Board Work

A colleague told me about this bad news board: The CEO is paid several million dollars to run a huge nonprofit institution. This is not, necessarily, excessive compensation. But the board – the full board – is accountable for talking about and finalizing the compensation. This board doesn’t do that.

The board doesn’t participate in the CEO’s performance appraisal either. The board doesn’t review the results of the performance appraisal to decide if it agrees.

And, it gets worse! The CEO’s performance appraisal and compensation are not connected to service quality, client satisfaction, or adherence to industry standards. (I wonder what CEO performance is based on?!)

Sadly, I’m not particularly surprised at this report. I see far too many dysfunctional boards. Even the boards of big institutions – like hospitals and higher education – sometimes seem clueless about governance.

Or, maybe these supposedly highly sophisticated boards with all those powerful and important people think that compensation and performance are  the job of the board chair or the executive committee. And rogue board chairs and rogue executive committees are all too willing to comply. (I’m on a worldwide mission to destroy all executive committees – and to fire rogue board chairs!)

I wonder what the IRS would think about this. I wonder what donors would think about this.

Review the job description of the board in the Free Download Library on my website. See the sample CEO performance appraisal process in the Free Download Library on my website.

Part 3 of a 3-part blog. I hope you read Parts 1 and 2, published on January 18 and January 21 in “Simone Uncensored.” And I will post all three parts as one document  in my Free Download Library on this website.

Part 3

I hope you’ve now read Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising. This study, released in January 2013 by CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, provides useful information to fundraisers, bosses, and boards.

Lots of people are talking, writing, and blogging about this report. For example, check out the articles in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 13, 2013, and in the Nonprofit Quarterly, January 19. Another example: Pam Grow’s well-titled blog, “If you’re not committed to funding your mission, you’re not committed to your mission.”

In summary, here’s the scoop: Development officers quit. Bosses fire development officers. Boards don’t play. Organizations don’t get it. This vicious cycle threatens financing of the sector. And, this has been going on for years and we aren’t really fixing it.

Here are my various and sundry thoughts about fundraisers who don’t know the body of knowledge. I’m always surprised and disappointed when I mention key names in the fundraising world – authors and experts and researchers – and fundraisers don’t know whom I am talking about. I’m disappointed that so many consultants and fundraisers aren’t reading research. The bottom line: I’m worried that professionals in fundraising aren’t continuing their professional development.

I think fund development is a difficult field. You have to know the body of knowledge about fundraising. You have to know the body of knowledge in management and governance and communications and… You have to know “why” not just “how.” You have to know strategy and tactics.

Hiring the right development officer. Read about executive director dissatisfaction on pages 8 and 9 in Underdeveloped. Yes, development officers should be able to conduct prospect research, solicit gifts, enable volunteers to successfully participate, etc. Executive directors should use the CFRE International role delineation (described in the Test Content Outline), to verify what fundraisers need to know.

So don’t hire an inexperienced development officer. Or, if you cannot afford a knowledgeable and experienced fundraiser, consider developing someone from within.

I have successfully helped development officers acquire the skills and expertise to perform better within their institutions. I have helped organizations find a high-performing current staff person who wants to become a development officer. Then through a consultancy and private coaching, that reliable employee becomes a good development officer.

Read Parts 1 and 2 of this 3-part blog…where I share my thoughts (and my pet peeves) about bosses and boards and fundraising. And you’ll find more of my thoughts about bosses and boards and fundraising in my NPQ web column and in my blog “Simone Uncensored.”

A few final thoughts about the Underdeveloped report…

Did you know that professions dominated by women are typically paid less than jobs held by men? Too often, professions dominated by women are disrespected.

I’m curious: How many female development officers are fighting male CEOs and boards often dominated by men? So maybe there is a bit of sexism playing out. I wonder, do bosses and boards listen better to male development officers?

Do you have the right policies and procedures and systems in place to support fundraising? For example, does your organization understand the Donor Bill of Rights and AFP Code of Ethical Principles and Standards of Professional Practice – and adhere to them? Visit AFP for these documents. Do you have a decent fundraising database with a relationship-building focus? For example, check out Bloomerang, the new fundraising database from Jay Love, the founder of e-Tapestry. Bloomerang is based on Adrian Sargeant’s research about donor loyalty. How cool is that?

In conclusion

See page 22 of Underdeveloped. Very nice diagram of the vicious cycle. Good summary of the conditions for success. And pages 23 to 27 list 10 calls to action to “spark conversation and provoke action.” Compare these 10 calls to action with the calls to action in Sargeant and Shang’s Growing Philanthropy in the U.S Report.

We can do this – all of us organizations and executive directors and fundraisers.

Yes, we can do this. More importantly, we have to do this. Otherwise, there won’t be sufficient loyal donors who give gifts. If we don’t do this, organizations will die. If we don’t do this, the nonprofit sector will flounder.

So that’s the end of my various and sundry thoughts about the report, Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising. This study, released in January 2013 by CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, provides useful information to fundraisers, bosses, and boards. For all three parts in one article, visit the Fund Development section of the Free Download Library on my website, www.simonejoyaux.com.

Come on. Let’s get it together. We can make change.

Part 2 of a 3-part blog. I hope you read Part 1, published on January 18 in “Simone Uncensored.” And I will post all three parts as one document  in my Free Download Library on this website.

Part 2

In summary, here’s the scoop: Development officers quit. Bosses fire development officers. Boards don’t play. Organizations don’t get it. This vicious cycle threatens financing of the sector. And, this has been going on for years and we aren’t really fixing it.

I hope you are worried! I hope you’ve now read Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising. This study, released in January 2013 by CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, provides useful information to fundraisers, bosses, and boards. Check out the articles in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 13, 2013, and in the Nonprofit Quarterly, January 19.

So here are my various and sundry thoughts about why fundraisers leave their jobs.

First, review page 19 of Underdeveloped. Note that executive directors and development officers “often disagree about the fundraising culture in their organizations.” No surprise: chief executives think there is a stronger fundraising culture than fundraisers do. I’m thinking that the fundraisers may be more right.

Mostly, I’m thinking: Has the organization (staff and board members) articulated a shared vision of a culture of philanthropy and a fundraising culture? Does the organization operate in a donor-centered manner and monitor its performance in this arena? Does the organization (staff and board members) understand that loyalty is the holy grail of fundraising?

Then I’m thinking: Does the fundraiser understand all this stuff? Because the fundraiser has to explain all this to her boss, to his board, to staff colleagues. I’m not explaining all this stuff in this blog. But I’ve been explaining this for years in my own blogs, in my semi-monthly web column (“Unraveling Development) for the Nonprofit Quarterly, in my NPQ articles, and in my books. And I regularly recommend bloggers and books and e-newsletters that talk all about this stuff.

Then I’m wondering: How effective is the fundraiser (and the chief executive) at enabling others to understand. You can know something – but you have to make it real to others. You have to explain the “why” not just the “how” to others. You have to engage others to build their understanding and ownership and willingness to change.

You, the fundraiser and the executive director, have to facilitate others to participate. But far too many executives and fundraisers are not effective enablers. See the handout on enabling in my website’s Free Download Library. Read all about enabling in my book Strategic Fund Development. The 2011 3rd edition of this book includes more enabling functions and more explanation.

In my experience, far too many fundraisers (maybe most?) leave their jobs because the organization sees fundraising as a means to get money for mission. Too many organizations don’t understand philanthropy and fund development. Too many organizations – and the bosses and boards and other staff – devalue philanthropy, think of fund development as “dirty but necessary.”

Too many organizations don’t embrace systems thinking and learning organization business theories. Too many bosses, staff colleagues and boards don’t realize that everything in the organization affects fund development and donors. Too many organizations isolate fundraising and the fundraiser. I strongly urge you to read about systems thinking and learning organization theories. I describe these in my book Strategic Fund Development.

Too many organizations see fundraising as a “necessary somewhat dirty activity” to allow the organization to fulfill it’s so very important mission. Too many organizations don’t understand that donors give through your organization to fulfill their own aspirations.

Here are my various and sundry thoughts about bad bosses and boards and board members.

Board members think just because they know their own business that they know the fundraising business, too. But effective volunteer fundraisers are, most usually, effectively enabled by competent fundraisers.

Fundraisers get real tired of fighting about fundraising with their bosses and boards and staff colleagues. So many fundraisers (and consultants, by the way!) are tired of disrespect. So many fundraisers are tired of learning the body of knowledge, developing the expertise, and gaining the experience … only to be denigrated by bosses and boards that think their opinions trump expertise.

Bosses and board members don’t do what the fundraiser tells them to do. Instead, bosses and boards confuse their personal opinion (which is useless unless that personal opinion is based on the fundraising body of knowledge) with expertise. (And, board service does not mean knowledge or expertise!)

Too often, executive directors deny their fundraisers access to board members. And sometimes the development director isn’t allowed to attend board meetings. (If this non-contact and participation is because the executive director doesn’t trust the fundraiser… I understand. But then get rid of the fundraiser! Get someone you trust.)

About your board members: Every single one of them should be required to help identify those who might be interested in your cause, help nurture relationships, help carry out specific fundraising tasks. I’ve written a lot about this in my NPQ web column and in my years of blogging. (And by the way, I believe in negotiating which items on the fundraising menu of choices each board member will do each year.)

If you want successful fundraising, then you have to recruit board members who will adhere to such performance expectations. You have to screen candidates and secure their commitment to performance expectations prior to nominating them. The governance recruitment and training program has to be pretty darn good. The organization has to enforce consequences for non-performance, e.g., fire lousy board members.

If all this isn’t in place, you cannot expect your fundraising program (or your development officer) to be successful.

Here’s another one of my pet peeves: how you prepare your budget and how you define your charitable contributions goal. How many of you organizations set the charitable contribution goal based on how much money you need to do your great work? And then hand the goal (e.g., the gap!) to the fundraising department? Wrong! Setting the charitable contributions goal doesn’t depend on how much you want. See my NPQ columns and blogs about this topic. Don’t create unreasonable expectations for your fundraiser.

Read Underdeveloped to learn about executive director skills and interest in fund development. Hey, I get it that you might not have much experience in fundraising and you have so much else to do (all that agency management stuff), and, you don’t much like fundraising anyway. Too bad! Tough luck. The competent development officer will guide and train you and direct you to participate in fundraising activities. Yes, your development officer will be your boss when it comes to fundraising.

When I first read page 16 of Underdeveloped, I got so angry that I wrote “criminal and stupid!” in the margin. I’m talking about you, Mr. Executive Director. You don’t let your development director influence key organizational activities. And you set goals in the wrong way.

Part 1 of a 3-part blog. I’ll be adding the next parts throughout this coming week. And I may even post all three parts as one document in my Free Download Library on this website.

Part 1

Here’s the scoop: Development officers quit. Bosses fire development officers. Boards don’t play. Organizations don’t get it. This vicious cycle threatens financing of the sector. And, this has been going on for years and we aren’t really fixing it.

Hmmm…. Anyone worried yet? Read Underdeveloped, a newly released study. And read the articles about the study in The Chronicle of Philanthropy and in the Nonprofit Quarterly on line.

Compare the research findings to your organization. Compare the research findings to the fundraising profession. Compare the research findings to you as a fundraiser. Step back and look at the nonprofit sector as a whole.

I hope you’re worried. The research in Underdeveloped isn’t a surprise to anyone that I’ve spoken with. The research isn’t a surprise to the trade publications, to fundraisers, to consultants. So why haven’t we fixed it yet? I’m not sure why. Seems too big a problem? Not really. Laziness? Maybe we’re focused too much on getting quick money for mission rather than making changes required to raise more money over time.

I think one big problem is because too many people – in particular bosses and boards – don’t believe there is a body of knowledge. Yet, there is. And being ignorant of it is a self-inflicted wound that slowly kills.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.

First. You. Read the report. Who is “you”? Everyone. Bosses and boards, read the report. Development committees, read the report. Professional associations, read the report and figure out how you can better develop professionals. Bosses, figure out what you are going to change in your organization to make fundraisers want to stay and work with you.

And fundraisers, read the report. Make sure you understand what the job is. Make sure you know what it takes to do the job. Learn the body of knowledge. Develop your fundraising skills. Develop the skills necessary to assess what is happening in the organization so you can lead the change process. Read my thinking in Strategic Fund Development: Building Profitable Relationships That Last, 3rd edition.

Hey, you fundraisers, decide if this is the work you want to do. For just a second, look in the mirror, and just be honest.

Read Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising. This study, released in January 2013 by CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, provides useful information to fundraisers, bosses, and boards. Check out the articles in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 13, 2013, and in the Nonprofit Quarterly, January 19.

Follow the comments from experts in the field. Lots of people will write about this report. I’m writing about this report. This will be my first blog on the report – with more to following in blogs to come.

By way of background, my comments are based on the following expertise and experience: Working as a professional in the sector since 1975. Served as an executive director with no development staff. Served as a chief development officer. Founded two nonprofits. Regularly serve on boards, often chairing the development committee, chairing the board, etc. Beginning my 26^th year as a fulltime consultant specializing in fundraising, board development, and strategic planning. Working with all types and sizes of organizations. Presenting all over the world. Learn about me on my website.

So here goes, my thoughts about Underdeveloped. Maybe you want to use my thoughts along with the report to make change in your organization and in you.

First: Why does this report matter? Because nonprofits could raise more money if they had more engaged organizations, supportive bosses, board member participation, and adherence to the body of knowledge.

I believe that nonprofits deserve more money to do important work. But only if nonprofits do fundraising well. More and more I tell nonprofits, shut down! Close if you cannot do the basic fundamentals of fundraising well. Quit whining about how you don’t have enough time and the work is hard. Quit whining that you must focus on mission and clients and fundraising doesn’t warrant focus. Just stop it

I believe that the nonprofit sector is critical to a democracy. I believe that charitable support – through financial investment and volunteer time – is critical. But financial investment isn’t growing. Just read the 2011 Growing Philanthropy in the United States Report, by Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang. For the past 40+ years, annual U.S. giving is estimated to be only 2% of average household disposable giving. That percentage has not changed. Even in the economic boom years, that percentage doesn’t grow. Giving remains static.

That’s pretty sad. And we cannot blame our citizens. The nonprofit sector – its fundraisers and bosses and boards – just don’t do fundraising that well. This is our challenge and our opportunity. Read the Growing Philanthropy Report. Compare your performance as a fundraiser, as an organization. Read Underdeveloped in partnership with the Growing Philanthropy Report.

Revolving door: Instability in the Development Director Role

It’s bad enough to know that development directors often stay only briefly. It’s quite another thing to read the actual numbers about length of vacancy in filling the position: 6 to 12 months or more. It’s even more stunning to read that 50% of responding development directors plan to leave their jobs in two years or less. (Executive Directors plan to stick around longer!)

Why are development directors leaving? Some just don’t like the work. It’s just a job. So when you interview candidates, find this out. I recently helped an organization interview candidates for the chief development officer position. The organization used me to ask the right questions about fundraising body of knowledge and expertise and experience. But the organization knew the right questions to ask about commitment and leadership.

But I’m much more interested in the comments about how bad it is to work with some nonprofits. That’s what I observe as a consultant: the dysfunction and lack of readiness on the part of bosses and boards to create a culture of philanthropy and a culture of fund development. I get regular calls and emails from fundraisers who are tired of fighting and trying to make change within their organizations.

That’s the end of Part 1 of this 3-part blog. I’ll post Parts 2 and 3 during the week of January 21. The next two parts of this blog include the following topics: My various and sundry thoughts about why fundraisers leave their jobs. My various and sundry thoughts about bad bosses and boards and board members. My thoughts about fundraisers who don’t know the body of knowledge. And a few other thoughts, too.

So read Underdeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising. And figure out how you are going to change and help others change, too.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a staff person or a board member. It doesn’t matter what position you might have on staff or within the board. No matter when or where, you often have the opportunity to lead. And leadership often requires risk.

I received a wonderful email after a workshop for the AFP Capital Area Chapter (Lansing, Michigan – hosted by Michigan State University, my alma mater and the community where I grew up). One of the attendees said: “Thank you for following your heart, speaking truth and being courageous enough to be a leader. Insecurity, complacency and dependence lead to a robotic society…more the norm these days.”

I very much appreciate those words…words to inspire me and challenge me.

What about you? Do you follow your heart? Do you speak truth to power? Do you step out in front, leading with the body of knowledge, challenging the assumptions of your boss and board and colleagues?

What level of risk are you willing and able to take? Sometimes that’s a hard question to answer – but I think we always need to ask it. Risk is hard. Risk is risky. And not everyone is privileged enough to take risk.

Here’s another thought about leadership, gleaned from Stephen King’s book 11/22/63. I very much enjoyed and appreciated it. It’s not one of his scary horror/thriller tales, which I don’t like. But 11/22/63 made me thing and also intrigued me.

At one point the hero tells himself, “Don’t look back, never look back.” He goes on to say, “How often do people tell themselves that after an experience that is exceptionally good (or exceptionally bad)? Often, I suppose. And the advice usually goes unheeded. Humans were built to look back; that’s why we have that swivel joint in our necks.”

I think it’s good to look back, if we learn from the past. But we don’t much seem to do that as humans — just consider Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan. What did we learn?

But sometimes I annoy myself because I look back and agitate myself instead of looking back to learn and change. Sometimes I suspect that I don’t move on quickly enough, looking to the future. How about you?

Leadership means civic participation, too. Voting. Volunteering. Check out these good thoughts by Neil Steinberg, the President and CEO of my community foundation, The Rhode Island Foundation.

Neil reminds us that leading is a civic calling – and a duty for each and every one of us. He talks about information – both factual and inaccurate. (I am so tired of “personal opinion” trumping fact. I am so tired of giving “equal time” to inaccuracies.)

Our democracy needs us. Our democracy needs us to step up to the plate. Our communities need leadership, people working together. Then we can move forward. Then we can make change. Thanks, Neil.

Sometimes I forget that “today’s kids” never met a vinyl record. Sometimes I realize that “today’s youth” barely (maybe not at all) know about the U.S. war in Vietnam. Oh wow, my 15 and 13 year-old nieces were unclear who the Beatles were!

My icons (people, places, things) are different than theirs. Indeed, each generation has its own icons and conditions (what’s happening in the environment…like WWII or the Cold War or the GEC or…)

Check out the Beloit College Mindset List for the class of 2016 (the kids entering college right now). What an amazing and insight list…put together by Beloit every August since 1998. For this generation, born in 1994: Kurt Cobain, Jackie Kennedy, Richard Nixon and John Wayne have always been dead. Women have always been airplane space shuttle pilots. Slavery has always been unconstitutional.

Why do you and I care? Because they are the next fundraisers and we have to communicate with them and they have to communicate with donors who come from different generations. And because we might be buying them birthday and graduate gifts, too!

I’m always developing new ways to approach strategic planning – and to do governance better. For example:

— Instead of the traditional SWOT analysis (internal strengths and weaknesses, external opportunities and threats)…Consider exploring concerns and alarms. (If you were a nuclear power plant, concern would be Three Mile Island. And alarm would be Fukushima Daiichi.)

— How does something that is inconceivable become inevitable? How do we monitor and anticipate this?

— How can an organization foresee the unforeseeable? What are the processes to do so?

Use these questions in strategic planning. Also use these questions in ongoing management and governance.

Consider this approach:

What is our organization’s corporate culture that might enhance (or reduce) our ability to anticipate our own Fukushima Daiichi? How do we use top-notch management and extraordinary governance to analyze concerns and ensure that they don’t morph into alarms? How do we institutionalize strategic management and governance to foresee the unforeseeable?

Use real-life examples to explore the effectiveness of your organization’s management and governance. Engage the staff and board in these conversations. Use cage-rattling questions to generate meaningful conversation, to learn and to change. For example, use the Penn State fiasco as an example. Explore the Susan B. Komen Foundation mess. Test out BP and the Gulf oil spill. So many examples to choose from!

Read more »

I’m home now – back from my annual July sojourn at Saint Mary’s University of MN. I teach in the Masters Program in Philanthropy and Development there. What a marvelous experience each year. Intense. Broad and deep conversations. Cage-rattling questions (CRQs).

Every year, I collect CRQs: those cage-rattling questions designed to stimulate meaningful conversation that produces learning and leads to change. It takes courage to ask CRQs. Thanks, Cohort 21, for these great questions generated through our governance course together:

1. What are the read flags that we need to raise / be aware of?

2. How far are we willing to go if it means dismantling / confronting those who are most powerful…in our organizations, in our communities?

3. We’ve thought of everything. Now what did we forget?

I also collect bumper stickers from my SMU colleagues. Those catchy little phrases. Those important insights communication in a small snippet. How about these?

1. Inaction is cover up. (We were talking about Penn State and Komen and so much more.)

2. Understand how much power you have and use it wisely.

Read more »

A rather nice overview of governance. Thanks, Debra (Cohort 20) and Lilya (instructor) – Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota Masters Program in Philanthropy and Development. 

I love the HSBC ads I see at airports around the world. (I was hoping I’d find the ads on the bank’s website. But I didn’t.) Here’s a new one that I just saw:

“2/3 of the people who have ever reached 65 are alive today.”

Wow. Can you believe that? What does that mean for your organization’s service, volunteerism, financial donors? What does that mean for you or me or your family or our world?

“2/3 of the people who have ever reached 65 are alive today.” Wow.