Yesterday I noted 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 in the next several posts.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Board giving (cont'd)
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 Kansas City to one of the first assemblies of the National Conference on Planned Giving. He said that if you give a charity a dollar, they'll most likely return about 6 dollars of service to the society. But if you give the government $6 in taxes, you're going to be lucky if you get a dollar of service in return. I assumed he knew whereof he spoke.
So charities are effective and efficient, right? They serve an important social purpose. What's the root of their effectiveness? What makes them work so efficiently? Volunteers. Especially volunteer boards. Our charities are run by volunteers who have philanthropic motivations, the love of humankind, at heart. They're self-policing. The United Way scandal a number of years ago was handled internally, by their board members who blew the whistle on the exorbitant salary of the national executive. They cleaned it up themselves.
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."
That's highly ccontradictory! Why does this happen? I think it happens only where there is not a well-though-out process for populating our boards. It happens when board members' desire for the relatively soft rewards of volunteer service are too easily satiated. That is, they get their rewards simply by being around the table with one another doing good things, but are not challenged to reap the much better rewards to be found in doing better things.
What I think should happen is this:
1. A board needs to have a job description that is written out, known in advance, repeatedly emphasized in board meetings. Put the board's job description and the outline of the strategic plan on a placemat at each board person's place. The job description should be one that includes all the board responsibilities, including meetings, committees, giving, advocacy in the community, leadership among volunteers, etc.
2. Board members should be brought onto 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 5000 groups and organizations in southeast Michigan that have nonprofit status from the IRS, how many do you think engage in this kind of rigorous board recruitment process? Michigan has over 32,000 nonprofits, and we're growing at a rate of more than 3000 per year. From what I've seen in 20 years here, practicing actively among the charities for the past 10 years, my bet is that maybe 30 organizations have such a process in place.
No wonder we have a tough time getting board members to give!
But now we really MUST get to our Example #2.
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 Kansas City to one of the first assemblies of the National Conference on Planned Giving. He said that if you give a charity a dollar, they'll most likely return about 6 dollars of service to the society. But if you give the government $6 in taxes, you're going to be lucky if you get a dollar of service in return. I assumed he knew whereof he spoke.
So charities are effective and efficient, right? They serve an important social purpose. What's the root of their effectiveness? What makes them work so efficiently? Volunteers. Especially volunteer boards. Our charities are run by volunteers who have philanthropic motivations, the love of humankind, at heart. They're self-policing. The United Way scandal a number of years ago was handled internally, by their board members who blew the whistle on the exorbitant salary of the national executive. They cleaned it up themselves.
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."
That's highly ccontradictory! Why does this happen? I think it happens only where there is not a well-though-out process for populating our boards. It happens when board members' desire for the relatively soft rewards of volunteer service are too easily satiated. That is, they get their rewards simply by being around the table with one another doing good things, but are not challenged to reap the much better rewards to be found in doing better things.
What I think should happen is this:
1. A board needs to have a job description that is written out, known in advance, repeatedly emphasized in board meetings. Put the board's job description and the outline of the strategic plan on a placemat at each board person's place. The job description should be one that includes all the board responsibilities, including meetings, committees, giving, advocacy in the community, leadership among volunteers, etc.
2. Board members should be brought onto 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 5000 groups and organizations in southeast Michigan that have nonprofit status from the IRS, how many do you think engage in this kind of rigorous board recruitment process? Michigan has over 32,000 nonprofits, and we're growing at a rate of more than 3000 per year. From what I've seen in 20 years here, practicing actively among the charities for the past 10 years, my bet is that maybe 30 organizations have such a process in place.
No wonder we have a tough time getting board members to give!
But now we really MUST get to our Example #2.
Friday, November 16, 2007
A Diversion into 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 tomorrow
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 tomorrow
Thursday, November 15, 2007
When I say that nonprofit boards (or really groups of any kind) can't do "deliberative thought," I'm talking about substantive decisions 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. Such decisions need a combination of analysis and synthesis to be done well. They need people to be able to engage in the process of what used to be called "the scientific method." But the psycho-dynamics of people in a group prevent this process from taking place.
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 the organization's fundraising infrastructure in order to start 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. There are four qualities a board needs to be able to do "deliberative thought."
1. We're talking about the ability to deliberate and make decisions about the complex issues involved in either one of these topics. We're talking about the ability to sort out and prioritize those issues that are especially relevant to where the organization wants to go strategically.
2. We're also talking about the ability to decide on the kind of goals and objectives that will need to be accomplished to ensure that either of these decisions result in positive enhancements in the capacity of the nonprofit to function and accomplish its mission as a result of increased fundraising.
3. Another factor that is involved is the ability to delineate a variety of possible alternative strategies, along with sets of tactics to implement each of those strategies.
4. 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.
Now let's dig into our examples:
Example 1: Decision on board Giving: We might expect this would be a rather simple decision to make. 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 to 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 to 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 overwhelming 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 flawed 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. One of the problems involved is that most groups of people today enter into any discussion or problem-solving situations prepared to DEBATE rather than enter into DIALOGUE. Debate is a win/lose proposition -- I amass enough details and points of view on my side so I win and you have to lose. But dialogue is a win/win situation. Here are some of the ingredients of a dialogue:
1. The group does a discovery process to elicit all the facts.
2. We work at setting out alternatives that meet the needs of all vested interests in the question.
3. We all take responsibility for choosing among those alternatives the strategies that we think will best meet all those needs.
4. And, in the end, we all win.
5. Dialogue is tougher than debate because to enter into dialogue we must suspend judgment.
6. We also must reveal our assumptions, both hidden and overt.
7. In dialogue we must be able to mentally entertain diverse perspectives through a process of empathetic listening.
8. Dialogue also involves a complete and frank sharing of information and asks each player to seek out shared values that move us toward collaborative action.
Before I suggest what should be done in this example of the board decision about making a significant board contribution to this nonprofit – a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's go on to example #2. We'll find further insights there.
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 the organization's fundraising infrastructure in order to start 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. There are four qualities a board needs to be able to do "deliberative thought."
1. We're talking about the ability to deliberate and make decisions about the complex issues involved in either one of these topics. We're talking about the ability to sort out and prioritize those issues that are especially relevant to where the organization wants to go strategically.
2. We're also talking about the ability to decide on the kind of goals and objectives that will need to be accomplished to ensure that either of these decisions result in positive enhancements in the capacity of the nonprofit to function and accomplish its mission as a result of increased fundraising.
3. Another factor that is involved is the ability to delineate a variety of possible alternative strategies, along with sets of tactics to implement each of those strategies.
4. 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.
Now let's dig into our examples:
Example 1: Decision on board Giving: We might expect this would be a rather simple decision to make. 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 to 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 to 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 overwhelming 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 flawed 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. One of the problems involved is that most groups of people today enter into any discussion or problem-solving situations prepared to DEBATE rather than enter into DIALOGUE. Debate is a win/lose proposition -- I amass enough details and points of view on my side so I win and you have to lose. But dialogue is a win/win situation. Here are some of the ingredients of a dialogue:
1. The group does a discovery process to elicit all the facts.
2. We work at setting out alternatives that meet the needs of all vested interests in the question.
3. We all take responsibility for choosing among those alternatives the strategies that we think will best meet all those needs.
4. And, in the end, we all win.
5. Dialogue is tougher than debate because to enter into dialogue we must suspend judgment.
6. We also must reveal our assumptions, both hidden and overt.
7. In dialogue we must be able to mentally entertain diverse perspectives through a process of empathetic listening.
8. Dialogue also involves a complete and frank sharing of information and asks each player to seek out shared values that move us toward collaborative action.
Before I suggest what should be done in this example of the board decision about making a significant board contribution to this nonprofit – a better way to make such a complicated decision – let's go on to example #2. We'll find further insights there.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Two Powerful Forces Operating in Nonprofit Boards
Would board members of a nonprofit organization 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?"
There are two significant and powerful factors operating in our nonprofit leaders as they gather around the board table. The first is the "psycho-dynamics" operating between board members. The second is the reward system operating in voluntary associations of any kind. Let's take them in order.
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? "Psycho-dynamics."
This isn't necessarily something board members 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. This happens in any group of people, not just boards, but it is of concern here because we're trying to understand the behavior of nonprofit board members. One's image of self is a high priority concern.
Second, every board member around the table is also very interested in the question, "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?"
Third, every board member at the table is also asking "What is my image of that person – what do I think of them? What do I know about them? What do I think they want of me, what do I think I can give to them?"
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 image 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 emotionally and psychologically?" 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 any 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 operating in each and every board member (also in every staff member and visitor 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, and I learned this early on in my sojourn with group dynamics from my first mentor in process: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought."
But, nevertheless, 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; they have a responsibility for governing a nonprofit charitable institution. We set up agendas that call for decisions that cannot be made without deliberation and careful, analytical thought, yet the psycho-dynamics of such a group of people frequently seem to militate against making good governance decisions.
Ah, but there's more…
Here's the second of these two factors that contribute to the inability of nonprofit boards to stay with strategic planning, governance and providing the resources an organization needs to function.
There are basically four "rewards" or benefits that actors in voluntary associations experience. These are the benefits derived from the exchange in which these actors give time, money or meaning. In return for their participation and their gifts, these actors receive the rewards of personal satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, meaning in life, and companionship and mutuality.
But these are relatively “soft” rewards, rather easily obtained by most people. For example, if you buy a car, you give the dealer your money, and you walk away with a car you can use to drive to work or the grocery store or to grandma's on Thanksgiving. It's a bit different from the board member who gives time, and maybe an annual contribution and walks away with satisfaction or peer approval and recognition. The latter's reward is not as tangible a product.
But what happens when a person’s need for the rewards of voluntary association is satisfied? Their search for exchanges that yield these rewards stops. Satiation is experienced. The person is at equilibrium. There is no perceived need to give more because the person has received the reward that he or she needs.
Perhaps this is why board members who, for example, clearly face the urgent need for their organization to raise money, and sometimes even in the presence of both the organizational capability and the need to do fundraising, nevertheless make decisions contrary to the good of their organizations. It's not only that psycho-dynamics get in the way, it's also because they have what they need from association with the group, and they are not pressed by internal need to stretch further to reach reward. There's no pressure to get involved in significant giving, or in cultivation and solicitation. They have enough of what they wanted when they agreed to get involved with the organization in the first place.
Potential discomfort – both personally (in terms of having to participate in the raising of funds) and corporately (in terms of the changes needed in the organization and the work of planning, organizing, investing in infrastructure, and carrying out strategies of cultivation and solicitation) – is too great an obstacle to overcome in light of the fact that these rather “soft” rewards are all too easily obtained without going to such lengths.
There are, of course, people in voluntary associations who are highly motivated. These may be founding executives, former service recipients or others with powerful personal, religious, apocalyptic or apocryphal direction. Indeed these individuals may be strongly driven by an internal passion, and will continue to seek rewards long after others are satiated. These persons seem to thrive on driving on through towards success for their organizations, giving everything that is needed for success. These are the people of whom we say, “He/she is not afraid to ask anyone for anything for our cause.” These actors exhibit charismatic behavior and seem so captivated, compelled or motivated that they are fearless on behalf of their cause. These are the people who get things done in a voluntary association. But these are not the kinds of people nonprofits generally choose for board members.
There are also those organizations whose executives are trained managers, and whose internal professional standards are so highly developed that they strive continually for the betterment of the organization in all respects, including leading the charge in fundraising. These persons know, or seek out knowledge of what is needed to make the organization’s fundraising efforts successful, and they energetically, and sometimes patiently, proceed to go about gathering the personal, facility and budget resources necessary to accomplish that fundraising job. But in this case, these nonprofit actors get the job of fundraising done despite the board's lack of ability to step up to the plate and make significant gifts while cultivating and soliciting others.
The way our nonprofit leadership structure is typically created, the governance board is composed of those who are rather more easily satiated. while our executives, and maybe one or two other volunteers, are those who are driven and highly motivated.
Yet we leave it up to the board to make the budget decisions about investment in fundraising infrastructure, and whether or not the Board will make an annual gift to the organization, and whether the board will be involved in fundraising by cultivating and soliciting major gifts. These are the people who will tend to be least passionate about these fundraising objectives, and who have the least to gain personally, even though the organization and its health stand to gain substantially. These are the people whose needs for satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, personal meaning in life and companionship and mutuality are satiated just by the process of being on the board and attending board meetings, regardless of the details of what is happening.
Even when personal discomfort is involved, such as instances where the organization’s health and well-being are in such as state as to be seriously threatened, such board members will continue to make decisions that push fundraising tasks to the lower end of the priority scale.
It must be acknowledged, however, that there are times when we see highly capable board leaders who do clearly perceive a need within the organization to mount a campaign to build or renovate a building or take the organization to the next step of programmatic excellence. These leaders seem to be motivated to put aside personal pleasure seeking and mobilize themselves and their colleagues for intense and often strenuous programs of fundraising, including the investment of organization resources in the fundraising infrastructure necessary to mount such an effort.
Would this, then, constitute some other truly insightful, compelling and motivating internal force acting within such leaders to put aside personal reward satiation in favor of sacrificing one’s personal comfort to act for the good of the organization’s present and future capacity to carry out its mission? It may be that reward, then, is sought by these leaders at a much higher level, involving considerable personal self-sacrifice, and mobilizing such internal leadership capability as will motivate others to act on behalf of their organization rather than in the interests of self. These leaders receive, then, a higher quality peer recognition, greater personal satisfaction, meaning, and mutuality as a result of their more intense involvement.
So here you have these two forces operating in nonprofit governance boards: the psycho-dynamics going on at any board meeting, plus the reward system of voluntary associations. Perhaps this explains the tendency of many boards to micro-manage rather than sticking to strategic planning, governance and giving, and their propensity to shun fundraising activity and investment in resource development infrastructure.
In a day when we have an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace, that kind of board activity will sooner or later spell disaster for the charity they're trying to help.
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?"
There are two significant and powerful factors operating in our nonprofit leaders as they gather around the board table. The first is the "psycho-dynamics" operating between board members. The second is the reward system operating in voluntary associations of any kind. Let's take them in order.
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? "Psycho-dynamics."
This isn't necessarily something board members 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. This happens in any group of people, not just boards, but it is of concern here because we're trying to understand the behavior of nonprofit board members. One's image of self is a high priority concern.
Second, every board member around the table is also very interested in the question, "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?"
Third, every board member at the table is also asking "What is my image of that person – what do I think of them? What do I know about them? What do I think they want of me, what do I think I can give to them?"
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 image 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 emotionally and psychologically?" 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 any 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 operating in each and every board member (also in every staff member and visitor 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, and I learned this early on in my sojourn with group dynamics from my first mentor in process: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought."
But, nevertheless, 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; they have a responsibility for governing a nonprofit charitable institution. We set up agendas that call for decisions that cannot be made without deliberation and careful, analytical thought, yet the psycho-dynamics of such a group of people frequently seem to militate against making good governance decisions.
Ah, but there's more…
Here's the second of these two factors that contribute to the inability of nonprofit boards to stay with strategic planning, governance and providing the resources an organization needs to function.
There are basically four "rewards" or benefits that actors in voluntary associations experience. These are the benefits derived from the exchange in which these actors give time, money or meaning. In return for their participation and their gifts, these actors receive the rewards of personal satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, meaning in life, and companionship and mutuality.
But these are relatively “soft” rewards, rather easily obtained by most people. For example, if you buy a car, you give the dealer your money, and you walk away with a car you can use to drive to work or the grocery store or to grandma's on Thanksgiving. It's a bit different from the board member who gives time, and maybe an annual contribution and walks away with satisfaction or peer approval and recognition. The latter's reward is not as tangible a product.
But what happens when a person’s need for the rewards of voluntary association is satisfied? Their search for exchanges that yield these rewards stops. Satiation is experienced. The person is at equilibrium. There is no perceived need to give more because the person has received the reward that he or she needs.
Perhaps this is why board members who, for example, clearly face the urgent need for their organization to raise money, and sometimes even in the presence of both the organizational capability and the need to do fundraising, nevertheless make decisions contrary to the good of their organizations. It's not only that psycho-dynamics get in the way, it's also because they have what they need from association with the group, and they are not pressed by internal need to stretch further to reach reward. There's no pressure to get involved in significant giving, or in cultivation and solicitation. They have enough of what they wanted when they agreed to get involved with the organization in the first place.
Potential discomfort – both personally (in terms of having to participate in the raising of funds) and corporately (in terms of the changes needed in the organization and the work of planning, organizing, investing in infrastructure, and carrying out strategies of cultivation and solicitation) – is too great an obstacle to overcome in light of the fact that these rather “soft” rewards are all too easily obtained without going to such lengths.
There are, of course, people in voluntary associations who are highly motivated. These may be founding executives, former service recipients or others with powerful personal, religious, apocalyptic or apocryphal direction. Indeed these individuals may be strongly driven by an internal passion, and will continue to seek rewards long after others are satiated. These persons seem to thrive on driving on through towards success for their organizations, giving everything that is needed for success. These are the people of whom we say, “He/she is not afraid to ask anyone for anything for our cause.” These actors exhibit charismatic behavior and seem so captivated, compelled or motivated that they are fearless on behalf of their cause. These are the people who get things done in a voluntary association. But these are not the kinds of people nonprofits generally choose for board members.
There are also those organizations whose executives are trained managers, and whose internal professional standards are so highly developed that they strive continually for the betterment of the organization in all respects, including leading the charge in fundraising. These persons know, or seek out knowledge of what is needed to make the organization’s fundraising efforts successful, and they energetically, and sometimes patiently, proceed to go about gathering the personal, facility and budget resources necessary to accomplish that fundraising job. But in this case, these nonprofit actors get the job of fundraising done despite the board's lack of ability to step up to the plate and make significant gifts while cultivating and soliciting others.
The way our nonprofit leadership structure is typically created, the governance board is composed of those who are rather more easily satiated. while our executives, and maybe one or two other volunteers, are those who are driven and highly motivated.
Yet we leave it up to the board to make the budget decisions about investment in fundraising infrastructure, and whether or not the Board will make an annual gift to the organization, and whether the board will be involved in fundraising by cultivating and soliciting major gifts. These are the people who will tend to be least passionate about these fundraising objectives, and who have the least to gain personally, even though the organization and its health stand to gain substantially. These are the people whose needs for satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, personal meaning in life and companionship and mutuality are satiated just by the process of being on the board and attending board meetings, regardless of the details of what is happening.
Even when personal discomfort is involved, such as instances where the organization’s health and well-being are in such as state as to be seriously threatened, such board members will continue to make decisions that push fundraising tasks to the lower end of the priority scale.
It must be acknowledged, however, that there are times when we see highly capable board leaders who do clearly perceive a need within the organization to mount a campaign to build or renovate a building or take the organization to the next step of programmatic excellence. These leaders seem to be motivated to put aside personal pleasure seeking and mobilize themselves and their colleagues for intense and often strenuous programs of fundraising, including the investment of organization resources in the fundraising infrastructure necessary to mount such an effort.
Would this, then, constitute some other truly insightful, compelling and motivating internal force acting within such leaders to put aside personal reward satiation in favor of sacrificing one’s personal comfort to act for the good of the organization’s present and future capacity to carry out its mission? It may be that reward, then, is sought by these leaders at a much higher level, involving considerable personal self-sacrifice, and mobilizing such internal leadership capability as will motivate others to act on behalf of their organization rather than in the interests of self. These leaders receive, then, a higher quality peer recognition, greater personal satisfaction, meaning, and mutuality as a result of their more intense involvement.
So here you have these two forces operating in nonprofit governance boards: the psycho-dynamics going on at any board meeting, plus the reward system of voluntary associations. Perhaps this explains the tendency of many boards to micro-manage rather than sticking to strategic planning, governance and giving, and their propensity to shun fundraising activity and investment in resource development infrastructure.
In a day when we have an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace, that kind of board activity will sooner or later spell disaster for the charity they're trying to help.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Bounds of Generosity (Pt.5 of 5)
“I don’t think it’s such a big thing,” Jim said. “Craig is making much too much out of this. It’s not a matter of trust. Hell, nobody out there’s going to know anything about it. It’s between us, right here, as Board members. Who’s going to leak it from our hallowed halls? Besides, even so, it’s all money going for the stated cause. No one was robbed. The money’s going for what it’s meant to be used for. I don’t see the harm in it. And I think this trust thing has been blown all out of proportion. We need to take more of a business attitude around here anyway, and I just thought this would be one way to help in that direction. But if you guys want to do it differently, why ask me? I just offered what I thought would be a good way to do it. Obviously, I was wrong. Just do it the way you want to. Leave me out of it.”
Taking a more calm and fatherly approach, Craig said, “Besides our human service product, our most important asset, and the most important ingredient of our cause and our mission, with either service recipients or donors, and with the community at large, is the trust they have in this institution. We all work hard every day in a thousand ways to earn that trust. It’s sacred, because it means our continued effectiveness; because it means our continued existence. Nothing is as sacred as that trust.
"In this case, that means we should simply tear up those leftover lottery tickets into little bitsy pieces and throw them in the trash. It will be giving those who bought their tickets a better chance at winning. And it will keep our hands squeaky clean. Think about the fact that if we did happen to win the lottery and just one little word of this got out to the street, we’d be blasted in all the papers and our name would by synonymous with….. with…. Golan Industries, whatever you call it, or any other common business firm. Our credibility with the community and the donors would be lost. And how long, Jim, Mendel and everyone on this Board, how long do you think it would take to recover from that?”
As the room went silent again, and with deadly calm and practiced precision, Jim stood up, reached back to the coat rack for his cashmere coat, draped it carefully over his left arm and exited the room, as all eyes followed him in thoughtful, fearful deliberation. It had happened: Craig had blown it. He has said the truth. What would happen now?
Two days later, Mendel Adams was relieved as he opened the envelope from Golan Mills to find Jim’s resignation. It wasn’t fancy, it wasn’t long. “Dear Mendel, Having spent the last six years on the Board of Directors of Reach for the Stars, I think it’s time I stepped aside and made way for others who might wish to serve this fine charity. Sincerely, James P. Morgan.” In the letter was a check for $5000 made out to Reach for the Stars.
Later that afternoon, as Mendel and Craig Johnson talked by phone about the whole scene, the resignation and the principles involved, Mendel reflected on some previous experiences he and others had had over the years with Mr. Morgan. He never argued; he never got angry, he never pressed his point of view outside his own company. He went where there was opportunity to do business and to do it his way. He was of the old school. Soon, Mendel didn’t know how soon, but he knew it had to happen sooner or later, Jim’s company would start to fail in the marketplace. Its practices would drive its customers away to other products. It would be sold to a better manager who would either turn it around or sell off its parts for cash. And Jim would take his golden parachute, retire and move away and hold his views and business ways to himself. He was not a leader, because he truly was not a generous man.
What, dear reader, do you think about this situation? Was Craig right? Was Jim on target or off the mark? How would you have handled the lottery suggestion? Let us hear from you; feel free to comment.
Taking a more calm and fatherly approach, Craig said, “Besides our human service product, our most important asset, and the most important ingredient of our cause and our mission, with either service recipients or donors, and with the community at large, is the trust they have in this institution. We all work hard every day in a thousand ways to earn that trust. It’s sacred, because it means our continued effectiveness; because it means our continued existence. Nothing is as sacred as that trust.
"In this case, that means we should simply tear up those leftover lottery tickets into little bitsy pieces and throw them in the trash. It will be giving those who bought their tickets a better chance at winning. And it will keep our hands squeaky clean. Think about the fact that if we did happen to win the lottery and just one little word of this got out to the street, we’d be blasted in all the papers and our name would by synonymous with….. with…. Golan Industries, whatever you call it, or any other common business firm. Our credibility with the community and the donors would be lost. And how long, Jim, Mendel and everyone on this Board, how long do you think it would take to recover from that?”
As the room went silent again, and with deadly calm and practiced precision, Jim stood up, reached back to the coat rack for his cashmere coat, draped it carefully over his left arm and exited the room, as all eyes followed him in thoughtful, fearful deliberation. It had happened: Craig had blown it. He has said the truth. What would happen now?
Two days later, Mendel Adams was relieved as he opened the envelope from Golan Mills to find Jim’s resignation. It wasn’t fancy, it wasn’t long. “Dear Mendel, Having spent the last six years on the Board of Directors of Reach for the Stars, I think it’s time I stepped aside and made way for others who might wish to serve this fine charity. Sincerely, James P. Morgan.” In the letter was a check for $5000 made out to Reach for the Stars.
Later that afternoon, as Mendel and Craig Johnson talked by phone about the whole scene, the resignation and the principles involved, Mendel reflected on some previous experiences he and others had had over the years with Mr. Morgan. He never argued; he never got angry, he never pressed his point of view outside his own company. He went where there was opportunity to do business and to do it his way. He was of the old school. Soon, Mendel didn’t know how soon, but he knew it had to happen sooner or later, Jim’s company would start to fail in the marketplace. Its practices would drive its customers away to other products. It would be sold to a better manager who would either turn it around or sell off its parts for cash. And Jim would take his golden parachute, retire and move away and hold his views and business ways to himself. He was not a leader, because he truly was not a generous man.
What, dear reader, do you think about this situation? Was Craig right? Was Jim on target or off the mark? How would you have handled the lottery suggestion? Let us hear from you; feel free to comment.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Bounds of Generosity (Pt.4 of 5)
Picking up from Friday, the question put by the director of development put Jim in a bit of a pickle. Maybe he had gotten deeper into this than he’d wanted to. He had simply come up with a quick and easy solution to what he saw as a simple problem. The organization would have more money if it won the lottery, and wouldn’t have any less money if they didn’t. It could be a wash or it could be a real win. But either way, they wouldn’t lose. So he said that.
And it was at this point that the CEO, having disciplined himself with a super-human effort, began to speak.
“Jim, I can see what it is you’re saying. But let’s take a step back here, and view the context in which we’re operating, shall we? Most of our supporters today are Baby Boomers or Gen Xers and these guys, unlike their Ike generation parents, have two unique traits. First, when they were young, television was substituted for mother’s milk. They’ve been brought up on cheap advertising, cheap programming, shady marketing deals you can drive a truck through and hundreds of instances of scandal, wrongdoing, skullduggery and greed in both government and the business world. These guys can spot a scam a mile away.
“Secondly,” he was getting wound up now. First Anabell and now this guy, Jim thought. One self-righteous morality-toting crusader after another. It was too much! I'd rather go play golf in the snow and rain, Jim thought.
Craig continued. “Donor motivation rests on two critical pillars. The first has to do with internal motivation, the satisfaction, peer approval, thanks, recognition, mutuality and companionship involved in giving to good causes that produce the kinds of goods that make society livable for many people. And the second has to do with the huge amount of trust placed by any donor in the institution to which they give either time or money. People give to people they trust. People give to institutions and causes they trust.”
Jim was just about to get up and leave. All this talk of trust was considerably beneath him. These people were nuts! What did they know about the world? They were naïve. They were impractical. They were…. well, simply wrong. About a lot of things.
But Craig went on. “If we take money donated for scholarships and buy raffle tickets, that’s bad enough, but, if we win, and pay ourselves the prize of $10,000, we’ve really cheated those who bought lottery tickets in the expectation that someone, some one person, some individual would come away a winner. And, sure, maybe we’ve hoped that such a winner might donate the prize to the scholarship fund, as some have done in the past. But we’ve increased our odds, and if we win we’re paying ourselves the prize. How long would it be before the Baby Boomer donors would hear about that? How long would it be before their trust in Reach for the Stars crumbled? How long would it be before they would be off trying to find some other charity in the world they think they can trust with their money? And how long to you think Reach for the Stars would be in business?”
The room was silent for a while, and, somewhat in embarrassment, Mendel Adams said, “Jim, how do you see this now?”
And it was at this point that the CEO, having disciplined himself with a super-human effort, began to speak.
“Jim, I can see what it is you’re saying. But let’s take a step back here, and view the context in which we’re operating, shall we? Most of our supporters today are Baby Boomers or Gen Xers and these guys, unlike their Ike generation parents, have two unique traits. First, when they were young, television was substituted for mother’s milk. They’ve been brought up on cheap advertising, cheap programming, shady marketing deals you can drive a truck through and hundreds of instances of scandal, wrongdoing, skullduggery and greed in both government and the business world. These guys can spot a scam a mile away.
“Secondly,” he was getting wound up now. First Anabell and now this guy, Jim thought. One self-righteous morality-toting crusader after another. It was too much! I'd rather go play golf in the snow and rain, Jim thought.
Craig continued. “Donor motivation rests on two critical pillars. The first has to do with internal motivation, the satisfaction, peer approval, thanks, recognition, mutuality and companionship involved in giving to good causes that produce the kinds of goods that make society livable for many people. And the second has to do with the huge amount of trust placed by any donor in the institution to which they give either time or money. People give to people they trust. People give to institutions and causes they trust.”
Jim was just about to get up and leave. All this talk of trust was considerably beneath him. These people were nuts! What did they know about the world? They were naïve. They were impractical. They were…. well, simply wrong. About a lot of things.
But Craig went on. “If we take money donated for scholarships and buy raffle tickets, that’s bad enough, but, if we win, and pay ourselves the prize of $10,000, we’ve really cheated those who bought lottery tickets in the expectation that someone, some one person, some individual would come away a winner. And, sure, maybe we’ve hoped that such a winner might donate the prize to the scholarship fund, as some have done in the past. But we’ve increased our odds, and if we win we’re paying ourselves the prize. How long would it be before the Baby Boomer donors would hear about that? How long would it be before their trust in Reach for the Stars crumbled? How long would it be before they would be off trying to find some other charity in the world they think they can trust with their money? And how long to you think Reach for the Stars would be in business?”
The room was silent for a while, and, somewhat in embarrassment, Mendel Adams said, “Jim, how do you see this now?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
