Nonprofit Management

Fundraising researcher Adrian Sargeant tells us that the key drivers of donor loyalty are: satisfaction, trust, commitment, and engagement.

So how about trust?

Check out Seth Godin‘s June 23, 2012 blog: “Where does trust come from?” Not from the good times and the easy projects, says Seth. “We trust people because they showed up when it wasn’t convenient, because they todl the truth when it was easier to lie, and because they kept a promise when they could have gotten away with breaking it.”

Check out Charles Green’s Trust Matters Blog. One trusts and the other is trusted. To be trusted, one must be trustworthy. Trust includes 4 elements: Credibility (the words we speak). Reliability (how we act). Intimacy (safety or security a person feels when entrusting someone with something). Self-orientation (are you focused on me or on you?) And Green proposes an equation to measure your trust quotient. Check it out.

1. “How to succeed,” Seth Godin‘s June 11, 2012 blog. 39 different items – not all necessary; some conflicting; some amusing; some surprising; some pretty obvious but do we do them?

2. “Seven marketing sins,” Seth Godin‘s June 13, 2012 blog. Use these to evaluate your organization.

Larry Sommers, the economist guy, was talking about when the inconceivable becomes inevitable. Sommers was speaking on NPR about the eurozone and the troubled economies of the European Union.

But you and I can talk about this and our nonprofits. What makes the inconceivable become inevitable? How might we foresee the roots of inevitability within the inconceivable? What is the progression? How can we manage it or avoid it?

I might write one of my NPQ columns about the inconceivable and the inevitable.I certainly will add this angle to my strategic planning consulting.

P.S. Have you ever seen the delightful movie The Princess Bride? Good for adults and kids. And one of the characters just keeps saying “inconceivable” about stuff. Only it turns out…

Read Colin Powell’s great article in Newsweek, May 21, 2012. Powell talks about good information – distinguishing facts from opinion and speculation; verifying the verified; and more. Of course, Powell is talking about Iraq and the Bush government and the bad decisions – and his own embarrassment at the U.N.

But his thoughts are useful to you and me as we plan our fundraising activities, design our institution’s strategic plan, make important decisions at board meetings.

Powell developed 4 rules for his intelligence staff. I think we can use these 4 intelligent rules for our own work: (1) Tell me what you know. (2) Tell me what you don’t know. (3) Then tell me what you think. (4) Always distinguish which is which. Here is how Powell explains these 4 rules:

“What you know means you are reasonably sure that your facts are corroborated.” In general, you know where the information came from and multiple sources say the same thing. While you cannot be fully assured always, you’re pretty darn sure your analysis is correct. “In every case,” Powell says, “tell me why you are sure and your level of assurance.”

“What you don’t know is just as important. There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information.” Be honest and forthright. Be overly cautious to explain what you don’t know. Qualify!

“Tell me what you think…. verified facts are the golden nuggets of decision making…[but] unverified information, hunches, and even wild beliefs may sometimes prove to be just as important.” Yes, our own wisdom – yours and mine – our own expertise does allows us to make judgments. But…

“Always distinguish which is which,” says Powell. He wants – indeed any competent leader wants – lots of input. Good decision making combines “corroborated facts, analysis, opinions, hunches, informed instinct. Then we can make good decisions.

So how well does your organization do this? How effectively do your leaders enable this to happen? How well do you perform?

Here’s another question for our organizations: How well do you understand the distinctions between real solid facts, facts that are not solid facts, and then personal opinion? The U.S. lives in a rather fact-free society, I think. And there’s science that proves that! Read “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” Chris Mooney, Mother Jones, May/June 2011.

Here’s a bit more from Colin Powell:

— “You can’t make good decisions unless you have good information and can separate facts from opinion and speculation. Facts are verified information, which is then presented as objective reality. The rub here is verified. How do you verify verified? Facts are slippery, and so is verification.”

— To paraphrase Powell: “Facts can change…especially when the verification changes.” My question is, how much do you trust your verifiers and their facts? How assured are you that your verifiers aren’t interpreting facts to suit their own bias, reflect their own politics (and all organizations have politics), pursue their own ends?

— Powell warns us to worry when those verifying the supposed facts use qualifying phrases like: “My best judgment…I think…As best I can tell…Usually reliable sources say…”

I think we have lots of work to do – in our organizations and in our country.

Read more »

I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again. You can dislike Picasso’s paintings. You have a right to that personal opinion. But you cannot disagree with art experts who tell us that Picasso is a seminal artist.

Just because you are a board member of some nonprofit does not give you the expertise or authority to use your personal opinion to stop good fundraising. The body of knowledge (based on research, experience, expertise, best practice) is what drives effective fund development.

There are facts. There is evidence. This face-free zone that has become the U.S. is an embarrassment and a danger.

Seth Godin has a great blog (April 9, 2012) talking about opinion. Here’s my suggestion to every competent professional, everyone with expertise: When confronted with a non-expert’s personal opinion, hand out a copy of Seth’s blog.

Bumper Hostetler, Vincennes University, read my handout, “Creating an effective fund development program.” She says that my writing is clear and concise and helpful. Thanks, Bumper, for the praise.

And Bumper adds one major point: “The single biggest failure always ends up being the creation of what I call a ‘Data Management system.” Bumper goes on to say: “Not just the list of names and information on people, but a functional daily system that all board members and staff understand and work with in order to effectively, efficiently, and systematically manage the information and thereby communicate with the donor base.”

And an additional important insight: “Board members and staff usually do not appreciate the critical nature of having a well-planned thought process for managing and using their information.”

Well said! How is the management information system in your organization? How much information do you have? What information do you lack? How will you get it? How will you use it well to nurture relationships with your donors and qualified prospects?

Read more »

There’s a BIG difference between conversation and asking clarifying questions.

Conversation is a core business practice. Conversation is a process – stimulated by strategic and cage-rattling questions – that demands listening and questioning assumptions and learning. And that conversational process produces quality decision-making and change.

Listening to a report and then asking questions about the report… that is NOT conversation. Conversation is open-ended. You don’t know where it’s going. You may be surprised. You don’t have all the answers.

You actually must intentionally design a conversation. Design the presentation of the information in a way that engages interest and stimulates strategic and cage-rattling questions. Propose questions to stimulate conversation. Facilitate the conversation well, ensuring many voices and diverse opinions and still more questions.

Are you looking for proven performance or promise? There’s a difference. And you have to decide which what matters in which qualification. Proven performance means the candidate actually did the stuff effectively – and produced results. The candidate can prove this to me through conversation. References can validate this reality.

Promise means the candidate’s proven performance seems transferrable to other skills and experience I want. Promise means the candidate will commit the time and resources to learn what still needs to be learned. (And the hiring organization will invest professional development in the candidate.)

Read more »

“Wished I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then…” Now that’s a powerful thought. Thanks to rocker Bob Seger in his song Against the Wind.

Back then I didn’t know that thing, that sad or awful or scary thing. Now I know it – but I wish I didn’t. Maybe it was easier not knowing it. Maybe it’s less painful not knowing it. Or maybe it isn’t important enough to know and now it’s cluttering my mind.

Or maybe knowing now means growing up. Opening my eyes. Facing the truth. Accepting reality. Knowing what I need to know to be a better person, a stronger person, a just person.

Here’s another thought from novelist Robert B. Parker, in his final novel, Painted Ladies: “The cumulative effect of moderate and often was pretty much the same as big, serious.”

Think about that statement, its implications. For example: Stuff accumulates and accumulates. And what once was no big deal becomes a really big deal. A moderately low donor retention rate happens rather frequently. What once was of some concern becomes a big, serious issue rather quickly.

Are you watching closely enough? Do you notice what’s happening? Do you fix moderate and often before it becomes big and serious?

You know how important a turning point is in history. Or any turning point for that matter. Or even Malcolm Gladwell’s tipping point. Pretty much the same thing: the moment when something changed. For example: The point at which your organization finally embraced a culture of giving. The point when your NGO embraced personal, face-to-face solicitation (not street fundraising!)

But what about the turning point when nothing changed? There was no turning. Is that happening in your NGO right now? Does it seem like your NGO is there…at the tipping point…at the turning point…but nothing happens?

How do you avoid that nothingness? How do you make turning points turn and tipping points tip? What does it take? Who needs to do what?

Perhaps what’s necessary is leadership and adaptive capacity. Commitment and risk taking. Accountability. Who is accountable in your NGO?