Outcomes Schmoutcomes

October 3, 2013

Filed under: Fundraising,Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 4:20 pm

I am a big believer in nonprofit organizations measuring the outcomes they achieve.

It’s an essential tool for any staff/board to know they’re having the impact desired over time.

And if not, to adjust their strategy.

I also understand quite a few foundations are looking at demonstrated outcomes as part of their grant criteria.

However, I recently had the experience of having a nonprofit Executive Director tell me (and separately tell one of their board members) that their biggest challenge with major donor fundraising is they haven’t measured outcomes, so they can’t go make the case effectively to potential donors.

To that I say “outcomes schmoutcomes.”

In my 13 years of directly raising major donor money for a not-too-dissimilar organization, I can count on one hand the number of major donors for whom documented outcomes was a big deal.

This particular organization has a great brand, lots of long-term donors in the right age and income bracket to give, and lots of passion.

For donors giving at the $500, $1,000, and $2,500 levels — which is where this organization is focused — the key factors impacting a major donation are: do they share a passion for the mission, do they feel personally connected to the person asking, do they feel the organization is generally competent, and do they feel a sense of urgency that the donation is needed now, not some far off time in the future.  Emotion, not reason, is the dominant force in these donations.

Most likely, if the organization were to start talking with potential major donors with a focus on “outcomes,” eyes would glaze over and major donor meetings would be even LESS successful.

If the organization is not achieving the success it should with major donors, almost certainly there is something else askew.

Download/View a Printer-Friendly PDF Version

“I was waiting for . . .” is not a valid excuse

July 24, 2013

Filed under: Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 4:58 pm

Pet peeve of mine: Using “I was waiting for” as an excuse.

Too often somebody who’s not meeting a deadline responds that they’re failing because: “I was waiting for John Doe to do X first.”

Sometimes the precondition is totally legitimate.   They really needed John Doe to do X before they could do what they promised me.

But then too often the following exchange happens:

Me: “Why isn’t John Doe doing X.”

Them: “I emailed asking him to do X and I didn’t hear back.”

Me: “Did you pick up the phone and call John to confirm he got the email to make sure it’s getting done?”

Them: “No.”

Me: “When it was clear John wasn’t doing X by the time you needed X done, did you make any further effort beyond email to get X done by them or figure out another path forward?”

Them: “No.”



Hire for things other than just existing skills

April 12, 2013

Filed under: Human Resources,Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 2:53 pm

One of my pet peeves when talking to those doing hiring for nonprofit organizations is an overemphasis on finding people with the right existing skills.

A recent article suggests the same problem exists in the for-profit world.  In 5 Keys to Recruiting the Best of the Best, Langley Steinert writes about best hiring practices from the perspective of the high-tech world.

Steinert’s second point hit home for me:

“Companies often put too much emphasis on finding employees with “relevant experience.” Your top performers will end up being smart, resourceful, and innovative–three elements that have nothing to do with prior experience.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Time after time in my own work, both as an Executive Director, as a board member, and as a consultant, I’ve found that the best leaders are those who are adept at thinking strategically, motivating those around them, and are driven to succeed.

These are, of course, harder to evaluate in a traditional hiring practice — by looking at resumes and cover letters.

But it’s worth taking the time to figure out who will most thrive in a role.

Once, when hiring somebody to lead Oregon LCV’s political program, I had the two finalists spend an hour reviewing a scenario and then writing a memo with advice on how to spend political resources.

One of them emerged from the office where he had been working and said “that was hard.”  When the other emerged on the day of his final interview, he said, “that was fun.”

It  wasn’t my only clue, but it was  big final clue that led me to hire the one who thought puzzling through political challenges was “fun.”   And time proved it to be the correct hire.

So don’t be afraid when hiring to be creative in how you evaluate candidates.

A fascinating video about motivation

November 20, 2012

Filed under: Board Development,Human Resources,Leadership,Strategic Planning,Volunteers — jonathanpoisner @ 5:39 pm

The question I keep asking myself after repeatedly re-watching this video is: what are the implications for nonprofit organizations?

Some implications are fairly straightforward:

For example, with very few exceptions, nonprofits tend to eschew the use of financial performance bonuses as a means to spur better future results. The video suggests nonprofits are right to avoid financial bonuses.

Also, nonprofits have an inherent advantage over for-profit entities, in that their “purpose” is hard-wired into their reason for existence, unlike the “purpose” examples Pink cites from the for-profit world.

But how about mastery and autonomy? I think one of the deeper meanings of the video is that nonprofits can’t simply play the “purpose” trump card as a way to motivate volunteers and staff, if there is no effort to take into account the other two motivators.

If purpose, mastery, and autonomy are three legs of a stool, the nonprofit can’t survive on just one leg.

Another way of putting it is: if you strip away autonomy and mastery as a way to motivate your nonprofit team, what will result?

A nonprofit I’ve known for some time recently changed its decision-making structure to remove a great deal of authority (e.g. autonomy) from volunteers, even as the nonprofit continues to tout volunteers as a critical part of its strategy. Over time, what will that mean for the nonprofit’s ability to attract high quality volunteers? My prediction (which hasn’t yet had time to be born out) is that it will have a significant negative impact.

Aside from giving decision-making control to volunteers, are there other ways to meet their needs for autonomy and mastery?

What about employees? Are there lessons for how to engage them beyond the usual generalities about not micromanaging them?

Your feedback is encouraged.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

August 20, 2012

Filed under: Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 3:44 pm

I recently reviewed The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, by Patrick Lencioni.

The book is part fable and part logical argument about a series of dysfunctions that Lencioni believes lay at the heart of teamwork challenges facing many organizations.

For the full review, read onward.

Get it done

July 3, 2012

Filed under: Human Resources,Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 1:42 pm

I sometimes feel like there’s two types of people, those who talk about doing things and those that do them.

Talkers tend to talk a good game at first, but then remain remarkably passive in actual implementation of their ideas.  Often, when you ask them why something hasn’t happened, they revert to the passive voice.

“My board wasn’t engaged.”

“The donors weren’t enthusiastic.”

When you poke behind the surface, it’s often because the passive voiced talker sat on their buns expecting everyone but them to get it done.

I remember talking to one Executive Director who complained about their board’s lack of engagement and quizzing him about it.

Me: “Have you sat down with your board members one-on-one to talk about what they want to get out of service and to get to know then?”

ED: “No.”

Me: “Why not?”

ED: “I don’t know.  I guess I was waiting for my board members to call me”

Likewise, I recently engaged with a fundraiser who was great at building relationships, but it was never the right time to make an ask.

Fundraiser: “I spent the last year building relationships with these people.  If I ask them for money this year, they’ll think fundraising is all it was about.”

Now I’m all for relationship-based fundraising — indeed, it’s at the heart of what I train.  But you build the relationships as you ask for money, not as an alternative to asking for money.

In the end, the people who have get it done mentalities tend to do a bit less talking, and more time setting up clear plans, clear objectives, and then engage actively to get things done.

So one question I’ve come to ponder is this: how do you identify the talkers versus the “get it done” mentality in the hiring process?  Let me know if you have any ideas.

Nonprofit leadership traits

June 29, 2012

Filed under: Human Resources,Leadership — Tags: , , — jonathanpoisner @ 1:55 pm

In doing their hiring processes, most boards focus on what skills they want their Executive Director to have.

In my experience, it’s equally if not more important to identify the traits or personality characteristics you want.  Skills can be learned.  Personalities evolve infrequently.

So what traits/characteristics would I look for first?  Admittedly, this may vary based on the size and needs of the organization.  But this list is a pretty good starting place that any board could adapt to fit their own situation.

1. Self-Starter.  Good Executive Directors do not need somebody else to motivate them.  They are driven to be successful.

2. Passion for the mission.  Some people are highly professional, but it’s exceedingly rare that an Executive Director will excel if they do not feel a strong passion for the organization’s mission.  This will impact everything from their own motivation, to understanding the motivation of their board, donors, and volunteers.

3. Ability to motivate others.  No thriving organization relies upon the Executive Director to carry the load him or herself.  Rather, thriving organizations involve a team of staff, board, and other volunteers working together.  The key to all that is an Executive Director who values teamwork, is excited by watching their co-workers develop professionally, and who puts the team first.

4. See the forest and the trees.  An Executive Director must be able to view the world at two levels.  They must see the big picture (e.g. the forest) and think strategically about how to get the organization from here to there.  But they must also see the trees, being able to wade into the details of budgets, task lists, databases, and other nuts and bolts.   Very large organizations may be able to get by with a visionary Executive Director who has an assistant and is also paired with a Chief Operating Officer who handles the “trees.”  But for smaller or medium sized groups, having this dual personality is critical.

5. They have a service mentality.   They’ve probably volunteered for other nonprofits.  The questions they ask should suggest they are mostly concerned about how they can make a difference through the organization.  If a prospective Executive Director mostly asks about compensation or demands more than the organization can afford, this should be  a red flag.

6.  They are very comfortable and competent fundraisers, particularly with regard to individual major gifts.   Some may think this belongs in the list of “skills” instead of “traits.”  Perhaps it’s so important it belongs in both lists.  Regardless, the knack for being fearless in both forming relationships with prospective donors and a willingness to ask may be as much a personality trait as it is a skill.

7. Deal well with conflict.  All organizations have setbacks.  Thriving organizations handle them well, learn from them, and move on.  Since setbacks often involve conflict, Executive Directors need to be calm under fire, yet not be averse to conflict when it’s sometimes the right choice.

8. Doggedness.  They don’t let the little things get them down, but keep plugging away.  It is rare that a nonprofit thrives overnight.  Rather, it’s the accumulation of smaller victories over time that gets the boulder rolling downhill.  That means an Executive Director who works hard day in and out and not just at the obviously critical times.

What do you see as missing from this list?

Look for a future blog entry on how boards can use the hiring process to identify which candidates have these traits?

Some opening thoughts on leadership

June 12, 2012

Filed under: Leadership — jonathanpoisner @ 2:30 pm

I expect this to be the first of many blog entries on leadership.

I’ve been thinking about leadership as I’ve surveyed the landscape of organizations with whom I’ve worked or interacted.  In many instances, I’ve concluded that organizational challenges are really just a byproduct of the fact that those with authority in the organization lack leadership skills.

Three examples come to mind from the world of Executive Directors.

Being overly deferential to all-volunteer boards.  Executive Directors report to the board; and the board has the ultimate authority to set the organization’s direction.  But in my experience, boards thrive only when the Executive Director articulates a clear vision and strategy.  I’ve watched organizations flounder when the Executive Director has been unwilling to step up and push for a vision or strategy because he or she wants to keep every board member happy.

Paralysis by analysis.  Data is good.  Being deliberate about decisions is good.  But taken too far, I’ve watched organizations spin their wheels trying to line up the perfect set of information to justify what, in the end, has to be a judgment call.

Lack of focus.  I’ve seen this happen often within meetings.  But even more damaging is when the nominal leaders of an organization flutter back and forth among strategies based on minor shifts in the lay of the land.  Picking a winning strategy and focusing to see it through almost always will win out over vacillating between strategies.

I could, of course, add a dozen other skills that would fit under the label “leadership” and expect to write about them in the future.

Right now, I’m more interested in how people develop their leadership skills.  Four methods come immediately to mind.

  • Self-consciously studying leadership and trying to emulate what you’ve studied.
  • Finding a mentor or a coach to work with whom you work on your leadership skills.
  • Being thrust into situations where you must take on leadership outside your previous comfort zone.
  • Experiential learning program designed to teach leadership.

I’m particularly interested in hearing feedback on the last option — what experiential leadership development programs have you been part of that you recommend to others?  Or don’t recommend?  Why?

Content © Copyright 2010-2013 • Jonathan Poisner Strategic Consulting LLC. All rights reserved.