board development – Page 9 – The Healthy Non-Profit

Carol Burnett’s advice to disengaged non-profit boards

March 5, 2013 erik Board development, volunteers

The idea of engaging non-profit board volunteers is sometimes treated by thought-leaders as a simple idea; however, in reality it is really hard. A few days ago I had this conversation with a board volunteer, and he said something I found very profound. He said, “When one person is disengaged, it is as simple as challenging them to step-up and join the group. When a few people are leading and the rest of the group is disengaged, it is far easier for the few to step-back because that is the norm.”

Obvious? Yes! Did I know this before I heard it? Of course. But I had never heard it stated quite so succinctly.

During this conversation, he also related a great quote from a business consultant he recently heard speak at a conference. The quote was “If you can’t change your people, change your people.” Upon hearing this, my mind first darted to Jim Collins, who famously talks about getting the right people on the bus and in the right seats.” Yet, surprisingly, my mind didn’t stay there. The cosmic jukebox in my head started playing a song that I still can’t get out of my head. Click here or on the YouTube screen below and please join me in singing . . .

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQuZCTLAv4]

Yeah, I think Carol Burnett gave some great advice to board development committees when she sang her iconic sign-off song.

Carol reminds us that time flies when you’re having fun. She says early in the song: “Seems we just get started and before you Know it
Comes the time we have to say, ‘So long’.” In this one simple sentence, I am reminded of the following truisms for the board development committee:

There is a beginning, middle and end to every board volunteer relationship.
It is the Board Development Committee’s responsibility to manage every aspect of that relationship during every step down that path.
In the beginning, expectations must be set or disengagement is almost inevitable (e.g. use job descriptions to recruit).
During every step of the way, year-end evaluation is essential in order to maintain engagement. These aren’t always “pat-on-the-back” meetings. Sometimes, committee members need to ask tough questions during evaluation meetings such as: “What can we do to get you more involved in our resource development program? Is there something we can do to help you feel more comfortable with your roles and responsibilities? Are you sure this opportunity is a good fit or would everyone be better served if you stepped off the board and joined a committee?“
In the end, compassion and grace — like you hear in Carol’s voice — are the values that carry the day. Hopefully, the volunteer concludes that they’re ready to move along to tackle other opportunities related to your mission and organization. However, more oftentimes it is obvious to everyone except the board volunteer. Not only must the committee exercise compassion and grace, but they must be strong and do what needs to be done. Too often committee volunteers kick the can down the road, which creates problems for another day.

When the norm on the board is disengagement, I’ve too often seen a frustrated Board Development Committee take the discussion into the boardroom. Their intention is good. After all, they want to wake some people up and shake them from their sleepy disengaged slumber. However, I’ve never seen this strategy work. In fact, it always backfires in one of two ways:

Tempers flare because it feels like finger-pointing and accusations are being made.
Committee members get frustrated because their “call to action” is met with a yawn of “disengagement”.

For me, it all comes back to that consultant’s quote that my friend shared with me: “If you can’t change your people, change your people.” with a chaser of “I’m so glad we’ve had this time together.”

I believe taking this conversation into the boardroom is tantamount to the board development committee abdicating their responsibilities and giving up. I suggest the more direct option of one-on-one meetings with disengaged volunteers.

If you are looking for resources and more reading materials on the subject of volunteer management, board development, board engagement, and how to move board volunteers onto other opportunities, you may want to click on some of the following links:

DonorDreams blog: “Have you forgotten year-end evaluations and performance plans during the year-end scramble?“
DonorDreams blog: “Is your non-profit board of directors engaged?“
DonorDreams blog: “Not fundraising? Not engaged!“
National Council of Nonprofits: Volunteers
The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “How to Fire Lousy Board Members“

What have you done or seen done when disengagement is the norm in the boardroom? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on individual meetings versus group discussion? 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

The Chicago Cubs Convention through non-profit eyes: Part Three

January 24, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

This last weekend I attended the Chicago Cubs Convention with my family. As we drifted from session to session, I couldn’t help but see all sorts of blog themes and things that non-profit organizations could learn from this major league franchise. Over the last few days I’ve shared a few of these observations and hopefully stimulated a few new ideas for you and your agency. In Tuesday’s post, we talked about stewardship. Yesterday, we discussed shared vision, values, and culture. Today, I am ending this series with a few words about statistics and predictive value.

On Sunday morning, the last session of the entire convention was titled “Stats Sunday,” and the session description read as follows:

“You know what a pitcher’s ERA means and how to calculate a hitter’s batting average, but do you know what WAR stands for or how to find someone’s OPS? Baseball is full of new-age statistics. Jim Deshaies, Len Kasper and WGN’s Bob Vorwald will help break it down for us in this special offseason edition of “Stats Sunday.”

Essentially, this session was all about the things you learned about baseball scouting in the Oscar award nominated movie and best-selling book “Moneyball.”

During the hour-long session on new baseball stats (e.g. BABIP, OPS, OPS+, UZR, WAR, WHIP, etc), we talked about at least 10 new statistics that help baseball scouts determine one simple question: “Will this ball player be a good addition to our team and help win more games?”

As I am apt to do, my mind started wandering during this session, and I found myself wishing that non-profits would someday develop a set of predictive statistics to improve the art of board development.

I have sat in countless board development and nominating committee meetings, and they all feel like that scene in Moneyball where Brad Pitt is talking to his “old-school baseball scouts” about free agents and they start sharing anecdotal evidence about girlfriends and physical attributes. If you don’t know what I’ve talking about, you might want to check out this YouTube movie trailer that contains a portion of that scene in it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFXDnhvd1WQ]

You know what I mean . . . what do the discussions sound like around your board development table? Here are some of the things I keep hearing:

Are they too busy?
Do they serve on another board?
Will they say ‘YES’ if asked?
Who is the best person we should send to ask?
Do they have money? Do they donate to us or others?

Too many agencies are essentially asking: a) do they have a pulse? b) is their wallet thick? and c) will they agree to do it?

I dare to dream about the day when board volunteers have their own “baseball-type card” with statistics on the back that measure a board member on the following concepts:

How active and engaged is this person in your mission?
How effective is this person at securing resources for your cause?
How many people in this person’s network have been exposed to your agency because of this person? How many became volunteers? How many turned into donors?

As the days have passed since attending this session, I now realize that smart non-profit thought leaders are working on projects like this. Of course, the board development metrics out there aren’t as fancy as what baseball scouts use, but here are a few interesting websites and resources that you may want to check out if you are thirsty for board development change and want to shake up your board development committee:

Do a little daydreaming with me today. What would the back of a non-profit board volunteer’s baseball card look like? What would you like to measure? What type of predictive statistics do you wish existed that could be used in a board development committee meeting to help evaluate your volunteer prospect list?

Come on . . . take a few minutes and do some dreaming. Who knows where it might led for you and your organization. Many years ago someone just like you in Major League Baseball did the same thing and it transformed an entire industry. Uh-Huh . . . you could very well be the next big non-profit thought leader. Please scroll down and share some of your amazing thoughts, ideas and questions in the comment section below. You don’t need to do this alone. 😉

Here’s to your health!

Managing the dualism of being a non-profit board volunteer

January 17, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I recently came to the conclusion that there is a strange dualism surrounding the roles and responsibilities for a volunteer serving on a non-profit board. These two different roles can compete with each other and create a weird destructive dysfunction if non-profit staff don’t do their job and keep things in check.

A few months ago I witnessed something that my mind just couldn’t process, and it has been rolling around inside my head ever since. Let me try to summarize it:

Non-profit staff recruit a volunteer to join their board.
The volunteer happily joins.
Staff work hard to get the volunteer engaged in various projects.
The volunteer happily gets engaged.
Staff try engaging the volunteer at an action plan level of a particular project (e.g. specific tasks, deadlines, etc).
The volunteer become the chairperson.
Instead of doing what is expected of a chairperson, the volunteer turns around and acts like staff works for them and starts re-assigning tasks to staff.

A little too abstract. OK, let me provide an example to clear things up.

Once upon a time, a board volunteer agreed to chair a special event committee. Once they agreed to provide leadership to the committee, they started tasking staff with doing things that might otherwise be considered the role of the chair. Here are a few examples . . . 1) please email the committee and tell them I wish to meet at a certain time and location, 2) please recruit the following volunteers to sit on my committee, 3) please check on a certain volunteer and make sure they are doing what they said they would do.

In this example, staff recruit a volunteer chairperson to help them accomplish some work. The end result is that the volunteer acts like staff works for them and sees their role/responsibilities as telling staff what to do. Staff scratch their head wondering why they needed to recruit a volunteer because they know what needs to happen . . . they needed help doing those things and not someone to tell them what to do.

Believe it or not, I see this happen all the time and I now have a theory.

The following is an excerpt from Guidestar on the subject of non-profit board roles and responsibilities:

“Nonprofit board members have two basic responsibilities—support and governance—each requiring different skills and expertise. In the role of “supporter” board members raise money, bring contacts to the organization, and act as ambassadors to the community. Equally important, the “governance” role involves protection of the public interest, being a fiduciary, selecting the executive director and assessing his/ her performance, ensuring compliance with legal and tax requirements, and evaluating the organization’s work.”

I think I see a weird dissonance starting to form between these two basic responsibilities.

Huh?

Well, one of the basic roles of a nonprofit board volunteer is “SUPPORT” . . . which I read as rolling up ones sleeves and helping get stuff done. The other role is “GOVERNANCE” . . . which I read as making sure certain things are getting done and providing some oversight.

Am I over-generalizing to make a point? YES, but I think I am still going somewhere.

If clarity isn’t established from the very beginning, it is reasonable to expect confusion. It is from here that I believe situations and examples that I provided earlier grow legs and get ugly.

If non-profit staff want to avoid these weird sand trap situations, they need to be serious about using best practices when it comes to volunteer identification, recruitment, and management.

Use a written job description
Seriously engage volunteers in orientation and continuous training opportunities
Invest time in evaluation and work on creating a culture of honest feedback

I think it is also important to mention here that providing a volunteer with a written job description is not where the magic occurs. Learning and understanding comes from the frank and honest discussion that occurs during the recruitment meeting. For example, the job description is the “MEANS” and not the “ENDS“.

Have you ever had to deal with a situation like this? How did you fix it? What tools and processes do you use to set expectations up front with volunteers to avoid confusion and role blurring down the road? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Dealing with bullies in your non-profit boardroom

January 16, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I was just talking to a group of volunteer board members and the topic turned to “bullies in the boardroom”. I suspect that you know what I am talking about. This person takes many different forms, such as:

The need to always be right.
They dominate the conversation.
They may talk over other people.
They get angry and aggressively assert their opinions.
They mock people who don’t agree.

As you might imagine, a conversation like this quickly turns to the question: “How do you handle board volunteers like this?”

Being a former youth development professional, I decided to look for general resources on how to deal with bullies and see if there might be commonality between how to deal with a school yard bully versus a boardroom bully.

I actually found a really good blog post at wikiHow titled “How to deal with bullies” and there was some very nice advice that crossed over such as:

Show minimal reaction to bullying
Help others
Do not make jokes at your own expense to try to prove that there is nothing they can do to hurt your feelings

Of course, some of the other suggestions fell flat for me like “Take Karate”. LOL If you have a moment, I really suggest that you click the wikiHow link and scan that article because bullying is a big deal issue in all walks of life.

There are two other thoughts that immediately come to mind when discussing this topic:

Board development
Firing board members

Board Development

You can solve your agency’s bully problem before it even starts if you get serious about board development. Your recruitment process should not be hasty. It should feel like a dating process with multiple steps. For some reason, that song “Getting to Know” from The King & I comes to mind. Do I need to say any more? Click here to visit the National Council of Nonprofits’s webpage if you need some basic board development tools for your agency.

Firing a volunteer

I always hate this discussion because I believe it should never get to this point. However, a bully in the boardroom is an intolerable situation, and it needs to always be dealt with. There is no easy way to do this, and it is always done with a nervous stomach. I could write page on this subject, but our friends at Nonprofit Hearts did a nice job with a post they titled “Firing a Board member with grace“. I suggest you click over and read what they have to say. They even do a nice job with dialog.

Have you ever had to deal with a bully in your nonprofit boardroom? What did you do that seemed to work? How did it turn out. We can all learn from each other. Please use the comment box below to share some of your thoughts and experiences.

Here’s to your health!

Is your non-profit board of directors engaged?

January 9, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. I’ve invited my good friend and fellow non-profit consultant to the first Wednesday of each month about board development related topics. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com.

It’s a new year, which is always a great time to take a look at processes and systems. I especially encourage you to look at the level of engagement of your Board. They are — or should be — your biggest donors and your best ambassadors. Are they?

One of the most obvious signs that a Board is disengaged is when you’re experiencing quorum issues. If you routinely have challenges with not having enough Board members in the room to make decisions, I recommend you take a look at how your board was built and how it is being developed.

Is your Board built intentionally?

Intentionally looks like this:

There is a Board Development (also called nominating or governance) Committee that assesses the strength of your current Board, looks at the gaps, and puts together a list of prospects that are later vetted and voted upon, to fill those gaps. The committee also plans for officer succession, Board education and evaluation.

Unintentionally looks like this:

A Board member invites someone to join the Board without a discussion with the Board Development Committee as to what the Board needs, or what the expectations for service are. The person is not vetted, or told of the commitment required. There is no formal process that is followed, no education and no evaluation. Yet, the person is voted upon and joins your Board.

Once the Board is in place, regardless of if it was intentional or not, the next question is:

Is your Board engaged and are members being developed?

Engagement looks like this:

The vast majority of Board members are in the room for most meetings; you have 100% Board giving; each member acts as an ambassador in the community; and your events and public meetings are well attended by members who bring friends and colleagues. The Board understands the organization’s mission, programs and impact; participates in robust discussions; and actively seeks ways to support the Executive Director and the organization.

Disengagement, on the other hand, looks like this:

People stop coming to meetings, which results in quorum issues. They stop coming to events. They stop volunteering for things. They stop giving or supporting the organization.

Once your Board becomes disengaged, quorum issues, which maybe the most obvious, are only the tip of the iceberg. The problems underneath the surface include a lack of understanding of some or all of the following:

their role,
the executive director’s role,
the finances,
the mission and strategic vision for the organization, and
how programs support that vision.

By now you may be wondering about the level of engagement on the Board you serve.

Some questions for your consideration:

Are Board and committee meetings productive, engaging and worth the time to attend?
Does the Executive Director meet individually, at least annually, with Board members?
Is there a plan that everyone is aware of and working toward?
Are there strategic and generative discussions happening in the boardroom?
Is there meaningful work for individual board members to do?

If the answer to any of these questions is “NO” or “I don’t know,” then I encourage you to put a plan in place to move your answers to “YES”. Talk to your Board members individually and ask about engagement. Ask about how they would like to be engaged, why they joined the Board and how you can make their experience more meaningful.

For the organizations with which I work I encourage:

a written plan detailing an intentional process to build and develop the board;
annual retreats to set or re-commit to strategic goals;
board training on everything from how to read the financials, to raise money, to the role and responsibilities of the Board; and
an annual evaluation process that assesses individual members as well as the entire board against the expectations and the organization’s aspirations.

Board engagement is critical to building an organization that moves the needle and impacts the community!

What’s been your experience? As always, I welcome your experience and insight.

Solving the age-old battle between fundraising vs grantwriting

December 26, 2012 erik Board development, Fundraising, Planning

It is the end of the year and for many non-profit organizations it means:

constructing an agency budget for 2013, and
putting together a comprehensive resource development plan to add meaning and depth to the revenue side of the agency budget.

In the last few weeks as I’ve talked with various agencies about their resource development planning efforts, I’m reminded of age-old battle:

Fundraising vs. Grantwriting

Donors see government grants as “wealth redistribution” and a substitute for their charitable contributions. Fundraising volunteers (and even fundraising staff) get squeamish about asking other people for money, and they prefer asking government and private sector foundations over soliciting family, friends, co-workers and neighbors.

crowding1 This phenomenon is called the “crowding out effect” and I wrote about it in the following blog posts in 2011:

While I would love for you to go back and read those posts, I also encourage you to read an awesome 2009 research paper written by James Andreoni and A. Abigail Payne titled “Is Crowding Out Due Entirely to Fundraising? Evidence from a Panel of Charities“. They do an awesome job of looking at this from a data perspective, and they conclude the following:

Using instrumental variable techniques, we estimate total crowding is around 73 percent, and that this crowding out is almost exclusively is the result of reduced fund-raising. A $10,000 grant, for instance, reduces fund-raising expenses by $1370, which in turn reduces donations by $7271. Adding this $1370 savings in fund-raising expenses reduces the estimate of crowding out to 59 percent. If charities had maintained their fund-raising efforts, our estimates show that donations would have risen by the full amount of the grant.

hell2 The crowding out effect is real, and it is something non-profit organizations need to understand and deal with. If not, then I advise putting the following age-old expression in a frame above the boardroom door: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about how to put the “crowding out effect” in check, and the following few paragraphs are just a few ideas. I think some are good thoughts and others are a little out there, but let’s work together on refining these ideas.

Planning – Planning – Planning

The planning process is not about the executive director putting stuff in writing and handing it over to volunteers for implementation. Planning is an engagement activity.

So, why not introduce volunteers who are involved in the resource development planning process to the research paper by James Andreoni and A. Abigail Payne and ask them: “What should we do about this? How should we accommodate for this in our plan?”

Simply stated . . . planning is the antidote for the crowding out effect.

Fundraising policies

I’ve always seen “policies” as a way of creating hard and fast rules for things that board volunteers and non-profit staff might otherwise find hard to implement if it weren’t “required“. Since so many people find grantwriting easier and preferable to fundraising, I started wondering if there weren’t some policies we could create that could put the “crowding out effect” in check. The following are just a few thoughts:

A written policy prohibiting government and private foundation grant revenue from exceeding a certain percentage of the agency’s overall revenue.
A written policy that commits board members to increasing their personal contributions by a certain percentage whenever grant revenue exceeds a certain level.
A written policy that commits board members to asking a certain number of new prospective donors whenever grant revenue exceeds a certain level.
A written policy that ties the agency’s annual campaign goal to the level of grant revenue. (e.g. every 1% increase in revenue goals from grant writing results in a 2% increase in qualified individual giving prospects and corresponding campaign infrastructure)

Truth be told . . . I’m not a huge fan of this approach, but I do think it is worth continued discussion and dialog.

Board development

I suspect that the best solution is the simplest solution — recruit the right board members.

Smart business people will understand a simple concept like the “crowding out effect”. Put this challenge in front of them and ask them to solve it.

I suspect they will simply conclude that more “fundraising-minded volunteers” need to be recruited to off-set the effects of grantwriting on the agency. After all, isn’t that what they’d probably conclude when it comes to their sales force staff and their business if confronted with the same challenge?

Are you in the middle of writing your 2013 resource development plan? Are you facing some of the same challenges with volunteers regarding the question of more fundraising versus more grantwriting? If so, how are you tackling this challenge? Do you have any suggestions on how to improve upon the recommendations I’m providing in this blog post? Please use the comment box below to weigh-in with your thoughts and suggestions.

Here’s to your health!

Have you forgotten year-end evaluations and performance plans during the year-end scramble?

December 21, 2012 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

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.

It is that time of the year when non-profit leaders set the stage for the next year. This time of the year is always critical and tripping up usually means the next year won’t be a banner one. Here is just a small sampling of what is on the plates of many non-profit executive directors:

Budget construction
Resource development / revenue planning
Program planning
Year-end holiday fundraising and stewardship strategies
Working with the board development committee to complete year-end board volunteer evaluations
Developing annual performance plans for the upcoming year for staff
Completing year-end evaluations

Interesting enough, in my experience, it is the last three bullet points that get swept under the rug by so many non-profit organizations.

Today’s blog post is short and sweet because it is the end of the Mayan calendar and I have a few things to do before the world ends. So, please ask yourself the following questions:

Are you anxious about evaluating your employees?
Have you neglected to put 2013 annual performance plans together for your staff?
Have you let your Board Development / Board Governance Committee off the hook yet again when it comes to year-end board evaluations?

If you answered ‘YES’ to any of these questions, then please “click-through” and read John’s most recent post titled “There Is No Crying In Performance Reviews!”

Not only does he “hit the nail on the head,” but I don’t have any personal stories that are better than the ones he shares.

If you didn’t get a chance to read this month’s guest post from Dani Robbins, then you may want to click here and circle back to her thoughts on year-end evaluations for board volunteers. I urge you to consider what Dani says and compare it to John’s post about employee evaluations. Does John’s organizational development insights and suggestions also ring true when it comes to year-end board member evaluations. If so, what can you do to support your Board Development Committee to have “AUTHENTIC” and “GENERATIVE” conversations with their peers?

Enjoy the last day of civilization as we know it (just kidding) . . . and Here’s to your health!

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!

Does your non-profit board use this time to “Take Stock”?

December 5, 2012 erik Board development, volunteers

board evaluation It’s the end of the year, which always seems like a good time to take stock. Did I meet my obligations? Did I rise to the occasion? Did I do what I said I would? Have I become what I aspired to be? Am I living an authentic life?

For me, an authentic life includes service. So, while I take stock of myself, I also take stock of my Boards, the ones I serve, serve on, volunteer for or am paid by. I encourage an annual Board evaluation process.

The vast majority of Boards do not evaluate themselves. It’s not the norm. I’m not sure why, but it makes people uncomfortable. Yet…Board evaluations are not intended to be report cards; they’re intended to be opportunities for development, reflection and growth.

I’ve seen evaluations done a few different ways, and there is no right way. The following two options seem to be the most prevalent; I’ve also seen anything and everything in between. The only wrong (and career terminal) way to evaluate a Board is for the executive director to do it or to not do it at all. Two options:

Turn the Board expectations into a self-evaluation form and allow members to rate themselves on a scale of 1-4. If you’d like to take it a bit further, include at the bottom a space to allow them 3 opportunities to commit to (and hold themselves to) future growth or hand it in to the Board Development committee who can hold Board members individually accountable.
Have the Board Development Committee assess each member individually against the Board expectations, including committee and meeting attendance, giving, event participation, introducing and soliciting new donors, and ambassadorship in the community.

I also encourage you to survey your Board members to determine their opinion of Board process and enjoyment of strategic and generative discussions. It’s not enough for them to assess themselves individually. It’s also imperative that entire Board systems are evaluated and improved or evolved, as necessary and appropriate.

Please note it is the responsibility of the Board Development Committee to ensure evaluations are completed. The executive director can encourage the process and can write the evaluation form, but they cannot evaluate the Board members to whom they report. The Board must evaluate itself.

We can all do better. We can all be more. We serve because we believe in the potential of our organization, our communities and our own ability to affect change.

Take stock, you might like what you find; if you don’t, you can start building new systems toward a stronger future.

What’s been your experience? As always, I welcome your experience and insight.

Use video to help volunteers polish their case for support

November 29, 2012 erik Board development, Fundraising, technology, volunteers

I am helping a friend run for city council in my town. He is a great guy, and he will make a great council member. He is personable, down to earth, genuine, and just an everyday kind of person. He is funny, and best of all he is a storyteller. While these might be good building blocks for a servant leader on the city council, I am coming to the conclusion that these traits might not be so great for a “candidate”.

For example, good candidates have their well-polished elevator speech down to science. They knock on your door, you answer it, and they very succinctly tell you in 30 to 60 seconds why they are running and why you should vote for them. However, a good storyteller knows how to stretch a story. They are the master of delivery and timing. They weave and spin and divert and then . . . BOOM. . . they hit you with the punchline or the point of their story.

Needless to say, I’ve been working with my friend on how to polish a powerful and compact elevator speech before he starts knocking on doors. Here is what that has looked like:

We wrote a case for support.
We reduced the case down to a written script.
We refined that script down to something even more simple.

However, none of this has really helped because at his heart, he is a storyteller. Each new tool we’ve developed becomes something new for him to add to the bigger story. LOL

So, last night I decided to try one last trick that I had up my sleeve.

In a room full of 30 of his friends, family, and supporters, I asked him to deliver his case for support (aka his elevator speech). I handed everyone a worksheet with five questions. A few questions dealt with delivery and others addressed content. I asked that everyone fill it out and do so anonymously. I then pulled out my Samsung pocket video camera (similar to the old Flip video cameras), and I videotaped him.

You can probably guess where this is going.

His 30 to 60 second elevator speech turned into an eight minute story. It was funny, and people laughed, but it wasn’t an elevator speech that he will be able to use.

Next steps for me will be sitting down with him to review the critique feedback forms and view the videotape. After digesting this information, it will be back to the grindstone to continue the work of forging a powerful case for support.

The reason I am blogging about this experience on a blog focused on non-profit issues such as board development, fundraising, etc-etc-etc, is because it dawned on me that this same process can be used in variety of ways at your non-profit agency.

Why not use it to help fundraising volunteers polish their approach?

I like this idea because:

It is hard for people to step outside of their bodies to see and hear what they look like. Video is a tool that helps us do exactly this (albeit many people hate seeing or hearing themselves on video)
Achieving this vantage point can create a moment of clarity and focus people on fixing something specific in their delivery or pitch.
People often end up “off script” and speak from the heart even though it isn’t part of the written case for support document. Recording them and capturing some of those impromptu comments can help you refine your case and incorporate it into an elevator speech.

Yes, I know that no one likes to do activities like this, but sometimes good things aren’t necessarily the easy things in life. Right?

I also recently used my little Samsung pocket video camera to interview board volunteers prior to a board retreat. I asked questions like:

Why did you agree to serve on this board?
Why are you so passionate about this organization’s mission?
Why do you think other people should join you in serving on this board?
In the end, what do you want your legacy to be on this board?

You wouldn’t believe what comes out of people’s mouths. In fact, I think they are surprised at what comes out of their mouths.

When you ask someone to speak from the bottom of their heart, amazing things can happen. When you capture it on video and replay it back to them, it becomes a powerful tool for accomplishing a number of different objectives (e.g. engagement, reflection, etc).

Have you ever used video as a tool to help board members or fundraising volunteers? If so, what was your experience? If not, what barriers do you see that stop you from doing so? Please use the comment box to share your thoughts and experiences.

Here’s to your health!