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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hey Erik,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s to your health!

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

Will the lawyer on your non-profit board really provide legal advice?

October 23, 2012 erik Board development, volunteers

An executive director friend and I went to lunch a few weeks ago to catch-up on life and share stories. The company was great, the lunch was good, and I learned something new about non-profit board volunteers who work in the legal community. As it turns out, some law firms seem to be requiring their employees to clear a number of hurdles before serving on a non-profit board.

This revelation came about when my executive director friend said something to the effect of: “. . . and now the lawyer on my board can’t even provide legal advice in the boardroom.”

As you can imagine, I heard that old record player needle scratching across the surface of a vinyl album (ugh . . . yes, I am dating myself and obviously don’t belong to the Millennial generation). I swear the restaurant went dead just like in those E.F. Hutton television commercials, and all I could utter was one simple word . . . “Huh?”

So, my friend went on to explain that a new board volunteer, who just happens to be an attorney, sent him a letter from his law firm requiring the executive director to sign-off on a letter of agreement outlining the conditions of their employee’s board service.

I had a difficult time wrapping my head around this concept and asked my friend to email me a copy of the letter. The following are excerpts from that letter (with the names excluded to protect the innocent):

“The Firm has adopted policies regarding circumstances under which a Firm lawyer may serve as a director for non-client companies, and prohibits such service without permission of the Firm’s Professional Responsibility Committee. An additional prerequisite to my service is that I obtain written acknowledgement from the non-profit organization (The Company) regarding the capacity in which I will be serving on the board, and certain other matters. By signing and returning this letter to me, therefore, the Company and the Board acknowledge the matters stated below:

I will be serving in my personal and individual capacity only. I will not be acting as a lawyer or providing legal services or advice to the Company. I will not be acting as an agent, partner or employee of the Firm.

The Company acknowledges that it is not now a client of the Firm, and understands that the Firm will not be able to represent the Company without first obtaining special permission from the Firm’s Professional Responsibility Committee, which permission is rarely granted or unless I resign as a director.

Because I will not be providing legal services or advice in my role as a director, there will be no attorney-client privilege protecting communications between me and the Company or the Board.

As mentioned, the Firm’s policy prohibits director service by Firm lawyers without Professional Responsibility Committee permission. The Firm’s policy also requires that the Professional Responsibility Committee reconsider this question at least annually. Although the committee has indicated that it will permit me to serve as a director of the Company, it is possible that the Committee could change its view on this question in the future. If this were to occur, I would have to resign as a director at that time.”

I must admit that I’ve read this letter over and over again in disbelief. A number of things raced through my mind each time I read it, including:

Why would I ever recruit someone from a law firm who I might one day want to retain for legal counsel?
Board volunteers are suppose to bring their “Time-Talent-Treasure” to their non-profit board service. If I can only get two of three, is it still worth recruiting an attorney to serve on the board? Or would they just make a better special event or annual campaign volunteer?
Why would I ever include an attorney on my board as part of a board officer succession plan when the Firm can yank them off my board in a moment’s notice?

I am sure that if I thought about all of this for another few minutes, I could come up with additional questions and concerns. But where is the fun in that when I can open it up for discussion with the awesome non-profit professionals and volunteers who subscribe to this blog?

What questions and concerns do you have when you read excerpts from this letter? Have you been asked to sign off on anything similar by an attorney serving on your non-profit board? Does this letter of agreement impact how you think about recruiting an attorney to serve on your board? Why? Why not?

Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts on this important board development subject. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Change 101: Sell-Sell-Sell and then Strategy-Strategy-Strategy

October 19, 2012 erik Fundraising, organizational development

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

In a recent post, John talked about the importance of “selling problems,” and he wasn’t referencing issues that sales teams experience. He literally meant taking your organization’s problems / challenges and selling them as things that must be solved.

A few weeks ago, I attended Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Midwest Regional Conference as an exhibitor and trainer. One of the sessions I presented was “Transformation: Driving Lasting Change at Your Club“. In that training, I shared with participants a six stage process for leading change that I learned at a change leadership training offered by Linkage Inc.

Here are the six stages to that change model:

Make the case for change
Enlist stakeholders to develop vision & strategy
Communicate the vision and strategy
Remove barriers
Set milestones & acknowledge progress
Reinforce the change

If you click over and read John’s post and then click back here to the six stage change model, you will see the first three stages all deal with “selling the problem”.

Of course, this all seems to easy when presented in blogs and six stage models. What could go wrong, right?

Well, there is always that little thing called strategy development that if done incorrectly can lead your organization down a path towards bigger problems.

Let’s look at a real world example that many non-profit organizations deal with at one time or another. This is the issue of fundraising efficiency and productivity. Here is how I’ve seen this change initiative unfold too many times:

The agency needs to do better with its fundraising program.
The executive director sells the problem to the board. Facts, figures and charts all demonstrate the need.
The executive director and board members sell the problem to donors, who generous agree to help with their pocketbooks.
All of stakeholders agree that the strategy needs to be increased organizational capacity in the area of fundraising. The solution? Hire a fundraising professional! (or more fundraising professionals as the case may be)
The new fundraising professional joins the team, and the problem doesn’t get better (in fact it sometimes gets a little worse).

Huh? What happened?

In many instances, I’ve seen the executive director take a victory lap and then wash their hands of their fundraising responsibilities. The board does a similar celebration and then disengages from the resource development program. Board members think: “Phew! Thank goodness we hired that person to do all of our fundraising. Now I can focus on other things.”

Oooops! Maybe the problem was deeper and more complex.

When leading change, the first order of business for the non-profit executive director is “selling the problem”. As John points out in his example, if you can make this a self-discovery process for key stakeholders, it will be that much more powerful.

Immediately, after you secure engagement, strategy and vision development becomes critical because selling the right problem with the wrong solutions will get you nowhere fast.

I don’t mean to imply that the aforementioned strategy of hiring a fundraising professional is a wrong solution. However, understanding cause-and-effect is important and anticipating potential scenarios will help you avoid some heartache. Additionally, understanding the entire problem and being comprehensive in your strategy development is key.

Has your agency ever solved a problem without engaging key stakeholders in what the problem was in the first place? What was the result? Have you ever solved a problem and found yourself surprised that the solution didn’t solve the problem? What did you do? How did you correct course and change your change initiative? If you are a fundraising professional who has gone through what I just described, please share how you re-engaged your boss and the board and got things on track. Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and examples.

Birds of a feather meets angry non-profit birds

October 18, 2012 erik Board development, volunteers

Yesterday, my post was more of a question than anything else. I hoped you would join me in wondering if most board development processes really just result in boards replicating themselves. For example, a board full of middle management white-collar employees will beget more of the same. I ended the post with more questions focused on the idea of board transformation and asked if anyone has ever seen this done effectively.

After writing yesterday’s post, I jumped in my car and started a multi-day business trip. At my first stop, I had the pleasure of being able to continue this discussion about: bird of a feather flock together, boards replicating themselves, board transformation, and other board development approaches.

It was a robust discussion, and it reminded me of why I love non-profit work. Here are just a few things that popped out of that discussion yesterday:

there is no doubt that boards replicate themselves,
birds of a feather do indeed flock together, and
board transformation (whatever that may look like) needs to be managed very carefully to avoid hurt feelings and damaged donor relationships.

All of this got me thinking about situations where I’ve worked with a blended board of directors. What I mean by “blended board” is a group of volunteers who come from significantly different social circles, groups, sectors, etc.

It exists . . . in fact many non-profits are actually pursuing this idea all in the name of “board diversity.”

I am specifically thinking of one organization who I’ve worked with, and their board room contains:

a few CEOs and big business people,
one or two blue-collar construction folks,
a few country club wives,
a handful of middle managers, and
a former client.

So, you’re probably still wondering what inspired the title of this morning’s post. Simply stated, the “birds of a feather” refers to yesterday’s post, and the “angry birds” reference is a cautionary tale for non-profits who are aggressively pursuing the idea of blended boards and diversity.

When you have a blended boardroom, there are two big things that I think executive directors need to be on the look-out for:

Avoid board segmentation

I’ve seen blended boards where the “business people” and “folks with tons of influence” take on certain responsibilities (e.g. fundraising) and let others off the hook.

Here is what I’ve seen when blended boards segment themselves into “those who can” and “those who can’t”:

resentment
exhaustion
confusion
condescension

Every road leads to a bad place, and I’ve never seen it end well.

Avoid volunteer alienation

I’ve seen blended boards who work very hard at maintaining uniformity in expectations, roles, and responsibilities. So, the “CEO-type of board member” is held to the same standard as the “stay at home mom on the board”.

While this might sound “fair” to some of you, I assure you that this road is equally ugly. Here is what I’ve seen in these situations:

feelings of inadequacy
feelings of incompetence
finger-pointing
excuse making
under-performance

What I’m trying to say this morning is that if you are one of those non-profit professionals who actively fights against the “birds of a feather flock together” phenomenon, then you need to also be on the lookout for “angry non-profit birds” syndrome.

Here are just a few quick thoughts in my head for my non-profit executive directors friends out there:

Make sure your board recruitment process is followed. You are the guardian of process at your organization. Resist board members requests that sound like: “Awww, let’s just ask Betty to join the board. You know she’s perfect. Let’s just cut a few corners in the process.”
Make sure that your board development process educates prospective board volunteers on roles, responsibilities, and expectations BEFORE asking them to join anything.
Make sure your board development process includes regular doses of “education and training”. Using small training modules in the board room and infusing training into annual campaign kickoff meetings and board retreats ensures your board volunteers are growing.
Manage relationships. When you see board volunteers struggling, don’t look the other way. You can either personally engage and provide coaching to a struggling board volunteer or you can employ other board volunteers to provide that coaching. The end result might look different in every situation with some volunteers growing into their board roles and others finding other more comfortable seats on the bus that don’t involve serving on the board.
Don’t set people up for failure. If someone is a bad fit for the board, don’t ask them to join just because they have a large checkbook. There is no shame in asking someone to sit that is a better fit for their talents and passions.

Do you have a blended board with lots of diversity? How do you manage it? How have you kept it from splintering into “us” and “them”? How have you kept individual volunteers from feeling out-of-place or like they aren’t pulling their weight? Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Do non-profit board volunteers of a feather really flock together?

October 17, 2012 erik Board development, leadership, volunteers

My mind has been stuck in a board development rut lately, and I can’t stop thinking about whether it is possible for a weak board to get itself out of the ditch. Author Jim Collins in his book “Good to Great” talks about the importance of getting the right people on the bus and in the right seats. Cross apply Collins best practice with that old expression “Birds of a feather, flock together” and that is where I get stuck.

So, the picture to the right of you screen represents a very traditional board development process for the average non-profit organization. I found this particular board development cycle in old materials from my last job, and is was apparently adapted from “The Board Building Cycle: Nine Steps to Finding, Recruiting, and Engaging Nonprofit Board Members”, Second Edition by Berit M. Lakey (BoardSource, 2007).

Have you ever sat in a non-profit board room, looked around the table, and saw a bunch of people with big hearts, small checkbooks, and very little influence?

How many times have you seen a group of people fitting that description try to transform their boardroom? I have seen it too often, and in each instance they toss out the names of the “Whose Who” in your community. Yet, at the end of the board development process, none of those names seem to be occupying seats around the table.

Every time I start to focus on this phenomenon, the expression “Birds of a feather, flock together” comes to mind.

Sure, sometimes I see “Average Joe” and “Average CEO” sitting around a boardroom table talking about governance, fundraising, mission, and all things non-profit. However, it is the exception and definitely not the rule.

This all leads me back to where I started this post. Is there a different process that non-profits should use to transform their board of directors into a group of highly influential people?

I’ve recently been speaking with an old friend who emphatically says “YES” to this question.

His process is external to the board. It involves recruiting one board recruitment champion who: 1) is not a board member and 2) has so much influence that it is virtually impossible to say “NO” when s/he comes knocking on your door. There is more to his process, but in the final analysis the boardroom is transformed with most of the old board members finding different seats on the bus and the new board volunteers being highly influential, effective and engaged.

Has anyone out there every seen a non-profit board transform itself? What did that process look like? How did it unfold? What role (if any) did the existing board play? Please use the comment box below to share your observations because we can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Who is minding the gap at your agency?

September 28, 2012 erik organizational development, Planning

Today, we are talking about one of the most important things that your organizations must do if it wants to achieve its mission and vision of the future. We are talking about “minding the gap,” which is something John talked about in terms of strategic planning.

At the foundation of every good strategic plan (or any plan for that matter) is “gap analysis,” which John summarizes well when he says:

“Which is a pretty fancy way of saying that the team spends some time comparing the current situation with the future state. Comparing actual performance with potential performance. Comparing current capabilities to projected capabilities.”

When I read this, my mind wandered to the countless evaluation sessions and SWOT exercises in which I’ve participated and facilitated throughout the years. However, I then read this in John’s post . . .

“The team doing the gap analysis rarely delivers the plans necessary to actually bridge the gap and achieve the future state. Look; it’s not that the team is a bunch of do nothing know nothing stiffs. Far from it; they are very often strong contributors, hand-picked for the job — logical, analytical; detail oriented, project planners and operational executioners. Without them, the current state would be nowhere near as good as it is.”

Now this stopped me cold in my tracks on a Friday morning because it is a powerful and true statement. It also made my brain hurt because it raises all sorts of questions that are difficult to contemplate on only 1/2 cup of coffee such as:

Who do you involve in your gap analysis?
How do you assess who those right people are when building your prospect list?
How do you keep the gap assessment from feeling like a judgement on your current team?
Are there different groups who mind different gaps in your organization? For example, who is minding the program/operations gap? The board governance gap? The fundraising gap?
What role should donors play in minding the gap? How can we get over our fears around exposing donors to the data that comes out of minding the gap? (Ditto these questions for board members as it relates to staff and programming)

So, here is the take away for me this morning . . .

Spend lots of time getting the “WHO” right,
when it comes to gap assessment and planning.

If you get this wrong, then it will likely haunt you for years and years to come.

Do you have any strategic planning stories that you would like to share about how you determined who the right people were and put them in the right seat of your strategic planning bus? Please share your experiences in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

How Nonprofits Can Maximize LinkedIn to Grow Their Community

September 24, 2012 erik Mondays with Marissa, nonprofit, technology

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought that LinkedIn was the grownup Facebook. When it first started, I didn’t think much of it, but over the years, LinkedIn has become a powerful networking tool, not only for job-searchers, but for everyone in a professional community. Today let’s take a look at a few things that you can do to maximize your and your organization’s presence on LinkedIn.

Complete Your Profile
When starting out on LinkedIn, completing your organization’s profile is important. This is because the heart of LinkedIn is connecting people. The more information it has about you, the better it can serve as a networking resource for you and

your organization. Take some time to think about 10 to 15 keywords that you think would best describe your agency and their mission. Using the right keywords will attract the right people to your page.

Not only is an organization profile important, but it is important that everyone connected to your organization has complete profile as well. Make sure employees, volunteers and board members take the time to fill their profiles completely. There is a “Volunteer and Causes” section that can be added to personal profiles where supporters can list your organization.

Companies as Donors
If you are looking to find a company to sponsor an event or make a donation, LinkedIn would be a great place to start. Many companies will list in their profiles if they give to charitable causes or not. If you cannot find info on their profile, see who is connected to that company and reach out to people in your network.

Follow People
I am not an advocate for stalking, except for in the case of LinkedIn. The more connections you have, the better your network, so follow people you know and people you don’t know. Having a connection can help you along the way, when it comes to

gaining volunteers, finding new donors, hiring a new employee, or finding a new board member.

Group Hug
One of the most dynamic sections to LinkedIn is their groups. There are groups focused on just about everything. Join as many as you can or have your organization start one tailored to discussions about your mission. People expect to start conversations in LinkedIn and groups can be a great way to create new connections.

Keep People Up to Date
LinkedIn is just like every other social media site; as in it works best when you update it frequently. So share news and blog updates with your community there too. Also, LinkedIn does a good job of of aggregating news that is important to you. It is a great place to find new articles to share with your followers as well.

Find Your Next Board Member
LinkedIn just released a new, exciting tool for nonprofits called LinkedIn Board Connect. This allows nonprofit organizations to use LinkedIn to find people who might be a good fit to be the next member of your board. For more information on this new service, take a look at LinkedIn’s announcement. Also, they are having a webinar on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 to explain what Board Connect can do. I suggest joining in to see if this is a tool that would be beneficial to your organization.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: finding the right social network for your organization is key to your social media success. LinkedIn can be a powerful tool to find people and grow your community. How does your organization use LinkedIn? What are some of the things that work best on this social network for you? I’d love to talk about it in comments!

Non-profit board volunteers should all dress the same

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

Today, I am focusing on a post that John wrote about “Decision Fatigue,” which is a fascinating organizational development concept that applies perfectly to so many different aspects of non-profit work life. I mean come on, John! It would be soooooo tempting to expand on the “Kissing while driving for non-profit agencies” post from March 9, 2012 and talk about the utter insanity behind most executive director’s day-to-day routines. But I won’t do that and instead decided to focus on the board of directors.

After reading John’s post this morning, I was transported back in time to March 20, 2000. I will never forget that day because it was my first day on the job as a newly minted executive director.

At the top of every new CEO’s “To Do List” is a whirlwind tour of meeting board members. This is one of the most important first tasks because you are trying to get a feel for:

what is going on throughout the organization
what personalities are sitting around the boardroom table
how decisions get made in the board room

When I stuck the thermometer in the turkey on March 20, 2000, it immediately registered “DECISION FATIGUE“.

This board had operated for more than six months without an executive director. Some of the people during our first meeting even told me of their plans to resign. Needless to say, within the first 90 days the board roster shrank from 20 people strong to 11 very weary individuals who bravely faced the future and simply said, “FORWARD!”

The list of decisions that fatigued the board prior to hiring an executive director is endless, but here are just a few of those decisions they routinely faced:

Where are we meeting? What time?
What’s on the agenda?
Who is attending? Do we have quorum?
What materials should be distributed prior to the meeting? Who puts all of that together?
How do we make sure everyone is properly prepared for tough discussions and decisions at the upcoming meeting?
Do we have enough money in the bank to make payroll next week?
Which employee just quit? At which site did they work? What does that mean for operations? Is there paperwork that needs to get filled out? Who is doing THAT?
Who is doing what and with whom with regards to the annual campaign pledge drive that is scheduled to start next week?
Uh oh . . . I though we were just focusing on the pledge drive, but now we’re talking about special event planning for the dinner that is 12 weeks away. Who is doing what and with who regards to all of THAT?
Ummm . . . how does all of this mesh with the decisions happening at home and at my paying job?

This is just a small sampling of what was on those board member’s decision-making list.

One of the most interesting things I found in my first 90 days was the board decision made right before they hired me. It was the decision to stop meeting monthly and only meet every other month. When I asked why they made this decision, they said that their monthly meetings had gotten way out of hand and too long. Those meetings apparently lasted sometimes three or four hours!

Like you, I scratched my head, and asked how in the world that decision made any sense.

If you think about it for a moment and put yourself in their shoes, it makes perfect sense:

They were tired.
They needed more time between meetings to re-group.
This allowed them to “empower” the executive committee to make decisions for the board during the off-months (e.g. dump the tough work on a smaller group of people).

I don’t need to tell you how damaging that decision was to the agency’s health, but it made sense when you look at it through a “decision fatigue” filter. It took me almost three years to get them to reverse their decision and start meeting every month again.

It is the job of the executive director to help the board avoid “decision fatigue”.

Good non-profit executive directors support the work of their board by facilitating and assisting with everything including:

developing agendas
taking meeting notes
recruiting new board volunteers
supporting committee work
helping board volunteers process tough issues and position them for making tough decisions in the boardroom
supporting all of the planning work that occurs ranging from strategic planning to special events
And much, much more!

So, I titled this blog post the way I did because of the Vanity Fair article that John cited in his blog post. In that Vanity Fair interview with President Obama, they explain why the President is almost always seen in blue or grey suits. Of course, it has everything to do with decision fatigue, and this got me giggling about non-profit board volunteers as I envisioned a boardroom full of volunteers wearing the exact same thing.

Hmmmm . . . perhaps board tee-shirts might not be a bad idea. 😉

Is your board tired? Have you given any thought to why? What role have you played in their fatigue? What could you be doing differently? Here’s a thought . . . if this is something with which you’re struggling, use the comment box below to ask a few questions of your fellow non-profit peers and see what they have to say. Or if you have a great success story, please feel free to share that as well.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profit inside-the-box thinking: Sell-Sell-Sell ! ! !

September 20, 2012 erik Board development, Fundraising, organizational development

As promised in last Friday’s post, I dedicated Tuesday, yesterday and today to challenging proponents of “outside-the-box thinking” and examining various “inside-the-box thinking” principles. This week’s posts were determined by DonorDreams blog subscribers who took the time to voice their opinions via a poll last Friday. Thank you to those of you who voted. Additionally, the foundation of these posts are rooted in Kirk Cheyfitz’s book “Thinking Insider The Box: The 12 Timeless Rules for Managing a Successful Business.”

DonorDreams blog subscribers voted to hear more about chapter six of Cheyfitz’s book, which is titled “The Marketing Box: Unifying the Whole Business”.

I love how the author starts each chapter with a short sentence that serves as “food for thought”. The following is how chapter six started:

“You should be selling all the time.”

This is a complex chapter and a little mind-bending because the author contends that the average person’s idea about marketing is all wrong. Most people equate marketing with advertising, when in reality it is much bigger. He says in the book:

“Economists, academics, and marketing professionals have come to see marketing this way — as the single discipline that embraces and unites virtually every aspect of business activity. Marketing: Guides production . . . Governs distribution . . . Controls advertising, promotion and all marketing communications . . . Peter Drucker has written that business’s only purpose is “to create a customer,” and because of that, “marketing and innovation” are the two basic functions of business”.

Well . . . WOW! In a nutshell, Cheyfitz is saying:

Marketing is everything and

successful businesses do it all the time!

As I said in yesterday’s post, this concept is a little difficult to apply to non-profit corporations because the word “customer” usually conjures up images of clients and donors (or both) depending on which chair you sit in. Unlike yesterday, I won’t limit today’s blog to just talking about donors. I will attempt to GO GLOBAL.

I could probably write pages and pages on this topic because there is a lot of ground to cover. Instead, I will start a laundry list of examples and hand-off the baton to you so you can continue it in the comment section.

The following are just a few examples of marketing (and you will see how it unifies everything we do):

How your program staff talks to and treats clients is marketing because it shapes the perceptions of your brand in the community among volunteers, donors, potential staff, prospective donors and future board members.
The decision to create a new program and write a big grant to get it off the ground is marketing. You are sending messages to people around you about what is important and what is a priority. These messages get picked up by volunteers, staff, clients, and donors. They in turn amplify these messages throughout the community. These actions and messages will even impact the long-term sustainability of your new program depending on donor perceptions.
Sticking with the creation of new programming from the last bullet point . . . talking with clients and prospective clients before making the decision to offer that new service is marketing. If your new program doesn’t fill a community need and your actual or potential clients, then it is your initiative will likely failure (which will likely have a ripple effect among donors, etc).
How and what the executive director says to or does with their staff is marketing. When they tell co-workers that the agency has challenges, it impacts staff turnover and in turn affects program quality and how the donor community’s perceptions of their investments.
Talking to volunteers and donors before developing another special event fundraiser is marketing. You need to determine if people will support this new idea before investing time and money into developing it.
What an executive director includes in the board packet and says in the boardroom is marketing. All of those messages get amplified by your community ambassadors (aka board volunteers) on the street when they’re networking.

Cheyfitz tells us that marketing happens pre-production, during production, and definitely after production. In non-profit terms, it happens before the donor writes the check, during the solicitation process, and in-between gifts for the duration of your relationship with that donor. More specifically, marketing happens during every waking moment of a non-profit professional’s life in their dealing with staff, volunteers, clients, board members, donors, and the community-at-large.

At the end of this chapter, Cheyfitz offers six different tips on how to build your organization’s box rather as opposed to thinking outside of it. I won’t ruin the surprise (because you should buy this book and read it), but I will share two of his tips to whet your appetite:

Marketing (in other words everything you do) must unify every aspect of a business around one purpose: creating a customer.
Every time a company touches a customer, there is an opportunity to win or lose that customer. These opportunities must be maximized, not avoided.

How does your organization see and approach “marketing”? Are you trying to thread the idea of marketing throughout everything you do? If so, can you share a few examples? How do you prepare others (e.g. staff, board members, etc) to communicate and demonstrate what your agency is all about? Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Here’s to your health!

Non-profit board work that moves the needle

September 12, 2012 erik Board development, leadership, 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.

I’ve given a lot of thought lately to how the work of the Board gets done. Mostly, it’s by decisions made in meetings and in-between meetings. Board members go to a lot of meetings, committee meetings, board meetings, and meetings with the executive director. Additionally, there’s work to do between meetings, and it all leaves me wondering: Where’s the strategy? Where’s the generative thinking? Where’s the advocacy? Where’s the impact? How do we know?

Boards approve things, they review things, they talk about things, but . . .

Are they the right things?

Boards have to have a quorum. approve financials and meeting minutes, and a whole host of other things. Hopefully, Board members also represent the agency in the community, understand and talk about programs, support and evaluate the executive director, raise money, and give money. These are their fiduciary responsibilities. But surely, this isn’t all we have our Board members doing. They are the pillars of our community. They are smart, professional and talented people, but . . .

Are we correctly utilizing their collective brain power?

Have they decided upon a strategic direction? Have they discussed the underlying causes that created the issue the organization originally was created to address? I am hearing a resounding chorus of NO!

All too often, there is no plan, strategic or even tactical. There are no metrics. There is no discussion of root causes, alternative options or new ideas. There are talented people sitting in a room because they care about the mission of the agency –- and in certain, but by no means all cases — we are wasting their time. And as such we are wasting our resources.

Strategic planning has fallen out of favor. It kills me to say it, but it’s true. Most Board members have sat through at least one planning session, often more, that were long and boring; yet they sat there in an effort to decide the mission and direction of an agency. And as a prize for their dedication, they got to spend two hours debating if they were going to use the word “a” or “the” in the mission statement. Then, when they were – thankfully – finished after days or months and considerable expense, the plan sat on a shelf, collecting dust, never to be seen again.

It doesn’t have to be like that.

In the article, “Governance as Leadership; An Interview with Richard Chait,” Chait discusses his book “Governance as Leadership” (BoardSource) which “recommends reframing board work around “three modes” of governing. The first is the fiduciary mode, in which the board exercises its legal responsibilities of oversight and stewardship. The second is the strategic mode, in which the board makes major decisions about resources, programs and services. The third is the “generative” mode, in which the board engages in deeper inquiry, exploring root causes, values, optional courses and new ideas.”

You may be wondering how to add generative and strategic to your meetings.

“Strategy” is all about connecting the resources to the goals, which, of course, requires having strategic goals. If you don’t, I encourage you to read my previous blog about wheel spinning and begin to discuss planning.

“Generative” is a much deeper conversation about the underlying issues and how to impact them. Chait presents governance discussions as ones that “select and frame the problem.” In other words, we’re no longer talking about impact or program outcomes or even the agency itself, we’re talking about how we — our city, community, country or even world –- got here and what it takes to get out of here.

Chait explains it best when he says,

“Committees need to think not about decisions or reports as their work product, but to think of understanding, insight and illumination as their work products.”

In order to use the collective brain power of our Boards to move our agencies forward, we have to move into strategic and generative governance, while still meeting our fiduciary obligations. The board president and the executive director can, should, and I would submit, have the obligation to use the collective brain power of their board to move the needle. It’s why we’re here. In the absence of that, we approve things, we attend meetings and we go through the motions, but nothing happens.

I want something to happen . . . I want the world to change.

What’s been your experience? How have you utilized the talent on your Board to move the needle? I welcome your comments.

Spend lots of time getting the “WHO” right, when it comes to gap assessment and planning.

Spend lots of time getting the “WHO” right,
when it comes to gap assessment and planning.