Carter McNamara – Page 17 – Management Library

June 8, 2010January 26, 2022

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Donors

The donor pool can be (and has been!) sliced and diced in a variety of ways. My preferred method of grouping donors is by motivation:

The” Social Donor” uses charitable contributions to attract personal visibility and social prestige. Although no one admits is, there are plenty of major gift donors who engage in philanthropy as an expression of their own vanity.

The “Quid Pro Quo Giver” sees donations as a form of “social currency” between business and social peers – “I’ll give to yours (and I’ll expect you to give to mine when I ask).”

The “Social Conscience Supporter” gives to one or more organizations because they truly or deeply believe in the urgency or importance of a nonprofit’s mission.

The true “Philanthropist” carefully invests wealth in the nonprofit sector — specifically and deliberately — in order to benefit the general good of mankind, and to effect positive, substantive change in the world.

Before you ask someone for a gift, examine what their motivation might be. If what they want is access to movers and shakers on the A list, it really won’t matter how many baby whales you could save with their gift.

Another way of identifying donor groups is by the level and type of involvement they are likely to desire with the charities they support. Here again, we can crudely classify them in the following four categories:

The “Traditionalist” is likely to be over the age of 60, and once the gift is made, is not prone to becoming involved in a very “hands on” fashion with the charity.

The “Pre- and Young Boomer” generation (age range of about 35 to 50) lived through the dotcom bust. Some would argue that dotcoms went bust because the ‘younguns’ who created and ran the start-ups thought they had all the business answers – although many had never been exposed to business. These folks are the ones who want to see nonprofits run “like businesses” and want to be actively involved in tightening operations at the charities they support. Unfortunately, many have never had any experience with or in nonprofits before – but that won’t stop them from telling you how to run your “business.”

The “Revolutionary” wants to re-form the relationship between the philanthropic sector and the global economic system, investing funds – literally – to create hybrid solutions to make change in the world more efficiently and effectively. Their approach takes a variety of forms, ranging from social ventures, to social entrepreneurship or philanthropreneurship, to the latest – philanthrocapitalism. This group is focused primarily on systems change, and may or may not be actively involved in working with “boots on the ground” charities. They will want to see some innovation in your organization’s revenue model, as well as scaleability.

The “Tweeters” are in their late teens, 20’s and early 30’s. They don’t necessarily have a lot of money (or any money) to give, but are energetic, bright, and have been steeped in a culture of voluntarism and service to humanity. They spend their time communicating via social media and tend to see the universe globally rather than locally. They are more likely to organize a tweet-up or twitter group for individuals seeking to support third-world women in establishing economic independence than to volunteer at the local domestic violence shelter. They want to understand how your work connects to a global injustice, and if you can show them, they will bring enthusiasm and energy to your nonprofit. Once the school loans are paid, they’ll be in a position to contribute money as well.

Gross generalizations? Absolutely! But having some benchmarks by which you can approximate a donor’s motivation – and understand how they will assess and interact with your organization – can minimize both the miscommunication and misunderstandings fostered by “one size fits all” cultivation.

Farewell, and fare well until next week …

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

——————

June 5, 2010February 21, 2022

Here’s Some First Steps to Start “Fixing” a Broken Board

When Boards have recurring problems, such as poor attendance, low participation, high turnover of members or increasing conflicts, here’s a quick process that I’ve used successfully to “jump start” recovery.

Sure, the steps aren’t all of those needed for complete Board development — those steps would produce a blog post about 25 pages long. But the steps often are enough to get things going.

1. Propose a very brief Board evaluation as a “best practice.”

Don’t suggest it to “fix” a broken Board. Instead, suggest it as a “best practice” — members rarely refuse to do a best practice. Use a straightforward questionnaire that asks about occurrence of various “best practices.” The tool should not require more than 20-30 minutes for each Board member to do, because they’re all very busy people. Here’s some Board evaluation tools: https://staging.management.org/boards/boards.htm#anchor580514

2. Ask a couple of Board members to be an ad hoc “Board Governance Committee.”

The Committee compiles results of the evaluation and shows them to Board members in the next meeting. Don’t do a lot of analysis and interpretation of results. Just compile the results onto a couple of sheets of paper.

3. In the next meeting, show the results, then ask “What do we want to do?”

Be quiet and listen as Board members discuss what they themselves wrote on the evaluation — it’s their words that are being fed back to them, not the Committee members’. Ask “What if we do nothing? What do we want to do?” Usually, members want to do something, but they’re just not sure what to do.

4. So then suggest that they approve a simple “Board Development Plan.”

The Plan lists goals for improving the Board. The goals simply are the questions from the evaluation tool that now are reworded into goals. Don’t worry about whether there’s too many goals in the Plan. The real purpose is to get members energized and focused to improve their board.

5. On each meeting agenda, have “Status of implementing Board Development Plan.”

In each meeting, members are at least reminded that they could improve Board operations. That usually makes them mindful of improving the Board, or at least trying harder to do a better job as Board members. From there, members might get help if needed, but they’ll certainly have more focus and a much stronger vision for health of their Board.

The above steps might not be all that’s needed, but they’re often useful in doing just what this blog post mentions — jump starting activities to fix the Board for the long term.

Some Cautions — What Often Doesn’t Work

1. Don’t get caught up in analyzing Board members’ personalities.

When Boards struggle, members often start blaming each other. Don’t get caught up in analyzing the titillating psychodynamics of the interpersonal relationships of the Board members. Instead, move them away from focusing on personalities to focusing on plans and practices. The above procedure helps to do that. Often the most irritating Board members become the best ones when they see the Board is making progress.

2. Don’t do a one-shot Board training session.

Members rarely struggle because they’ve simply forgotten their roles and responsibilities. They need more than new knowledge from a training session — they need skills from practicing that new knowledge. So instead of a one-shot training session, they need Board development. Board development often includes a variety of “interventions,” for example, an initial Board evaluation, a resulting Board development plan, adopting various Board policies, coaching of Board officers over several months and even a post-evaluation.

3. Don’t just preach at, or continue to confront members — and don’t just try get them excited about their jobs.

Those tactics might work for a short while, but it’s very likely that motivation will quickly go away when members are back in meetings, faced with the realities of their ongoing roles and responsibilities. Board members rarely have chronic struggles because members just don’t feel good about each other, or because they’ve somehow completely forgotten the importance of their jobs. Instead, they struggle because they’ve gotten away from the basic structures, roles and practices that provide the framework and foundation within which they do their jobs.

What do you think?

———————————————————————————————–
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

June 1, 2010August 17, 2022

Time to Think About the Gurus in Your Field?

A colleague called me last week, reporting that she had actually spoke face-to-face with one of the gurus in our field of Organization Development. In her extreme excitement, she could hardly speak slowly enough for me to actually understand her.

Several months ago, I got a brochure announcing an upcoming conference in my field. As usual, I scanned the list of speakers to notice if my personal gurus would be there. This time, it finally dawned on me that I’d like to hear some new voices, rather than the same cadre of strongly adored leaders in my field. Still, I looked for the list of the same gurus.

I’ve noticed over the years that many of my gurus are starting to sound the same. They proclaim the same very broad, seemingly obvious generalizations, many of which could be said by a newbie in our field — but not nearly with the same credibility. So it’s not what’s being said — it’s who’s saying it that seems to be most important.

While we assert the need to think out of the box, to hear different perspectives, are we listening too much to our gurus?

At what point does someone become a guru? At what point does a guru cease being a guru?

What do you think?

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

June 1, 2010February 21, 2022

For-Profit and Nonprofit Boards: More Similarities Than Differences?

The Corporate Secretaries International Association recently released a report, “Twenty Practical Steps to Better Corporate Governance.” It struck me that almost all of the steps applied to nonprofit Boards as well.

(The Report refers to “corporate” governance, the phrase commonly used for for-profit Boards, which is a misnomer I believe because Boards are required for nonprofit corporations, too).

It also struck me how much for-profit and nonprofit Boards could learn from each other, but the continued misperception that they’re totally different continues to hamper that synergy from happening. (I’ve spent 15 years maintaining a massive website, in part, to show the similarities and to help the two types learn from each other, in the Free Management Library.)

The report suggests that following 20 practices:
1. Recognize that good corporate governance is about the effectiveness of the governing body — not about
compliance with codes
2. Confirm the leadership role of the board chairman
3. Check that non-executive directors have the necessary skills, experience, and courage
4. Consider the calibre of the non-executive directors
5. Review the role and contribution of non-executive directors
6. Ensure that all directors have a sound understanding of the company
7. Confirm that the board’s relationship with executive management is sound
8. Check that directors can access all the information they need
9. Consider whether the board is responsible for formulating strategy
10. Recognize that the governance of risk is a board responsibility
11. Monitor board performance and pursue opportunities for improvement
12. Review relations with shareholders — particularly institutional investors
13. Emphasise that the company does not belong to the directors
14. Ensure that directors’ remuneration packages are justifiable and justified
15. Review relations between external auditors and the company
16. Consider relations with the corporate regulators
17. Develop written board-level policies covering relations between the company and the societies it affects
18. Review the company’s attitudes to ethical behaviour
19. Ensure that company secretary’s function is providing value
20. Consider how corporate secretary’s function might be developed

The full report can be found at http://www.csiaorg.com/pdf/research_paper.pdf .

What do you think?

May 27, 2010February 21, 2022

How to Change Your Strategic Plan

A business team coming up with a strategic plan

Few plans are implemented as intended. That’s one of the reasons that people lose faith in planning. They expect their plans to be implemented exactly as described in the plan. One of the unfortunate aspects of this situation is that many consultants assert that “planning doesn’t work.” It does work when it’s done well.

During Planning, Clarify How to Change the Plan Later On

When doing the planning (when identifying goals and other priorities to address and how to address them), also talk about how to change your plan as it’s being implemented in the future.

A good approach is to require that any changes be approved by the Board if the changes might be to the overall mission, vision, values and top-level goals, but not to the action plans. (Action plans usually are about how each goal is to be achieved.)

Include a Date on the First Version of the Plan

When the Plan is approved by the Board, be sure the cover of the Plan includes the date of approval. Include that date on each page of the Plan.

Include a Revision Page Near the Front of the Plan

On that page, list the original date of approval of the first version of the Plan. Then for each approved change, on the Revision Page, list the date of approval of the change, and the pages that were changed and how.

Update the Revision Date On Each Page of the Plan Document

For example, on each page, put the last date of approval of the last change to the content on that page.

If Frequent Changes Are Made, Produce a New Version of Plan

If changes are made, for example, more than once a quarter, then produce a new Plan document that includes all the approved changes, and on the cover of the Plan include a new date. On its Revision Page, explain that a new version was produced and reference the previous versions.

If Changes Require Board Approval, Re-Issue to Stakeholders?

If changes were to top-level, strategic matters (mission, vision, values and goals), and you had issued copies of the Plan to various stakeholders, then consider issuing a new version to them as well, along with descriptions of why you produced the new version.

A plan should be a set of guidelines to follow during the year. The Plan should not be considered as a law or regulation.

What do you think?

May 27, 2010February 15, 2023

How Financial Sustainability is So Misunderstood

Finances Are Just a Symptom, Not a Solution

When people think of financial sustainability, they usually think of getting enough money to pay bills for the long-term. Then they focus on strategies to keep getting enough money. That’s the wrong approach.

1. Strategy for Sustainability — Be Realistic

If an organization is trying to do far too much, it will likely not have enough resources, including not enough money to do what it wants to do. The solution is not to keep trying to get more money, the solution is to do less. Yeah, that’s right, do less. Cut back on the number of goals and priorities to address OR extend deadlines in which to address them.

2. Strategy for Sustainability — Ensure High-Quality Programs

If your organization does not have high-quality programs and services, then clients’ participation will eventually decline as will funding. That’s why it’s so important to do a few things very well, rather than a lot of things not so well. The solution is not to keep trying to get more money to offset deficits. The solution is to pick which programs you can do very well, do them — and keep proving your strong results.

3. Strategy for Sustainability — Financial Planning

Two of the best practices are achieving a financial reserve and doing contingency planning. Many leaders even laugh when they hear suggestions to establish a reserve. Too often, that’s from a mindset that all money must soon be spent because that will accomplish even more positive results for the community. The irony is that that approach too often hurts the community because the nonprofit remains in financial crises, which can hurt programs and services.

4. Strategy for Sustainability — Think “Organizational Sustainability”

When Board members and other nonprofit leaders talk about sustainability, they’re ultimately worried about having enough money to continue to support the organization. So remind them that financial sustainability is really just part of organizational sustainability. Help them talk about being realistic, ensuring strong programs, and doing financial planning for reserves and contingencies.

What do you think?

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

May 27, 2010February 18, 2022

Four Types of “Broken” Boards

Over the years, I’ve noticed four common types of “broken” Boards. One of the ways you can recognize them is by the comments that members make. Here’s the types of Boards and what you might hear members saying.

1. Detached Board

“Why are you calling me to come to a meeting? What Board are you talking about?”
“We need a strategic plan. Let’s have the CEO just write one for us.”
“I’ve not heard from CEO, so everything must be fine.”

2. Servant Board

“I’m here to help the CEO in any way I can.”
“All the CEO has to do is ask.”
“How can I help?”

3. Personalities Board

“Recruit Jim for the Board! He’s a nice guy.”
“Get whoever will come to meetings!”
“Keep him on the Board! He’s a ‘big name’.”

4. Micro-managing Board

“Give us your todo list every week!”
“Give us your manager’s todo list every week!”
“We want to know when you’re in the office and when you’re not!”

In Contrast, the Strategic Board

In contrast, in an active strategic Board, members’ comments would be like the following:

“Are our products and services high-quality? How do we know?”
“What’s our role? What’s the CEO’s role?”
“What’s the status of implementing our Strategic Plan?”
“Are we attending to the most important matters? How do we know?”
“We’ve got some Board members who don’t come. What are we going to do about it?”

The best way to “fix” a “broken” Board is Board development, not a Board orientation or Board training. See my post Board Orientation vs. Training vs. Development.

What do you think?

May 21, 2010February 18, 2022

Here’s a Procedure for Making Decisions

Business professionals deliberating over a business decision

Why a Policy for Making Decisions?

How often have you heard Board members assert that they’d made a decision, when they really hadn’t — all they had done was talk about a topic for a long while?

Or, how often have some Board members or the Executive Director asserted that a decision had been made, but other members didn’t remember making that decision at all?

Or, how often had Board members made a decision by a majority vote, but the members in the minority claimed it was “not their decision”?

First, a Necessary Prerequisite for Good Decisions

For good decisions to be made about a topic — and for all to recognize that indeed a decision had been made, the organization should have:

Sent out the Board meeting materials well before the meeting
Put the topic on the meeting agenda
Listed the type of action needed for the topic, e.g., a decision needs to be made
Associated a specific amount of time in the meeting to address that topic

Sample Procedure to Make Formal Board Decisions

As long as a quorum of Board members is present in the meeting:

Board members discuss/debate and then decide within the time allotted on the agenda.
Consensus is attempted within that time.
If consensus cannot be achieved, then a seconded motion is sufficient to call a majority vote to delegate to a committee to gather more information by a certain time frame.
If delegation is not selected by a majority vote, then a seconded motion is sufficient to call a vote about a certain suggested outcome of the decision.
The decision outcome goes to the majority vote.
The decision is documented in the next issue of Board minutes.
In the future, all Board members must support the decision – they must speak from “one voice.”

What do you think?

———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

May 21, 2010August 17, 2022

What’s a Nonprofit “Program”? Really?

Volunteers participating in a nonprofit reading program

Too Often, What We Call a Program, Really Isn’t

If you spent the day guiding old ladies across the street and someone gave you a dollar for doing it, would that mean you’re delivering a “program?” What many people call a program is too often just a sporadic set of disconnected activities — it’s not really a program.

So What’s a Real Nonprofit Program?

A program is:

A highly integrated, ongoing set of activities,
Aimed to meet a verified unmet need in the community,
By accomplishing certain outcomes among clients and
Using sufficient evaluation to verify that it’s meeting that need.

The quality of the program depends on

How well resourced the program is with people, funding, facilities, etc.
How well the nonprofit responds to results of evaluations to improve the program

A program closes the loop — it hears back from its clients to verify if the program is indeed meeting the needs of the clients AND the needs of the community.

What do you think?

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

May 21, 2010February 18, 2022

When Strategizing, Use “Sanity Solution”

Over the years, I’ve noticed that when things get really tough or it’s difficult to identify strategies during planning, there are always three strategies you can try. My clients seem to love it when I describe the Solution to them. Try it yourself.

Strategy #1: Try Get More Resources?

This is the most popular, but usually the least successful and the most maddening. This strategy, more than the other two, usually results in working harder, rather than smarter. Inexperienced leaders usually prefer this approach, thinking that if only they could get more money or more people, then they’d throw more quantity (not necessarily more quality) at the problem. Experienced leaders usually opt for one of the other strategies.

Strategy #2: Extend Deadlines to Get Things Done?

Ironically, this is the approach that’s most frequently used – and used by default. Regardless of our plans in life, reality usually overtakes them – and we become so busy doing other things, that the deadlines in our plans tend to slip. Sure, we lament that deadlines have slipped (if we even admit that to ourselves), but still we’re a little relieved – and surprised to realize the world hasn’t crashed around us.

Strategy #3: Reducing Our Expectations?

In today’s hectic and goals-based world, even the mere mention that we should do less very often evokes strong reactions from others, especially from bosses and collaborators. “Well, aren’t you a leader? Then do more with less! Motivate yourself and your people!” The irony is that very experienced leaders have learned that you’re often far better off to do a few things very well, than continue to live with the continued frustration and disillusionment over unsuccessful attempts to reach unachievable goals.

So the next time you’re in a tough situation, think of these three strategies – what I call the “Sanity Solution”. Think especially about strategies 2 and 3, and live a longer and saner life.

What do you think?