board development – Page 12 – The Healthy Non-Profit

How many monks vs revolutionaries are on your non-profit board?

June 15, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, 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 “Forward!“. In that post, he talks about monks and revolutionaries and how crying out the battle command “FORWARD” means different things to those two groups of people. You really need to click over and read John’s post because it hits the nail on the head.

After reading “Forward!” two thoughts came into my head as it relates to non-profit organizations.

The existence of the “executive committee” is dangerous, especially if you aren’t careful about who sits on that committee.
There are so many different decision-making paradigms that non-profit boards can use to make tough decisions, but few ever pay attention to these options.

Executive Committee

I believe that BoardSource is the non-profit sector’s leading authority on all things board governance. In an article titled “Should nonprofit boards have execuitve committees” they say:

“An executive committee can be an efficient tool, but not every board needs one. An executive committee should never replace the full board. “

I go a little farther than my diplomatic friends at BoardSource. While there are certainly times an executive committee makes sense (go read the BoardSource article), I think those circumstances are far and in between, and most non-profit organizations should banish their executive committee to their organizational waste bin!

As John talks about in his post titled “Forward!,” your board of directors has people with different values and agendas. If you boil it down in the same way John did, then you have people who thirst for change and you have people who fight against change. This dynamic is at play all around us (turn on CNN and spend some time following the Presidential election coverage), and it is at play in your boardroom.

If you have an executive committee full of “revolutionaries” (as John puts it), then you have set-up a sitution where a small group of board members can cry “FORWARD” and drag the rest of the board of directors with them (including over a cliff). Chaos reigns!

OK, my example might be a worst-case scenario . . . but I’ve seen it happen with my own two eyes.

Perhaps, a more common situation is where board members who aren’t on the executive committee disengage and stop attending board meetings. Yes, this can be the executive committee’s fault because the disengaged board member doesn’t see the urgency in attending board meetings or ensuring that quorum is attained. Why? Because the executive committee can always meet and take care of any pressing issue.

Ugh! If you must have an executive committee, I encourage you to use it sparingly and only in emergency situation. Most importantly, pay attention to who you put on the executive committee and make sure there is a balance between “monks” and “revolutionaries”.

Decisions-Decisions-Decisions

If you’ve heard it once in the boardroom, then you’ve heard it a million times:

“All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed say no.”

Ahhh, yes . . . .Roberts Rules of Order, bylaws, majority rule . . . BUT it doesn’t have to be that way. There are many different decision-making paradigms that exist and some are better in certain circumstances.

If you have been reading recent posts at DonorDreams blog, then you know that I am on a Tony Stoltzfus kick as I re-read his book “Coaching Questions: A Coach’s Guide to Powerful Asking Skills“. Tony suggests there are 13 different decision-making strategies and he offers a variety of questions to help frame issues when using each of those paradigms. The following are just a few that you might find interesting for your board when making certain decisions:

Cost: What would it cost in terms of time and resources to do this? What would it cost if you don’t do this? What’s the cost if you don’t decide or let circumstances overtake you?
Alignment: How well does this decision align with your passions, your values, and your calling?
Relational: How will this course of action affect the people around you? Who will benefit, who will be hurt?

There are 10 other decision-making strategies that can be used to frame boardroom decisions, but I won’t steal Tony’s thunder. You really need to go purchase his book!

If John is right, then you have monks and revolutionaries in your boardroom. Some decisions will be tough to make. Sure, you can tilt the scales by making sure there are enough of one kind of decision-maker voting in the manner that you want and need . . . OR . . . you can be strategic and thoughtful with how you frame issues and engage board members in approaching certain decisions.

There is nothing that says you have to always use a majorty rule voting paradigm. After all, I bet that there are certain things in your organizational bylaws that require a “super majority” vote. So, why not employ a consensus building model in certain circumstances? It isn’t right in all circumstances, but it is sometimes.

Does your organization still operate with an executive committee? If so, when do you activate that group and what decisions do they typically make? Does your board use different decision-making paradigms in certain circumstances? If so, please share the specifics and how that has worked for you. You can share all of your thoughts using the comment box below.

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

Questions every non-profit executive director should be asking

June 14, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, organizational development

Yesterday’s post was titled “Excuse me, but I have a few questions” and it introduces a series of posts this week and next week focusing on the importance of asking questions as well as on who should be asking what. Today’s post looks at the executive director and some of the more powerful questions they could and should be asking.

As I mentioned yesterday, Tony Stoltzfus explains in his book “Coaching Questions: A Coach’s Guide to Powerful Asking Questions” that there are many reasons why asking questions is important. I highlighted the following three reasons:

Asking empowers
Asking develops leadership capacity
Asking creates authenticity

I believe the very first reason in this list explains why non-profit executive directors need to get better at asking questions of their board members. The following is what Tony says about “asking empowers”:

. . . roughly 80% of the time, I find that they already know what to do: they just don’t have the confidence to step out and do it. Self-confidence is a huge factor in change. When you ask for people’s opinions and take them seriously, you are sending a powerful message: “You have great ideas. I believe in you. You can do this.” Just asking can empower people to do things they couldn’t do on their own.

Sure, Tony is talking about executive coaching in that passage, but in some regards executive directors serve as a coach to the board of directors. At least sometimes . . . right? (Yes, that job involves a weird little dance and sometimes the board leads and other times the executive director leads. Sigh!)

I cannot tell you how many non-profit executive directors tell me that their board members are disengaged. While there can be many reasons for this phenomenon, one reason could be that the executive director is doing too much talking and not enough asking. Think about it for a moment.

When I decided to open The Healthy Non-Profit LLC last year, I saw a blog post from Seth Godin titled “Questions for a new entrepreneur“. After reading it, I posted it to the bulletin board in my office. I periodically go back and re-read it because the questions he suggests a new business owner ask are right on target. Here are a few of those questions that I think are applicable to non-profit executive directors:

Are you aware of your cash flow? What’s your zero point? What are you doing to ensure you get to keep swimming?
What’s your role?
Are you trying to build a team?
Why are you doing this at all?

Circling back around to the idea of engaging board members, here are a few questions I found in Tony Stoltzfus’ book “Coaching Questions: A Coach’s Guide to Powerful Asking Questions” that I believe non-profit executive directors should be asking of their board members in committee meetings and in the boardroom:

Where do you see this going?
How do you want things to turn out? What’s the best possible outcome?
What do you think this looks like from the other person’s point of view? (e.g. donor, client, staff, etc)
How do you feel about that?
What are the real issues here?
How should we make this decision?
What do you need to know to make a great decision?
What would a great decision look like?

I believe the following Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation can best summarize how important a good executive directors can be to their board of directors, especially if that executive director knows how to ask really powerful questions:

“Our chief want is someone who will inspire us to be what we know we could be.”

What questions do you hear being asked by executive directors? Are they powerful and engaging questions? Please use the comment box below to share a few examples.

We will continue this series of posts focusing on the fine art of “asking questions” next Tuesday because tomorrow is “Organizational Development Friday” with John Greco and Monday is, of course, “Monday’s with Marissa”. Tuesday’s post will focus on powerful questions that board members should be asking both of themselves and their executive director.

Here’s to your health!

Is your non-profit smarter than a fifth grader?

May 25, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, organizational development, technology

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled “The School Bus Won’t Wait“. In that post, he talks about an aging professional who ends up relying on an internet acquaintance to help him with technology challenges. As things turn out, his online friend turns out to be 12-years-old. As always, John’s post has multiple themes and meanings, but the main things I saw pertained to: “Technology. Adapting to change. And possibility.”

These themes are at play throughout society, and they are changing the non-profit sector in ways that couldn’t be predicted. Here are just a few examples that I’ve seen, heard of, or read about:

ePhilanthropy. Donors continue to contribute more via online channels. According to the most recent Blackbaud Index of Online Giving report, “… online giving increased by 9.8 percent for the 3 months ending March 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011.” Believe it or not, this has been the trend for quite some time.
The digital boardroom. Board volunteers are busier at work and the rate of retirement is rising. Time is a premium and some volunteers don’t want to take time out of their day to travel to a physical meeting. Retirees (esp. in colder climates) are splitting their time between their primary residence and a winter residence. Add technology into the mix and now board members are “conference calling” and using “Skype” to conduct board meetings. Documents are being distributed digitally and board members are casting proxy votes via email.
The paperless office? Ha! While that appears to have been a 1980s pipe dream, the reality is that there are tons of electronic tools at a non-profit organization’s disposal now. Donor databases replaced index card donor systems, volunteer files, and membership paper systems. One agency who I am very familiar with is upgrading their network server to include a few terabytes of hard drive space because a few gigs just didn’t hold everything. LOL

With change comes challenges. Isn’t that what life is all about?

Here are two tips that I hope you will take to heart as you read John’s blog post and contemplate “Technology. Adapting to change. And possibility.”:

Education doesn’t end when you receive your certificate or degree. If you want to survive, I encourage you become a “Lifelong Learner”. There are tons of free resource available to you on the internet. Carve one hour out of your schedule every week and visit an online resource like Network for Good’s Learning Center. There are tons of great articles there for you to read. There is even a section of this website where you can access pre-recorded webinars.
Plan to stay current. Technology is always evolving. Do you have a written technology plan in place to keep your systems from getting old? If you need help answering this question, then look at the computer sitting on your desk. How old is it? If it is 3-years-old or older, then you probably don’t have a plan in place or you aren’t funding it appropriately.

How is technology changing your non-profit organization? Are you adding fifth graders to your board development prospect lists? 😉 Please scroll down and share one quick example in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

Class of 2012 should inspire all non-profit professionals: Part 1 of 3

May 22, 2012 DonorDreams leadership, organizational development

Spring is in the air or at least that is what my allergy sensitive nose tells me. This can only mean one thing. Young adults (and even some not so young adults) are donning their mortar board caps and marching down the aisles at institutions of higher education. I really love this time of the year because it is full of hope and promise. So, in honor of the Class of 2012, I will spend the next few days talking about educational opportunities for non-profit professionals. Today, we’re taking a closer look at North Park University and their Master of Nonprofit Administration program (M.N.A.).

I don’t know about you, but “back in the day” my non-profit alma mater was the School of Hard Knocks. I learned how to manage volunteers by jumping in and doing it, succeeding in some cases, and making mistakes in other instances. I learned how to cultivate, solicit and steward donors in the exact same way.

I believe human resource professionals call this “learning on the job”. I know this might sound crazy, but I look back fondly upon all of those experiences (both successful and not so successful) and wouldn’t trade any of it in for all of the wealth in the world.

With this being said, I am excited to see that colleges and universities are now offering certificates and degree programs in a variety of non-profit professions. Here is how North Park University describes their M.N.A. program:

The M.N.A. prepares students for senior-level positions in the nonprofit sector. The curriculum responds directly to skill sets and knowledge required for nonprofit executives and leaders, including board governance, fundraising, financial management, and outcomes measurement.

Some of the classes they offer are packed full of information that today’s executive directors and fundraising professionals need to succeed. The following are just a few course titles:

Annual and Major Gift Fundraising
Measuring Outcomes and Assessment
Nonprofit Financial Decision Making
Human Resources Management
Nonprofit Board Governance and Volunteer Management

In addition to their degree program, North Park University offers a number of non-profit certificates including: Church Administration, Fundraising Management, Healthcare Management, Education Administration, Nonprofit Finance, Nonprofit Governance, Nonprofit Management, and Nonprofit Marketing.

Embedded inside of North Park University’s School of Business and Nonprofit Management is the Axelson Center for Nonprofit Management. It is here that non-profit professionals will find continuing education trainings, webinars, workshops, and an annual symposium. This year’s symposium is scheduled for June 4-5 at the Holiday Inn, Chicago Mart Plaza. While everything looks very engaging, a few of the more interesting training tracks in my opinion are:

Generating Resources
Next Gen
Growth Strategies

Click here for more information about this symposium and find out what they mean by “Reignite Your Vision”.

Did you graduate from a higher education institution with a non-profit related degree? If so, please share more about your alam mater. If not, please share a non-profit experience from your past that you can honestly say helped shape who you are today. We can learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

What won’t non-profits do to excite their board volunteers?

May 17, 2012 DonorDreams Board development, leadership, organizational development, Planning, volunteers

I ran across an awesome article while “Googling around” the other day. It was titled “Nine Keys for Reinvigorating Board Leadership,” and it was written by Paul Connolly, a Senior Vice President of TCC Group. While digesting this article, my mind first turned to those executive directors who I’ve seen in the last decade that actively try to disengage their board volunteers. After mentally traveling down that road (ugh … and it is an ugly road), I got more positive in my thinking and focused on all of the crazy things I’ve witnessed in the name of “board engagement”.

The following are just a few quick things I’ve seen over the years:

Of course, many organizations have turned to the good old fashion “mission moment” as part of their board meeting agenda.
How many “board retreats” have I seen organized all in the name of “engagement”? Ugh … too many!
One organization I worked with decided that social opportunities such as “Happy Hour” should be a part of their engagement solution.
I’ve heard some boards talk about putting together a mentoring program that hooks new board members up with tenured ones.
One organization I know even rented a trolley, loaded up its board volunteers and donors, and drove it from site-to-site as part of a facilities tour strategy focused on getting key stakeholders re-engaged in mission.
Oh yeah. You can’t forget about the “big conference” strategy where the executive director takes a board member (or a few) to one of those big inspirational conferences. When everyone returns, those board members are asked to “make a presentation” back to their fellow board members about what they learned. Hopefully, sparks of excitement ignite interest and activity.

Oh, the things I’ve seen. I could go on and on and on. I doubt that there isn’t anything an executive director, who actually wants an engaged board, would do to achieve this goal. Of course, when this topic of conversation usually comes up, there is an overwhelming desire to bypass “strategy” and go right to “tactics”

When I read the article by Paul Connolly, I had a moment of clarity because he didn’t go right to tactics. He focused on the following nine strategies:

Encourage board members to tell each other what motivates them to serve.
Educate board members about the organization and their responsibilities.
Hold the board accountable for its own performance and conduct a candid board assessment.
Compel the board to continually plan for the future and focus on results.
Infuse board meetings with more meaning.
Add some new board members and graduate some existing ones.
Nurture future leadership.
Develop a synergistic board-CEO partnership.
Consider alternative models for governance.

Ohhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhh! Has your curiosity been piqued? I know mine was. If you are intrigued and want to learn more about more deeply engaging your board volunteers, then I have two suggestions:

First, I strongly urge you to read Paul Connolly’s article “Nine Keys for Reinvigorating Board Leadership“.

Second, circle back here to DonorDreams blog and engage your fellow non-profit professionals in a discussion using the comment box found below. We can all learn from each other, especially if we share examples of what we’re doing and what has worked (or not worked) for us.

So, are you one of those executive directors who focuses on deepening board engagement? If so, why? If not, then why not? What things have you done or seen others do in the name of board engagement? Did Paul Connolly’s article trigger any ideas? If so, please share.

Here’s to your health!

Where are the philanthropists and non-profit board volunteers of tomorrow?

May 10, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, leadership

A few weeks ago I had the honor and privilege of having breakfast with one of my community’s iconic philanthropists. His family name is legendary around here. They have contributed lots of money to a number of different non-profit organizations, and those who don’t receive any support from this family pursue them like a dog looking for a lost bone.

During our breakfast meeting, he shared a concern that I’ve heard many non-profit people express over the last 12 years that I’ve worked and lived in this community:

Where are the philanthropists and non-profit board volunteers of tomorrow?

As has been the case in most communities for as long as anyone can remember, there is a small circle of very influential people who own businesses, employ lots of people, possess a fair amount of wealth, sit on non-profit boards, and influence policymakers and opinion-shapers.

This small group of very influential people is getting older and their numbers are dwindling. While the circle always seemed to replenish itself in the past, there is this feeling that we now live in different times. Many of the non-profit people in my community with whom I speak are concerned that the next generation isn’t apparent or obvious. I even see some agencies starting to recruit the next generation from the current of circle of philanthropists because they’re not sure what the future looks like and this is as good of a strategy as anyone can think of.

My breakfast partner weighed in with his opinion, and I found myself enlightened and frightened all at the same time.

He believes that globalization of our economy is at the root of this trend.

The old economic paradigm produced locally owned business people who amassed wealth and influence. They lived locally. They employed their neighbors and friends. They were able to see firsthand and comprehend the idea of “community need,” and it was in their personal and business interests to invest back into the community.

The new economic paradigm aggregates business in the hands of large multinational corporations that play on a global stage. As a result, our community gets “big box stores” rather than locally owned and controlled businesses. The decision-makers for these very large companies don’t live here. In fact, many of these corporations are located in large markets like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. Or even more challenging, they are located overseas and their idea of “philanthropy” can be a little different from ours for cultural reasons.

In the opinion of my breakfast partner, the effect of globalization on the non-profit sector is and will be devastating!

He believes that for communities that are not major cities, the days of a small inner circle of influential philanthropists may be over.

When there isn’t a small group of wealthy business owners who live locally and are motivated by personal and business interests to participate in philanthropic activities, then he hypothesized that charitable giving will get tighter and non-profit mergers aren’t far down the road.

Finally, he believes this trend is most devastating inside of the non-profit board room. He sees many well-intentioned volunteers agreeing to do their part and serve on non-profit boards, but he sees these individuals lacking the financial resources, social networks and business acumen necessary to fuel an effective non-profit sector.

In the final analysis, he thinks the non-profit sector in smaller communities will be radically restructured in the next decade as a result of economic globalization trends.

I think that I agree. It is very possible that this economic trend will be what fuels non-profit mergers and acquisitions. It will also likely re-shape board development and resource development best practices.

As breakfast came to an end and we said our goodbyes, I was left with one thought that is more than two millennia ago by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus:

“The only constant is change.”

My conclusion? We can sit around our non-profit boardroom tables and lament change. Or we can recognize the challenges and adjust to the headwinds.

I say . . . Upward and onward! I have faith that the non-profit sector can and will adapt and evolve. We always have and I suspect we always will; however, let’s not drag our feet and let’s a move on it because “change” is coming fast.

So, I’m curious about what you think about this one philanthropist’s opinion about the effects of globalization? Are you having the same conversations in your community? What do you see other non-profits doing to adjust to what they perceive as winds of change? What are you doing? Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

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!

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!

The Secrets to Their Success?

January 5, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, nonprofit

Yesterday was a fun day for me because I managed to get out of my home office and spend some time in the field trying to sell work. So, I hopped in my car and visited one resource development director and two executive directors. During the long drive home, I reflected on each of those three visits and came to the same conclusion:

In spite of sluggish economic growth,
there are some non-profit organizations
that are doing very well!

Here is a quick run down of what I saw in the field:

A fundraising professional with approximately 6-months under her belt at a new agency, planned and executed a $500,000 direct mail campaign in the fourth quarter of 2011.
An executive director who essentially closed a significant budget deficit in a matter of just a few months.
An executive director who quarterbacked a fairly reluctant board through the planning and implementation of a new annual campaign (developing a new revenue stream for their agency that is approaching 10-percent of their overall revenue budget).
A CEO whose non-profit organization has experienced a: 38-percent increase in individual giving, 80-percent increase in foundation contributions, and 222-percent increase in corporate sponsorships . . . all over the last two years. In fact, just last year this agency signed up 250 NEW donors.

I thought this economy was supposed to be big, bad and ugly for non-profit organizations? So, being the curious person that I am, I asked lots of questions and here are some of the things I discovered that I believe are “The Secrets to Their Success”:

Investments in marketing — aggressive pursuit of public service announcements using print, radio and television helped two of these agencies generate amazing awareness and mission-focus throughout the communities they serve.
Investments in fundraising staff — all three of these organizations had either hired more fundraising professionals or were talking about doing so. It reminded me of something my for-profit friends are constantly saying: “It takes money to make money.”
Engaging prospects and donors — all three of these organizations haven’t been shy about calling lots and lots of people (both existing donors and lots of new folks who have never given them a penny). The strategy was simple . . . be aggressive . . . get as many people on-site to see what their agency does . . . don’t ask for money right away, but ask them shortly thereafter (a few weeks to a few months later).
Re-developing the board — two of the three organizations have been diligently working on identifying, cultivating and recruiting new board volunteers who are capable of writing nice checks, are willing to introduce their friends to the agency’s mission, and aren’t afraid to ask others to make a contribution.

While the last 4-years have been brutal for many non-profit organizations and some recent survey research shows that many more are on the brink of insolvency in 2012, I believe that good executive leadership with a bullish and aggressive approach to resource development and non-profit management is “the cure for all that ails you”.

Here are a few bloggers who I like pertaining to marketing, hiring fundraising staff, cultivation & stewardship, and board development:

Katya’s Non-Profit Marking Blog is a genius and I’ve followed her work for years
Mission Connected blog hits the nail on the head when it comes to hiring fundraising professionals
The Fundraising Authority blog outlines a very nice systemic approach to supersizing your cultivation efforts
Larry Checco at about.com provides some great board development tips you might like

As you look around your community, has your non-profit organization performed better than the others over the last few years of recession and sluggish recovery? If so, please use the comment box below and share one or two of your secrets. Remember . . . we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Goldilocks and the three board members: Part 2

December 6, 2011 DonorDreams Board development, Fundraising, resource development

Yesterday, my post titled “Goldilocks and the three board members” talked about a very cold bowl of porridge that involves non-profit boards who fail to evaluate their executive director every year. In doing so, they set their agency up for failure, liability and <gulp> perhaps even personal liability if the D & O Insurance carrier deems coverage null and void because the board failed to make a “good faith effort” to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.

Today, I would like to talk about that VERY HOT bowl of porridge. This, of course, is when a board goes way overboard with the annual performance plan and year-end evaluation.

In this scenario, the board president thinks they “own” the organization and take their leadership position way too seriously. They decide that their time at the helm of the ship will go down in the history books as the “Golden Age” of your non-profit organization. They see the executive director as a “direct report” and use the performance plan and year-end evaluation processes to micro-manage OR change behavior of the person occupying the executive director’s chair OR drive the executive director screaming from the room (so either they or a friend of theirs can take over).

If this seems far-fetched, please trust me when I tell you I’ve seen it happen more often than I care to admit.

It is typically true in my experience that the board member who is being very aggressive usually has some very legitimate issues. However, their aggressive approach makes them look like an egomaniac or a big jerk. Sadly, those issues never get dealt with because the focus becomes personal rather than organizational. As a result, the organization and the clients it serves end up the big loser.

The interesting thing I’ve seen is how the other board members in the room deal with this individual. The group usually tries to “pacify” and give them total authority to do whatever they want with the executive director’s performance plan or year-end review.

This “accommodating move” by the board is meant to shut the instigator up, but it never seems to work out that way. The annual performance plan and year-end evaluation resemble something straight out of a carnival fun house with those weird mirrors. Annual performance objectives turn out unmeasurable and read something like this:

Improve staff morale
Be a leader in the community
Move all of our accreditation scores up one level

It looks and feels really muscular and accountable, but when you peel the layers of the onion back nothing makes any sense. How do you measure improved staff morale? Is it realistic to focus on all accreditation categories (even the ones you’re already doing well in)? What is a leader and how do you determine that?

Next thing you know everything feels subjective. Feelings get hurt. Emotions run high. And the board volunteers who thought they solved the problem by “brushing off” the loud squeaky wheel in the board room, find themselves in a much worse situation. It always turns into a trust issue between the board and their executive director. However, it sometimes turns into impending legal action involving things like: harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Trust me when I say the really hot dish of porridge is not the solution. Please tune in tomorrow, and we’ll talk about what a normal situation might look like.

Have you ever been involved in a situation where one board member is really “hot to trot” about the annual performance plan or year-end evaluation for the executive director? Have you ever seen it turn out OK? Do you have any examples of just “horrible” performance plan objectives that just didn’t make sense?

Please share . . . we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!