Friday, July 29, 2011

Compassion Research

This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review reports on the results of a new study.

An excerpt.

“One death is a tragedy; 1 million is a statistic,” Joseph Stalin is supposed to have said. The more people we see suffering, the less we care. It’s an unfortunate quirk that psychologists so far have blamed on our brains: Humans are tuned to individuals, the thinking goes; we are just not capable of feeling compassion for whole groups.

“A new study calls that comfortable conclusion into question. “The collapse of compassion is an active process,” says Daryl Cameron, a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s not some passive limitation on human experience. It’s the end result of an active choice not to feel something.”

“Cameron designed a series of experiments to find out why four people in pain don’t get quadruple the sympathy of one. In one test, he had 60 college students read about one, four, or eight children from Darfur. The students who said they were better at regulating their emotions—who don’t easily lose focus or control, and usually know how to make themselves feel better—reported being less upset by multiple Darfur children in crisis than by one. In another experiment, different students reading about these same children were told either to let themselves fully experience their emotions or to think objectively and be detached. Again, those who proactively regulated their emotions showed a collapse of compassion when viewing eight victims compared to one.

“This suggests that people are perfectly capable of responding emotionally to groups. They just steel themselves against it. “If you really took everything to heart, to the full magnitude that all these disasters truly deserve, you’d probably be sitting home rocking yourself in a closet all day,” says Elizabeth Dunn, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved in the research. “We need to be able to cope.”

“Our capacity to empathize with a large number of people is good news for disaster relief, says Cameron. “If it is a choice, rather than a constraint, then we can try to get people to decide differently what they want to feel, and toward whom.” The bad news is that we seem to care only when we don’t have to act. Cameron’s other experiment compared students who had been prompted with the idea of a donation with students who hadn’t. “When people did not expect to have to help on the basis of their emotions, they experienced more emotion toward eight victims than toward one victim,” he says. Opening your heart is a lot easier when there’s no expected cost.”

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Social Entrepreneurship Lights the Dark

These kinds of innovations, as reported by Fast Company, just leave one gasping 'get-atta-here' at times, Bravo!

An excerpt, with photo and links at the jump.

“We have lightbulbs made from glowing metal filaments, fluorescent gas, and LED diodes. And now we have one made of water. There is also a virtually unlimited supply since the "bulb" is composed of nothing more than one-liter plastic bottle, water, and bleach. The simple technology can be installed in less than an hour, lasts for five years, and is equivalent to a 60-watt bulb.

“It works simply: The water defracts the light, letting it spread throughout the house instead of focusing on one point. The bleach keeps the water clear and microbe-free.

“Developed by students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology focused on "appropriate technologies," the solar bottle bulb is illuminating poor settlements across the Philippines, where the organization Isang Litrong Liwanag ("A Liter of Light") has already installed 10,000 of them. “With the Solar Bottle Bulb project, a brighter Philippines is going to become a reality,” Illac Diaz, a social entrepreneur installing the bulbs, told a Filipino publication. You can watch a video of the bulbs in action here.

“Millions of poor homes in Manila--and far more around the world--are left in the dark because metal roofs block all light and there are no connections to the electrical grid in cramped informal settlements. This simple bottle bulb, installed through a sealed hole cut in the metal roofs, provides a surprising amount of light by deflecting sunlight into gloomy interiors.”

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Innovative Leadership

An article from Nonprofit Quarterly about the concept of shared leadership.

An excerpt.

“Even before the “Great Recession,” nonprofit leaders were told that they needed to learn how to do more with less. The field encouraged nonprofits to tighten their belts and look outside their organizations for solutions. Convinced that these approaches were not the only way, the authors, as part of a “Leadership Learning Community” (LLC) team organized by the TCC Group, worked with leaders of twenty-seven civic participation organizations from 2008 to 2010 to explore an alternative: building shared leadership within an organization.

“After two years of experimentation with shared leadership, TCC Group conducted an evaluation, and found that 78 percent of participants had increased their awareness, knowledge, and ability to develop staff as leaders at all levels of the organization. The evaluation, which included event feedback surveys, a post-initiative survey of all participants, and two participant focus groups, also revealed significant increases in both staff involvement in decision making and clear and effective accountability structures throughout the cohort. Many of the organizations discovered that they were able to do more effective work with less or the same amount of funds, and reported that shared leadership eased the stresses on executive directors. Essentially, the organizations found that they could do more with less (funds) by doing more with more (leadership).

“I. Shared Leadership . . . It Sounds Good but What Is It Exactly?

“Theories about organizational transformation have been pointing in the direction of shared leadership for more than three decades now. Experiments with “self-managing” work teams proliferated in the 1980s. In 1990, Peter M. Senge published The Fifth Discipline and popularized the concept of “learning organizations,” which called for leadership rooted in the roles of steward, teacher, and designer guided by continuous development of a capacity for understanding, action, and responsibility. In 1994, Jack Stack made waves with his book The Great Game of Business, where he championed the value of practicing “open-book management” and engaging workers at all levels in an ongoing process of innovation in the private sector. In 1999, Margaret J. Wheatley wrote in Leadership and the New Science, “Western cultural views of how best to organize and lead (now the methods most used in the world) are contrary to what life teaches. Leaders use control and imposition rather than participative, self-organizing processes.” And, in 2003, Joseph A. Raelin coined the term “leaderful” in his book Creating Leaderful Organizations, which describes an organization that intentionally creates the structure and culture needed to share leadership among staff, board, volunteers, and other stakeholders.

“In 2006, researchers Beverlyn Lundy Allen and Lois Wright Morton defined self-organization as the capacity that organizations need to solve the complex or “adaptive” problems they face today. One of the principal dimensions of self-organization they named was deeper diffusion of authority and responsibility into the organization. In 2007, Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant posited in Forces for Good that effective organizations share leadership across staff, board members, and external networks.6

“Despite this dramatic shift in leadership theory, our combined research and experience with nonprofit organizations reveal that most organizations continue to accept a hierarchical structure, with the executive director shouldering an enormous burden of responsibility for organizational success. The LLC participants generally reported that this was true of their organizations. However, we found that this concentration of power was not because executive directors were power hungry. Nor was it even deliberate. It was due to a lack of familiarity with the alternatives. The executive directors were interested in exploring ways to empower staff through more formally shared leadership, given their growing fatigue and their commitment to promoting values of community engagement and empowerment. Senior staff, feeling stretched thin and yet underutilized, were also invested in this change, viewing it as a way to advance their careers and develop other staff in a manner that aligned with their organizations’ social justice values.”

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Fundraising Methods

A good report on those which worked best in 2010, from Guidestar.

An excerpt, with links at the jump.

Which fundraising methods worked best in 2010? Which weren't that effective? What can you do this year to build on last year's successes?

GuideStar's new report, "The Fundraising Methods That Worked Best in 2010—and Could Work Best in 2011," draws on the results of the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's 2010 Fundraising Survey (GuideStar is a member of the collaborative) to answer these questions.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Firing the Founder

One of the first pieces of advice I give to any founding executive director of an organization I am consulting with, is to be on the board of directors and the executive committee, and this story from Blue Avocado relates what can happen otherwise.

The firing of the founding visionary of any nonprofit organization is something that should only occur after extraordinary attempts have been undertaken, with the founder involved every step of the way, to resolve organizational issues; and in most cases, especially involving one or two dissatisfied board members, they should resign rather that forcing the founder out.

If legal or malfeasance issues are involved, then of course, that is another story.

An excerpt.

“Four weeks and five days ago from this moment -- at 4 pm on a May afternoon -- I was fired. That morning the board chair told me our afternoon meeting would not be a finance committee meeting after all, but, rather, "about your future with the organization." The meeting lasted, at the most, 6 minutes.

"We would like you to resign," the board chair said.

"I have already submitted my resignation," I replied. Three weeks ago I had told the board I would be leaving in November. We were about to embark on a strategic planning process, and our big conference -- the one I created 11 years ago -- would be in the fall. That seemed like a fitting exit point.

"It's not acceptable to wait until November," he said. "We are terminating you effective immediately. Please turn in your keys and key card right now."

“I was furious, white hot mad. I narrowed my eyes and "did a Harold" (my father's name was Harold).

“He went on to tell me that I was not to go to the office to pick up my personal items unless a member of the board was present, and he would let me know who on the board to contact for that purpose.

“And that was it.

“I'm still furious. I'm mad at all the board members. I'm pissed at the new board members that I recruited because they didn't stop it. I'm mad at the old guard for being so sanctimonious. They don't have a clue. I'm angry because I should have been treated better and there's nothing I can do about it. And that's NOT FAIR.

"Since the morning call had been pretty clear about the purpose of the meeting, I had had a few hours to prepare. I told each staff member that I might be fired that afternoon. We had a fantastic team of five at the organization, and I believed it was important for them to know what might be coming down the road.

“After my meeting with the board chair, I went back to the office to tell the staff what had happened. The door was locked, although everyone's cars were still in the lot. There was no answer to my knock. I was struck with a huge, hurt fear that they were sitting in there having been told not to let me in. I later learned that, at the same time I was meeting with the two officers who fired me, another group of board members had gone to the office and taken everyone across the street to a coffee shop to tell them what was happening.

“So I went home. I cried. I slept.

“The next day a friend forwarded an email to me that had been sent to everyone on our distribution list -- about 2,500 people. It started like this: "Effective immediately, ____ is no longer the Executive Director of ____. Our organization is in trouble and the most significant issues relate to our finances."

“Should have seen the signs

“I should have seen the signs. But I didn't. Looking back now, I can pinpoint when the shift in board personality began: about 6 years ago. There was an evolution of the board from a group of enthusiastic, flexible individuals to a collection of people who engage in inwardly-focused groupthink. They were unwilling to engage in any sort of healthy debate. They consistently ignored the financial warning signs I pointed out, and they flat-out saw only limited responsibility for themselves to be fundraisers.

“Nearly three years ago I missed another piece of evidence. A long time board member remarked that boards should have executive sessions at every meeting -- without the CEO. And so they did.”

Friday, July 22, 2011

Charitable Giving is Up

Which is very good news as reported by Nonprofit About.com.

An excerpt.

“As the unrelenting sound of bickering continues from Washington over the debt increase, a bit of good news landed in my inbox this morning.

“Blackbaud reports that, according to its Index of Charitable Giving, charitable organizations experienced an uptick in donations in May to the tune of 11.3%. The Blackbaud Index of Charitable Giving has shown positive growth for 10 consecutive months. Furthermore, that rise has exceeded 10% for the three months ending May 2011 over the prior year.

“Blackbaud's index also indicates that the growth is enjoyed by organizations of all sizes. That is the first time since the recession started that growth has been that broad based.

“Not all sectors of the charitable marketplace fared equally in the increase in charitable giving, however. Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist and creator of The Blackbaud Index, said:

"Our newest index, representing organizations involved with international affairs, was up 13 percent reflecting significant post-Haiti growth while fundraising at arts and culture organizations grew nearly 12 percent. The increase wasn't universal however as human services and environmental organizations were still down from their year earlier results. And with job growth flat the past two months and the economy weakening; a real challenge for all nonprofits going forward will be maintaining this momentum."

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Organizational Problems? Look to Leadership

Though this is virtually ancient history for anyone involved in studying the field of management, it still never hurts to be reminded anew: that leadership sets the pace, as this article from Harvard Business Weekly notes.

An excerpt.

“When CEOs speak with Rob Kaplan looking for answers, he usually focuses them instead on figuring out and discussing the right questions.

"Show me a company, nonprofit, or a government leader that is struggling, and almost invariably you'll see someone who isn't sufficiently focused on asking the right questions," says Kaplan, a Professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School. "Most leaders spend a lot of their time looking for answers. Very often, they may feel isolated and alone. I want to help them refocus their attention on framing and then discussing the key questions that will help them regroup, mobilize their team, formulate a plan of action, and move forward."

“In his new book, What to Ask the Person in the Mirror , Kaplan argues against the notion that great leadership is about having all the answers. He believes that leadership skills can be learned--and that many of these skills require executives to rethink their conception of what a superb leader actually does. Developing and practicing these skills requires hard work and may demand that talented executives overcome some degree of discomfort and even anxiety in order to raise their game.

“The book discusses several key areas of inquiry that can help leaders improve the success of their companies and nonprofit organizations including: vision and priorities, managing your time, giving and getting feedback, succession planning and delegation, evaluation and alignment, being a role model, and reaching your potential. "My objective is to help leaders reach their potential by helping them realize that they don't need to have all the answers or do this alone. I hope they will see that framing a question and listening can be enormously powerful in leading to excellent decisions. A leader needs to master the use of inquiry and reflection as well as advocacy in order to build his or her organization and career."

“Have you developed a clear vision and key priorities for your enterprise?

"When I see a problem with a business or nonprofit, it often starts with a lack of clarity about the organization's aspirations," Kaplan says. The leader may have a clear vision in his or her head but has not communicated it effectively throughout the organization. "When there is not a clearly articulated vision along with a manageable set of key priorities, you may see an organization where employees are expending their energies in a number of divergent and uncoordinated directions."

“Leaders need to ask whether they articulate a clear vision and, just as importantly, whether their key employees can rearticulate this vision in a consistent manner. For instance, DuPont's vision is "to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer and healthier life for people everywhere." This vision helps DuPont employees better understand what (and why) they are spending their professional energies trying to accomplish.

“Once the vision is established, Kaplan advises leaders to come up with and communicate a list of no more than three to five priorities that are critical to the organization in order to achieve the vision. In his book, Kaplan describes various approaches to formulating and adapting these priorities to each department and geographic region in order to better achieve overall organization objectives. "When a leadership has this discipline, they focus much more intently on what tasks they need to do superbly well in order to achieve their goals. This also can help them to question certain activities where they are spending substantial time and money yet not contributing to organizational goals and maybe they shouldn't be pursuing."

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Nonprofits Sharing Space & Services

In an era of tight dollars—and actually anytime is that for most small nonprofits—being able to share space and services without sacrificing mission effectiveness is a real benefit, and this article from the Third Sector New England explains.

An excerpt with links at the jump.

“There are over 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations in the United States, and the majority operate with budgets under $100,000. These are very lean and efficient operations under stress due to increasing demand for services and continuing financial volatility.

“In my opinion, the easy opportunities to reduce operating costs have long ago been discovered and implemented. We’re now into a time of more creative transition. Sometimes strategies involve multiple organizations coming together to share services or space.

“What Are Shared Services?
I define shared services as the collaborative use of resources across traditional organizational boundaries. Shared resources might include:
Physical things: office space, meeting rooms, copiers and kitchens
Skills: human resources, financial management, security
Other programmatic tools: client intake forms, information management systems

“Any resource that is not uniquely developed for a specific organization offers an opportunity for sharing.

“Building Opportunities
Earlier this May the NonprofitCenters Network hosted Building Opportunities: the Nonprofit Shared Space and Services Conference. Over 300 attendees convened in downtown Los Angeles, representing dozens of organizations from the public, private and non-profit sectors, all providers or potential providers of shared services and space.

“The conference offered a staggering variety of presentations ranging from Planning and Visioning for Impact to Green Building Tools, to Evaluating Impact. One highlight (of many) was the discussion of results from the Network’s study of multi-tenant centers, Measuring Collaboration: the Benefits and Impacts of Nonprofit Centers. The executive summary of this fantastic study is available for free download at www.nonprofitcenters.org.

“Benefits and Impacts
Among the many interesting findings:
 Some organizations have shared space for a while and many others are relatively new to the experience: 23% of nonprofit centers surveyed were founded over 20 years ago; at the same time nearly 33% of centers were less than 5 years old.
 Shared services are often coupled with nonprofit centers: over 50% of nonprofit centers provide shared networking events, education services (including training), reception and information technology services. Collaboration extends among tenant organizations of nonprofit centers: 46% of tenant organizations reported collaborating with monthly frequency on programs or services.”

Monday, July 18, 2011

Poverty in America

It is not what most Americans think it is, based on what the vast social industry—of nonprofits and government—portrays, according to this report from The Heritage Foundation.

An excerpt, with links at the jump.

“Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

“Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

“For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

“Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

“As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]“In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

“The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

“Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

“Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons [5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.

“Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.”

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Results Count

And the latest word describing results is outcomes, which this interview with an author of a new book on outcomes, tackles, from Nonprofit About.com.

An excerpt.

“Demand is growing for nonprofits to provide proof that what they are doing actually accomplishes something. That demand is coming particularly from donors and grantors, such as foundations. Unfortunately, many nonprofits do not have objective data showing that their outcomes are worth supporting.

“That fact is a bit shocking when you think about it. But, then, charities have been very busy providing programs, and sometimes just hoping that the band aids they apply to social needs actually work.

“But even the smallest nonprofit has heard the call for greater emphasis on outcomes measurement, reporting, and transparency. Until now, however, just how to do this has been obscure or scattered from here to there.

“That is where a new book comes in. It is The Nonprofit Outcomes Toolbox: A Complete Guide to Program Effectiveness, Performance Measurement, and Results, Robert M. Penna, PhD, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011

“Impressed with the scope of the book, but also daunted a bit by its 350 pages, I wondered how to convince smaller nonprofits to invest in an obviously helpful resource that could serve as an all-in-one course in outcomes management.

“I turned to Dr. Penna with some questions. Here is a summary of our interview.

“Nonprofit Guide: How can a focus on outcomes benefit even a small nonprofit? What are the potential “outcomes” of outcomes management for nonprofits that are time and resource strapped?

“Penna: The greatest benefits of an outcomes approach for smaller nonprofits come from the knowledge of what, among their efforts, truly works…and knowing precisely how well those things are working. While any organization would benefit from this type of information, it is particularly crucial for smaller, less well-resourced organizations that must make every dollar, every hour of staff time, count.”

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Mission & Culture

Too often, the internal culture of a nonprofit organization is directly at odds with its stated mission, and that is always a huge problem, as this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly reports.

An excerpt.

“Throughout my nearly 15 years of working as a nonprofit employee and as a consultant for nonprofits, I have landed upon a basic fact: All nonprofits are dysfunctional in some way or another and figuring out where to hang your hat requires one to assess whether the level and type of dysfunction is personally tolerable. Like most of us working in the nonprofit sector, I am motivated by a desire to have an impact, create change and help others. Somewhat surprisingly I have worked in several organizations where the management staff has exhibited behaviors in direct contradiction to the stated mission.

“Take for instance the reproductive health organizations that frowned upon any of its staff members having children, because it reduced the individual’s ability to work extended, and frankly unsustainable, hours. Then there was the Africa policy organization that overthrew its executive director in a bloodless coup d’état, and the lawyer at the health and human rights organization who jokingly informed me that they should stop hiring women of reproductive age. I have also encountered an executive director of a service delivery organization who provides services based on clients’ assumed ability to raise money for the organization, either directly or indirectly through a network of wealthy friends and colleagues. In truth, these examples do not begin to scratch the surface of the nonprofit dysfunctions I have seen.

“From a personal financial perspective, one enters the field of nonprofits expecting to live on minimal earnings. We often attend graduate school knowing that our earning potential will be no greater when we exit, though perhaps more onerous, thanks to our additional debt burdens. I recall a job panel some years after attending graduate school, where the panelists counseled audience members to accept a position at any level and any salary, if it meant getting a foot in the door at an organization of interest. For a while, these tenets seemed reasonable and feasible. With time and increased experience, as well as additional life expenses like parenthood, indentured servitude no longer seemed acceptable.

“This realization dawned on me while working for a human rights organization where it emerged that men, even those less qualified and with fewer degrees, typically earned more than women. The irony was again not lost on me or my colleagues, but the pariah treatment I received for requesting fair wages was still surprising. After being criticized for requesting a higher salary and told that one does not enter the field “simply to earn money,” a friend and I joked that we should start paying our bills in commitment, dedication or service.”

Monday, July 11, 2011

Nonprofit Compensation

It is often a controversial subject and this Interview in the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.

An excerpt.

“Jon Pratt: Recently, Charities Review Council of Minnesota conducted a public opinion poll that asked 800 people in Minnesota to pick a statement that best described their view of nonprofit pay. The choices were:

“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);

“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);

“Employees should be paid less than their for-profit counterparts but enough to earn a living” (34 percent agreed);

“Employees should be drawn to their work out of a commitment and paid no more than a stipend” (14 percent agreed); and

“Don’t know” (10 percent agreed).

"What do you think these responses say about the public’s understanding of nonprofit compensation?


“Paul Light: Well, it suggests that 42 percent, or a substantial minority of Minnesotans, believe that nonprofit employees deserve a fair wage, and that’s a positive. But when you get to the next group that says they should be paid less, and to the group that says no more than a stipend—which, combined, is the majority—it demonstrates a real problem. There may be an element of the “vow of poverty” theory among the ones who think this way. And I’ll bet if you had asked the whole group whether executive directors should be paid the same as corporate CEOs, the answer would have been emphatically no!

“But your survey pretty much reinforces the results of a survey I conducted in 2008 with a national sample, where we asked, “Do you think that the heads of charitable organizations are paid too much, too little, or just right?” The number who said “too little” was 4 or 5 percent; the number who said “too much” was in the high 40s. The 40 percent who say “too much” has been pretty steady over time, suggesting that many Americans believe that employees of charitable organizations should take a discount or pay cut because they’ve signed on to help others.

“JP: A frequent comparison group for reasonableness of nonprofit compensation is government pay scales, where civil service systems and public oversight bodies have developed very transparent structures of grades, ladders, and steps. Government compensation has been a major news item in 2011, with a wave of freezes, reductions, and public criticism of government salaries, pension benefits, and collective bargaining rights for public employees. The governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and New Jersey each made this a major issue. What do you see as the implications for nonprofit compensation?

“PL: Most of the public says that federal employees are just paid too much, and there’s a lot of false information out there about that, based on averages of what federal employees get versus what private employees get. The gross generalizations fuel the public’s notion that the federal government wastes a great deal of money, which is built on anger toward Washington and toward government in general.

“JP: Congress and the IRS have increased attention on nonprofit compensation. Nonprofit organizations with employees paid more than $150,000 are required to provide supplemental information about compensation on Schedule J.

“PL: It’s a frustrating paradox that Congress doesn’t care very much about how much private CEOs—corporate CEOs—make. Basically, if it’s in the private sector, we’re not going to worry too much about it. But if it’s in government or nonprofit-land, it is fair game.”

Friday, July 8, 2011

Leadership, Part Two

A good article, examining the different types of people who become leaders--perhaps ringing a few bells for some of us--from Harvard Business Weekly.

An excerpt.

“The central, most telling question to ask a leader is, whom do you serve?

“Some leaders will tell you, using a popular descriptor, that they aspire to be "servant leaders." The question still remains, however, a servant to whom: to yourself, to your group, or to society (to cite three of several options)?

“Asking the question whom do you serve? is a powerful vector on which to build a useful typology of leadership. Based on this idea, I have constructed a six-level Purpose-Driven Model of Leadership informed by the work of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and his colleague, Robert Kegan (see table 1). The answer to the question whom do you serve often reveals more about leaders than knowing their personality traits, level of achievement, or whether they were "transformational" or "transactional" leaders.

“Level One: Sociopath

"At the base of the model is the person who literally serves no one: the Sociopath. The Sociopath, afflicted with what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) describes as antisocial personality disorder, exhibits abnormally low empathy and destroys value, himself, and, ultimately, those who surround him as well. (I use the male pronoun because the vast majority of Sociopaths and psychopaths are male.) Fortunately, Sociopaths comprise less than 1 percent of the population. An excellent current example is Muammar Gaddafi, who is destroying his country, his tribe, his family, and, in time, himself. Indeed, he serves no one. The same was true of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

“Level Two: Opportunist

"The second level is the leader who serves only himself or herself, often at the expense of others: the Opportunist. These are the people who always ask, "What's in it for me?" Their moral compass is guided primarily by the accumulation of wealth and power, all else be damned. Bernie Madoff, now in prison, is a poster boy for the Opportunists. While Madoff enjoyed the luxuries of a life of wealth and power, hundreds if not thousands of retirees saw their nest eggs evaporate because of their unwitting participation in a deliberately contrived Ponzi scheme that, in time, became the largest ($50 billion) in Wall Street history. By this measure, or in terms of the families brought to financial ruin, Madoff remains one of the modern world's greatest Opportunists. Also of this genre, although somewhat lesser known, is Jeffrey Skilling, the Enron CEO who sold off tens of millions of dollars of stock just before Enron filed for bankruptcy, claiming he had no knowledge of the scandal that would engulf his company. He was sentenced to 24 years and four months in prison.”

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Leadership, Part One

Good article from Harvard Business Review, which takes a look at why.

An excerpt.

“In recent months, several high-level leaders have mysteriously lost their way. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French politician, was arraigned on charges of sexual assault. Before that, David Sokol, rumored to be Warren Buffett's successor, was forced to resign for trading in Lubrizol stock prior to recommending that Berkshire Hathaway purchase the company. Examples abound of other recent failures:

“Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.

“U.S. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.

“Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history.

“These talented leaders were highly successful in their respective fields and at the peak of their careers. This makes their behavior especially perplexing, raising questions about what caused them to lose their way:

“Why do leaders known for integrity and leadership engage in unethical activities?

“Why do they risk great careers and unblemished reputations for such ephemeral gains?

“Do they think they won't get caught or believe their elevated status puts them above the law?

“Was this the first time they did something inappropriate, or have they been on the slippery slope for years?

“In these ongoing revelations, the media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.

“Leaders who lose their way are not necessarily bad people; rather, they lose their moral bearings, often yielding to seductions in their paths. Very few people go into leadership roles to cheat or do evil, yet we all have the capacity for actions we deeply regret unless we stay grounded.

“Self-reflection: a path to leadership development

“Before anyone takes on a leadership role, they should ask themselves, "Why do I want to lead?" and "What's the purpose of my leadership?" These questions are simple to ask, but finding the real answers may take decades. If the honest answers are power, prestige, and money, leaders are at risk of relying on external gratification for fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with desiring these outward symbols as long as they are combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself.

“Leaders whose goal is the quest for power over others, unlimited wealth, or the fame that comes with success tend to look to others to gain satisfaction, and often appear self-centered and egotistical. They start to believe their own press. As leaders of institutions, they eventually believe the institution cannot succeed without them.”

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Nonprofit Revenue Sources

An excellent overview of the various sources of funding, from Nonprofit About.com, with several great links at the jump.

An excerpt.

“What your nonprofit does--your programs--is the highest priority for any nonprofit manager. Revenue generation is the second.

“New ways for nonprofits to raise revenue spring into existence every year, but where those funds come from stays pretty much the same year after year. There is also a basic inventory of methods that should form the back bone of your fundraising efforts. These are, literally, your "bread and butter."

“So, where do nonprofits get their revenue?

• Individuals are the largest source of funding for nonprofit organizations. According to Giving USA, total charitable giving in the U.S. reached more than $303 billion in 2009. Of that amount 75% came from individuals.

• Corporations give in order to get...exposure, publicity, community respect, market share. Their funding is more episodic, revolving around particular campaigns, events, and projects. Corporate funding can be a good source of support for new initiatives, special programs, and special events. Look for opportunities to form partnerships for sponsorships and cause-related marketing.

• Federal, State and Local Governments. Many nonprofit institutions benefit from all levels of government. Obvious examples are public education, higher education, and the public media. Federal, state, and local government grants fund many programs provided by nonprofits, especially in areas such as urban human service nonprofits, and healthcare. Grants.gov provides up-to-date information and a directory of federal grants.”

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Northern California Nonprofit Salaries

A news brief from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, with a link to the report at the jump.

An excerpt.

“Nonprofit organizations in Northern California are still struggling to increase their workers’ pay, according to a new report. About 41 percent of the 341 organizations that provided data said they had not increased their salary budgets at all this year.

“Among groups that had increased their salary budgets, the median increase was 2 percent, meaning that half rose by more than that and half grew by less.

“Among the report’s other findings:

• Thirty-nine percent of organizations said they expect to add workers in 2011, down from 41 percent that said the same in 2010.

• Executive directors of groups with annual budgets of $15-million or more are making a median of $168,950 this year. Among the survey’s smallest groups—those with budgets of less than $500,000—leaders are making a median of $72,710.

• Staff turnover was 15 percent for groups surveyed, compared with 22 percent in 2007, before the effects of the recession began to take hold.”

Monday, July 4, 2011

Have a Wonderful 4th of July



The American River from the Bluffs.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Leveraging Social Programs

New language, with other tweaks of the idea emerging from the 80’s and 90’s when venture capitalists got involved in philanthropy on a large scale—think the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—and called it venture philanthropy.

This article from Harvard Business Review reports.

An excerpt.

“Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, writing in HBR (December, 2006 and January-February, 2011), advance the idea of creating shared value by developing strategies and policies that enhance the competitiveness of the company while advancing social and economic conditions of the community.

“An alternative that has similar objectives but may be easier to implement and justify is leveraged social programs — programs that leverage a firm's assets and skills and have a direct effect on brands and customer relationships.

“Shared value can be achieved by offerings that address social needs as GE has done with economagination, by sustainability programs such as those of Walmart, or by enhancing rural development and water conservation for communities where there are local operations as Nestle has done.

“Shared value suggests that profits that are imbued with a social purpose can enable companies to grow while advancing society. It frames the enterprise mission and objectives in a new way. All profits are not equal. Those that advance society are better and those that detract from society are inferior. In my view the concept of shared value and its label advance the practice of management by broadening objectives and can potentially change the relative perception of business and its role in creating social good.

“However, I also see some practical implementation issues. First, although at a high level of abstraction it works, it is not clear how many decisions would be affected by the shared value concept. If a sustainability program will reduce costs or a local community program will increase productivity, a shared value justification will not be needed. If a societal beneficial product line will have customer support, it can be justified, as it was at GE, without a shared value rationale.”