Heard late last week that my newest book, Nonprofit Stewardship, is a finalist for the Benjamin Franklin Award from the Publisher's Marketing Association. There are three finalists, and one of the other two is a great book by my colleague Jason Saul entitled Benchmarking for Nonprofits.... . Jason's book is also published by Wilder Foundation Publications.
Kind of fun that two of three finalists are from the same publisher and know each other. In fact, Jason and I are on the same agenda this coming Sunday in Chicago!
Headed to Houston today. Probably won't line dance with my healing ankle.....
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Monday, April 11, 2005
Great financial resource for you
Just got a copy of the a new book you should see if you have any interest in the finances of your organization.
Financial Leadership for Nonprofit Executives by Jeanne Bell Peters and Elizabeth Schaffer is terrific. It combines a great view of nonprofit leadership and financial acumen with very hands-on materials for you. I HIGHLY recommend it.
The book at Amazon.
The book at the publisher, Wilder Foundation Publications.
definitely check this out.
Financial Leadership for Nonprofit Executives by Jeanne Bell Peters and Elizabeth Schaffer is terrific. It combines a great view of nonprofit leadership and financial acumen with very hands-on materials for you. I HIGHLY recommend it.
The book at Amazon.
The book at the publisher, Wilder Foundation Publications.
definitely check this out.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Misinformation
I got an email from a nonprofit exec who had been in one of my training sessions last year. He was just checking on something I had said about starting a new venture or expanding a service: that a: there is no state or federal statute that says a 501(c)(3) can't make money, b: that making money is good for mission, and c: that his organization probably (hopefully!) does something already that makes money--it's called fundraising. The exec (we'll call him Jack) said that BOTH his accountant and his attorney told him that if he started a new venture, in his case a thrift shop, and was budgeting to make money, he had to set up a for-profit corporation, or he might lose his tax exempt status. His question was this: when you (Peter) spoke to us, you said that the vast (99%) majority of nonprofits don't need a for-profit subsidiary, so do I or don't I.
He didn't, and you probably don't either. I find it nearly impossible to believe that this mis-conception is still out there and worse, that people are charging nonprofits to mis-inform them. Facts, please:
First, anything you do that takes in more income than it spends is a for-profit activity, in the financial sense. You're probably doing it for the mission, but if it makes money it's for-profit. And, of course, you can do that inside your nonprofit shell.
Second, if you do something not related to your mission, you have to file a 990T every year to show your Unrelated Business Income.
Third, if you make money on your unrelated income, you are subject to federal taxes, called unrelated business income taxes. BUT, you only pay taxes if you make money and, of course, there is still profit left over! In other words, paying taxes is a good, not a bad, problem.
Finally, none of the above actions is any threat to your tax-exempt status. So, Jack didn't need a for-profit corporation, which saves him big bucks, an annual audit and often, suspicious oversight in his community.
Don't believe me? Go to: www.firstgov.gov/Business/Nonprofit.shtml and nose around the IRS website. Search there for UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax).
And please, try to end this misinformation chain letter. It's getting old, and not making anyone a dime.
He didn't, and you probably don't either. I find it nearly impossible to believe that this mis-conception is still out there and worse, that people are charging nonprofits to mis-inform them. Facts, please:
First, anything you do that takes in more income than it spends is a for-profit activity, in the financial sense. You're probably doing it for the mission, but if it makes money it's for-profit. And, of course, you can do that inside your nonprofit shell.
Second, if you do something not related to your mission, you have to file a 990T every year to show your Unrelated Business Income.
Third, if you make money on your unrelated income, you are subject to federal taxes, called unrelated business income taxes. BUT, you only pay taxes if you make money and, of course, there is still profit left over! In other words, paying taxes is a good, not a bad, problem.
Finally, none of the above actions is any threat to your tax-exempt status. So, Jack didn't need a for-profit corporation, which saves him big bucks, an annual audit and often, suspicious oversight in his community.
Don't believe me? Go to: www.firstgov.gov/Business/Nonprofit.shtml and nose around the IRS website. Search there for UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax).
And please, try to end this misinformation chain letter. It's getting old, and not making anyone a dime.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Worth reading--how we're doing
This is definitely worth your time....a short set of findings from Lester Salamon, the Listening Post Project and the Center for Civil Society Studies. The paper is the preliminary results on a wide survey on current practices in nonprofit financial disclosure. It shows that most of the disclosure requirements included in the Senate Finance Committee bill are already being met by most nonprofits.
See the paper here.
Take a look and see if your organization is complying where it should. This is one set of mandates you want to get ahead of.
See the paper here.
Take a look and see if your organization is complying where it should. This is one set of mandates you want to get ahead of.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Time is money.....but time is also time
One trend I keep seeing everywhere is a downturn in attendance at live training. Whether I am speaking for a foundation, an MSO, a United Way, or a state or national association, everyone uniformly notes that attendance is steadily dropping. In some cities, attendance for a particular group may be up as they roll out new training, but in general, numbers per session are falling.
Why? The understanding of the need for consistent renewal and life-long learning is certainly higher than 10 years ago. So why would attendance drop? I think its a combination of three things.
First, competition. Over the last few years there has been an explosion of training opportunities for nonprofit staff and management. Thus there are more choices for live training than ever before, and since nonprofits only have so much time and so much money, attendance is spread over more days of training and thus numbers are down. The other part of this is that nonprofits have more options. There are hundreds of great books written specifically for nonprofits, and an ever increasing set of good online training to use.
Second, money. While training continues to be a priority for many nonprofits, the choice between cutting training for all the staff and cutting a social worker or a teacher is pretty much a slam-dunk for most organizations. With funds tight, particularly for those organizations who are dependent on state revenue, training goes, unless it is supported by a specific grant.
Third, time. I think that this is the 800 pound gorilla in everyone's organization. It's my observation (only anecdotal, not statistical) that about 10 years ago, most nonprofit managers had, say 1.5 to 1.7 FTE living inside their bodies, whereas now it's up to 2.4 to 2.7 FTE. Put simply, there are less people to do more work. This is a result of not only budget cuts, but more commonly an effort to wring those "evil" administrative costs out of the system. Our organizations are flatter, but that means that people have more work to do---and thus less time to take off for training.
Example: I do a lot of standup training for NISH, a national nonprofit that helps local nonprofits that work with people with disabilities get contracts with the federal government and thus employ people with disabilities in competitive jobs. NISH has a fabulous training program, with hundreds of live training sessions every year on a wide range of topics. Numbers for live training have been steadily down over the past 4 years, even with the best evaluation ratings ever. So what's the cause? Well, the training is free to attend, and if you are affiliated with NISH, your travel costs are often reimbursed. Thus, the reduction in attendance is not about it's not the money. Second, since this training is targeted to this very focused set of nonprofits, there is not a whole lot of competition. So it's not that.
Has to be the time available.
This is worrisome on a lot of levels. First, it means that less training is getting into organizations, it's bad for mission and the people we serve. Second, one of the things that good staff want is to grow in their jobs. No training, less job satisfaction, more turnover. Third, this is a very good indicator of what I hear all the time: we're burning out our staff. In a survey in 2003, it was found that 40% of our E.D.'s would never take an ED job again, ever.
The pursuit of lower overhead is good, but I think that, overall, we've gone to far looking at this as the key indicator of good management. As I tell funders, potential donors, and reporters all the time, there is no direct cost that doesn't have an indirect cost with it. Take Finance 101 and you'll learn that.
Stop trying to punish nonprofits for having admin costs....you're really punishing the people we serve.
Why? The understanding of the need for consistent renewal and life-long learning is certainly higher than 10 years ago. So why would attendance drop? I think its a combination of three things.
First, competition. Over the last few years there has been an explosion of training opportunities for nonprofit staff and management. Thus there are more choices for live training than ever before, and since nonprofits only have so much time and so much money, attendance is spread over more days of training and thus numbers are down. The other part of this is that nonprofits have more options. There are hundreds of great books written specifically for nonprofits, and an ever increasing set of good online training to use.
Second, money. While training continues to be a priority for many nonprofits, the choice between cutting training for all the staff and cutting a social worker or a teacher is pretty much a slam-dunk for most organizations. With funds tight, particularly for those organizations who are dependent on state revenue, training goes, unless it is supported by a specific grant.
Third, time. I think that this is the 800 pound gorilla in everyone's organization. It's my observation (only anecdotal, not statistical) that about 10 years ago, most nonprofit managers had, say 1.5 to 1.7 FTE living inside their bodies, whereas now it's up to 2.4 to 2.7 FTE. Put simply, there are less people to do more work. This is a result of not only budget cuts, but more commonly an effort to wring those "evil" administrative costs out of the system. Our organizations are flatter, but that means that people have more work to do---and thus less time to take off for training.
Example: I do a lot of standup training for NISH, a national nonprofit that helps local nonprofits that work with people with disabilities get contracts with the federal government and thus employ people with disabilities in competitive jobs. NISH has a fabulous training program, with hundreds of live training sessions every year on a wide range of topics. Numbers for live training have been steadily down over the past 4 years, even with the best evaluation ratings ever. So what's the cause? Well, the training is free to attend, and if you are affiliated with NISH, your travel costs are often reimbursed. Thus, the reduction in attendance is not about it's not the money. Second, since this training is targeted to this very focused set of nonprofits, there is not a whole lot of competition. So it's not that.
Has to be the time available.
This is worrisome on a lot of levels. First, it means that less training is getting into organizations, it's bad for mission and the people we serve. Second, one of the things that good staff want is to grow in their jobs. No training, less job satisfaction, more turnover. Third, this is a very good indicator of what I hear all the time: we're burning out our staff. In a survey in 2003, it was found that 40% of our E.D.'s would never take an ED job again, ever.
The pursuit of lower overhead is good, but I think that, overall, we've gone to far looking at this as the key indicator of good management. As I tell funders, potential donors, and reporters all the time, there is no direct cost that doesn't have an indirect cost with it. Take Finance 101 and you'll learn that.
Stop trying to punish nonprofits for having admin costs....you're really punishing the people we serve.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Recruitment of volunteers - young and old
I've come across two really interesting papers on engaging different populations in nonprofit work. If you are interested in keeping your volunteer pool full, take a look.
The first is from the Harvard School of Public Health and is called "Reinventing Aging, Baby Boomers and Civic Engagement" It deals with how to get people of my age group more involved in civic matters as we retire. It's a .pdf file and is long, but densely packed with great data and observations.
On the other end of the age change, and from the other side of the Atlantic comes The Russell Commission report entitled "A National Framework for Youth Action and Engagement" which was published just about two weeks ago. This report deals with the serious lack of volunteering by young people in the U.K. and has several interesting and controversial recommendations including paying youth volunteers a small salary for "volunteering". My reaction to that one was "Huh. Thought they were volunteers," but my friends in the U.K. seemed nonplussed by it.
At any rate, two pieces of important reading.
The first is from the Harvard School of Public Health and is called "Reinventing Aging, Baby Boomers and Civic Engagement" It deals with how to get people of my age group more involved in civic matters as we retire. It's a .pdf file and is long, but densely packed with great data and observations.
On the other end of the age change, and from the other side of the Atlantic comes The Russell Commission report entitled "A National Framework for Youth Action and Engagement" which was published just about two weeks ago. This report deals with the serious lack of volunteering by young people in the U.K. and has several interesting and controversial recommendations including paying youth volunteers a small salary for "volunteering". My reaction to that one was "Huh. Thought they were volunteers," but my friends in the U.K. seemed nonplussed by it.
At any rate, two pieces of important reading.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Conflicting wants
Got a nice note from a Canadian MBA student today who noted that her final paper topic was about the issues nonprofit execs face that often arise when they try to meet the wants of two conflicting markets---the people they serve and the people who pay.
How often has this dilemma faced your organization, particularly when there are service cuts/changes mandated by a funder that directly impact on services in a way that upsets the people an organization serves? Here, the nonprofit is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If they don't make the changes, the funder can (and will) pull their funding or penalize the organization in some way. If the do make the changes, they are seen as the villain by the people that they most want to help.
What to do? Couple of suggestions.
First, don't wait for this conflict to arise before you take action. Engage with all your markets now, not just in a crisis. Treat all your markets like valued customers (even your funders) and ask them what they want, explore what their problems are, and try to solve them. Earn the trust of both the funder and the service recipients. Let them know you care about what they think and are concerned about helping them.
Don't buy it? Try thinking of it this way. Imagine you live on a street where your neighbor to your right and your neighbor to your left are having a big, big dispute. They are fighting on your lawn day after day. It is obviously in your best interest to try to help them compromise. But if you have never made an effort to get to know your neighbors, if they don't know you really have their best interest at heart, why should they trust you (and being a trustworthy negotiator is a key part of successful negotiations)? If you had gotten to know the neighbors BEFORE their dispute, you could do some good. But you can't start earning trust after everyone's mad.
Reach out to your markets now. To your funders. To your service recipients. Don't wait until a crisis erupts and everyone has their hackles up.
It's too late then, and your mission suffers.
And, thanks, Hannah, for raising this issue again for me.
How often has this dilemma faced your organization, particularly when there are service cuts/changes mandated by a funder that directly impact on services in a way that upsets the people an organization serves? Here, the nonprofit is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If they don't make the changes, the funder can (and will) pull their funding or penalize the organization in some way. If the do make the changes, they are seen as the villain by the people that they most want to help.
What to do? Couple of suggestions.
First, don't wait for this conflict to arise before you take action. Engage with all your markets now, not just in a crisis. Treat all your markets like valued customers (even your funders) and ask them what they want, explore what their problems are, and try to solve them. Earn the trust of both the funder and the service recipients. Let them know you care about what they think and are concerned about helping them.
Don't buy it? Try thinking of it this way. Imagine you live on a street where your neighbor to your right and your neighbor to your left are having a big, big dispute. They are fighting on your lawn day after day. It is obviously in your best interest to try to help them compromise. But if you have never made an effort to get to know your neighbors, if they don't know you really have their best interest at heart, why should they trust you (and being a trustworthy negotiator is a key part of successful negotiations)? If you had gotten to know the neighbors BEFORE their dispute, you could do some good. But you can't start earning trust after everyone's mad.
Reach out to your markets now. To your funders. To your service recipients. Don't wait until a crisis erupts and everyone has their hackles up.
It's too late then, and your mission suffers.
And, thanks, Hannah, for raising this issue again for me.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Fam time, thank you.
As I write this, I am sitting in our hotel room in La Jolla, just north of San Diego, listening to the surf and the birds. My body is on Chicago time, so I'm up way early, even though the rest of the family is asleep. This week is family time, so blogging may wane a bit. My wife and daughter and I are here for a couple of tourist days and then we head to Seattle to see our Microsoft son, Ben, and have a dual birthday party, before heading home Sunday.
I am very, very thankful to have a functioning, happy family that values its time together. In my work, I train or consult with so many organizations who either work with disfunctional families, or the sad and sometimes tragic results of those disfunctions. Whole organizations formed and funded to deal with the discarded pieces of what, in my life, has been a central joy.
I am really, really lucky.
I am very, very thankful to have a functioning, happy family that values its time together. In my work, I train or consult with so many organizations who either work with disfunctional families, or the sad and sometimes tragic results of those disfunctions. Whole organizations formed and funded to deal with the discarded pieces of what, in my life, has been a central joy.
I am really, really lucky.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Vetted...and rejected...for good reason
A couple of weeks ago, I had an interesting experience. Some folks from Michigan had inquired about my speaking to a group of nonprofit capacity builders about working with faith-based groups, and the similarities and differences in that work between faith-based and secular clients. I agreed, and as I write this, they are considering the possibility. During the conversation, I noted that one of the key differences between the two kinds of organizations is in the way that faith-based groups check your references and suitability for working with them.
The conversation was barely done when I got a call from a nationally recognized very conservative Christian group who is planning to provide what sounds like superb management training to boards and staff leaders of a large number of crisis nurseries across the country. The person in charge of this effort, who I will call John, was extremely pleasant, and very complimentary of my books, which apparently he has used extensively in his nonprofit education and career. He wanted to know if I was interested in providing management training to the boards and perhaps later, to the staff, based on the writings in my books.
John was very professional and very direct, asking if I knew of the belief structure of the organization, and then what my views were on the key issue at hand: abortion. I told him that everyone I knew, on all sides of the issue, wanted less abortions, and so did I, but that we probably differed on the way of getting there. We talked about his beliefs and mine, his experience and mine around abortion for perhaps 20 minutes.
It was as pleasant and mature a discussion on this viscerally dividing issue as I can recall. But at the end, we agreed that my more liberal views on the issue might make it difficult for some if not all of the trainees to listen to my management advice. We parted friends.
When I got back from the U.K. on Thursday, there was a very nice letter from John, thanking me for my time, and providing me with some reading and videotapes showing what his organization was doing in the area of crisis care.
Two lessons for me here: First is that what John did was totally appropriate. The political/spiritual/ethical underpinnings of a consultant are important to the consultant's fit with the organization. He asked the right questions and in the right way. All nonprofits can learn from his actions, because you don't want to hire people of significantly different values, whether you are faith-based or not.
Second, and more important, is that even though at first glance John and I would seem to be on opposite ends of the abortion issue, we had more common ground that we thought. A lot more. That was very comforting, certainly to me, and I think to him. I have thought about the conversation a great deal, and wondered how many other issues that divide us could be brought into better perspective if only people will sit down, talk (not yell), listen (not wait for their turn to talk), and think (not kneejerk).
Certainly if we can find a common set of things we agree on in an area like abortion we can do it for the many less divisive issues that vex us. Good negotiators know that you start any effort at a settlement with first listing the things that are agreed on.
I'm going to work on that, trying to find the half-full part of the glass first when I have differing views with others. Even if we agree in the end to disagree, as John and I did, we leave knowing we did agree on something. And that is something to hold on to.
The conversation was barely done when I got a call from a nationally recognized very conservative Christian group who is planning to provide what sounds like superb management training to boards and staff leaders of a large number of crisis nurseries across the country. The person in charge of this effort, who I will call John, was extremely pleasant, and very complimentary of my books, which apparently he has used extensively in his nonprofit education and career. He wanted to know if I was interested in providing management training to the boards and perhaps later, to the staff, based on the writings in my books.
John was very professional and very direct, asking if I knew of the belief structure of the organization, and then what my views were on the key issue at hand: abortion. I told him that everyone I knew, on all sides of the issue, wanted less abortions, and so did I, but that we probably differed on the way of getting there. We talked about his beliefs and mine, his experience and mine around abortion for perhaps 20 minutes.
It was as pleasant and mature a discussion on this viscerally dividing issue as I can recall. But at the end, we agreed that my more liberal views on the issue might make it difficult for some if not all of the trainees to listen to my management advice. We parted friends.
When I got back from the U.K. on Thursday, there was a very nice letter from John, thanking me for my time, and providing me with some reading and videotapes showing what his organization was doing in the area of crisis care.
Two lessons for me here: First is that what John did was totally appropriate. The political/spiritual/ethical underpinnings of a consultant are important to the consultant's fit with the organization. He asked the right questions and in the right way. All nonprofits can learn from his actions, because you don't want to hire people of significantly different values, whether you are faith-based or not.
Second, and more important, is that even though at first glance John and I would seem to be on opposite ends of the abortion issue, we had more common ground that we thought. A lot more. That was very comforting, certainly to me, and I think to him. I have thought about the conversation a great deal, and wondered how many other issues that divide us could be brought into better perspective if only people will sit down, talk (not yell), listen (not wait for their turn to talk), and think (not kneejerk).
Certainly if we can find a common set of things we agree on in an area like abortion we can do it for the many less divisive issues that vex us. Good negotiators know that you start any effort at a settlement with first listing the things that are agreed on.
I'm going to work on that, trying to find the half-full part of the glass first when I have differing views with others. Even if we agree in the end to disagree, as John and I did, we leave knowing we did agree on something. And that is something to hold on to.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Not so different
After three days here with nonprofits of all types, I am confident that I am correct in relaying this information to all: The most important issues facing charities in the United Kingdom....not in priority order
1. Funding: There is not enough.
2. Accountability: While a good thing, there is increasing and usually unnecessary oversight.
3. Boards: Not enough interest in the organization or too much interest in management rather than policy.
4. Not enough new (read younger) volunteers and board members coming in the door.
5. More and more administrative requirements and needs (audits, IT, etc.) without resources to provide them.
Do any of these sound familiar? Do all of them?
I thought so. No matter where you are on the planet, the big issues are still the same. My good friend Carol Weisman, President of Board Builders, went to do training in Australia last year, and reported the same thing. Friends who work in India, China, and Africa report the same issues, in varying degrees.
The moral of the tale? We all are human, and "our" issues are not as unique to us as we would like to think they are.
Home tomorrow.
1. Funding: There is not enough.
2. Accountability: While a good thing, there is increasing and usually unnecessary oversight.
3. Boards: Not enough interest in the organization or too much interest in management rather than policy.
4. Not enough new (read younger) volunteers and board members coming in the door.
5. More and more administrative requirements and needs (audits, IT, etc.) without resources to provide them.
Do any of these sound familiar? Do all of them?
I thought so. No matter where you are on the planet, the big issues are still the same. My good friend Carol Weisman, President of Board Builders, went to do training in Australia last year, and reported the same thing. Friends who work in India, China, and Africa report the same issues, in varying degrees.
The moral of the tale? We all are human, and "our" issues are not as unique to us as we would like to think they are.
Home tomorrow.
More same than different
After three days here with nonprofits of all types, I am confident that I am correct in relaying this information to all: The most important issues facing charities in the United Kingdom....not in priority order
1. Funding: There is not enough.
2. Accountability: While a good thing, there is increasing and usually unnecessary oversight.
3. Boards: Not enough interest in the organization or too much interest in management rather than policy.
4. Not enough new (read younger) volunteers and board members coming in the door.
5. More and more administrative requirements and needs (audits, IT, etc.) without resources to provide them.
Do any of these sound familiar? Do all of them?
I thought so. No matter where you are on the planet, the big issues are still the same. My good friend Carol Weisman, President of Board Builders, went to do training in Australia last year, and reported the same thing. Friends who work in India, China, and Africa report the same issues, in varying degrees.
The moral of the tale? We all are human, and "our" issues are not as unique to us as we would like to think they are.
Home tomorrow.
1. Funding: There is not enough.
2. Accountability: While a good thing, there is increasing and usually unnecessary oversight.
3. Boards: Not enough interest in the organization or too much interest in management rather than policy.
4. Not enough new (read younger) volunteers and board members coming in the door.
5. More and more administrative requirements and needs (audits, IT, etc.) without resources to provide them.
Do any of these sound familiar? Do all of them?
I thought so. No matter where you are on the planet, the big issues are still the same. My good friend Carol Weisman, President of Board Builders, went to do training in Australia last year, and reported the same thing. Friends who work in India, China, and Africa report the same issues, in varying degrees.
The moral of the tale? We all are human, and "our" issues are not as unique to us as we would like to think they are.
Home tomorrow.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Different Country, Same Issues
First post from London for this year. What a vibrant city, even on a grey day.
Got into a wonderful conversation with my driver in from Heathrow. He and his wife are Croation, both left during the war and were "saved" in his words by a local Croation NGO during the worst of the fighting. He thinks nonprofits (NGOs) are terrific.
Another conversation with three people (all Brits) next to me in a cafe here in Islington started about my crutches and injury and soon moved on to charities, as they are called here in the U.K. They were concerned about the U.K. looking bad compared to the US in relation to people's willingness to contribute time as well as money to charitable causes. I suggested to ways to help more and places to contact.
The Russell Commission here has studied the issue of getting more youth involved in charitable causes. Their report is found at the link above. The findings are SO similar to the issues in the States it makes my head hurt.
I give my master class in marketing tomorrow, and then I have a free day to cruise. Wednesday is the big NCVO Trustee conference where I'll be doing a workshop on generation change, sitting on an expert panel, and in general, hanging out with good people. I was the keynote at this conference in 2004, so expect to see many familiar faces.
Got into a wonderful conversation with my driver in from Heathrow. He and his wife are Croation, both left during the war and were "saved" in his words by a local Croation NGO during the worst of the fighting. He thinks nonprofits (NGOs) are terrific.
Another conversation with three people (all Brits) next to me in a cafe here in Islington started about my crutches and injury and soon moved on to charities, as they are called here in the U.K. They were concerned about the U.K. looking bad compared to the US in relation to people's willingness to contribute time as well as money to charitable causes. I suggested to ways to help more and places to contact.
The Russell Commission here has studied the issue of getting more youth involved in charitable causes. Their report is found at the link above. The findings are SO similar to the issues in the States it makes my head hurt.
I give my master class in marketing tomorrow, and then I have a free day to cruise. Wednesday is the big NCVO Trustee conference where I'll be doing a workshop on generation change, sitting on an expert panel, and in general, hanging out with good people. I was the keynote at this conference in 2004, so expect to see many familiar faces.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Over the Pond
Headed back to the U.K in about 6 hours. I'm really looking forward to it. I love the people there, and get a chance to be reminded that nonprofit issues are nonprofit issues no matter where we are on the globe.
I'll have people come up to me and say things like "I know you probably don't have this problem in the States, but our board members some time seem out of touch, or try to take over management". or "Our foundation funders don't seem to understand what we really do."
Sound familiar?
Should be fun, and now that I can actually walk short distances without crutches and am cruising around in regular shoes, this trip is going to be a lot easier than I had feared five or six weeks ago.
Next post from the Greenwich Mean Time time zone.
I'll have people come up to me and say things like "I know you probably don't have this problem in the States, but our board members some time seem out of touch, or try to take over management". or "Our foundation funders don't seem to understand what we really do."
Sound familiar?
Should be fun, and now that I can actually walk short distances without crutches and am cruising around in regular shoes, this trip is going to be a lot easier than I had feared five or six weeks ago.
Next post from the Greenwich Mean Time time zone.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Difficult issues
My book clubs this week talked about the 5 Temptations of A CEO, and Covey's 8th Habit. It was a terrific set of discussions with people from all over the US. One person noted that these discussions (each with about 10-12 people on the phone) refreshed her because she was reminded of what terrific people are in our field.
The other thing that this month's conversations reminded of yet again is how much time managers spend and frustration they with two things- enforcing the rules fairly and consistently, and engaging groups in vibrant, and yet not personal discussion and positive argument.
Pretty much everthing we read, including books like Good to Great emphasize the need for constructive discourse to make the organization better. And all you have to do is watch people for a week and you know that the thing they resent the most are issues around "fairness", so if managers treat them differently than others, it hits a hot button.
And yet we still struggle with these two gordian knots of management, trying to find the right balance between being sensitive to individual needs and not having any rules at all. Trying to craft a group of people into a set of seekers--trying to make the organization better while suppressing their ego, so that group discussions that may well dis their area of responsibility aren't taken personally and are seen as positive to the organization.
I wish I had a solution, but I know it's just a relentless discipline of careful thought, trying to do the right thing all the time, and thinking on our feet. And we'll get it right more than we get it wrong, but we won't always get it right.
Oh, yeah. We're human.
Which, of course, is what makes it so much fun.
The other thing that this month's conversations reminded of yet again is how much time managers spend and frustration they with two things- enforcing the rules fairly and consistently, and engaging groups in vibrant, and yet not personal discussion and positive argument.
Pretty much everthing we read, including books like Good to Great emphasize the need for constructive discourse to make the organization better. And all you have to do is watch people for a week and you know that the thing they resent the most are issues around "fairness", so if managers treat them differently than others, it hits a hot button.
And yet we still struggle with these two gordian knots of management, trying to find the right balance between being sensitive to individual needs and not having any rules at all. Trying to craft a group of people into a set of seekers--trying to make the organization better while suppressing their ego, so that group discussions that may well dis their area of responsibility aren't taken personally and are seen as positive to the organization.
I wish I had a solution, but I know it's just a relentless discipline of careful thought, trying to do the right thing all the time, and thinking on our feet. And we'll get it right more than we get it wrong, but we won't always get it right.
Oh, yeah. We're human.
Which, of course, is what makes it so much fun.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Walk a Mile (or have a meal) in My Shoes
As someone who is very interested in more integration in society for people with disabilities, I love this:
Heard on NPR this AM about a restaurant in Zurich called the Blind Cow where patrons dine in complete blackout, served by bartenders and waiters who are blind. It is apparently an amazing sensory experience, very popular, and other restaurants in Europe have opened with the same theme, although I'm not aware of any in the US. If you are, let me know.
Here's the link to the NPR audio, and a link to an article, and another article.
What a great idea - and what a good lesson for all of us about experiencing things from others' point of view.
Heard on NPR this AM about a restaurant in Zurich called the Blind Cow where patrons dine in complete blackout, served by bartenders and waiters who are blind. It is apparently an amazing sensory experience, very popular, and other restaurants in Europe have opened with the same theme, although I'm not aware of any in the US. If you are, let me know.
Here's the link to the NPR audio, and a link to an article, and another article.
What a great idea - and what a good lesson for all of us about experiencing things from others' point of view.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Books worth your time....
Two new books for by book clubs this month that are worth your time....
First, a short, easy, and very worthwhile read is found in
The 5 Temptations of the CEO by Patrick Lencioni. It's a short fable chock full of good stuff for managers and leaders.
Second book is long, but very worthwhile. Steven Covey's The 8th Habit is great. Includes a DVD full of short movies that illustrate Covey's points. I have more underlining and comments in this book than in any other I've read in the past year or so. If you have a long drive time, you might want to get the audio CD.
These are books that belong in your head, not on your shelf.
And, a big welcome to all the readers of Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge. The publication featured the Mission-Based Management Blog....glad to have you with us.
First, a short, easy, and very worthwhile read is found in
The 5 Temptations of the CEO by Patrick Lencioni. It's a short fable chock full of good stuff for managers and leaders.
Second book is long, but very worthwhile. Steven Covey's The 8th Habit is great. Includes a DVD full of short movies that illustrate Covey's points. I have more underlining and comments in this book than in any other I've read in the past year or so. If you have a long drive time, you might want to get the audio CD.
These are books that belong in your head, not on your shelf.
And, a big welcome to all the readers of Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge. The publication featured the Mission-Based Management Blog....glad to have you with us.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Group giving
As regular readers know, I am not a fund-raiser/development person, but I do like great ideas in giving.
One such idea is SO 21st century--since it is about groups. Seattle's Social Venture Partners sponsors over 20 giving circles worldwide. These are wonderful since the groups focus on a specific social problem, and the circle members pool their money and their smarts to decide which nonprofits get money, how much, and for what approach to solve the problem.
This is more of a great trend for donors to become very involved with their money, one that I applaud, although I know it makes some execs and development execs moan and roll their eyes.
For more on giving circles, go to GivingForum.org/givingcircles
For an recent article in BusinessWeek (actually the article that reminded me of this) go to this article
You might think about starting a giving circle in your community, or based around an issue that you really care about.
One such idea is SO 21st century--since it is about groups. Seattle's Social Venture Partners sponsors over 20 giving circles worldwide. These are wonderful since the groups focus on a specific social problem, and the circle members pool their money and their smarts to decide which nonprofits get money, how much, and for what approach to solve the problem.
This is more of a great trend for donors to become very involved with their money, one that I applaud, although I know it makes some execs and development execs moan and roll their eyes.
For more on giving circles, go to GivingForum.org/givingcircles
For an recent article in BusinessWeek (actually the article that reminded me of this) go to this article
You might think about starting a giving circle in your community, or based around an issue that you really care about.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Convincing doubters.....
In a comment posted yesterday, Ken asked: "...can you discuss effective ways to change stubborn mindsets (of CEOs and Boards) in secular and religious charitable organizations to open to the many great ideas you bring to the table...?"
Thanks, Ken, good question. Not only related to convincing people to adopt my ideas, but for the many of us who struggle to get people to change at all!
OK, long answer. First, you don't have to convince some people--they are already with you. There's another group that will NEVER buy in to what you want to do. It's the third group, the people in the middle that you need to convince. This is the bell curve, and it rules in most social change interactions.
The people who you CAN convince (the others have their minds set) are who you want to address. Just a reality check: You can't get em all.
Next, remember my adage---the job of a steward (and all staff and volunteers are stewards) is to get the most mission out the door using ALL the resources at hand. That includes new ideas, changes in policy, best practices.
Depending on the group and the change needed, there are a few ways to jump start them--and it depends on the group dynamics.
1. Group reading: Have the group read materials that support the ideas you want to convey. Make sure that the readings focus on how the organization got better at what it does. Make the readings short, and discuss what's being learned in between readings. For example, you might read a key book two or three chapters a week.
2. Group discussion with an outside facilitator. Get them talking about best practices, how the organization can improve. The outside facilitator keeps an objective viewpoint
3. Field trip: go see other organizations that have adapted to the changes you want to implement. Seeing is believing, and it overcomes a lot of resistance. Make sure there is time to meet with staff and board of the field trip organizations.
4. Standards. If what you are trying to change is part of a set of standards like Maryland Nonprofits' Standards of Excellence, then use them!
5. Keep at it. Most significant change takes a long time. A great book on change management is The Heart Of Change by John Kotter.
Changing minds is very, very hard. But changing them to help the people you serve is worth the effort....
Thanks, Ken, good question. Not only related to convincing people to adopt my ideas, but for the many of us who struggle to get people to change at all!
OK, long answer. First, you don't have to convince some people--they are already with you. There's another group that will NEVER buy in to what you want to do. It's the third group, the people in the middle that you need to convince. This is the bell curve, and it rules in most social change interactions.
The people who you CAN convince (the others have their minds set) are who you want to address. Just a reality check: You can't get em all.
Next, remember my adage---the job of a steward (and all staff and volunteers are stewards) is to get the most mission out the door using ALL the resources at hand. That includes new ideas, changes in policy, best practices.
Depending on the group and the change needed, there are a few ways to jump start them--and it depends on the group dynamics.
1. Group reading: Have the group read materials that support the ideas you want to convey. Make sure that the readings focus on how the organization got better at what it does. Make the readings short, and discuss what's being learned in between readings. For example, you might read a key book two or three chapters a week.
2. Group discussion with an outside facilitator. Get them talking about best practices, how the organization can improve. The outside facilitator keeps an objective viewpoint
3. Field trip: go see other organizations that have adapted to the changes you want to implement. Seeing is believing, and it overcomes a lot of resistance. Make sure there is time to meet with staff and board of the field trip organizations.
4. Standards. If what you are trying to change is part of a set of standards like Maryland Nonprofits' Standards of Excellence, then use them!
5. Keep at it. Most significant change takes a long time. A great book on change management is The Heart Of Change by John Kotter.
Changing minds is very, very hard. But changing them to help the people you serve is worth the effort....
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Core Competence--or focus on what you do well
Had a great trip to MD. Wonderful audiences, and a big shout out to the Maryland Nonprofit staff, particularly Jill, for taking such good care of me.
Core competence is so important. I was reminded of this on the flight home when I got into a conversation with my seatmate about nonprofits that he volunteers for. He noted again how one of them does so much for so many people and does nothing "really well" and how the other nonprofit does a few things, but "all with excellence". The first NP grows faster, the second slower. The first says yes to everyone and the second says no to a lot of people.
His question: which is better? My answer: the second nonprofit will probably be around a lot longer--but either way, they are doing the right thing-focusing on what they do well. Don't the people we serve deserve only the best, and not just the adequate?
My newsletter this month is also on this subject. Check it out.....
Core competence is so important. I was reminded of this on the flight home when I got into a conversation with my seatmate about nonprofits that he volunteers for. He noted again how one of them does so much for so many people and does nothing "really well" and how the other nonprofit does a few things, but "all with excellence". The first NP grows faster, the second slower. The first says yes to everyone and the second says no to a lot of people.
His question: which is better? My answer: the second nonprofit will probably be around a lot longer--but either way, they are doing the right thing-focusing on what they do well. Don't the people we serve deserve only the best, and not just the adequate?
My newsletter this month is also on this subject. Check it out.....
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
HBR Article -- Not Much New
Just finished the HBR Article Should Nonprofits Seek Profits? by William Foster and Jeffrey Bradach. Pretty disappointing. Not a lot new here, although the reminders are good, that business is risky and nonprofits often try to go into business naively. But it takes a very negative tone, in my view. Nonprofits seek profit naively? So do for profits, but that doesn't get mentioned. And, the authors focus pretty much exclusively on commercial ventures outside of the mainstream of what they seem to infer is "what a nonprofit should be doing"....
What about nonprofits expanding a service to a new county? That's a new venture....or fund raising in general; isn't that supposed to be profitable? I mean, would you ask your fund raiser to NOT seek a profit when planning a special fundraising event?
I've been preaching that nonprofits should seek profits -- overall--- for 25 years. Profits enable more mission. I've also been preaching that new ventures are risky, need to be focusing on a mission outcome and need to be well planned and executed--and even then may fail. Nonprofits need diverse revenue streams - a mix of government, community, foundation, and earned income.
I must say that I work with with a great group of nonprofits who provide products and services to the federal and state government by employing people with disabilities. If you see folks with disabilities cleaning your post office, or mowing the lawn in front of a military base, they are almost certainly from these programs. The chemical protection suits our servicemen and women have in Iraq? Made by these people. The new Army Combat Fatigue? Same thing.
These nonprofits do much more than just provide goods and services to the feds, but the key here is that they have learned the skill of business planning and business operation to help pursue mission, and they are making money at it.
Read the article, but don't get scared away. Just learn the business skills FIRST, before you consider expanding into now areas of work.
What about nonprofits expanding a service to a new county? That's a new venture....or fund raising in general; isn't that supposed to be profitable? I mean, would you ask your fund raiser to NOT seek a profit when planning a special fundraising event?
I've been preaching that nonprofits should seek profits -- overall--- for 25 years. Profits enable more mission. I've also been preaching that new ventures are risky, need to be focusing on a mission outcome and need to be well planned and executed--and even then may fail. Nonprofits need diverse revenue streams - a mix of government, community, foundation, and earned income.
I must say that I work with with a great group of nonprofits who provide products and services to the federal and state government by employing people with disabilities. If you see folks with disabilities cleaning your post office, or mowing the lawn in front of a military base, they are almost certainly from these programs. The chemical protection suits our servicemen and women have in Iraq? Made by these people. The new Army Combat Fatigue? Same thing.
These nonprofits do much more than just provide goods and services to the feds, but the key here is that they have learned the skill of business planning and business operation to help pursue mission, and they are making money at it.
Read the article, but don't get scared away. Just learn the business skills FIRST, before you consider expanding into now areas of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)