Canada’s nonprofit and philanthropic sector is facing a major task of rebuilding and reinventing during the pandemic. This includes a fundamental reworking of our systems of care, developing radically different funding models for the sector, and addressing racial injustice and structural inequities, among other systemic changes.

Design stands out as a promising path to systemic and service innovation. Over the last 10 to 20 years, several fields have looked at Design as a means to support innovation capable of social change. Governments and societal institutions have turned to Design approaches to rethink public policies and services, because many longstanding approaches haven’t work and aren’t economically sustainable. For example, , a charity in the UK, reflects the UK government’s understanding of the potential of Design for addressing economic and social needs, for building more inclusive places, and for informing public policy.

Designers’ approaches have changed as well. There are at least three main changes that are relevant.

1. Design for societal needs

Designers have redefined their focus from mainly products/technology to societal needs (i.e., design for interacting, design for sustainability, design for experiencing, and design for emotion). This switch was catalyzed by an understanding that the technological changes and innovations of society have profoundly changed society as well as ‘the user.’

2. Design for creativity

In addition, creativity became appreciated as a human quality, not as a feature of a selected group of people. So, too, did the importance and possibility of every person as being an autonomous subject. People are no longer recipients of products or solutions that designers and institutions provide to them. Rather, they are connected and interconnected; they have more access to knowledge and are often looking for means of being autonomous subjects in search of their own solutions to problems. For example, the phenomena known as the  emphasizes a person’s ability to create rather than merely consume, and ‘social innovation’ has become a trend, among others.

3. Design for innovation infrastructure

Emerging in the last decade within the  field is a design approach that involves an open, long-term and continuous process of creating infrastructure for innovation. These infrastructures can be both tangible and intangible – from spaces and tools, to knowledge and training, to the promotion of relationships. The open-ended infrastructure allows a variety of social actors to generate the change they need, and be autonomous agents of transformation.

Design approaches include collaborations between the private and nonprofit sectors, with a focus on the “user” as being more than a consumer. (Photo of farmers market is courtesy of Kyle Nieber and Unsplash.)

Collaboration is a key feature of these design processes

These days, a designer is one of many actors engaged in a design process; designers and users collaborate or co-design to generate solutions. Space is given to users — and to their voices, knowledge and expertise.

Design processes are based on an ecosystem perspective. Design solutions emerge from the resources available in an ecosystem of action, and from collaborations among its actors. In this way, designers create and promote the conditions for the individuals themselves to be autonomous agents of their own transformation.

What does this mean for philanthropy, charities and the nonprofit sector? It might inspire organizations to go beyond seeing themselves as providers of services with a focus on specific issues. It might promote the inclusion of their users as co-designers and co-producers in the design and constant updating of services. Or it might inspire an infrastructuring approach, so that groups pool resources and collaborate more.

In order to do all this, however, these organizations need to reinterpret their resources and ways of operating. They need to start or expand their participation in networks with other organizations, each one providing needed resources and developing collaborative relationships in an ecosystem. Finally, collaborating with their ‘users,’ nonprofits need to collectively envision and update future possibilities – and accept that they are only one of many actors in the process.

Chiara Del Gaudio is an Assistant Professor in the School of Industrial Design at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University. She’s on and . Photo of mural in Montreal is courtesy of Mr. TT and Unsplash.

I work for an organization in which the founder is still very involved. It’s clear that this person has a strong influence over decisions and actions — and makes it almost impossible for anything creative and new to happen. How can we move forward as an organization without denying the founder’s vital contributions? What can we do?

–Feeling Stifled

Dear Feeling Stifled,

While I’m not a real doctor, I can offer you a diagnosis: Founder’s Syndrome. It seems to me that your founder doesn’t know how and when to let go. The main problem is that there’s no succession plan. Some founders can become micromanagers, politicize relationships with staff members (particularly with long-time staff), and can avoid adapting to changing times. The core problem with Founder’s Syndrome is the stifling of innovation and creativity within the organization. Don’t feel too special, though, non-founder-led organizations can exhibit the same pathology with long-term staff and board members. Don’t be too quick to push out founders! they’re more likely to review their missions and maintain a high level of board engagement, compared to than non-founder-led organizations.

What to do? Clarify the roles and responsibilities of board members and staff. This will draw a clear chain of command. In other words, good fences make good neighbours. Need inspiration? on writing board job descriptions.

You could also strategically involve the founder in a meaningful project where their skills and passion can be harnessed positively. We younglings tend to forget that people were here before us and that we’re directly benefiting from their hard labour. Recognize your founder’s contributions. This will allow you to jumpstart the delicate conversation on succession and transition. Ultimately, remember that the founder wants the organization to succeed beyond them.

Best,

Prof P.

Photo is courtesy of Clay Banks and Unsplash.

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best

Plan, plan, plan. Plan for everything, from to your CEO winning the lottery or . The pandemic has reminded us of the importance of technological literacy and access. Board members reluctant to meet over Zoom have been thrown into the abyss of remote technology. But why did it take a pandemic for people in the charitable sector to update their ways? Organizations could have considered the necessity of e-voting, remote meetings and virtual document sharing before the crisis, and the transition for many could have been much smoother. An emergency-preparedness plan has to include provisions in governing documents to allow such provisions and ensure the plan’s consistency with the law under which the organization is incorporated.

The board is the boss

It’s easy in turbulent times to over-rely on your organization’s top executive to steer you clear of a crisis. Traditional boards are set up to delegate daily concerns to their CEOs. That’s fine under normal conditions, but in a time of rapid change, the board must step in to support the CEO, give direction and, most importantly, ensure the organization’s accountability toward its constituents and mission, and protect its assets. Amidst chaos, board members can easily forget that they’re ultimately the ones legally liable for the organization’s actions. A pandemic isn’t an excuse to stop meetings, avoid contingency measures and neglect due diligence over organizational spending; the organization’s survival often depends on stable and consistent attention to governance.

Take a breather and don’t overreact

While it’s essential to be proactive in times of crisis, the lessons learned must not lead to a situation where an organization always operates in emergency mode. One day, the crisis will be over, but a new (and perhaps different) reality will emerge. Some measures, protocols and policies might be necessary to survive the crisis but not helpful in normal circumstances. For example, the board might need to meet more regularly during a crisis (definitely not less), but such frequency should not be enshrined. Meeting fatigue is a real thing that can lead to disengagement among board members.

Organizations are people too

Saving for a rainy day to lessen the effects of a crisis on an organization, we often forget about the people within and the impact of crises on them. Emergency-preparedness plans should anticipate and allow for difficult conversations about leadership changes, impacts on beneficiaries, responsibilities of board members, or the need for staff layoffs. Discussing the unthinkable, the death of the organization, is the required first step in planning and deserves a place in what-would-you-do scenarios.

These difficult times remind us that organizations are first about people: the people we serve, employ, and affect. Planning for governance emergencies ultimately protects those we care about.