|
Kumbaya and All that Jazz |
|
Monday, 02 November 2009 |
I've been designing and facilitating processes for 20 years. For most of those years, my family had no idea what I did. When asked, my husband would usually respond, "I'm not sure. I think she works with groups and gets them to sing 'Kumbaya.'" No matter how many times or how vehemently I denied ever singing "Kumbaya" with any client, that was the explanation he offered. Then, three years ago, I agreed to fill in at the last minute for a colleague who was supposed to help deliver a weekend-long retreat to 30 board and staff members of a local nonprofit. My job was to facilitate the first day of team building. The retreat was being held at someone's remote vacation home in Mendocino, and my husband and I decided to make a weekend of it. At the end of the day, everyone was feeling pretty good and one of the consultants, who did a lot of work with faith-based organizations, suggested that we join hands and sing "Kumbaya." So as my husband drove up, there we were, standing in the living room of this all-glass house, singing "Kumbaya." I swear there was never a man more smug.
I think of that story every time a prospective client looks at me across the table through his furrowed brow and slightly suspicious eyes and warns, "We don't want anything too touchy feely." For years I wondered if there was en epidemic of retreats where board and staff members sat around naked and drew mandalas on each others' bodies. I mean, really, just what are people picturing, and more importantly, what are they afraid of?
The Harvard Negotiation Project teaches that all conversation takes place on three levels: objective, identity, and emotional. For example, in the previously cited conversation with my husband, I might have offered a thorough review of every meeting agenda I'd ever designed in order to demonstrate that "Sing Kumbaya" showed up in none of them (objective level). Or, I could have explained that I'm way too professional to even consider leading my clients in a chorus of "Kumbaya" (identity level). And, while sharing either of those ideas, there may have been a persistent inner voice that sounded something like "How dare you trivialize my work that way!" (emotional level)
In most of our day-to-day dealings, we focus entirely on the objective level. It's where our left brains rule, supported by data, and managed by intellect. We're generally comfortable operating on that level, and often struggle fiercely against anyone's efforts to move us out of that arena, even though those other two (touchy feely?) levels are operating simultaneously. And, as uncomfortable as some of us are with conflict, we can usually handle objective-level conflict. It's the identity- and emotional-levels of conflict that are scarier and, by the way, far more likely to undermine our effectiveness.
So the next time you bring in a consultant, please don't warn her to stay away from touchy feely processes. Instead, encourage her to bring you and your team to places you won't normally go by yourselves. Ask her to help you explore those other levels because chances are, that's what is getting in the way of your doing great work together.
But feel free to put your foot down when it comes to singing "Kumbaya."
Best,
Liz | | This item includes 1 comment |
|
The Definition of Insanity |
|
Monday, 31 August 2009 |
I would need all my fingers and toes and all your fingers and toes to count the number of boards who have brought in consultants and trainers to help them get better at fundraising, but I don't need more than one hand to count the boards that actually applied those learnings to become fully engaged, effective fundraisers for their organizations. In fact, if I were to be brutally honest, I don't know that I can name even one. And I've been doing this work for longer than some of you are old. After so many failed attempts, shouldn't we all be asking....
Why must board members fundraise?
I was actually asked that question the other day by a friend and colleague who has served on several nonprofit boards. And I have to admit, I found myself sputtering an answer that amounted to nothing more than "because they do." I was eloquent on the subject of why board members should direct their personal philanthropy to the organizations they govern, but as to why they must fundraise, I was flummoxed. The fact is, in my experience, most board members don't want to raise money, aren't on boards in order to raise money, and if given the ultimatum to fundraise or get off the board, they'll get off the board.
Let's face it. We've been beating our collective heads against this particular wall for 50 years and as far as I can tell, the wall hasn't budged, but our board and staff members are sporting some pretty significant bruises. How many board members have we lost over this issue? How many relationships have suffered? When do we finally get to ask whether it's time to put this old, sacred cow out of its misery?
Paradigm-busting is not for the faint of heart. It takes courage and a willingness to recognize that beliefs are different from laws and that when we think we don't have choices, we usually do. Paradigm-busting is what we need more of in this world. It's at the heart of the work we do in this sector, although we don't generally do it on behalf of our own organizations. We need to change that. We need to question our business models as rigorously as we question our logic models. And what better place to start than with a paradigm that's failed so magnificently time and again?
Best,
Liz | | This item includes 1 comment |
|
Monday, 10 August 2009 |
When we moved into our current space at JFKU, we were generously provided with several thousand dollars' worth of computers and telephones, not to mention desks, chairs, lamps, and file drawers. They were requisitioned on our behalf and were waiting for us the day we showed up. But it took a week, five signatures, some serious tush-kissing and a photo I.D. to get a key to my office. My best friend's company gives keys that open all the doors in the office to their senior managers; everyone else gets keys only for his or her own office. No one questions the practice, but I'm moved to wonder why a company would assume that 80% of its employees aren't trustworthy. (In fact, why would you hire even one person you don't trust?)
I'm sure it has something to do with power, control, rank and privilege. If I have access to everything and you have access to only some things, then, clearly, I'm better than you. Really? Well, okay then, maybe I'm not a better person than you are, but my job is more important than yours because I can, literally and figuratively, open more doors than you can. Of course that would mean that the janitorial staff has the most important job of anyone - a point that is arguable, but not generally held as true in most organizational cultures. Aha! So there's a balance to be struck between not being important enough to have more than one key and being so far down in the pecking order that you have all the keys, including the one to the boiler room. And as if that weren't confusing enough, we have board members, supposedly at the top of the hierarchy, who have no keys at all.
Even a policy as seemingly innocuous as who gets what key can give us insights into the unspoken, and often unconscious, cultural norms we promulgate or perpetuate in our organizations. What do your policies say about your organization? How do they support your values? Where do they fall out of alignment?
Just a few key questions that we ought to ask ourselves from time to time.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
Feel Good to Do Well While Doing Good |
|
Monday, 06 July 2009 |
|
Dear Friend and Colleague: In my early consulting years, I developed a workshop called "The Secret to Successful Collaborations." It was all about project management and its premise was that the problem with collaborations was that we placed too much emphasis on the relational aspects of the collaboration. The very word collaboration implies a certain type of experience, I observed. Forget about that and learn these project management tools. You'll get the job done and you'll probably still be talking to each other when it's over. Yeah, I was wrong.
In fact, research is showing that the very opposite is true. Instead of productivity leading to positivity, it's the other way around. Dr. Martin Seligman, director of the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, studies positive emotion, positive character traits, and positive institutions. (You can even earn a Master of Applied Positive Psychology from that venerable Ivy League university. Old white guys in rep ties meet The Secret.) He has created a counterpoint manual to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association titled Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (CSV). The CSV "describes and classifies strengths and virtues that enable human thriving." What a concept!
One of the most exciting aspects of his research is the universality of findings around what people of all cultures consider character strengths. The most commonly endorsed are: kindness, fairness, authenticity, gratitude, and open-mindedness. Also making it to the list are: creativity, curiosity, love of learning, bravery, persistence, zeal, social intelligence, leadership, teamwork, hope, and humor. I love it when we humans question our assumptions enough to shift whole paradigms. I mean, why was the only manual of human behavior one that classified us by our disabling psychological conditions?
The application of a positivity-based model in the work we do at The CBO Center translates into our spending at least as much time working with relationship development in collaborations as we do teaching project management skills. And it means we have to find new ways of getting you to pay attention to your own levels of happiness as well as to the emotional and identity levels of your organizations' cultures. Frankly, all of our past attempts at roundtables and workshops on self-care have failed miserably. But now we have a new argument. Since positivity leads to productivity, it follows that taking care of yourselves will result in more money, better programs, and overall greater effectiveness.
And if that doesn't immediately work, this month we have a workshop on Storytelling for Grantseekers with Cheryl Clarke, an e.d. roundtable on Boards that Love Fundraising with Bob Zimmerman, a fundraising roundtable on Raising Funds in Trying Times with Susan Fox (authors all), and our first Breakfast Roundtable for Board Members on meeting facilitation.
To the old axiom doing well while doing good, we now propose feeling good leads to doing well while doing good. I just love those paradigm shifts.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
Monday, 29 June 2009 |
I don't know about you, but I have 3 beginnings in any given 12 month period: July 1st when the new fiscal year starts, after Labor Day with the beginning of the new school year, and, of course, January 1st. (Strangely, I only have 2 endings, June 30th and December 31st. Doesn't that sound like the path to immortality to you?) Three beginnings means 3 opportunities to refresh and renew -- it's like having built in do-overs.
As the FY 08/09 year draws to a close, I'm struck by how wrong our planning assumptions were this year. Several of the programs we scheduled a year ago, seemed irrelevant as the economy tanked and organizations' priorities changed. For example,the tidal wave of leadership transitions that we all predicted slowed almost to a standstill, as did plans for new acquisitions of everything from software to facilities. Capital campaigns were sidelined too, so trainings and workshops focused on any of those once-timely topics, attracted few participants in the last 2 quarters.
But now we have a chance to regroup. In the next six months, we will offer at least one fundraising workshop and one fundraising roundtable every month, many of them focused on engaging your boards more effectively. We will also be spending a lot more time talking with you about policy and advocacy and about strategic thinking and business planning.
Change is in the air. We can struggle against it or we can use our beginnings to rethink and realign. We invite you to stay connected as we start some programs - like our board member roundtables starting in July - continue our most popular programs - like BoardWorks and Peer Circles for Leaders - and maybe even stop some programs.
Which reminds me -- we're moving out of our Oakland office tomorrow. Many thanks to the East Bay Community Foundation for making that space available to us for the last 4 years and to the East Bay Resource Center before us. What a great gift to the East Bay nonprofit community! We'll let you know where to find us in Alameda County as soon as we land. In the meantime, we're only a phone call away.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 |
We baby boomers are about to become The Generation That Wouldn't Leave. We were already dragging our heels around retirement when the economy tanked - although truth be told most of us in the nonprofit sector didn't have enough money to retire anyway - but now that whatever we managed to put away is mostly gone, we've redecorated our offices (modestly), upgraded our computers, learned how to Tweet, and settled back in. Sorry, Xers and Yers, you're gonna have to wait awhile longer.
It must be crazy making for you. There you are trying to create a space for yourselves that isn't already occupied by your parents and grandparents - not easy in an overpopulated world - so how clever of you to go into cyberspace! And you had it to yourselves for awhile - MySpace and Facebook were blissfully boomer-free -- but not anymore my little ones. We're on Facebook now looking up our high school sweethearts (ewwww) and every day I get a new follower on my TinkCallahan Tweet account. There is no place to run; no place to hide. We're absolutely everywhere. It's the new world order only it's being carried out by a bunch of 60-year olds who insist on riding their bikes up Mount Diablo when they're not standing on a line waiting to pick up the latest iphone so they can read "People" magazine onine and stay up-to-date on some reality show drek. We may be growing old, but we're in no danger of growing up.
So our last June event is for young and younger alike: Internet strategist, trainer and author Michael Stein, an early adopter of all things "e", will share his wisdom about everything from email messaging appeals and growing email lists, to using Google AdWords and Facebook ads at our June Fundraising Roundtable, Everything You Wanted to Know About Online Fundraising But Were Afraid to Ask. And for those of you who weren't born during the 10-15 years following World War II, the title of our roundtable is derived from a sexual relations how-to manual that was popular in the late 60s and made even more popular by a hilarious Woody Allen movie that even today makes me laugh out loud. Catch it on your new iphone 3G.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
Theories of Change - blah blah blah |
|
Wednesday, 10 June 2009 |
I have 3 coaches. (And, since I'm a coach, if you include the voice in my head, 4 coaches.) One of my them is a professional coach, highly trained and very effective. She's the one I pay. The second was my consulting mentor with whom I did a sort of apprentice-ship in the early 90s. She isn't a trained coach, but she's insightful, intuitive, and smart, and she knows me very well. The third is a colleague with whom I have a Monday morning 15-minute check-in, during which time we share whether we accomplished in the prior week what we committed to. I liken my 3 coaches to the tugboats it takes to turn an ocean liner around. It's slow, plodding work that to an outside observer looks impossible. But without them, I would probably stay in port and develop dry rot. All-in-all, I spend about 3 hours a week trying to change. It ain't easy. And I know you know what I'm talking about when I say that.
But that's the business I'm in. In fact, that's the business we're all in. Every one of us spends most of every day trying to change something. We seek change because we're not satisfied with the way things are. We create programs to change lives. We argue to change minds. We advocate to change systems. And at the same time that we're fighting for change, we're fighting against it. We fight it when it happens in ways that we can't control. We even fight it when we visualize it and design it and pay someone to help us realize it. We fight it because it's hard and maybe because it's inevitable.
One of those inevitable changes is upon us and we can either resist it or help create it. Last month, the San Francisco Community-Based Organizations Task Force issued its report, Partnering with Nonprofits in Tough Times. The task force's recommendations fell into 6 broad categories: consolidate nonprofit administration, support nonprofits mergers and closures, maximize revenue, improve management and oversight, promote nonprofit sustainability measures, and plan strategically. As with all reports, there are a lot of "shoulds" and even a few "musts." Every single one of those "shoulds" represents a change in the way somebody does business.
That conversation is coming to the East Bay. Philanthropy, government, and CBO's are going to have to talk to each other about our short-term strategies for delivering services and our long-term strategies for resolving our persistent social issues, thereby reducing demand. We would all be well-served if we decided to start our tugboat engines and take our places around this ocean liner that we call health and social services. Some of us will need to pull while others push and then we'll need to switch off and push while others pull. But one thing's for sure - we very literally can't afford to let this old ship stay in port. She's already got dry rot and is about to sink under her own weight.
I know the feeling.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
Monday, 01 June 2009 |
Many, many thanks to all 233 of you who persevered through several false starts and unlinked links to complete our Economic Impact Survey. We'll be issuing a report this week, but here are a few of the highlights:
- 65% of those responding indicated that revenues have decreased when compared to this same period last year;
- Nearly half (49%) report a decrease in individual giving and 45% are seeing a decrease in foundation giving;
- 56% report an increase in demand for services, and that appears to be true across all segments of this sector including arts and environmental organizations.
- Of those who are experiencing a demand in services, the percentage who are meeting the demand (30%) is almost the same as the percentage of those who cannot (29%);
- In response to the financial pressures facing organizations, increasing the board's fundraising activities is by far the most popular coping strategy (50%), followed by reducing non-personnel operating expenses (45%), using reserves to cover budget shortfalls (37%), delaying planned initiatives (36%), and reducing staff hours (35%); 31% intend to lay off staff; only 6% are looking to merge or close, an option (merger) that for at least one respondent would mean an expansion of services;
- Volunteer hours have increased in 39% of the organizations, a figure supported by the comments many respondents provided about how they are meeting the increased demand, although an almost equal number (36%) report no change in volunteer hours.
But those statistics, while interesting and not a little troubling, don't begin to capture the essence of what you told us in your comments. The picture you painted was of a sector staunchly determined to serve the public in spite of enormous odds. Several of you talked about responding to these times with renewed creativity and resourcefulness. You're looking at how you can provide services differently to increase your impact in response to the increased demand. And, yes, everyone is tired and concerned about staff and volunteer burnout, but mostly you're focused on the people you serve and the communities you support.
There are those among us, myself included, who in our more cynical moments look at that tendency to put our needs second (or last) as an indication of our sector's essential co-dependence - just one big happy dysfunctional family, that's us. But after reading through the nearly 500 comments you provided throughout the survey, I found myself misty-eyed and incredulous. What an wondrous privilege it is to work with this community that says "...we're committed to meeting the demand, whatever it is." A community that faces Goliath-sized issues, but shows up every day because we just can't imagine taking our slingshots and going home.
The data is interesting, but the message is compelling, so stay tuned. There will be more out later this week. And in the meantime, sign up for our Speaking with Conviction workshop on June 9th so you can get that message heard.
Best,
Liz | | This item includes 1 comment |
|
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 |
Seven years ago, as I sat through my first county budget hearing in my newly adopted State, I listened to the CAO recommend what we believed then were drastic cuts to health and human services in order to present a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors. Most of those cuts were in contracted services and it was my job as the director of a consortium of nonprofit service providers to urge the county to spread the pain more evenly. The COLA's that the consortium negotiated before my tenure stayed on the cutting room floor, but many of the proposed cuts were restored. In retrospect, what was being characterized as a crisis really wasn't, but that didn't stop county officials from employing a strategy that then-Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier named the "shoot the puppy" approach to public policy. Instead of making cuts to backroom operations or to services few care about, department heads put the most innocent, vulnerable populations on the line and dare elected officials to aim. It's a way of getting the public's attention. And it requires a level of cynicism that gives pause even to someone who cut her political teeth on New Jersey politics.
Of course today's crisis makes 2002 look like a day at the beach (or in New Jersey-ese, a day down the shore). At last Thursday's Economic Forum, an event sponsored by CompassPoint and co-hosted by several Bay area organizations including The CBO Center, Jean Ross suggested that Sacramento's response to the failure of last Tuesday's ballot initiatives may be to eliminate CalWORKS and Healthy Families. One can only hope that such a proposal is nothing more than a steroidal shoot the puppy strategy to get the Fed's attention.
So what can our sector do? Kim Klein, who spoke at that same forum, encouraged us to get our boards and staff involved in tax policy. She promises that it's richer and more interesting than it sounds. James Head from the San Francisco Foundation, at that same forum, suggested that we walk boldly into the public policy world and use our considerable voices to speak up. And Philip Byrdsong, one of our affiliate consultants, implores us not to panic and to use this opportunity to focus on our core programs while thinking strategically about the time when the economy recovers -- a time, we hasten to add, that promises to look very different from the way it looked back in 2002.
Best,
Liz | | This item includes 4 comments |
|
Monday, 18 May 2009 |
Let's talk about boards. Every nonprofit has one. But then, most of us have an appendix. That doesn't mean we pay attention to it or know what it does. Unless it gets inflamed. Then we pay attention.
As amusing as that is to think about, I'm going to abandon the metaphor now.
Boards have long been considered a necessary evil. The law requires us to have them and they are required to exercise their duties of care, loyalty, and obedience, even though most board members have no training in nonprofit governance and couldn't explain their duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. And in spite of the hours of volunteer time board members dedicate to their organizations, my guess is that the vast majority are not having the impact they thought they'd have or finding the experience of board service as fulfilling as they thought it would be. Also, it's not a lot of fun.
That's a shame and it's not a given.
Together, executive directors and board members can transform not only their relationship, but the entire organization. Together, they can build organizational capacity, ensure sustainability, and create the change they want to see. And they can enjoy each other in the process.
Don't believe me? Come to our BoardWorks trainings and learn how. Three Hours to Better Governance will help you get out of your own way by differentiating between the e.d.'s job and the board's job, and then by encouraging you to view a world where board members engage their minds and hearts fully in service to the organization. (Wow!) Three Hours to Better Financial Oversight explains and simplifies fiduciary accountability so that board members do a better job, but spend less time in board meetings on mind-numbing minutiae.
Or if training isn't your thing, think about using your next board retreat to focus on the vision you're holding not for the organization, but for your board. What do you want your board's legacy to be? What would make board service the most meaningful volunteer experience of your life? How can you reconnect to the passion that brought you to serve this organization in the first place? What can you do together that you can't do separately? We can help you design that conversation and shift the quality of your work together.
We think boards are potentially the most powerful and unquestionably the least understood partnership in our sector. And we're here to coax the relationship out of the closet.
Best,
Liz | | No comments for this item |
|
|
Monday, 04 May 2009 |
While talking about accessing ARRA dollars at last week's CBO Center-sponsored Policy Day, Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, counseled nonprofits to remain nimble, to partner with local governments, and to "avoid food fights." Sage advice. Really tough to follow.
Also, an interesting choice of words. When Kellogg and General Foods compete for your attention at breakfast, no one counsels them to "avoid food fights" (pun intended). In the for-profit world, competition is expected, encouraged, and considered one of the healthier aspects of the free marketplace. What, then, is it about the nonprofit world that renders competition something akin to animals acting instinctively to ensure their survival? Maybe because that's exactly what it feels like. So what's wrong with that picture?
On the one hand, this sector engages in the loftiest of goals -- social and environmental justice, health equity, cultural enrichment -- and on the other hand, we finance those dreams in a manner that prompts one of our own to advise us not to debase ourselves in pursuit of this new bucket of money. Of the 80+ people sitting in that room, did a single one of us look quizzically at a colleague and ask "What does she mean?" No. We knew exactly what she meant.
So how do we avoid food fights? More importantly, how do we avoid getting ourselves into a position of desperation or at least feeling like we're in a position of desperation? One way is to get to know our East Bay nonprofit community members better so when the time comes to think together and plan together and work collaboratively, we're able to do that. Our monthly roundtables and Peer Circles for Leaders are designed to do just that. Another way is to learn to read our financial signposts better and to understand where the yellow and red flags are. Our newest BoardWorks module on Better Financial Oversight will help you know if your fiscal reality is really as desperate as you think it is. (It's not just for board members.)
Capacity building and management support aren't only about helping you learn some new tools or improve your skills. They're about elevating the way we conduct this sector's business so that the next time someone instructs us not to engage in a food fight over money, we do look at each other quizzically and ask "What does he mean?"
Best,
Liz | | This item includes 1 comment |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 12 of 19 |
|
|
