Monthly Archives: April 2008

The Jerry Maguire School of Strategic Planning

Posted on by
Reply

I assume, which is always a dangerous thing, that you watched Tom Cruise play Jerry Maguire in the movie by that name. Jerry becomes enlightened and goes through an epiphany of sorts and pulls an all-nighter writing his 27 page Mission Statement, that for all intents and purposes is a strategic plan (no one writes a 27 page mission statement – much shorter mission statements (like 1/2 page) are always better. If it really takes 27 pages to articulate a mission there are some serious business issues to work out). So, let’s go on the assumption that Jerry’s mission statement is really a strategic plan.

The plan that he wrote not only turned heads, it also got him fired. But he was a successful businessman with nothing to lose. He had a swagger coupled with a sense of right and wrong and ideas that he just had to put down on paper and broadcast to the world. He had the a-ha moment we all are waiting for. The difference is that once he had the eureka moment he didn’t waste any time articulating it and putting his money where his mouth is by printing multiple copies and distributing them.

Although it’s never 100% clear what the thrust of the document is, it is clear though, that he presented a BHAG of some sort. (BHAG = Big Hairy Audacious Goal – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Collins) An idea that rattled the suits in the corner offices to step back and either get scared of Jerry’s change of heart (he was questioning the business model and the ethics of the company presumably) or think he was crazy. Most likely though, the document was simply too forward thinking, too ground-breaking, too paradigm shifting, and too counter to the status quo that he was ostracized and fired for his actions.

For more info on Jim Collins – http://jimcollins.com/bio/index.html

There are two lessons here for me.

1. A strategic plan must to be bold and visionary. It must rock the foundations of the business model and challenge the status quo. No nonprofit can play it safe anymore – these complex times we live in require daring and innovative thinking, intelligent planning and aggressive execution. Plus, the organization must remain flexible and always prepared for plan-B.

2. The people behind the strategic plan must be bold and visionary. Successful nonprofits can’t write, prepare, plan, or execute a bold and visionary strategic plan unless they (the people working and the company and writing the plan) are bold and visionary themselves . Nonprofits cannot succeed if they continue to embrace business cultures that hinder, and even obstruct, ground-breaking and innovative thought. They need people that are strong willed, inquisitive, collaborative, entrepreneurial, intuitive and perhaps a bit like Jerry Maguire. A person that acts like they have nothing to lose!!

So, let’s start a ground-swell movement to create nonprofit organizations that aren’t afraid of the future, but are trying new things, getting rid of the old things that don’t work, embracing transformational change, looking for new ways of doing business and most importantly never, ever giving into the status quo or mediocrity.

 

Accountability, Transparency and Establishing Trust with Donors

Posted on by
Reply
Like everything else these days something fairly simple has a fancy name attached to it. In the case of nonprofits the flavor of the day, or should we say flavor of the century, is accountability and transparency. 

But what does this really mean in layman’s terms? It’s pretty simple actually – these two over-used words mean – being honest and totally above board. Well, this isn’t the Webster’s definition I am sure; nor will you find this definition anywhere else most likely.  

But the bigger point is that for a nonprofit to be transparent and accountable means they must be, well, honest in their dealings – especially regarding how they raise money, how they spend money, how they measure the use of funds against the success of the programs, how they treat their employees, how they treat their donors, how they manage their donors money, how well they carry out their programs and services, how they fundraise and present the organization to the outside world. 

It also means, the nonprofit must let the sun shine in to the organizations financial status – kind of what was called “open book management” –  where the good, the bad, and the ugly side of the business is in full view. This kind of scrutiny isn’t easy for anyone, especially for executives who are cringing at the thought of their compensation package being fully disclosed in a whole new way with the revised 990 forms. 

It’s uncomfortable; there’s no question about it – but isn’t that what honesty is all about? Didn’t someone once say “the truth will set you free”? But they never said it would be easy…to my knowledge anyway. 

Accountability and transparency are not meant to be easy. Nor is it supposed to be a slick strategy or marketing scheme. It is meant to be a way of doing business – what we call – employing best business practices. We know when it isn’t there – like the Enron or WorldCom debacles; or the Red Cross screw-up after 911 – but it’s elusive to many organizations that are currently successful and raise a lot of money. Sometimes we can get caught up in our own success. 

But why don’t we proactively look for ways to be accountable and transparent before it’s too late? Before something bad, or has the appearance of being bad, appears on the front cover of the New York Times. I don’t have the answer, but I suggest it will be the new generation of nonprofit executives that will take this seriously. 

 

The new breed of young people entering the business are smart, savvy and passionate about making a difference; and in many ways they are very ethical and moral from a business  perspective – they often have a very clear sense of right and wrong. They will hold us (the “seasoned” older nonprofit pro) to a higher standard; a standard that the old-guard may have let slide over the years with a wink and a nod. 
I believe that it will be one of these new generation executives that will redefine the joint-cost allocation and charity rating system. We all know both are fraught with inconsistency and general flaws that go against one’s common sense – that’s why it needs to be changed - but I guarantee it won’t be someone over the age of 50 or someone that has spent more than ten years in the nonprofit sector.

 
 

 

Relationship versus transaction??

Posted on by
Reply

We are all confronted with two seemingly opposing forces with our fundraising efforts.  Building a relationship with our donor should always be front and center for us. We know that without a “relationship” with our supporter no “relationship” will continue – it will simply die because there is no compelling reason for it to continue.

The relationship demands an exchange of affinity, viewpoint, collaboration, advocacy, and so forth. The conundrum we face though is the inescapable fact that we need an interchange – a series of “transactions” to take place in order to establish and maintain the relationship. These transactions may take the form of the nonprofit sending a direct mail package or email to the supporter; or the transaction might entail the supporter making a donation or even volunteering in an effort to show support.

So, it appears as though a relationship cannot exist without a transaction of sorts. This puts us in the awkward space of needing to make transactions between the two parties (the nonprofit and the supporter) compelling, focused, and meaningful. It must be a two way street that both benefit from and both walk away fulfilled on some level.

The relationship must come first since it is clearly the more important aspect – without a relationship there will be no transaction – but I guess the opposite is true too. Regardless, the bottom-line is that one cannot exist without the other so we must focus our energy on establishing and providing opportunities for our supporters to relate to us through transactions that reinforce their passion for the organization and help build enduring relationships.

This means, to me anyway, that the focus shouldn’t be “give me more money because…” or “thank you for your support, but we still have this need, please help us by…” or “we did this and we did that…” – no we must move way, way beyond simply raising money, reporting on all our great accomplishments and highlighting all the good work that WE do – the focus has to be re-directed back to the donor by shining the spotlight on them. Make them the hero; let them know your charity couldn’t live without them; let them know your deep, deep gratitude for having chosen your organization to support.

If we do this we will develop great relationships that lead to long-term, fruitful relationships!!

How do you deal with constant change?

Posted on by
Reply

Unfortunately, I don’t have the definitive answer about dealing with change within an organization. But what I can tell you definitively is that change, although being the norm it seems, is both disruptive and aggravating to those in the midst of it.

Constant change if not dealt with properly becomes an all-consuming monster that takes over the ethos of the organization preventing staff members from getting their bearings set and never allowing them to establish a clear set of objectives that they can be measured against. In short, a culture of change, or turmoil, will give them no idea where they are headed or what is expected of them.

This is a dangerous mix because once it becomes unbridled it can lead to a genuine atmosphere of apathy, ineffective work habits, and a sense of not really caring about the success of the organization.

This isn’t to say that change is a bad thing – because it’s not in many, many cases – the challenge arises when change is uncontrolled and the change taking place has no apparent objective behind it. Good change is often needed for an organization to grow and succeed and be competitive in order to meet a changing marketplace; change may be needed to replace an outmoded business model and breathe new life into the organization; and perhaps change is required to simply become a more revered nonprofit organization by redefining its mission and vision for the future.

Regardless of the changes taking place in your organization you must control the process to ensure that employees are retained and stay motivated; that the objective of the change taking place have meaning and purpose; and that above all you hang on to your sanity while continuing to operate a successful organization that won’t give into being derailed by uncontrolled change.