Define the term "mission mirroring" and discuss how it impacts nonprofit organizations. How can a nonprofit best respond when it becomes enmeshed internally in the same conflicts it deals with externally? What causes mission mirroring and how can a nonprofit avoid it?

Insights Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Mission Mirroring: 40(4) 762-769 @The Author(s) 201 1 Understanding Conflict in Reprints and permission: http:/www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10. 1 177/0899764010370869 Nonprofit Organizations http:/vsq.sagepub.com OSAGE David Allyn' Abstract This article argues that nonprofit organizations frequently suffer from a type of conflict that is unique to the sector. The author calls this tension mission mirroring and defines it as the phenomenon that occurs when an organization becomes enmeshed internally in the same conflicts it was founded to deal with externally. The author's aim in this article is to illustrate how mission mirroring occurs, how it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted, and how the failure to recognize it for what it is only aggravates the problem. His ultimate hope is that this article will allow nonprofit leaders to view internal conflicts of individual organizations from a broader, sectorwide perspective. Keywords management, conflict, morale, organizational dynamics, communication Introduction In this article, I argue that nonprofit organizations frequently suffer from a type of con- flict that is unique to the sector, a type of conflict I call mission mirroring. I assert that organizations routinely become mired in internal conflicts that look eerily like the exter- nal problems they were founded to address. These conflicts can ensnarl everyone from senior leaders-the CEO, trustees, and high-level donors-to part-time staff and volun- teers. Moreover, they inevitably involve emotionally charged issues for all involved. Mission mirroring, as I am defining it, is the phenomenon that occurs when an organization becomes enmeshed internally in the same conflicts it was founded to deal with externally. For instance, when an organization committed to fighting ageism becomes embroiled in allegations over age discrimination, or when a group focused New Jersey SEEDS, Newark Corresponding Author: David Allyn, 494 Broad St., Newark, NJ 07 102 Email: dallyn @njseeds.org/dsallyn@yahoo.com Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on February 8, 2016Allyn 763 on fighting racism finds itself in turmoil after the executive director is accused of being prejudiced, or when the staff members of a museum complain bitterly that their work spaces are restrictive and aesthetically unpleasant, or when the trustees of an organization committed to conflict resolution cannot get along. Each of these instances is an example of mission mirroring: an internal conflict reflecting external concerns. Unfortunately, when it goes unchecked, mission mirroring can consume the ener- gies of (or cause downright chaos within) an organization, leading to anger, gossip, frustration, ad hominem attacks, and accusations of bias and injustice. These are typi- cally followed by heavy-handed responses (and/or bureaucratic solutions) meant to forestall future conflict but which only further impair morale and increase organiza- tional sluggishness. The net result is not only frustration and turnover but also ineffi- ciency and ineffectiveness. Fortunately, the recognition of mirroring for what it is a normal, predictable, and common dynamic that is not particular to specific personalities, specific issues, or even to specific organizations but rather common to mission-driven organizations as a group-can help nip it in the bud. Mission Mirroring, Its Causes, and Effects Mission mirroring occurs because nonprofit organizations attract individuals who care strongly about, and have expertise on, the issues at hand. Civil rights organizations attract those with a keen eye for racial injustice, gay rights organizations attract trust- ees and staff members especially sensitive to homophobia, educational organizations attract those who care about knowledge and abhor ignorance. While not every new hire at a nonprofit is going to be passionate about the cause of the organization (espe- cially in low-level administrative roles), as a general rule, nonprofits attract and select on the basis of concern for the mission. As a result, stakeholders of these organizations are likely to have highly attuned "radar" for the issues at play. Board members, senior staff, support staff, and even volunteers at an organization dedicated to advancing Reform Judaism are likely to be informed about, and opinionated regarding, Reform Judaism. They are likely to have strong feelings about what Reform Judaism is and what it is not, what it means, what role it plays in society, what its past says about its present, and who should be allowed to shape its future. In many ways they will con- sider themselves-consciously or not-experts on the issue at hand. An acute sense of right and wrong combined with an informed knowledge of a particular issue is a potent combination. Stakeholders in nonprofit organizations are likely to hold their organizations to an extremely high standard of perfection in regards to the central aspects of the mission. (At educational organizations, for example, a single misspelling in a publication can cause great consternation; at organizations com- mitted to advancing the rights of the disabled, the use of language in the describing of disabled persons is more likely to inflame stakeholder passions.) Given these factors, a nonprofit organization can become quickly ensnared in emotionally and intellectually charged conflicts. In the classic mission-mirroring scenario, someone (rightly or wrongly) perceives an injustice or other violation of Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on February 8, 2016764 Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(4) acceptable standards. The stakeholder seeks out agreement among his or her col- leagues for his or her point of view. Divergent interpretations of events collide. Factions and loyalties develop. Passions intensify. Morale sinks. The day-to-day life of the organization becomes a whirlpool of name-calling and recrimination. Consider the following scenario: A staff member at the Environmental Protection Agency becomes aware of mold in his ofce. (Note that the staff member only notices the mold because he is interested in, and educated about, environmental issues Many, if not most people, are like myself and would be oblivious to the very existence of mold.) The staff member demands that the situation be remedied and gathers support among his coworkers (forming Faction l) for immediate action by senior management Senior management feels the concern is overblown and not worth the expense of imme- diate action (thus becoming Faction 2). Emotions begin to run high. Money is spent by senior management on new signage (but not on the mold) and tempers of Faction l are. Some or all of the members of Faction 1 stop believing in the organization and its lead- ership, and see colleagues who disagree with them (Faction 3) as \"sell outs\" or \"brown nosers.\" Meanwhile senior managers start treating every grievance by Faction l with disdain. If the situation gets really ugly, members of Faction 1 might quit or go to the press or use some other method to punish their opponents. What's worse, senior man- agement might end up using any number of means to retaliate against the Faction 1 staff or might start giving special favors to members of Faction 3. Case Study:A Conict Resolution Program Plagued With Conict Our case study examines the persistence of conict in an otherwise highly successful organization founded to promote international understanding and reduce interethnic strife. The organization has grown rapidly since its founding in 1993, earning interna- tional attention for its work and opening ofces around the globe. Yet in what appears to be a perversely ironic situation, the organization has been plagued with conict from its inception. The concept of mirroring helps us to understand why this is so. Peace F or All1 was founded in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings with the aim of promoting harmony and understanding among children from the Middle East through a camp-based summer program. It was the brainchild of a char- ismatic journalist familiar with the issues and many of the key players in Middle Eastern politics. Through a combination of personal charm, passion, expertise, bra- vura, and modest deception, he was able to secure the support of the governments of Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian authority, each of which agreed to send young boys (aged 11-1 3) to an initial summer session in the woods of Maine in 1993.2 Forty-five Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian youngsters and seven adult chaperones arrived in the United States that summer to participate in a program combining traditional summer camp sports activities (baseball, basketball, swimming, etc.) and facilitate coexistence sessions. The sports activities were meant to promote casual iendship, whereas the coexistence sessions were meant to provide a forum for the discussion of \"deeper\"3 issues. The founder secured the postseason use of a Maine summer camp, retained a Downloaded 'om nvs sagepub torn by gueston Febmary B, 2016 Anyn 765 number of the camp counselors (who did not have any training in Middle Eastern politics), hired his stepson and a donor to serve as administrators, and hired three (two Israeli and one Palestinian) professional conflict-resolution facilitators. Despite hailing from \"enemy nations,\" the young Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians easily adjusted to camp life. Although there were some tensions (particularly after a Palestinian boy denied the historical reality of the Holocaust), the boys formed friend- ships across cultural lines. This was especially remarkable given the fact that the Israeli government chose campers on the basis of academic achievement, the Egyptian gov- ernment selected campers who were the sons of socially connected families, and the Palestinians sent boys from the most troubled areas of the West Bank and Gaza. But it was clear there would be trouble from the start. The three professional conict- resolution facilitators became embroiled in a bitter dispute over the best approach to conict-resolution facilitation. The division did not fall along national lines. One of the two Israelis and the Palestinian took one view, whereas the other Israeli took another. The dispute was purely methodological (not political),4 but it intensified with each passing day. The founder of the program, his stepson, and the senior administra- tor did their best to intervene, but to no avail. The two sides stopped speaking to each other. Finally, the unallied Israeli announced her departure from the camp, declaring that she could not work under such conditions. She returned to Israel, never again to participate in the program. The irony of conict resolution facilitators being paralyzed by conict was not lost on many. Meanwhile, the adult chaperones had their own complaints. All seven of the chap- erones were school teachers. Despite their different national backgrounds, they shared a common interest in progressive education (hence their selection for partici- pation in such an untraditional program). It was apparent soon after the start of the program, however, that they were dissatisfied with the hierarchical structure of the nascent organization, the top down decision-making process, and the lack of a clear curriculum. By the end of the summer, the Israeli, Egyptian, and Palestinian teacher- chaperones had become united in their opposition to the American program leader administrators. Despite these internal tensions, Peace for All beneted from impeccable timing (and the public relations know-how of its founder): Just as the first summer was com- ing to a close, it was announced that Rabin and Arafat would sign a peace agreement on the lawn of the White House. The Peace for All campers were invited to the signing ceremony, sharing seats on the White House lawn with senior leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Israeli cabinet officials, and Egyptian dignitaries. The program was subsequently featured in a glowing piece on 60 Minutes and quickly earned international attention and accolades. But the organization continued to suffer from intemal dissension and dispute. The stepson of the founder took umbrage when he was the sole staff member to go unac- knowledged by the founder during a thank-you speech at a luncheon at the US. State Department. The second senior administratoria Quaker%xpressed great displeasure Downloaded 'um nvs sagepub mm by guestun Febmary B, 2016 766 Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(4) with the founder over his temper. In one instance during the second summer of opera- tions, the founder became so enraged by a camper's unruly behavior, he picked him up by the arms and swung him in circles The founder's own wife recalls, \"He was an incredible man, but he kind of created conict wherever he went.\" In a twist of events, the founder was hired to serve as an employee of a larger and more established peace-promoting nonprot, with the understanding that he would continue to run Peace for All. But a contest of wills between the head of the larger umbrella organization (a prominent intellectual and socialite) and the founder of Peace for All over the ideal direction of the peace movement led to the latter 's resig- nation and decision to work full-time as the executive director of Peace for All. Tension between the two men (by then both leaders in the field of peace promotion) persisted. With money pouring in and extraordinary press coverage, Peace for All was incor- porated as a 501 3, a board was formed, and full-time staff members were hired But the board became hotly divided between two factions. One wanted Peace for All to expand its mission to promote peace among youngsters from all war-tom regions; the second faction believedthe organization should limit its scope to the IsraeliPalestinian conict. This divide would continue to plague the board%omposed primarily of Upper East Side Jews with a long-standing interest in the Middle Eastifor years. With many strong personalities on the board, trustee meetings became infamous for their high level of conict.\"3 Meanwhile, the founder and his Quaker second-in-command rarely saw eye to eye, the latter concerned that the organization was breeding conict among former camp- ers by doling out opportunities (e.g., to return as counselors, to appear on television, to attend school in the United States) unfairly. Tensions between the two were legion. On numerous occasions, the founder raised his voice at her in public and spoke criti- cally of her when she was not around. She, in turn, regularly threatened to quit. She finally did so, staying connected to the organization only as a volunteer. After the founder's death in 2002, the organization slid into crisis. A new execu- tive director was hired, but he refused to move from Washington, DC, where he lived with his family, to New York City, where the organization's main office was located A geopolitical battle ensued with those in New York objecting to the execu- tive director's reisal to move north and the executive director himself maneuvering to relocate the entire enterprise to Washington, DC. After several years, he was relieved of his duties by the board The board then hired three more executive direc- tors in a span of 6 years, each new hire presenting his or her own set of problems. Most of the issues stemmed from contests of authority between the board and the various executive directors. Conict between the board and one executive director became so intense that a restraining order was secured against her to prevent access to the organization's offices. Then, with the board unable to agree on a new person to helm the organization, the organization was forced to operate without an executive director for over a year. Downloaded 'om nvs sagapub com by gueston Febmary B, 2016 Allyn 767 Minor conflicts continued to persist as well. At one donor event, two guests nearly came to blows over the use of a chair. Meanwhile, the stepson who was ini- tially hired to work at the camp (and continued to work part-time for the organiza- tion in various capacities) began publicly expressing bitterness when he was asked to step down from the board and no longer felt included in the organizational "fam- ily." The founder's biological son was allowed to remain on the board, but he had his own disputes with the board-specifically over whether the organization should provide humanitarian assistance to former campers in the West Bank and Gaza dur- ing Israeli attacks. Analysis While it may seem paradoxical that an organization intended to diminish conflict in the world would itself become distracted by a sequence of internal conflicts over phi- losophy, hierarchy, mission, leadership style, and loyalty, in fact, such a situation is readily predicted by the concept of mission mirroring. Peace for All attracts supporters with strong interest in, and opinions on, issues related to conflict and conflict resolu- tion. From the original team of coexistence facilitators to the trustees to the various executive directors to the founder himself, each and every person associated with Peace for All was attracted to the organization because of its mission to alleviate con- flict in the Middle East. But those who are passionately concerned with conflict resolution tend to hold strong opinions about the right way to end conflict, whether at the philosophical or practical level. Debates over the right way to end conflict were at the heart of Peace for All's inter- nal dysfunction. Such debates were played out in the dispute between the first summer facilitators, in the antagonism between the founder and his Quaker second-in- command, and in the bruising battles between the board members and the various executive directors they hired. It is important to note that the stakeholders of Peace for All did not become invei- gled in conflicts over gender bias, homophobia, racial prejudice, ageism, or any other issue unrelated to the mission of the organization. This is not because gender bias, homophobia, and so on were entirely absent from the swirl of events but because they were not framing issues for the players involved. Without any access to mission mirroring as a framework for understanding non- profit dynamics, the various players were forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and the personalization of blame. At various times, fault was ascribed to the personality of the founder, to the personalities of the various staff members (e.g., the conflict reso- lution facilitators), to those of certain trustees, to those of the various executive direc- tors, and so on. But Peace for All's various conflicts need to be understood together as normal symptoms of mission attraction and selection. Viewed in that light, the whole history of the organization starts to make sense. Peace for All is a conflict-prone orga- nization because (not despite the fact that) it is an organization committed to conflict resolution. Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on February 8, 2016768 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(4) Conclusion Whether we like it or not, mission-driven cultures are inherently conflictual. It is important that we recognize this fact because, in the nonprofit sector especially, conflict is unex- pected and therefore feared: idealistic stakeholders working together toward a common aim are not "supposed" to disagree. Rather, they are "supposed" to get along happily and harmoniously. When conflict in nonprofit organizations does arise, it is usually taken as a sign of trouble. This false ideology about the nature of conflict in the nonprofit sector needs to be dismantled because it only exacerbates the problem. Disagreement needs to be understood as an inherent dynamic of the sector. Disagreement is not a sign that something is "wrong," it is a sign that the sector is working as it should be. The concept of mission mirroring does not absolve nonprofit leaders of the responsi- bility of acting in ways consistent with the core values of their organizations. Nonprofit leaders must be especially vigilant with themselves when it comes to upholding the values of the organizations they serve. Inconsistencies are always likely to smell putrid to stakeholders. At the same time, passion is not the yardstick of good judgment. Stakeholders need to understand that the strengths of their views do not determine the merits of their claims. The commonplace quality of mission mirroring is good news. When organiza- tional leaders and stakeholders begin to recognize mirroring for what it is-a natural and almost inevitable dynamic in any mission-driven environment-they will be less likely to get trapped in vicious cycles of accusation of reprisal. All those with a stake in the success of the nonprofit sector-from donors to staff members to volunteers- ought to take a new view of nonprofit organizations in light of the mirroring framework and start to appreciate a certain degree of disagreement as a sign that nonprofit organi- zations are operating exactly as they should be. When true turmoil occurs-as in the case of Peace for All-it is a sign that mission mirroring has already gone too far. Author's Note The author wishes to thank Cary Cherniss (Rutgers University), Amin Ghazani (Princeton University), Christine Letts (Harvard University), and Amy Wrzesniewski (Yale University) for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this article. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. Notes 1. The name of the organization has been changed for the purposes of this article. 2. The program became co-ed in its second summer. Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on February 8, 2016Allyn 769 3. That first summer, the term deeper was left largely undefined, a fact that would lead to much of the conict among the co existence facilitators discussed below. 4. The dispute had to do with the best method for allowing the students to \"process\" their feelings. 5. Other issues tore at the board as well. The founder first invited and then uninvited his stepson to serve on the board, the board took issue with aspects of the founder's leadership style, and the issues of trustee obligations caused tension. The board would become even more divided after the death of the founder, particularly over the pension of the founder's Widow. 6. The program the first summer was restricted to boys, the stepson of the founder had come out prior to joining the Peace for All team, the program staff was entirely White except for the camp director, and so on. Clearly there could have been accusations of sexism, homophobia, racism, and so on. There were not. Bio David Allyn holds a PhD from Harvard University in Intellectual History. He is a former faculty member at Princeton University and visiting scholar at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University. He is a trustee of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at CUNY and Director of Development for New Jersey SEEDS (Scholars, Educators, Excellence, Dedication, Success). Downloaded 'um nvs sagepun com by guestun Fenmary B, 2016