A good article from Nonprofit About.com for those organizations whose websites offer this.
An excerpt.
“All the great marketing copy, email solicitations, and earnest pleadings can and do fail once a donor gets to the donation page on your website.
“It happens to all of us all the time. Just think of the times you've abandoned your shopping cart at your favorite online shopping sites. Somehow, we just don't convert to being an actual buyer. The same thing happens with your donation page. It might not get the would-be donor over that leap of faith to the actual donation.
“Convio, a leading supplier of donor software to nonprofits, and Donordigital, a consultancy specializing in online fundraising, recently explored the factors that might influence a would-be donor to become an actual donor once he or she lands on your web donation form.
“In "Beyond Best Practices," a study of the donation pages of seven large nonprofits, the two companies tweaked and tested a number of donor page elements. The goal was to determine how to improve the user experience for existing audiences on donation landing pages to increase conversion.
“According to the researchers, "...a typical web donation page that has never been tested converts less than 15 percent of the visitors that reach it." Just think of the money your organization might be leaving on the table by not testing your donation page.
“The Convio/Donordigital study found that there was no "single set of changes to a donation form...that's guaranteed to work for every organization." However it did reveal the elements on those forms that most influence conversion. Just knowing that could make your own testing easier.”
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Leadership Coaching
I have been providing this service for years and the way I approach it is a pretty straightforward process of listening, advising, and inspiring.
This article from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.
An excerpt.
“Ruth McCambridge: If coaching is the answer, what’s the question?
“Bill Ryan: The question is, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, how am I, as a leader, in the way, and what do I need to do to get out of the way?” That’s a negative formulation of it. Another way to put it would be, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, what do I, as a leader, need to do to build on my strengths and manage my weaknesses to help it get there?”
“RM: It was interesting to see in the report how vague and all over the place the definitions of coaching are. Can you talk a little bit about what people mean when they talk about coaching?
“BR: There are lots of people attempting to nail down the definition. The practice of coaching is still relatively new, so everyone is trying to definitively type it, and, in particular, they’re very anxious to distinguish it from consulting or therapy. Some people, invested in the practice as a profession, want to put coaching on the map as something highly distinctive.
“RM: But isn’t it kind of a weird combination of consulting and therapy?
“BR: That’s right—when I talk to coaches and they describe what they do, it reveals that they’re doing a blend of things, and there was a nice typology put together by editors at Harvard Business Review that did show the overlap.
“I think, probably, the big difference many are trying to emphasize is that consulting would be about trying to come up with the answer, therapy would be about trying to get to self-understanding by understanding the past, and coaching is in the middle.
“[Coaching] should help you gain enough introspection to come up with your own solutions looking toward the future. [Leadership guru] Warren Benning was quoted as saying, basically, that the effort to distinguish it from therapy is partly just to make it more legitimate. No manager, certainly no for-profit one, is going to say, “I’ve got to stop our meeting now, it’s time for me to meet with my shrink.” But to say, “It’s time for me to meet with my coach” would be acceptable.”
This article from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.
An excerpt.
“Ruth McCambridge: If coaching is the answer, what’s the question?
“Bill Ryan: The question is, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, how am I, as a leader, in the way, and what do I need to do to get out of the way?” That’s a negative formulation of it. Another way to put it would be, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, what do I, as a leader, need to do to build on my strengths and manage my weaknesses to help it get there?”
“RM: It was interesting to see in the report how vague and all over the place the definitions of coaching are. Can you talk a little bit about what people mean when they talk about coaching?
“BR: There are lots of people attempting to nail down the definition. The practice of coaching is still relatively new, so everyone is trying to definitively type it, and, in particular, they’re very anxious to distinguish it from consulting or therapy. Some people, invested in the practice as a profession, want to put coaching on the map as something highly distinctive.
“RM: But isn’t it kind of a weird combination of consulting and therapy?
“BR: That’s right—when I talk to coaches and they describe what they do, it reveals that they’re doing a blend of things, and there was a nice typology put together by editors at Harvard Business Review that did show the overlap.
“I think, probably, the big difference many are trying to emphasize is that consulting would be about trying to come up with the answer, therapy would be about trying to get to self-understanding by understanding the past, and coaching is in the middle.
“[Coaching] should help you gain enough introspection to come up with your own solutions looking toward the future. [Leadership guru] Warren Benning was quoted as saying, basically, that the effort to distinguish it from therapy is partly just to make it more legitimate. No manager, certainly no for-profit one, is going to say, “I’ve got to stop our meeting now, it’s time for me to meet with my shrink.” But to say, “It’s time for me to meet with my coach” would be acceptable.”
Friday, August 5, 2011
Corporate Philanthropy
It is an avenue too few grassroots nonprofits tackle but it can be a very supportive one, and this paper from Harvard Business Weekly reports on a recent paper examining it.
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Optimism & Leadership
Excellent advice for anyone working within an organization, from Harvard Business Review.
An excerpt.
“One of my greatest mentors was the late Jay Chiat of TBWA Chiat Day, an iconoclast in the field of advertising with a constant imagination for possibilities in business and life. Jay embodied the three traits of a "lucky attitude" that I described in my last post: humility, intellectual curiosity, and optimism. Of these three characteristics, it was Jay's optimism which was perhaps his greatest lesson to me. He inspired people to embrace optimism — inside themselves, and also, as importantly, in others. It is a gift to understand how to project, share, and inspire with optimism. It is an even greater act of generosity to be inspired by optimism from others and to be willing to receive it.
“The capacity to be a natural recipient of ideas and other peoples' optimism is what makes for the ultimate optimist. You may be open to experimenting with new things, but do you truly see the good in something before the bad? The order of this thought process is critical: to try and see everything good in an idea before seeing anything bad. While most of us like to think we do, and would therefore self-describe ourselves as optimistic, more often (if we are truly honest with ourselves) we are natural critics (even cynics). Experience brings wisdom, but its collateral damage is that it can jade one against new concepts, turning many of us into Pavlovian skeptics. Whether we openly say it or not, we often think of what might be wrong with someone or something before we try to understand what might be right or good. The temptation and reflex for cynicism is usually more common than a natural responsive optimism. Cynicism is indeed the enemy of optimism.
“Here's a practical tool for the skeptic or cynic in all of us: the 24x3 rule. The next time you hear an idea for the first time, or meet someone new, try to wait 24 seconds before saying or thinking something negative. This reinforces a foundational skill of good optimists and good leadership. That basic skill is listening. As you gain the ability to listen and pause for a brief 24 seconds before letting the critic in you bubble to the verbal surface, move to the next level and try to do it for 24 minutes. At 24 minutes, you are able to give more considered thought to the idea and think more carefully of the many reasons why it might actually work, why it might be better than what is out there, and why it might just topple conventional wisdom.
“And yes, you should also work towards the ability to wait 24 hours — one single day — before pondering or verbalizing the cons against something. Of course, most times this will not be possible. Our minds cannot compartmentalize so easily, nor shut off our past experiences. But the 24x3 rule is a type of reflective meditation for developing a more optimistic approach towards people and ideas. The simple guideline of 24x24x24 is just a good reminder that a prerequisite of optimism is to have a willing suspension of disbelief.”
An excerpt.
“One of my greatest mentors was the late Jay Chiat of TBWA Chiat Day, an iconoclast in the field of advertising with a constant imagination for possibilities in business and life. Jay embodied the three traits of a "lucky attitude" that I described in my last post: humility, intellectual curiosity, and optimism. Of these three characteristics, it was Jay's optimism which was perhaps his greatest lesson to me. He inspired people to embrace optimism — inside themselves, and also, as importantly, in others. It is a gift to understand how to project, share, and inspire with optimism. It is an even greater act of generosity to be inspired by optimism from others and to be willing to receive it.
“The capacity to be a natural recipient of ideas and other peoples' optimism is what makes for the ultimate optimist. You may be open to experimenting with new things, but do you truly see the good in something before the bad? The order of this thought process is critical: to try and see everything good in an idea before seeing anything bad. While most of us like to think we do, and would therefore self-describe ourselves as optimistic, more often (if we are truly honest with ourselves) we are natural critics (even cynics). Experience brings wisdom, but its collateral damage is that it can jade one against new concepts, turning many of us into Pavlovian skeptics. Whether we openly say it or not, we often think of what might be wrong with someone or something before we try to understand what might be right or good. The temptation and reflex for cynicism is usually more common than a natural responsive optimism. Cynicism is indeed the enemy of optimism.
“Here's a practical tool for the skeptic or cynic in all of us: the 24x3 rule. The next time you hear an idea for the first time, or meet someone new, try to wait 24 seconds before saying or thinking something negative. This reinforces a foundational skill of good optimists and good leadership. That basic skill is listening. As you gain the ability to listen and pause for a brief 24 seconds before letting the critic in you bubble to the verbal surface, move to the next level and try to do it for 24 minutes. At 24 minutes, you are able to give more considered thought to the idea and think more carefully of the many reasons why it might actually work, why it might be better than what is out there, and why it might just topple conventional wisdom.
“And yes, you should also work towards the ability to wait 24 hours — one single day — before pondering or verbalizing the cons against something. Of course, most times this will not be possible. Our minds cannot compartmentalize so easily, nor shut off our past experiences. But the 24x3 rule is a type of reflective meditation for developing a more optimistic approach towards people and ideas. The simple guideline of 24x24x24 is just a good reminder that a prerequisite of optimism is to have a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Nonprofit Management: Drucker's Seminal Classic
Yesterday I noted a new book that is an excellent resource for nonprofit leadership, and today I wanted to remind you that the seminal nonprofit management classic still reigns supreme, and that is Peter Drucker’s Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices.
Drucker, who passed away in 2005, is the most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades and his seminal book is a brief 250 pages that captures the timeless wisdom and wonderful insights marking his work.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
Drucker, who passed away in 2005, is the most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades and his seminal book is a brief 250 pages that captures the timeless wisdom and wonderful insights marking his work.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Nonprofit Management: Basic & Advanced
Nonprofit Management 101: A Complete and Practical Guide for Leaders and Professionals, is a terrific book, with timeless advice from some of the top people in their respective nonprofit disciplines, reviewed here by Nonprofit About.com.
I added it to my library a few days ago, and suggest you get a copy also as it is a wonderful resource, and, as important, very fairly priced to fit within just about anyone's budget.
An excerpt.
“Lest you think that this book, at over 600 pages, is just a doorstop, let me assure you that you won't use it that way.
“These 50 essays from 50 nonprofit experts, such as Michael Watson of the Girl Scouts of the USA; David Greco of the Nonprofit Finance Fund; Holly Ross of NTEN; Andrea McManus of the AFP; Katya Andresen of Network for Good; and Beth Kanter of Zoetica, cover the gamut of nonprofit topics from human resources to social media.
“Furthermore, the essays embody the tried and true pillars of success associated with nonprofit work, while riding the edge of contemporary thought. They are not likely to go out of style any time soon.”
I added it to my library a few days ago, and suggest you get a copy also as it is a wonderful resource, and, as important, very fairly priced to fit within just about anyone's budget.
An excerpt.
“Lest you think that this book, at over 600 pages, is just a doorstop, let me assure you that you won't use it that way.
“These 50 essays from 50 nonprofit experts, such as Michael Watson of the Girl Scouts of the USA; David Greco of the Nonprofit Finance Fund; Holly Ross of NTEN; Andrea McManus of the AFP; Katya Andresen of Network for Good; and Beth Kanter of Zoetica, cover the gamut of nonprofit topics from human resources to social media.
“Furthermore, the essays embody the tried and true pillars of success associated with nonprofit work, while riding the edge of contemporary thought. They are not likely to go out of style any time soon.”
Monday, August 1, 2011
Due Diligence
It is something far too few donors conduct on programs they encounter face to face, especially small grassroots efforts where they are often enamoured by the charismatic founder, which is what this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review is about.
An excerpt.
“Donors should always aim to put their philanthropic capital to the best possible use. However, in the current economic climate, where resources are diminished and society’s problems are all the more pressing, the need for strategic giving is greater than ever. Moreover, the emergence of scandals such as the one underlying Greg Mortensen’s Three Cups of Tea has put the onus on donors to do their homework. With that in mind, I suggest ten due diligence practices for would-be funders who are in the process of sizing up a philanthropic opportunity.
“Don’t let dazzling stardom cloud your vision. Though the leader of your potential grantee may be brimming with charisma, be sure to go through all the standard checks that you normally would.
“On a related note: Look closely at the leadership. Is the leader’s brilliance a mask for the structural weakness of the organization? As the management guru Peter Drucker once famously advised, “No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”
“Use multiple sources for your decision-making. Don’t rely on just one set of opinions when forming a view about a nonprofit; carefully consult the whole range of stakeholders with whom they work. Speak with other funders in the same issue area—and not just those who are supporting your potential grantee. Conduct a site visit, since often there is nothing like seeing it for yourself. If that’s not possible, interview staff working at various levels throughout the organization, including the executive director, the project managers, and the board.
“Don’t overlook governance. In our recent Think Philanthropy report, “The State of UK Charity Boards (2011),” we contend that an engaged board—with members who have diverse skills and networks, and who exercise full oversight over their organization—are essential to the success of a nonprofit.
“Use Web 2.0 and peer review tools. One of the Internet’s most useful features for budding donors is its interactivity—it’s easy to find and share donor experiences with charities and other organizations.
“Remember that growth does not mean effectiveness. The mere fact that a charity is growing in staff size and income does not indicate that it is more successfully pursuing its mission. It merely indicates that it is good at fundraising. More money can fuel more marketing prowess, but the key question is whether that extra money fuels more programmatic output.
“Consider funding through intermediaries. There are several organisations, such as Global Greengrants, Give2Asia, the African Women’s Development Fund, and innumerable community foundations worldwide, that provide excellent channels for funding projects; they combine a skill for grant-making with on-the-ground knowledge of the area or community to which they are giving.”
An excerpt.
“Donors should always aim to put their philanthropic capital to the best possible use. However, in the current economic climate, where resources are diminished and society’s problems are all the more pressing, the need for strategic giving is greater than ever. Moreover, the emergence of scandals such as the one underlying Greg Mortensen’s Three Cups of Tea has put the onus on donors to do their homework. With that in mind, I suggest ten due diligence practices for would-be funders who are in the process of sizing up a philanthropic opportunity.
“Don’t let dazzling stardom cloud your vision. Though the leader of your potential grantee may be brimming with charisma, be sure to go through all the standard checks that you normally would.
“On a related note: Look closely at the leadership. Is the leader’s brilliance a mask for the structural weakness of the organization? As the management guru Peter Drucker once famously advised, “No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”
“Use multiple sources for your decision-making. Don’t rely on just one set of opinions when forming a view about a nonprofit; carefully consult the whole range of stakeholders with whom they work. Speak with other funders in the same issue area—and not just those who are supporting your potential grantee. Conduct a site visit, since often there is nothing like seeing it for yourself. If that’s not possible, interview staff working at various levels throughout the organization, including the executive director, the project managers, and the board.
“Don’t overlook governance. In our recent Think Philanthropy report, “The State of UK Charity Boards (2011),” we contend that an engaged board—with members who have diverse skills and networks, and who exercise full oversight over their organization—are essential to the success of a nonprofit.
“Use Web 2.0 and peer review tools. One of the Internet’s most useful features for budding donors is its interactivity—it’s easy to find and share donor experiences with charities and other organizations.
“Remember that growth does not mean effectiveness. The mere fact that a charity is growing in staff size and income does not indicate that it is more successfully pursuing its mission. It merely indicates that it is good at fundraising. More money can fuel more marketing prowess, but the key question is whether that extra money fuels more programmatic output.
“Consider funding through intermediaries. There are several organisations, such as Global Greengrants, Give2Asia, the African Women’s Development Fund, and innumerable community foundations worldwide, that provide excellent channels for funding projects; they combine a skill for grant-making with on-the-ground knowledge of the area or community to which they are giving.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
