Our fourth objective, as we said before, is to help donors easily find the information they need to assure themselves that their gifts will be effectively and efficiently used for the purpose intended. This information is of two distinct types.
1. The first kind of information donors need is essentially demographic in nature. It would consist of the number of potential service recipients in the start-up charity's geographic area, along with a determination of the number of charities already serving that population. Arts, environment and public service organizations may have a harder time coming up with such figures. But human service networks can readily provide such information and much of the work has been done in the collection of census data. Similarly, hospitals and educational institutions generally have information and service networks that can be accessed for such information.
2. The second type of information donors need is the types of service program already in operation and their relative effectiveness with the people they serve. The result should be a number of those who comprise the target population that is understood as not being served with necessary programs. Here, the founder of a charity start-up may need to do a little digging. But this is relevant work when starting up a new nonprofit, and the founder's feet need to be held to the fire to investigate the field thoroughly before putting together the plan for a new nonprofit.
Through these kinds of numbers a donor can see the relative need for a gift, and a new charity start-up review committee could see the need for the new charity, both in terms of numbers of target population, and in the extent of programming needed to complement or assist existing nonprofit service units. These should become a part of the new charity start-up review process.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
"Case For Support" is Part of the Planning Effort
Our third objective is that we want to help ensure that prospective donors in the community have reasonable clarity about the mission and accomplishments of the charities they are asked to support. How can we do that in this new "charity start-up certification" process?
Part of the strategic plan of any new or continuing nonprofit organization is its mission statement, its case for support, and its method of disseminating that case for support among its constituents on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis. So these will be good ingredients to give to the organization that is certifying the new charity start-up.
1. There should be a mission statement developed for the organization, so that should be shared with the start-up certification panel. Along with that mission statement there would also be the plan of mission accomplishment, or service delivery. That would describe in some details the scope of service delivery and the methods the founder envisions being used. It will also need to include anticipated outcomes so that there is something to measure effectiveness from the very beginning. These items should also be part of the certification review process.
2. Instead of waiting several years until a convenient time presents itself (or even never getting around to it), the organization's case for support should be developed and written down right at the beginning. This document would contain a complete and detailed set of reasons why anyone should or would give any money in support of the organization's work. It should state the set of features offered to individual, foundation and corporate donors, as well as the benefits to be derived from making a contribution. This is going to include the schedule of benefits for corporate sponsorships, and the recognition system, along with any naming opportunities that can be devised at this early point in the nonprofit's life. These should all be part of the certification review process.
Part of the strategic plan of any new or continuing nonprofit organization is its mission statement, its case for support, and its method of disseminating that case for support among its constituents on a regular, frequent, persistent and consistent basis. So these will be good ingredients to give to the organization that is certifying the new charity start-up.
1. There should be a mission statement developed for the organization, so that should be shared with the start-up certification panel. Along with that mission statement there would also be the plan of mission accomplishment, or service delivery. That would describe in some details the scope of service delivery and the methods the founder envisions being used. It will also need to include anticipated outcomes so that there is something to measure effectiveness from the very beginning. These items should also be part of the certification review process.
2. Instead of waiting several years until a convenient time presents itself (or even never getting around to it), the organization's case for support should be developed and written down right at the beginning. This document would contain a complete and detailed set of reasons why anyone should or would give any money in support of the organization's work. It should state the set of features offered to individual, foundation and corporate donors, as well as the benefits to be derived from making a contribution. This is going to include the schedule of benefits for corporate sponsorships, and the recognition system, along with any naming opportunities that can be devised at this early point in the nonprofit's life. These should all be part of the certification review process.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Serious Look at Duplicative Nonprofits
I said that our second objective for regulating a new charity start-up is to discourage the creation of new charity start-ups in geographic locations where similar charities have already been set up. We want to avoid duplication of effort, while, at the same time, encouraging new charities to care for needs that have been left unmet.
I think one way to care for this would be to gather specific information about target populations and the numbers of charities serving those populations. That information, however, would have been gathered in the approval process as we described in this yesterday's post.
But a second step would be to have other charities already operating in the start-up's territory certify that another nonprofit in that specialty is, in fact, needed in order to serve the target population. This would mean that the founders of a new nonprofit would need to have met with the leadership of other, similar charities that already exist, and obtain the support of the leadership in those existing charities for the new start-up. I think this would do a lot for weeding out duplicative charities, and would force the issue of "turf" out in the open right from the beginning. This would put nonprofit start-ups on approximately the same grounds as hospitals -- having to prove that they are needed in order to serve the target population.
This means that the human service charities, or the arts charities, or the health groups or educational institutions would need to meet with would-be founders of new nonprofit start-ups to decide together whether there is:
1) an urgent need in the geographic area for such a new start-up;
2) sufficient support available from within the community to fund the work of both existing charities and that of the new start-up; and
3) an adequate strategic plan devised by the new start-up that is likely to ensure its success.
Experience is a good teacher, groups on the ground, in the locality – however cumbersome – are more likely to be better regulators of charitable activity within a given specialty in a given geographical area.
Now, I would agree with you that this is going to blow the lid off of new charity start-ups. Where "turf" is an issue, it's going to be extremely difficult for a new charity to get started. But those groups will need to show that they are covering what needs to be done, and the onus of that burden should be great enough to forestall turf-based greed among existing charities.
Where "turf" is NOT an issue, and progress holds sway, there is going to be careful assessment of just how a new start-up will contribute to the ultimate success and advancement of all such groups in the geographical and program area.
I think one way to care for this would be to gather specific information about target populations and the numbers of charities serving those populations. That information, however, would have been gathered in the approval process as we described in this yesterday's post.
But a second step would be to have other charities already operating in the start-up's territory certify that another nonprofit in that specialty is, in fact, needed in order to serve the target population. This would mean that the founders of a new nonprofit would need to have met with the leadership of other, similar charities that already exist, and obtain the support of the leadership in those existing charities for the new start-up. I think this would do a lot for weeding out duplicative charities, and would force the issue of "turf" out in the open right from the beginning. This would put nonprofit start-ups on approximately the same grounds as hospitals -- having to prove that they are needed in order to serve the target population.
This means that the human service charities, or the arts charities, or the health groups or educational institutions would need to meet with would-be founders of new nonprofit start-ups to decide together whether there is:
1) an urgent need in the geographic area for such a new start-up;
2) sufficient support available from within the community to fund the work of both existing charities and that of the new start-up; and
3) an adequate strategic plan devised by the new start-up that is likely to ensure its success.
Experience is a good teacher, groups on the ground, in the locality – however cumbersome – are more likely to be better regulators of charitable activity within a given specialty in a given geographical area.
Now, I would agree with you that this is going to blow the lid off of new charity start-ups. Where "turf" is an issue, it's going to be extremely difficult for a new charity to get started. But those groups will need to show that they are covering what needs to be done, and the onus of that burden should be great enough to forestall turf-based greed among existing charities.
Where "turf" is NOT an issue, and progress holds sway, there is going to be careful assessment of just how a new start-up will contribute to the ultimate success and advancement of all such groups in the geographical and program area.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Getting Straight on Planning and Finance
To care for the first objective – making sure the necessary strategic and financial ingredients are in place – I think we should request the following information on some sort of application to be a 501-c-3 nonprofit organization:
1. Ask each charity start-up to submit information regarding their prospective board members. We need to know their name and contact information, of course. But we also want to know their field of professional work, their relative capacity to give or solicit contributions to the new nonprofit on a continuing basis, and their estimated previous experience in governing nonprofit organizations. We want to know that the skills and experience background of the initial board is diverse and strong enough to provide good governance. We want to know that the board members selected are going to be independent of the founder/executive. So what is there relationship (not just family ties, either) to the founder?
2. Ask each organization applying for nonprofit status to submit a 10-page summary of their strategic plan – or their "business plan." What we would want to see here is a summary of
the organization's mission and vision statement, the group's strategic objectives, the program strategies that will be used to accomplish the strategic objectives, and the organization's budget for the first five years of its existence, including all sources of revenue. We would also want to have a comprehensive fundraising plan to ensure the continuing sustainability of the new nonprofit. We want to know that this group has done their strategic planning and financial homework.
3. We also want to know how, and the extent to which, the founders of the new nonprofit have ascertained that there is, in fact, a community need for their anticipated mission, and that the community and its leadership are supportive of and ready to undergird the new nonprofit and its work with their contributions of time and money. This would require some sort of means testing and some affidavits from typical community leaders in government, education, business, media and nonprofit sectors.
4. We would also want a summary of the competence areas and the experience depth of the organization's founder or starting executive or other program staff that will be employed as the new nonprofit gets underway.
5. Once the new nonprofit is approved, we would want a series of follow-up reports on financial status and mission accomplishment for up to five years after approval. We would want to see comparative budgets vs. actual revenues and expenses, as well as an annual balance sheet. In other words, we would want a full and audited financial statement for each of the five years of the start-up charity's existence. We also would want audited figues relative to programs of service provided, the target populations served and the results obtained in service.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, "Is this guy nuts, or what?!" But tell me, dear reader: is it better to require this information up front and for the first five years, and to set up the mechanism for doing that? Or is it better to have a plethora of charity start-ups, many of whom will no longer be in existence in five years, or who will be serving ineptly and inefficiently, thus mis-using the public's contributed funds? Is it better to "let 'em run wild" and proliferate, or to weed out the inadequately prepared groups right from the start?
In my view, it serves the public interest – both the society at large and the donating public – to have charities out there whose start-ups have been properly certified as having the right ingredients from their beginning. If they don't get off to a good start, of what ultimate use are they to society?
1. Ask each charity start-up to submit information regarding their prospective board members. We need to know their name and contact information, of course. But we also want to know their field of professional work, their relative capacity to give or solicit contributions to the new nonprofit on a continuing basis, and their estimated previous experience in governing nonprofit organizations. We want to know that the skills and experience background of the initial board is diverse and strong enough to provide good governance. We want to know that the board members selected are going to be independent of the founder/executive. So what is there relationship (not just family ties, either) to the founder?
2. Ask each organization applying for nonprofit status to submit a 10-page summary of their strategic plan – or their "business plan." What we would want to see here is a summary of
the organization's mission and vision statement, the group's strategic objectives, the program strategies that will be used to accomplish the strategic objectives, and the organization's budget for the first five years of its existence, including all sources of revenue. We would also want to have a comprehensive fundraising plan to ensure the continuing sustainability of the new nonprofit. We want to know that this group has done their strategic planning and financial homework.
3. We also want to know how, and the extent to which, the founders of the new nonprofit have ascertained that there is, in fact, a community need for their anticipated mission, and that the community and its leadership are supportive of and ready to undergird the new nonprofit and its work with their contributions of time and money. This would require some sort of means testing and some affidavits from typical community leaders in government, education, business, media and nonprofit sectors.
4. We would also want a summary of the competence areas and the experience depth of the organization's founder or starting executive or other program staff that will be employed as the new nonprofit gets underway.
5. Once the new nonprofit is approved, we would want a series of follow-up reports on financial status and mission accomplishment for up to five years after approval. We would want to see comparative budgets vs. actual revenues and expenses, as well as an annual balance sheet. In other words, we would want a full and audited financial statement for each of the five years of the start-up charity's existence. We also would want audited figues relative to programs of service provided, the target populations served and the results obtained in service.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, "Is this guy nuts, or what?!" But tell me, dear reader: is it better to require this information up front and for the first five years, and to set up the mechanism for doing that? Or is it better to have a plethora of charity start-ups, many of whom will no longer be in existence in five years, or who will be serving ineptly and inefficiently, thus mis-using the public's contributed funds? Is it better to "let 'em run wild" and proliferate, or to weed out the inadequately prepared groups right from the start?
In my view, it serves the public interest – both the society at large and the donating public – to have charities out there whose start-ups have been properly certified as having the right ingredients from their beginning. If they don't get off to a good start, of what ultimate use are they to society?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Giving Charity Start-ups a Better Chance at Success
As we start to figure out how to deal with the proliferation of nonprofit organizations in our society, especially when we focus on the problems many of them get into because they are not planned and structured propersly, I think we need to start with the premise that "it's a free country, and anyone should be able to do whatever he/she wants to do." Individual human liberty should not be abridged or constrained, unless the action anticipated is going to cause significant harm to others or to the society generally. But for the good of society, we do generally regulate human endeavor. You can't, for example, keep gaming arcades out of town, but you can use zoning ordinances to regulate where they can or cannot be placed. You can, however, pass an ordinance forbidding something like prostitution or gambling in your town because that action is deemed harmful to individuals and to the society at large. Let's see how we might apply that to charity start-ups in a helpful way without abridging the freedom of individuals to do what they wish to do.
Let's start with what it is we want to accomplish with regard to charity start-ups, then we can deal with how we might accomplish those objectives in a way that gives new charity start-ups a better chance at avoiding fundraising capacity problems down the road.
First, we want to ensure that every charity start-up begins its life with enough of the right strategic ingredients to keep it on an even keel financially and ensure that it will be able to perform its intended mission, thus bringing considerable good works to society over the long run. If and as we continue to think of the nonprofit organization as a public trust, we need to ensure that each one has the best chance of success, and we need, as a society, to ensure that each charity actually accomplishes the mission for which it is created. If we have 20 drunks in town and two de-tox units, are they both doing a good job, and are they working to, but not being pushed beyond, their capacity for service?
Second, we want to discourage the creation of too many new charity start-ups in geographic locations where similar charities have already been set up. We want to avoid duplication of effort, while, at the same time, encouraging new charities to care for needs that have been left unmet. We want to avoid the situation where there are more homeless shelters, or more drug and alcohol treatment facilities than are needed by the target population in a given geographic area. If you have 20 drunks in town, you may not need more than one de-tox unit. So we need information about target populations served by nonprofits vs. the number of nonprofits established to care for various classes of target populations.
Third, we want to help ensure that prospective donors in the community have reasonable clarity about the mission and accomplishments of the charities they are asked to support. We want to know that of the 20 drunks in town, 17 are under treatment and ten of them are now well on their way to getting off and staying off alcohol. So we need readily available information about, and some standards of measurement for, mission accomplishment by the nonprofits currently serving in our community.
Fourth, we also want to help donors easily find the information they need to assure themselves that their gifts will be effectively and efficiently used for the purpose the donor intends. As a member of the general public, can one easily find out how many drunks there are, what proportion of drunks are taking advantage of the de-tox units that exist, and how many are in what stages of treatment? So we need information on target populations, standards of performance, and numbers of charities serving.
Can you who read this think of other objectives that should adhere to a system of regulation for new charity start-ups? If so, let me have your comments. Or if you have objection to talking about regulating charity start-ups, let's have you point of view.
Let's start with what it is we want to accomplish with regard to charity start-ups, then we can deal with how we might accomplish those objectives in a way that gives new charity start-ups a better chance at avoiding fundraising capacity problems down the road.
First, we want to ensure that every charity start-up begins its life with enough of the right strategic ingredients to keep it on an even keel financially and ensure that it will be able to perform its intended mission, thus bringing considerable good works to society over the long run. If and as we continue to think of the nonprofit organization as a public trust, we need to ensure that each one has the best chance of success, and we need, as a society, to ensure that each charity actually accomplishes the mission for which it is created. If we have 20 drunks in town and two de-tox units, are they both doing a good job, and are they working to, but not being pushed beyond, their capacity for service?
Second, we want to discourage the creation of too many new charity start-ups in geographic locations where similar charities have already been set up. We want to avoid duplication of effort, while, at the same time, encouraging new charities to care for needs that have been left unmet. We want to avoid the situation where there are more homeless shelters, or more drug and alcohol treatment facilities than are needed by the target population in a given geographic area. If you have 20 drunks in town, you may not need more than one de-tox unit. So we need information about target populations served by nonprofits vs. the number of nonprofits established to care for various classes of target populations.
Third, we want to help ensure that prospective donors in the community have reasonable clarity about the mission and accomplishments of the charities they are asked to support. We want to know that of the 20 drunks in town, 17 are under treatment and ten of them are now well on their way to getting off and staying off alcohol. So we need readily available information about, and some standards of measurement for, mission accomplishment by the nonprofits currently serving in our community.
Fourth, we also want to help donors easily find the information they need to assure themselves that their gifts will be effectively and efficiently used for the purpose the donor intends. As a member of the general public, can one easily find out how many drunks there are, what proportion of drunks are taking advantage of the de-tox units that exist, and how many are in what stages of treatment? So we need information on target populations, standards of performance, and numbers of charities serving.
Can you who read this think of other objectives that should adhere to a system of regulation for new charity start-ups? If so, let me have your comments. Or if you have objection to talking about regulating charity start-ups, let's have you point of view.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Should New Charities be DIS-couraged?
Maybe it's time to summarize this thread?
We've been dealing with a condition I have called "founder-it is." This condition can develop when a nonpforit founder, who also is probably still acting as the executive director, has either set the charity on its present course with a series of well-meaning but inappropriate decisions, or has contributed a variety of management errors along the way that have now resulted in a situation where governance is impossible, fundraising is faltering, and the organization is in strategic trouble.
Part of our analysis of this type of situation demonstrated the role played by a Board of directors thjat was set up without a written job description or with performance standards and regular self-evaluation. Where job description and performance standards are clearly delineated and provided in writing to all board members, governance is more successful. When this is not the case, trouble can occur.
We found that another contributor to "founder-it is" has to do with the lack of a real managemment team. This may be the result of personal "turf" issues with the founder/executive, or with the lack of a community that is able to stand supportively behind the fledgling charity start-up.
Yet another aspect would be the founders whose planning lacks sufficient study and reflection that then leads to the founding of "another" charity in a given field of work where there are already many others doing the same or similar work – this may be an instance of founding another charity because "no one is doing it the way I can do it."
Certainly, "founder-it is" is exacerbated, too, by a founder's failure to discover, relate to or amass a broad base of community support – both verbal and financial – behind the cause and the mission of the organization.
The results of some or all of these various factors, then, can manifest themselves as lack of true governance and strategic planning; and also as a proclivity for limiting fundraising to "foundation and fun" (by which we mean reliance on foundation grants and special events) at the expense of a broader approach to fundraising that would involve heavier emphasis on individual and family giving. And this, in turn, may occasion, or may even be occasioned by, repeated decisions not to invest in fundraising infrastructure.
It would seem that all these conditions are preventable. And, in fact, it must be said that out of some 50,000 new nonprofit start-ups that happen each year, probably the majority manange to avoid "founder-itis." But how can we help the problem?
Question: should we, then, as a society, let so many of these nonprofits proliferate without some rather stringent guidelines, peer review and regular accountability for management of funds? A charity, after all, is considered a public trust. But how can we build into new charity start-ups the quality of accountability? I think we must do this for the sake of the philanthropic marketplace (both charities and donors), and I'll tell you why in the next post.
We've been dealing with a condition I have called "founder-it is." This condition can develop when a nonpforit founder, who also is probably still acting as the executive director, has either set the charity on its present course with a series of well-meaning but inappropriate decisions, or has contributed a variety of management errors along the way that have now resulted in a situation where governance is impossible, fundraising is faltering, and the organization is in strategic trouble.
Part of our analysis of this type of situation demonstrated the role played by a Board of directors thjat was set up without a written job description or with performance standards and regular self-evaluation. Where job description and performance standards are clearly delineated and provided in writing to all board members, governance is more successful. When this is not the case, trouble can occur.
We found that another contributor to "founder-it is" has to do with the lack of a real managemment team. This may be the result of personal "turf" issues with the founder/executive, or with the lack of a community that is able to stand supportively behind the fledgling charity start-up.
Yet another aspect would be the founders whose planning lacks sufficient study and reflection that then leads to the founding of "another" charity in a given field of work where there are already many others doing the same or similar work – this may be an instance of founding another charity because "no one is doing it the way I can do it."
Certainly, "founder-it is" is exacerbated, too, by a founder's failure to discover, relate to or amass a broad base of community support – both verbal and financial – behind the cause and the mission of the organization.
The results of some or all of these various factors, then, can manifest themselves as lack of true governance and strategic planning; and also as a proclivity for limiting fundraising to "foundation and fun" (by which we mean reliance on foundation grants and special events) at the expense of a broader approach to fundraising that would involve heavier emphasis on individual and family giving. And this, in turn, may occasion, or may even be occasioned by, repeated decisions not to invest in fundraising infrastructure.
It would seem that all these conditions are preventable. And, in fact, it must be said that out of some 50,000 new nonprofit start-ups that happen each year, probably the majority manange to avoid "founder-itis." But how can we help the problem?
Question: should we, then, as a society, let so many of these nonprofits proliferate without some rather stringent guidelines, peer review and regular accountability for management of funds? A charity, after all, is considered a public trust. But how can we build into new charity start-ups the quality of accountability? I think we must do this for the sake of the philanthropic marketplace (both charities and donors), and I'll tell you why in the next post.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
More on Board Complicity in Founder-itis
Continuing with the problems that occur when the Board of a nonprofit develops and inability to fulfill its roles…
4. Board remains ignorant of, or eschews their true governance role. As they are micro-managing daily operations and not doing any strategic planning, the Board, by this time, has lost sight of its governance function. They no longer know what that role is, if they were ever so informed by the founder – most I've seen really don't have any idea. Since it was the founder who "roped us into this," they have no sense of themselves as a body responsible to the general public for getting a specific kind of mission done for and in the community. They have little sense of "achieving a greater social good" and, must less, a willingness to be held accountable for the organization's performance of its mission.
5. Board members give up public advocacy when organization falters in fundraising. As revenue decreases, while there may be considerable pressure for increased expenditures to enhance and deepen the organization's missional effectiveness, the Board members cringe when it comes to vocal public advocacy for the organization's cause. No more passionate speeches at Rotary and Kiwanis meetings; no more going around to the local churches; no more political advocacy and lobbying local officials on behalf of the cause and the mission. Board members who may have once vociferously defended the founder's motives and program, now quietly take a back seat and let someone else take the advocate's role. And that someone else is most likely going to be the founder/executive, who steps in to do the job whenever his/her volunteers can't or won't do the job that he/she perceives must be done.
6. Board members then let the founder/executive do as he/she pleases. As the organization gets deeper and deeper into financial trouble, the Board members are much less likely to be able to devise new corrective measures or suggest specific changes in management methods. The result is that the Board members will step back, let the founder/ executive carry the ball, alone, on every front. The end result is that the founder/executive, who by this time urgently needs board backing and needs the board to do its work and be part of the team, finds he/she has to do it all – from service delivery, to fundraising to governance.. That's ultimate trouble, because what started out looking like "a team" is now really a one-person show. And if that person gets sick, wants to retire, or shift roles significantly, there is no way the organization can handle any of those possibilities without significant intervention or possible collapse and re-building.
So this is how the Board of Directors of a nonprofit find themselves unable to fulfill their appointed role when the organization is in the grip of a real case of "founder-it is."
4. Board remains ignorant of, or eschews their true governance role. As they are micro-managing daily operations and not doing any strategic planning, the Board, by this time, has lost sight of its governance function. They no longer know what that role is, if they were ever so informed by the founder – most I've seen really don't have any idea. Since it was the founder who "roped us into this," they have no sense of themselves as a body responsible to the general public for getting a specific kind of mission done for and in the community. They have little sense of "achieving a greater social good" and, must less, a willingness to be held accountable for the organization's performance of its mission.
5. Board members give up public advocacy when organization falters in fundraising. As revenue decreases, while there may be considerable pressure for increased expenditures to enhance and deepen the organization's missional effectiveness, the Board members cringe when it comes to vocal public advocacy for the organization's cause. No more passionate speeches at Rotary and Kiwanis meetings; no more going around to the local churches; no more political advocacy and lobbying local officials on behalf of the cause and the mission. Board members who may have once vociferously defended the founder's motives and program, now quietly take a back seat and let someone else take the advocate's role. And that someone else is most likely going to be the founder/executive, who steps in to do the job whenever his/her volunteers can't or won't do the job that he/she perceives must be done.
6. Board members then let the founder/executive do as he/she pleases. As the organization gets deeper and deeper into financial trouble, the Board members are much less likely to be able to devise new corrective measures or suggest specific changes in management methods. The result is that the Board members will step back, let the founder/ executive carry the ball, alone, on every front. The end result is that the founder/executive, who by this time urgently needs board backing and needs the board to do its work and be part of the team, finds he/she has to do it all – from service delivery, to fundraising to governance.. That's ultimate trouble, because what started out looking like "a team" is now really a one-person show. And if that person gets sick, wants to retire, or shift roles significantly, there is no way the organization can handle any of those possibilities without significant intervention or possible collapse and re-building.
So this is how the Board of Directors of a nonprofit find themselves unable to fulfill their appointed role when the organization is in the grip of a real case of "founder-it is."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
