What's actually happening I have sat in enough of these conversations to recognize the pattern. A director gets a demo from a vendor at a conference, or a peer organization mentions a tool that "changed everything," and the instinct is to move fast. Fast feels like leadership. So the organization buys the platform, or signs up for the pilot, and only then does anyone ask what it's for. This is the same mistake I see nonprofits make with strategic plans. A forty-page document gets written, approved by the board, and filed. Nobody translates it into what changes on a Tuesday. The plan is real. The connection to daily work is not. AI tools are landing on top of that same disconnect, except now the artifact isn't a binder, it's a subscription. I'm starting to hear a version of this at the board level too. Funders are asking nonprofits how they use AI, and a board wants an answer that sounds current. That pressure creates the same shortcut: adopt somethi...

What actually got taken Ask what AI absorbed first in a small nonprofit, and the list is consistent. First drafts of donor letters. Grant report boilerplate. Meeting notes. Volunteer scheduling emails. Social copy. The intake summary nobody wanted to write. Look at what those have in common. Every one of them is a task with an edge. You start it, you finish it, and you can point at the thing you made. The letter exists. The report is submitted. The notes are in the folder. Those tasks were tedious. They were also, for a lot of people, the only proof they had that they did anything that day. A program coordinator does not go home holding an outcome. Outcomes take months and belong to the whole organization. What she goes home holding is the twelve things she finished. When AI takes the twelve things, the tedium leaves and the proof leaves with it. Nobody planned that. It is a side effect, and side effects are the hardest thing to notice because no line item shows them. Why it la...

This spring, two researchers set out to answer one question about Florida nonprofits: why do some of them use generative AI, and others don't. Wanzhu Shi and Lauren Azevedo surveyed 168 Florida nonprofit organizations. They also sat down with 14 Florida executive directors and asked them to explain their own decisions, in their own words. The study ran in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly this past March, a peer-reviewed journal (journals.sagepub.com, accessed 2026-08-12). The full findings sit behind a paywall, so I can't tell you which factor mattered most. But I can tell you what they chose to measure, and that alone is worth sitting with. They used something called the Technology-Organization-Environment framework, TOE for short. It's a standard way researchers study why any organization adopts new technology, not just AI. It looks at three things: whether the pressure to adopt comes from outside the organization, what the culture inside the organization already ...

Florida nonprofits are reviewing their bylaws because of HB 797.  That's the right move. But while boards are opening the governance binder, there's another document they should review at the same time. The one that tells them whether the organization is actually making progress . Those are not the same thing. HB 797, which took effect on July 1, updates how Florida nonprofits are governed. Boards are reviewing conflict-of-interest policies, meeting procedures, officer responsibilities, and other governance documents to make sure everything reflects the new law. That's important work. Good governance protects the organization. But governance and execution are different conversations. Your bylaws tell you who can make decisions. They don't tell you whether the organization made the right ones last month. That's the gap I see in many nonprofits. Ask an executive director where the strategic plan is, and they'll usually point to a document. Ask five staff members w...

McKinsey just published one of the most honest things about AI adoption in years. Nearly 8 in 10 companies report using AI, and nearly the same number report no significant impact on earnings. They called it the "gen AI paradox." Companies are everywhere on AI. And almost nowhere on results. Here's what the data actually shows (McKinsey State of AI, 2025): → 88% of companies deploy AI in at least one function → Only 6% of companies see more than 5% of EBIT directly attributed to AI → Nearly two-thirds have not begun scaling AI across the enterprise → Fewer than 30% of CEOs personally sponsor their company's AI agenda The technology is not the problem. The leadership approach is. The real diagnosis Most companies bolted AI onto existing processes. Copilots on top of old workflows. Chatbots next to manual work. Assistant tools that assist nothing at scale. McKinsey calls this "horizontal" adoption. Wide, visible, and nearly impossible to connect to reven...

Before we talk about solutions, let's look at the numbers. Replacing an employee isn't just a cost, it's a serious risk to your business. For C-level executives and investors, the math is sobering: The cost of replacing a single manager or technical professional can be as high as 200% of their yearly salary . But what if it also killed your company's valuation? According to a recent study by Russell Reynolds Associates, CEO turnover at big companies is at an all-time high ( Russell ). This kind of churn, which often points to bigger problems inside a company, is a major red flag to investors. It signals a lack of stability and a potential failure to deliver on promised growth. Your best employees aren't just assets; they are the foundation of your company's value. Why Your Best People Leave Why do people leave? It's not usually just about one thing. Here are the top problems that drive away your best people. Bad Management. Poor managers are the number one...