It would be helpful, but not necessary, if you reference the post of June 13 entitled: "Mr. X's Dilemma -Stay or Go on a Nonprofit Board." You can access it on the Archives side of the Blog section (on the left).
I have received some great responses/suggestions from that post, about a new board member who was criticized by the board chair for asking a (good) question about board governance. Below is the most interesting. Read it - as it is a revealing and even disturbing piece of personal testimony by a reader from the "front lines." Note: by director is meant board member.
Please allow me to share ( anonymously) the story of a business person who recently sold his firm for over $10 million and who gave away 30% of that amount. These are not, I admit, Bloomberg numbers, but neither are they penurious - 30 donations of $100,000 would make a positive difference for a lot of nonprofits. But giving away this amount of money has not been a happy experience for me. Your blog post really hit a nerve, and if you think it is helpful, you are welcome to share it with your readers.
Twice in the past couple of months I've seen boards of venerable institutions alienate directors who might have been helpful to the long-term future - indeed survival- of those institutions. But before those directors could offer their wisdom and strategic insights based on decades of professional experience in the corporate and nonprofit worlds, it became clear to these directors that is was their bank account rather than their endeavors at serious governance, that was the subject of interest to the nonprofit organizations they had sought to help. In the short term this strategy might work. When operating deficits are mounting and many nonprofits have not recovered from the financial crisis of the past five years the quick buck has its appeal.
But the Sugar Daddy theory of nonprofit governance only delays the inevitable. Without accountability and standards, the hallmarks of effective governance in any organization and the essence of Geoff's blog post, the donors preferred by entrenched boards and nonprofit management will delay, but not avoid, the day of reckoning. Sadly, those donors who opened the door for consideration as board members, will find their advice is less valued when that advice is no longer accompanied by out-sized donations.
Here's a tip for nonprofit organizations who recruit people who have had a financial windfall, such as selling a business or cashing out of property and partnerships that were built over a career. When we "suddenly" - that is after 30 or 40 years of labor- become wealthy, we were happy to share that bounty with nonprofit organizations. Opportunities for board memberships soon follow. But while the financial windfall lasted only a few years, the judgment and insight that might have been of value to nonprofit organizations could have continued for a lifetime. Unfortunately it is very clear that once these windfalls have ended - for me and for the nonprofits to which I have been so generous - the invitations to board service have also come to a close. This is precisely the reason that many entrepreneurs choose to create their own foundations rather than become involved in those that already exist,. Our energies are perhaps best exerted. even in our 6th or 7th decade and later, in starting new enterprises rather than contributing to those that have as their primary interest recruiting people who are engaged primarily in sustaining the mistakes of the past,
Well, Dr. Geoff, that was certainly therapeutic for me. I hope it will serve some of your readers. If nonprofits need board members and leaders who are capable of building organizations and sustaining them through difficult times, then they might start by valuing those board members for their acumen rather than their back account.
Many thanks to my necessarily anonymous reader for this candid and articulate testimony. I hope it will be of use. Feel free, as always, to pass it on.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Mr. X's Dilemma - Stay or Go on a Nonprofit Board?
The other day an old friend and colleague told me a story, one that ends with an interesting question. Here's the scenario: a gentleman, recently retired as a senior corporate executive is invited to join and accepts a position on a non-profit board of some prominence in his community, where he enjoys a fine reputation. Aside from his professional career, the man we'll call Mr. X, has served on a number of boards of notable nonprofit organizations.
He attends his first board meeting and at one point speaks up, raising a question of governance procedure, namely does the board engage in an annual self-evaluation? A noncommittal answer is given by the executive director who has served in that position for many years, in fact since the organization's founding. That evening Mr. X receives a phone call from the board Chair who in a chiding tone, tells him in future meetings to calm down, to cool his jets and not to be so aggressive.
The mild-mannered Mr. X is taken aback - in fact insulted. He asks a friend: I am 70 years old, with many professional accomplishments and can offer a lot to a board, why should I continue to serve on a board where right out of the gate its leadership seeks to stifle and gag me? A good question...
For an answer, let's engage in some conjecture about the reason the board Chair made that call. It might be he said to himself: "Oh-oh, Mr. X is on to something and we don't want him to go down that road." This defensive posture suggests the Chair is a control czar, along with the director. Another possibility, and a kinder one, is that the chair wanted to educate, albeit brusquely, Mr, X about the culture of the organization.. If so, he might want to figure out what role the board plays in governing the institution aside from a select few.
I discussed Mr. X's quandary with the colleague who brought it to my attention. I offered perhaps a)Mr. X stay on for at least enough time to quietly take the temperature of the board and its leadership at meetings, and plan his participation accordingly or b) take a "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" approach and continue to raise questions that might cause discomfort. That latter option would have to jibe with his personality. It might result in his being pigeon-holed as a troublemaker.
As for the former idea, my colleague suggested an examination of Mr. X's reason for joining the board. If he is deeply committed to the mission of the organization, then he might be able to ignore the style of its leaders, including their domineering attitude, and press on. But if he is more interested in management issues, given the controlling nature of the leadership, he could undergo grinding frustration as he finds his ideas routinely brushed aside.
I don't know how much time Mr. X spent with the leadership before agreeing to serve on the board. His quandary might not have arisen if in thorough pre-decision discussions he could have explored issues and scoped out management styles. Perhaps then he might not have signed on.
I have written before about the importance of thoughtful, mutual vetting in advance between a potential board member and the nonprofit. Such a process can determine if there is a good fit. This story only reinforces that need.
What do you think Mr. X should do? Hang in there, or resign and return for more time with the comforts of retirement? Comment below or write me at: info@geoffreyplattconsulting.com
He attends his first board meeting and at one point speaks up, raising a question of governance procedure, namely does the board engage in an annual self-evaluation? A noncommittal answer is given by the executive director who has served in that position for many years, in fact since the organization's founding. That evening Mr. X receives a phone call from the board Chair who in a chiding tone, tells him in future meetings to calm down, to cool his jets and not to be so aggressive.
The mild-mannered Mr. X is taken aback - in fact insulted. He asks a friend: I am 70 years old, with many professional accomplishments and can offer a lot to a board, why should I continue to serve on a board where right out of the gate its leadership seeks to stifle and gag me? A good question...
For an answer, let's engage in some conjecture about the reason the board Chair made that call. It might be he said to himself: "Oh-oh, Mr. X is on to something and we don't want him to go down that road." This defensive posture suggests the Chair is a control czar, along with the director. Another possibility, and a kinder one, is that the chair wanted to educate, albeit brusquely, Mr, X about the culture of the organization.. If so, he might want to figure out what role the board plays in governing the institution aside from a select few.
I discussed Mr. X's quandary with the colleague who brought it to my attention. I offered perhaps a)Mr. X stay on for at least enough time to quietly take the temperature of the board and its leadership at meetings, and plan his participation accordingly or b) take a "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" approach and continue to raise questions that might cause discomfort. That latter option would have to jibe with his personality. It might result in his being pigeon-holed as a troublemaker.
As for the former idea, my colleague suggested an examination of Mr. X's reason for joining the board. If he is deeply committed to the mission of the organization, then he might be able to ignore the style of its leaders, including their domineering attitude, and press on. But if he is more interested in management issues, given the controlling nature of the leadership, he could undergo grinding frustration as he finds his ideas routinely brushed aside.
I don't know how much time Mr. X spent with the leadership before agreeing to serve on the board. His quandary might not have arisen if in thorough pre-decision discussions he could have explored issues and scoped out management styles. Perhaps then he might not have signed on.
I have written before about the importance of thoughtful, mutual vetting in advance between a potential board member and the nonprofit. Such a process can determine if there is a good fit. This story only reinforces that need.
What do you think Mr. X should do? Hang in there, or resign and return for more time with the comforts of retirement? Comment below or write me at: info@geoffreyplattconsulting.com
Friday, May 10, 2013
The Corcoran Conundrum - Woes of a Great Art Museum
The Corcoran in the title is the venerable Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington DC. Conundrum of course means a difficult problem, sometimes set in a riddle. I use it here because a) it's alliterative b) I love the word and c) it describes precisely the situation the museum presently faces. It may also serve as an object lesson in crisis management by a board and what can happen when the skill of a professional executive is absent.
The Corcoran was founded in 1870 with the purpose of "encouraging American genius" and built on the collection of American art gathered by its namesake William W, Corcoran. In 1897 it moved into a new and beautiful Beaux Arts building near the White House, where it remains today. An addition in 1928 allowed it to display an extensive collection of European art donated by Senator William Clark of Montana (a famous scoundrel, but that's another story). Since 1890 the Corcoran program has included the Corcoran School of Art + Design, an accredited degree-granting college of art. The collections, school and the building are all highly regarded in the museum and cultural world.
The Corcoran is the largest privately supported cultural institution in D.C. That's good and bad news. The level of support is the good news; the bad new is that the Gallery is in competition with the Federally supported, free admission National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian museums.That, plus the economic downturn, an aging facility crowding its site, and a non Mall location, has created fiscal challenges. The building is said to need $130 million in renovations and the annual operating budget, approximately $20 million, has been running $7 million deficits the past few years.
The Gallery has a history of controversies. In 1989, in the face of Congressional uproar over its content, the Corcoran cancelled a long planned exhibit, partially funded by the NEA, of the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe, some of which were homoerotic in nature. There was a public outcry against the Gallery for caving in to censorship. The show was taken up by the much smaller Washington Project for the Arts, where it drew large crowds and, parenthetically, elicited one of my favorite public reviews of a controversial art exhibit. When asked by a reporter from The Washington Post what she thought of the exhibit, a well-dressed elderly woman replied: " It gets more disgusting every time I see it."
A number of directors came and went. One of the longer serving, David Levy, hired in 1991, had grand plans for the Gallery. In 1999 the Corcoran retained the renowned Frank Gehry, fresh off the triumph of his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, to design an addition. The budget was $60 million. Amid much excitement a capital campaign was launched, gathered steam but sputtered out and died in 2005 after raising what would otherwise be considered an impressive $28 million in cash. Of that, according to Washingtonian Magazine, $17 million went to the Gehry firm and others involved in the planning. As the magazine put it: " not a single stone was ever moved." Although a recession could be partly blamed, the museum suffered a black eye and donors were very unhappy. David Levy resigned.
Fast forward to the present day. After another director came and went, leaving in 2010 because of illness, the current leadership emerged. The board chairman is a successful venture capitalist/art collector, the director a retired bank president who first served as a consultant (one of many over the years) to the museum and the chief operating officer is a former board member from the economic development field. It has been pointed out that none have professional museum management backgrounds. But they have plenty of business experience.
Perhaps that background led to the astonishing announcement in June 2012 that the board, to cope with the financial crisis, was "exploring" selling its present building, its iconic Beaux Arts home for over 105 years, and relocating the collections and school. To where was unstated, although later it was revealed there had been discussions with officials in neighboring Alexandria, Virginia. Was this a form of business divestment? For sure, it was a public relations misstep, Predictably a public uproar ensued, a "Save the Corcoran" organization formed, letters and petitions circulated.
Furthermore, in the midst of what The Washington Post termed the Corcoran's "methodical - critics say plodding- process to re imagine its identity" (for which $1.5 million was reportedly spent on consultants) steps Wayne Reynolds, a prominent Washington philanthropist, who announces in March 2013 he has a plan to save the Gallery. By that time the idea of selling the museum building had been shelved by the board. Few would have paid attention to Reynolds' announcement, including the media, if he had not just finished leading a capital campaign that raised $54 million in support of historic Ford's Theatre.
Reynolds' plan included selling "hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art" not normally seen in public. That move, plus other radical ideas, would require his becoming board chairman. His scheme generated much publicity, a cool response from the Corcoran leadership and a lot of clucking in the art world about such a public spat.
Finally (perhaps not in this saga) in April the Corcoran announced the results of its lengthy deliberations. First is that it is entering into two partnerships, one with the University of Maryland directed at sharing higher education resources, the other with the National Gallery of Art, whose East Building is closing for renovation in 2014, to exhibit works displaced by the project. Lastly, and importantly, Peggy Loar, a respected and experienced museum director has been retained to oversee these significant initiatives as "consulting director."
Will it be enough? One could say such a plan would be plenty ambitious even for an institution in a stable financial situation which, with its deficits and infrastructure needs, the Corcoran is not. Somewhere along the line the leaks in this ship have to be fixed. With a professional at the helm, the previously mentioned new strategic partnerships and a rally of public support, let's hope that will happen.
The most successful museums, and this goes for nonprofits in general, are guided by responsible boards and professional executives knowledgeable in their fields. The lack of the latter at the Corcoran these past number of years may be one reason why this ship lost its bearings. Admittedly it is tough to bail and steer at the same time. But it is helpful to have a professional pilot.
The Corcoran was founded in 1870 with the purpose of "encouraging American genius" and built on the collection of American art gathered by its namesake William W, Corcoran. In 1897 it moved into a new and beautiful Beaux Arts building near the White House, where it remains today. An addition in 1928 allowed it to display an extensive collection of European art donated by Senator William Clark of Montana (a famous scoundrel, but that's another story). Since 1890 the Corcoran program has included the Corcoran School of Art + Design, an accredited degree-granting college of art. The collections, school and the building are all highly regarded in the museum and cultural world.
The Corcoran is the largest privately supported cultural institution in D.C. That's good and bad news. The level of support is the good news; the bad new is that the Gallery is in competition with the Federally supported, free admission National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian museums.That, plus the economic downturn, an aging facility crowding its site, and a non Mall location, has created fiscal challenges. The building is said to need $130 million in renovations and the annual operating budget, approximately $20 million, has been running $7 million deficits the past few years.
The Gallery has a history of controversies. In 1989, in the face of Congressional uproar over its content, the Corcoran cancelled a long planned exhibit, partially funded by the NEA, of the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe, some of which were homoerotic in nature. There was a public outcry against the Gallery for caving in to censorship. The show was taken up by the much smaller Washington Project for the Arts, where it drew large crowds and, parenthetically, elicited one of my favorite public reviews of a controversial art exhibit. When asked by a reporter from The Washington Post what she thought of the exhibit, a well-dressed elderly woman replied: " It gets more disgusting every time I see it."
A number of directors came and went. One of the longer serving, David Levy, hired in 1991, had grand plans for the Gallery. In 1999 the Corcoran retained the renowned Frank Gehry, fresh off the triumph of his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, to design an addition. The budget was $60 million. Amid much excitement a capital campaign was launched, gathered steam but sputtered out and died in 2005 after raising what would otherwise be considered an impressive $28 million in cash. Of that, according to Washingtonian Magazine, $17 million went to the Gehry firm and others involved in the planning. As the magazine put it: " not a single stone was ever moved." Although a recession could be partly blamed, the museum suffered a black eye and donors were very unhappy. David Levy resigned.
Fast forward to the present day. After another director came and went, leaving in 2010 because of illness, the current leadership emerged. The board chairman is a successful venture capitalist/art collector, the director a retired bank president who first served as a consultant (one of many over the years) to the museum and the chief operating officer is a former board member from the economic development field. It has been pointed out that none have professional museum management backgrounds. But they have plenty of business experience.
Perhaps that background led to the astonishing announcement in June 2012 that the board, to cope with the financial crisis, was "exploring" selling its present building, its iconic Beaux Arts home for over 105 years, and relocating the collections and school. To where was unstated, although later it was revealed there had been discussions with officials in neighboring Alexandria, Virginia. Was this a form of business divestment? For sure, it was a public relations misstep, Predictably a public uproar ensued, a "Save the Corcoran" organization formed, letters and petitions circulated.
Furthermore, in the midst of what The Washington Post termed the Corcoran's "methodical - critics say plodding- process to re imagine its identity" (for which $1.5 million was reportedly spent on consultants) steps Wayne Reynolds, a prominent Washington philanthropist, who announces in March 2013 he has a plan to save the Gallery. By that time the idea of selling the museum building had been shelved by the board. Few would have paid attention to Reynolds' announcement, including the media, if he had not just finished leading a capital campaign that raised $54 million in support of historic Ford's Theatre.
Reynolds' plan included selling "hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art" not normally seen in public. That move, plus other radical ideas, would require his becoming board chairman. His scheme generated much publicity, a cool response from the Corcoran leadership and a lot of clucking in the art world about such a public spat.
Finally (perhaps not in this saga) in April the Corcoran announced the results of its lengthy deliberations. First is that it is entering into two partnerships, one with the University of Maryland directed at sharing higher education resources, the other with the National Gallery of Art, whose East Building is closing for renovation in 2014, to exhibit works displaced by the project. Lastly, and importantly, Peggy Loar, a respected and experienced museum director has been retained to oversee these significant initiatives as "consulting director."
Will it be enough? One could say such a plan would be plenty ambitious even for an institution in a stable financial situation which, with its deficits and infrastructure needs, the Corcoran is not. Somewhere along the line the leaks in this ship have to be fixed. With a professional at the helm, the previously mentioned new strategic partnerships and a rally of public support, let's hope that will happen.
The most successful museums, and this goes for nonprofits in general, are guided by responsible boards and professional executives knowledgeable in their fields. The lack of the latter at the Corcoran these past number of years may be one reason why this ship lost its bearings. Admittedly it is tough to bail and steer at the same time. But it is helpful to have a professional pilot.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Join the Meeting Revolution
Last February in The New York Times, Carson Tate, a management consultant from North Carolina, wrote an article entitled: "When You've Had One Meeting Too Many" in which she decries the "meeting-intensive" culture in our corporate life. She gives an example of a senior manager who, because of a schedule crammed with meetings and little time at her desk, found her team - those female members at least - following her into the restroom for consultations.
I bet just about everyone reading this would agree with her premise that we suffer from meeting glut.. "Where is X?" "He's in a meeting...." The core question to ask is: how productive is any meeting? You can bet one without an agenda would lead the pack, followed closely by one with no time limit. Ms. Tate asks us to evaluate the return on investment of time - a most precious commodity - derived from any meeting. Then, if the answer is negative - and here is where the revolution idea comes into play - perhaps deciding not to attend.
That is easier said than done, especially if your boss has called the meeting, though perhaps it would be a service to senior management if questioning the necessity of meeting was posed more often. Sometimes meetings occur at requests of, say, project managers who want the "face time" with top management and to assert their authority over team members. No doubt there are legitimate reasons to gather. But Carson Tate reasonably suggests that if that is the case ground rules be established and promulgated in advance.
Setting agenda and time is the first rule. What will be discussed and for how long? Without these guideposts any meeting is almost guaranteed to be a waste of time. With their establishment however is the requirement that whoever chairs the meeting - usually the convener- serve as a stern referee. The evil elf -whose name is Digression - is always a meeting attendee and should he make a vocal appearance, needs to be quickly dispatched back to his lair.
I have experienced Chairs who are masters at keeping meeting participants on task and some who have not. One in particular, who led a board, was part of the problem. Participating in one of his meetings was a little like being on a river voyage with a boat captain who, coming upon a tributary, impulsively decides to explore it, even though it means there will be a delay in arriving at the ultimate destination. The result was often frustration, meetings going over time and agenda items being given short shrift.
Others with whom I have worked have skilfully kept the craft on course, sometimes having to tactfully shut down babblers and grumblers - all in the cause of keeping to the agenda, and the allotted time.
Trickier to manage can be the more informal meetings - "let's get together to discuss X - see you at 3." If the person who wants the meeting cannot be persuaded to use another medium - email or conference call for example - then Tate suggests convening what I first heard called a "Navy Meeting" (presumably developed on the high seas) - where all attendees meet standing up. Leg fatigue is sure to limit the length of discussion. I know from experience.
There are other techniques that can lead to shorter and more focused meetings- clarity on what outcomes are desired for instance, which can lead to an ongoing check of a meeting's progress by those in attendance. For formal board meetings use of a "consent agenda" can be handy. Borrowed from legislative procedure, this agenda bunches non-controversial issues into one package for a one vote approval. It assumes board members have read in advance whatever reports or matters are included. That in itself can be a challenge.
These ideas can streamline meetings, but if there is to be a true "meeting revolution" then the need for and purpose of any meeting needs to be questioned in the first place. For everyone, time carries a high value and should not be squandered needlessly.
On a personal note, thanks to those of you who wished me well on knee replacement surgery mentioned in the February post. It has been postponed. Look for another call for sympathy sometime in the future.
I bet just about everyone reading this would agree with her premise that we suffer from meeting glut.. "Where is X?" "He's in a meeting...." The core question to ask is: how productive is any meeting? You can bet one without an agenda would lead the pack, followed closely by one with no time limit. Ms. Tate asks us to evaluate the return on investment of time - a most precious commodity - derived from any meeting. Then, if the answer is negative - and here is where the revolution idea comes into play - perhaps deciding not to attend.
That is easier said than done, especially if your boss has called the meeting, though perhaps it would be a service to senior management if questioning the necessity of meeting was posed more often. Sometimes meetings occur at requests of, say, project managers who want the "face time" with top management and to assert their authority over team members. No doubt there are legitimate reasons to gather. But Carson Tate reasonably suggests that if that is the case ground rules be established and promulgated in advance.
Setting agenda and time is the first rule. What will be discussed and for how long? Without these guideposts any meeting is almost guaranteed to be a waste of time. With their establishment however is the requirement that whoever chairs the meeting - usually the convener- serve as a stern referee. The evil elf -whose name is Digression - is always a meeting attendee and should he make a vocal appearance, needs to be quickly dispatched back to his lair.
I have experienced Chairs who are masters at keeping meeting participants on task and some who have not. One in particular, who led a board, was part of the problem. Participating in one of his meetings was a little like being on a river voyage with a boat captain who, coming upon a tributary, impulsively decides to explore it, even though it means there will be a delay in arriving at the ultimate destination. The result was often frustration, meetings going over time and agenda items being given short shrift.
Others with whom I have worked have skilfully kept the craft on course, sometimes having to tactfully shut down babblers and grumblers - all in the cause of keeping to the agenda, and the allotted time.
Trickier to manage can be the more informal meetings - "let's get together to discuss X - see you at 3." If the person who wants the meeting cannot be persuaded to use another medium - email or conference call for example - then Tate suggests convening what I first heard called a "Navy Meeting" (presumably developed on the high seas) - where all attendees meet standing up. Leg fatigue is sure to limit the length of discussion. I know from experience.
There are other techniques that can lead to shorter and more focused meetings- clarity on what outcomes are desired for instance, which can lead to an ongoing check of a meeting's progress by those in attendance. For formal board meetings use of a "consent agenda" can be handy. Borrowed from legislative procedure, this agenda bunches non-controversial issues into one package for a one vote approval. It assumes board members have read in advance whatever reports or matters are included. That in itself can be a challenge.
These ideas can streamline meetings, but if there is to be a true "meeting revolution" then the need for and purpose of any meeting needs to be questioned in the first place. For everyone, time carries a high value and should not be squandered needlessly.
On a personal note, thanks to those of you who wished me well on knee replacement surgery mentioned in the February post. It has been postponed. Look for another call for sympathy sometime in the future.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Nonprofits - Get With The Program!
Strategic planning continues to be a widely used undertaking in the nonprofit world - and that is a good thing. It is helpful to know where you are going and to set measurement markers along the way. Parenthetically, sometimes I wonder about the productivity of the planning means...retreats, facilitators, power points, etc. I will set that issue aside for now; a subject perhaps for another post.
Within planning nonprofit leaders should not lose sight of the need for programming. I do not mean planning specific programs a nonprofit might provide but rather the concept of examining carefully the purpose and design of such programs. Let me illustrate from personal experience.
When I began directing the Maymont Foundation in Richmond in 1992 - the Foundation operates the 104 acre museum and park complex(www.maymont.org) in the city - there was great excitement about a $1 million pledge from a board member to build a new nature center. A small center was housed in an early 20th century stone barn on the former estate. It had an aquarium tank and some exhibits of live animals, snakes, owls, etc. The center was very popular with school children and their teachers, eager for an indoor environmental education site in addition to the magnificent outdoors of Maymont, which included wildlife habitats. The need for an expanded center - to meet demand - was quite clear.
What was not clear was what was to happen in a new building, its size and where it would be sited on a large and topographically challenging property. Nevertheless some key board members had already identified potential architects and even, with me in tow, flown in a private jet to examine a new Nature Center in another state. With my limited experience I knew $1 million would not go very far but I was particularly concerned that we were, so to speak, "flying blind."
Fortunately I had heard a presentation at a museum conference by a noted campus planner Richard P. Dober. He urged the audience to engage in programming the facility before embarking on the design phase. Ascertain what you want the building to provide for your audience and have the design conform to the program- in other words: "form follows function" - a phrase coined by the great Chicago architect Louis Sullivan.
I was convinced. We ultimately hired Dober and his firm to guide us in developing a program for a new nature center. The program report, covering potential activities, their physical adjacencies and siting solutions, was presented to each architectural firm the building committee chose to interview. The result provided the committee with a means to compare not only each firm's design abilities but also their thoughts on how the challenges presented in the facility program would be met..
The designers selected - a team of the Richmond architect Sanford Bond and the internationally known Cambridge Seven Associates - brought forth a brilliant concept that built upon and embellished the facility program they had been given, In November 1999 the Robins Nature and Visitor Center opened, seven years and $18 million dollars ($5 million in endowment) after the dream began. The center has attracted over two million visitors since it began operations.
Too often nonprofit executives and boards will leap at a good idea for a program or service and skip the step suggested here - a deep analysis of what purpose the program will serve, how it fits into the mission and architecture of the organization, and how it will be sustained if successful. For example, there might be an idea like: "We need to fix up the old barn - let's raise money for that." The chances of successfully securing money for renovation will be greatly enhanced by first thinking through the questions of the renovated building's purpose and function.That thought process, which should be undertaken as a corporate endeavor, can also serve to build support for whatever final shape the program will take.
Speaking of renovation, in a week I am scheduled to have knee replacement surgery, so there may be a delay in my next post. I fear the project is a dim prospect for raising funds, but I will gladly welcome ideas.
Within planning nonprofit leaders should not lose sight of the need for programming. I do not mean planning specific programs a nonprofit might provide but rather the concept of examining carefully the purpose and design of such programs. Let me illustrate from personal experience.
When I began directing the Maymont Foundation in Richmond in 1992 - the Foundation operates the 104 acre museum and park complex(www.maymont.org) in the city - there was great excitement about a $1 million pledge from a board member to build a new nature center. A small center was housed in an early 20th century stone barn on the former estate. It had an aquarium tank and some exhibits of live animals, snakes, owls, etc. The center was very popular with school children and their teachers, eager for an indoor environmental education site in addition to the magnificent outdoors of Maymont, which included wildlife habitats. The need for an expanded center - to meet demand - was quite clear.
What was not clear was what was to happen in a new building, its size and where it would be sited on a large and topographically challenging property. Nevertheless some key board members had already identified potential architects and even, with me in tow, flown in a private jet to examine a new Nature Center in another state. With my limited experience I knew $1 million would not go very far but I was particularly concerned that we were, so to speak, "flying blind."
Fortunately I had heard a presentation at a museum conference by a noted campus planner Richard P. Dober. He urged the audience to engage in programming the facility before embarking on the design phase. Ascertain what you want the building to provide for your audience and have the design conform to the program- in other words: "form follows function" - a phrase coined by the great Chicago architect Louis Sullivan.
I was convinced. We ultimately hired Dober and his firm to guide us in developing a program for a new nature center. The program report, covering potential activities, their physical adjacencies and siting solutions, was presented to each architectural firm the building committee chose to interview. The result provided the committee with a means to compare not only each firm's design abilities but also their thoughts on how the challenges presented in the facility program would be met..
The designers selected - a team of the Richmond architect Sanford Bond and the internationally known Cambridge Seven Associates - brought forth a brilliant concept that built upon and embellished the facility program they had been given, In November 1999 the Robins Nature and Visitor Center opened, seven years and $18 million dollars ($5 million in endowment) after the dream began. The center has attracted over two million visitors since it began operations.
Too often nonprofit executives and boards will leap at a good idea for a program or service and skip the step suggested here - a deep analysis of what purpose the program will serve, how it fits into the mission and architecture of the organization, and how it will be sustained if successful. For example, there might be an idea like: "We need to fix up the old barn - let's raise money for that." The chances of successfully securing money for renovation will be greatly enhanced by first thinking through the questions of the renovated building's purpose and function.That thought process, which should be undertaken as a corporate endeavor, can also serve to build support for whatever final shape the program will take.
Speaking of renovation, in a week I am scheduled to have knee replacement surgery, so there may be a delay in my next post. I fear the project is a dim prospect for raising funds, but I will gladly welcome ideas.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Oh-Oh ...disturbing stats about nonprofits' fundraisers
A recent Chronicle of Philanthropy post cites a new national study by CompassPoint of 2,700 development directors and nonprofit leaders that details disturbing findings. Here are some:
Unhappy development directors blame their organization leaders for lack of understanding or commitment to fundraising. Some of these leaders, they say, are prone to invest their entire fundraising operation in a single individual, creating unreasonable expectations. There is no doubt an effective DOD must possess a broad range of skills - event planner, major donor cultivator- schmoozer, grant writer, and interpersonal relations star. That combination is rare and may account for the vacancy rate. Assuming such a paragon can be found, success will be futile unless the organization as a whole is prepared to support not only the position/function, but also the importance of fundraising to the realization of the organization's mission.
Hold on...what do you mean? Some organizations don't think raising money is critical? The answer lies in defining "organization." Too many nonprofits look on development departmentally - occupants in a table of organization box toiling away on reaching a monetary goal. The objective should be to have fundraising be an organization-wide activity, infused throughout the design and culture of the nonprofit. It has to be a team effort.
Key team members with the DOD are a) the board and b) the executive director or CEO. Ultimately boards are or should be charged with fiduciary stewardship of the nonprofit. Executive directors (EDs) are responsible for directing the organization- with daily oversight of its programs and smooth operation. They are also its primary public face, whose knowledge of and passion for the mission are constantly on call. Seventy-five percent of EDs in the study claimed their trustees were inadequately engaged in raising money. Thirty-six percent said their boards had no fundraising committees and seventeen percent had no involvement in fundraising whatsoever.
Board engagement is critical. The members are connectors to the community, as well as perceived leaders. Unless they are prepared to raise money - directly and indirectly - and understand that fundraising is part of their responsibility as trustees, the nonprofit will suffer. "Friendraisers" as a substitute just won't cut it. Too often, as one survey respondent stated, "boards associate development with desperation and with having to give money themselves." The latter, at least, should be a given.
The relationship between the ED and DOD is important and a test of whether the desired teamwork is working. The ED should be thinking of development strategically. I had the great fortune at Maymont Foundation in Richmond of, for some years, having Judy Ford as DOD, from whom I learned a lot. We formed a partnership, along with a committed board, that succeeded in building a robust development operation and most notably raising $18 million in a three year campaign to build and endow a new Nature and Visitor Center. Judy was, and is, the paragon cited above. Additionally she showed us that fundraising could even be fun!
Junior staff must also be included in the organization-wide development team. They work hard to advance the mission and can influence a potential donor's perception of the nonprofit.
If the entire institution - staff and board - embraces fundraising and creates a culture conducive to philanthropy chances are good that the dim results found in this survey can be turned around. In an interview in the latest issue of the magazine Inc., the billionaire art collector and philanthropist Eli Broad said: "Philanthropy is not charity. Charity is writing checks. Philanthropy is an investment where you can see return." Amen.
- more than 50% of executive directors state they cannot find well-qualified staff to head up fundraising. Many organizations have had their Director of Development (DOD) position vacant for months - some even years.
- Half of chief fundraisers reported they intend to leave their jobs within two years or less and 40% are considering quitting fundraising completely.
Unhappy development directors blame their organization leaders for lack of understanding or commitment to fundraising. Some of these leaders, they say, are prone to invest their entire fundraising operation in a single individual, creating unreasonable expectations. There is no doubt an effective DOD must possess a broad range of skills - event planner, major donor cultivator- schmoozer, grant writer, and interpersonal relations star. That combination is rare and may account for the vacancy rate. Assuming such a paragon can be found, success will be futile unless the organization as a whole is prepared to support not only the position/function, but also the importance of fundraising to the realization of the organization's mission.
Hold on...what do you mean? Some organizations don't think raising money is critical? The answer lies in defining "organization." Too many nonprofits look on development departmentally - occupants in a table of organization box toiling away on reaching a monetary goal. The objective should be to have fundraising be an organization-wide activity, infused throughout the design and culture of the nonprofit. It has to be a team effort.
Key team members with the DOD are a) the board and b) the executive director or CEO. Ultimately boards are or should be charged with fiduciary stewardship of the nonprofit. Executive directors (EDs) are responsible for directing the organization- with daily oversight of its programs and smooth operation. They are also its primary public face, whose knowledge of and passion for the mission are constantly on call. Seventy-five percent of EDs in the study claimed their trustees were inadequately engaged in raising money. Thirty-six percent said their boards had no fundraising committees and seventeen percent had no involvement in fundraising whatsoever.
Board engagement is critical. The members are connectors to the community, as well as perceived leaders. Unless they are prepared to raise money - directly and indirectly - and understand that fundraising is part of their responsibility as trustees, the nonprofit will suffer. "Friendraisers" as a substitute just won't cut it. Too often, as one survey respondent stated, "boards associate development with desperation and with having to give money themselves." The latter, at least, should be a given.
The relationship between the ED and DOD is important and a test of whether the desired teamwork is working. The ED should be thinking of development strategically. I had the great fortune at Maymont Foundation in Richmond of, for some years, having Judy Ford as DOD, from whom I learned a lot. We formed a partnership, along with a committed board, that succeeded in building a robust development operation and most notably raising $18 million in a three year campaign to build and endow a new Nature and Visitor Center. Judy was, and is, the paragon cited above. Additionally she showed us that fundraising could even be fun!
Junior staff must also be included in the organization-wide development team. They work hard to advance the mission and can influence a potential donor's perception of the nonprofit.
If the entire institution - staff and board - embraces fundraising and creates a culture conducive to philanthropy chances are good that the dim results found in this survey can be turned around. In an interview in the latest issue of the magazine Inc., the billionaire art collector and philanthropist Eli Broad said: "Philanthropy is not charity. Charity is writing checks. Philanthropy is an investment where you can see return." Amen.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Fiscal Cliffhanger for Nonprofits
Who would have thought the scholarly Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke would have been cast in the role of a catchy phrase-maker, the envy of any marketing brand guru? That he did in February of 2012 when he described as falling off a "fiscal cliff" the economic effects of severe tax increases and spending cuts mandated to take place on January 1, 2013 by the Budget Control Act of 2011, passed by Congress after the legislative and executive branches failed to reach agreement on deficit reduction that summer. It was a classic case of "solving" problems using a manana approach. Now, unless the Obama administration and the Congress, chiefly the House, can agree on alternatives, it is over the cliff we go.
Vats of ink have spilled on this issue, so I will be brief. As of this writing, it would appear that, although the scene changes daily, President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner are not yet in accord. Some pundits ( from the Sanskrit meaning "learned" although that should not apply to all) suggest even if they reach agreement, the Speaker may have a hard time selling it to his colleagues - or even that he may want to wait until January in order to save his Speakership. Others even posit a strategy that a voluntary dive over the cliff may be desirable in order to compel action to mitigate the effects of the austerity mandates (c.f. Samuel Johnson's "Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging."). All of this conjecture is swirling around in the whirlpool of politics.
Whatever the actual details on the outcome, there is no doubt that the result will affect nonprofits. At the top of the list is the allowable tax deduction for charitable gifts, adjustment to which some believe has traction at both the White House and Congress. Capping the deduction in some fashion seems to be favored. There is some disagreement as to how much impact such an action would have on giving. Nonprofits should know that there has been a very active lobbying--yes lobbying--campaign undertaken on their behalf by the umbrella group Independent Sector and such powerhouses as the American Red Cross -with the deduction matter at its core. Still, some charities are even suggesting to their larger donors that they uptick their giving in 2012 to take advantage of the deductability regulations in place.
Then there is the matter of large tax increases, especially on the wealthy, cutting into disposable income, some of which presumably would be directed to charitable giving. Changes in entitlement programs, such as Medicare, would bring further pressures on those nonprofits that provide social services. Specialized federal programs, such as the Arts/ Humanities Endowments and PBS, long on the far right's chopping block, are facing curtailment at least. There is no shortage of grim scenarios.
Nonprofits, by their nature and necessity, have had to be resourceful. Adversity is not novel to them. This case however, may present challenges of historic proportion because its impact is potentially both deep and widespread. Organizations and their donors alike will feel pain, the degree of which is not yet known, regardless of whether or not we are forced off the cliff's edge. We will know soon enough.
Finally, I am reminded of Shakespeare, from "As You Like It" (Act 2) : Sweet are the uses of adversity/Which , like the toad, ugly and venomous/Wears yet a precious jewel in his head..." May we, in the end, find the jewel.
Stay tuned. Courage! Best wishes for the holidays and the New Year. See you then.
Vats of ink have spilled on this issue, so I will be brief. As of this writing, it would appear that, although the scene changes daily, President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner are not yet in accord. Some pundits ( from the Sanskrit meaning "learned" although that should not apply to all) suggest even if they reach agreement, the Speaker may have a hard time selling it to his colleagues - or even that he may want to wait until January in order to save his Speakership. Others even posit a strategy that a voluntary dive over the cliff may be desirable in order to compel action to mitigate the effects of the austerity mandates (c.f. Samuel Johnson's "Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging."). All of this conjecture is swirling around in the whirlpool of politics.
Whatever the actual details on the outcome, there is no doubt that the result will affect nonprofits. At the top of the list is the allowable tax deduction for charitable gifts, adjustment to which some believe has traction at both the White House and Congress. Capping the deduction in some fashion seems to be favored. There is some disagreement as to how much impact such an action would have on giving. Nonprofits should know that there has been a very active lobbying--yes lobbying--campaign undertaken on their behalf by the umbrella group Independent Sector and such powerhouses as the American Red Cross -with the deduction matter at its core. Still, some charities are even suggesting to their larger donors that they uptick their giving in 2012 to take advantage of the deductability regulations in place.
Then there is the matter of large tax increases, especially on the wealthy, cutting into disposable income, some of which presumably would be directed to charitable giving. Changes in entitlement programs, such as Medicare, would bring further pressures on those nonprofits that provide social services. Specialized federal programs, such as the Arts/ Humanities Endowments and PBS, long on the far right's chopping block, are facing curtailment at least. There is no shortage of grim scenarios.
Nonprofits, by their nature and necessity, have had to be resourceful. Adversity is not novel to them. This case however, may present challenges of historic proportion because its impact is potentially both deep and widespread. Organizations and their donors alike will feel pain, the degree of which is not yet known, regardless of whether or not we are forced off the cliff's edge. We will know soon enough.
Finally, I am reminded of Shakespeare, from "As You Like It" (Act 2) : Sweet are the uses of adversity/Which , like the toad, ugly and venomous/Wears yet a precious jewel in his head..." May we, in the end, find the jewel.
Stay tuned. Courage! Best wishes for the holidays and the New Year. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)