Ann Lazarus works as an interim executive director for nonprofits in transition; currently she is serving in that position at the Metta Fund. From late 1991 through 2004, she was the Chief Executive Officer of Mount Zion Health Fund, a grant making public charity. She has been a corporate planner and Director of Investor Relations for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the director of a health resource center, the chair of the trustees of a multi-employer retirement plan with assets over $400 million, and has provided fund management counsel to multiple organizations. She has also served as a program consultant to several mayoral administrations. In addition to her Stanford MBA, Ann holds a BA from Stanford and a Masters in Urban Studies from Occidental College which was granted in conjunction with the Coro Center for Civic Leadership Fellows Program. She is a member of the San Francisco Board of Appeals, and served eight years as a member of San Francisco’s Port Commission, including two years as President. Other organizations with which she has been involved include Congregation Emanu-El, Alumni Consulting Team of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Clinic by the Bay, SPUR, and the San Francisco Human Services Network, of which she was a co-founder. Ann is a native San Franciscan who currently lives in Pacific Heights with her husband Jim. They are the parents of four grown children.
My decision to apply to Business School was motivated by what I perceived at the time to be a lack of management and business expertise in the government and non-profit sectors. After working and volunteering in those arenas for several years after college, it seemed to me that the services provided by these organizations could be more efficient and effective under more enlightened leadership.
Upon graduation, I quickly learned that these sectors were either unwilling or unable to offer salaries to attract MBAs. So I zigged and zagged for a number of years in and out of a variety of organizations. Finally, I was determined to find the right niche in the nonprofit sector. Serendipitously, I was presented with the opportunity to serve as the first Executive Director (ED) of a newly minted organization that grew out of the merger of a community-based hospital with the University of California at San Francisco.
During my tenure, Mount Zion Health Fund was able to help launch several child-health-oriented initiatives, as well as support a variety of research, education and preventive care programs. I was also instrumental in creating an alliance of nonprofits that serve as contractors for the City and County of San Francisco and receive the majority of their funding from the city. This network, for more than 20 years now, has given nonprofits a seat at the table as the city develops policies that directly affect them.
After 13 years, I felt that Mount Zion Health Fund had extracted all my best thinking and energy. Rather than try to replicate my experience there, I opted to see if what I had learned both as an ED and a Board member of a number of nonprofits could translate into providing interim management for nonprofit organizations in transition.
Since that time, I have essentially parachuted into eight different organizations in San Francisco, each with its unique challenges. Regardless of the circumstances under which the previous ED had departed, I am always peeling back the layers of the onion to uncover issues which need attention. My philosophy is to try to remedy as many problems as possible so a new, permanent Executive Director can focus on the most strategic matters, rather than on lingering operational issues. I have also been involved in a number of executive searches, both as the interim and also as a Board member for other nonprofits. Simultaneously, I have had the opportunity to serve as a member of two different San Francisco City commissions.
Throughout this time, I have told myself I need to put in writing some of my observations about the nonprofit (and government) sector. They are not all positive, but for me worth keeping top-of-mind.
- Be a believer in the work of the organization or don’t become affiliated. If you aren’t able to bring an individual passion or sincere interest, you are not going to be motivated to make the necessary commitment and do justice to the organization.
- Nonprofit work is nuanced in ways that don’t apply to the private sector. Much has been written about this, but it often seems to be forgotten by Board members and occasionally by staff. For example, there are two different bottom lines – the revenue and expense one, and the mission fulfillment one. Balancing those two is a perennial challenge.
- Governance is important, but isn’t given the time and attention it deserves. I am a firm believer in term limits for Board members (not so for legislators, but that’s a different discussion). It’s critical to periodically obtain fresh outlooks that can be blended with some institutional memory.
- Don’t assume that Board members do their homework. Too often it’s apparent that trustees come to meetings without having looked at the materials that staff has assiduously prepared for them. I believe it stems from an (erroneous) assumption that the work is so simple that reading the background for meetings won’t be worthwhile.
- I am repeatedly and happily amazed at the commitment of staff to nonprofit organizations (as well as some government ones). Many of them could be earning more remunerative salaries elsewhere, but they believe in the cause and so the monetary sacrifice shrinks in significance.
- Data and outcomes are certainly important, but not always fully reflective of the work an organization is doing. If a nonprofit applied for philanthropic funding and stated it would serve “x” many clients, but fell somewhat short of that goal, how is that a negative for the field?
- Hiring someone for a position, after much due diligence and vetting, and then discovering that person isn’t the right fit is not a reflection on the hiring process. Until a person is actually acting in the role, it’s very difficult to know what their behavior will be like. You can ask all the right questions while checking references and still not uncover traits that don’t mesh well with your organization. It’s best to admit the mistake and change course quickly before staff relationships or the agency itself is damaged.
- I believe that San Francisco suffers from an overload of nonprofit organizations. Resources are wasted on sustaining separate infrastructures when they could be put toward services and clients. However, I have come to realize that there simply is no political (or other) will to force consolidation. Where mergers have occurred, they appear to be successful and the missions of the organizations have continued to thrive. But I guess this will continue to be a pet peeve of mine as long as I work in this sector.
At this juncture, I am not certain how much longer I will pursue this line of work. At a minimum, semi-retirement is on the horizon. But at the point where I do leave the field, it will be with a strong sense of satisfaction and a continued belief in the critical role of the nonprofit sector.
