Posts

, , , , , ,

Sink or swim: the capital campaign steering committee

So, I have a niche somewhat of assisting smaller nonprofits with their capital campaigns.

This niche can be challenging because many of these groups have not had an ongoing, comprehensive fund Steering committee means campaign successdevelopment program in the past. However, working on these smaller campaigns can also be very satisfying because I can help them use this campaign to begin to develop these efforts.  I take those campaigns that a lot of other consultants won’t touch! Many while not having a sustainable donor base to build from, often needs a campaign without doing the preliminary feasibility study.  They need the money, and the campaign must go on.

In the process, there is one thing that I have come to realize.  The capital campaign steering committee is an absolute must.  And, for these smaller groups, it becomes the backbone of their campaign.  In forming this committee correctly, the group has the potential to propel the campaign forward.  Without this group, it may flounder.

And, this group can’t include just anyone.  It needs to include folks that can open doors to others have known networks, and believe in the cause.  They hold some of these smaller campaigns in the palm of their hand.

Without having a known, loyal donor base, this committee can introduce the campaign to a wider net of contacts who may be interested in learning more about the case.  They can leverage their networks to build relationships with, the can act as ambassadors for this campaign, and they can help, to ultimately build this organisation’s future.

Not only that, this group can serve as a “feeder” system to the larger organisation’s Board of Directors introducing them to a pool of prospective Board members who have deepened their engagement within the group.

Far too many smaller groups gloss over the importance of the who on this committee.  And, by glossing over the who, they are, in essence, glossing over what it takes to be successful in raising money for a capital campaign.  Let’s face it, without a loyal donor base, who else and how else are they going to get access to building one.

I purport that a committee group of connected individuals means success.  And, don’t settle for anyone who says less because they are just fooling you into believing that you can pull this stuff out of thin air.

Just saying, end of story!

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , ,

“Am I asking my donors too much?” Well, Virginia let me tell you the answer.

So, here it is. I am laying this question and answer right out on the line. Especially now that we are coming to the year-end giving season.

I am asked time and time again, “Didn’t we just mail to them, won’t we be bothering them?”

No, no, and no. You can never ask enough.

Yes, Virginia, you can ask multiple times

Let’s face it. The decision isn’t ours to make. It isn’t. It is the donor’s decision to make. Only they are going to tell you, how much is too much. In most cases, if you are only asking once or twice a year, aren’t you telling them that you don’t need the donations to make a go of it? Donors aren’t naive. They know that you are a non-profit, and they know that you need donations to run your organisation. Why do we believe that we must lightly tread when it comes to asking?Direct Mail YES

Donors are busy people. Just because they didn’t respond to your initial mailing, doesn’t mean that they don’t want to give to support you. In major gift work, if we don’t get the gift right away during our meeting – and in most cases, we don’t – we explore with the donor the reason for hesitation. Was it the program we were asking for a contribution? Was it the ask amount itself? Was it the timing of the ask? Why do we think that this is any different for the number of times we should mail to a donor? Perhaps the reason that they didn’t respond to your initial mailing is that it wasn’t an ask for the right project or the right amount, or it wasn’t the right timing. Maybe they had a big bill just come in that they needed to tend to or perhaps they were on vacation when the letter arrived in your mailbox. But, we won’t know this if we only mail to them once and then assume the donor will never give again.

And, I often hear clients question whether or not they should include a reply envelope in their newsletter because they just sent out an “ask.” Of course, you put an envelope in your newsletter. This envelope is a “soft” ask. Donors may feel so inspired to give after reading about your good works in your newsletter that they may want to give to support your work. How else will you capture this? And, a “soft” ask is exactly that, “soft.” We are not commanding, directing, or cajoling a donor into giving. If they choose to give using this method, then it is their choice.

Case in point, I asked a client to send out a second direct mail ask to follow up on all those who did not give to the first. And, lo and behold, the response has been tremendous. So enormous, in fact, that the client wrote back and said, “The results have been pretty unbelievable for us, believe me!

I once had a phrase that I would use quite often, “You must A S K to G E T!” And, that is true.

As we move forward into the upcoming holiday giving season, think about your strategy. You will be competing with every other nonprofit group who is sending out their calendar year-end direct mail piece at the same time. The competition will be stiff. How are you going to stand out? How are you going to assure that your donors will read your letter among all of the other letters? And, what is your strategy for follow-up? Will you ask more than once? What forms will that “ask” take? How will you leverage the December 31 tax deadline as an incentive to give?

I know one thing is for sure, this calendar year-end, if you only ask once, you are doing your donors an injustice. They want to give, and they want to give to you. But, your ask must be heard and, that it is the right ask, for the right project, at the right time.

Now, craft a plan that includes multiple year-end asks!

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , ,

Holy cow, fifty shades of fundraising consulting, which do you prefer?

Lately, I have been doing a lot of driving.  And, as a result, a lot of thinking.  I have clients all throughout the Northeast.  And, sometimes, yes, the driving does get “old.”  But, then I sit back and reflect.

You see, there are many different types of fundraising consultants.  And, lately, I have been hearing a great deal about “remote,” “outsourced” development professionals as opposed to the strategic “tell me what to do” consultants that produce a plan and then move onto to the next client.  I do consider myself one of these, in fact, all of these.

But, perhaps I am old-fashioned.  Or maybe I just have been working in the field too long.  I remember, long ago, when there were resident consultants who upped and moved to different parts of the country to live and work at a nonprofit and become immersed in their community.

And, while I don’t up and move, I do spend lots of time on the move.  I think – no, wait, I believe it is critical to the success of my client’s efforts.  Yes, many of the things that I do while sitting in their organisation can be done quite easily from home.  But, it is not the same.

Two weeks ago on my blog, I noted how “culture of place” is such an important part of our work.  How can you get to know and understand that “culture of place” if you are working remotely?  Or for that measure, how can you understand the mission and culture of the nonprofit that you are working for if you never sit at a desk and be a part of all that happens on a day to day basis.  What does this have to do with fundraising?  A lot!

It makes a big difference to the quality of work.  When I am onsite, I am a strong reminder to the client that we need to focus and get work done.  So, a lot of work gets done.  When I am not directly onsite, and I work remotely, it seems like work moves at a snail’s pace.  Emails are not answered with urgency, and meetings are postponed.  I get it.  I fall to the bottom of the list.  Very different than having a living, breathing person taking up precious space/rent or whatever you call it in your office as a good reminder.

And, the kinds of things that I do go far beyond just providing advice. I do the work. I craft appeal letters; write newsletter content, solicit donors, write Case for Supports, write grants, work on board development, manage capital campaigns, conduct feasibility studies and audits, on and on and on.

So, when you are thinking about consultants – yes, personality is important – yes, credentials and experience are important, but, don’t overlook the consultant’s personal philosophy of service provision.  Will they go the distance, sometimes hundreds of miles at a time, to live in hotels, to get your work done and to understand the context, both internally and externally, in which your work happens?

We don’t expect our staff development professionals to be in the office behind their desks, so why would you expect the same of a fund development consultant?  They need to be building relationships with organisations to create impact – just as fundraising professionals must be with donors.  It is just another extension of this donor-centered relationship – creating results and positive outcomes for a mission.

While the old models of “in-residence, uproot you and your family” are not so available today, I believe that my unique model of in-residence consulting of a set number of days per week/month onsite is an excellent compromise.  And, hey while I toot my own horn, my model makes a huge difference to my clients and sets me apart from the rest of the bunch.

See you on I95 or maybe I89 or maybe Rt 66.  But, you can be sure of one thing, you won’t see me sitting at my desk at home.

P.S. – Yes, these are photos from my travel.  When I say I get immersed in a community that I am working in, I do.  On a recent stay in a client’s town, I did go to the “Cow Barn” for milk for breakfast.  And, that stretch of road is I91 heading into a client’s town in Vermont from another client located in the Stamford area of CT.

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , ,

Culture of place and how it impacts fundraising campaigns

There is so much science behind fund development. You can study it, take courses in it, and read books on it. Campaigns have become honed regarding best practices; there are easy steps to put into place, materials to be created, and people to be engaged.

The one thing that I have come to realize, though, is that one part of fundraising is science and the other is art. And, what is that other? Well as a regional consultant, one thing that I notice that makes a tremendous difference is the culture of place. That is why I firmly believe that consultants need to adopt the old “in residence” model. They need to live and breathe a community and get to know and vermontunderstand its nuances. Then and only then will a campaign be successful.

Currently, I have three different clients from three distinct geographic areas. One is for the Stamford area of Connecticut, one is from the Greater Providence area, and the other is from a rural village in Vermont. I could not stress the dichotomy between these clients and it all has to do with the culture of place.

In Connecticut, life is fast-paced and hectic. Projects move quickly. And, the population is so very significant that one tends to blend in with the community without being noticed. In Rhode Island, everyone knows everyone; it is the smallest state in the Union. There is a high degree of competition for funding from a limited donor pool, and people treat each other like family. It is all about who you know. In Vermont, very different. Life in a village is remote. The nearest store is 45 minutes away, sometimes up and over the mountain, you rely on and bond with your neighbor, and it is not about who you know, it is about what you know about those that you know.

Culture of place. If you don’t begin to understand it, you will not be successful. The culture of place is how fundraising art meets science, and the magic of campaign success happens. Ignore it and try to forge ahead without addressing or understanding, and your campaign is doomed to fail.

For those nonprofit organisations wanting to hire someone who works from a remote location and who will not commit to finding someone who can spend time “in residence” then think again. While all the degrees in the world, equate to know how it does equate to campaign success. An understanding of the culture of place does.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Meetings – are you positioned right?

Meetings, meetings, meetings. We all know them, and we all attend them.here are three types of meetings and the way that you position yourself physically within the meeting could make a world of difference.  Including meeting with our donors.

But, did you know there are three types of meetings, and the way that you position yourself physically within the meeting could make a world of difference to the meetings outcome?  Yes!

Meetings, meetings, meetings! Are they positioned correctly?

Meetings, meetings, meetings! Are they positioned correctly?

So, what are these three essential meeting types and how can you best position yourself?

The three types of meetings are collaborative, presentation, and decision.

What is the difference between them?

A collaborative meeting is when you are engaging in an interactive meeting working as equals towards a common goal.  These might be meetings held between department managers, Board members, or any other type of peer working group.

A presentation meeting is when you or someone else is presenting to or facilitating a group.  You may be demonstrating a strategy, conducting a PowerPoint, or making a case.  In this mode, you are in front of the audience.

A decision meeting is when there is a decision to be made, and the meeting needs cooperation to make that decision.

Can you see any one of these meetings between yourself and a donor?  I sure can.  In one instance, you may work together to volunteer on a project (collaborative), or you may be presenting your case for support (presentation), or asking for a gift (decision).

So, how do you position yourself at each of these meetings to affect the result?

Well, in a collaborative meeting, you surely want to create a high level of interaction, so you must create an “equal” seating pattern.  In this case, round seating arrangements would work well.  They foster a sense of contribution, collaboration, and community.  Avoid at all cost, any seating position that places people at the “head” or in prominent positions of power.

In a presentation, the goals are to create connection and interaction.  Presenters need to move freely within the group while working one-on-one with others and connect folks through hand gestures.  The facilitator or presenter is in a spotlight, and they regularly bring others to the stage making them look good.

In a decision meeting, the power must always seem to be in the decision makers hand, even if it is not. Folks sitting at the head and foot o the table are in power positions, and those facing inside seats are more peer oriented.  One must always work in this case to keep the power dynamic at the forefront through seat positioning.

So the next time that you have a donor meeting scheduled, think about what the aim of the meeting is and how you are going to position yourself at the table.  Sometimes meetings can be much more than meets the eyes and you want to be sure to use all the tools in your potential toolbox as you can to have a successful outcome.

 

 

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

The “too busy” fundraiser!

“I don’t have the time!”

Development professionals probably have one of the most demanding jobs in an organisation. There are so many expectations, and the work is full of deadlines that need we need to meet. The too busy fundraiser

We work long hours on grant proposals, travel across the country to visit donors, and need to prepare budgets and outcomes for board reports and donor communication publications.

Just recently, I overheard a development professional say, “I don’t have time for that!”

My ears perked up. I turned around, and thought, when have we ever become too busy to stop and immerse ourselves in the mission of our work?

This type of behavior is unacceptable. organisations have a right to dismiss those who are just “too busy” to engage themselves in their core work. The fundraiser should – no must – be the first one at the table saying, “I will be there” or “how can I help?”

We, as development professionals, raise money to fund our mission, and we can never say that we are too busy to immerse ourselves in what it is that we support through our organisations. We should embrace and relish these opportunities as moments that we connect with the soul of our institutions and better equip ourselves to represent our organisations to our donors.

It is our work. We can’t say we don’t have enough time, or we have too much to do. We can’t even THINK that.

In saying that we are acknowledging that we are too busy for those that we serve and for the work that we are doing. How can we do that work right, if we can’t make time for it and those we serve including best representing our work to the donors that we serve.

If there is anyone in an organisation that should live, breathe, and exhale the mission, it is the fundraiser.

If you are too busy, perhaps you don’t belong at your “job” because that is probably all that it is.  Non-profit work is a vocation.  We are responsible for other’s lives and well-being.  This type of work is not just simply a “job.”  Without us, our clients and participants would not have the services and level of care that they do.

Shame on you, shame on us – that we have ever become that busy.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

The intersection between mission and mergers

There always comes the point in an organisation when the natural order of things is change.  Whether that change is an executive transition, upheaval in the Board of Directors, or even things greater than that.  Things such as what should we do as an organisation?  Stay the same?  Merge with another organisation?  Or even cease our operations?

What does one do or how does one handle this inevitable change?

As with everything, the mission should always be forefront and center.

Case in point, I want to examine one major organisational change that many groups must addresses – merging.

Use your organisations mission as a guide to a mergerI have some experience with mergers.  For a few years, I worked at a religious order that had decided to consolidate.  Now, there could have chosen any one of several options – cea
se to exist, merge with another order, or combine their order to a larger entity.  In the end, they chose to merge the order from local areas into one community,  merging all the Northeastern states into one “community.”  And, the end results, were that the merger made them more efficient and useful in many ways including financial, in their infrastructure and support, and in their ability to do ministry to those they serve.

In all cases, the organisation should base these big decisions and transitions on how compatible the two or more organisations are in their missions.  Are they like missions?  Is this mission too much of a stretch?  What will happen if they merge missions?

Then they need to determine if, in merging, the organisation will become stronger or will it weaken?  Will it dilute its services in merging?  Will the organisation change and become different?

But, most importantly how will this merger impact those that the organisation exists to serve?  Will the demographics of who the organisation serves change?  Will they serve this demographic in a different way?  Will they serve an entirely different demographic?  Will they stop serving a particular demographic?

What about the culture of an organisation?  What about history?  What about past leadership?  Will they become financially more viable?  Stronger in its internal operations through greater infrastructure?  More funding?

I have seen other organisations where these mergers have not been carefully thought out, and, thus, have not faired so well.  They lost their identity to those they serve and the community; their organisation’s culture of compassion and nurturance changed, and they lost their historical memory.  But, most importantly their mission became diluted into a bigger whole and lost its effectiveness.  For in this merger, long-time staff was forced to leave, and supporters turned away.

Significant change during an organisation’s life cycle is inevitable and in some senses should be planned and accounted for in advance of this change ever transpiring.

If one keeps mission at the center of significant shifts in an organisation, then the right decisions will be made.  However, if the mission is left out of the picture when making this decision, almost, always, the merger is doomed to fail, or if it doesn’t fail, the organisation is in for some rough perceptual seas and waves of transitions ahead.

P.S. – Are you ready to shift your nonprofit Board from management to governance?  And, you want it to be successful?  Get started with my FREE Non-Profit Governance E-Book and use the same steps that I share with my clients. Click here to download your FREE Non-Profit Board Governance E-book and start shifting your Board’s culture today.   I will share with you valuable resources and tools on how to get started.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Are all your fundraising systems in line?

Interestingly enough, I met with a wonderful and highly intelligent gentleman this past week. As we were eating lunch, we started talking about systems thinking. It reminded me of a mentor who once said that we needed to be reading people like Peter Senge.

I could never really make the correlation between Peter Senge’s highly complex writings and my practical work as a fundraiser. But, during this recent conversation, the dots began to connect.Systems thinking and fundraising

You see, Peter Senge outlines the whole concept of what systems thinking is and how to frame it within your work. It made me think of my clients.

Systems thinking, at its broadest level, believes in the interrelatedness of forces and seeing them as part of a collective process. Peter Senge notes that it was Professor Jay Forrester at MIT who outlined the nature of “system dynamics” or how complex feedback processes can generate problematic patterns of behavior within organisations and large-scale human systems. Think eco-systems, physical building systems, teams working together, etc.

For many organisations, they have the basic problem of not having enough. – enough resources, time, staffing, etc. For some reason or other, they just can’t seem to rise above the realities of this problem. They go on in endless circles always seeming to address the same issue. For many, the problem may be that they have been relying on grants and foundations to meet their budget, and they never seem to have enough, or a funding source suddenly stops funding them. For others, there fundraising has plateaued or even declined over the past few years. Others face continuing turnover in fundraising staff. I see these same problems over and over again in different organisations.

Truly, what we all must realize is that a fundraising problem is never really a fundraising problem. It is some other underlying organisational problem impacting how well an organisation can conduct fundraising. We cannot begin to isolate a fundraising problem as just a fundraising problem. It is much more than that.

organisations are living, breathing entities. One thing impacts the other which in turn impacts another. Everything in an organisation is interrelated. So when, one is under stress, it has a direct bearing on the strength of the other. Nothing works in isolation.

Sometimes old models are kept in place far too long. Outdated and problematic mental models keep perpetuating cycles of behavior that impact the entire system.

Some systems that an organisation should be looking at beyond fundraising itself:

  • The board of directors and its governance model.
  • Staffing patterns and their compensation and their incentives.
  • Deeply held organisational assumptions and beliefs.
  • Performance expectations both implicit and explicit.
  • Cultures within organisations.
  • Changing demographics within the community that an organisation serves.
  • Demographic changes within populations of donors.
  • Marketing or lack of marketing efforts along with general overall perceptions of organisation.
  • Physical conditions of facilities.
  • The overall financial and economic environment.

A savvy fundraiser and fundraising consultant will understand these dynamics. One knows in most cases that if a Board of Directors is managing the efforts of staff, then fundraising will be impacted. If employees are not given the tools or resources to be able to do their job, then fundraising is affected.   If expectations are unrealistic, fundraising is affected.

When clients present themselves to me with a fundraising problem, I often dig deep with questions. Because often and in most cases, the solutions that the client thinks they need are the ones not needed. The answer lies deep below the surface, and it takes someone versed in the language of systems thinking to be able to conduct an appropriate diagnosis and to outline a roadmap for making that systems change possible.

The consultant or fundraiser must be skilled at this work, for one should not make a change just because they see a leverage point. The amount of change, the type of change, and the scope of the modification proposed can either create the needed change or in some cases further exacerbate the problem.

So, for that gentleman who I was having lunch with, thank you! It behooves us all to have such strong mentors in our work from a multitude of disciples beyond fund development. Broadening our scope of resources allows us to care more holistically for the organisations that we steward.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

The importance of the agenda to good governance

Good governance doesn’t end at creating a Governance Committee of the board or even of establishing processes for governance such as policies and procedures, or even developing new committee structures.

Governance has only begun. It continues with a well formed and crafted agenda for all meetings both at the Board and, most especially, at the committee level.

Do you put casual thought into your agenda or do your spend time carefully constructing the flow and feel of the meeting?

I say, don’t take the agenda lightly.  It can indeed work to shift a culture from management toAgendas are key tools in nonprofit governance governance just by mear fact of the topics, the order of the items, and those responsible for reporting.

Agenda’s need to be carefully crafted and constructed to produce concrete action items.  Poorly devised agendas will cause meetings to go astray, tensions to rise, and governance to quickly turn to management.

How do you begin to structure your agenda?  Well, think about what topics are important for this group to discuss and what is the best use of their time.

Here are some suggestions for your next meeting:

  • Hold reports and updates to the end of the meeting or even consider eliminating them entirely so; that meeting doesn’t get mired in the muck.
  • Prepare reflective materials with statistics and numbers relevant to more strategic discussions.
  • Think about the natural flow of the meeting and adjust items to reflect that flow.
  • Prepare and circulate meeting materials in advance of the meeting.  The expectatAgendas are key tools in nonprofit governanceion is that one comes to a meeting fully ready to participate.
  • Put standing meeting items i.e. strategic plan report or a fund development calendar update on each and every agenda and keep them “low” on the agenda.
  • Or consider moving to a “consent agenda” where routine items that the board would approve with little comments are encompassed into one single agenda item i.e. things like board meeting minutes, financials, program reports, CEO reports, approvals of contracts, etc., etc., etc.

And, you need an effective chair of the Board,of the committee, or the task force who can work with staff to set the agenda, keep the group on the agenda, and ensure that the tenure of the meeting supports good governance. The role of the chair is to be a facilitator regarding the meeting and the agenda, and an enabler of governance.  The chair must know and understand what good governance is to serve in that role.

Meetings are that essential to good governance.  Just as reorganizing the board, or reengineering committee structures, good meetings with purposeful and thoughtful agendas can create the magic of good governance.

You can take all the other steps, but if you meeting falls apart when the gavel hits the table of what use has that all the rest been?

Good governance has only just begun!

P.S. – Are you looking for more resources on good governance?  And, you want to be successful?  Get started with my Non-Profit Governance E-Book that includes a collection of my best blog articles on that all important topic.  Email me to request your copy.   I will share with you all the best tips and resources for moving your board from managing to governing.

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Governance, follow the leader?

So, who leads the governance process? Is it the Board? Is it the staff?

I wondered to what role does the staff or Board play in shifting a culture that is not longer useful? In fact, sometimes a management culture can be downright disruptive after an organisation has reached a particular place in its life cycle.

Is it completely the Board or entirely the staff who need to make these adjustments? Where does governance fall? Who is responsible for the governance process? Who is responsible for being a change agent on the Board level?

Well, I propose that it is a combination of both. In many cases, the Board itself realizes that it needs to change how it has been operating. Other times, the Board chair comes into his or her term and wants to shift the culture of theNonprofit governance - follow the leader? Board. So, Board driven is an option.

Other times, it is the staff itself who must start this shift. How the heck does the staff even begin to change a culture on the Board. Well, I thought about it. And, I turned to the writings of Simone Joyaux, internationally known fundraising consultant. You see, many years ago, I remember reading Simone talking about the concept enabling. And, I believe this is how it all happens.

She purports that, “Enabling is one of the most critical functions within a philanthropic organisation…It is the essential role of the chief executive and development officer.” Enabling is empowering others to take action.

All organisations face changing sets of circumstances. Simone notes that “Enablers know that roles may change, depending on the particular situation or its possible implications.” As organisations move from infancy to maturing, so does their Board move from management to governance.

The staff has the biggest responsibility to enable others. But, in a great many cases, don’t see or understand that. And, trouble begins. A CEO may not know why or how a Board is treating them such and throws up their hands in frustration without realizing that they can take an active part in leading their Board to greater understanding and acting. A Chief Development Officer decides to quit after the Executive Director places undue expectations on them without realizing they have a part in leading up with their manager to understand fund development.

We all know that many a development director or CEO have quit over lack of support or because of frustration in their jobs.

So, how do we get the Board to move from management to governance? Get them out of the minutia into the strategic?

So, how does staff enable the Board to understand and support a move towards governance at a higher level?

In essence, it is the CEO’s job to be a leader and as a result, they need to be an active enabler. The CEO and management team own culture. As a result, boards tend to give the issue of culture a wide berth, expecting the CEO to raise cultural issues when needed.

Well, as a CEO here are some steps that you can take:

  • Helping to adjust agenda’s with the Board chair to focus on more strategic issues rather than operational.
  • Managing Board meetings to keep the discussion focused on bigger picture items.
  • Changing Board committee structures are moving from volunteer tasks to governance concerns.
  • Provide thoughtful training and conversation on Board governance and what it is.
  • Enlist the support of Board members who understand and support a change to facilitate change amongst others on the Board level.
  • Assist in developing performance expectations and new job descriptions focused on Board governance.
  • Initiate a Board self-assessment governance survey and discussion.
  • Evaluate the composition of the Board and make recommendations to bring on Board members who will align with a new corporate culture.
  • Develop shared governance language or framework to discuss culture.

CEO’s need to be strong leaders. And, the hallmark of a strong leader is the ability to enable others to take action. CEO’s need to do this with their staff and with volunteers above and below them. They can’t hold up their hands in frustration and decide that corporate culture is not theirs to influence. In fact, in many cases, they are the only ones who can make those changes.

This need becomes an especially critical as the organisation moves from infancy to maturity, and beyond in its life cycle. You need to have strong leadership who can navigate these tumultuous changes and foster a shared vision of the future; changing culture in an organisation whether at the Board or staff level or even both is an action of a leader.

When seeking leadership, in particular for a growing organisation, be sure that you identify at what stage your organisation is in, what your particular organisational needs are, and the type of leader who can help you manage and transition the organisation to its future.

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , ,

Love me or lose me – How donor communications can do both.

We often talk about banning jargon when we speak to others about our organisation.  And, that is so needed.  But, I would like to take it one step further, and say that we are not here to “educate” our donors about what we do.

They don’t care about the specifics.

There, I said it.  Truly, your donors don’t.  Just think about your experiences.  When I call an electrician to fix an electrical problem in my house, I don’t want him to explain all of the mechanics of electricity or what is wrong with my particular situation.  Right?  Tell me basically what is wrong, how you are going to fix it, and how much it is going to cost.  Don’t share with me black to black, and red to red, and copper to copper, I don’t want to know.  It is actually beyond me.Simply what you say to a donor

So, when you have a particular project, do you think that donors want to know every little nitty gritty detail?  I hardly doubt so.  For the fact of the matter is, they should have a relationship with your organisation before you even ask them to give and if they have a relationship with your organisation, then they should TRUST you and TRUST that if they invest in you, you will know what to do with their investment.  In fact, they believe that you are the expert in whatever part of the sector your serving.  You can’t expect your donor to know all about the legalities surrounding domestic violence victims or child custody cases; they expect you to know and to do that.

So, when you are meeting with a donor and sharing a particular project or even your organisation and what it does, spare them the details.  Give them the picture of why you, why now, and for what?  Otherwise, if you share too much, you will lose your donor in the process.

We get so carried away in our “internal” thinking that we fail to see a contributor as a donor as a person.  We talk as if they are supposed to know what we are referring to; we use language and jargon to paint portraits of projects, and we go and on and on sharing minutia with them.  It is time to stop and think about your experience with your mechanic, or your plumber, or your electrician, or any other expert that you have hired.  What do you need to know, what do you want to know, and what is it going to cost you.

The adage “keep it simple,” reigns true here.  Donors expect YOU to be the expert, not them.  So, don’t shroud them in jargon and details and minutia.  Just share with them what is wrong, how you are going to fix, and how much it is going to cost.  Simple.

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

How well are you meeting your nonprofit’s mission?

How big is your need?

Interestingly enough, a group that I am currently working with is in the process of conducting an outside needs assessment.  I think this is such a wise move.  Are you assessing your community need?

Over the years, I have led strategic planning and board development for quite some time.  For those groups who have engaged me in the past for strategic planning, I strongly advocate that we take the time to do a full stakeholder assessment component through a comprehensive market research plan.  Many groups, move ahead without me and without doing that needs assessment.

Well, one of the primary objectives of strategic planning is to determine if an organisation is still relevant to the community that it serves.  And, if the community has changed, how will they choose to respond to the findings, if at all.

The pure fact of the matters is that we are here to serve our stakeholders. We have a mission to serve a community to meet a need.  Do we ever stop and assess how well we have met that need?  Or have we ever stopped to assess to determine if that need still exists?  Or if it exists, is it still in the same form and shape?

Demographics and populations change quite naturally as society does.  Technology, societal views, cultural shifts may impact a demographic and their life choices, etc.

Do we as organisations make the assumption that the demographic and social ill that we were founded to alleviate, in some cases twenty years or more is still the same?

Are we making decisions based on old paradigms or trends or social problems?

How do we ensure that our organisations are still relevant?  And, that our mission is impactful?

Or are we ensuring that we don’t go out of business because failure to look at the community means that we don’t have a look at whether or not we are needed any longer and to what degree?

I applaud this group for taking this step and for assessing their community.  The data is rich.  And, it will inform future discussions around mission and direction, about fundraising and case for supports, about capital campaigns, etc., etc., etc.

I urge you to take the same steps, and then to ask the tough question – what does relevancy mean? And, are we still relevant to those that we serve?

And, folks, this is the realm of governance.  Something that your board should be asking and looking at in-depth.

 

 

/0 Comments/by
© Copyright 2020 - Development Consulting Solutions

Get my FREE Ebook on the Building Blocks for a Successful Case for Support

Sign up to get FREE instant access to this Ebook now.

Fill out this form to sign up for our email newsletter.