organizational development – Page 17

Work-Life Balance for non-profit professionals? Ask a donor for help.

May 11, 2012 DonorDreams Donor-centered fundraising, leadership, 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.

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled “At Peace“. In that post, he talks about two different pictures and uses those images to illustrate the point that there is a difference between “at peace” and “getting some peace”.

After reading this post, I couldn’t get my mind off of the idea of work-life balance. This topic of conversation comes up all the time when I’m talking to non-profit professionals. As I previously blogged about in a post titled “Kissing While Driving for Non-Profit Agencies,” non-profit organizations are typically under-resourced. As a result, almost all nof the on-profit professional who I know wear multiple hats, lack balance in their life, and appear to be on the brink of “going postal”.

At Peace? Definitely NOT!

Over the last 15 years, I’ve battled with the ideas that John eloquently lays out in his blog post. The following are just a few things that I’ve tried:

Attending time management trainings (e.g. FranklinCovey, David Allen’s Getting Things Done, etc)
Using various time management tools ranging from FranklinCovey to Microsoft Outlook. I’m now a Android smart phone junkie, who is utterly lost in life when my device isn’t within reach.
Going on vacation
Quiting my job and opening The Healthy Non-Profit LLC

In hindsight, John is so right . . . I was “getting some peace” in most of those instances. So, what can non-profit professionals do to be “At Peace“????

I like John’s suggestion that re-evaluating and adjusting our expectations about what “peace” really means. In his post, he talks about the picture of a violent waterfall, jagged mountains and an angry sky being a picture of “peace”. Maybe accepting this idea rather than fighting against it is more than half the battle.

I also like John’s challenge at the end of his post where he asks the following question:

“Perhaps, when leaders disrupt our peace when making organizational changes, they should orchestrate efforts to enable us to adapt and change?”

As I contemplate this question, I struggle with what those efforts might look like.

So, I have a suggestion for all of you who find yourself struggling with the same question:

Open your donor database.
Run a report showing your agency’s top 50 lifetime donors.
Scan the list in search of a donor who owns their own business, has gone through some change initiatives in the last few years, and appears to be busy and yet peaceful.
Pick-up the phone and call that donor.
Invite them out to share a cup of coffee.
Tell them about John’s blog post topic.
Ask them to share their secrets to success with regards to being “at peace”.
Ask them what efforts they orchestrated at work to help their employees adapt and change and in effect putting their workplace “at peace”.

Not only will you most likely get some great advice, but this conversation will have a “stewardship effect” for that donor. It will deepen a relationship with someone who is already important to your organization.

I like this suggestion mostly because it reminds me of the fact that donors are not just ATMs that produce cash every time we ask for it. Donors are friends and part of our non-profit family. We can put this principle in action by asking them to donate their knowledge and experiences in addition to their financial contributions. In doing so, the relationship gets stronger and grows.

Do you struggle with work-life balance issues at your non-profit organization? What have you personally done to try to achieve balance? What has your agency done to help facilitate this idea of being “at peace”? Have you ever engaged donors in questions like this? How did it work out for you?

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

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

Want to change your non-profit organization? Then change your people!

May 4, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, organizational development, Planning, volunteers

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled “Burn the Boats“. In that post, he talks about two different theories of change. One school of thought advocates that changing behaviors drives organizational change. The other school of thought speaks to the idea of changing the environment / structures to affect organizational change. I just love the story John shared in the beginning of his blog post by Napoleon Hill. If you have a little time today, I strongly encourage you to click-through and read Burn the Boats.

I see non-profit organizations struggle with this ALL THE TIME. One classic example that I’ve witnessed (and have seen over and over again) is how many agencies develop a resource development plan and then go about trying to implement it.

One example that bubbles to the top of my mind is an agency that was heavily dependent on a special events strategy to raise money. They were running a special event fundraiser every other month. After completing a resource development planning process, they came to see how damaging those activities were. They decided to cut the number of events in half and pivot strongly to an individual giving strategy focused heavily on person-to-person solicitation tactics.

One big challenge was that the agency’s staff were all event minded people. They were hired because of their skill sets and experiences in planning, implementing and evaluating fundraising events. Another big hurdle was that their board of directors and fundraising volunteers were all events people, too.

To John’s point in his post “Burn the Boats,” the organization tried to persevere with its people. It asked for technical assistance from its national office. Of course, they invested in training opportunities.

In the end . . . Do I really need to finish this sentence???

I’m with John . . . BURN THE BOATS!!!!

Jim Collins in his book “From Good To Great” talks about getting the right people on the bus and then finding the right seat for them. In situations like the one I just described, I think there are ways to have polite conversations with volunteers about finding a new seat for them on the bus when the environment on the bus starts changing.

As for staff, there are two options if you’re going to “Burn the Boats”. You either gracefully terminate staff (providing severance packages, etc) or you hire more staff with the skill sets you need to implement the new plan (and find new things for the old staff to do).

I suppose there are other less harsh ways to still “burn the boats”. For example, you can ask your biggest annual campaign donor to change their annual support from an outright contribution to a challenge gift. However, this still doesn’t change the fact that there are people being asked to do something they don’t have experience or well-developed skills to do.

I respect that this is a tough post with which to start your weekend. Sorry! Do you think John and I are being too harsh? Are there better ways to go about affecting change? Do you have any examples of change at your organization that you’d like to share? Please take a moment to weigh-in using the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profits under fire: Measure this! Measure that!

April 27, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, leadership, organizational development

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled “How Much Do I Love Thee?“. In that post, he talks about the recent obsession in the workplace to measure EVERYTHING (e.g. SMART goals, Management by Objectives, etc) and pushes back on the idea that everything must be quantifiable. He starts his post with the following quotation from Albert Einstein:

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Every non-profit professional in the world knows that our sector is under extreme pressure to conform to the trends that John references in his blog post. Here are just a few examples:

measuring community impact,
program outcomes measurement,
employee performance (e.g. management by objective), and
measuring donor loyalty.

Neither John nor I (or Einstein) are saying that we must fight this trend; however, there are things that are not measurable that must be considered and brought in the equation.

More concerning to me is the impact that this trend seemingly has on fundraising practices. Specifically, I’ve heard more and more fundraising professionals talking about program outcomes and how it can be used to demonstrate “return on investment”.

Speaking as a donor, I love hearing that my local Boys & Girls Club’s homework assistance program resulted in 75% of kids either maintaining or improving their grades. However, I really want to hear the personal stories about little Jack and Jane; Jose and Irma; or LaShaunda and Xavier. There is something inspirational in those stories. More importantly, it helps me understand the impact of that program.

I think the Center of NonProfit Excellence stated it best in their marketing for a 2010 training titled “Narrative Philanthropy: Stories that Result in Gifts”:

“But the pendulum may have swung as far as it can in the direction of statistics and outcomes. Accountability is crucial, but cannot account for the fact of why people give. What explains the emotional impulse to give? Stories. One good story is worth at least 10,000 measurable outcomes.”

If you get a chance, I encourage you to click here and read more about Jim Grote and his ideas around Narrative Philanthropy.

I also like what Norma Cameron said a few weeks ago in her blog post titled “The Power of Legacy Stories: A Daughter’s Love“. You should check out an awesome template that Norma created to gather legacy stories from your donors. A link to this tool is embedded in her blog post.

Circling back to John’s blog post — “How Much Do I Love Thee?” — he drives home his point by posing a simple question: “How much do you love your spouse?” Of course, there is no way to answer this question in a quantifiable manner.

The same holds true for the non-profit version of this same question:

How much do your donors love your organization?

While you may be able to look at your donor database LYBUNT reports and review the results from a recent donor survey, I suspect none of this data will ever truly answer the critical question that I just posed. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that you stop trying to answer the question.

So, what should donor-centered fundraising professionals do???

I suggest picking up your phone, calling that donor, and inviting them out for a cup of coffee or lunch. When you are sitting across the table from them, do what Jim Grote suggests . . . tell them stories (and pepper in a little outcomes and impact data). Make them smile. Make them feel good about their last donation. Once you get to this point, you may want to take Norma Cameron’s suggestion and ask the donor about collaborating on the creation of their “legacy story”.

Yes, I know how busy many of you are. I am not suggesting this approach with all of your donors or the folks who buy raffle tickets to support your mission. Surely, you know who your most important donors are. Right? For small organizations, this might be a great project for your Top 5, 10, or 25 donors. For large organizations, the sky is the limit. This might even be a great cultivation/stewardship project in which fundraising volunteers can be trained and included.

I suspect this is can be woven into all organization’s Major Gifts and Planned Giving programs.

Where is your organization at with all this “measurement” stuff? What are you doing to adjust to the trend and ensure that you’re not over compensating? Are you having success aligning with United Way’s “Community Impact” model? Do you employ any of Jim Grote’s or Norma Cameron’s Narrative Philanthropy suggestions in your resource development program? Please scroll down and use the comment box to share a little bit of your experiences. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Stop hating on the donor because its not their fault that you’re broke

April 20, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, organizational development

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled “My Other Two Dogs“. In this post, he shares an old Native American story about two dogs as it is told by Harold Kushner in his book Living a Life That Matters. It is a great story about how every day most of us struggle to maintain a balance between good and bad.

While John’s post is complex and can easily take you in many different directions, I immediately started thinking about donors. You know . . . those generous people who write checks to your non-profit organization because they believe you’re going to change the world.

I have seen this tendency to blame the donor for our woes. It doesn’t happen all of the time. It typically happens during our darkest hour when a fundraising campaign is falling short of its goal or our agency’s annual budget is projected to slip into deficit.

I’ve seen it often enough to know that this behavior is not atypical. If you’re still trying to get your arms around what I’m talking about, here are a few examples:

“If all of our donors just sacrificed a little harder and donated what it likely spend on Starbucks coffee every week, then our agency would have more than enough funding to do everything that needs to be done!”
“If every person who lives in our community would just give us $5 per year, then . . .”
“Oh yeah, sure . . . who does that guy think he is blaming the economy and the housing market for his inability to donate $50 to the annual campaign. It isn’t an inability, it is an unwillingness. Geez, it’s just fifty bucks!”

I can go on and on with examples of where we blame the donor for our woes, but I think you get the idea.

I need to also confess that one of those examples came right out of my mouth yesterday. Yes, I am a bit embarrassed because I like to think that I am a bigger person than that and a more savvy fundraising professional. However, this realization simply confirms for me that John is right on target in his post “My Other Two Dogs“.

ALL OF US (or at least most of us) are faced with this struggle for balance every single day of our lives. It manifests itself in our personal relationships, and it is likely present throughout the work day. We must work at maintaining balance because it will not naturally occur. If you’re not vigilant, then you run the risk of slipping. In the case of fundraising, you run the risk of saying something in front of a donor, board member or volunteer that could have lasting repercussions.

If your non-profit organization is struggling with fundraising, you need to look internally. The following are a few questions I suggest you ask yourself:

What does your written case for support look and sound like? Does it convincingly “make the case” for donors to write a check or can it use some tweaking?
How do your fundraising volunteers use your agency’s written case statement? Are they using it? Or does there need to be more training provided?
Do you and your fundraising volunteers look and sound like they’re having FUN while soliciting for a special event or pledge drive? Or is the energy level down and do people sound like they can’t wait for it to be done and over?
Structurally speaking . . . what tactics are you using to inject a sense of “mission-focus” into your fundraising efforts?

As John suggests in his blog post, we need to keep “feeding” the good dog so that the “bad dog” doesn’t win. I hope some of these suggestions provide you with some “food”.

Have you ever found yourself channeling that bad dog? How do you guard against it? What do you feed that good dog to remain focused on all of the right things associated with your resource development program? Please scroll down and share a few of your tips and tricks in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Who should be “driving the bus” at your non-profit agency?

April 19, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, leadership, organizational development, Planning

In my travels, I’ve seen hundreds of non-profit organizations, and I must admit that they come in all sorts of different sizes and shapes . . . Big ones, little ones, short ones, tall ones, skinny ones, fat ones . . . you get the picture.

However, one question has haunted me for as long as I’ve worked in the non-profit sector and it is the title of this morning’s blog post:

“Who is responsible for driving the bus?”

Yes, I’ve heard all of the “best practices” and expert advice. I’ve sat through too many training events. Heck . . . I’ve even been the trainer for a number of those training events and sounded very much like the expert on this subject.

However, this question still haunts me because I see everyone answering it differently.

For example, staff are obviously responsible for day-to-day operations, but who gets to decide:

Which programs get run?
What impact and program outcomes get measured?
What new BIG grants (that might require new programming and new things to be measured) should be written?

I suspect that many of you have answers for these questions. I also suspect that there are many different answers. Some of you might see this as a question of “micro-management” and others of you might see “policy implications” all over the place.

Many moons ago, when I worked at my local Boys & Girls Club, I was presented with an opportunity to apply for a very large state grant. Many of you have probably heard of 21st Century Community Learning Center grants (this opportunity is part of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation). When I was presented with this opportunity, these were some of the facts I was facing:

The grant (if received) would increase the agency’s budget by more than 25 percent,
We would need to open a new site by asking a local school to share some of their space with us after-school (aka new collaboration with memorandum of understanding spelling out responsibilities of all parties)
The grant would result in hiring more staff (e.g. increasing overall staff size by 25 to 50 percent) and serving more kids (expanding membership by approximately 25 percent)
The type of staff we were accustom to hiring would change because the school district obvious wanted us to hire their teachers (and pay them the after-school stipend rate negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement)
The grant would require some different programming and outcome measurements.
The grant also required that some serious thought be put into “sustainability planning”. How would we continue serving those kids after the five-year grant expired. How would we fund it? Where would we provide service?

I was in favor of applying for this grant. It was a game changer for the organization. However . . . how much authority did I have as the executive director to make this decision. Sure, at first blush, the question was simple . . . “Apply for this one grant? Or don’t apply?” . . . but one question leads to another and then another.

So, what parts of this decision belong to the board of directors and what parts belong to staff? AND what parts needed to be shared between board and staff? AND what happens if there wasn’t agreement?

In the end, I engaged the Program Committee and came to the table with my “case for change”. We talked about it, agreed on all fronts and made the recommendation to the board of directors. The grant was written. We were selected to receive funds. We signed the contract with the state board of education. And the rest, as they say, is history.

That was easy . . . Right? NOPE! Because I see everyone making similar decisions in very different ways. Why? Because it isn’t easy and every non-profit organization has a different culture with different levels of organization capacity.

Is there a RIGHT answer to this question? I think so.

I believe there are A LOT of policy questions wrapped up in aforementioned example, and all policy issues clearly belong to the board of directors. Additionally, I see grants the same way I see “contracts,” and every non-profit bylaws document that I’ve ever looked at has clearly stated that entering into a contract is the responsibility of the board.

So, why do I see so many non-profit and fundraising professionals working alone on identifying grant writing opportunities, writing the grant proposals and committing the agency to the terms of the grant agreement (or asking their board after-the-fact to rubber stamp the grant agreement)?

Why do staff let this happen? Is it because we really don’t want the headache of having to build consensus? Or is it because of time constraints? Why do boards let this happen? Is it because they don’t know what the right answer is and in the end would rely on staff to inform their opinion? Or is it that they don’t understand their roles & responsibilities as board members? Or is it simply lack of time? And regardless of how you answer these questions, does it really change the fact that there is a “right answer” to the big picture question and our responses to these smaller questions really just amount to nothing more than rationalization and justification for doing something we know is wrong?

Today’s post really does raise some serious governance issues that most non-profits of all sizes and shapes struggle with on a daily basis. Please scroll down and use the comment box to share your thoughts as well as examples of how your agency has dealt with this issue. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Want to improve your annual campaign pledge drive? Look at “structure” first!

April 13, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, leadership, organizational development

Today we’re focusing on a post that John titled “Fighting the Physics“. In this post, he shares a story about how a paper airplane cannot perform any better in spite of providing the owner more training, encouragement and financial incentive. It isn’t until the actual paper airplane is “structurally re-designed” that performance is improved. He uses this analogy to illustrate how some of us are unrealistic in our expectations when it comes to employee performance and productivity.

When I read John’s post, it made me think of all the non-profit organizations I’ve worked with in the last five years. In many of those engagements, it was my job to either help them:

plan-implement-evaluate a new annual campaign pledge drive, or
improve an existing campaign.

I cannot tell you how many of those engagements sounded EXACTLY like John’s blog post about the paper airplane. Looking back I suspect that I was “Fighting the Physics” more often than not. Too much training and not enough work around structure. <<Sigh>> Hindsight is always 20/20.

So, if your annual campaign is not producing the way you hoped it would, the moral of John’s story is to first look at “structure” before you jump to the conclusion that more training, encouragement or incentives are needed. The following is a short checklist of structural questions you may want to ask yourself:

How are you recruiting your volunteers? What tools are you using? Are they effectively setting expectations and providing clarity for volunteers?
How are you maintaining a sense of “mission-focus” throughout your campaign and helping volunteers focus on the real reason they are asking their friends for money? What tools and strategies are you using? Are they effective?
How are you instilling a sense of accountability and urgency throughout your campaign and helping volunteers keep the tasks they committed to from slipping off of their daily “To Do Lists”? What tools and strategies are you using? Are they effective?
What does “staff support” look like for the campaign? Is staff just organizing meetings and making phone calls to check-in on volunteers? Or are they “rolling up their sleeves” and going on solicitation calls with volunteers? Are staff “directing” or are they “coaching”?

John is so right on target! Before you jump to the conclusion that you need to recruit different volunteers or offer more/different training, look at how you have structured your campaign and look at the following systems:

Volunteer recruitment
Prospect identification
Prospect cultivation
Prospect assignment
Kickoff meeting and training
Reporting tools, systems and meetings
Solicitation tools and techniques
Donor acknowledgement and stewardship systems

In the end, you may conclude that your systems and campaign structure are fine and that you really do have a “people problem”. However, jumping to this conclusion first, before looking at some of the aforementioned issues, might result in you feeling like Bill Murray in this scene from Groundhog Day.

If you haven’t already done so, you really need to click over and read John’s blog post about “Fighting the Physics“. It is really good and it may just make you look at your annual campaign differently.

Have you ever looked carefully at your annual campaign systems, decided to make a change, and found that the structural fix worked? If so, please scroll down and share that example in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

To change or not to change your annual campaign! That is the question.

March 29, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, organizational development

Every Friday is “Organization Development (O.D.) Fridays” here at DonorDreams blog. Last week my post was titled “Would you please solve the REAL problem? Structure Drives Behavior!” It was based on John Greco’s post on how structure drives behavior, and I applied it to non-profit organization’s annual campaigns and their use of donor database contact reports.

In last Friday’s post, I offered a few suggestions on how your agency might change its annual campaign “structure” to encourage fundraising volunteers to change their behavior when it comes to completing contact reports. (Please circle back to last Friday’s post to read a few of those suggestions)

Well, later that evening John Greco circled back to my blog post and offered the following suggestion using the comment box:

“What if we used the natural motivations of a volunteer to apply some pressure to comply … How about: for a volunteer to get the next donor name and contact information, they must return the contact form … To make this work even better, some visibility to what’s in the queue would maybe create the urgency to complete the contact form to get to the next donor?”

As I try to do with all comments to this blog, I responded quickly; however John’s suggestion has haunted me for the last week. While it seems perfectly logical, I am unable to stop going back and forth in my head as to whether or not this would work. My head says “YES” and my gut says “maybe“.

So, I’m done over-thinking this topic, and I’ve decided to try something different today with the DonorDreams blog. I’m not going to pontificate about this subject and give you the pros and cons. Instead, I am simply sharing John’s suggestion and asking you to think it through and weigh-in with your thoughts. I always say that “we can all learn from each other,” but let’s actually try to put this mantra into practice today.

Would you attempt this approach with your annual campaign this year? Why? Why not?

There are no right or wrong answers! There are only those of us who are willing or unwilling to share their thoughts.

OK . . . it is your turn. Please scroll down and invest the next 60 seconds of your life in responding via the comment box. Come on . . . please?

Here’s to your health! (See you tomorrow for a new “Organizational Development Friday” post)

Would you please solve the REAL problem? Structure Drives Behavior!

March 23, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, leadership, organizational development

Today we’re focusing on a post that John titled “Close Cover Before Striking“. In this post, he uses the example of how matchbooks were re-designed to discuss an important organizational development concept — “structure drives behavior”. This is an important concept for all non-profit professionals to master if organizational excellence and mission-focused productivity is your goal.

At the Boys & Girls Club, I cannot tell you how many kids forget their barcoded membership cards every day. So, as I tried to apply John’s blog theme to this example, all I could think of is TATTOO that damn barcode on kids’ foreheads!

Needless to say, I abandon that blog post idea for something a little more rationale — donor contact reports.

Every time someone from your organization visits a prospect or donor, they should (in theory) fill-out a “contact report”. This report needs to find its way back to your agency, into the hands of the person entering data into your donor database, and typed into a contact record. Why? So, that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. More importantly, the information a donor shares with you can influence many other things (e.g. how much they will be asked for during the next campaign, designing a custom stewardship program, building an effective Moves Management program and approach, etc).

Of course, few non-profit organizations are ever effective in convincing their volunteer solicitors to complete this extra form.

Hmmmmmm? John’s blog post got me thinking. This is likely a “structure” issue. So, how could this process be re-structured to get the desired result?

This topic is one that has bothered me for a very long time. I’ve tried everything including: talking slower, pleading, printing more forms, lecturing, simplifying the form, etc. I’ve even thought about investing in mind reading. As you can see, a new line of thought is probably warranted.

Here are a few thoughts I’ve had since reading John’s blog post (some might still be off-the-mark but I think I’m getting closer):

What about putting the “contact report” on the back of the pledge form? This could also re-enforce the idea that volunteer solicitors shouldn’t leave the pledge form behind with the prospect/donor. This could be a “twofer” solution.
What about taking the responsibility out of the hands of volunteer solicitors? Your agency could email each prospect/donor a short questionnaire a few days after they complete the pledge form. You could ask a few questions (both open-ended and closed) designed to yield important insights into why someone contributed, what they want to see your agency do with their contribution, etc.
If you don’t like the idea of a questionnaire, what about recruiting a team of volunteers to follow-up via telephone a few days after a donor makes a contribution to your annual campaign? The call could include a personal “thank you” and end with the volunteer asking if the donor minds answer a few questions designed to help the agency do a better job managing their generous gift and the priceless relationship.

OK . . . I’ve started the ball rolling with a few ideas. Please go back and read John’s blog post titled “Close Cover Before Striking” and use the comment box below on my blog to share additional ideas on how “re-structuring the process” surrounding your donor contact report might get better performance and better donor data.

Come on! This is an issue with which I’ve seen even the biggest and best non-profit agencies struggle. A few minutes of brainstorming can have a huge impact on so many other non-profit and fundraising professionals. It is Friday . . . how about “paying it forward” today?

Or perhaps you want to join me in advocating a TATTOO solution for kids and donors? 😉

Here’s to your health!

Non-profit mergers aren’t the “easy way out”

March 22, 2012 DonorDreams organizational development

At the end of 2011, I wrote a series of blog posts focused on predictions for the upcoming year. It seems as if my post on December 28, 2011 titled “2012 Non-Profit Trends and Predictions: Contraction Continues” hit a nerve with some of you. There isn’t a week that goes by without someone engaging me in a discussion around collaboration, strategic alliance, merger, acquisition, and outright sale.

None of this surprises me for all of the reasons I wrote about back on December 28th. However, the thing that is a little interesting has been the manner in which people are talking about the subject. At least in my conversations, this subject has been framed as the “perfect solution to get out from underneath our financial problems“.

While it is true that most non-profit mergers and acquisitions are inspired and motivated by financial crisis, it is important to remember that there isn’t a large group of non-profits sitting on the sidelines with a large wallet of cash just waiting to bail you out. Let’s please get real for a moment.

There needs to be “benefit” on both sides of the merger equation. Figuring out what motivates each party is important, and it is one of the first steps.
Mergers don’t happen overnight. A due diligence process must be established with representation from all sides. This process will include discussions ranging from developing a case for change to addressing how to integrate systems (e.g. payroll, tech, etc) if the project gets green-lighted.
While discretion and confidentiality are important elements in such delicate discussions, there needs to be clear lines of communication with staff and both boards.

Engineering a merger is tough and takes a lot of time. It is NOT a quick fix nor is it the perfect solution from getting out from underneath your agency’s problems. The math supports this position. The Bridgespan Group published a paper presenting data and findings from a study that focused on non-profit mergers, and this is what they reported on the rate of success:

“We evaluated 11 years of merger filings in four states: Massachusetts, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, and found that more than 3,300 organizations reported engaging in at least one merger or acquisition between 1996 and 2006, for a cumulative merger rate of 1.5 percent (number of deals divided by average number of organizations for 11 years).”

Does this mean non-profits aren’t as good at mergers and acquisitions as our for-profit cousins? Nope!

“This rate may seem low compared to the perceived ubiquity of M&A in the for-profit world, but it is not. The comparative cumulative total in the for-profit sector is a close 1.7 percent.”

If your non-profit organization is starting to chatter about collaborations, strategic alliances, mergers or acquisitions, I strongly suggest you: 1) do your homework, 2) develop a process, 3) hire a consultant to help and facilitate, and 4) prepare for a long due diligence process.

I really like this online white paper by CCF National Resource Center that I found on the United Way of the Midlands’ website. Click here to read more about non-profit merger best practices.

Have you ever been part of a non-profit merger process? If so, what was your experience? Is your agency currently looking for a merger partner? If so, why and how are you going about it? Have you seen other merger attempts in your community succeed or fail? If so, what happened and why? How do you think donors should be included in a non-profit merger due diligence process without causing a crisis of confidence with lasting impact?

Please use the comment box below to weigh-in with your thoughts and opinions. Why? Because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Is your non-profit organization on the road to Abilene?

March 16, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, leadership, organizational development

Today we’re focusing on a post that John titled “Jerry’s Trip to Abilene“. In this post, he uses Jerry Harvey’s story about one family’s ill-advised trip to Abilene, Texas to talk about a concept many people might refer to as “Groupthink“.

In John’s blog and Jerry’s story, none of the four family members really wanted to take a trip Abilene on that hot summer day in Texas. So, how did it happen? The answer is amazingly simple . . . take a self-sacrificing suggestion from one person and add it to three other people’s desire to accommodate the group and THAT is how it happens.

Ohhhhh, come on now! This happens at your non-profit agency all the time. Let me refresh your memory with this fictitious example:

The executive director explains to board members that something must be done. There isn’t enough private sector fundraising revenue being generated. If more donations aren’t secured soon, then the agency will run a budget deficit at the end of the year.

Someone speaks up and suggests the agency run a unique, new special event fundraiser that they just saw another organization run in a different community. Another person jumps on the bandwagon with a suggestion pertaining to venue, and another person jumps in with a suggestion pertaining to who should be recruited to chair the event. The last person shrugs their shoulders and makes a neutral comment about how this is the most excited they’ve seen everyone get about a fundraising idea in the last decade.

(Side note: the resource development professional has their head buried in their hands trying to choke back their tears.)

So, the event is held, the bills are paid, and it is discovered that a little bit of money was generated but not nearly enough to avoid a year-end deficit. During the post-event critique meeting, everyone seems to pile on negative comments, shake their heads and tell the group that they knew it wouldn’t work.

(Side note: the resource development professional still has their head buried in their hands trying to choke back their tears.)

What went wrong? Well, it is the same thing John Greco said in his blog, and the same thing Jerry Harvey said in his original Abilene story. (By the way, please circle back and read those links.)

So, what should you do to make sure this doesn’t happen to your non-profit organization?

Invest in diversity!

When recruiting boards and committees, make sure that you have a diversity of different kinds of people around the table. Too many non-profit organizations chase critical thinkers (aka contrarians) away because they can be “pains in the butt”. They are the people who like playing devil’s advocate, and they can be difficult especially when you’re desperately needing to build consensus. However, they certainly come in handy in situations when you can’t afford to take a trip to Abilene.

So, non-profit professionals need to be skilled at asking the right volunteers to get involved in the right conversations. Or perhaps we need to get better at facilitating constructive conflict. Or better yet non-profit professionals need to get better at leadership and applying a strong teachable point of view.

Did the fictional story about adding one more special event in an attempt to desperately raise some cash resonate? Do you have a story to share about a personal “trip to Abilene” that you or your agency might have taken? Do you have additional suggestions on how to avoid that long and hot road to Abilene? Please use the comment box below to weigh-in with your thoughts. Remember to also check out other blog posts on organizational development by John Greco at his blog johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly.

Here’s to your health!