organizational development – Page 12

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Help me understand the ways of the non-profit force!

December 7, 2012 erik organizational development

Welcome to O.D. Fridays at DonorDreams blog. Every Friday for the foreseeable future we will be looking more closely at a recent post 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 recent post, John talked said,”The practice of wei wu wei — action without action — is a fundamental tenet in Chinese thought, mostly emphasized by the Taoist school.” He talked about this organic approach to decision-making in a very personal way, but I couldn’t help extrapolating it to an organizational level and some of non-profit experiences.

If I had a nickel for every time I walked through an organization’s front door and saw everyone practicing wei wu wei, I would be a very rich man. Here are a few examples:

The agency’s revenue budget is overly dependent on one source of funding (e.g. government dollars), but no one is proactively doing anything to diversify their revenue streams.
The board volunteer in charge of the annual dinner is waiting for their fellow board volunteers to report back on the status of phone calls to prospective event sponsors, but everyone is procrastinating until the last-minute and looking around to see what others are doing.
The executive director is sitting around waiting for board members to engage in fundraising activities, but board volunteers are looking at their executive director and/or fellow board members to do something (e.g. lead, engage, communicate urgency, provide accountability, etc).

I love it when John’s blog posts jolt me from my desk chair and cause me to pace around my home office, which is exactly what this one did.

I am a proactive kind of guy. I have a BA and Masters degree in Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Every fiber of my being leads me to plan and push forward. So, sitting still and doing nothing is antithetical to who I am.

wi wei Moreover, whenever I see non-profit organizations and both staff and board leaders practicing this Taoist approach of “sitting still” and waiting for things to happen, I’ve often observed a train wreck shortly thereafter. However, I know that there are times when John is 100% right and this approach is warranted.

The wise non-profit leader knows when to plan, push forward and engage versus sit still and wait for the right situation to develop and change to occur.

Are you one of those wise non-profit leaders? If so, please use the comment box below to share an example of when taking a wait-n-see approach worked for you. Is it intuition that you use to know when to use an organic versus planned approach?

Oh Obi-Wan Kenobi . . . please help me understand the ways of the non-profit force.

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

Evaluating your non-profit board volunteer prospects’ social reach and network

December 6, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I was recently engaged in an engaging discussion about board development with a great group of non-profit board volunteers. The range of topics in that conversation spanned issues such as prospect identification, evaluation methods, prioritizing prospect lists, cultivating prospects, recruitment process, orientation, recognition, and evaluation. It was one of those conversations that a facilitator loves because everyone was engaged and actively participating. There was an energetic dynamic in the room, and then someone asked a really tough question:

“How do we evaluate the scope of someone’s social network?”

This question stems from the discussion on the importance of diversity in your boardroom. After talking about the obvious (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity), these discussions always turn to the more difficult subjects including how to assess a prospective board volunteer’s social network and social capital. Of course, this is important because you don’t want a boardroom full of people who all walk in the same social circles.

Moreover, this is important because:

Fundraising — The collective network in your boardroom is related to the reach of your fundraising program, its appeals and potential future donors.
Board Development — Birds of a feather flock together, and the collective network in your boardroom will give birth to future boards. Board replicate themselves all the time!
Group-think — People who are close and come from the same walks of life can sometimes think alike, which can greatly influence board governance and important decisions.

So, what is the answer to the aforementioned question pose by this obviously super smart board volunteer?

Well, it is complicated and simple all at the same time. Ugh!

For decades (and probably centuries), board development committees have answered this question the old fashion way. They sat down around a table and talked it over. Those committees who were successful had a diversity of people sitting around the table and were able to assess a prospect’s social network in an anecdotal manner. They talked about what they see and hear about the prospect. Here are just some of the things they most likely talked through:

Does the prospect sit on other non-profit boards?
What church does this prospect belong to? Are they active? Who else belongs to that church?
What other groups does this person belong to? (e.g. Rotary, Kiwanis, country club, chamber of commerce, local booster clubs, etc) Who else belongs to those groups?
What else do we see this person’s name attached to? (e.g annual reports, donor recognition walls, local newspaper articles, etc)
How does this prospect’s network, reach, and social capital compare to what is currently sitting around our boardroom table?

This is what “old school” board development assessment work looks like. It is highly effective. It has a track record of working. It is highly dependent on a diversity of people with a diversity of perspectives engaging in such a conversation.

Of course, our 21st Century mindset and perspectives leads us to question old approaches and investigate new tools and approaches, and there is nothing wrong with that.

So, I recently opened up my board development toolbox and re-examined some very traditional tools such as:

board matrix
sample prospective board member information sheet
board candidate rating form

In doing that simple review, it occurred to me that there isn’t much substance to those tools from the perspective of assessing someone’s social network, social reach and social capital. The matrix does ask the board development committee to assess “community connections,” and the information sheet also asks questions about your prospect’s affiliations and other non-profit board service. While these tools nibble around the edges, it wouldn’t be difficult to tweak these tools to more directly address the question posed by our board volunteer at the beginning of this blog post.

However, there are some “21st Century” tools that your board development committee might want to start using when talking through the issue of a prospect’s network. Consider the following:

Do a Google search on your prospective new board members during the evaluation phase of your process. Talk about the results of that search.
Look at their online social networks (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter). If no one around the table is connected to the prospect in that way, then: 1) that might tell you something in and of itself and 2) you might expand your reach and find someone on the board or among your network who is linked in such a way.
Use Guidestar to determine if they are associated with other non-profits in your community.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the “old school approach”. In fact, one simple way that you can tweak this traditional approach is by including your prospective future board volunteers in the process. Asking them to help you answer a few questions about their network and their reach. If done appropriately, it wouldn’t have to feel awkward.

How does your non-profit organization tackle the question posed at the beginning of this blog post as part of its board development process? Please use the comment box to share your best practices. We can all learn from each other and save time by not re-inventing the wheel. 😉

Here’s to your health!

Are some Executive Directors deliberately disengaging their non-profit board volunteers?

November 28, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I’ve been on a board governance and board development kick lately. One of the big thought-leaders in this area is Richard Chait, who is a Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and one of the authors of “Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards,” and I am a big fan of his work.

I recently came across a white paper published by Bader & Associates Governance Consultants in Potomac, MD. It is a simple to read two-page interview with Richard Chait about his book and the idea of generative conversations in the boardroom. I keep re-reading this white paper every few weeks, and it sparks a new thought every time I read it.

For example, I read the following passage this morning:

“Generative governance engages and challenges trustees intellectually. It’s what leaders do best. Yet most boards spend most of their time on fiduciary work, and they devote little time to the generative mode.”

In other words, boards are talking more about things like “can we afford that” and “where is the money coming from for that” and not talking about “are we being impacted by a larger trend and if so what should we do about it“.

When I read the aforementioned quote this morning, a wicked thought popped into my head, and I wondered if non-profit executive directors purposely keep their board volunteers focused on the “little picture” in an attempt to keep them out of the decision-making on the “big picture”?

I admit that this is a cynical thought, but I just wonder . . . Hmmmmmmm?

It is so hard to build consensus with 15 or 20 people sitting around a boardroom table. A good facilitator makes it look so easy, but it really is a gift. From what I see from many of my non-profit friends, they are hired for their fundraising and program/operations skills. I can honestly say that I’ve never worked with a search committee that said “facilitation skills” were a top skill set they were looking for in an executive director.

Is it possible that we have a dynamic where the executive director is trying to lead and it is too difficult to get the group to make big decisions on big issues; so they focus the group on tactical issues because it is easier (and important to the day-to-day functioning of the agency). When it comes time to make those big decisions, the executive director engages a few key board members who are of like mind and have influence with their peers and the decision gets made.

The net impact of this approach is widespread disengagement among board members.

OK, so here is the question this morning. Did I just wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and cynical thoughts are rampaging through my head. Or do you think this is likely happening in a number of non-profit organizations in your community? The better question might be “what needs to be done to fix this, and are Chait’s suggestions this right perscription?”

Please join me by taking a good hard look in the mirror this morning and share your assessment in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

Robert Frost’s cautionary words for your non-profit agency

November 23, 2012 erik organizational development, Planning

In a recent post, John deconstructed one of my favorite poems of all time — Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken”. While many of us read this popular poem and conclude that it is about self-actualization, John helps us see that this is far from the case when he says, “This is far from being about self-actualization and appreciating the immense satisfaction and reward of going our own way. It is about our propensity to rationalize.”

I’ve spent a lot time this morning combing through this post and all of the supporting links, and I buy into all of the analysis about “The Road Not Taken”. I can honestly say that I will never look at this poem in the same way. Additionally, there are all sorts of organizational development lessons to be learned for non-profit agencies embedded in this poem.

For example, the line in the poem that says “Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.” are big time words of warning about the cause-and-effect nature of the world and the effect of our actions carrying us away so that we don’t typically backtrack to the divergence of those same two paths.

Up to this point, I am buying into everything and there are a number of “AH-HA” moments going off in my head, until I read this . . .

“But here’s the real deal: We can’t possibly know which path is our path before we choose it.”

I have to laugh at myself sometimes because I have wrestled with these words for an hour now. I’ve paced my living room and consumed two cups of coffee trying to process exactly what John is getting at. I struggle with this because I am a planner. I have two degrees in planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I have facilitated countless numbers of plans for non-profit organizations including strategic plans, resource development plans, board development plans, marketing plans, business plans, annual campaign plans, etc etc etc.

I believe “planning” is akin to creating a map for your agency, which means that as you approach those two roads that diverge in a yellow wood you have a map in your hands, you have considered a number of facts, and you’re prepared to make a choice that makes sense for your organization.

So, for the last hour I’ve struggled with John’s words because it feels like an indictment of planning. However, I can feel it in my bones that he isn’t saying that your organization shouldn’t invest time in planning efforts.

Since planning is an engagement activity (e.g. not something a non-profit professional should do in the silence of their office), there is a lot of value in it. Yet, you can have the best plan (aka road map) in the world and you may even know far in advance which of the two roads your agency will take, but you can’t and won’t know if the path you choose is the right path until you actually start walking down it.

Now that is a terrifying revelation for someone like me. LOL Why? Because planning is how I deal with an uncertain and scary future. Planning activities bring me peace of mind because it allows me to bring the uncertain future into the present, and it gives me the a false sense of security that I can exert some control over uncertainty.

Apparently, the Nile (read de-nial) is more than just a river in Egypt.

Did you see that big flash a moment ago? If so, then you probably recognize it as the final “AH-HA” moment and light bulb going off over my head.

Please don’t misunderstand me. As I circle back around to Robert Frost’s poem, I don’t see any mention of the traveler NOT having a map. I still feel strongly that any agency that chooses to do business in today’s rough-and-tumble business world without a plan is doomed to wander the woods lost and will likely starve to death.

So, there are a few different sets of cautionary words that emerge from today’s post:

The cause-and-effect nature of our world has a tendency to sweep us away so that we seldom end up backtracking and approaching the same fork in the road again. One decision begets another decision, we get carried away, and oftentimes look back with regret and unable to unwind a series of decisions. So, be thoughtful and intentional
The woods are confusing and a map (e.g. plan) is necessary so that you can improve your chances of making a good decision as your approach the fork in the road; however, you will never know if you are making the right choice until you choose it.
Don’t let the fact that you have a plan fool you into making blind decisions or prevent you from questioning your decisions along the way.

Well, this “O.D. Friday” certainly involved a lot of deep thinking. I blame last night’s Thanksgiving turkey meal. 😉

What do you think about all of this? Has your agency ever had a plan/roadmap, used it to make a difficult choice, and then regretted making that choice? If so, what happened? Since hindsight is 20/20, would you please help others benefit from your experiences and wisdom? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Paralyzed by equally bad decisions? Then bankruptcy it is!

November 16, 2012 erik organizational development

In a recent post, John appealed to his creative muse to write about a 14th century French philosopher named Buridan by writing a story about Buridan’s ass (if you want to know, then you need to go read the post). In a nutshell, this philosopher believed “in the face of equally good alternatives, he believed a rational choice could not be made“.

This got my nonprofit wheels spinning, and I wondered if the opposite is also true. In other words, in the face of equally BAD alternatives is it impossible to make a rational choice.

Hmmmm?

I don’t know about you, but since the economic downturn began almost five years ago I’ve seen a lot of non-profits prove this point.

Two equally bad alternatives:

Apply for more government contracts in spite of slow payment and what seems to likely to be future cuts and claw-backs due to a poor tax revenue situation all in the name of keeping the agency’s doors open; OR
Cancel some government contracts because they don’t come close to covering costs, which means a loss of some (albeit small) revenue that helped cover administrative overhead resulting in downsizing and re-organization. Of course, there is usually a plan to shift resource development efforts and invest more in private sector fundraising, but the re-org and downsizing destroys public confidence in your agency and these plans likely fall short.

Ugh! Which equally bad option should we choose? Of course, board volunteers drag their feet and don’t make a decision because who wants to be known in the community for slashing services or downsizing a “do-gooder” non-profit organization?

Besides, the board members sitting around the table weren’t recruited for their fundraising skills because when they were recruited the government funding situation was good and there was no need to focus recruitment efforts on finding “lean-mean-fundraising-machines”. So, they are probably very reluctant fundraising solicitors and very resistant to this idea.

Staff members aren’t much better as they reach for their rosary and convince themselves that “hope” is a strategy.

Do you think that I am talking about your agency or some other organization in your town? Let me assure you that the agency I have in mind is none other than Jane Addams Hull House. The Chronicle of Philanthropy wrote a great story about this tragedy back in February, and I think they help me prove that the opposite of Buridan’s philosophy is also true.

The scary thing about this example is that I can name a number of other non-profits who appear to be going down this same road.

Regardless, if you wait too long to make a decision, then everything caves in and you’re out of business.

Interestingly, I came across an old New York Times article that examined the emerging trend of non-profit organizations using bankruptcy laws to shield themselves from this phenomenon. The newspaper did a nice job of explaining an agency’s two options:

“Under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code, charities can get relief from creditors, obtain emergency financing, renegotiate leases and draw up a reorganization plan to let them emerge as financially viable. Some charities, however, have resorted to Chapter 7 of the code, under which organizations liquidate. The American Musical Theater of San Jose, Calif., for instance, took that route.”

My gut feeling tells me this will become a bigger and bigger trend as more and more non-profit boards experience difficulty in making a choice between two very bad decisions (whatever those decisions may be). Hopefully, they don’t end up like Buridan’s ass in John’s blog post . . . DEAD.

Has your non-profit organization ever been faced with the choice of two bad decisions? How did you work through it and avoid indecision? Have you ever seen a non-profit organization in your community file for bankruptcy? If so, how did that turn out for them? Did they survive? How did they restore donor confidence? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts.

Here’s to your health!

How do you deal with your inner “Non-Profit Possibility Girl”?

November 9, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

In a recent post (a very short but powerful post), John talked about “Possibility Girl” and the paralysis that comes with expectations, especially expectations that are very visible.

As I read John’s post, a number of non-profit questions formed in my mind:

I wonder how many non-profit boards (collectively) feel the same way as Possibility Girl?
I wonder how many board volunteers (individually) feel the same way as Possibility Girl?
I wonder how many non-profit executive directors feel the same way as Possibility Girl?
I wonder how many non-profit fundraising professionals feel the same way as Possibility Girl?
I wonder how many donors (individuals as well as organizations like foundations) feel the same way as Possibility Girl?

As you can see, John got inside my head this morning. LOL

Once I got past these questions, it became very clear to me that the bigger question that needs to be asked is:

“What can/should a non-profit executive director do with their board volunteers , staff and donors to help them get beyond this paralyzing ‘Possibility Girl effect’?”

I used to struggle with this question when I was an executive director (not that I had framed it in quite the same way prior to reading John’s blog post). With that disclaimer in mind, I will share with you a few things I think worked for me:

I liked to clearly set expectations well in advance. I used written volunteer job descriptions during the recruitment process, and I used a management by objectives system when it came to staff performance management plans. I really think clarity and transparency “right-size” expectations and put Possibility Girl in perspective.
I tried to celebrate and recognize big and small accomplishments. I really think celebration and recognition shrink the doubts that people have in their heads, and it provides proof that you aren’t “fake” or “bluffing your way through something“. Success breeds success and builds confidence.
I tried to integrate a sense of mission-focus into everything. I think this approach helps because it serves as a reminder that none of this was about me. It is about something bigger. This approach always allowed me to compartmentalize personal feelings, put them in their right place, and focus on the bigger things. It was a crutch that helped me and the groups of people I supported to “push past periodic feelings of inadequacy“.

Enough about me. What about you? How do you personally deal with you inner “Non-Profit Possibility Girl“? How have you helped your board, fundraising committee, and staff deal with her? I would love to hear a few tips from your corner of the non-profit world! We can all learn from each other and Fridays are great days to invest a minute or two in such an activity. Please use the comment box below to share.

Here’s to your health!

Work hard. Work faster. Non-profit competition!

November 2, 2012 erik organizational development

In a recent post, John talked about increased competition and the “always-on, always-connected” escalating and fast pace pitch of the business world. He points to globalization as one reason for this phenomenon and concludes that it is a losing battle to fight. The only way forward is to adapt and RUN harder! I think the story from Thomas Friedman with which he starts his post really sums everything up nicely.

In non-profit terms, competition is an interesting topic to explore. If you pull a focus group of non-profit executive directors together and ask about competition, I know that the surface comments would all be about collaboration and sharing. However, having been part of conversations like these, I also know that when you go deeper into this conversation things change and you start to hear things like:

“That is MY donor.”
“They are trying to poach MY staff.”
“They are trying to recruit MY board member.”

Whenever I hear language like this from my peers, I have a tendency to roll my eyes and want to get on my bully pulpit and preach about how none of us can “own” a donor, volunteer, or staff person. However, I need to avoid do this because Thomas Friedman and John Greco would probably say that those are natural human reactions within the context of a competitive capitalist marketplace.

While it is this instinct that will probably save your non-profit agency, my gut feeling tells me that focusing on “the people” (e.g. donor, volunteer, staff, etc) is the wrong place to focus. If you want to keep all of these people engaged in your agency’s mission, then focus on the core reason these individuals decided to give you money as well as work and volunteer for you — they believe in what you do!

When each of these groups of people decide to get involved with your agency, they do so because they are drawn to your mission. So, if you don’t do a good job in measuring and demonstrating your impact, then your shiny allure will likely tarnish and thanks to the phenomenon of “competition” they will be drawn to another agency and another cause.

If your non-profit wants to compete in the 21st Century for limited resources, then you need to figure out what the United Way has been saying for more than a decade. You need to demonstrate your community impact.

Of course, this is easier said that done. Measuring your agency’s “real” impact requires resources, focus, attention to detail and development of new tools and processes. Combine these requirements with the “under-resourced” nature of the non-profit sector and we circle back around to John Greco’s blog post “Running (for your life)“. I really think that John’s conclusions apply to our challenges when it comes to measuring impact:

We need to accept this and stop fighting. The reality is that “our cheese has moved” and donors have stopped giving money just because they like us and what we try to do with our clients. Donors now focus on results and so should we. In the final analysis, our clients deserve it.
“Learning” is a survival skill.
The early bird gets the worm. Start doing something NOW. You run the risk of “paralysis by analysis” if you think too hard about something like this. You will get farther with a “trial by fire” mentality.

If you are looking for resources on measuring impact, click here to check out a presentation that I found online. It is kind of interesting, especially when you get to the balanced scorecard and dashboard information. The AARP example caused me to rethink a few things.

If you are looking for a new book to read on the subject of non-profit competition, David LaPiana’s book titled “Play To Win” looks really interesting. I might just make this my next reading project. Click here to read an article from The Foundation Center from the authors of this book.

Do you find yourself running harder and fast? How are you maintaining your work-life balance? Are you reconsidering how you’ve done things in the past and re-engineering work processes and systems? Are you making tough choices with your chart of work and your employees’ chart of work? When it comes to non-profit competition, what are your thoughts about focusing on measuring impact? Am on-point or off-base?

Please use the comment box below to weigh-in on these issues. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Can you pass the board roles and responsibilities test?

October 31, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development

Every once in a while, I get hired by an organization to help clarify board-staff roles and responsibilities. I just love jobs like this because it allows me to re-visit fun board development content. It also allows me to brush up on elementary concepts that somehow seem to get lost in the inner caverns of my brain.

One of the tools I used last week was an exercise that I dug out of my former internal consultant toolbox from when I worked at Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA). It was titled “Who Does What?” It asks participants to evaluate 10 different statements and determine if it is a primary responsibility of the board, staff or both.

I would love the share the exercise with you here, but the footnotes indicate that the exercise is copyrighted material by both BGCA and BoardSource. So, in an effort to be compliant with our society’s rules, I’ve reworded some of the statements and turned it from a “fill-in the blank” exercise to a true-false exercise.

Please take a stab and answering some of the following questions about non-profit board-staff roles and responsibilities (don’t worry, no one can see how you individually answer):

[polldaddy poll=6652026]
[polldaddy poll=6652035]
[polldaddy poll=6652041]

I will share the answers with you in tomorrow’s blog post. Additionally, I’ll introduce a similar board-staff roles &responsibilities quiz specifically focused on resource development tomorrow. So, please stay tuned.

I really love using tools like these with organizations, and I especially like doing it with tenured board members who think they know this material cold, because it is a good reminder that:

roles and responsibilities can have blurry edges, and
it is easy for a board to find itself “out of alignment” (like an automobile) over the course of time as a result of turnover and adding new volunteers to the board

If you are a Boys & Girls Club affiliate, you can find the entire “Who Does What” tool in the “board development” section of your intranet under the “Tools & Resources” link of the Board Resource Center. If you aren’t a Boys & Girls Club, you can go to the BoardSource website and find a document in the Knowledge Center titled “What are the basic responsibilities of nonprofit boards?” and turn it into a pop quiz tool that you can use with your current and incoming board members.

How do you keep your non-profit board from becoming “unaligned” when it comes to clarity around board-staff roles & responsibilities? Do you use certain tools (e.g. an annual board re-commitment pledge, etc)? Can you share those ideas and tools with your fellow readers? Are there particular strategies that you use (e.g. using the annual meeting or board retreat to revisit these ideas, etc)?

Please scroll down to the comment section and share your thoughts, tools, and approaches with your fellow non-profit professionals. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Does your non-profit agency pass “The Marshmallow Test”?

October 26, 2012 erik Board development, Fundraising, leadership, organizational development, Planning

In a recent post, John talked about something called The Marshmallow Test, which is a real life academic study related to impulse control. You probably know this by other names and expressions such as “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush“.

John poses the question, “What happens when the environment is perceived to shift a bit?” Both he and the academic study conclude, “The promise of a second marshmallow holds no sway, if the promise is perceived as unreliable.”

So, I thought I’d ask a very simple question on this Friday morning . . . Does your non-profit agency pass “The Marshmallow Test”?

Confused? Let me give you a few examples to get you started:

If your organization doesn’t invest in and value professional development (e.g. very little training, no professional development plans embedded in performance management plans, few promotion opportunities, etc), then how does that impact your employees’ behavior in the workplace? Do they still strive for improvement or do they settle into the status quo?
If your organization doesn’t measure the impact of its programming, then how does that impact donor behavior? Does it influence how your fundraising professionals do their jobs?
If your organization doesn’t value the importance of planning and fails to involve board volunteers in strategic planning, then will that have a “disengaging” effect on board members? Does it impact what they’re willing to do on behalf of your mission?

Yes, today was intentionally a short post because John’s Marshmallow Test post really said it all, and I wanted to provoke you to think about your specific non-profit agency rather than share a fun non-profit story from my past.

So, have you given this question any thought? Does your agency pass the test? On what level were you considering this question (e.g. operations, human resources, resource development, etc)? Is your organizational structure designed to engage employees, volunteers and donors and result in them having some impulse control?

Please scroll down and use the comment box to share your answer. If you still don’t have an answer, please weigh-in on any thoughts this might have spurred. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Do I know you? And why are you asking me to join your group?

October 25, 2012 erik Board development, Fundraising, organizational development, volunteers

I am constantly amazed at how careless some non-profit organizations are with their volunteer recruitment efforts. Correct me if I am wrong, but building the right board, advisory group, or fundraising committee with the right people is at or near the top of every smart nonprofit professional’s task list. Right? Well, if this true, then can someone explain to me why I’m getting random emails and Linkedin requests from people I don’t know asking me to join something?

The following are a few excerpts from one recent email (names have been changed to protect the innocent):

“We are now accepting applications for the Associates Board. The Associates Board will provide young professionals with the opportunity to get involved in event planning, fundraising, social media, and recruiting . . .

To apply, please review the commitment, roles, and responsibilities, and our application procedures by clicking here.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact XXX XXXXXXXXX, our Associates Board President, at XXX@XXXXXXXXX.org.

Please feel free to forward this email onto any young professional who you think may be interested!”

There are so many things that concern me about an email like this. Here are just a few:

They don’t know me. They don’t know my skill sets. They don’t know if I would be a great fit for this volunteer opportunity.
They don’t have the time to review important things like roles and responsibilities with me? They made this a self guided activity.
So, they want me to think that I’m important enough to join their Associates Board, but I’m not important enough to call?
They’re giving me permission to forward their invitation to anyone? I now fear who else could be sitting around this table talking about issues such as “event planning, fundraising, social media, and recruiting”.

Here is another random request I received from someone I don’t know via LinkedIn (again, I changed the names to protect the innocent):

“Hey Erik,

Would like to have you as a member of the XXXXX National Fundraising Advisory Committee, what day and time can we discuss? Please check out our website at www.abcdefg.net for more information, I look forward to speaking with you!”

I must admit that I’ve sent out “messages in a bottle” like this, but I have never been so presumptuous as to ask someone I don’t know to do anything other than please take a phone call from me.

Have you ever had the pleasure of sitting on a board or committee with a group of very caring people who don’t have a clue as to how to do what they are being asked to do? If you have been spared this experience, I sincerely hope you never get the opportunity because it is frustrating.

I believe that non-profit professionals need to construct volunteer groups (e.g. boards, committees, etc) in much they same way they hire staff.

Put some thought in what skills the people around the table will need to accomplish what you’re asking of them.
Approach people who you believe possess such skills.
Be clear about expectations upfront in order to avoid misunderstandings. Share written volunteer job descriptions, roles & responsibilities documents, and written plans with volunteers before asking them to join.

Recruiting random people to do work for your organization is irresponsible. It can set people up for failure. It can also create horrible group dynamics and poor results.

If this blog post is not resonating with you, then let’s agree to do this. I will go to a very public place and ask for random volunteers to attend your annual campaign kickoff meeting with me. You will entrust us with pledge cards and some personal information about your donors. Let’s see how well this works out for you and your campaign, and we can talk about it at your post-campaign critique meeting.

We’ve all made mistakes in recruiting volunteers, and we can all learn from each other’s mistakes. Without embarrassing yourself or anyone else, please use the comment box to share a few lessons learned and explain what you’re now doing differently.

Here’s to your health!