Problem is, Mary's in a hurry. Not just today, but every day. She breezed into the meeting about 15 minutes after the meeting started, which was a half hour after the meeting was supposed to begin. And she is ready to leave right after the budget discussion because her boss has an appointment lined up with a new client and she needs to be there. Mary's idea of giving priority to Do-Good's work is to allow about 2 hours for getting to, being in and getting back from any board meeting.
Now we're beginning to see just how the psycho-graphics are complicated by the board person's job responsibilities, their internal agenda and personal objectives, and their various levels of ability in managing time and attention. Now we're beginning to get to the heart of the issue. Could you see it coming? The issue has been set up in such a way that it doesn't have a prayer of succeeding. Or if it does, somebody's going to develop an ulcer over it.
Who else is around the table? Can the CEO look to May? Well, that's a matter of some speculation. She didn't notice the increase in the Development Department budget. She doesn't like that area; she concentrates on service delivery and likes to see how her gifts, which are not insubstantial, are being used, as represented in the various service delivery budget categories. She likes to imagine all the people being served, since it gives her a sense of satisfaction and "return on investment."
The fact that Mary didn't notice the budget increase is embarrassing when Paul brings this up, so she has to find a way to adjust her own image of herself in the group. So she's working on that, plus it's doubly irritating that she once again she's going to have to try to tone down the Development Department's pension for bothering her wealthy friends for more money. She's preparing her speech as the discussion proceeds, looking for the right opportunity to jump in, but carefully choosing her words. She's nothing if not a diplomat in these circumstances.
Sam didn't see it coming either. But once the CEO began his explanation he could see that what is being asked for is not only reasonable but will have a long-term payoff that is very much needed by the organization for its future health. Sam is laid back on this one, because he knows the homework has been done. He's also one up on most of the rest of the Board because he just committed to a five-year pledge and feels a little smug about it. He won't use that unless he needs to in the discussion, however.
Gloria, too, is in the CEO's corner, because she knows the financial need. She hasn't yet connected with the fact that sooner or later she's going to be asked for a really big multiple-year commitment, because she still feels safe hiding behind the old standby that "accountants don't get paid that much." Besides, Paul really ticks her off, the way he comes on, the way he talks about things. The two of them have knocked heads before. And she lost the last bout with him, so this time she's got it in for this arrogant attorney.
So what's your thought? Does the CEO have a prayer of succeeding with this group? Is he going to get his database software and his hew-hire?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
What's on Board Members' Minds?
OK, so we know who some of the players are as we come to the Board table to discuss whether or not to use significant resources this year to purchase donor software and hire a data entry and retrieval person.
How has the CEO, working with the Chair of the Board, set up the decision? It's buried in the budget figures for the Fund Development department. Anyone who has read the proposed budget in advance will have seen that, compared to previous years, there are significant increases in the Development Department's budget.
There is no formal proposal for this change of management direction. It's predicted to be brought up by whoever first sees the budget increase and asks about it. Then the CEO plans to explain what he sees as necessary and why. If no one raises the question, so much the better, and the budget will be passed, and this, then, gives the CEO and staff license to move ahead with the plan. If questions are raised, "we'll deal with them as they arise."
So Paul gets his budget, and immediately sees the increase over last year (the figures are presented side-by-side in a spreadsheet exhibit prepared specifically for the Board's consideration and approval of the budget, and because the auditors have traditionally presented the financial figures this way. (Having annually audited financial statements resulted from Gloria's work with the financial staff.) He's curious, so the first thing Paul does is calculate the cost of fundraising. And he discovers that the cost of raising $1 has risen from about 21 cents to about 50 cents. And he wants to know why.
Here's the first hint that not only are the psycho-graphic factors working here, but additional factors as well. Pauls' job is business, law, knowing quickly the import of changes in the balance sheet. He also has some personal objectives he wants to accomplish in D-Good Charity. He has felt for a long time that charities typically spend "too much" on setting up to raise money. He has had some lunch conversations with Tom, who has complained about "always being dunned for money" and, to some extent, shares that viewpoint. So the discovery of the new Development Department figures set off alarm bells and give him a surefire bully pulpit from which to set and accomplish his own agenda.
Melinda takes the opposite viewpoint. She saw the increase, too, and called the CEO and talked with him about it. She very much supports what he wants to do, because she has the ability to think business, think long term, and she wants Do-Good to be able to double it's operating budget within 5 years, so she knows it has to raise more money. She understands just enough about fundraising to know that multiple-year commitments from individuals are the way to go on this.
More after awhile...
How has the CEO, working with the Chair of the Board, set up the decision? It's buried in the budget figures for the Fund Development department. Anyone who has read the proposed budget in advance will have seen that, compared to previous years, there are significant increases in the Development Department's budget.
There is no formal proposal for this change of management direction. It's predicted to be brought up by whoever first sees the budget increase and asks about it. Then the CEO plans to explain what he sees as necessary and why. If no one raises the question, so much the better, and the budget will be passed, and this, then, gives the CEO and staff license to move ahead with the plan. If questions are raised, "we'll deal with them as they arise."
So Paul gets his budget, and immediately sees the increase over last year (the figures are presented side-by-side in a spreadsheet exhibit prepared specifically for the Board's consideration and approval of the budget, and because the auditors have traditionally presented the financial figures this way. (Having annually audited financial statements resulted from Gloria's work with the financial staff.) He's curious, so the first thing Paul does is calculate the cost of fundraising. And he discovers that the cost of raising $1 has risen from about 21 cents to about 50 cents. And he wants to know why.
Here's the first hint that not only are the psycho-graphic factors working here, but additional factors as well. Pauls' job is business, law, knowing quickly the import of changes in the balance sheet. He also has some personal objectives he wants to accomplish in D-Good Charity. He has felt for a long time that charities typically spend "too much" on setting up to raise money. He has had some lunch conversations with Tom, who has complained about "always being dunned for money" and, to some extent, shares that viewpoint. So the discovery of the new Development Department figures set off alarm bells and give him a surefire bully pulpit from which to set and accomplish his own agenda.
Melinda takes the opposite viewpoint. She saw the increase, too, and called the CEO and talked with him about it. She very much supports what he wants to do, because she has the ability to think business, think long term, and she wants Do-Good to be able to double it's operating budget within 5 years, so she knows it has to raise more money. She understands just enough about fundraising to know that multiple-year commitments from individuals are the way to go on this.
More after awhile...
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A close look at the individual Board members
So what do we have going on around the table?
Here's Paul: Paul's a lawyer. Corporate: mergers and acquisitions. He knows a business proposition when he sees it, has seen it all in terms of financial investments gone sour or turned for the good. He's hooked on Do-Good because he knows that if you don't pay at least some attention to the poor down-and-outers, you haven't fulfilled your obligation to society. And he wants to be seen as doing that. He's a bit rough around the edges with people when he isn't in a negotiating position. He claims that "being totally honest even if it's brutal" is the way to go.
Here's Gloria: Gloria is an accountant. She's here because she is involved as a volunteer keeping an eye on the finances of the organization and giving frequent bits of advice to the financial officer and her staff. She came in 8 years ago when financial matters had deteriorated a bit and helped straighten things out and get Do-Good back on the right fiscal track.
Here's Sam: Sam is a retired school superintendent who has been on this Board for 15 years, since its founding. He's a rock, a stalwart, volunteering for many kinds of jobs in the organization's life over the years. He has confidence in the management team presently in place because he helped put them there. He's a little more laid back, too, and very accepting of many kinds of people and their personalities.
Here's Melinda: She's in marketing, a principal in a firm she helped found, and very successful in the radio and TV marketing business. She has a very heavy schedule but takes time out of her busy day to attend at least 4 of the 8 Board meetings that occur each year. A little high strung, Melinda knows business, and knows nonprofits. She has been a board member on one or another of the community's nonprofits for 18 years, and says she loves it.
Here's Mary: She's the wife of a very wealthy businessman in the community. She and her husgband are scions of wealth. She's a socialite, knows everybody worth knowing, and is marvelously defensive about protecting all her friends from being, as she says, "pestered" by all the charities in town. She will not fundraise with them; she refuses to open doors with her friends for the organization. But she wants to be on the Board as part of what she sees as fulfilling her "duty" to charity.
Here's Tom: He's a manufacturer's rep, and very successful at what he does. He's high-powered in is approach to everything, always punctual, always involved in a lot of things, always the "driver." He knows business inside and out. He also knows he's sick and tired of so many charities asking for more and more money, and wishes they would stop pestering him about giving and giving more.
Get the picture?
Here's Paul: Paul's a lawyer. Corporate: mergers and acquisitions. He knows a business proposition when he sees it, has seen it all in terms of financial investments gone sour or turned for the good. He's hooked on Do-Good because he knows that if you don't pay at least some attention to the poor down-and-outers, you haven't fulfilled your obligation to society. And he wants to be seen as doing that. He's a bit rough around the edges with people when he isn't in a negotiating position. He claims that "being totally honest even if it's brutal" is the way to go.
Here's Gloria: Gloria is an accountant. She's here because she is involved as a volunteer keeping an eye on the finances of the organization and giving frequent bits of advice to the financial officer and her staff. She came in 8 years ago when financial matters had deteriorated a bit and helped straighten things out and get Do-Good back on the right fiscal track.
Here's Sam: Sam is a retired school superintendent who has been on this Board for 15 years, since its founding. He's a rock, a stalwart, volunteering for many kinds of jobs in the organization's life over the years. He has confidence in the management team presently in place because he helped put them there. He's a little more laid back, too, and very accepting of many kinds of people and their personalities.
Here's Melinda: She's in marketing, a principal in a firm she helped found, and very successful in the radio and TV marketing business. She has a very heavy schedule but takes time out of her busy day to attend at least 4 of the 8 Board meetings that occur each year. A little high strung, Melinda knows business, and knows nonprofits. She has been a board member on one or another of the community's nonprofits for 18 years, and says she loves it.
Here's Mary: She's the wife of a very wealthy businessman in the community. She and her husgband are scions of wealth. She's a socialite, knows everybody worth knowing, and is marvelously defensive about protecting all her friends from being, as she says, "pestered" by all the charities in town. She will not fundraise with them; she refuses to open doors with her friends for the organization. But she wants to be on the Board as part of what she sees as fulfilling her "duty" to charity.
Here's Tom: He's a manufacturer's rep, and very successful at what he does. He's high-powered in is approach to everything, always punctual, always involved in a lot of things, always the "driver." He knows business inside and out. He also knows he's sick and tired of so many charities asking for more and more money, and wishes they would stop pestering him about giving and giving more.
Get the picture?
Example #2 – Board Decision on Fundraising Infrastructure
This is going to be fun!
First, let's do a short review, just in case you've joined us recently and haven't had a chance to read previous posts on this subject:
Example #1 concerned a Board making a decision about enhancing its own level of giving to their nonprofit organization. What we dealt with there was a set of psycho-graphic factors that make it literally impossible for a board, or any other group of more than 2 or 3 people, to do deliberative thinking. And we've tried to describe the kinds of effects these psycho-graphics have in the context of this decision about the board's own giving. We've had a few digressions along the way, but, ultimately, I think the best way to help a board do what it does best – which is to brainstorm and tell stories – is to be prepared to do most of the work on any serious issue coming before a nonprofit board in the background, outside board meeting, but in a way that involves board members and takes seriously their various kinds of input, needs, wants, values and their points of view.
Now, in Example #2, this decision about whether to invest in fundraising infrastructure, and how much, we are going to see an additional set of factors that, once again, make it impossible for a board or any group of people to do deliberative thinking.
Before, with the psycho-graphics, we enumerated the following:
Factor 1: my view of myself,
Factor 2: my view of you,
Factor 3: my understanding of how you view me,
Factor 4: my grasp to whatever degree on my image within the group, and
Factor 5: my desire and strategies for changing, to one degree or another, either your view of me or my image within the group.
The effect of these, for each member around the table, tends to overpower each person's ability to do deliberative thought on a complex issue or problem facing the group.
Now, we're going to see how additional factors come into play in a decision about funding fundraising infrastructure. Let me set up the situation as I have seen it many times over the last 25 years of fundraising.
It's budget time, once again. The Board of Do-Good Charity is assembled for a regular meeting of the Board, in which the budget discussion has been given a generous 1-hour slot. Typically, for this board, and many others, items are given 15 minutes. But today the CEO has something special in mind.
There's a proposal, represented in significantly adjusted budget figures for the fund development part of the operation, to expand fundraising infrastructure by purchasing new donor software and hiring a person to do both data entry and data retrieval. This will, as the CEO believes – and rightly so – facilitate the stewardship of donors and the start of a major gifts program that will cultivate and solicit a whole new group of donors for major 5-year commitments to the institution.
The CEO plans, over time, to turn this little investment in infrastructure into a $3.5 million increase in revenues for the organization through multiple-year commitments. Got the picture? You've probably seen it yourself, either as a fundraising professional or as a volunteer serving on a board.
Stay tuned for more later today. Are we having fun yet? Things get sticker as we go along.
First, let's do a short review, just in case you've joined us recently and haven't had a chance to read previous posts on this subject:
Example #1 concerned a Board making a decision about enhancing its own level of giving to their nonprofit organization. What we dealt with there was a set of psycho-graphic factors that make it literally impossible for a board, or any other group of more than 2 or 3 people, to do deliberative thinking. And we've tried to describe the kinds of effects these psycho-graphics have in the context of this decision about the board's own giving. We've had a few digressions along the way, but, ultimately, I think the best way to help a board do what it does best – which is to brainstorm and tell stories – is to be prepared to do most of the work on any serious issue coming before a nonprofit board in the background, outside board meeting, but in a way that involves board members and takes seriously their various kinds of input, needs, wants, values and their points of view.
Now, in Example #2, this decision about whether to invest in fundraising infrastructure, and how much, we are going to see an additional set of factors that, once again, make it impossible for a board or any group of people to do deliberative thinking.
Before, with the psycho-graphics, we enumerated the following:
Factor 1: my view of myself,
Factor 2: my view of you,
Factor 3: my understanding of how you view me,
Factor 4: my grasp to whatever degree on my image within the group, and
Factor 5: my desire and strategies for changing, to one degree or another, either your view of me or my image within the group.
The effect of these, for each member around the table, tends to overpower each person's ability to do deliberative thought on a complex issue or problem facing the group.
Now, we're going to see how additional factors come into play in a decision about funding fundraising infrastructure. Let me set up the situation as I have seen it many times over the last 25 years of fundraising.
It's budget time, once again. The Board of Do-Good Charity is assembled for a regular meeting of the Board, in which the budget discussion has been given a generous 1-hour slot. Typically, for this board, and many others, items are given 15 minutes. But today the CEO has something special in mind.
There's a proposal, represented in significantly adjusted budget figures for the fund development part of the operation, to expand fundraising infrastructure by purchasing new donor software and hiring a person to do both data entry and data retrieval. This will, as the CEO believes – and rightly so – facilitate the stewardship of donors and the start of a major gifts program that will cultivate and solicit a whole new group of donors for major 5-year commitments to the institution.
The CEO plans, over time, to turn this little investment in infrastructure into a $3.5 million increase in revenues for the organization through multiple-year commitments. Got the picture? You've probably seen it yourself, either as a fundraising professional or as a volunteer serving on a board.
Stay tuned for more later today. Are we having fun yet? Things get sticker as we go along.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Finishing up on Quality Board Decisions
Having set a small group to work, a group that really can do deliberative thinking because they have the kind of time and assignment that gets them pasty the psycho-dynamics that normally impede deliberative thought, let’s go to step #4.
4. Small group recommends action. They look at the problem or issue from all sides, getting input from individual Board members they know will have a point of view. Looking at what other organizations do or have done with the same problem. They examine a variety of possible solutions, and, with that, a series of outcomes that will result from each of the possible solutions. And my thought is that it is only at this point that they can choose one of those possible solutions to recommend for Board action and implementation. You’ve got to know the field well before you can really understand which solution will work best for this organization at this time and in these particular circumstances.
It can’t be a solution based on anecdotal evidence. It can’t be a solution based on hearsay and opinion. This type of thing is typically what is going to be heard in a full-board discussion. People working in larger groups do only two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories. But they can’t do deliberative thought. So they brainstorm, and, in so doing, they’re going to give you what’s on the top of their head that moment, on that day. The stories, the anecdotal evidence, and “I’ve heard that...” and so forth. But that’s just a start, just a suggestion of a direction. It’s not the basis for a good decision. So that’s why the small group is so necessary. It gets down below that superficial level and ferrets out the facts, the alternatives, then makes a solid, workable recommendation that we know in advance will meet the needs of everyone involved.
5. Executive and small group work individually with each Board member in advance. Even though we’ve had Board input on this through the small group, we still want to be sure we have everyone’s buy-in on the recommendation coming from that small group BEFORE we get to the Board meeting. Why? Because it’s important that the needs, wants and values of each particular individual board member be met by the final action the Board produces. Why? Because that keeps the Board working together, it supports governance, avoids divisions and ensures consensus.
6. Bring the issue to the Board with full documentation passed out in advance and only when we know in advance that all members can support the action. No surprises, right? Board chair and executive working hand-in-hand; small group gets input from Board members as part of its process; small group and Executive “shop” the proposed solution around the board informally to get input and make sure all needs, wants and values are heard and taken into consideration; then the decision and its documentation is published to the Board members in advance of their action meeting. The item is clearly on the agenda; it gets introduced thoroughly at Board meeting. The Board chair explains where this has been, what’s going on, what’s needed, calls for a motion, entertains “last minute” questions for clarification only, and then takes the vote.
I think the most essential work is going to be done OUTSIDE Board meeting, but in a way that involves Board members and takes seriously their opinions, points of view, stories, prejudices, experiences and all the input they have to give, and then focuses that input on a deliberately thought out solution that has the best interests of the institution at heart and is workable given the strategic plan, the resources, the personnel and the situation at hand. Here’s where the payoff is that compensates the organization for the fact that the whole Board would be incapable of doing the deliberative thought that would bring about this quality of decision-making.
Here is a high-quality decision that I think will work, that will have participation and buy-in from all concerned, and one that will have good results for the organization.
Now, I promise that tomorrow we’re going to get over to Example #2 – that’s where the Board is considering an investment of resources in fundraising infrastructure. Tricky question, right? And you know it will come only at BUDGET TIME! Thoroughly confusing the issue.
4. Small group recommends action. They look at the problem or issue from all sides, getting input from individual Board members they know will have a point of view. Looking at what other organizations do or have done with the same problem. They examine a variety of possible solutions, and, with that, a series of outcomes that will result from each of the possible solutions. And my thought is that it is only at this point that they can choose one of those possible solutions to recommend for Board action and implementation. You’ve got to know the field well before you can really understand which solution will work best for this organization at this time and in these particular circumstances.
It can’t be a solution based on anecdotal evidence. It can’t be a solution based on hearsay and opinion. This type of thing is typically what is going to be heard in a full-board discussion. People working in larger groups do only two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories. But they can’t do deliberative thought. So they brainstorm, and, in so doing, they’re going to give you what’s on the top of their head that moment, on that day. The stories, the anecdotal evidence, and “I’ve heard that...” and so forth. But that’s just a start, just a suggestion of a direction. It’s not the basis for a good decision. So that’s why the small group is so necessary. It gets down below that superficial level and ferrets out the facts, the alternatives, then makes a solid, workable recommendation that we know in advance will meet the needs of everyone involved.
5. Executive and small group work individually with each Board member in advance. Even though we’ve had Board input on this through the small group, we still want to be sure we have everyone’s buy-in on the recommendation coming from that small group BEFORE we get to the Board meeting. Why? Because it’s important that the needs, wants and values of each particular individual board member be met by the final action the Board produces. Why? Because that keeps the Board working together, it supports governance, avoids divisions and ensures consensus.
6. Bring the issue to the Board with full documentation passed out in advance and only when we know in advance that all members can support the action. No surprises, right? Board chair and executive working hand-in-hand; small group gets input from Board members as part of its process; small group and Executive “shop” the proposed solution around the board informally to get input and make sure all needs, wants and values are heard and taken into consideration; then the decision and its documentation is published to the Board members in advance of their action meeting. The item is clearly on the agenda; it gets introduced thoroughly at Board meeting. The Board chair explains where this has been, what’s going on, what’s needed, calls for a motion, entertains “last minute” questions for clarification only, and then takes the vote.
I think the most essential work is going to be done OUTSIDE Board meeting, but in a way that involves Board members and takes seriously their opinions, points of view, stories, prejudices, experiences and all the input they have to give, and then focuses that input on a deliberately thought out solution that has the best interests of the institution at heart and is workable given the strategic plan, the resources, the personnel and the situation at hand. Here’s where the payoff is that compensates the organization for the fact that the whole Board would be incapable of doing the deliberative thought that would bring about this quality of decision-making.
Here is a high-quality decision that I think will work, that will have participation and buy-in from all concerned, and one that will have good results for the organization.
Now, I promise that tomorrow we’re going to get over to Example #2 – that’s where the Board is considering an investment of resources in fundraising infrastructure. Tricky question, right? And you know it will come only at BUDGET TIME! Thoroughly confusing the issue.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Continuing on Board Decisions
I said on Friday that there were six steps that I believe will lead to a just and equitable solution for almost any issue or problem facing a board, and will give a solution that’s workable and focuses on the long-term good of the nonprofit organization. I’m going to just lay it right out there. I know the first thing most of you will say is “it’s too time-consuming.” Right? But we’ll deal with that. Let’s just see what could produce a really satisfactory result on any issue for everyone involved and for the nonprofit’s health and well-being.
1. Executive and staff explore the issue among themselves, looking into what’s wrong with the present situation, what effects it is having on the organization. They also make suggestions as to the various strategies and tactics that might be used to correct the situation and the kind of desirable outcomes they envision.
2. Executive and staff lay out a plan for the Board’s work with Board chair or a committee chair. Here’s where you get the leadership involved in an informal way, giving them the information they need to see that the problem is real, that staff are in the process of thinking it through and coming up with a solution. Here is where true Board leadership begins to have a direct impact on the institution, and where real leadership can be exercised. I think that when the planning process for how to deal with the issue or problem starts with this kind of teamwork between Board leadership and staff, you set the wheels in motion for a wise, fair and just decision that works and has everyone’s support.
3. Board chair or committee chair appoints 2 Board members to work with staff. Why such a small group? Why another committee? Don’t we have enough already? Probably, yes, but if you want a quality solution it needs to be addressed by a small group dedicated to ferreting out all the nuances of the issue, seeing all the possible solutions, then doing the deliberative thought necessary to judiciously select one or two solutions that will work with this organization at this time with the available resources and the prevailing points of view of various board members at that time.
You might be saying, “Isn’t this getting rather complicated? This is more than I have time for in my shop” And you’d be right. That’s why I suspect 90% of the time we just go ahead and bring the matter before the whole board, have a helter-skelter discussion and take whatever we can get quickly from the Board. “We’ll live with it as is,” right? But did you get the best you could? And did you get the solution that meets everyone’s needs and is most appropriate for the organization’s abilities, people and resources? That’s the rub, isn’t it?
Besides, if a problem exists for which we need the Board to create a solution, and it’s that important, then it’s worth doing well, wouldn’t you say? So let’s finish the process this afternoon.....
1. Executive and staff explore the issue among themselves, looking into what’s wrong with the present situation, what effects it is having on the organization. They also make suggestions as to the various strategies and tactics that might be used to correct the situation and the kind of desirable outcomes they envision.
2. Executive and staff lay out a plan for the Board’s work with Board chair or a committee chair. Here’s where you get the leadership involved in an informal way, giving them the information they need to see that the problem is real, that staff are in the process of thinking it through and coming up with a solution. Here is where true Board leadership begins to have a direct impact on the institution, and where real leadership can be exercised. I think that when the planning process for how to deal with the issue or problem starts with this kind of teamwork between Board leadership and staff, you set the wheels in motion for a wise, fair and just decision that works and has everyone’s support.
3. Board chair or committee chair appoints 2 Board members to work with staff. Why such a small group? Why another committee? Don’t we have enough already? Probably, yes, but if you want a quality solution it needs to be addressed by a small group dedicated to ferreting out all the nuances of the issue, seeing all the possible solutions, then doing the deliberative thought necessary to judiciously select one or two solutions that will work with this organization at this time with the available resources and the prevailing points of view of various board members at that time.
You might be saying, “Isn’t this getting rather complicated? This is more than I have time for in my shop” And you’d be right. That’s why I suspect 90% of the time we just go ahead and bring the matter before the whole board, have a helter-skelter discussion and take whatever we can get quickly from the Board. “We’ll live with it as is,” right? But did you get the best you could? And did you get the solution that meets everyone’s needs and is most appropriate for the organization’s abilities, people and resources? That’s the rub, isn’t it?
Besides, if a problem exists for which we need the Board to create a solution, and it’s that important, then it’s worth doing well, wouldn’t you say? So let’s finish the process this afternoon.....
Friday, November 24, 2006
More on Board Giving
My thought is that if you want a fair, just and equitable solution that's workable and focuses on the long-term good of the nonprofit organization, then you have to use a process that will produce that kind of result. That means we have to work harder and do our homework. There are at least six steps to such a procedure, and I'm going to give those to you in just a minute, but bear with me, there's another issue we have to deal with here.
Why is it that board members can come onto a nonprofit board with the belief that so little will be expected from them?
If you look at the way nonprofits are set up, it's contradictory to the way we recruit board members, isn't it? Nonprofit boards serve a wonderful social purpose. I heard a speech by Lawrence Lindsey, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, many years ago in a speech in
So charities are effective and efficient, right? They serve a social purpose. What's the root of their effectiveness? VOLUNTEER BOARDS. They charities are run by volunteers who have philanthropic motivations – the love of human kind – at heart. They're self-policing. The
So charity boards serve a distinct social purpose, right? Their volunteer governance keeps social services, arts, medical and educational social objectives being achieved effectively, efficiently. Who in their right mind would, then, assume, that the work of the individual board member on the individual nonprofit board would be easy, without responsibility? It just doesn't make sense.
But that's what happens in all too many nonprofits: board members are recruited on the flimsiest of excuses, never trained, never told what they have to do and how they have to do it, never told they have to give. But yet we expect the board to perform. We expect the board to do strategic planning that directs the nonprofit in ways that will assure its achievement of its goals and purposes. We expect the board to provide the financial resources necessary to carry out that strategic plan. We expect the board members to be community leaders who give at a leadership level. But when we recruit them, what do we tell them? "Oh, it won't take that much out of your schedule, it won't be hassle."
Contradictory! Why does this happen? I think it happens only where there is not a well-though-out process for populating our boards.
What I think should happen is this:
1. Board has a job description written out, known in advance, repeatedly emphasized in board meetings. One that includes all the board responsibilities, including meetings, committees, giving, advocacy in the community, leadership among volunteers, etc.
2. Board members are brought on the board with a process that includes: identifying many prospective members, recruiting only the best of those, fully disclosing to those prospective members all aspects of the board's life, installing them with public ceremony, training them in what they must do for the organization, evaluating their performance, re-training periodically in the various responsibilities, and, finally, at the end of the line, de-briefing them before they leave after their stated tenure is finished.
But very few nonprofits do this. The really successful ones do. But of the more than 3000 groups and organizations in southeast
No wonder we have a tough time getting board members to give!
But now we really MUST get to our Example #2.
Have a great weekend. Shop till you drop! See you Monday.
Board giving
Well, we can't really go on to Example #2 before we give Board members their due. After all, they're human beings, too! Right?
So what do we hear around the Board table when the subject of "Board giving" comes up? Well, we hear things like: "You can't force me to give" or "I give my time, isn't that enough?" and "The approach you're using to get this done really turns me off." and "not everyone can give at the same rate?" and "nobody ever told me I'd have to be a fundraiser to serve on this board" and then there's the all-time favorite reaction "we've never had any rules about board members giving before; we don't need them now."
And each of these points of view does have a kernel of truth in it. That's what is so confusing to development staff and their executives. Each board member does have a point from which they're speaking. There really can't be any force involved – it's counterproductive. Yes, people really do sacrifice other kinds of goals to give time to our non-profit and they deserve recognition of that because without that service we couldn't achieve what we do.
And, yes, there are some ways I've seen some board members lay it on their fellows in such a demanding, almost obnoxious way that the rest of the board is pretty much turned off to the idea just as a way of reacting to the demand.
And, yes, not everyone can give at the same level. No doubt about it. Of course, if you go around the table and analyze who is likely, because of their profession or other factors, to have more capability than others, no one wants to admit they really COULD give more. But, generally speaking, you can figure that the attorneys and the business owners on a board will have greater capacity than the social workers, right?
And, yes, it is probably the case that when the board member took on this assignment he/she was NOT told they'd have to give a certain amount or at a certain level, or go out and cultivate and solicit gifts. Nonprofit staff tend to recruit anything that can fog a mirror as a board member. $500 gift? Make him a board member. Volunteered last year for the auction and did a great job? Make her a board member. Expressed interest in the cause? Make them a board member, too! It's no wonder board members think they can be on the board without giving at leadership levels! We just put 'em on the board for the slightest of reasons, tell them "you won't have to take much time, you won't have to do anything very much." And we let it go at that, thankful that we filled the board roster again this year, now let's go on to all the other things we have to do.
So all these reactions have half a grain of truth in them. And the other half grain is more or less an excuse, a reaction to process, an internal response to the operation of the psycho-dynamics and other pressures within them. A mixture of internal and external "stuff" that resides in the mind of each board member.
Point is, that if we're going to make an intelligent decision and come up with a workable long-term solution that truly benefits the ORGANIZATION itself, we have to get beyond the half-truths and analyze the full situation, get all the issues out on the table, expose them, delve into them, find out the facts. Boards can't do that. They don't have the time – they're in a rush to get out of there as it is. They don't have the inclination, either – they've got an agenda they need to accomplish before they leave the room early for their next appointment (golf, anyone?). And, even if they had the time and the inclination, you could put them in a room together all day and still not come up with a resolution on board giving that was fair, equitable and just, and that focused on the long-term good and welfare of the organization.
Question: if all this is the case, then why do we persist – as development staffs and executives – in trying to get our boards to make decisions like this? If we know it's impossible, if we suspect there's another way to do it, why do we just waltz in there with this kind of an agenda item and hope and pray something positive happens? That's a mystery.
More later....
Thursday, November 23, 2006
More on Boards and Decision-Making
I hope you're having a GREAT Thanksgiving!
When I say "deliberative thought," I'm talking about substantive decision that are made about nonprofit policy or strategic planning, decisions that will affect the life of the nonprofit strategically and will substantively further the organization's ability to accomplish it mission.
Let's take two common examples.
First, a decision about Board giving levels and making regular and substantive giving a part of the Board's life.
Second, a budget-related decision about whether to invest significant financial and personnel resources in improving fundraising infrastructure and starting a major gifts cultivation and solicitation process. These are two very common decisions that Boards are called upon to make.
Before we dig in, let's see what "deliberative thought" might entail here. We're talking about the ability to deliberate and make decisions about the complex issues involved in either one of these topics. The ability to sort out and prioritize those issues that are especially relevant to where the organization wants to go strategically.
We're also talking about the ability to decide on the kind of goals and objectives that will need to be accomplished to make either of these decisions result in positive increases in the ability of the nonprofit to function and accomplish its mission.
Another factor that is involved is the ability to delineate a variety of possible strategies, along with sets of tactics to implement each of those strategies.
Then the ability to judiciously choose which ones among those strategies the organization is best equipped to carry out, in terms of its resources, its context, its methods of operating.
Example 1: Decision on Board Giving: Here's what needs to be done.
First, we need to brainstorm the issues involved in Board giving. Here's just a few issues that you might find commonly. Most boards are very good at this part of the process.
a. Board members vary in their ability to give
b. Board members vary in their motivation to give
c. Board members vary in their understanding of the organization's need for leadership
d. What is the community's image of this nonprofit and its Board? How can this be improved?
e. What are the financial needs of the organization? How can the Board members collectively address that need from their own personal/corporate financial resource?
f. What are the consequences of the Board's refusal to take a leadership role in giving?
g. What is the strategic plan of the organization?
h. What is the strategic plan for fundraising for the organization? What needs to be accomplished, and how will it be accomplished and by when?
What needs to happen next is that we need prioritize these issues relative to their importance in this particular situation. Some may be more relevant and pressing than others. This is typically where boards start to have a hard time.
And then we need to provide detailed answers to the questions posed. When the questions are answered, the answers need to be sorted out in a way that provides a series of alternative strategies from which the Board members will need to choose. Boards are notoriously incapable of doing this step with any kind of consistency.
This is a complicated process, the process of deliberative thought. It's really akin to the scientific method – yes, that "scientific method." The one we learned in school, in chemistry or physics class. You know, form the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, evaluate the results, come some tentative conclusions with a new hypothesis, then go ahead and test that hypothesis.
It's clearly beyond the ability of most groups of people, including nonprofit boards, to do this by working together. But we frequently demand that they do this even though most Board members are not equipped to carry this out, and are not psychologically prepared or capable of doing it. They can work individually; they can work with one other person. But the psycho-dynamics are too overwheliming to allow these steps to be done by a group.
And, still, that's not all that's involved. Once a set of giving strategies is developed, the Board must put these strategies in place, implement them, evaluate the results they're getting at regular intervals, and then make any mid-course corrections that might be needed depending on what the evaluations show.
This is not only detailed work, but a time-consuming and longer-term process. It takes some concentration, commitment, open-mindedness and a lot of patience with the details in order to be done correctly and in a way that will bring a positive result to the organization.
Not only that, but wouldn't it be good if the decision could be based on full consensus by the Board? But that would mean all viewpoints have been voiced, heard, taken into account and everyone fully included throughout the process. This would promote a strong sense of ownership and "buy-in" for all the Board members.
So it's a pretty complicated process, but it can bring about a solid decision that has positive results. But the psycho-dynamics of a Board's working together make it nearly impossible for a Board to make such a decision in this way, using deliberative thought. So what generally happens?
One of two things generally happens with such a decision-making process: either the Executive Director of the nonprofit will have the perspicacity to have his/her staff do most of the deliberative work and bring alternatives back to the Board.
Or, what happens all too frequently, the Executive just bulls on ahead, gives the Board the decision, let's them go at it in helter-skelter style without any expertise or guidance, and try to emerge with some kind of giving process that most of the Board can tolerate. And in the process the organization may well lose some good leadership as the more disgruntled Board members, who feel their concerns were not heard, simply give up and resign. Pain all around.
Pain because the decision is flowed to start with, which makes it difficult to carry out; pain because some people are left out or passed over; pain because the ability of the Board to lead has been hampered rather than strengthened by the decision-making process; pain because the staff will have to implement the Board giving program and yet have had no substantive, deliberative input.
Why? Because the Board was given a task that, essentially, they are not prepared or qualified to do – they were asked to do deliberative thought, when what they really do best is brainstorming and telling stories.
Before I suggest what should be done – a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's go on to example #2. We'll find further insights there. But we have to go eat turkey now, so we'll save #2 decision until tomorrow's post
When I say "deliberative thought," I'm talking about substantive decision that are made about nonprofit policy or strategic planning, decisions that will affect the life of the nonprofit strategically and will substantively further the organization's ability to accomplish it mission.
Let's take two common examples.
First, a decision about Board giving levels and making regular and substantive giving a part of the Board's life.
Second, a budget-related decision about whether to invest significant financial and personnel resources in improving fundraising infrastructure and starting a major gifts cultivation and solicitation process. These are two very common decisions that Boards are called upon to make.
Before we dig in, let's see what "deliberative thought" might entail here. We're talking about the ability to deliberate and make decisions about the complex issues involved in either one of these topics. The ability to sort out and prioritize those issues that are especially relevant to where the organization wants to go strategically.
We're also talking about the ability to decide on the kind of goals and objectives that will need to be accomplished to make either of these decisions result in positive increases in the ability of the nonprofit to function and accomplish its mission.
Another factor that is involved is the ability to delineate a variety of possible strategies, along with sets of tactics to implement each of those strategies.
Then the ability to judiciously choose which ones among those strategies the organization is best equipped to carry out, in terms of its resources, its context, its methods of operating.
Example 1: Decision on Board Giving: Here's what needs to be done.
First, we need to brainstorm the issues involved in Board giving. Here's just a few issues that you might find commonly. Most boards are very good at this part of the process.
a. Board members vary in their ability to give
b. Board members vary in their motivation to give
c. Board members vary in their understanding of the organization's need for leadership
d. What is the community's image of this nonprofit and its Board? How can this be improved?
e. What are the financial needs of the organization? How can the Board members collectively address that need from their own personal/corporate financial resource?
f. What are the consequences of the Board's refusal to take a leadership role in giving?
g. What is the strategic plan of the organization?
h. What is the strategic plan for fundraising for the organization? What needs to be accomplished, and how will it be accomplished and by when?
What needs to happen next is that we need prioritize these issues relative to their importance in this particular situation. Some may be more relevant and pressing than others. This is typically where boards start to have a hard time.
And then we need to provide detailed answers to the questions posed. When the questions are answered, the answers need to be sorted out in a way that provides a series of alternative strategies from which the Board members will need to choose. Boards are notoriously incapable of doing this step with any kind of consistency.
This is a complicated process, the process of deliberative thought. It's really akin to the scientific method – yes, that "scientific method." The one we learned in school, in chemistry or physics class. You know, form the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, evaluate the results, come some tentative conclusions with a new hypothesis, then go ahead and test that hypothesis.
It's clearly beyond the ability of most groups of people, including nonprofit boards, to do this by working together. But we frequently demand that they do this even though most Board members are not equipped to carry this out, and are not psychologically prepared or capable of doing it. They can work individually; they can work with one other person. But the psycho-dynamics are too overwheliming to allow these steps to be done by a group.
And, still, that's not all that's involved. Once a set of giving strategies is developed, the Board must put these strategies in place, implement them, evaluate the results they're getting at regular intervals, and then make any mid-course corrections that might be needed depending on what the evaluations show.
This is not only detailed work, but a time-consuming and longer-term process. It takes some concentration, commitment, open-mindedness and a lot of patience with the details in order to be done correctly and in a way that will bring a positive result to the organization.
Not only that, but wouldn't it be good if the decision could be based on full consensus by the Board? But that would mean all viewpoints have been voiced, heard, taken into account and everyone fully included throughout the process. This would promote a strong sense of ownership and "buy-in" for all the Board members.
So it's a pretty complicated process, but it can bring about a solid decision that has positive results. But the psycho-dynamics of a Board's working together make it nearly impossible for a Board to make such a decision in this way, using deliberative thought. So what generally happens?
One of two things generally happens with such a decision-making process: either the Executive Director of the nonprofit will have the perspicacity to have his/her staff do most of the deliberative work and bring alternatives back to the Board.
Or, what happens all too frequently, the Executive just bulls on ahead, gives the Board the decision, let's them go at it in helter-skelter style without any expertise or guidance, and try to emerge with some kind of giving process that most of the Board can tolerate. And in the process the organization may well lose some good leadership as the more disgruntled Board members, who feel their concerns were not heard, simply give up and resign. Pain all around.
Pain because the decision is flowed to start with, which makes it difficult to carry out; pain because some people are left out or passed over; pain because the ability of the Board to lead has been hampered rather than strengthened by the decision-making process; pain because the staff will have to implement the Board giving program and yet have had no substantive, deliberative input.
Why? Because the Board was given a task that, essentially, they are not prepared or qualified to do – they were asked to do deliberative thought, when what they really do best is brainstorming and telling stories.
Before I suggest what should be done – a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's go on to example #2. We'll find further insights there. But we have to go eat turkey now, so we'll save #2 decision until tomorrow's post
More on Boards
Would Board members of a nonprofit organization really do that? Would they really have their own agenda that would override consideration of the agenda the Board is supposed to be working on?
Sure they would... and do! regularly. Yes, even these stalwart pillars of the community who are brought together to govern a public trust, which is what a nonprofit is. They can and do bring their own agendas into the meeting and press those agendas, in some cases, to the exclusion of all else.
And your reaction may be "But wait a minute, John, I've been to lots of Board meetings and the people on those boards are quite serious and down to earth and ready to help. After all they're volunteering their time to help the nonprofit. How can you say that?"
Back to "Psycho-dynamics" This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. They don't come into the meeting and purposively give the charity's agenda short shrift. They are intelligent, for the most part well-educated, frequently very dedicated people. They don't really set out to sabotage the work at hand. If you asked any person around the table, they would stoutly deny that there's anything untoward going on in their heads. But here's how it works.
Sure they would... and do! regularly. Yes, even these stalwart pillars of the community who are brought together to govern a public trust, which is what a nonprofit is. They can and do bring their own agendas into the meeting and press those agendas, in some cases, to the exclusion of all else.
And your reaction may be "But wait a minute, John, I've been to lots of Board meetings and the people on those boards are quite serious and down to earth and ready to help. After all they're volunteering their time to help the nonprofit. How can you say that?"
Back to "Psycho-dynamics" This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. They don't come into the meeting and purposively give the charity's agenda short shrift. They are intelligent, for the most part well-educated, frequently very dedicated people. They don't really set out to sabotage the work at hand. If you asked any person around the table, they would stoutly deny that there's anything untoward going on in their heads. But here's how it works.
What are the sub-conscious questions any person in any group of people is asking, first and foremost? First, "What do I think of myself in this group, how do I see myself, what is my image of myself in this context? Each person around the table has a set of self images upon which they draw, depending on the group they're in, the role they have to play, and what they want from the group.
Second, every Board member around the table is also very interested in "What is the image that the other person (each other person at the table) has of me? How do they see me? What do they want/need from me?"
Fourth, again, every Board member is sub-consciously going to go to the next level, which is "How can I either alter that person's perception of me, or confirm that perception? What do I need to do or say to bring my images of myself, my image of what that other person thinks of me, and what I think about that other person into some kind of harmony that I can accept?" And this goes on around the table ad infinitum throughout the Board meeting.
This internal assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in the particular Board member's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.
Given that kind of internal psycho-dynamic that is operation in each and every Board member, each and every staff member around the room, is it any wonder that there is little room left to engage in "deliberative thought" about matters that concern the nonprofit? Each person in the room is busy sorting out and finding ways to act appropriately for themselves and yet also for the context of the group in which they find themselves.
Deliberative thought is practically impossible. In fact, and you'll hear me say this a thousand times: "People in groups can only do two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought" And so we expect, and we have it set up in society, that groups of volunteers coming together like this are given charge of a public trust, governing a nonprofit charitable institution?
Ah, but there's more… because I know you're asking "What's this about deliberative thought? What's with that?" And there's also more internal agenda that isn't necessarily very subliminal. We'll take tat up in the next few entries.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Getting started with Boards
First let me start by telling you just a bit about myself. My name is John G. Fike, CFRE and I'm a fundraising professional with 27 years of experience in the field and over $50 million in funds raised. I have been in my own practice here in southeastern Michigan for the past 10 years and have had about 115 clients through those years. I won't bore you at this early point with all the gory details, but you can find out more by going to www.philanthropysolutions.com.
In this blog we're going to have all kinds of fun. Some of the topics we'll cover are:
--Boards -- why some don't function well
Founders -- what are the causes for "Founder-itis" and how do you know when your nonprofit has it?
--Asking for Money -- why many nonprofits shun this task like the plague and then wonder why they can't raise the money they need
--Annual Fund -- why bother?
--Case for Support -- duller than dull?
...these and a lot more over coming months.
Just to get started:
You've heard the saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"? Does your nonprofit's Board exemplify that cliche? A lot of them that I have seen and worked with over the past 10 years certainly have. What's the problem?
Essentially, the heart of the problem is: "Psycho-dynamics."
Boards that don't function well have that condition because it is almost impossible for any group of three or more people who get together relatively infrequently to do any kind of productive deliberative thinking. This is due to the fact that every member of the group has tons of other agenda they're trying to accomplish for themselves personally that simply override any agenda for the nonprofit.
More on this in a while... gotta get going on the day's meetings.
Let me have your thoughts on this and I'll explain why I say the problem is the psycho-dynamics of the group.
JGF for ATF
In this blog we're going to have all kinds of fun. Some of the topics we'll cover are:
--Boards -- why some don't function well
Founders -- what are the causes for "Founder-itis" and how do you know when your nonprofit has it?
--Asking for Money -- why many nonprofits shun this task like the plague and then wonder why they can't raise the money they need
--Annual Fund -- why bother?
--Case for Support -- duller than dull?
...these and a lot more over coming months.
Just to get started:
You've heard the saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"? Does your nonprofit's Board exemplify that cliche? A lot of them that I have seen and worked with over the past 10 years certainly have. What's the problem?
Essentially, the heart of the problem is: "Psycho-dynamics."
Boards that don't function well have that condition because it is almost impossible for any group of three or more people who get together relatively infrequently to do any kind of productive deliberative thinking. This is due to the fact that every member of the group has tons of other agenda they're trying to accomplish for themselves personally that simply override any agenda for the nonprofit.
More on this in a while... gotta get going on the day's meetings.
Let me have your thoughts on this and I'll explain why I say the problem is the psycho-dynamics of the group.
JGF for ATF
All Things Fundraising
I've long wanted to do a blog on fundraising to help the thousands of nonprofit organizations out there who want to raise more money but don't want to spend the cash for a real consultant to help them do it. So "All Things Funraising" is the realization of that dream. Here you'll be able to find real practical tips and tricks of the fundraising industry that will work for your nonprofit organization as you work to build fundraising capacity. Maybe we can even get some dialogue going about the various topics we'll touch on here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
