What does the non-profit leader of tomorrow look like?

August 27, 2013 erik Board development, Board governance

sleepless1 Last week a dear non-profit friend of mine from California couldn’t sleep. She tossed and she turned. Ultimately, she got out of bed, turned on her computer and started talking into a microphone. When I woke up in the morning in my bed in Elgin, Illinois, there was an email sitting in my inbox with a voice file attachment. Her words have tumbled around in my head for a week, and I’ve decided to enlist your support in dissecting them.

The gist of her recording pertained to non-profit boards. Here is a synopsis of what she said:

There are too many non-profit boards that just don’t work.
Too many board members either don’t understand their roles/responsibilities or turn a blind eye to certain roles that make them feel uncomfortable (e.g fundraising and resource acquisition).
Are there occupations that are better suited for non-profit board leadership (e.g. finance people compared to artists)?
Should non-profit agencies incorporate personality testing into their board development process because certain personalities are better suited to serving on a non-profit board?

After a week of contemplative thought, I honestly don’t know how I feel about anything she said. I am looking forward to you weighing in with your thoughts using the comment box at the bottom of this blog.

Here is what I have concluded:

Boardroom diversity is important. We don’t need all of the same types of people sitting around a table in a simulated echo chamber. (I am not implying that was what she was saying, but I do worry that it could be an unintended consequence.)
Understanding roles/responsibilities and executing them are vital to non-profit health. The non-profit sector needs to get better at recruitment, management and evaluation or suffer the consequences.
The characteristics and traits of an effective non-profit executive director (aka CEO) are changing with the times, and hiring the right person might make all the difference in the world when it comes to board development, board governance and team cohesiveness from the front line to the boardroom.

sleepless2 After listening to my friend’s recording, I started Googling around and searching for anything that anyone might have written about characteristics and traits of effective boards. I was especially intrigued by her question about incorporating personality testing into the board development process. After all, many workplaces are incorporating this type of assessment into their employee hiring process.

I didn’t really find much of anything that resonated, but there was some interesting stuff on Myers-Briggs personality testing that pertained to the non-profit sector. Here are some of the better links:

Nonprofit People blog: “An Introduction to Myers-Briggs“
Brad Rourke’s blog: “Myers-Briggs in the Nonprofit Workplace: How to Lead with J’s and P’s“
Nonprofit Resource Network: Resources Page

While I suspect you may find these links interesting, they still didn’t help me process what my sleepy California friend had ignited in my head. And then I came across an online post at Ivey Business Journal titled “Profiling the Non-Profit Leader of Tomorrow“.

This article focused on the executive director as the linchpin to what my friend had identified. They identified 15 “must-have” attributes that a non-profit leader must possess in order to be successful. Those attributes are as follows:

Competencies

Strategic thinker
Relationship builder
Collaborative decision-maker
Entrepreneurial achiever
Effective communicator
Change leader
Inspiring motivator

Personality Traits

High integrity
Adaptable/Agile
Perseverant/Patient
Interpersonal sensitivity
Passionate about the mission

Knowledge/Expertise

Financial acumen
Deep sector-specific knowledge
Understanding & valuing diversity

I suspect a number of these competencies and skill sets also can be applied to your board development process.

If I’ve piqued your curiosity — and I suspect that I have — then I encourage you to click-through to the Ivey Business Journal article and keep reading. Enjoy!

Take a good hard look in the mirror this morning. How many of these attributes do you possess? How do you know you possess them? Do you conduct 360 assessments asking for your employees’ feedback? If so, what do they say about you and these attributes? Does your board development process look for volunteers with these attributes? If so, what tools do you use to help identify these attributes?

In addition to sharing your thoughts about these questions in the comment box below, I welcome your thoughts about the question I asked earlier in this post about my friend’s online recording.

We can all learn from each other. Please take a minute out of your busy day to share with your fellow non-profit friends.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Do your board members gather around the campfire?

August 26, 2013 erik Board development, Fundraising

campfire Recently, I’ve been doing a lot of what I consider “Nonprofit 101” trainings focused on board roles and responsibilities. After talking with board members about their fiduciary responsibilities, they often push back on their role in fundraising. I’m becoming really good at giving them the “sympathetic smile,” which communicates that I’m hearing their fear but not giving them permission to wash their hands of their role in resource development.

After my last training, I literally had three board volunteers standing around the room waiting for a private moment with me. Each one told me how much they appreciated the content, and sure enough each one made their way around to the subject of fundraising. My mouth hurt that evening from a lot of sympathetic smiling. 🙂

While driving home, I couldn’t stop thinking about each of those three board members. Their stories were all the same:

They are passionate about the organization.
They love serving on the board.
They were asked to serve because they brought a certain skill set or relationships (e.g. mostly access to their company).
They know there is more they to do.
They know how important fundraising is.
They see the organization’s need for money.
They are just very reluctant . . . it doesn’t feel right to ask their friends for money. They mention a few fears, and worse yet they say it feels like begging.
They promise to try harder.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this in the last few months. And in some strange way, I find it endearing which probably explains how I’ve mastered the art of the sympathetic smile.

Getting back to my drive home . . .

With nothing more than windshield time in front of me, my mind started wandering. I started thinking about a recent DVD purchase I made from 501 Videos of Tom Ahern talking about writing. As a bonus, they tossed in a 32 page mini-publication from Chris Davenport titled “Nonprofit Storytelling for Board members“.

As the blurry miles whizzed by me, a thought finally struck:

Stop pushing those reluctant board members into something they find
FRIGHTENING!
Instead, focus on something they will find less objectionable
like turning them into great storytellers.

fear After all, how scary can it be to “tell stories,” right?

And when you boil down a fundraising solicitation visit, isn’t it mostly a series of stories followed-up with an ask?

So, it stood to reason in my travel weary head that teaching reluctant board members how to tell stories is 90 percent of the battle.

After a few days of reflecting on this thought and a number of cups of coffee, I still think this is a great idea. So, I dusted off that “Nonprofit Storytelling for Board Members” book this morning in an effort to figure out where someone should start.

Luckily for me, the answer is easily found on page 4 where Chris Davenport says, “Here are three stories you need to concentrate on perfecting first . . .”

Your Involvement Story
An Impact Story
A Thank You Story

So, there you have it folks . . . if you have board members who HATE fundraising, I think you should teach them how to be a good storyteller and start with the three stories identified above.

What? You think it isn’t as easy as that? There is more to storytelling than what meets the eye?

OK . . . you’re probably right, which is why Chris Davenport goes on in his mini-book to talk about:

The 4 C’s of Storytelling
Emotions vs Facts
Story Structure
Seven Story Triggers
And much, much more

I suggest that you go buy the book. It is only $7.95. Such as deal! Click here if you want to learn more and possibly order this amazing little pocketbook resource. (Disclaimer: I do not profit in any way from you purchasing that book. This is not a paid advertisement. I don’t even know Chris.)

Do you have board members who are reluctant to fulfill their fundraising roles and responsibilities? How have you dealt with it effectively? Have you tried to teach your board volunteers how to be good storytellers? If so, how did that work for you and what lessons did you learn?

Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. We can ALL learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What are your non-profit agency’s foolish consistency and hobgoblins?

August 23, 2013 erik Fundraising, Planning

Welcome to O.D. Fridays at DonorDreams blog. Every Friday for the foreseeable future we will be looking at posts from John Greco’s blog called “johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly” and applying his organizational development messages to the non-profit community.

In a post titled “Adoring Hobgoblins,” John dissects the following quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” He explains to readers that consistency can be a good thing, but it suddenly becomes a bad thing when it interferes with our good judgement and results in poor actions.

Reading this Emerson quotation set my mind down two different paths this morning. So, what the heck? Let’s go down two roads this morning.

Don’t have a written resource development plan?

It is a best practice in my book to engage board members and fundraising volunteers every year in a process that results in a written resource development plan (aka fundraising plan). It should provide definition and explanation to the revenue side of your agency budget.

Do you know how many non-profit organizations — big and small — with which I’ve worked that don’t do this? OMG . . . it is a crazy BIG number.

So, what do those organizations do if they aren’t operating with a resource development plan?

Yep . . . you guessed it. They are relying on “consistency” and sometimes it is “foolish consistency“.

For example, one organization I worked with many years ago didn’t see the need to develop an annual fundraising plan and pointed to their special event fundraisers as something they’ve been doing forever. One of their events had been run for more than two decades.

Their conclusion . . . “why waste time — that we don’t have — on writing this stuff down, especially when it hasn’t changed in two decades?”

hobgoblin Well, huh? Let me see here. Every good planning process begins with an assessment /evaluation which springboards off into goal setting, strategy development and action planning. If the organization I just referenced hadn’t been so “foolishly consistent,” they would’ve seen the following:

The revenue from their signature event plateaued 13 years ago and has been in steady decline ever since
Many of the people attending their event sit at corporate tables, and they do so anonymously. There were no strategies in place to capture individual donor data, which means the cultivation effect of that event is lost on those people.
Many of the individuals who were die-hard supporters of that event were likely capable and willing to contribute more, but there were no upgrade strategies in place. So, money was being left on the table.
There were hundreds of donors over a 20 year time span who had attended this event a few times and then stopped. There were no strategies to re-engage those lapsed donors either in the event or other places in the agency’s resource development plan.

If I’m not mistaken, these four bullet points are the personification of that “hobgoblin” in Emerson’s famous quotation. And, boy oh boy, what an ugly little hobgoblin it is.

I know that some people think of planning processes as a “foolish consistency“. I obviously DO NOT! In fact, I see it as just the opposite. A well-run planning process of any kind should:

help your organization look at things differently
keep a fresh perspective
engage in dynamic brainstorming
inspire change that keeps your agency’s growing

This brings me to the last portion of Emerson’s quotation “. . . adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines“. I would love to add the words “board volunteers and agency staff“.

small mind The board members and executive director of the agency I reference in the example above certainly were “little“. I say this because their “foolish consistency” and unwillingness to do any assessment and planning had locked them into being a certain size. When you looked at their agency budget, they had brought in the same amount of revenue for the last 10 years.

Think about that for a moment. When you factor in inflation, this agency was contracting and raising less and less money every year. Foolish? Yes! Hobgoblins? Yes!! YES!! Little? Yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!

If your agency operates with a December 31st year-end fiscal year, then your budget construction process should be starting soon. If this is the case, then your resource development planning process should also be starting soon.

Do you need help with that planning process? If so, I know someone you should call who can help . . . you know who I mean. 😉

The other road referenced?

In the beginning of this blog post, I said John’s post centered on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quotation set my mind down two different paths this morning.

When I first read John’s post, I immediately thought of how many times I’ve heard from non-profit board members, executive directors and fundraising professionals the following words:

“That’s not the way we do things around here”

Not only are these words (or other words that sound or mean the same thing) the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard, but they are downright poisonous to your non-profit organization.

I’ve run out of space, but luckily Seth Godin did a nice job of succinctly and eloquently addressing this issue on his blog. If you have 15 more seconds, then you really need to click-through and read Seth’s thoughts on these nine dangerous words.

Can you identify your agency’s “silly consistencies“? If so, what are they? Can you describe those hobgoblins? If so, what do they look like? Please scroll down and share your examples and thoughts as well as what you plan on doing about it in the comment box below. Why? Because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Raising money — one, unproductive $5 sale at a time

August 22, 2013 erik Fundraising

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. Dani typically blogs about board development and governance related topics on the first Wednesday of each month, but I just couldn’t resist publishing this awesome piece that she wrote about fundraising. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com.

Raising money — one, unproductive $5 sale at a time

By Dani Robbins
Originally published at Akron Beacon Journal and Ohio.com

My daughter recently has been asked to raise money for three organizations: our school PTA, our Temple and Girl Scouts. Last year, she raised money for the American Heart Association’s Jump-A-Thon. She is an amazing fund-raiser. I am incredibly proud of her. She’s 7.

We get a weekly fund-raising request from one organization or another – Market Days, sign up your grocery card, click this website — once a day. Can this really be our plan?

I do not want to go to our friends and family three different times (or more) this season alone to ask for $1 to $30 each time. They do not want to buy nuts, a magazine or an entertainment book. (OK, they may want to buy that.) They will buy whatever my daughter is selling to support her, just as I will buy whatever their children are selling to support them.

When I was a kid, we took our UNICEF cans along with us as we went trick or treating. I walked in the MS Walk-A-Thon, and I probably would have sold Girl Scout cookies had I stuck around long enough. My parents gave blood, supported a variety of charities and taught my brother and me that we each had an obligation to work to make the world a better place. I teach my children the same thing. Yet, even so, I keep thinking: “What are we doing?”

People give to people. I know it well. I’ve lived it. I teach it professionally.

Seventy-five percent of all giving in the United States in 2009 was individual giving. That’s giving, not buying. That may be why this makes me so crazy. lt’s because I know that selling things to raise money $5 at a time is not a good use of anyone’s time or precious resources.

Wouldn’t it be easier if the institution’s leader, or whomever you know the best, said: “We need this much money at a minimum, can you please invest in us – volunteer or support us financially or better yet, both?”

Some people don’t readily have an extra few bucks but have some time and are very willing to work to support institutions they believe in. Others have a few extra bucks they are willing to share, but no time. Some, who are a blessing to their communities, share freely of their time, and also their resources.

kidsselling2 There are exceptions to my general rule of “no selling”. The Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts sell cookies and popcorn very well. Their troops, which are volunteer-led, rely on those sales for most of their troop activities. Good for them! There are also
people who buy things who would never think to write a check to an organization. (To those people, I ask you to please find an organization that you believe in and write a check. Why should you? Because you can — and they need your help.)

The main reason that I advocate against selling things, in addition to the significant safety issues for our children, is the minimal return for the organization. Our community’s organizations have to raise money. They can spend time figuring out what to sell, coordinating the sale, selling and collecting money from the sale. Or they can spend time creating a plan to ask individuals for money, asking, thanking people and telling them what they did with their money.

Which is a better use of our time and energy? Which is a better return for the organization? Hands down, I advocate the latter.

Other than Scouting, let’s stop selling things or, at a minimum, asking our children to sell things. Let’s build our ability to ask for money. Let’s thank people for their money. Let’s tell them what we did with their money. Let’s keep them engaged. Let’s talk more about what our institutions contribute to our community and what they truly need to be viable. When our community’s institutions are viable, we are all better off.

This post was originally published at Akron Beacon Journal and Ohio.com and is republished with the permission of Dani Robbins. You can find this article at: http://www.ohio. com/editorial/commentary/’l 04925649. html

Please stop using the economy as your whipping post

August 21, 2013 erik Fundraising

Yesterday, I was on the phone with a board volunteer. We were talking about their organization’s annual campaign efforts. In the middle of that conversation, this volunteer launched into a full-blown rant about the state of the economy and why no one has any money anymore to give to charity. It was all I could do to keep from screaming. I am so tired of hearing this kind of thing.

I know. I know. Things are still tight. Recovery is slow. Some people are still hurting terribly. We’ll most likely never return to the days we knew before the Great Recession. There is a New Normal.

However, please humor me and take a look at the following chart from the Giving USA Foundation which was published on the National Philanthropic Trust blog:

charitable giving stats

Do you see what I see?

2007 was the high water mark for charitable giving
2008 and 2009 were nightmares. As our economy entered a state of free fall, so too did charitable giving
We’ve seen very positive growth in 2010, 2011 and 2012

We haven’t recovered everything that was lost in the crash. I suspect that will take many more years . . . BUT the growth is real and the sector isn’t in a state of free fall anymore. We’ve come out of the tunnel, and we’ve been on the other side for quite some time. It may not be what we had hoped for, but this is what recovery looks like. Deal with it!

excuses I am of the opinion that those of us who still use the economy to explain our shortcomings are simply making excuses. In fact, let me take it a step further. Invoking the economy to explain your poor fundraising performance is nothing short of excuse making.

If you have a moment, please click-through to the National Philanthropic Trust blog. They have captured a number of very nice philanthropy statistics all in one place. Here are just a few that I find interesting:

88% of households give to charity.
The average annual household contribution is $2,213 while the mean is $870.
Charitable giving accounted for 2% of gross domestic product in 2010

I am not suggesting that “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but can we please stop the excuse making?

If your fundraising efforts are dragging, there are likely many other explanations other than the straw-man argument of the economy. Furthermore, if you accept the economy as the reason, then you are likely blinded to all of the other reasons. Here are just a few of those possible explanations:

You have the wrong people sitting around the table
You’re using the wrong campaign model for the talent you’ve assembled around your table
You’re not stewarding your donors correctly
Your focus is too much on donor acquisition and not enough on donor retention
Your case for support is stale and not as compelling as it used to be

This list can go on and on, but you’ll never know the real reasons unless you invest in evaluation efforts and reject silly explanations such as “the economy ate my homework“.

So, what should an executive director or fundraising professional do when faced with volunteers who refuse to face facts?

Be a leader!

I’m not suggesting you tell volunteers they are wrong. Don’t launch into a full-blown rant like I’ve done this morning. But leaders lead and you may want to try doing the following:

Empathize . . . they are grieving the lack of results from their collective efforts
Agree with what is obvious (e.g. the economy is sluggish)
Inject truth into the conversation (e.g. people are still giving, donors are still being generous, charitable giving has rebounded nationally over the last three years)
Suggest that a more thorough critique of your situation might help uncover more facts that will help you make adjustments to next year’s efforts
Stand tall and make the case for thoughtful evaluation, ROI calculation and critique

There is a New Normal in America when it comes to the economy. What you did before the recession might not work now quite the same way it did back then. They only way to fix this situation is to not accept excuses like the economy, discover the real reasons, and put new strategies in place to deal with the New Normal.

I am tired of the excuses. In fact, I believe accepting those excuses is dangerous for your non-profit organization because it keeps you from moving forward. Do you agree? If so, how are you dealing with it? Have you had any success in moving your volunteers forward? Please use the comment box to share your success stories and strategies. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Revisiting LinkedIn’s Board Member Connect service

August 20, 2013 erik Board development, Board governance, organizational development, volunteers

When I engage non-profit organizations in board development related issues, it can be like simultaneously operating in two parallel and polar opposite universes. One universe exists where everyone is talking about how things are “supposed to be” done. This is described in the agency’s written board development plan. In the other universe, there are board members and staff sitting around a table talking about “some guy” they know without any discussion about board composition gap assessment, prospect lists, prospect evaluation or anything that sounds like process.

Growing the capacity of your non-profit board is a complicated formula that includes you doing the following:

Understanding the holes you need to fill.
Successfully identifying prospects who fill those gaps.
Thoughtfully evaluating and factoring in a prospect’s skill sets/talents and experiences so a smart determination can be made about moving forward with recruitment.
Developing and using a recruitment process that sets expectations and helps a potential prospect see what they are potentially say ‘YES‘ to doing before making that commitment.
Employing a thorough new board member orientation program and ongoing boardroom training calendar.
Developing and using tools (e.g. performance plans, dashboards, scorecards, etc) to show board members where they’re at and what they still need to do.
Engaging in year-end evaluation discussions focused on recognition and deeper engagement.

Your board governance and board development program will be “top shelf” if you do ALL of these things. Just having it in writing doesn’t count. You need to practice what you preach.

Not doing even one or two of these things is akin to skipping ingredients in a recipe. Following this analogy through to its logical conclusion, I ask you to imagine what a bread recipe looks like if you forget to add the yeast or the flour.

I often hear board development committee volunteers and staff openly complain about how hard it is to:

identify good prospects
ascertain skill sets and experiences
complete prospect evaluation exercises in a satisfying manner

With this in mind, I am reminded of an old “Mondays with Marissa” post from a year ago titled “How Nonprofits Can Maximize LinkedIn to Grow Their Community“. In that post, Marissa talked briefly about LinkedIn’s new Board Member Connect connect service. This was a new service launched in 2012, and it was just getting off the ground.

In the last few days, I was poked by LinkedIn about this fee-based service for non-profit organizations. They’re organizing another informational webinar on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 1:00 pm (Central Time). Click here to learn more and register.

In the meantime, I thought I would take a look around the blogosphere to see what others were saying about LinkedIn’s Board Member Connect service. The following are just a few of the more interesting articles I decided to share with DonorDreams blog readers who might be interested in learning more:

Organizational Solutions blog: “Can LinkedIn Board Member Connect Revolutionize Nonprofit Board Recruitment?“
Beth’s Blog: “5 Ways to Make LinkedIn Board Connect Work for Your Nonprofit“
Take Two blog: “How LinkedIn Can Boost Your Board“

What I found most interesting is that I didn’t come across any web reviews from non-profit leaders who’ve used LinkedIn’s Board Member Connect service. It makes me wonder if . . . a) no one is really using this service or b) everyone is so happy that there isn’t even one random web review complaint?

I suppose the only way for your agency to find out is to attend the webinar and ask around.

Have you used LinkedIn’s Board Member Connect service? What was your experience? If not, how else is your board development committee identifying good prospects for your board? Please scroll down and share your thought, ideas and practices in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Those shiny fundraising tools in your resource development toolbox

August 19, 2013 erik Fundraising

personal pages Jeff Bezos has been on my mind lately. Of course, he is the 49-year-old owner of Amazon.com, and this internet pioneer recently purchased one of the iconic old media newspapers — The Washington Post — for $250 million. It was no more than a few days after this announcement that I was talking to a non-profit board volunteer about fundraising when I was reminded of this famous Jeff Bazos quotation: “A company shouldn’t get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn’t last.”

Here is how the fundraising conversation with the board member went:

Board member: “Erik, I am so happy with our agency’s foray into online fundraising. I especially LOVE these ‘personal pages’ where I set-up my online page and email a link to everyone in my email address book.”
Erik: “Why do you like this new fundraising strategy so much?“
Board member: “For starters, it is so easy and doesn’t take much time. Who has time to do fundraising the way we used to do it? Chasing down friends — who also don’t have time — and ask them for money when they don’t really want to be asked.”
Erik: “Ummmm … well, hopefully there wasn’t a lot of ‘chasing’ and ‘forcing’ going on. Fundraising should be more about connecting people’s philanthropic wishes with opportunities. We’re not stalking people and stealing their money.“
Board member: “Well, I just hated sitting down with my friends. It was so uncomfortable. Now, with these new ‘personal pages,’ I don’t have to do that anymore.”
Erik: “Ummmm … that can’t be entirely true, right? I mean you should still be sitting down with large donors because it isn’t very respectful to ask donors of a certain size to simply ‘click and give,’ right?“
Board member: “I guess, but I’m not really focused on ‘those donors’. Staff can take care of those individuals.”
Erik: “How do you ask donors to consider making a specific sized contribution that is commensurate with their capacity and willingness to give to your agency?“
Board member: “I really don’t worry about that either. I just ask them to give whatever they feel like donating, and the contributions rolled in! I can’t believe it, but my response rate has been approximately 30%. Many people are giving $25 and $50. A few people even donated more than $100. The biggest contribution was $200. I just can’t believe it!“
Erik: “I have some concerns about taking the personal touch out of your organization’s resource development program. Hopefully, these personal pages are simply one small strategy focused on the very bottom rung or two of your range of gifts chart. Or is it your agency’s new ‘donor acquisition’ strategy… like direct mail?“
Board member: “Oh Erik … this is the future of fundraising!“

I’m not going to provide too much commentary in today’s post because I suspect you can read between the lines.

unintended consequences I am a huge proponent of using technology and integrating it into your non-profit organization’s fundraising program, but it shouldn’t be introduced in a way that undercuts the other best practices embedded in your resource development plan.

If your board members are ultra-reluctant fundraisers and you can’t introduce something like “personal pages” into your fundraising tool box without killing your annual campaign, then I suggest taking a pass on those opportunities for now. Timing is everything. Right?

Moreover, the Jeff Bezos quotation reminds us that shiny objects don’t remain shiny forever. So, what happens when those personal pages (or whatever the new online fundraising tool you’re using) become burdensome to volunteers and they resist using it?

My suggestion is that you fix the underlying problems and stop trying to deal with symptoms. If your volunteers are reluctant fundraisers, then help them overcome their fears or recruit additional board members who aren’t reluctant. Don’t just paper over their fears or blind them with shiny objects.

Please don’t misunderstand what I’m trying to say. I am not opposed to online giving. I am not against peer-to-peer web-based personal pages. I am concerned about misuse and unintended consequences.

Has your agency started using personal pages to support board volunteer’s peer-to-peer solicitation with their circle of influence? If so, what has been the result? Have individual board members raised more, less or about the same in year-to-year comparisons? Have you seen any ill effects of introducing a shiny new object into your fundraising tool box?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profit CEOs need to be themselves

August 16, 2013 erik Uncategorized

In a post simply titled “You,” John talks about how important it is that people try to be themselves and not other things to other people. Not only is it important, but it is courageous, stressful and scary.

John’s post got me thinking about those days when I was an executive director. Looking back, I now see that on most days I was not trying to be ME. I was trying to be the position, which when you think about it is a crazy thing.

Here are just a few of the things I remember:

My CEO friend Karen was a hard worker. She obviously worked long, tireless hours and was attentive to every last detail at her agency. I saw her successes and thought I could replicate it by working insanely hard.
My CEO friend Marc was one of the best fundraisers I ever met. His polish and ability to effortlessly build meaningful and lasting relationships with donors was the key to his success. I saw his successes and thought I could replicate it by being friendly, approachable and social with donors.
My CEO friend Gretchen was soooooo passionate about her mission. She would give selflessly of herself until there was nothing left to give if it meant helping a client. I saw her successes and thought I could replicate it by constantly talking to anyone who would listen about my organization and clients.
My CEO friend Fred was persistent. He believed there was nothing in this world that couldn’t be successfully accomplished as long as you kept at it. I saw his successes and thought I could replicate it by bringing that proverbial “can of elbow grease” to every board meeting, committee meeting, and project.

Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I believe coaching and mentoring are very important when it comes to success. I am so grateful to everyone who influenced the type of executive director I became. If you don’t have coaching or mentoring relationships, I suggest that you figure that out quickly.

be you2 However, John’s post gives me cause for pause. I wonder if I was so wrapped up in what a good non-profit CEO looked like that I forgot to look in the mirror and be myself.

Maybe not … maybe so. It doesn’t matter because it is all in the past, and I can’t change any of it even if I wanted to. And yet that isn’t the case for YOU if you are still working on the front line.

If you haven’t done so yet, click-through to John’s post, read it and reflect upon these simple questions:

Are you being you? How do you know you are being you? If you are holding back, what are you afraid of? What would be the consequences of letting the entire you shine through?

Not totally related to this post, but still important questions you should be asking:

Are you letting your organization consume you?
Are you giving more to the agency than you are to your family or to you?
Are you taking professional things way to personally?

If you’re answering YES to any of these last few questions, then perhaps you’re not being YOU. You might be trying to be your organization or your position. Maybe … maybe not. But it is worth thinking about don’t you think?

Here’s to your health!

What revenue model is your non-profit agency using?

August 15, 2013 erik Board development, Fundraising

source of funds More than a year ago, I stumbled upon a fun article published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Ten Nonprofit Funding Models“. It provided clarity for me around what I was seeing in the non-profit sector. So, I bookmarked it and re-read it from time-to-time. Recently, I’ve found myself talking to a number of different non-profit professionals and board volunteers about this article, which is usually a sure sign that I better blog about it.

As you know, there are many different types of organizations calling themselves members of the non-profit sector.

Churches
Universities
Hospitals
Arts organizations
Membership organizations (e.g. chamber of commerce, etc)
Human Services/Social Services

Each of these types of non-profit organizations look very different. Each board has different wrinkles, and their revenue models also take on a different complexion.

The SSIR article by William Landes Foster, Peter Kim, & Barbara Christiansen names and describes ten different funding models:

Heartfelt Connector
Beneficiary Builder
Member Motivator
Big Bettor
Public Provider
Policy Innovator
Beneficiary Broker
Resource Recycler
Market Maker
Local Nationalizer

Some of you are probably wondering what each of these models means. I encourage you to click-through to the SSIR article and read it for yourself. Those authors do a great job of breaking down each of the models.

What I’ve found myself talking to many non-profit professionals and board members about lately isn’t which revenue model they’re using. My conversations have been rooted in what the authors of this article say in their final few paragraphs:

“In the current economic climate it is tempting for nonprofit leaders to seek money wherever they can find it, causing some nonprofits to veer off course. That would be a mistake. During tough times it is more important than ever for nonprofit leaders to examine their funding strategy closely and to be disciplined about the way that they raise money. We hope that this article provides a framework for nonprofit leaders to do just that.”

In my opinion, it is so true that many non-profit organizations have sought money wherever they can find it, especially once they realized that the economy isn’t going to just snap back into place and we now find ourselves in a “New Normal”.

board of directors4 So, the conversations I’ve been referencing throughout this post have to do with board development and not the actual revenue models.

I believe that non-profit organizations build their boards around their revenue model. For example, if your agency is highly dependent on fees, then you probably haven’t recruited world-class fundraising volunteers to sit on your board. The same holds true for organizations with a government funding revenue model.

So, when you start tinkering with your revenue model (e.g. adding an event, pledge drive, direct mail, etc), I believe it creates tension in the boardroom for two reasons:

You’re asking people to do something that wasn’t part of the original deal.
You’re also asking people to do something they aren’t likely good at doing.

If you find yourself in the position of having to tweak your revenue model, I suggest the following:

Facilitate a conversation in the boardroom and build consensus around the idea of changing or tweaking your revenue model. Make sure all consequences are understood and appreciated.
Ask your board governance committee to complete a new gap assessment based upon some of the new roles you’re asking board members to take on.
Focus your board recruitment efforts on bringing in new board volunteers to help fill your newly identified gaps.
Allow current board members to step off the board gracefully and help them find a new seat on the bus where they can still participate in your mission.
If you need a blended board to make your blended revenue model work, then deliberately talk about roles and responsibilities in the board room to avoid misunderstandings between volunteers.

The New Normal may have thrown your organization a curveball, but it doesn’t mean you need to go through a dysfunctional transition. A little bit of thoughtfulness and board engagement can go a long way.

Did you click-through and read the Stanford Social Innovation Review article? If so, what were your thoughts? Which revenue model is your agency using? Do you find yourself tweaking your revenue model in an effort to adapt to The New Normal? How is your board handling the transition?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and observations in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What is wrong with the non-profit sector?

August 14, 2013 erik Fundraising

gdp I am sicker than a dog and my mind is foggy, which is why I couldn’t post yesterday. However, the thought of not posting two days in a row is inconceivable to me. So, I find myself sitting here staring at a blank screen wondering what I should type. Rather than wax poetic about a current event or best practice, I’m going to share with you a question that another blogger touched upon a few months ago. Ever since reading it, I just haven’t been able to get it out of my head. Are you ready? Because here it is:

Why is it that the non-profit sector hasn’t been able to gain any ground over the last forty years and remains at 2% of GDP?

I have a few guesses.

It could be the for-profit sector is very strong and its growth outpaces our sector, which in effect keeps us from gaining ground.
It could be how many new non-profit organizations register every year, and somehow we’re cannibalizing ourselves.
Perhaps, Americans are only generous to a point.

I really doubt all of these explanations. I blame these silly guesses on whatever ails me.

What I really think is happening is much more simple.

I believe non-profit organizations are bad at maintaining donor relationships.
The annual donor turnover rate is over 50%.
Most donors don’t make a second contribution after making their first one.
Very few people every make it past five consecutive contributions to any one charity.

The result is something like a hamster wheel effect for the average non-profit organization, and it has locked the sector into being just 2% of GDP.

OK … I’m going to run off to the doctor and get a throat culture. While I’m doing that what other reasons can you think of that might answer the question posed at the beginning of this post? Please scroll down and share your hypothesis in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!