Nonprofit University Blog

 

Before leaving on vacation, I foolishly allowed myself to agree to working with a client on my first evening back.  But the client was most solicitous and understanding, and upon arrival asked about my vacation, even wanting to see pictures.  She asked an interesting question:  what insights did you gain?

 

At the time I laughed, as I rarely thought of work, but the question kept gnawing at me.  My answer began to take shape over the course of the evening—and especially the night, as I woke up at 4:00 am, still on vacation time.  The answer solidified the next morning when I heard a teaser for a story coming up on the radio asking the question of whether you were addicted to e-mail.

 

There was something about which I commented repeatedly, with awe and sadness, throughout our wanderings in Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, and France:  life moves at a slower pace and the world does not stop!  Since it had been quite some time since I lived in France, I’d forgotten that the world takes a breather for two hours mid-day.  You cannot run an errand on your lunch hour as the stores are all closed; you cannot return phone calls, as you won’t find anyone at the other end; you must eat lunch, you must exhale.  Nor can you use Sunday in Switzerland to pick up the dry cleaning, go to the hardware store, buy clothes, etc; as nothing is open.  Stores in Austria and Hungary—not the tourist traps, but the stores the real folks use—close at six or seven p.m. 

 

Looking around the cafes of these countries, regardless of the time of day, the vast majority of tables are occupied by people at leisure—not folks holding meetings, not hooked up to their laptops, etc.   And rarely are you subjected to the horror of having to hear other people’s phone conversations or being run down by someone too busy texting to watch where s/he is walking, as cell phones do not dominate as they do here.  (In fact, the biggest abuser in this arena was one of my traveling companions who is, as I learned this morning, addicted to her e-mail!  I, on the other hand, did not check my e-mail once!)

 

So the insight? Well, really the reminder:  we make our lives so much more intense than they need to be, and for what?  And those in the nonprofit sector have taken this practice to a whole other level!  Are you one of those executive directors who hasn’t taken a real vacation in several years? Or not taken off for more than a day—or, being “daring” two days in a row?  And you wear this as a badge of honor, when, in fact, it is really the hair shirt you have elected to put on?    You are not working effectively and efficiently, or hiring well or structuring the organization appropriately for the work at hand, etc.  It does not mean that you are irreplaceable or super important or better than everyone else.  Boards of Directors that allow this practice to occur are no better than the executive director herself.  They are not leading well-structured, well-run and equipped organizations that are doing a good job at fulfilling the mission.  They are merely perpetuating a false impression.

 

Why is that we equate those who work at a frenzied pace as those who are important people “making the world better?” Why do we think the more overwhelmed someone feels the more vital her/his work?  Why do we see the inability to say “I need time for me, away from work, away from pressure” as an indication of importance rather than a sign of weakness?

 

 

 

 

 

What a brilliant idea!  Robert Goodwin, co-founder of Executives Without Borders, has suggested that every corporation adopt a nonprofit, providing IT, marketing and logistical support, as well additional business expertise that could help nonprofits do better at delivering their mission.  He sees this as a win-win situation, noting that:

“Companies that integrate altruistic activities into their core business model will have the competitive advantage that comes with delivering a social profit: They will retain employees, recruit top talent, and build better community relations and a stronger brand. When those responsible companies succeed, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility will become just good business.”

Mr. Goodwin is absolutely right:  this has all the potential of a win-win situation.   But, I confess that the hairs on the back of my neck get hyperactive any time I hear suggestions that smack of for-profits riding in on a white horse to save the poor, backward, inefficient, clueless nonprofit.  Saving is not what most nonprofits need from the business community, as that far too often comes with condescension and a holier-than-thou, we-know-it-all attitude.  And if there are people out there who hadn’t already realized that the for-profit world does not walk on water, does not know all the answers—or even all the questions to be asking–the current economic situation should have made this perfectly clear.

What nonprofits could use from for-profits is access to their back-office supports, as Goodwin suggests, from technology to marketing to space, as for-profits generally invest a lot more (actually, most nonprofits would probably describe that investment as excessive) in these areas, whereas nonprofits under invest.  In return, for-profits might learn how to achieve their same ends with a little less excess, thereby trimming their bottom line and increasing their profit.  Nonprofits could also benefit from having discussions with colleagues who have a different—though not necessarily better–perspective and approach to getting things done.  These discussions, to be of value, must be conversations amongst equals, with all coming to the table open to listening to and learning from the other and bringing willingness to working together.  In return, for-profits will come to understand that nonprofits are businesses, too, driven by mission rather than profit, and may have ways of doing business that can be of benefit to them.  (Actually, I see this light go on quite frequently in the nonprofit management class I teach in La Salle’s MBA program, as up and coming and established executives realize that the way their corporation has been operating may not be producing the best work environment, rewarding employees in a way to maximize commitment, communicating with their markets as effectively as they should, etc.)

So, let me take Mr. Goodwin’s brilliant idea and spin it a little.  Really what we need isn’t for-profits adopting nonprofits, but for-profits and nonprofits engaging in symbiotic relationships that allow each partner in the relationship to benefit from the strengths of the other in order to achieve the best for both.  If and when this happens, we have more than mere altruistic activities leading to a competitive edge for companies; we have whole communities that have enhanced the quality of life for all of their members.

 

First a warning:  Laura Otten is not responsible for the contents of this week’s guest blog.

 

She is on vacation and since her blog is read in more than 20 countries, I just might be hearing from her as to how I handled this sacred trust.

 

Since  Laura encourages her staff to speak their minds, I’m taking this rare opportunity to use this space to give a rant 25 years in the making.

 

10 Things I Hate About Nonprofit Boards.

1.      Board members who say they can’t fundraise because then their friends will expect donations to their causes in return

2.     Board members who don’t appreciate the huge difference between having the authority to make a decision, but not taking the responsibility for it

3.     Board members who view community service as an interesting addition to their resumes

4.     Board members who join to establish relationships with other  board members’ whose business they are trying to cultivate

5.     Board members who invite friends or family members onto a board

6.     Board members who are organization founders who don’t know when it’s time to pass the torch

7.     Board members who think they have a right to attend a fundraising event for free (and bring others) when their attendance costs the organization money

8.     Board members who submit travel vouchers for coming to board meetings or organization events

9.     Board members who decide there should be an organization golf tournament  because they like golf

10.   Board members who refuse to support the golf tournament because they don’t like golf

11.    What do you mean I can only have 10????

Now,  10 Things I Love About Nonprofit Boards:

1.      Board members who give of both their time and their means to support a mission they believe in

2.     Board members who endorse term limits but are still willing to share their expertise and their philanthropy after they rotate off

3.     Board members who share their rol-o-dexes in pursuit of potential donors

4.     Board members who will make personal solicitations and/or sign fundraising appeals

5.     Board members who prepare themselves for leadership roles and aren’t selected just because they’ve been around the longest

6.     Board members who don’t think securing a gift from their company is the same as making a personal donation

7.     Board members who read the materials prior to attending the board meeting

8.     Board members who recognize that they are their organizations’ key ambassadors and are prepared to give their “elevator speech” any place, any time

9.     Board members who respect staff and recognize that staff and board have different responsibilities and roles

10.   Board members who bring the same high standards of professionalism and pursuit of knowledge to their board service that they do to their careers.

 

I have at least one real world example for each of the 20 points I noted above.  Email if you’re curious:  ulmer@lasalle.edu/

How does your Board of Directors compare?
Joan Mintz Ulmer

 

 

It wasn’t quite the best of boards nor the worst of them, either.  But it was a lesson in contrasts.  In the space of an hour, I got to shore up a newly minted board president struggling with a board that hadn’t yet listened to reason and also field the questions of a board that, once a table of bobble-heads, had morphed into a take charge board.  God, I love my job! Chapter I:  

• a thoughtful, conscientious, six-day-new board president
• the lone member of a search committee who knew that neither of the  two finalists for the executive director job were the right choice
• but, not yet board president, he didn’t want to throw his weight around
• when he was unable to convince the group that neither of the top two candidates were the right ones and that they should re-open the search, he gave in to the group think process
• only there was no group think, only group nodding, taking the easy way out Now, he is stuck needing to get the backing of a passive executive committee, and equally passive board, to do the only thing the organization can and should do:  fire the executive director.  Alas, one strong board member does not a good board make. 

Chapter II: Fast forward 40 minutes and I’m in a meeting with a board that recently released its long-serving executive director.   Gifted at keeping the board at bay by allowing it to believe that doing its job simply meant nodding yes to all he said, the board had finally come to realize that he was, in essence, doing a shell game with this hefty six figure salary (totally disproportionate to the financial health of the organization) and more.  The board: 

• took the easy road and, without thought, simply  appointed a current staff member as the interim director
• began peeling the onion, strengthening their neck muscles and getting more unhappy by the minute
• the board called The Nonprofit Center to bring in an interim executive director from outside the organization
• the board admitted its complicity in allowing the executive director to do what he had done
• they asked tough questions about how the interim executive director would master tasks, communicate with the board, how they should work with her
• the board asked for our help in learning its responsibilities and how to execute them Now the board is left with the challenge it enthusiastically embraced of learning how to be a partner to an executive director rather than either its sap or its dictator. 

Want to guess on which board I’m putting my money?  The next chapter will tell.   

 

Last  week I got a call from a reporter from another part of the country asking for help.  The reporter, whose normal beat is science and medicine, was stuck looking at a 990.  And while she had gotten a lot of good information from the form, she wanted me to look at to see what I thought, see if she was on the right track, etc.  One of the first things that easily caught my attention was the list of board members.  It was easy as there were only four–and two were related (husband and wife, it was easy to discern).  The other two, the reporter informed me, were “disciples” of the husband.

 

Yesterday, a mystery colleague sent me a link about a study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy that reveals an interesting finding from the Bernie Madoff debacle (Learning from Madoff: Lessons for Foundation Boards, June 2009.

According to this study, 71% of the foundations that invested with Madoff lost 30 to 100 percent of their assets.  As sad as that is, the interesting finding is this:  the median (that means the mid-point, so that half of the entities in the group are below the median, and half are above) size of the board was three, with a range of 0 to 7, and only 15 percent of the 105 foundations had boards of five or more!  So, saying this another way, 85 percent of the foundations that lost 30 to 100 percent of their assets because they chose to invest with Madoff had boards comprised of four—or fewer—individuals.  (According to a 2006 report from the Council on Foundations, the median size of the board of its members was 11.) 

 

Hmm?  Is there something here:  small boards lead to questionable behavior on the part of boards and organizations?  It certainly seems that way, and why a long-standing, best practice recommendation for board size generally falls in the 12 to 16 range.   But there is more than small board size that ties my two events together:  size and relationships.  While the study report observes that of the 16 foundations with five or more board members there is remarkable “homogeneity” in the board members—which they explain to mean same last names.  Just looking at the first 50 foundations on their list of 105, all but four had at least two board members who shared a common last name.  And often times it was more than two.  Like my reporter’s organization, there are relationships—spouses, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles—on these boards, relationships that may preclude the ability to really challenge the suggestions and ideas of a fellow board member.  Relationships that may cause best judgment to defer to preservation of good family relations. 

 

One of the many lessons that nonprofit boards should learn from the Madoff disaster is that board size and composition do matter.  And it is not an either or.  There must be both the right number of people sitting around a board table with the right array of talent, skills, resources, connections, and personality dynamic to protect the best interests of the mission—and family relations and friendships be damned.