actually expected to have opinions on significant issues of the day. Now, sometimes it seems that these issues can be seen as off mission, often a position you'll see boards take and we'll talk about that. And sometimes the issue is difficult internally, with passionate disagreement among staff members, funders, or community partners. So riddle me this. What happened in your organization the day after Roe v. Wade was struck down? Or riddle me this, what conversations, internally or externally, is your organization help having about the Israel Hamas war? Well, riddle me this. Why would an LGBTQ organization put out a statement in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd? Today we'll attempt to offer some clarity on a topic that feels more than just a little bit blurry. So I read this piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review that offered a framework questions an organization needs to ask itself in order to find that clarity. I was very impressed with the piece and went on the hunt for the author. He joins us today. He's even more impressive in real life than he is in his eloquent written word greetings and welcome to Nonprofits Are Messy. I'm your host, Joan Gary, founder of the Nonprofit Leadership Lab, where we help smaller nonprofits thrive. I'm also a strategic advisor for executive director, directors, and boards of larger nonprofits. I'm a frequent keynote speaker, a blogger, and an author on all things leadership and management. You can learn [e-mail] I think of myself as a woman with a mission to fuel the leadership of the nonprofit sector. My goal with each episode is to dig deep into an issue I know the nonprofit leaders are grappling with by finding just the right person to offer you advice and insight. Today is no exception. Seth Chalmer is the Senior Director of Communications at Leading Edge, an organization improving leadership and organizational culture in the Jewish nonprofit sector. His professional journey has been a winding path, including acting in a national tour of Sesame Street Live, helping people return home from prison in New York City to find and keep employment and other stops on this said path. But for the last 13 years, he's been working in the communications world in the world of Jewish nonprofits. His writing has appeared in publications including the LA Times, Stanford Social Innovation Review. As mentioned on Being First Things the Jewish Week E. Jewish Philanthropy and the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Seth, I really appreciate your pudding, your written word out there for the world, and for sharing these insights with our listeners today.

[Seth Chalmer]

Thank you so much, Joan. It's an honor to be here.

[Joan Gary]

So anyone who listens to my podcast knows I love stories of winding paths, of professional trajectories. You simply cannot expect me to not ask you about Sesame Street Live. So were you a particular character?

[Seth Chalmer]

Yes, I was a human character named Professor Art, and I was the puppeteer for Oscar the Grouch.

[Joan Gary]

Why is that so cool? Why does that feel really cool? And why did you give that up?

[Seth Chalmer]

Well, yes, it was amazing. It was an amazing experience. I've always loved the theater. I still do. It was a tremendous opportunity to connect with so many people, especially, obviously, with Sesame Street Live. So many children. Just the sound of laughing, happy children every day was a really phenomenal job. I gave it up because I had a kind of personal existential crisis at the time, unrelated to the theater, but that led me to explore and embrace my Jewish roots and religious observance. So, along with that, I moved into a career in the Jewish nonprofit sector.

[Joan Gary]

So it's so interesting. I just find people's professional journeys to be so fascinating. And when you have. So I have a couple of kids, actually. I have three of them. One in their 30s, and twins when they're just finishing their 20s. And I always talk about the path being winding, and I don't know that they actually believe it, but they'll come to believe it, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So tell us a little bit about Leading Edge and your role there.

[Seth Chalmer]

Absolutely, yeah. So, as you know, the Jewish community is served by this huge ecosystem of Jewish nonprofit organizations, Right? Synagogues, day schools, community centers, human service organizations. The Jewish community has this rich history of charitable giving and institutions. Leading Edge was founded to make that whole ecosystem of Jewish organizations more effective by improving the field's leadership, talent, and culture. So we're trying to make every Jewish organization an amazing place to work, where people thrive and develop and where talented people want to come and work and serve as board members, et cetera. And we do that by running intensive leadership development programs. We publish research and guides, and we use employee surveys and other tools to help leaders improve their cultures, many other things. My role there is leading our communications team and our communication strategy. So I think a lot about how communications can actually interact with team culture.

[Joan Gary]

So I'm actually. I'm in fact, curious. So I know a lot about that ecosystem and have had my fingerprints in varying Pieces of that ecosystem. Just actually out of curiosity, what is your relationship with communications directors at each of those organizations? Are you kind of a strategic consultant? Like, what's the relationship you have with the ecosystem and the communications folks who are in that ecosystem?

[Seth Chalmer]

I mean, I'm in touch with my colleagues at these other organizations. I don't serve a consultant role or a coach role in the organization. My role at Leading Edge is really focused on. Leading Edge is communications also, Although some of that includes doing a lot of writing and editing for our publications. And so that's why, with my recent writing, I've been trying to write about actually how blurry the line is between external communications and internal culture, because it is a very blurred line.

[Joan Gary]

We obviously will get into that as we continue talking, and it might actually find its way into a different podcast subject altogether. When we spoke a few weeks back, Seth, you told me that a discussion about putting out a statement is so much more than a communications decision. I completely agree with that. And your argument for that was quite cogent, and I need my listeners to hear you talk about that.

[Seth Chalmer]

Sure. Yeah. I'm really fascinated by that conversation. That tends to happen the day after some big controversial news. Eventually, you know, should we put out a statement? Because it sounds like a really simple question. Right? It's like yes or no. But it's really not so simple. Those conversations, they're just about so much more. There are hidden questions underneath that question. There's the personal emotions layer, where we have strong feelings and beliefs. There's an interpersonal layer. Maybe we're insecure about how our beliefs line up or don't line up with our colleagues, with the organization. And then there's the strategic layer for the organization, which is its own kind of complex. So these conversations, they're confusing and overwhelming. They're also important and kind of rich. So that's what moved me to write about this.

[Joan Gary]

Your first order of business, in your mind's eye here, is this establishment of internal clarity. And it would be so helpful for you to take us through the questions an organization needs to ask itself in order to land on some kind of organizational clarity.

[Seth Chalmer]

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. My biggest goal for this kind of conversation are. My biggest two goals really are clarity and charity. We have to meet each other with charity in the tough conversation. That's the baseline. At minimum, we have to talk to each other without getting into fight or flight mode. And if we're able to do that, then we can work on clarity. And so that means disentangling this web of Questions like, what is our organization's stance? What should that stance be, and who gets to decide, and how was it decided? How does that stance fit into our organization's theory of change? How should we publicly advocate for our stance, if at all? If so, what's our advocacy strategy? What communications tactics will best serve that strategy? How should we respond to outside pressures? And maybe most uncomfortably, what's our tolerance range internally for dissent? Maybe we're discovering we on the team disagree on this issue. Maybe some tensions are surfacing right here in the conversation. How do we manage all that? So all of those questions are important. They're all related to each other, but they're also distinct, and we have to answer them with specificity.

[Joan Gary]

Seth, as you talked about this, I was thinking people think about diversity, equity and inclusion work often in a sort of a fairly narrow lane. Right. But is part of what you're talking about here. And please, please, please disagree with me if you feel so inclined that creating a culture in which there is a safe space to have those conversations, which to me is part of the root of diversity, equity and inclusion work. A safe space where people feel like they belong, where their voices have agency, where div. Urgent opinions are valued. Right. That come from diverse people and diverse points of view. There is an intersection here, right?

[Seth Chalmer]

There absolutely is. I think many people in the world, and I would count myself among them, sometimes find that diversity of opinion is perhaps one of the more neglected forms of diversity. However, I want to be clear about. I want to be clear about what. What I am. And I'm not saying, please, in terms of. In terms of tolerance range. I'm not saying that everyone has to have a broad tolerance range. I think there you can make a case for a broad or a narrow tolerance range for particular issues, for particular organizations. I think if you went to, say, the Vatican and asked them to have a broad tolerance range about the existence of God, that's. I don't think that dog will hunt. So I think you can. What I'm most hung up on is that we have to be able to distinguish actually between a tolerance range and a stance that you could have the same position as an organization. You could have two organizations with the exact same position, but two very different tolerance ranges. And similarly, you could have organizations with the same position at the same tolerance range who are still taking different advocacy strategies. That's what I mean about separating out these conversations, separating these questions.

[Joan Gary]

I'm guessing that listeners hearing your list of considerations may have had a bit of a head explosion. Emoji kind of moment of. Well, yes, those things are true, Seth, but like people want me to put out a statement like now and what if the organization's stance is really not defined? Do you wait? Because I think to that and I think, I think that in many of these cases you open up a Pandora's box that has so much stuff in it that the urgency of putting out a statement can be at odds with the kind of internal clarity of which you describe.

[Seth Chalmer]

Yes. I think you're naming something very powerful, which is that moment when it feels like something big is happening and we have to react and we don't actually know how.

[Joan Gary]

Right.

[Seth Chalmer]

And what I want to say is that leaders should be aware that controversies happen. And leaders of the organization along with their communications teams need to understand what their stances are on the things they can predict. Right. Like tomorrow aliens could come down and nobody is prepared in advance with their stance on the alien conquerors of Earth. Right. It doesn't feel like a good use of time to actually prepare for that. But there are many issues where I'm Sorry, nobody knew October 7th was going to happen. But we know that the Middle east exists. We know that people feel strongly about the Middle East. So I think that leaders of an organization, just as an organizational hygiene item, ought to know what are our stances on the big hot button things. And this could be a stance you stay silent about or a stance that you publicize about because as we can discuss, silence is an advocacy strategy. But either way, you should be prepared in advance. I think people tend to lean on this status of it has not come up for us. That status can collapse in an instant and.

[Joan Gary]

Absolutely, absolutely. It's not unlike work that I have done with clients where I encourage them to have a crisis management strategy when it hits the fan. Like to make a list of the 5 to 10 worst things that could happen in your organization. An exercise people just adore. Right. And what is the worst headline you'd wake up and see in the New York Times? And how do you then prepare for the crisis that comes with that? And I think the same is true here in a different way is. And I often talk about board hygiene, but organizational hygiene is also a really powerful idea. People think to themselves, oh gee, what do we do on an off site or a retreat? And you review where you are against your goals. Maybe you do some team building, but do you really dig into things like this so that you are ready? And I think, Seth, I think that is a most excellent point. We're talking about this abstractly at the moment. Is there an example that you would either in your own organization or that you could use to help bring this to life? This. Something has happened, and the organization needs to begin to kind of develop that clarity and charity that you spoke about. So we can sort of take people through a little bit of a case study.

[Seth Chalmer]

I mean, if you want to ask about particulars, I could try to field it. What I'm trying to do, actually, with this work is very specifically to think about these things abstracted from the hot buttons. Because I think actually the big thing that happens when the hot buttons arise is that it triggers things in our amygdala. It triggers things in our brain that put us into panic, that put us into fight or flight mode based on, you know, our pulse is race when we hear the word Israel or Palestine or abortion or we. Our pulse is race when we. When we hear these things. And it can. It can help to think through this question of advocacy strategy and try to. To come up with the list of what are the issues we advocate about, what are the issues we don't? What is our theory of change for the role we want our organization to play in the community? It helps to do that thinking before you're faced with the sudden intrusion of a very hot button topic. So that's why I like to think of this stuff in the abstract.

[Joan Gary]

Right. Because when a hot button issue surfaces, it's hot for a reason.

[Seth Chalmer]

Exactly.

[Joan Gary]

Yeah. A statement presumes and tells people that you have taken a position, a stance. I'd love for you to talk about what you mean by a stance and what they can look like.

[Seth Chalmer]

Sure. I mean, your stance is your position. So if the issue we're talking about is the Alphabet. Because again, I like to put this out of the hot button. Right. My stance could be G and maybe your stance is J. Someone else could have a stance of M through Q and A, and someone else could have a stance of neutral and people.

[Joan Gary]

And you're talking about someone else inside your organization.

[Seth Chalmer]

Well, that happens to be true. I was thinking really of. Different organizations can have different stances. But yes, it's also true that different individuals can, of course have different stances. And I think. I do think it's important for people to understand that neutral is a stance. I think a lot of people want neutral to be. We don't take a stance, and that is a mistake. Neutral is a stance very much. And if we're thinking about that Alphabet, if your stance is G and my stance is J and Someone else is neutral. Neutral doesn't mean, you know, I'm not answering this question. Neutral means every answer to this question, every letter of that Alphabet is acceptable. And depending on the issue, that might be great. If the issue is tax policy and you're saying, you know, any answer to the question of what is the optimal tax policy, that sounds like nice and safe. If the issue is Nazis good or bad, then all of a sudden, oh, we're neutral on that sounds very different. So you have to recognize that neutral is a substantive stance that you will need to defend, that you will be challenged on. And it's one of the stances available to you.

[Joan Gary]

Yeah. And be on the lookout for a piece that Seth is currently writing on this issue of neutrality. And I am reminded of my dear college friend who was rather indecisive about things. Our little code was not to decide is to decide. And I, I, I think that that plays here, doesn't it?

[Seth Chalmer]

It absolutely does. Yeah. You were mentioning earlier what happens when you're not prepared with your stance and then someone asks, that is an example where if you, at that moment, if you come back with a clear stance, then that is a stance. But if you then say nothing, from that moment on, you are choosing to say nothing. And that is still a stance. And that's why whether you're going to be neutral or whether you're going to take a stance that is aside, either way, it is best if you can, to be prepared with what your stance is.

[Joan Gary]

Right. Just to go back for a second to the issue of urgency around putting out statements, do you advocate that? Better to wait and be clear than hurry and get something out. I think your eyebrows just furrowed. So I'm pretty much thinking either you're channeling Oscar the Grouch or that felt like bordering on stupid question.

[Seth Chalmer]

Not at all stupid. It is a hard question because I think the question presumes that you're not ready if there is suddenly external pressure for you to make a statement. Let's, let's first of all be clear that a statement is on the level of tactics, right?

[Joan Gary]

Yes.

[Seth Chalmer]

A video, an op ed, a statement. These are all tactics. And the tactics need to be downstream of your advocacy strategy. And your advocacy strategy should be clear in advance, which means we know these are the issues we advocate on. Here are the people we are trying to reach. Here are the things we want those people to do as a result of our advocacy. Right. That's having a clear advocacy strategy. We know what we're trying to achieve, who we want to reach and what we want them to do. Downstream from that come the tactics. So if we are already clear that we advocate on these five issues, we don't advocate on any other issues. And then when something happens and it's one of our five issues or it is not, it becomes very clear what to do on the tactical level. Whereas now there are sometimes cases, obviously, where something might happen that we sincerely, we're not ready for. We didn't consider it. We didn't either say a yes or a no for it being one of our issues. Yes, hard things happen. You can't take the hard out of hard, and then you have to make a decision on the fly. I think it is obviously better to do some deliberation in such a case than to just reactively put out a statement. I'm never in favor of being purely reactive, of doing something tactical purely on the basis of. Of whim or instinct or pressure. We really must think strategically and let the tactics be downstream of that.

[Joan Gary]

Seth, you said something when we chatted a couple of weeks ago that I think is really important is actually, one could argue that should we put out a statement is actually not the right question to ask. Is it right? Is that so often this happens? And let's say the edge is contacted by the board chair and there is a conversation. Should we put out a statement? And we're not really asking the right question because should we put out a statement is a tactic that an executive director presumably is the decider about, based on an organization's clarity about its stance, what it advocates for, and arguably maybe at the root of it, its values. Right.

[Seth Chalmer]

I think that the calculation about what stance to take really hinges on the values and the mission. And they interact in an interesting way. What you want to do is find a stance that consistent with the values is the best way to achieve the mission. And that's a judgment call. That's definitely an art and not a science. And you know, you can tell me much better than I can tell you the exact boundaries of how much of that deliberation happens amongst the board and how much in partnership between the board and the CEO and how much sits with the CEO. But regardless, that is a decision that the top leadership has to make. Really interacting again with the. The organization's theory of change, with the role that you're trying to play in in the world. There. There are organizations that take their role as being very much doing public advocacy as one of the levers they are pulling to try to achieve their mission, and there are others who are not. There are times when you might use a communications tactic because you feel it is absolutely necessitated by the values. Even if the, the mission juice that you get out of that squeeze is on the smaller end, hopefully not, not ever on the zero end. So sometimes the values might be pulling, sometimes the mission. The mission might be pulling. Hopefully most of the time the mission is doing the heavy lifting. And the values are something that provides moral guardrails and things that you want to keep your work in line with because you don't want to pursue the mission in a purely utilitarian, you know, valueless world where if you lied to the feds and cheated on your taxes, you could achieve the mission better. We don't want to do that. We want to find ways consistent with the values to achieve the mission. The stance should be in service of that.

[Joan Gary]

I want to talk about tolerance in a moment, but I want to just one other thing about stance, which is do you have a sense of what's the ideal way for an organization to develop a stance? Does and in a world in which the world in which we live, and specifically in the nonprofit world, folks expect to have a voice? Certainly that is increasingly true in cross generational workplaces. And I just wonder how do you decide? Because it starts inside, right. Just any observations about who gets a voice in the discussion about that stance?

[Seth Chalmer]

Yeah, this is something that I don't have expertise in where I would actually turn that very strongly back on you who I know does I. This is a decision obviously that the top leadership needs to make. You know, it's, it's on the the board and CEO level. However, how you know in what situations and how much weight does the board does and CEO put on staff, voices on funder, voices on partner organization, voices on, you know, thought leaders that you respect in the field? There's a complex calculation you have to make about, about the empirics of what will happen if we publicize this stance. What will happen if we don't publicize this stance. There are empirical judgments about how other people in the landscape will react. There are moral judgments about our organization's values and there are strategic judgments about, given that empirical analysis, given our values, what advocacy strategies should we take?

[Joan Gary]

Yes. And by the way, that calculation about who gets to be involved in decision making is a system systemic nonprofit organizational issue that sometimes is navigated well and sometimes not navigated very well at all. Let's talk about tolerance range. Speak to that and how is it connected to or different from risk? Are we talking about risk Tolerance. What are we talking about here?

[Seth Chalmer]

Yeah, I see those two things as very distinct. Risk tolerance. Risk tolerance certainly might play into the decision about tolerance range. By tolerance range, I mean how accepting are we of disagreement with our stance? And that can manifest externally and internally, externally. Who will we partner with? Who will we publish? Whom will we platform? And then there's an internal manifestation too. How willing are we to tolerate dissent about this issue from our own team and board members? What kinds of dissent in what forums? I really want to note very clearly, I am not a lawyer. There are legal implications to tolerance range. So everyone needs to consult competent legal counsel in making those policies. I'm not declaring anything in or out of bounds, but I think it's worth saying that the tolerance range is distinct from the stance. I think a lot of people sort of jump to the idea that if our organization's stance is over here, then it must be the case that we must take a narrow tolerance range and that disagreement by team members or board members or people we are bringing in as a guest speaker is a cause for panic. And I'm not saying that everyone needs to have a broad tolerance range. This is not about saying there's a universal answer. The point is, let's understand that it's an option. There is optionality to the tolerance range. This is a matter where the leadership can say, what are the benefits of a broad tolerance range on this issue? What are the benefits of a narrow tolerance range? And let's make that judgment call. It's also the case that it can change issue by issue. It's not the case that you either have, you know, a broad tolerance range about everything or a narrow tolerance range about everything. You could say on this issue, we absolutely need everybody aligned. We are not going to move on this. We are not going to engage, you know, outside of these red lines. Whereas on these other issues we are open to the whole broad tent.

[Joan Gary]

The example that comes to mind for me. So I run a small but mighty nonprofit consulting shop. We have a team of about 15 people. And when the Supreme Court decision came down striking down row, we had an internal conversation about whether or not we would put provide travel benefits to women on our team who would need to travel outside of their own states in order to secure the reproductive health that they services that they needed. There may be a person on my team who is pro life who did not feel a sense of agency to speak up or who made some kind of a calculation that some other kind of calculation that this was okay in some way, that relative to what we do and the stance that was taken. And I wanted to hear a little bit from you. If you use my example, like how does tolerance play in there and what does that look like? Because I guess I might have made an assumption. We didn't make an assumption, but I don't know that the people who might have been pro life felt safe enough to say so.

[Seth Chalmer]

Sure, that sounds like a very rich example on a lot of levels, right? Because on the stance level, that's an example of something where the stance is very clear. Even though on an advocacy strategy level you're taking a silence strategy, right? Like there are different strategies. There's mobilization strategy, there's persuasion strategy. This was a silence strategy because in, you know, in your calculus of how you are trying to make a difference in the world, advocating publicly on this issue, wasn't it? However, you're right at this moment, after the Dobbs decision, there are reasons, even simply for hr, that it is no longer tenable to have a non stance. So the stance revealed itself and consistent with your values, you made the call and you changed the benefit policy. And that was internally communicated, right? So that shows a certain stance, it shows a certain advocacy strategy, namely silence. And then internally communicating the benefit in terms of tolerance range, that becomes, just from your telling of it, a little bit more ambiguous. It could be that you don't know of anyone pro life on your team who was uncomfortable with it because maybe there's no one pro life on your team. It could be that there are people who are pro life on your team and they, as you say, don't feel comfortable saying it. It could be that there are people on your team who are pro life who would be comfortable telling you, but who don't feel that it's all that relevant or who don't feel all that broken up about it or who are not in distress about it. I can actually speak a little bit about this from a personal lens because this is an issue where I am personally. Pro Life and my organization likewise changed its benefits package after the Dobbs decision in a similar way. And not only that, but we actually put out an article offering guidance to Jewish organizations who wanted to do likewise. Guidance on. Here are the kinds of policies you can consider. Here's how it interacts with legal, the need for legal guidance and the organization's values, etc. So we put out this, this article. That article was not saying some sort of political advocacy point. It was a resource for the field exactly in line with all the resources that we put out. For talent management. But there was similarly a sort of implicit stance in it, right?

[Joan Gary]

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

[Seth Chalmer]

Very obviously an implicitly pro choice set of assumptions. And so for me, as a pro life member of this team, as that's happening, I have to think to myself, okay, how much of a big deal is this for my values? As it happens, for me, that was not a hard call that it was going to be fine. First of all, because abortion policy was not suddenly some huge part of the work that we were doing at the organization. And secondly, because my personal views are weird and eclectic enough that if I tried to hold out for an employer that I 100% agreed with, I could never work anywhere. So for me, that was not really difficult. I was obviously going to be fine with it. It's also the case that at our organization, we really, really value having people with a variety of identities and perspectives. We say that, we mean it. It's true. I feel very comfortable. I feel like I belong at my organization, even though I personally have a disagreement with the implicit stance of my organization. It sounds like in your case, you might not quite know about your tolerance range. And what I wonder about that is I wonder how you talk about that with your team, either in. Either in like DEIB type conversations or just in terms of like saying, hey, everyone, let's, let's, you know, you know, the red team concept of trying to. Trying to. Sometimes trying to find what's wrong with things instead of just trying to find what's right about them. I don't know. Do you ask for dissent? I'm not saying that everyone needs to at all. I'm not at all making that judgment. I'm just wondering. There are ways, implicit and explicit, for leaders to communicate the kinds of cultures that they're trying to build. And just in my opinion, I have never led an organization, so I want to say this with enormous humility because I've never been a CEO of anything. But I think it's nice when leaders sort of let the implicit become explicit about what kind of culture they want to build and if it's really important for them. Let's say I really want everyone to be aligned about xyz. I want to know that as an employee. And if the leader says, I really want lots of different creative disagreements about all kinds of things, then I want to know that too.

[Joan Gary]

Yeah. I'm also reminded of a different situation. So thank you for that and food for thought. For me, an organization that perhaps not explicitly enough. Right. Has a mission and a set of values on progressive issues. And it is expected that if you come to work there or you join the board of that organization, you will share those values. And upon learning that one board member did not share those values, did not share those stances, was actually, I'm trying to remember if that person stepped down or was asked to step down or it was some combo platter thing. But that's a situation where that person should not have been on the board to begin with. If up front, it was explicit to me that my stance that is different does not align with. With the organization stance. And I should go pick another board, right?

[Seth Chalmer]

I mean, this is again, actually an issue where your expertise will be better than mine. And I want to turn the question back to you. I think the only thing I want to say about it is that, again, holding that there may be legal aspects that I know nothing about, and holding those aside, I think it's important to understand that organizations can be different. Different organizations can take. Could have really good reasons for a narrow tolerance range, could have really good reasons for a broad tolerance range. But it is also just so ideal to communicate those expectations up front. As you say, like, it's best if it can be clear. And there are some times where something happens that people did not expect that comes into conflict with the values of the organization, and then it just becomes a very hard decision where, you know, the leadership has to do what feels like integrity for them. The individuals have to do what feels like integrity for them. And there are different ways that those could look. But, yeah, how would you answer the question?

[Joan Gary]

So I would answer the question that you make all of your stances, your values, wildly explicit up front. And so as you are vetting and interviewing and chatting with candidates, that those things are explicit in the same way. Honestly, it's really interesting, right. Is if you put out on your website a DEI vision statement and a business case, and you ask people for their pronouns, Right. You are sending a message about your stance. Right. It's interesting. So we have a membership site for board and staff leaders of small nonprofits called the Nonprofit Leadership Lab. And we are actively working to create a sense, a true sense of belonging for leaders of diverse backgrounds, diverse cultures, et cetera. And we have all of. We now have, as a result of work we've done a variety of different clues and signals that people look for. Right. And that. Okay, so I'm taking an extreme example. The, you know, the Texas chapter of the kkk, if there is such a thing, is not likely to join the Nonprofit Leadership Lab because There are so many explicit pieces of information about who we are and what we value that they see that they would not belong. Right. And I do think that that's the kind of approach a leader needs to take as it relates to who should be on their board and who should be sort of part of their village of engaged stakeholders. So that's my leader answer.

[C]

The Nonprofit Leadership Lab is led by Joan Gary and is the world's best online community for leaders of small nonprofits. Learn how to raise more money, build the board of your dreams, grow a large audience of supporters, and so much more. To learn more and request an invitation to become a member, please go to nonprofitleadershiplab.com podcast. That's nonprofitleadershiplab dot com podcast.

[Joan Gary]

We are having a conversation about the tactic of whether or not an organization should put out a statement. But it is, as you've been listening, a much higher altitude conversation. And we're having it with Seth Chalmer. And Seth is the senior Director of Communications at Leading Edge. It is an organization improving leadership and organizational culture in the Jewish nonprofit sector. A recent piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review about putting out a statement led me to find him, and I think we should all be quite lucky that he wrote it and that I read it and that I found him and that he's here. I want to go back in the sort of remaining piece of time that you have. We talked about Roe v. Wade, and in the Open, I offered three questions to listeners. Right. I'd like to play around with. We talked about this one a couple of weeks ago, too. Seth. Why would an LGBTQ organization put out a statement in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd? So I'm going to just tee this up. And then you had all kinds of tentacles to this that I just, I found so useful. And maybe this is our last case statement of the session here. But if I had been at GLAAD, which I ran for 10 years, and there was and that, and this racial reckoning had happened, ignited by the murder of George Floyd, I would have had pressure from some board members to make a statement. I would have had some pressure from more board members that this was not a thing for us. Like, why does this have anything to do with LGBTQ advocacy? I would have, you know, in any social justice movement, as you know full well, there's a spectrum of folks who to the left and folks to the right. Right. I would have had pressure from LGBT organizations on the left who would want me to sign some public statement. Right. I would have. There would have been organizations to the right who would be chastised by the movement for not signing the statement. Like I could imagine all of it. And so I'll answer any questions that have to do with being an executive director, but help me think through how I would think through that. Like if you were my communications director at that time, guide me.

[Seth Chalmer]

Yeah. Amazing. It's such a rich question, and I hope it won't be a surprise when I say, yeah, there's no one right answer.

[Joan Gary]

Correct.

[Seth Chalmer]

Yes and no can both be right, but only as part of this complete breakfast of a really carefully considered strategy. Right. Tactics have to flow from the strategy. I want to lay out a yes case and a no case, please. Yeah. So I can imagine an LGBTQ organization where the theory of change involves mobilizing a coalition of progressive communities to drive a really bold and far reaching progressive vision. And under that theory, anything that advances the progressive agenda writ large will instrumentally help LGBTQ rights, because that's how the leadership sees the landscape working. The issues are connected. They, they go together. And the way to victory is to march together. Right. If that's your empirical analysis, if that's your theory of change, then you need to be there. And yes. So maybe your advocacy strategy is full court press on every progressive issue. And then in summer 2020, of course, not as a knee jerk reaction, not because of pressure, but as a deliberate continuation of that strategy, you absolutely issue a racial justice statement. Not just one statement. You do so many other tactics of solidarity, mobilization, et cetera. On the other hand, maybe your organization has a theory of change where the best path to really robust, you know, consensus on LGBTQ + rights is to make the public feel that this is just, this is apolitical. This is, this isn't a political football. This, this is just the people we know who love who they love, who are who they are, and we're. And maybe you see your role in the community as literally trying to depolarize the issue. And if that's your theory of change, then your advocacy strategy is going to reflect that. You. You don't want to alienate anyone who disagrees with the central issue over anything that's not in that absolute bullseye. So then your advocacy strategy is only on that issue. For anything else, you try to build a really broad tent. So that's a case for yes and a case for no. In both cases, you will always have external pressures, and how much pressure is on each side will, of course be part of the calculus that the leadership has to make but in each case, if you have a really cogent theory of why you're doing what you're doing, then you will believe in it yourself, and you will be able to withstand the pressures more easily. You will have something better to tell the people who disagree with you about that strategic decision if you have it really thought out.

[Joan Gary]

I hope that people listening are extracting the really cogent lessons from that, because it is an example, but there's so much to tease out from it for different kinds of issues that your organization may be facing and how much. I always hope that my podcasts get sent around to a staff or a board or both, and that they become enrichment opportunities for people to then ignite these conversations. So think about, as you're listening, who would benefit from hearing this conversation? And could it be a catalyst for the kind of conversations that Seth is advocating for here to get out in front, because he's absolutely right. When should I put out a statement is almost always in response to something that has happened that feels urgent, but at the same time is probably conceptually quite predictable. Right. And I think that's really, really important. We could talk for a long, long time, because I just actually really appreciate how your brain operates. So maybe we'll. Maybe we'll have an encore at some point. But I wanted to leave, you know, sort of a piece of advice or something that you can leave in this final moments of this podcast with the listeners that sticks with them for a while. You know, that while they're taking a walk or they're on their peloton or whatever that they're ruminating about. And I feel like you've been. Have had such wise thoughts today. I wonder if you want to leave folks with one in particular.

[Seth Chalmer]

Sure. And thank you so much, Joan, for having me on. It's really, truly an honor. I so appreciate your work, which I've been, you know, reading and seeing for years. And in particular, I actually appreciated a podcast episode you made that aired just recently as we're recording this in June, which was advising people to stop trashing the nonprofit sector. Strong points, too. It was really wonderful. It gave me a lot to think about. And the point that I want to leave people with is that this field, with its tremendous passion. I'm honestly, I said I liked it, and now I'm, like, doing the thing you said not to do, because I'm going to say that our field has a strength that also has a downside. We have so much passion in this field, and the one hope that I have for the field is that we can hold those passions and those values just as tightly as ever, but maybe hold our certainties that we are right and others are wrong just a little bit more lightly so that we don't mistake other people's disagreements for bad intentions, and so that we can encounter each other across viewpoint differences. With that mix of clarity and charity.

[Joan Gary]

I got nothing to add to that other than thank you. I really appreciate the conversation. I have every confidence that people listening appreciated it too. And perhaps my next guest will reference this conversation as one of the best podcasts they've listened to as well. So Seth Chalmer, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for the work of Leading Edge. Golly Cook has been a podcast guest of mine. I'm a big fan and admirer of how one of the things that I think about a lot, obviously because it's what I do for a living, is that we do severely underestimate the importance of professional development in our sector and strengthening the leadership in our in the nonprofit sector. And it is so comforting to know that Leading Edge is out there for the Jewish nonprofit ecosystem because it's so very, very important. So thank you, Seth thank you everyone for listening today. I know that your time is precious, and so I hope that you felt like this was a very good investment of your time. Please take care of yourselves and thank you as always for the work that you do and we'll see you next time. Thanks so much for spending time with me today. I hope you found the conversation valuable as you navigate the messy world of nonprofits. Check out all my other [e-mail]. hope you find them helpful too. Lastly, thank you for the work you do to repair the world in ways large and small. I'll see you next time.