Nonprofit University Blog

Even in death, my father is still guiding, teaching and showing me the way things should be done.

This past weekend was my father’s memorial.  Though we did not officially invite anyone to speak at his memorial, my sister, brother and I knew well in advance that several wanted to share their remembrances.  The evening of the memorial, we asked any one else who wished to say something, to please feel free to do so.  And the floodgates opened.

My son, who was to be the last speaker, made many a false start up to the podium, only to have to stop as yet one more person stepped to the front to share memories.  And to a person, they all told the same story, with different specifics.  They spoke of how my father had mentored them, though if my father had been asked whom he mentored, he would, in his self-effacing manner have said, “No one.”

They told of how he would pass their desks as he was heading out to a breakfast or lunch and ask if they knew so and so, and when a negative answer came back, he would say, “You should know him.  Come along.”  They shared stories of how my father feigned being too busy to attend a meeting, and would they please go in his behalf, quickly learning that this was my father’s ruse to allow younger employees more exposure and responsibility. They shared memories of the opportunities he had given them, the faith he showed in them and the loyalty he bestowed, the doors he had opened, and the lessons he taught on their craft and, most importantly, the ethics of their profession, all the while lamenting the fact that the profession had strayed far from his ethical standards and expectations of the profession.  They all spoke of how my father had changed their lives and given them the wonderful and interesting lives they have had since having the good fortune to work with or for my father.  And they all spoke of what a dear friend he had been and the hole that now resided in their hearts.

I have known for a long time my father’s mark on his profession, and even on the lives of some of the people who spoke that night.  (The scope of his mark, however, I had way underestimated.)  And even though he would never admit it, I have known for a long time that many, a young person coming into his presence immediately gravitated to him as their mentor and were never disappointed.  But what I never realized until that evening was how well my father understood mentoring.  As with everything else that he did in life, from student to professional, husband to friend, father to grandfather, he aced it!

My father was never “taught” to be a mentor; he just did it.  He intuitively understood that the future of his profession rested on getting the right people into it, cultivating and nurturing them, sharing the ropes with them, setting the standards for them and then letting them fly—with his organization or another.  My father was never asked to mentor; once again, he intuitively understood that, as a leader in his organization and his profession, this was his responsibility.  Not a responsibility for which he was paid, but a responsibility that was his duty.

Sadly, too many in leadership positions within the nonprofit sector (and I am told the same is true in the for-profit sector) do not mentor.  Today, mentoring those who are coming up behind us seems to have become a lost art.  Why?

I’ve several theories, but no proof on any, hence why they remain theories.  First, it is not behavior that tends to get extrinsically rewarded.  I’ve reviewed criteria for a lot of performance evaluations, but I’ve yet to see one that evaluates how well the person mentored.  Supervised? Yes.  Even how well the person coached, from time to time.  But mentored?  Still searching.  Second, people complain that it takes time and they are just too, too busy.  Really?  Letting someone else represent you at a meeting takes time?  Introducing people around takes time?  Ensuring adherence to the standards of the profession?  Okay, that takes time.  But it takes even more time in the long run dealing with the problems caused by employees who cut corners or violated the professional code of ethics.  Third, people think they don’t know how to mentor.  How did this happen?  As more and more programs developed to “teach” people to become mentors, we turned a powerful art into a pseudo science.  Fourth, and, most sadly of all, leaders today do not think it is their responsibility.

Nonprofit leaders, hear me now:  it is your responsibility.  If ever there was a time when we needed to cultivate, nurture, cherish, and encourage the young people in the sector, now is it.  And I do NOT want to hear, “Oh, but if I mentor her, she might leave and go work somewhere else.”  Of course she might, and more power to her—and the sector!  Mentoring is not something we do for our organization; it is something we do for the sector—to ensure that there will always be bright, smart, and dedicated employees wanting to continue the good works of their mentors and the sector.

As a teacher, I am often told by students, years after graduation, that I was their mentor.  Upon reflection, I don’t think so; I was their teacher and their advisor.  And while teaching and advising are both part of mentoring, it is by no means all of mentoring.  As an executive director, I was recently told by someone that I was her mentor.  I was puzzled and surprised and wondered what I had done to be perceived as her mentor.  Saturday evening, listening to all the mentees of my father recount how he had mentored them, I knew that I was, indeed, her mentor.  After all, my dad mentored me.

I do not believe in coincidence; I do, however, believe that when multiple, yet disparate, sources point out the same thing, it is important to pay attention.  So, when days after hearing a story on NPR about ROWE–results-only work environment–my reading of Daniel Pink’s book, Drive, brought me to his discussion of ROWE, I knew I needed to pay attention.

According to Pink, ROWE was the invention of Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, two human resources professionals.  In a ROWE, employees simply have to get the work for which they are responsible done in accordance with the standards and time frame of their employer; where, when and how they do it is entirely up to them.  You don’t want to come into the office on Tuesday because you want to see your child’s play or spend the day with friends or go golfing or to the spa, great!  You need to go to the doctor or dentist or take your car into the shop, there is no need to count your sick or personal days.  Do it.  And then, just be sure that you do the work for which you are responsible.  No one is watching over you, seeing if you are at your desk on time, doing your eight hours, monitoring your conversations.

To me, a ROWE is a workplace culture that recognizes that most people are professionals and do their work because they recognize and accept that it is their responsibility, and they may even want to do the work; and, of course, they recognize that, in the end, doing the work justifies getting the pay check.  But they are not doing the work simply because they are monitored and scrutinized, supervised and time checked.  Rather, they are doing the work because, for a variety of reasons, they want to.

Imagine how people feel when they are treated as adults instead of children?  Why must we replicate the structures of primary school in a professional workplace—getting approval to leave early to go to the doctor or take vacation only when our supervisor says it is okay?  How empowering is that?  But if our workplace allows us, as adults–as a ROWE does–to balance our work life with our personal life, won’t we become happier, perhaps even more loyal, employees?  In Pink’s example of a workplace that first tested ROWE as an experiment and then permanently adopted it, the CEO noted that with the ROWE, productivity rose and stress declined.  Further, he believes that as long as the compensation he was offering was within the ballpark of his competitors, employees would not jump ship from the ROWE for simply more money.  What more could you ask for?  Interestingly, though, two employees left the company because they could not adjust to the freedom the ROWE provided.

This CEO believes that as more folks of his age (read young) become heads of organizations, ROWEs will be become more prevalent.  But what does age have to do with respecting your employees, providing them with the opportunity to balance the demands of their work and their personal lives, treating them as professionals instead of children who need to be monitored?  Why do we need to wait for baby boomers to be replaced by generation x or yx or whatever?

Granted, perhaps not all businesses will lend themselves to implementing a pure ROWE.  Nor might all positions in an organization.  But what about hybrids?  Everyone gets a day a week where their jobs have to get done regardless of whether or when they show up at the office. Or all caseworkers have to be in the office four hours every day between the traditional hours of operation, but where, when and how they get the rest of their responsibilities done is up to them.  The development and membership staff, on the other hand, can have a ROWE.  After all, not all employees have the same jobs, so why should all employees have the same conditions of work?

I hear all of the gasps and accusations of “not fair!” and “It won’t work!”  But neither will more years of no or minimal raises.  As leaders of nonprofits, we must be creative in how we support and thank our employees.  If not a ROWE, then come up with something else.  But come up with something.

No matter how cynical you get, you can never keep up.”
-Lily Tomlin

The chant is getting louder:  “Tax the nonprofits!  Tax the nonprofits.  It’s the answer to all our problems.  They get away with everything.”

Every day I’m reading of another jurisdiction looking to tax nonprofits–all or some–from Honolulu seeking to rescind the property tax exemption of nonprofits to Pittsburgh wanting to not only rescind the property tax but put a tax on tuition paid to its numerous colleges and universities; from Kansas seeking to add a sales tax to the items nonprofits purchase, to some of its local jurisdictions wanting to rescind the property tax exemption for all nonprofits, to Georgia that is considering just rescinding the property tax exemption just for hospitals, while Rhode Island’s legislature is considering rescinding the 7% sales tax exemption for its 6,600 nonprofits.  The Boston Globe recently reported  that a task force is readying recommendations that would eventually seek up to the equivalent of 25 percent in contributions from tax-exempt entities in that city.

And the list goes on and on.

Why?  Because state and local governments’ coffers are, like everyone else’s, running low.   So, where to turn to reverse the coffers’ drain?  Let’s go for the deep pockets!  Let’s go for the nonprofits!  Whose brilliant idea is this?

The reality is that they have picked wisely for they have picked the weakest link in the chain.  Try suggesting an increase in residential property taxes and immediately the hue and cry is raised.  Neighborhood associations take up the attack; politicians from the opposite side of the aisle of the mayor’s/governor’s party start hurling barbs; political advisors start predicting defeat for the party in the next election.  The local association of realtors may even get involved.

Or, try as Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter recently did, and propose that one way to make up some of the shortfall in the City’s budget would be to tax soda sales.  There was an immediate outcry from the heavy, deep pocket soda manufacturers and the unions of employees involved in the production and delivering of soda.  And of course, the voice of shops that sell soda and restaurants that serve soda chimed in as well.

When the suggestion is made that the property tax on for-profit businesses gets increased, you know what happens.  The associations of every kind of property-owning businesses descend on the politicians, as do those responsible for wooing future businesses to the area.  After all, we don’t want to frighten off the businesses.

And of course, the local politicians will all chime in on whichever cause(s) is most represented in his/her district.

So who rushes to the aid of the nonprofits when they are threatened with taxes that most simply cannot afford?  With the exception of the large hospitals and universities, and the small minority of equally large nonprofits that more resemble for-profit businesses than a nonprofit, most nonprofits don’t see—or have–the available time, personnel or money to go argue their cause.  Thus, they are an easy target; few fight back.

Unfortunately, because too many in society do not understand what nonprofits do, don’t see them operating around them, don’t know how they are influencing their daily lives, nonprofits become an easy target for cynicism.  To too many, we are scoundrels and beggars who hide behind the nonprofit shield and “get away with too much.”  There is less recognition of the good that nonprofits do, of the help they quietly provide to communities day in and day out, of the enrichment they add to our lives, the succor given to those with no where else to go, of the problems they redress, etc.  And there is little recognition of the millions employed by nonprofits who work for far less than they could earn in the for-profit world because they want to provide such services, because they want to ensure that our communities are vibrant and healthy.

But, hey, let’s go ahead and make it even harder for the good guys.

It is time for the sector to get rid of the “gratitude factor” and remember why we are in the game to begin with. It is the gratitude factor that makes us keep long-time non-performing and under-performing board members on our board long past any “normal” person’s tolerance.  It is the gratitude factor that allows non-performing, under-performing and non-team players to stay on staff long past even the longest of times lines for improving performance.  And it is time for this to stop.

It goes along with what I’ve said before:  we are the “nice” sector.  We are so concerned with being nice to staff and board members, being understanding and caring, that we forget to what our first and foremost allegiance must be:  our mission.  The only thing which we must bend over backwards to nurture is that mission.  But when the gratitude factor controls an organization, it is being nice to neither its mission nor the vast majority of its staff and board to whom we really should be grateful for they truly work for and push forward the mission.

Don’t get me wrong:  I believe very, very strongly in the fact that an organization’s personnel policies must be as respectful, kind and supportive of its staff as the organization is to its clients.  We should want to do all that we can to keep those who do their jobs well as we want to keep those who are good clients.  But we have limits to how far we bend for our clients and passing those limits means consequences.  Don’t play by the rules, clients are gone:  for example, don’t pay your dues into the membership association, you aren’t a client any more; don’t show up to your job training site for the fourth time, you aren’t a client any more.  A client who violates conduct expectations—punctuality, being a team member when called for, disrespects property, etc.—will experience repercussions.

Yet, I regularly hear stories, complaints, laments about employees who have worked at nonprofits for years, sometimes decades, who do not perform their jobs, either because they don’t want to or are incapable of doing so, who are less than polite to colleagues, who ignore protocol, who overstep boundaries, who terrorize offices, who fail to comply with corrective action plans, and the list goes on.  These are not your once in a while stories; I have heard four such stories this week alone—and it has been a slow week in terms of stories!  And the stories cut across the organizational chart, from the receptionist to the executive director to a board member(s).

Why?  Why do we allow this?  Because we are grateful.  Grateful that someone is willing to hold the title (can’t say do the job) for the salary being paid and the conditions under which s/he works.  Grateful that someone is willing to fill the board seat so that the minimum in the bylaws can be met and the “difficult” (a myth that it is difficult) task of replacing that board member won’t have to be done. So, the gratitude factor allows us to be an inefficient, ineffective and wasteful organization—all because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, don’t want to play the heavy, don’t want to do the work and expend the energy that replacing that “problem” would cause.

The reality, however, is that so much more work, time and energy is already being wasted managing this problem, the tensions and, worse, this person causes, the anger and other emotions of the true workers, the negative impact on organizational morale, and this list, too, goes on.  All of this means a loss of resources that should be going to further the mission—the real reason why everyone is there.

It is time—and I do mean immediately—to fire these people.  Let them go from the board; let them go from the payroll.  They are poisoning the organization in ways seen and not seen and depleting the resources for mission service.  It is time to stop being grateful for mediocre or less than mediocre service to the mission; it is time to stop being nice to the wrong people.

Go fire and hire.