Getting Back "In The Box"
As I read posts and blogs recently, I have seen many encouragements to think and perform "Out of the Box." We've begun to equate Out of the Box Thinking as the desired tool for innovative management and leadership.
While I don't disagree with this encouragement for the most part, I credit a savvy and astute Chamber of Commerce executive for making me think differently. She and I recently had lunch. She shared how she had gotten back to basics at her Chamber. She had realized that the constant focus on new thinking, new ideas, new programming, new everything was beginning to erode the basics that had made her organization a leader in the area.
So, she led her organization to get back to basics. To get back Inside the Box to focus on the tried and true management principles that create and sustain a healthy organization. She was focusing on board development, recruitment, training and management. Focusing on membership development, recruitment, retention and benefits. They were assessing all their programs and services within the framework of how successful they were in terms of meeting community and member needs and whether these programs were managed efficiently and effectively. She was focusing on staff development and satisfaction. She was thinking and acting strategically.
And she was reaping the benefits in a newly energized board, increases in membership satisfaction and renewal rates, and a more stable staff.
So, while I agree that organizations need to be willing to let go of old and tired thinking and should be open to embracing new, "Out of the Box" ideas, I also believe there is a time in the evolution of every organization when it is critical to step back, assess and renew their focus on the basics of what works.
Without a strong foundation upon which to base new thinking, new ideas, new programs, all the flurry of newness will likely fail.
And in today's challenging nonprofit environment, when communities rely even more on the nonprofit sector to meet community needs, perhaps getting back Inside the Box is more important than ever!
Jean Block
Jean Block Consulting, Inc. www.jblockinc.com
Social Enterprise Ventures, LLC www.socialenterpriseventures.com
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
The baby Bird Syndrome - Whose Fault Is It?
The Baby Bird Syndrome. Whose Fault Is It?
It's a fact.
For many nonprofits, funding from traditional sources such as the federal government and even corporate and foundation funders has shrunk or even disappeared. Those organizations that for years and years and years have relied on "renewing the grant" to fund vital programs and services are now faced with the dilemma of finding new revenue sources...and they may not be there...or reducing staff and cutting back on programs and services.
So Whose Fault Is It?
Perhaps we might lay some of the blame on the traditional funding sources who have taught nonprofits to keep coming back for more, just like little baby birds. This has resulted in an entitlement generation of nonprofit leaders who have known no other way to manage their agencies. I've actually heard nonprofit execs say things such as, "The feds have sent us money forever. We've always gotten it, regardless. Recently we got an infusion of cash from the ARRA pot. There will be more, for sure."
If we are realistic, when we look at the history of traditional funding, we can see that nonprofits have been trained to ask for more, to rely on others to sustain them, to become less and less self-reliant, to take less and less responsibility for their futures.
For many organizations, the warnings have been written on the wall for years, but the baby birds have not been willing to jump to the edge of the nest. And that is understandable because for many, the warnings have been more like Chicken Little alarmists messages, and the status quo just took over.
Who's to Blame?
But now the warnings are louder. Nonprofits are hearing No more often. They are having to wake up to the fact that it is way past time to take responsibility for themselves, to seek and secure new sources of revenue, especially those sources that the agency can control to a greater extent.
And so, we must place some of the blame on the nonprofit sector itself. Complacency has become the norm. "Things aren't perfect, but at least this way of operating is what we know. We have learned to work within the entitlement process and have managed to make it work for us. Besides, what else is there?"
What Can We Do?
Well, instead of hand wringing and running around like a Chicken Little predicting the end of the nonprofit sector, nonprofits have a choice. Actually, the choice has always been there, but few nonprofits have stepped to the edge of the nest, tried their wings and found a new level of freedom from tradition.
These savvy nonprofits have learned to diversify their funding sources. Their leaders, both board and staff, have been proactive, they have understood the reality and inevitable result of relying on funding sources over which they have little or no control.
The savvy nonprofits have learned to operate in a more business like manner that protects their valuable programs and services from the whims of donors, economic slowdowns and federal budget issues. They have begun social enterprises. They have taken charge of their funding.
Dependence or Independence?
The choice it yours. I am not a Chicken Little alarmist, but I can promise you that the entitlement generation of nonprofits is now faced with a steep learning curve that will rock it to the foundation. The new generation of nonprofit leadership must be realistic and must take responsibility for its own capacity and sustainability. They must be willing to look at mergers and a higher form of collaboration than ever before. They must be willing to put traditional turf issues aside and work for a greater purpose.
It's a hard fact, but if a nonprofit's mission, purpose, programs and services are really needed, then a deep commitment to change is required...from nonprofit leaders to funders.
Jean Block
Jean Block Consulting, Inc. and Social Enterprise Ventures, LLC
www.jblockinc.com
www.socialenterpriseventures.com
It's a fact.
For many nonprofits, funding from traditional sources such as the federal government and even corporate and foundation funders has shrunk or even disappeared. Those organizations that for years and years and years have relied on "renewing the grant" to fund vital programs and services are now faced with the dilemma of finding new revenue sources...and they may not be there...or reducing staff and cutting back on programs and services.
So Whose Fault Is It?
Perhaps we might lay some of the blame on the traditional funding sources who have taught nonprofits to keep coming back for more, just like little baby birds. This has resulted in an entitlement generation of nonprofit leaders who have known no other way to manage their agencies. I've actually heard nonprofit execs say things such as, "The feds have sent us money forever. We've always gotten it, regardless. Recently we got an infusion of cash from the ARRA pot. There will be more, for sure."
If we are realistic, when we look at the history of traditional funding, we can see that nonprofits have been trained to ask for more, to rely on others to sustain them, to become less and less self-reliant, to take less and less responsibility for their futures.
For many organizations, the warnings have been written on the wall for years, but the baby birds have not been willing to jump to the edge of the nest. And that is understandable because for many, the warnings have been more like Chicken Little alarmists messages, and the status quo just took over.
Who's to Blame?
But now the warnings are louder. Nonprofits are hearing No more often. They are having to wake up to the fact that it is way past time to take responsibility for themselves, to seek and secure new sources of revenue, especially those sources that the agency can control to a greater extent.
And so, we must place some of the blame on the nonprofit sector itself. Complacency has become the norm. "Things aren't perfect, but at least this way of operating is what we know. We have learned to work within the entitlement process and have managed to make it work for us. Besides, what else is there?"
What Can We Do?
Well, instead of hand wringing and running around like a Chicken Little predicting the end of the nonprofit sector, nonprofits have a choice. Actually, the choice has always been there, but few nonprofits have stepped to the edge of the nest, tried their wings and found a new level of freedom from tradition.
These savvy nonprofits have learned to diversify their funding sources. Their leaders, both board and staff, have been proactive, they have understood the reality and inevitable result of relying on funding sources over which they have little or no control.
The savvy nonprofits have learned to operate in a more business like manner that protects their valuable programs and services from the whims of donors, economic slowdowns and federal budget issues. They have begun social enterprises. They have taken charge of their funding.
Dependence or Independence?
The choice it yours. I am not a Chicken Little alarmist, but I can promise you that the entitlement generation of nonprofits is now faced with a steep learning curve that will rock it to the foundation. The new generation of nonprofit leadership must be realistic and must take responsibility for its own capacity and sustainability. They must be willing to look at mergers and a higher form of collaboration than ever before. They must be willing to put traditional turf issues aside and work for a greater purpose.
It's a hard fact, but if a nonprofit's mission, purpose, programs and services are really needed, then a deep commitment to change is required...from nonprofit leaders to funders.
Jean Block
Jean Block Consulting, Inc. and Social Enterprise Ventures, LLC
www.jblockinc.com
www.socialenterpriseventures.com
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Just Talk To Me!
Last week, I endured another unpleasant airline trip and it got me thinking. I was on my way from Albuquerque to Boston to teach workshops the next day.
The day began at 3 AM with a recorded call from American Airlines alerting me that my scheduled flight was delayed so I couldn't make my connection. Nothing more.
I called AA a couple of hours later and after a 30 minute hold to reach a human, more holds while someone wearily tried to solve my problem, I was booked on United flights instead.
In Houston, we boarded the plane to Boston...and sat at the gate, seat belts fastened, in a steaming hot plane for 3 hours...with little to no communication from flight attendants or flight deck. Passengers were restless, calling UA directly or checking via the Internet to gain information about why were were delayed, when we would leave, when we would arrive in Boston, etc.
The result? 200+ people left to wonder about their fate that day. Canceling plans. Delaying pick ups. Stressing out. And, ultimately, swearing they would never fly on United again!
Of course, this time of year, one expects weather delays in airports, so it was no surprise.
But the way both these airlines handled inevitable delays is a perfect example of why people get angry when they are left out of the loop, left to wonder, made to feel undervalued.
It got me to thinking about how often we probably do the same thing in our organizations. We either simply assume that everyone knows what is going on, or we appear to be too busy to stop and talk, or we let our own problems overshadow the work of others...
And all it takes is communication. Talk to employees. Talk to the board of directors. Talk to donors. Talk to those we serve. Empathize and understand.
If the 200+ people in the hot airplane were a part of the conversation, were kept in the loop about things that affected them directly, were offered water (for Pete's sake), were given a word of understanding for how inconvenienced they were, the end result would have been a positive feeling about the airline.
Food for thought...since there was no food on the airplane!
Jean Block
www.jblockinc.com
Last week, I endured another unpleasant airline trip and it got me thinking. I was on my way from Albuquerque to Boston to teach workshops the next day.
The day began at 3 AM with a recorded call from American Airlines alerting me that my scheduled flight was delayed so I couldn't make my connection. Nothing more.
I called AA a couple of hours later and after a 30 minute hold to reach a human, more holds while someone wearily tried to solve my problem, I was booked on United flights instead.
In Houston, we boarded the plane to Boston...and sat at the gate, seat belts fastened, in a steaming hot plane for 3 hours...with little to no communication from flight attendants or flight deck. Passengers were restless, calling UA directly or checking via the Internet to gain information about why were were delayed, when we would leave, when we would arrive in Boston, etc.
The result? 200+ people left to wonder about their fate that day. Canceling plans. Delaying pick ups. Stressing out. And, ultimately, swearing they would never fly on United again!
Of course, this time of year, one expects weather delays in airports, so it was no surprise.
But the way both these airlines handled inevitable delays is a perfect example of why people get angry when they are left out of the loop, left to wonder, made to feel undervalued.
It got me to thinking about how often we probably do the same thing in our organizations. We either simply assume that everyone knows what is going on, or we appear to be too busy to stop and talk, or we let our own problems overshadow the work of others...
And all it takes is communication. Talk to employees. Talk to the board of directors. Talk to donors. Talk to those we serve. Empathize and understand.
If the 200+ people in the hot airplane were a part of the conversation, were kept in the loop about things that affected them directly, were offered water (for Pete's sake), were given a word of understanding for how inconvenienced they were, the end result would have been a positive feeling about the airline.
Food for thought...since there was no food on the airplane!
Jean Block
www.jblockinc.com
Monday, June 17, 2013
Ethical? Or Not So Much? What Do You Think?
Here is the scenario:
1. Agency provides advocacy, services and referrals for a special population.
2. Board president is a professional services provider.
3. Board president has been in her position as board leader for 10 years (no term limits).
4. Board president makes a generous annual contribution to the agency.
5. Board president's company has enjoyed high volume of referrals from the agency.
6. Board president does not disclose any conflicts of interest.
7. Board president has begun to pressure the agency to direct all referrals to her company.
8. Agency's mission is to provide individualized case management and referrals that are client-centered.
What do you think about this scenario? Is there a conflict of interest? Is the board leader operating in the best interests of the agency and its clients?
Looks to me as though there is a clear conflict of interest and that the board leader should disclose that she is not 'independent' as defined in the current IRS Form 990. And I would be concerned that she is really over the line in pressuring the agency's staff to refer to her company exclusively.
Then there is the issue of a lack of term limits for board members and officers.
And I wonder what other service providers and the agency's funders and grantors would think about this practice of referring to the board leader's company exclusively.
And It looks to me as though the board leader and the board have completely forgotten the mission of the agency they govern.
If you were the concerned chief executive staff person, what are your options? What would you advise him to do in this scenario?
How could this scenario be prevented or remedied?
I have seen this type of scenario more than once in organizations I have advised over the years so
I've outlined a way to more clearly define board and staff roles in my newest nonprofit resource book, "The Invisible Yellow Line: Clarifying Board and Staff Roles" available from CharityChannel Press Bookstore at www.charitychannelpress.com/bookstore/productid/158/catreferrer/2236 or from Amazon.com.
Jean Block
Here is the scenario:
1. Agency provides advocacy, services and referrals for a special population.
2. Board president is a professional services provider.
3. Board president has been in her position as board leader for 10 years (no term limits).
4. Board president makes a generous annual contribution to the agency.
5. Board president's company has enjoyed high volume of referrals from the agency.
6. Board president does not disclose any conflicts of interest.
7. Board president has begun to pressure the agency to direct all referrals to her company.
8. Agency's mission is to provide individualized case management and referrals that are client-centered.
What do you think about this scenario? Is there a conflict of interest? Is the board leader operating in the best interests of the agency and its clients?
Looks to me as though there is a clear conflict of interest and that the board leader should disclose that she is not 'independent' as defined in the current IRS Form 990. And I would be concerned that she is really over the line in pressuring the agency's staff to refer to her company exclusively.
Then there is the issue of a lack of term limits for board members and officers.
And I wonder what other service providers and the agency's funders and grantors would think about this practice of referring to the board leader's company exclusively.
And It looks to me as though the board leader and the board have completely forgotten the mission of the agency they govern.
If you were the concerned chief executive staff person, what are your options? What would you advise him to do in this scenario?
How could this scenario be prevented or remedied?
I have seen this type of scenario more than once in organizations I have advised over the years so
I've outlined a way to more clearly define board and staff roles in my newest nonprofit resource book, "The Invisible Yellow Line: Clarifying Board and Staff Roles" available from CharityChannel Press Bookstore at www.charitychannelpress.com/bookstore/productid/158/catreferrer/2236 or from Amazon.com.
Jean Block
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Why Doesn't the Board (complete the sentence)?
I was asked last week during a webinar about board and staff roles, for tips on how to make the board more engaged at board meetings. The question came from an executive director who said her board is passive and just lets her do all the talking.
My immediate answer was "Stop talking."
I think it might be just that simple. Far too often chief executives in nonprofits are their own worst enemies. They fall into the trap of thinking that they must constantly prove their worth to the board of directors by taking the lead at board meetings, monopolizing the conversations.
I think what this leads to very often is a shift from the board's initiative to the staff's initiative. And the result can be a passive board that doesn't have to think for itself or take its governance responsibilities seriously.
So, stop talking.
Allow the board leader to lead the board. Even if this technique results in some uncomfortable moments of silence, let it happen. To get the conversation started, ask the board members what they think and then wait for them to answer.
Would this work for your board?
Share the most pressing needs for your board's enhanced performance.
This discussion and more great tips for board/staff relations: "The Invisible Yellow Line: Clarifying Board and Staff Roles. www.charitychannel.com/bookstore/productid/158/catreferrer/2236
Jean Block
www.jblockinc.com
jean@jblockinc.com
I was asked last week during a webinar about board and staff roles, for tips on how to make the board more engaged at board meetings. The question came from an executive director who said her board is passive and just lets her do all the talking.
My immediate answer was "Stop talking."
I think it might be just that simple. Far too often chief executives in nonprofits are their own worst enemies. They fall into the trap of thinking that they must constantly prove their worth to the board of directors by taking the lead at board meetings, monopolizing the conversations.
I think what this leads to very often is a shift from the board's initiative to the staff's initiative. And the result can be a passive board that doesn't have to think for itself or take its governance responsibilities seriously.
So, stop talking.
Allow the board leader to lead the board. Even if this technique results in some uncomfortable moments of silence, let it happen. To get the conversation started, ask the board members what they think and then wait for them to answer.
Would this work for your board?
Share the most pressing needs for your board's enhanced performance.
This discussion and more great tips for board/staff relations: "The Invisible Yellow Line: Clarifying Board and Staff Roles. www.charitychannel.com/bookstore/productid/158/catreferrer/2236
Jean Block
www.jblockinc.com
jean@jblockinc.com
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The You:Me Ratio
I've been on both sides of the fundraising table, as both the Asker and the Giver, so I've learned a few things about asking effectively to get what you want from the Giver.
Here is the absolutely most important element in asking: The You:Me Ratio.
It's pretty simple, really. Givers give if you've fulfilled their giving needs. If you're only focused on what you need, it's not likely to get the Giver's attention and motive them to give much, if anything. Sure, you can guilt a Giver into giving something once, but you want to build lasting relationships with Givers, I think.
Here is how the You:Me ratio works. In this formula, You is the Giver and Me is the Asker. Got it?
Now take a look at a recent appeal letter or sponsorship request your organization has developed. Get a red pen and a green pen. Every time you see your organization's name, or words "we" or "us" or "our", circle it in red. Every time you see the potential Giver's name, or the words "you" or "your", circle it in green.
If you've focused on what's in it for the Giver to give, you'll have more green circles. But if you've focused on what you, the Asker, wants, you'll see more red circles.
Your appeal, or ask, is more likely to result in a higher return when you focus on the Giver, not on the Asker.
Try it. What do you think?
More practical fundraising ideas in "FUNdraising! 180+ Great Ideas to Raise More Money". Go to www.createspace.com/4087379.
Jean Block
wwwjblockinc.com
I've been on both sides of the fundraising table, as both the Asker and the Giver, so I've learned a few things about asking effectively to get what you want from the Giver.
Here is the absolutely most important element in asking: The You:Me Ratio.
It's pretty simple, really. Givers give if you've fulfilled their giving needs. If you're only focused on what you need, it's not likely to get the Giver's attention and motive them to give much, if anything. Sure, you can guilt a Giver into giving something once, but you want to build lasting relationships with Givers, I think.
Here is how the You:Me ratio works. In this formula, You is the Giver and Me is the Asker. Got it?
Now take a look at a recent appeal letter or sponsorship request your organization has developed. Get a red pen and a green pen. Every time you see your organization's name, or words "we" or "us" or "our", circle it in red. Every time you see the potential Giver's name, or the words "you" or "your", circle it in green.
If you've focused on what's in it for the Giver to give, you'll have more green circles. But if you've focused on what you, the Asker, wants, you'll see more red circles.
Your appeal, or ask, is more likely to result in a higher return when you focus on the Giver, not on the Asker.
Try it. What do you think?
More practical fundraising ideas in "FUNdraising! 180+ Great Ideas to Raise More Money". Go to www.createspace.com/4087379.
Jean Block
wwwjblockinc.com
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Why Doesn't Everyone Do It?
Why wouldn’t a nonprofit organization jump at the
opportunity to earn unrestricted revenue? What’s keeping them in the old mode
of ‘charity-think’?
I am thinking that much of what stands in the way of
progressive thinking in the majority of nonprofits is habit. Habit that is
reinforced by thinking such as:
· “The next fundraiser will be big and will bail us out.”
· “We’ll write more grant applications. One of them is sure to hit.”
· “If only the board would fundraise, that would help.”
· “We have no choice. We’ll just have to cut staff and do more with less.”
· “We can’t earn money. We’ll lose our nonprofit status.”
So what’s getting in the way? Fear of change? Fear of
failure? Misunderstanding about how to earn money? Lack of planning?
I’m curious to know
the reasons why more nonprofits don’t jump into the water, even just the
shallow end of the ocean of earned revenue opportunities that exist.
Your thoughts? Have you tried it? Were you successful? If
you failed, what were the causes of failure?
Jean Block Consulting, Inc. and Social Enterprise Ventures,
LLC
www.jblockinc.com and
www.socialenterpriseventures.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)