leadership – Page 21 – The Healthy Non-Profit

Becoming a non-profit board president

August 21, 2012 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 nonprofit consultant to blog this week about board development related topics. She also agreed to join the DonorDreams team and contribute a board development post every month. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com. I hope you enjoy the genius musings of my friend for the next few days . . .

Congratulations for being named Board President! You are going to be great! I am so honored that you turned to me for some suggestions as to your responsibilities. Thank you.

In a nut shell, your job is to:

lead the board by inviting participation of board members;
guide evaluations of the organization, executive director and the board;
facilitate communication among the board and between board and staff;
delegate authority;
raise funds and support resource development efforts; and,
maintain visibility in the community.

That is the big picture of the job. How that translates into actual work is this:

President/Chairs lead meetings by following the meeting agenda, making it critical to have an agenda. When you chair the meeting keep the conversation on point, if it veers off point, call the question, table any motion and/or send the issue back to committee for further discussion. Do not let the board meeting became a committee meeting, but do encourage all interested parties to attend the next committee meeting to further discuss the issue. This will promote the engagement of those who are passionate about the issue, and continue the engagement of those who are not.

The Board President appoints committee chairs and holds them to account, ensures conflict of interest policies and other policies are upheld by Board members, and supervises and evaluates the Executive in concert with or on behalf of the Board. President’s chair meetings, but do not vote or make motions. They only vote to break a tie. They do steer the conversation, share their opinions and keep the group on task.

The Board is responsible for governance, which includes mission, vision and strategic planning; hiring, supporting and evaluating the executive director; acting as the fiduciary responsible agent, setting policy and raising money. Everything else is done in concert with the executive director or by the executive director.

When you become Chair sit down with the executive director and map out your goals for your term. Discuss how you and the Board will be evaluating him/her and by what measurement you will gauge his/her success. Check in on when the last time the board reviewed the mission and vision of the agency. If it’s been a few years, consider a Board retreat to revisit, revise or recommit. Please also discuss how you like to be contacted and set a plan to meet twice a month to discuss relevant issues, problems, and successes as well as progress toward your goals and/or the strategic plan. Be prepared to take calls in between should something come up – because something always comes up.

Board President’s have a lot of power. Use that power wisely. If you ask for something, the staff will drop whatever they are doing to get it for you. I would hope that they will be comfortable enough with your leadership to explain the price of what they are dropping, but it is likely they won’t. In fact, I recommend you don’t go to the staff at all and instead work through the executive director for whatever information you would like. If it is not feasible to go through the executive director, then please ask via email and cc the Exec. S/he cannot be held accountable for managing a staff that are getting directions from others, and the staff will become confused as to from whom they take direction and who’s direction takes priority.

On behalf of executive directors everywhere, I ask you to please remember that they are the CEO of the company, and not a department head. You are the Chair of the Board, which is responsible for governance. S/he is the leader of the agency and responsible for everything else.

I encourage you to review Robert’s Rules of Order and follow the entire procedure for votes including asking: All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstentions? Don’t leave out the last two. In addition to alienating whatever Board members wanted to go on record for opposing or abstaining, it will make future challenges more difficult to defend. The following need votes:

Any Policy – crisis communication and management, personnel, etc. (Procedures do not need votes. Think of it like the difference between the rule and the law.);
Past board meeting Minutes;
Financial reports;
Agency Annual Budgets;
Plans – strategic, board development and/or resource development;
Changes to the strategic direction of the organization;
The hiring of an Executive Director;
Campaigns;
Opening, closing or changing the signatures on bank accounts;
Changes to the mission or vision; and Board Members and Officers being added, or renewed.

Resignations can be noted in the minutes and do not require votes.

Please also review your agencies by-laws, also called the Code of Regulations. All valid votes require a quorum of Board members to be in the room (or on the phone if your by-laws allow) – usually ½ of the board, but your by-laws may require more, or possibly less. You can start a meeting without a quorum, but cannot vote until a quorum has been reached.

Lastly, I encourage you to plan your year, structure board meetings to align with strategic goals, and to frequently remind board members of the mission of the agency.

I’ll be here if you need me. You’re going to be great!

Seinfeld, silver medals, and your employees

August 17, 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.

Today, I am focusing on a post that John wrote a post inspired by a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up comedy piece about winning silver medals at the Olympics. He talks about a research study that shows that Olympic athletes who win a silver medal are significantly less happy than bronze medalists. John, of course, goes on to talk about expectations and performance in the workplace.

John’s post got me thinking about many of the jobs that I’ve held in various non-profit organizations.

While I loved all of those job and experiences, the general memories that stick with me are:

Good is good enough
Don’t worry about cutting that corner
It is understandable that the outcomes and impact data aren’t what we hoped because we’re making do with less

For those of you who know me personally, you know that I am a results-focused person who constantly strives for the gold. So, it might come as a surprise to you that in spite of all the glowing performance reviews I always felt like the silver medalist.

Now I already know that some of you are rolling your eyes and chalk my observation up to unrealistic expectations on my part. While some of that might be true, please stick with me because I think it is more than just that.

Dan Pallotta speaks to this issue a little bit in his new book “Uncharitable“. He points to the lack of resources in the non-profit sector and highlights what he believes is ineffectiveness in many instances and failure in others. For example . . .

With so many non-profits focused on raising money for cancer and AIDS research, why hasn’t it been cured?
With so many church food pantries and non-profit food banks, why is child hunger on the rise?
With so many after-school programs for kids, why are academic achievement test scores still so low?

Non-profit sector employees are a special breed. Most studies that I’ve read show that these individuals are more motivated by “mission” than by a paycheck. They want to save the world and they are passionate about what you are trying to do.

So, when we tell these people that “good is good enough” or “cutting corners is acceptable and understandable,” aren’t we contributing to our own demise and helping them feel like silver medalists?

Again, please don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that you put an expense line in your agency budget for party supplies to make everyone feel like a gold medalist. Of course, I do hope that you’re demonstrating your appreciation for what those people do for you from time to time.

What I am suggesting is that your agency will benefit greatly if you start rightsizing your expectations. While talking about your organization’s mission and vision is important, I encourage you to put it in the context of today.

For example, talk about working towards the elimination of hunger with the focus being on helping one more more kid put food in her belly today.

Perhaps, we can reduce employee turnover AND donor turnover if we adjust our expectations, place our outcomes and impact data in the right context, and stop telling our employees that “good is good enough”.

Do you know how many of your employees feel like silver medalists? If you do, then please share with us how you know. What do you do to make your employees feel like winners rather than a runner-up. Do you know your employee turnover rate or door loyalty numbers off the top of your head? Do you share those metrics with your board and set goals against those benchmarks?

Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below. 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

If I had a hammer . . .

August 10, 2012 erik organizational development

Recently, John wrote two related posts titled “Rabbit Chase” and “Maslow’s Hammer“. These posts spoke to the ideas of organizational culture and effective processes. Additionally, they featured one of my favorite quotations of all-time from Abraham Maslow:

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

As John’s posts typically do, they get my mind racing about how his organizational development principles apply to my non-profit experiences. Sometimes, they even set me off in an unpredictable direction as is the case today.

Three non-profit executive director friends of mine are all involved in some kind of job search process:

One friend is unemployed and jumping into an executive director search process.
A second friend is filling a vacancy and hiring a CFO.
My third friend received approval from the board to create a development director position and is hiring a fundraising professional with major gifts experience.

So, you’re probably wondering what in the heck do these three things have to do with Maslow’s quotation about hammers and nails or John Greco’s posts about organizational culture and effective processes?

Well, it dawned on me that when non-profit organizations go into “hiring mode” and open an employment search, they are essentially adding tools to their organizational toolbox. Carrying this analogy to its logical conclusion . . . The obvious challenge for those organizations who have a toolbox full of hammers is to not add another hammer. Right?

Having formerly run a non-profit agency, I look back over all of the search processes that I ran, and I now wonder how many times I started out the search by assessing my organizational toolbox to figure out what type of person would best fill the gap.

You might be thinking that a when you have a vacancy — like my friend who is hiring a replacement CFO — you are by definition filling a gap, but I encourage you to rethink your position by reading John’s post “Rabbit Chase“. You will clearly see in that example that all three actors in that post — the FBI, CIA, and NYPD — do the same thing (e.g. law enforcement), but they all have a different approach.

Won’t that be the same thing my friend experiences during his CFO search? All of his final candidates will know finance, but they will all come with different backgrounds and experiences. They will also all have different approaches.

I think we can also take this organizational development principle beyond the confines of executive search and apply it to board development and how you approach your organization’s board development process.

I’ve seen a number of non-profit boards that had too many hammers on it. I can tell you that it always results in a very flat executive director! LOL

Think about it for a second.

How do you maintain a diversified organizational toolbox from a staff or board perspective? What tools do you use? How do you develop your interview guides with this organizational development principle in mind? Does your board development process utilize a board composition matrix?

Our organizations are stretched too thin for us to continue re-inventing the wheel. So, why not share your approaches and tools with each other in the comment box? We can all learn from each other.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t get the idea of hammers out of my head this Friday morning. So, I thought I’d end today’s post with this classic song from Peter, Paul and Mary:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaWl2lA7968&feature=related]

Here’s to your health!

Managing vs Leading: a follow-up post

August 1, 2012 erik organizational development

Last week, I wrote a post titled “Managing versus leading at your non-profit organization“. Well, it seems like this is a hot topic for many of you because a day has not gone by without someone saying something to me or emailing me about it. Additionally, my blog analytics reports indicate that this post has been popular. So, I thought I’d take a moment this morning to post a quick follow-up on this topic and share some of what you’ve said to me privately.

Smaller non-profit organizations

The idea of leading versus managing appears to be different for small non-profit organizations. Those of you who work at agencies with budgets under $1 million have emphatically said to me that you wear many different hats throughout the day primarily because your budget is stretched very thin. As a result, many of you have described a typical work day that you believe involves significantly more managing than leading.

When I’ve pressed many of you on the question of how to solve this situation, you’ve all had the same reaction, which is that you need to raise more money and hire more staff.

While I generally agree with you, this solution is simple and possibly unattainable because you’ve described being caught in feedback loop that doesn’t allow for you to find the time to focus on fundraising.

In the interest of being solution-focused this morning, the following are just a few ideas that you may want to chew on:

Identify a funding partner and secure organizational development and capacity building funding to help build a volunteer program, improve your fundraising efforts or strengthen your board.
Identify a strategic alliance with another non-profit organization in your community. This might free you up and allow you to shift more time from managing to leading.
Explore merger and acquisition opportunities. If what you’re saying about bigger non-profit organizations is true (e.g. more resources allows their CEO to spend more time leading), then it makes sense to chew on the idea of how you can become a bigger organization.

Bigger non-profit organizations

The idea of leading versus managing also appears to be different for larger non-profit organizations. Those of you who work at agencies with multi-million dollar budgets have emphatically said to me that you end up focusing more on managing than on leading when the staff underneath you doesn’t perform or do well at executing their jobs.

With a sluggish economy and job market, the solution is obvious . . . find ways to hire more talented people than what you currently have on your staff. While this is a simple solution, it is something with which many of you are struggling. Why? Because we are non-profit professionals and we see this approach as ruthless. You have explained to me that non-profit organizations (specifically social service agencies) are in the business of saving people and not putting them in situations where they need help.

You need to find a way to get over this attitudinal barrier because the job market will not be abundant forever. Now is the time to upgrade your staff. Finding a way to do so in a compassionate way might be one of the most transformational things you do during this decade.

Your leadership toolbox

As many of you have engaged me in this conversation, we’ve found ourselves talking about tools, strategies and approaches that you think help you restore balance between the competing ideas of leading and managing. The following is a brief list of your thoughts:

Board development is important. Leadership isn’t just something that comes from the CEO’s office. A strong board that understands their roles and responsibilities and keeps its nose out of the operational details and focused on big picture strategic issues is more likely to demand the same from you.
Strategic planning is foundational. Many of you have said that it is impossible to lead without a leadership blueprint, and your strategic plan serves that function. The plan is not an “end” strategy, but you’ve said it is a “means to an end” . . . it is a starting point.
Executive coaching provides perspective. While executive coaching still seems to be more prevalent among for-profit CEOs, some of you told me that you’ve engaged the services of an executive coach. It is hard to “see the forest through the trees“. Your executive coach helps you with this issue and brings a sense of accountability and action-focus to your job.
Tools and systems make it easier. The following is a list of tools and systems that many of you referenced: annual performance plans, organizational dashboards, time management tools and practices, trainings, weekly meetings with key staff, etc.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this topic is very large and could take up a month’s worth of blog posts. I also find it curious that so many of you want to have this discussion off-line, which is why I decided to double back and ask you to please reconsider and post your thoughts in the comment box below. How do you know when you are leading compared to managing? What are you doing (what tools or strategies are you using) that enables you to do more leading? We can all learn from each other. It will only take one or two minutes out of your day to post a comment. Please?

Here’s to your health!

Your non-profit organization is like a car and you are the mechanic

July 27, 2012 erik organizational development

I am trying something new this Friday with John’s organizational development blog post. Please take a moment and ask yourself the following few questions:

Are you trying to build organizational development capacity? Are you a small organization who is trying to get bigger?
Are you experiencing a staffing issue? Is one of your employees not fitting in well with the rest of the team? Or are they experiencing performance issues?
Are you adding a new program or a new service location?
Are you contracting your organization and eliminating programs and service locations?
Have you hired a consultant to help your agency with something?
Is your organization’s board of directors disengaged?

As I read John’s post titled “Pieces / Parts,” I found all of these questions racing through my head as potential springboard themes for my post this morning.

So, here is what I propose we do this week. If you answered ‘YES’ to any of the above questions, please click here and go read John’s post.

As you read his long and systemic post, I know you are going to have an epiphany about something happening at your agency regarding organizational development. When that happens, please jump back here and share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Are you a systemic thinker? If not, where are you going to find that person to help you with your quest of repairing, improving or building your car . . . errrrr, I mean . . . your non-profit organization?

We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Advice for all non-profits: “It is time to talk human again!”

July 25, 2012 erik Donor-centered fundraising, Fundraising, organizational development, Planning, technology, volunteers

So, I was sitting in my living room watching television and trying to multitask last night when one of the commercials that I was trying to ignore jumped out of my television, grabbed me by my shirt collar and shook me hard. It was an advertisement by Skype and it was very cute. You probably know which one I am talking about . . . it is the commercial with the middle school aged boy and girl passing notes in class. I’ve embedded it below if you want to view it again.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJAASK50lY]

I especially love the following line in this ad:

“Long before email threads, we turned to each other. It is when the spirit of collaboration meant more than an ‘FYI’ or ‘Reply All’. When messages were passed along by simple gestures, validated by an honest expression.”

Long after this commercial was over, my mind kept straying back to it. I must have re-played it over and over and over again in my head all night long. After a few hours, it dawned on me that there is something about this message that obviously resonates with me and my point of view about non-profit organizations.

For the last few years, I became more focused on using technology to engage people (e.g. non-profit clients, donors, board volunteers, etc) in a way that felt efficient and productive. Thinking back on it, I have tried all sorts of technology tools all in the name of saving time:

Email (Ugh . . . I can send wickedly long emails with lots of detail)
Google Docs
GoToMeeting
Conference call bridges
e-newsletters

I suspect this trend is rooted in the idea of being respectful of a donor and volunteer’s time. After all, life is so busy and very fast nowadays. However, are we really being more efficient? Are we really getting more done? Are we really simplifying things or do our efforts really just de-humanize the experience and end up doing more harm than good?

I think United Airlines hit the nail on the head more than 20 years ago when they run this iconic television ad:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU2rpcAABbA]

Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I believe technology is here to stay, and we all better learn how to appropriately use it to keep our donors and volunteers informed and engaged.

I suspect that technology will also continue to creep into our lives and become a stronger fundraising solicitation tool over the next decade. I also suspect that more and more board and committee meetings will happen over Skype and other online video platforms.

Before you totally surrender your non-profit and its relationships to the “Technology Gods,” I encourage you to take the following advice from our friends at United Airlines and Skype:

Scale back your email and non-personal technology efforts with volunteers and donors.
Don’t make-up reasons for volunteers to attend a committee meeting or board meeting. Make sure that the agenda contains important stuff.
Don’t make-up reasons to sit down with a donor. Make sure every touch is engaging, enlightening, fulfilling, and fun for them. It is more about them and less about you. Right? Connecting people with your mission in an emotional way is a recipe for success! And technology is anti-emotional.
Visit people in-person, but do so in a way that feels important and not a waste of time.
Try your hand at online video conferencing. Of all the technology available to you, this one somewhat allows some sense of personal interaction. Start small with an individual or committee first.

I think we can embrace technology in a way that makes sense and is not de-humanizing. It will take a conscious effort on your part. Are you up to the challenge? Or are you just going to continue ‘forwarding’ that email thread with an attachment and clicking ‘reply all”? Please scroll down and share your thoughts about either commercial? Did either have an impact on your non-profit point of view? I would love to hear your thoughts and what you plan on doing about it.

Here’s to your health!

Managing versus leading at your non-profit organization

July 24, 2012 erik Board development

This morning I am running off to facilitate an interesting discussion among some very smart non-profit professionals. The topic of the discussion is: “The Art of Being an Executive Director: Leading vs. Managing“.

To be honest, I’m so excited about today’s discussion that I’ve been looking forward to it for a month.

In preparation for today’s facilitated discussion, I developed the following questions to help get the creative juices flowing and stimulate discussion:

What is the difference between leading and managing?
How do you know when you’re leading or just managing?
Does this mean leaders can abdicate their role in implementation?
Are there tools you use that hold you accountable to leading?

Usually, when I’m asked to facilitate discussions like this one, I also try to bring various resources to the table that participants might find useful and seek out after the discussion. The following are just a few of the resources I plan on sharing:

Leading a Nonprofit Organization: Tips & Tools for Executive Directors and Team Leaders (an online pdf resource developed by Compassion Capital Fund National Resource Center)
How to Think Like a CEO: The 22 Vital Traits You Need to Be the Person at the Top (a book authored by D. A. Benton)
The Leadership Engine (a book authored by Noel Tichy with Eli Cohen)
Good to Great (a book by Jim Collins)
Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team (a book and field guide by Patrick Lencioni)

Rather than going on and on this morning about my thoughts on leading versus managing your non-profit organization, I thought I’d ask you to think about some of the questions I posed and you can weigh-in with your thoughts using the comment box below.

As I’ve been saying for more than a year now . . . “We can all learn from each other.”

Come on . . . please? The comment volume for this blog has decreased in the last few months. I know that the summer is here, but let’s try to reverse this trend just for today. Please take a few minutes out of your morning and leave a comment. It might make all the difference in the world for someone else. I would consider it a personal favor. 🙂

Here’s to your health!

John’s puppies provide perspective for non-profit organizations

July 20, 2012 erik organizational development, volunteers

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled: “Puppy Perspective“. In that post, he describes two different perspectives that he and his wife have on the exact same occurrence. The event in question has to deal with John’s dogs and the daily arrival of their mail carrier. While John’s post is cute and fun to read, you should really click over and read it for yourself because John’s dogs tell an important story about one of the biggest challenges every non-profit organization faces.

“Perspective” is a funning thing. It can sometimes feel like one of those circus fun house mirrors.

Think about how many different stakeholder groups your organization has:

Executive director
Fundraising professionals
Program staff
Clients
Donors
Board volunteers
Fundraising volunteers
Program volunteers
New prospective or incoming board volunteers
Prospective new donors

OMG . . . the list could go on and on, and John’s post “Puppy Perspective” very clearly shows us how common it is for different groups to have very different perspectives on the same thing.

This phenomenon means that building consensus around important decisions can sometimes feel like “Mission Impossible”.

When looking back at some of the organizations I’ve worked with on planning, implementing and evaluating an annual campaign, I now clearly see how different perspectives made implementing change difficult. To illustrate this point, the following is a short list of stakeholders and what I am sure they were thinking as they listened to me talk about running an annual campaign:

Staff — Ugh, this is so necessary, but this sounds like a lot of work and there is no time.
Board members & fundraising volunteers — Sitting down in-person with a donor and asking for money? That sounds scary!
Donors — OMG, another fundraiser? How many more times will they come back and ask for money?
Program staff — Why can’t people just give money and leave us to our important work? Outcomes measurement is so hard and takes time away from actual program time.

Everyone has a different perspective, and this makes getting something done very difficult. This is why non-profit executive directors must be highly skilled at driving change. When they aren’t good at getting everyone on the same page, then nothing happens and the non-profit organization dies a slow death.

Our friends at the Change Management Learning Center offer some interesting tutorials, training, and books that you might find helpful when developing your case and leading change.

Are you regularly on a different page than your board volunteers? If so, how do you manage that and close the gap? Has your agency’s fundraising staff found themselves at odds with program staff? How have you eliminated those silos and facilitated peace throughout your kingdom? Please use the comment box to share a story or an approach that has worked for you. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Can you put your finger on what exactly ‘non-profit leadership’ is?

July 13, 2012 DonorDreams organizational development

Last Friday, we talked about John’s blog post titled “I Disagree. Now What?” and related it to the idea that sometimes non-profit organizations need to decline a contribution from a donor because it has too many strings attached or doesn’t align with your agency’s strategic direction. We spent a lot of time in last Friday’s post talking about when you might have to say ‘NO’ and how to minimize how often that happens.

Since last Friday, John posted an interesting follow-up piece titled “Obeying: Murky Middle Ground,” which is the basis of today’s post about non-profit leadership.

In John’s post, his readers find murky middle ground to the idea of “obeying” because an employee can mildly comply with the organization’s direction without actively supporting it. I’ve seen it way too often, and I bet that you have, too. Here are two examples I’ve witnessed in recent years:

An executive director asks their fundraising professional to help with writing the agency’s resource development plan. The development director was overwhelmed and saw it as just “one more thing” that the executive director was unloading onto their already heaping chart of work. So, they dragged their feet and submitted the bare minimum, knowing it would result in more work for the executive director in the end.
A fundraising volunteer agreed (albeit grudgingly) to work a few pledge cards for the agency’s annual campaign. They missed every report meeting and dodged every phone call. One week before the deadline, they disregarded every best practice and all of the training they had received and picked up the phone to solicit their prospects.

John is so right when he says, “For leaders, with respect to ‘obeying’ the bar is raised significantly. It is not enough to comply. Compliance is not the same thing as commitment. Leaders must . . . actively support. They must be committed to the course of action.”

I’ve recently heard a group of non-profit friends talking about the distinction between LEADING and MANAGING when it comes to non-profit board volunteers, fundraising volunteers, executive directors and fundraising professionals.

Of course, I find it very interesting that no one seems able to agree on what constitutes “LEADERSHIP“. For example . . .

Wikipedia defines leadership as: “A process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task“. They go on to describe other theories and definitions around the concept of leadership.

The Team Technology website defines leadership in relation to management in the following way: “Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow (ie: a leader is the spearhead for that new direction). Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established.”

Noel Tichy looks at leadership through a teaching lens and describes leadership as, “Developing managers into leaders at all levels is the key to sustained success of any organization. The winning organizations will possess a ‘virtuous teaching cycle’ where everyone teaches and everyone learns in order to provide the ideas, energy and the edge needed to make the right decisions.”

Is it possible that the idea of non-profit leadership is highly complicated and downright confusing at times? Of course! Is it also possible that all of these competing definitions may not be competing at all . . . they might all describe this complicated idea? Yup!!!

Let’s deconstruct all of these definitions:

Is an effective non-profit leader someone who brings other people together and rallies them to do something for the greater good of the organization and society? YES, and this makes them a collaborator and supporter, too.
Is a leader someone who has a vision? Of course! Not only can they secure buy-in from others, but they actively engage folks while simultaneously rolling up their sleeves to work on that vision.
Are leaders teachers? You betcha! Good leaders develop other leaders and do so through mentoring and on-the-job leadership programs focused on projects and experiential learning.

I bet that we can go on and on today talking about how leaders have a higher calling and must do more than just “obey” . . . they must buy-in, actively support, teach, provide vision, and collaborate.

What did we miss? What else do you see leaders doing at your non-profit organization. Please use the comment box below to share your point of view on what describes “leadership”.

Here’s to your health!

Saying ‘NO’ to donors and minimizing how often it is done

July 6, 2012 DonorDreams Fundraising, organizational development

Today, we’re focusing on a post that John titled: “I Disagree. Now What?“. In that post, he describes “the sound of righteous indignation hitting managerial prerogative,” and the lessons learned about when it is right to disobey and when it is not.

John’s post could send me off in a number of different HR directions this morning, but I am in a resource development mood and want to talk about donors — those investors in your mission.

When I read “I Disagree. Now What?” it got me thinking about all of those times I’ve seen donors throw their dollars around. They want you to develop and launch a new program. They only want their contribution to support certain programs or certain activities.

Thinking back upon those situations reminds me a lot of the boss character in John’s post. This got me wondering: “Is there ever a situation when a non-profit organization can say ‘NO’ to a donor and use their contribution in a manner that is inconsistent with the donor’s wishes?”

To be honest, I can’t think of any situations where you can take someone’s money and disregard their expressed intent. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say ‘NO’ . . . you just need to do it by declining to accept the contribution.

While it is hard to say ‘NO’ to money, especially in today’s philanthropic environment, non-profit organizations need to know when it must happen. If you’re having a hard time thinking of when this might be appropriate, the following are a few examples of when I might do so:

When Bernie Madoff calls and wants to write me a big check.
When a company whose brand is inconsistent with your non-profit image wants to contribute (e.g. Hooters, local bar, strip clubs, the tobacco industry, etc)
When a donor’s wishes are not compatible with your mission.
When a donor’s wishes are not compatible with your strategic direction.

In my experience, the first two examples are easily identifiable and actionable for most non-profit organizations. It is the last two examples that are very challenging.

For example, it might make sense for you to accept money to develop a new intergenerational program that brings kids and senior citizens together, but it might not be a strategic priority for your organization. As a matter of fact, it might distract from other more important and pressing strategic initiatives.

Declining a donor’s contribution is really hard and should be done rarely, which is why having the right mindset, approach and tools in your fundraising toolbox is important. John does a really nice job addressing this issue in his post:

When John says, “Pick your battles” . . . I read this as: “Don’t over-solicit. Be very thoughtful about when and what you ask your donors to support.”
When John says, “Some things I can’t control, but I can influence” . . . I read this as: “Cultivate new prospects and steward existing donors significantly more than you solicit them, and only solicit when it feel right.”
When John says, “Craft my argument, with data and facts” . . . I read this as: “Develop an amazing case for support and train fundraising volunteers to use it as the foundation of their solicitation.”
When John says, “Make my case in a compelling fashion” . . . I read this as: “Convince donors to support your mission and the agency’s strategic direction. Demonstrate how doing so aligns with their philanthropic wishes and dreams.”
When John says, “Take my hits; the pain is temporary” . . . I read this as: “Once in a blue moon, you will have to politely turn down a donation. It will not be the end of the world.”
When John says, “Seek to understand even while I strive to be understood” . . . I read this as: “The listening-to-speaking ratio involved in donor interactions needs to significantly favor listening. Doing so will improve the odds of understanding, which in and of itself should minimize the number of times you have to say ‘NO’ to a donor because you are able to align the solicitation with their known interests.”

Non-profit organizations should strive to never be in the position of having to say ‘NO’ to a donor, but they need to be prepared to do so.

Have you ever been in a position of having to say ‘NO’ to a donor? If so, how did you go about doing it without damaging the relationship? What mindsets, approaches and tools are in your fundraising toolbox to ensure that you are rarely in this position? Please use the comment box below to share your answers.

If you are responsible for HR at your organization or are currently at odds with your boss, I encourage you to click over to John’s post titled “I Disagree. Now What?” and read it from that perspective, too.

Here’s to your health!