FOREX NEW YORK COMPANIES

Charity finance directors could be ideally placed to lead their organisations in an age of social bonds and performance-related-contracts, said Paul Palmer director of the Centre for Charity Effectiveness, last week.

Speaking at the Charity Finance Group's annual conference, he also suggested that finance directors who wanted the top roles in charities should try to change their job title to something other than finance director, take on special projects, broaden their focus from just finance and become a trustee: 51% of chief executives in the FTSE 100 were previously finance directors; it doesn't seem to be the same at charities, said Palmer.

But the director told several hundred delegates that a new financial landscape could pave the way for finance directors to step up. Palmer said: "As charities move away from grants to contracts and loans, leaders might require very different skills. If your charity is going down this route, there's a clear leadership role for the finance director. The move to chief executive can be an exciting journey, but you need to overcome some perceptions. And it's not an easy ride."

One piece of advice for finance directors was to look at changing their job title. "The title might be detrimental – there are perception issues with it. Trustees want the finance director to be a safe comfort blanket; they want you to conform to your role, so the title might not help you break out of that role. Change it and they might see you in a different light," said Palmer.

In the session 'How financial directors get to lead and be involved in strategic planning', Palmer also pointed out that most chief executives still came from outside the sector. "Charities still primarily import CEOs rather than export, which gives some idea of how trustees see people in the sector. But your knowledge and experience of the organisation should give you a competitive advantage. Trustees think you can understand the sector by reading a book, but it takes years," he explained.

Other advice was to be a trustee of another charity. "Two thirds of CEOs are also trustees at other charities. Resist being pigeon-holed as treasurer – take on another position."

In addition, he said chief executives should have vision, sharp people skills, a constructive relationship with the chair, be a good leader and communicator, and should understand marketing and fundraising.

"Think about your personal development. Work on your weaknesses rather than further developing your strengths. Get a coach if needed," Palmer told delegates.

Mark Watts, the recently retired chief executive of the RSPCA, told how he was offered the role when he retired from a finance director's position. On leaving, he sent a detailed document to trustees about how he thought the charity could be strengthened. It was well-received and they asked him to stay on as chief executive.

"I'd worked at the RSPCA for 28 years and saw six CEOs come and go. I had thought about going for the job but I wasn't confident enough," said Watts. "Most finance directors are very reserved and self-effacing, and trustees want to keep a good finance director in position." His advice was to "not be passive; express your opinions".

Watts added that finance directors should be the chief executive's "right hand man" and aware of drivers across the whole charity. "Have a good idea of how the organisation is performing, not just financially. Have clarity of vision and be able to communicate that. Have passion for the cause and make the impossible possible. And, don't be scared to ask questions because you think you'll look foolish," he told the audience.

Watts concluded by saying that finance directors should not underestimate the importance of their contribution at a time when financial recovery will be slow. "Maybe sometime you'll take on the reins, I promise you won't regret it," he said.

Other sessions focused on good leadership in general. Dr Robina Chatham, a training consultant and neuroscientist, said that in the current financial climate it was tempting for an organisation to just "try to survive", but it was important that the chief executive managed the future at the same time.

Chatham said that research she'd conducted with Cranfield University had found that long-term success for leaders came from understanding the world they work in. She discussed how important it was to understand covert and non-covert agendas at the office and who holds power and influence. "It could be those who are smokers who get together outside, it could be people who are fun to be with," she explained.

She also highlighted the importance of networking. "Lunchtimes are not for sitting at your desk with a sandwich if you want to be a leader," she said. "They're for networking. This is where people will share covert agendas in a less formal environment.

"And, innovative ideas come from making connections with people we don't know very well. If we stick to our friends in our team, you just get renovation, not innovation. Sparks of ideas come from conversation with someone from a totally different background. If you're not networking, you're not allowing the opportunity for really innovative ideas and you'll have no vision to inspire the organisation: 75% of your time should be spent on communication, innovating and networking," said Chatham.

She concluded that the top five traits leaders needed were high integrity, empathy, passion for motivation, courage to take risks and vision for the future.

Speaking on skills development for staff, Helen Simmons, finance director at London Diocesan Fund, offered a number of insights. She said that finance teams learn better when "doing" a task rather than reading about it or watching a demonstration.

Job swaps and shadowing also helped staff understand more about how a charity works, increasing empathy and allowing staff to cover for each other during times of sickness because they knew more about different roles.

Simmons said that at the beginning of every new job she had a meeting with all the staff: "Even if it's just for 10 minutes, find out if the job description matches the role and whether they have all the tools for the job.

"Staff need to have their needs met to do a good job. They need to feel biologically and physically safe, a sense of belonging and self-esteem. And, if they have personal issues, you need to try to understand these.

"You also need to be fair and transparent with pay and benefits. There's no point in providing biscuits if you haven't got these basics right," said Simmons.

She added that finance directors who wanted to step up to the chief executive position should gradually expose themselves to office and organisational politics and should also use any opportunities to present to staff and join project groups.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

The timing could not have been worse. Just as the heads of state and government from NATO's 28 member states were assembling in front of Chicago's football stadium on the shores of Lake Michigan for a group photo, thunder began booming over the city as a storm rolled in. Quickly, President Barack Obama's team switched to plan B and moved everyone into the conference room instead. Host Obama stood on the red carpet surrounded by his guests. "Wave," he said. And they did.

It was designed to be an image of harmony. Everyone together. That is the message that Obama wants to send from this NATO summit, the largest ever. The US president, after all, is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign and the summit, located in Obama's hometown of Chicago, was designed to give him a boost.

But Obama faced battles on several fronts over the weekend. For one, he faces the possibility of lasting friction with Russia after NATO on Sunday declared its European missile shield to have reached "interim capability," an important step on the road to full coverage planned for 2018. The shield is to protect Europe from possible attacks from countries like Iran, but Russia views the weapons system as a limitation of its own nuclear deterrence and has thus sought for years to prevent its completion.

Afghanistan too is a significant focus of the summit, which continues on Monday. When he was elected four years ago, Obama promised that he would bring the war against the Taliban to an end. Some 1,900 American soldiers have lost their lives in the decade-long fight and the mission costs US taxpayers $100 billion (€78 billion) each year.

Key Question

It is a bill that the White House would like to significantly reduce. And it would also like more help from alliance partners in keeping NATO up and running as well. Indeed, with European governments having reduced their military budgets continually since the end of the Cold War, the US share of NATO financing has grown to 75 percent. Now that the debt crisis has put additional pressures on both Europeans and Americans to slash expenditures, alliance funding is the key question underlying the meeting.

Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates hinted at the brewing frustration in Washington a year ago. "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress -- and in the American body politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," Gates said in his final policy speech as head of the Pentagon last June.

Obama seeks to cut US defense expenditures by $500 billion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, should the Democrats and Republicans in Congress not be able to reach a deficit reduction deal by the end of this year, automatic cuts would be triggered in January 2013 which would result in a further $500 billion being withheld from the Pentagon in the next decade.

In a guest commentary for the Chicago Tribune, Mitt Romney, Obama's Republican challenger in November presidential elections, accused the president of weakening the NATO alliance. "The administration's irresponsible defense cuts are clearing the way for our partners to do even less," Romney wrote. "An alliance not undergirded by military strength and US leadership may soon become an alliance in name only."

'Smart Defense'

Obama, for his part, sought to demonstrate strength despite potential funding shortfalls. "In these difficult economic times, we can work together and pool our resources," Obama said during the summit. "NATO is a force multiplier, and the initiatives we will endorse today will allow each of our nations to accomplish what none of us could achieve alone."

The message is clear. The US is no longer prepared to be the alliance's military backstop -- as the only member state with requisite weapons systems. Instead, the idea is to develop common military systems and defense products. NATO refers to the concept as "Smart Defense." Just how it might work -- more military clout for less money -- remains to be seen however.

At issue are some 20 projects, ranging from the acquisition of helicopters to joint command headquarters. The plan known as "Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS)," for example, foresees the purchase of five drones from the US at a total price of €1 billion. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pledged in Chicago that alliance leaders had approved "a robust package of more than 20 multinational projects to provide the capabilities we need at a price we can afford."

Underneath the surface, however, it becomes clear that harmony is not universal when it comes to these joint projects. Seventeen countries, for example, signed onto the AGS project back in 2007. Since then, however, four have backed out after defense budgets were slashed back home. Germany is one of the countries that remains committed to the project, but the more alliance partners back out, the more expensive it becomes for Berlin and the others who remain. Furthermore, Germany's signature to the project was conditional and parliament in Berlin has yet to approve the funding.

Pressure on Berlin

Meanwhile, NATO has upped the pressure on Germany to increase its commitment to the alliance by reducing the amount of say the parliament in Berlin has when it comes to NATO missions overseas. Currently, any foreign military mission involving German troops needs the approval of Germany's parliament, the Bundestag. But that also means that, should parliament withhold such approval, the effectiveness of joint NATO weapons systems dependent on German technicians is significantly reduced.

The Brussels-based alliance is now pressuring Berlin to reduce the amount of say parliament has when it comes to NATO missions. Alliance leaders point out that the deployment of joint weapons systems cannot be made dependent on the approval of a single nation's parliament. Berlin will have little choice but to at least consider the request, to avoid isolation within the alliance.

The real success of the NATO summit, however, will be decided on Monday. That is when member-state leaders are to address the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan and its consequences. Only then will it become clear whether the summit will provide Obama with the hoped-for boost to his re-election campaign.