Nonprofit University Blog

This is the story of Goldilocks and the three executive directors, though there is no happy ending here.  After all, this isn’t a fairy tale but real life!

For the last three years, I’ve been facilitating what we call CLEAR Circles (Cultivating Leadership Excellence and Responsibility) for emerging leaders.  Emerging leaders are individuals who serve in management positions reporting directly to the organization’s executive director.  CLEAR Circles started almost eight years ago for us as groups of executive directors who meet once a month for nine months for two hours of peer-to-peer problem solving.  Three years ago, we created our first circle for emerging leaders; this year we have three such circles.

Over the years and over the emerging leaders, I’ve begun to hear a theme that distresses me no end:  most executive directors don’t know how to be executive directors.

This executive director is too manic! What, the first time I heard this description, exactly did that mean, I wondered?  This is the executive director whose mantra appears to be “let’s do this; let’s do that” without any regard for how “this” or “that” will be funded, staffed, sustained, etc., let alone whether it fits with the mission.  Some might think that manic (from mania, “excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm”) much too negative an appellation for what is really very creative—do I hear some people saying “visionary”—leader.  But I would have to disagree.

The executive director who assigns idea after idea of new programs to his direct reports without regard for the implications and ripple effects for the organization as a whole, is not a leader or manager of any sort.  I’ll admit that creativity, thinking of new ways to fulfill those mission promises, is a very exciting and rewarding part of being an executive director.  But doing so without regard to sustainable revenue streams for the program, staffing, mission fit, and what starting something new will mean for existing programs is irresponsible, inconsiderate and simply bad management and leadership.  Manic executive directors scare me; they are to me the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland and may as well be saying, “Off with their heads!”  The effect is the same for the staff members who are required to drop everything and respond to this day’s or month’s “brilliant idea” and the clients who suffer as a result.

This executive director is too passive.  Apparently, there are an awful lot of executive directors out there who cannot say “No,” “Enough,” “This has to stop,” “We have to let you go,” etc.   Yet, at the same time, they have no problem letting their direct reports be their “hatchet” person, the no-sayer (which is very different from being a nay-sayer), the deliver of “uncomfortable” news.  What is that about?  And apparently, there are an awful lot of executive directors out there who are very mysterious—and I don’t mean exotic and exciting.  I mean it is a mystery as to what it is that they do!  This is the executive director who is out more than she is in, the one who is so frequently unavailable, whether in the office or not, the one who can only do one thing at a time (though expecting everyone else to juggle incessantly), the one who never responds to anything.  This is the executive director, who, in essence, leaves the ship rudderless but empowers no one to pick up the slack.

This executive director is too irresponsible—my label, not the emerging leaders.  They are much, much kinder and talk about the need to “manage up.”  Managing up is a euphemism for making a boss’ life easier while the employee takes more and more onto her plate.  Things that the boss should be doing!  I know that many management gurus and career coaches think that managing up is good:  it gets the one managing up noticed, builds his skill set, demonstrates competence, etc.  To me managing up sounds like enabling the boss to continue not to do his work while someone else works 12 hour days and the boss gets all of the credit.  Oh, what fun!  May I please be the one to do that?

It is true that there are times when a good, strong executive director should be creative and enthusiastic to turn around a dying organization or breathe new life into a service area.  Yes, there are times when, in an effort to develop someone’s leadership potential, it is right for the executive director to step back and say, no, this time I think you are ready to do this unpleasant task and severe the relationship with this consultant.  And, absolutely there are times when it is good for the executive director to work unnoticed in the background, perhaps laying the ground for someone else to receive the kudos and attention.  And there is no doubt always room to provide the boss with a little nudge and offers of support.  But these are sometime things and should be part of the same human package.  No one of them should ever be the dominant modus operandi of an executive director.

I know near perfect executive directors are out there.  If you see Goldilocks, point her in the right direction.  She’s feeling rather tired.

Leadership Ventures, a nonprofit in Indianapolis with a mission to build and support the volunteer and executive leadership of nonprofits, has only one message on its multi-page website.  It is a “Dear John” letter addressed “Dear Friends.”  As of 30 June 2010, Leadership Ventures will severe its relationship with the world, closing down, a causality, so they say, of the economy.  To me, it is the causality of shortsightedness and a failure to understand.

I do not know Leadership Ventures; in fact, I only learned of them in reading about their demise.  So, why am I mourning?  It isn’t the first and it won’t be the last nonprofit to close its doors; and, as readers of this blog know, I am a fan of slimming down the nonprofit sector.  So, why do I want to scream at the top of my lungs?

People simply do not understand the importance of nonprofit boards.  They do not understand the important job—and yes, it is a job, albeit that wonderful oxymoron of descriptors, a volunteer job—that boards have to do for the nonprofits they lead.  They do not understand the immense value-add nonprofit boards can bring to the nonprofits they lead.  And because they do not understand this, they do not recognize the significance of professional development to allow those in this volunteer job to develop and/or hone the skills and knowledge needed to do this job well.  The need for professional development does not impugn the skills and knowledge that board members bring with them, the skills and knowledge that they use day in and day out in their day jobs and may bring to bear around their nonprofit board table.  Professional development specifically for board members, however, addresses the unique roles and responsibilities of being a nonprofit board member, it helps board members grow into being the best board member they can be.  And based on the thousands of board members I’ve met over the decades—whether serial board members like myself or first-timers, and everything in between—every one of them could use some help in being stronger, better board members.

And the good Board of Leadership Ventures found that out.  To fuel their decision making process, the Board commissioned a feasibility study to understand for real whether there was a need for the services of Leadership Ventures.  Their data showed “a high need for governance training and the development of charitable leadership.” Leadership Ventures had been providing that service, having helped over 30,000 paid and volunteer leaders over the course of their lifetime.  So, that was the good news.  The bad news was that the study also found that “the resources are not there to sustain them.”  Huh?

A nonprofit has the data to prove a) the need for its service, b) the successful provision of that service and c) the absence of competition for that service, but no one wants to fund them going forward.  What am I missing?  Why do we—board members and donors—not understand the centrality of board work to the success of a nonprofit? Why do we—board members and donors—accept the fact that professional development is of the essence in our day jobs but not in our volunteer jobs?  How do we—board members and donors—let a champion of achieving the best nonprofit boards possible close its doors—in Indianapolis, small or large town, USA, anywhere?  Don’t we understand that without educated, smart-working boards, nonprofits will only be a shadow of their full potential?

Merriam Webster defines empathy as “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.”  Say what?

WordNet, brought to us by Princeton University, puts it nice and sweetly, defining empathy as “understanding and entering into another’s feelings.”  Well,  according to a recent study from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, current college students are not nearly as good at understanding and entering into another’s feelings as college students of the 1980s and 1990s were.  This, you might think, doesn’t bode well for the nonprofit sector, but I am not so sure it matters in the least.

Let’s begin with the questions.  And, please, do not get me wrong:  I am a long-time fan of the work of the Institute for Social Research and believe that the Institute and folks affiliated with it do great, great work.  But some of these questions are ridiculous, and in some cases violate the rules of constructing good questions.  And I know it is a little late in the game to be quibbling over the questions, because if these are the questions used 30 years ago, then these are the questions that have to be used today if comparisons to the past are to be made.  I fully understand that, as a point of logic and as a researcher myself.  But how do you ask if they have tender and concerned feelings about people less fortunate than they.

I confess, I do not generally have tender feeling towards them, but I am always greatly concerned about them, to the point that I will and do take action.  I cannot answer that question with a 5 (out of 5).  Does that make me not empathetic?  And when I see someone being taken advantage of, unless they are in some ways incapable of helping themselves, I do not, as the question asks, feel protective of them; I do, however, feel enraged and want to take action to prevent such behavior happening again.  Once again, I could not answer this question with anything close to a 5 (out of 5).  And I cannot answer “correctly” (by which I mean the right answer for an empathetic person) the question that asks whether I am “quite often” touched by things that I see or the one inquiry as to whether I am “soft hearted.”  Yet, in answer to the question that asks directly, how well does the statement “I am a very empathetic person” fit you, I can answer that question, in a heartbeat, with a 5 out of 5.  I have now taken the survey three times, each time getting a different score (which should NOT happen in good research), ranging from below the well below the average of current college students–51 out of a possible score of 70­­–to an equal spread above current college students.  Take the survey yourself.

Taking the survey for the first time and seeing where I fell, which was above the current college student average, I began to wonder.  I’ve spent my whole career working in the nonprofit sector, working to help others; and this work began in elementary school.  Have I gotten less empathetic with age?  Or, does empathy, as measured on this standard of empathy measurement, not really mean much when it comes to how we actually conduct our lives?

So, I asked the seven other folks who work at The Nonprofit Center to take the survey and let me know their scores (anonymously, if they preferred).  I wanted to check things out:  did I need to be worried that the future generation of leaders as represented by current college students isn’t going to be interested in helping others? would they abandon the good works of the nonprofit sector?

The score I received on my third taking was the lowest score among the staff here.  The score from my first taking, however, was neither the lowest nor highest, and by a considerable margin in some instances.  The lowest score was shared with me with an off hand comment to the effect of, “I must not be very empathetic.”  But when I responded to this person by saying, “But I know you would do anything for a person in need,” I was told the following story.  Driving down the street one night, this employee, let’s call her Carla, saw an elderly woman fall.  She and her friend got out of the car to help the woman but could not lift her.  A man, let’s call him Joe, walking down the street stopped, helped lift up the woman and got her to Carla’s car.  In driving the woman to her house, Carla, who had been very unhappy with how the fallen woman had eyed the man who stopped to help, made sure to converse with her friend, in a voice loud enough for the fallen woman to hear, something to the effect of how you can’t judge books by their covers.  Upon arrival at the woman’s house, Carla helped her up the steps, made sure she was settled, asked if there was anyone—friend or relative—who she could call, and then left.  And yet Carla’s empathy score fell below that of the least empathetic college generation in 30 years!

The demonstration of empathy is not how we score on a test; it is how we chose to live our lives, day in and day out.  Fifty-one out of 70:  you don’t scare me!

But just in case, here’s a link on how to increase your empathy.

I subscribe to several virtual clipping services that send me, daily, the headlines of stories about nonprofits from around the country and, occasionally, from around the world.  I subscribe to several because, despite the redundancy, there are, more often than not, unique items on each service.

But why do I do this?  I get more than enough e-mails on a daily basis so why add more that I need to read?  First, it allows me to maintain a national perspective.  Are the things going on in Philadelphia, for example, unique to the City of Brotherly Love or is the same thing happening in The Big Apple, Sin City and/or The Big Easy?  Second, it allows me to keep on top of the recurring issues that plague nonprofits, big or small, old or new, mid-Atlantic or southwest.  Third, it helps frame some of what we develop and do here at The Center.   And fourth, it keeps me chuckling!

To wit, one of today’s clipping services had the following combination of stories that had my going.  Headline number one:  “Again—Politics and Charity Strange Bedfellows.”  Nothing strange about it.  It just shouldn’t be!  It is right up there with dating your boss or having the executive director be on the board or nepotism.  There are some things that simply do not go together.  In this case, the strange bedfellows are a California state senator running for a US congress seat who used $175,000 from his state senate political account (which, by California law can be used to make a donation but cannot be used to fund a Congressional race) to make a donation to a Colorado-based nonprofit—actually, according to his latest campaign report, it was a $25,000 donation and a $150,000 loan.  In turn, the Colorado nonprofit ran ads a few weeks before the election featuring the state senator promoting a concert for veterans at a resort and casino that appears to be in the district of the sought seat.  The ads were not an endorsement of the politician, but timing is everything and perception is absolutely reality.  There is nothing strange about these bedfellows, though plenty of other adjectives can apply:  imprudent, unwise, ill-advised, injudicious, and just plain stupid.

My favorite headline of the day, however, was this one:  “Charity that Protects Rhinos Condones Their Killing.” I confess that I had to read the headline several times, sure that the writer had confused his condones and condemns or that the proof reader had fallen asleep at the job.  But, alas, neither of those thoughts was the truth of what happened; the truth is the headline.  It seems that the British charity, Save the Rhino (and the name mostly says its mission) has created one of the most convoluted logics I’ve ever had the struggle of trying to understand in exchange for, to date, £32,000 (around $47,000).  Save the Rhino has linked horns with Safari Club International, an organization that auctions off rhino “trophy hunts to [wealthy] shooting enthusiasts.”  Excuse me?  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of that board meeting as the trustees figured out how to justify putting the words “save” and “trophy hunting”  in the same sentence!  But it gets better when you hear the “logic” from Save the Rhino.  It uses phrases like not being “sentiment-driven” and “sustainable use of animals” with “not wanting to see animals killed” and “looking at all the different ways we can make sure we get money for conservation coming in.”  Sustainable for whom?  The rhinos or Save the Rhino?  It seems that Save the Rhino has shifted its sight from mission to rhino derriere.  What was this organization thinking?

Nonprofits, pay attention! We do not operate in a vacuum; our actions do have consequences; others are watching and adding two and two and getting four.  There is rarely any truly any easy money.  Think carefully about the implications of what you do, no matter the size of the “reward” money being offered.  You do not want to be the headline that makes folks chuckle.

Back in the early days of the third coming of the women’s movement in the United States, by which I mean the 1960s movement, there was a push, which for many continues today, for women to seek out and use other women providers.  You needed a plumber?  Find a female plumber or “Plumber and Daughter.”  You wanted to consult an attorney?  Go to the female associate or the woman in solo practice.  And so on.  The thinking was that we would support our community—our sisters–and by doing so, we would all grow stronger together.

Some years later, environmentalists adopted the mentality, and proudly put it on bumper stickers for all to see, “Think globally, act locally.”

These two ideas had a head-on collision in my brain as I learned of a nonprofit facing the possibility of dissolution because the local branch of the bank that held its line of credit was now having its strings pulled by the new owners of the parent company.  Historically, the local branch understood the cash flow vagaries of the nonprofit.   It knew what was happening in the state legislature with funding for this part of the sector, and how the county government was behaving.  It knew, first hand, the track record the nonprofit had of almost maximizing the credit limit and then paying it back down to zero.  It knew that this nonprofit was not only good for the repayment but good for the community.  After all, both the bank and the nonprofit are/were of the community.  Both had a vested interest in ensuring the success—and future—of the other.

The sad part is that we see this every day.  Nonprofits take their business out of their communities, stop acting locally, oftentimes forsaking the independent provider for the larger, “we can do more” provider.  Are pennies saved?  Probably.  Is the “more” being used?  Probably not.  Are sustaining relationships established? the kind that will work with you through the hard times because of that history between you, because of the shared investment in the community?  Most likely not.

This is not a “You’ve Got Mail” story, where all independents are good and large conglomerates bad.  Size has nothing to do with this story.  Rather, this is a who is your community and what do you owe that community story?  It is a who is invested in your community to the same degree that you are story?  Nonprofits are constantly looking for others to invest in them.  In fact, we’ve raised that to an art.  In the process, however, we seem to have forgotten that relationships are reciprocal, and that we, too, must give back.  If we want to serve our community we must invest in that community to ensure its richness and sustainability.

I am happy to report that I have data to support what I had always assumed (or was it hoped?):  most parents want their children to become philanthropic.  According to a recent poll conducted by the Harris Interactive Service Bureau, commissioned by Pearson Foundation and the Penguin Group, 90% of the 500 parents surveyed say “it is important to raise children to become charitable adults.”

Wanting and succeeding, though, are two very different things.  And apparently, most of the 90% of those parents aren’t being very successful for the simple reason that they aren’t doing the right things to get their desired results.  Sometimes, it appears, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths, while other times they simply may think they are doing the right thing when, in fact, this research shows it isn’t the right thing.

Take, for example, this startling finding:  though 90% of the parents wanted their children to become charitable adults, only 34% of the parents said it was “very important to them that their children gave of their time and resources to help others.”  But of the 500 teens (ages 13-18 years) who were surveyed, 42% of the “teen givers” (defined as those who frequently or often volunteered to help others and raised money for a cause, brought others together for a cause or donated money; teen givers comprised 29% of the group) said their parents cared a great deal if they gave of their time and/or resources to help others, compared to 15% of the non-giving teens who said the same.  If that isn’t a confusing message:  become a charitable adult but you don’t need to start now.

Or, this finding:  teen givers were more than twice as likely (29%) as non-givers to have a paying job and more than twice as likely (31%) to help neighbors.  Only 13% of parents required a paying job, though 26% did require helping neighbors.

As an educator and bookworm, I am particularly heartened by the finding that 45% of teen givers were read to as a child on a daily basis (compared to 35% of non-givers).  Fortunately, 68% of parents believe that there is a strong connection between reading and a child’s ultimate giving behavior.

Looking at the group of teens as a whole—the givers and non-givers together—the number one factor influencing teens to give back and become charitable is their parents.  That should come as no surprise.  (In fact, if Senator William Proxmire were still alive, and had this research cost far more than I am assume it did, I’m sure that finding alone would make this a candidate for a Golden Fleece Award.)  So, parents/guardians—and grandparents, aunts, uncles, and key influential adults–listen up:  model the right behavior; include the children in your life in your philanthropic activities and discussions on how to use your charitable dollars; and read the ten parenting tactics for producing charitable teens.  It just might ensure that our children will inherit a kinder, gentler, more caring world.

Now, I am really pissed (it’s my blog – I can say that).  I recently wrote about jurisdictions around the country suffering from insufficient resources that are look to nonprofits to fill some of the gaps.  Perhaps through rescinding tax exemptions of the past or by creating new taxes on their services (i.e., beds in hospitals, tuition payments to colleges and universities, etc.)

Case in point: the headline “Delinquents get a break in tax amnesty.”  It seems that Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are giving those who owe back taxes (dating back as far as 1986!) 54 days to step forward, pay their taxes and have all penalties waived and only have to pay half of the interest owed.  It is anticipated that this amnesty program will raise $25-$30 million for the city and $190 million for the state.

I am not going to bother to do the math, but imagine what each jurisdiction could raise if they weren’t giving law breakers—yes, last I heard it was still a legal requirement that you file a tax return every year and pay whatever money is owed the respective government–relief.   Imagine if they had to pay all they owed and 100% of their penalties and interest.  Wouldn’t that add a little fat to government coffers?

Tax amnesty programs are not new, and they certainly aren’t unique to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.  But at the same time that jurisdictions are offering businesses tax amnesty programs they are crying so poor that they need to rescind property exemptions for nonprofits and create new tax programs for nonprofits (i.e., hospital beds, college and university tuition).  Something here does not compute!  Nonprofits have not broken any laws whatsoever.  In fact, the vast majority of nonprofits of which I am aware have continued to work extremely hard to fulfill the promises of their mission despite huge loss in funds to support that work.  What are governments talking about doing in exchange?  Increasing their operating costs by rescinding tax exemptions and adding new ones.  Where is the logic in this?

Perhaps on some planet, or in some person’s brain, it makes sense to add to the burden of those who are already strapped, but continue to do their good works, while letting off the hook those who have spent years, and in some cases decades, being scofflaws.  It just doesn’t work in mine.  In fact, my mind wanders to questions like, “Whose palm is being greased?” and “What deals have been brokered?” and “In whose employ will these politicians land once they leave elected office?”  Because shy of that, I can find neither rhyme nor reason to understand excusing criminals while punishing the do-gooders.

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.