Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Oxymoron: Relaxing In The Office


In the final days of summer, I’ve been trying on a new discipline – relaxing without being officially on vacation. 

Quite a concept, in the fundraising arena where stress is a constant companion.

So I started thinking about one of the 80/20 rules – the one that posits: schedule no more than 80% of your time because 20% will be added just through day-to-day interactions.

Maybe we should even make that a 65/35 rule of thumb.  But in the nonprofit world right now, where every division is understaffed and we’re all carrying a 150% workload, that’s pretty hard to do.

Sometimes the answer is compartmentalizing.  Training ourselves to see just what’s ahead and what’s doable – not the whole plethora of deadlines, opportunities, and holes in the dike that remain unaddressed.   Trying to focus on a 48-hour span, not on the panorama.  Not as breathtaking – but possibly a little bit more humane.

But that’s easier prescribed than lived.

I tend to see the whole mountain – in fact, that’s one of the key components of the job of development director (and executive director): to see how all the pieces fit together, to sequence and re-sequence the parts as easily as breathing, to always remain aware of the uphill climb and a host of various paths to getting there.

But there’s a serious downside to this wholistic mindset – we’re always aware of what’s next to be done, and that leaves us perpetually feeling as if we’ve got a week’s worth of important tasks to be completed in the next 36 hours.  No wonder the burden never goes away.

Breathing.  Vastly overrated, but there is something to taking a deep breath.  Or taking a walk, reading a poem, emptying one’s mind of the concerns at hand.  Years ago I worked a block away from a terrific gym – I used to go swimming at lunchtime.  My afternoon clients were better off from following my half-hour in the water, into which no voices could penetrate…

We need to create that psychic space, pool or no pool – our work will benefit, our ability to focus will improve, and our souls will be just a little bit lighter.

A better world starts at home…or at the office?

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The Danger of Dowagers

We met with a group last week that, by rights, ought to have a robust donor base. Over 100 years old, founded by and affiliated for most of its first century with several of New York’s most august and philanthropic families.

Rescued by a bequest by one of those families last year, from near-death due to mounting debt.

There are many factors that brought this group to its knees like that, but one, frankly, was the curse of the benevolent “fixer.” I’m referring to the long-time (multi-generation, often) donor affiliation which has lost its luster – so that the family members still affiliated are giving out of duty, but are not motivated enough to be asking. The nonprofit was really important to someone a couple of generations back, but not to the folks on the board, now.

So why does this leave a group worse off than groups without this affiliation?

First, because, more often than not, the affiliation with this founding family has enabled the nonprofit to rest on that affiliation – to let its fundraising muscles go flabby. Janet will write a check, goes the history…so why do the hard work of finding and stewarding new donors, when Janet and her descendants will fill the void?

And second, because the group has people filling seats on its board who aren’t fulfilling the board’s primary role – to serve as ambassadors. Other board members get the message that what’s valued isn’t activation but check-writing; and while they may not be able to write that level of check, they’ll give up on the activation too, because it’s not the driving paradigm.

And finally, because having that level of resources on a board, puts stars in people’s eyes. The $500 donors don’t seem worth going after, because you’ve got $50,000 donors within reach.

But do you really?

You may have one at hand, who’ll eventually give you a bequest…but more than that is a mirage.

And mirages don’t cut it, these days...

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Tell Me The Worst

This is a companion to last week’s piece, about the importance of trust in board-staff relations to fundraising success – and it’s about laying your cards down on the table.

Board members don’t like surprises. That’s a truism, but as a board member, staff leader and consultant to board members and staff leaders, I understand why it matters. The reasoning is akin to how, as a mother of teenagers, I find myself begging them: “Tell me the worst, whatever it is – but just don’t lie to me.

What you know, can be dealt with.

What you don’t know, sneaks up and ambushes you.

We’re often called in, these days, on emergency fundraising campaigns. Those “If we don’t raise $100,000 by November we’re out of business” kind of appeals.

When you make that kind of last-ditch plea, people who care about your organization’s work may indeed come forward…but they’ll lose faith fast if it turns out you need that amount and then “Oh, I forgot, I also need $3,200 for the water bill” and “Our insurance is going to get cancelled if I don’t pay the overdue invoice” and “The IRS really does mean it this time, I guess.

Tell me the worst – and let me, as a board member, be your partner in figuring it out.

Don’t cushion the bad news by parceling it out in drips and drabs.

You may think you’re protecting me by holding the worst back. But it’s going to come out anyway, and nobody…but nobody…likes Chinese water torture.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Trust…And Watch The Money Jar

Last week I came across another case of starvation-by-withholding. Organizational starvation, that is, with the board of trustees as the withholding body.

We see these occasionally, especially in groups that are going through very hard financial times. “How can I be sure this group is going to make it?” wonder board members in their heart of hearts – with the corollary question popping up: “How can I ask my friends to invest in this group when I might have to turn around and tell them it’s gone belly-up…only a few months after I assured them they were putting their money into a going concern?”

So there you have it, in a nutshell – board member hesitation leads to holding back on personal outreach…which leads to less income coming in…which leads to further robbing Peter to pay Paul (grabbing any available cash to pay essential bills, like payroll or the electric bill, even if the monies were part of a restricted donation)…which then leads to even greater board member reluctance given that now they’re wondering if the programs they’re fundraising for, will actually happen in the way they’re assuring potential donor prospects they will.

Groups can start at any point in this cycle, it’s not just triggered by a moment of board hesitation – but you can see how it becomes a vicious self-fulfilling prophecy.

And down we go, with acrimony.

Well now I guess you’re wondering how to short-circuit this spiral.

And the answer is – trust and watch the money jar – in other words, trust the intent, with very very close monitoring, side-by-side, of execution.

In practical terms, this means a small board-staff committee that looks at weekly spending-and-forecasting – what’s coming in, what’s a realistic judgment of what’s going to come in, and what’s gone out and is going to go out when. There’s been loads written in the past 3 years about managing through financial crisis, so I’m not going to go into that.

But the meta picture – the re-positioning so that the senior staff and the board feel they’re on the same side of the table – is the essential, “soft” part of the equation…without that, it just won’t work.

For fundraising to take place successfully, there must be confidence in the future. Trust in the staff, trust in the organizational competence to carry out the plan, and trust that the scenarios being developed are implementable.

Otherwise donors will vote with their feet for the nonprofit down the block, even if it’s not as astute and its strategies aren’t as impactful. And so too with board members – their silence when you ask them who they know who could donate in this time of greatest need, will be an eloquent testament to their lack of faith.

Addressing this crisis of confidence head-on, by creating a “case for the future” with financial and programmatic scenarios that are realistic and achievable, that match, and that contain the fierce vision and urgency of mission, is a key first step towards survival.

And most fundamentally, board and staff leadership together must buy into this case, must believe…