Strategy Is a Moral Choice: A Black History Month Reflection for Nonprofit Leaders
Many nonprofit leaders describe strategy as practical and objective. It is often framed as something shaped by data, budgets, analysis, and capacity rather than values. That framing can feel reassuring and grounding, especially when the work is demanding and the environment feels unstable. It allows leaders to move forward without lingering too long on harder questions about tradeoffs, power, and cost.
Black history challenges that idea.
It reminds us that strategy has always required facing difficult questions directly. Decisions about how to move, who to center, and what risks to accept were never just technical. They carried moral weight, especially under pressure. Avoiding those questions did not protect movements. Naming them did.
I recently rewatched the movie Rustin, and it brought this lesson into sharper focus. We often remember the Civil Rights Movement through its most visible moments. The speeches. The crowds. The headlines. What we forget are the decisions behind the scenes that made those moments possible. Bayard Rustin was not simply present at the March on Washington. He was its chief strategist.
Rustin planned transportation, safety, and logistics for hundreds of thousands of people. He also made choices that carried real consequence. He insisted on strict nonviolence. He limited who could speak. He softened language that might provoke backlash or violence. Some people felt sidelined. Some demands were delayed. These were strategic decisions. They were also moral ones. Rustin understood that every strategy creates risk and that someone always carries it. His work focused on deciding where that risk would fall.
That lesson still applies.
As a nonprofit leader, you make decisions every day that shape people’s lives. You decide which programs receive funding and which do not. You decide how much pressure staff absorb to meet expectations. You decide whose voices shape direction and whose voices are acknowledged later, if at all. These choices are often described as operational or necessary. They are moral.
Someone benefits from your strategy.
Someone pays the cost.
Calling strategy neutral does not change that reality.
Right now, nonprofit leaders are working in a tough environment. Funding is uncertain. Community needs are growing. Teams are tired. When pressure increases, values often go unspoken. Decisions get rushed. Leaders rely on urgency to keep things moving. People feel the impact of those decisions but do not always understand the reasoning behind them. That is when trust weakens and burnout grows.
Black history offers another way forward. Movements that lasted did not avoid hard questions. They talked openly about tradeoffs. They named the cost of decisions. They understood that clarity about values did not slow strategy down. It strengthened it. It created alignment. It built trust. It allowed people to stay engaged even when the work was difficult.
This is where organizational development matters. Not as a fix. Not as a report. But as a space to pause and examine what is already happening. It helps leaders surface the values shaping their strategy and ask whether those values still align with their mission. It creates room for honest conversation before urgency and exhaustion make the choice for you.
Black history reminds us that strategy shapes lives, not just outcomes. In moments like this one, neutrality is not a safe position. It is a choice that already favors existing power and existing harm. Nonprofit leaders are making moral decisions whether they name them or not.