What does the data actually show? Board support tracks with two different things: how deeply staff use AI, and how the organization performs financially. The survey fielded responses from May 1 through May 14, 2026, across nonprofits and educational institutions with at least $500,000 in annual revenue, spanning arts and culture, education, human services, health, and environmental organizations. The margin of error sits at plus or minus 4.4 percentage points at 95% confidence, a disclosed methodology rather than a vague "survey says." Two numbers stand out. Organizations whose boards strongly endorse AI report extensive use 59% of the time, against 14% where the board supports it "with restrictions." Those same board-endorsed organizations adopted AI agents at 42%, compared to 28% for the restricted group. Revenue growth followed the same split. 92% of board-endorsed-AI organizations reported revenue growth over the past twelve months, against 81% for organiza...

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 ...

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...

Uncertainty is a constant in today's world. As a leader, your ability to navigate these choppy waters and guide your team to calmer shores is more critical than ever. Resilience isn't just about weathering the storm; it's about emerging stronger and more united on the other side. Today’s business climate proves the point. Economic instability is raising fears of a recession. Major banks are lowering earnings forecasts. FedEx and other industry leaders are warning of weaker demand and rising uncertainty. And rapid shifts in technology and regulation continue to disrupt entire sectors. In this environment, building resilient teams is no longer optional—it’s essential. This guide provides practical strategies to help you do just that, no matter the challenges ahead. 1. Open Communication – The Foundation of Trust Open and honest communication is the bedrock of any resilient team. It's not just about sending out updates; it's about creating a safe space where team me...

High employee turnover drains resources and damages morale. This article provides actionable strategies to understand your turnover rate, identify its root causes, and implement effective retention strategies. Whether you have five minutes or an hour, you'll find valuable insights to build a more stable and engaged workforce. The High Cost of Employee Churn: Why Turnover Matters Employee turnover, the rate at which employees leave an organization, is more than just a statistic; it's a vital sign of workplace health. High turnover can cripple a company's bottom line and create a toxic work environment. While some turnover is inevitable (and even desirable in certain cases – more on that later), excessive turnover can signal serious underlying issues. The financial impact alone is staggering. Replacing an employee can cost anywhere from six to nine months of their salary, according to SHRM . These costs include recruitment fees, lost productivity during the vacancy, onboa...