The Day After

I have a new theory – that you can judge the success of a board meeting by the flurry of emails the day after.

It’s the holy grail – that our board members will be talking and listening to each other, not sitting passively by as staff drones on.

But it’s when that active inquiry spills over to their own time – personal time, work time – that you get board members thinking about the organization in the shower.

Owning its successes, its challenges, its path.

We had two board meetings in the past week where the emails just flew afterwards. More ideas people had to express, more questions to raise, more excitement to share.

That’s when you know it’s working.

Meeting Them ½ - Way

Well, let’s say, ¾ - way….

I’m talking about the idea that once board members get activated, it makes more work – for us, as staff.

We have to give them lists! We have to research options! We have to do the legwork! Yipes! We already have full-time-plus-plus-plus jobs…

It’s often true that once a board “catches fire” – the staff literally has to sprint to keep up with their enthusiasm. Board members get serious about asking other board members to bring personal friends to the benefit, and they start asking for info on how other organizations have transitioned a vendor-oriented event into one that feels appropriate for personal friends. They decide to run a family-oriented fundraiser, and ask for materials to be created. They brainstorm a Spring fundraising campaign, and ask for a wall-display to be created in the lobby.

All of these have direct returns for the dollars invested, so it’s easy to see the reward. But sometimes board members ask for info that isn’t so transparently remunerative. Like requesting data on economic trends in the neighborhood. Or 3-year projections of earned-to-contributed revenue. Or even past history of program graduates and “where they are now.”

But I was reminded of the necessity of all this – fundraising or not – when I was meeting recently with a group I’ve known for awhile, that’s really in trouble. A long-time funder suffered some extensive losses and pulled out, unexpectedly, contributing to a perfect storm that may leave them going under.

We’re helping them with scenarios, but the big question remains: Where’s the Board? Who’s the group sitting around the table, worrying this out? It’s just the founder, his devoted second-in-command, and one friend – and us. And that’s just not enough.

But the die was cast long ago, when the staff did it all, and the board – every once in a while – advised.

The moral? Be happy for a board that asks for work – and is ready to roll up their sleeves to deliver.

But we all knew that, right?

Focused on Meaning

“Focus us on the big picture” one of my fellow board members requested of the executive director. “I love your updates and I really feel like I know what’s going on – but what does it mean?”

It’s that step from the accumulation of information to the creation of meaning…what gives order to a set of random (or not so random) facts, so that we can use them to predict future conditions or behavior.

Are summer camp pre-enrollment fees up or down? That’s one set of information. Does the reason behind the rise mean that they will continue to go up or was it a blip due to non-recurrent circumstances? And if the circumstances could be recreated and even maximized further, is the organization planning to put more effort into generating that revenue? And if so what will that do to staffing, and to mission – will it detract from mission to be running more of a “business venture” or will it add to the organization’s ability provide more mission-based activities to those who can’t afford those fees?

You can see that the set of questions generated from a simple fact – registration income up or down – can lead an organization in many different directions. I believe it’s the executive director’s charge to help the board to contemplate those larger questions – and that it’s the board’s job to serve as thought partners to push the executive director, in fact, to ponder those larger questions.

That’s the board at its highest and best use.

And that’s the kind of board conversations, by the way, that keep attendance at board meetings high, and the board jazzed up, paradoxically, to do the “mundane” work of fundraising.

So often these days we see boards who want to be engaged, who understand their organizations are in perilous times – and who are relegated to “Show me the money” directives by the staff. But without ownership, without a sense of “agency” – fundraising is a mandate unconnected to real impact on the world.

As a board member, as a staff member interacting with board, as a consultant brought in to “fix” the board – it’s our job to craft that real job of the board, that of pondering the big questions…by how we shape and context the information we provide them.

The primary question is not: What?

It’s: So What?

When Board Members Lead…

It’s a delicate balance.

You want a board dynamic where board members are shooting forth ideas, taking initiative, signing on and signing up. Especially in fundraising.

But sometimes what they suggest isn’t practical, is way off the mark, or just simply won’t work.

Well, that’s easy enough to deflect by suggesting your board members engage in some feasibility outreach – talking to a few of the people who’d be critical to the successful implementation of their idea. Surveying the intended targets – it’s a great way to involve board members in hearing the lay of the land directly from the horse’s mouth (and in the process getting board members talking to donors/intended donors). Misconceptions fall by the wayside, and you’ve done nothing in the process to discourage board members’ enthusiasm (and sometimes they even get a better idea once they hear where prospects are really at!) .

But sometimes it’s not that board members are coming up with bad ideas – it’s the manner in which board members leap to action. Like the board member who takes on leadership of the development committee and comes to the next meeting with a fully-fleshed out fundraising plan for the rest of the board to take slots in.

That wouldn’t work if the staff simply handed a fundraising plan to the board to carry out – and it won’t work either if one board member merely gives assignments to the rest of the board members.

Ownership begets responsibility – word that were burned into my brain from my first nonprofit fundraising job. Those who are involved in coming up with an idea are the ones who feel most responsible for implementing it successfully. We take that to mean that board members have to have a hand in developing their fundraising plan of action – but sometimes the dynamic goes deeper. It’s board member(s) – not a board member. Process is a (not the only, but a) determinant of outcome.

The moral – don’t sit back in relief once you’ve got a take-charge fundraising committee leader, and assume that all will go well from here. Keep watching that dynamic – cause one leader and 12 passive not-quite-followers is better than a whole board of balking-fundraisers – but you’re not there yet.