Dear friends, today's blog is not about nonprofit management, but, in a way, it is about leadership. My first and most important mentor in leadership, my father, passed away, surrounded by family, on Sunday, December 9, 2012.
Irwin B. Goldstein was born in January, 1929, in Boston, Massachusetts. After graduating from high school, he joined the Army, then went on to Bentley College on the G.I. bill where he earned a certificate in accounting. In 1950 he got his first job in the record business, never expecting it would be his life's work. Forty-three years later, in 1993, he retired as a Senior Vice President of Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Distributing Corp.
The music business also introduced Irwin to the love of his life. He first saw Judi, then working for a classical music radio station, at a Boston Hi-Fi show in late 1954. They were engaged two weeks after their first date and married six months later. They have three sons (I am the youngest).
Irwin and Judi, were also dedicated volunteers, working to raise money for cancer research and treatment through the Music Industry Chapter for the City of Hope. For many years of that, he served as the treasurer of their chapter.
He is survived, missed, and loved by his wife of 57 years, Judith, sons Stephen, D. Miles, and Kenneth, daughters in law-in-law Jennifer, Michelle, and Leslie, six grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, his younger brother and sister, nieces, nephews, cousins, and countless more who all wished that he was their Dad.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Every Donor a Major Donor
One question that's always likely to come up when I teach a workshop on fund development is, "How do you define a major donor?" People ask this to determine some sort of line in how to thank and care for their donors; where to set the bar in setting aside one group of donors for "special treatment."
If that's their goal, then the answer really depends on the size of the organization, and how well-developed and successful their individual giving program is. For some organizations "major" may be those who give gifts over $25,000 or even $50,000, while for others it may be any donor who gives more than $500 or $1,000.
But one thing I try to explain to those I teach, coach, or advise, is that it is important to personally thank every donor, and that every gift - no matter how large or small - has the potential to be major to that donor. The person who is struggling themselves, but makes a personal sacrifice to send you $25 deserves at least as much thanks as the rich person who writes a much larger check to lower their tax liability.
I was reminded of this recently when my wife and I were invited to a special donor reception at our alma mater. When we opened the invitation, we looked at each other to ask, "How much did you send them!?" My wife is a public school teacher and I am a consultant to small, local nonprofits. We are not rich by any stretch, and our donations are not at all what a large university would ordinarily consider "major." We thought a mistake may have been made, but we RSVP'd anyway and went to the reception.
It was no mistake that we were on the list. There was no dollar cut-off for this thank you event. What had happened was that we had designated our gift this year to a new endowed chair in honor of one my wife's favorite professors. All early supporters at the fund's launch were invited, regardless of the size of the gift.
We attended with no more than 50 other local alumni, professors, and university staff at the Chancellor's house for a lovely afternoon with delicious snacks, wine, and a few short speeches, thank yous, and a performance from a current student. At no point during the event was there any hint of an ask. There was no fundraising that day, only thanking those who had already given.
As one who is more used to (and comfortable) doing the thanking, it was a pleasant change to be on the other side, and inspirational to see how well a large organization like a major university could do in creating an intimate and personal thank you event for donors at all levels.
How personal are your organization's thank yous? Do you have a cut-off for those who get a personal response versus those who get a form letter? When was the last time you reviewed your major gift and thank you policies?
I can pretty much guarantee that following that reception all of our annual alumni gifts will be going to this particular fund. The gifts may be small, but as long as they are appreciated, they will continue.
If that's their goal, then the answer really depends on the size of the organization, and how well-developed and successful their individual giving program is. For some organizations "major" may be those who give gifts over $25,000 or even $50,000, while for others it may be any donor who gives more than $500 or $1,000.
But one thing I try to explain to those I teach, coach, or advise, is that it is important to personally thank every donor, and that every gift - no matter how large or small - has the potential to be major to that donor. The person who is struggling themselves, but makes a personal sacrifice to send you $25 deserves at least as much thanks as the rich person who writes a much larger check to lower their tax liability.
I was reminded of this recently when my wife and I were invited to a special donor reception at our alma mater. When we opened the invitation, we looked at each other to ask, "How much did you send them!?" My wife is a public school teacher and I am a consultant to small, local nonprofits. We are not rich by any stretch, and our donations are not at all what a large university would ordinarily consider "major." We thought a mistake may have been made, but we RSVP'd anyway and went to the reception.
It was no mistake that we were on the list. There was no dollar cut-off for this thank you event. What had happened was that we had designated our gift this year to a new endowed chair in honor of one my wife's favorite professors. All early supporters at the fund's launch were invited, regardless of the size of the gift.
We attended with no more than 50 other local alumni, professors, and university staff at the Chancellor's house for a lovely afternoon with delicious snacks, wine, and a few short speeches, thank yous, and a performance from a current student. At no point during the event was there any hint of an ask. There was no fundraising that day, only thanking those who had already given.
As one who is more used to (and comfortable) doing the thanking, it was a pleasant change to be on the other side, and inspirational to see how well a large organization like a major university could do in creating an intimate and personal thank you event for donors at all levels.
How personal are your organization's thank yous? Do you have a cut-off for those who get a personal response versus those who get a form letter? When was the last time you reviewed your major gift and thank you policies?
I can pretty much guarantee that following that reception all of our annual alumni gifts will be going to this particular fund. The gifts may be small, but as long as they are appreciated, they will continue.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Personal, Political, and Professional
The common sense advice that is frequently given about social media is to keep your personal and professional identities completely separate. Much like the age-old saw about not discussing religion or politics at social gatherings, this is meant to avoid controversy, and, more to the point, not give any work associates reason to disagree with you (or terminate your job, etc.).
I've generally followed this advice, with separate blogs and distinct Twitter identities for the personal and professional. I try to keep my Facebook "friends" to only social contacts and my LinkedIn "connections" to only professionals (doesn't always work out that way). I've not gone out of my way to completely hide one identity from the other, but I've been reasonably careful about not deliberately mixing the two.
But, really, what have I got to hide? I'm not a recent college graduate with pictures of wild parties filling my personal social media streams. There are no illegal or immoral activities shared on my personal streams (although, there are some that are fattening). If alcohol is mentioned or pictured, it's most likely in reference to a visit to one of my state's many world-class wineries. The only possible area of controversy is the political.
Then, yesterday, following news of the death of George McGovern, I wondered why I am not more overtly political on this blog. The political is an essential element of the nonprofit sector. Political decisions drive the demand for social services, the results of elections can effect the flow of grant money into the nonprofit sector. And, this coming Presidential election could possibly have a major impact on the tax deductibility of the individual donations we depend on for support.
So, let me make one thing perfectly clear to any readers who may not have already figured this out: I am a liberal. Sometimes I use the euphemism "progressive," but I don't hide from the L word. Liberalism is not just a guide to how I vote, but a key to who I am. Liberal values and ethics permeate my being, and flow through my veins. It comes from my family upbringing, it comes from my religious background, it comes from my education (BA in Politics, Master of Public Policy & Administration), and it comes from my life experiences. It's not likely to be changed by a 30 second attack ad.
My liberalism is why I have made my career in the nonprofit sector. It is liberalism that keeps me dedicated to making the provision of social services efficient, effective, and possible. It is liberalism that makes me a better consultant, more interested in looking for ways nonprofits can better serve our communities than ways to extend my contract and increase my income. Without a conscious choice to live my liberalism, I would more likely have made a career in media or the entertainment industry, and made quite a bit more money. Oh well.
George McGovern's Quixotic campaign for President in 1972 was also part of the background and education that made me a liberal. Yesterday I wrote more about that on my personal blog, here: George McGovern: Acts of Faith
Let me make one more personal, political confession: I am not a Democrat. I was, from when I was able to register to vote in 1979 till about 1995. I was registered as a Green briefly after that, but have been happily DTS ("Decline to State") since. I describe myself as "left-of-center, independent." No one party or candidate owns my vote or can expect it without first earning it.
That said, my final point here is this: The Nonprofit Consultant Blog proudly supports and endorses Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United Sates.
I believe that this President, while far from perfect, has shown dedication to the issues we work on as a sector, and that he deeply cares about the people who we serve. Meanwhile Mitt Romney's private remarks to donors about "the 47%" have disqualified him from consideration by anybody who has dedicated their career to helping those on the lower side of the economic ladder.
We need to give President Obama another term to continue the progress that he has made. Further, we need to help him by removing the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans from Congress. I am an independent, who has regularly split my vote, but this year it is vital to elect a straight Democratic ticket. I hope you will join me.
I've generally followed this advice, with separate blogs and distinct Twitter identities for the personal and professional. I try to keep my Facebook "friends" to only social contacts and my LinkedIn "connections" to only professionals (doesn't always work out that way). I've not gone out of my way to completely hide one identity from the other, but I've been reasonably careful about not deliberately mixing the two.
But, really, what have I got to hide? I'm not a recent college graduate with pictures of wild parties filling my personal social media streams. There are no illegal or immoral activities shared on my personal streams (although, there are some that are fattening). If alcohol is mentioned or pictured, it's most likely in reference to a visit to one of my state's many world-class wineries. The only possible area of controversy is the political.
Then, yesterday, following news of the death of George McGovern, I wondered why I am not more overtly political on this blog. The political is an essential element of the nonprofit sector. Political decisions drive the demand for social services, the results of elections can effect the flow of grant money into the nonprofit sector. And, this coming Presidential election could possibly have a major impact on the tax deductibility of the individual donations we depend on for support.
So, let me make one thing perfectly clear to any readers who may not have already figured this out: I am a liberal. Sometimes I use the euphemism "progressive," but I don't hide from the L word. Liberalism is not just a guide to how I vote, but a key to who I am. Liberal values and ethics permeate my being, and flow through my veins. It comes from my family upbringing, it comes from my religious background, it comes from my education (BA in Politics, Master of Public Policy & Administration), and it comes from my life experiences. It's not likely to be changed by a 30 second attack ad.
My liberalism is why I have made my career in the nonprofit sector. It is liberalism that keeps me dedicated to making the provision of social services efficient, effective, and possible. It is liberalism that makes me a better consultant, more interested in looking for ways nonprofits can better serve our communities than ways to extend my contract and increase my income. Without a conscious choice to live my liberalism, I would more likely have made a career in media or the entertainment industry, and made quite a bit more money. Oh well.
George McGovern's Quixotic campaign for President in 1972 was also part of the background and education that made me a liberal. Yesterday I wrote more about that on my personal blog, here: George McGovern: Acts of Faith
Let me make one more personal, political confession: I am not a Democrat. I was, from when I was able to register to vote in 1979 till about 1995. I was registered as a Green briefly after that, but have been happily DTS ("Decline to State") since. I describe myself as "left-of-center, independent." No one party or candidate owns my vote or can expect it without first earning it.
That said, my final point here is this: The Nonprofit Consultant Blog proudly supports and endorses Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United Sates.
I believe that this President, while far from perfect, has shown dedication to the issues we work on as a sector, and that he deeply cares about the people who we serve. Meanwhile Mitt Romney's private remarks to donors about "the 47%" have disqualified him from consideration by anybody who has dedicated their career to helping those on the lower side of the economic ladder.
We need to give President Obama another term to continue the progress that he has made. Further, we need to help him by removing the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans from Congress. I am an independent, who has regularly split my vote, but this year it is vital to elect a straight Democratic ticket. I hope you will join me.
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Power of We the Nonprofits
The topic this year is "The Power of We." A little more abstract than previous topics, such as water, climate change, poverty, or food. And yet, this abstract theme encompasses all the others with a single answer.
How do We address the problems of poverty, food distribution, potable water, etc? As individuals, there's only so much any of us can really do to effect the systematic change required to solve any of these crises. It is only when we come together in groups that real change happens.
Fitting the Power of We into the mission of this blog, to provide useful information to professionals in the nonprofit sector, I suggest that my readers take this Blog Action Day as a celebration of all that they do.
Corporations can (and some do) have a positive impact on their communities, but their primary focus will always be the fiscal bottom line and making a profit. Government can (and often does) work to improve the lives of citizens, but their primary focus is frequently on security and, all too often around the globe, the perpetuation of power.
The nonprofit sector - from the local grassroots organization to international NGOs - is the primary organizing mechanism by which individuals, regardless of their position in society or their level of political and economic power, come together as We to solve the problems our communities face. The nonprofit sector is how individuals put the Power of We into action.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
LinkedIn Launches Board Connect Service
LinkedIn, the social network for professionals of all sectors, has just announced the launch of their new Board Connect service for nonprofit organizations. If you're not already familiar with LinkedIn, it began, basically, as a place to post your online business profile/resume and connect with others in your field to grow your network using a "six degrees of separation" model. Other features and refinements over the years have turned LinkedIn into an essential social network for all professions, including active discussions, groups, job boards, and more.
The new Board Connect uses LinkedIn's "Talent Finder" to help you search for professionals with the skills your organization needs. Likewise, professionals interested in board service can search out organizations that meet their interests. Best of all, the service is free to nonprofits (business use of the Talent Finder can cost $1,000).
So, what could be wrong with all this? Well, in one of those active discussion groups on LinkedIn for Nonprofit Professionals, Michael Wyland (of Sumption & Wyland Consulting) says of the service that "the pitch is off-key and reflects antiquated views of board service." Michael recognizes that the LinkedIn service can be beneficial to the organizations that choose to use it, but, he notes:
I will agree with Mr. Wyland, and add that the "antiquated view" of board service as noblesse oblige and a social activity not only exists within some board matching programs and the well-intentioned attempts at encouraging board service in corporate circles, but within far too many nonprofits themselves.
When I work with boards, I find there can be a very fine line between those boards where the members are comfortable with each other, share outside interests and relationships, but still manage to accomplish the serious business of governance of the nonprofit corporation, and those boards where their shared social situations and relationships stands in the way of good governance.
Often, the one thing that makes the difference as to which side of that line an organization is on is simply good board training. Nobody has ever gone to these boards and explained what their role is or should be on a legal, fiduciary, and ethical basis. They're not shirking their responsibilities; they've just never been made aware of their full responsibilities.
I will also agree with Ms. Temkin, and add that the process of vetting potential board members is a continuous one. It does not start when a member leaves and a seat opens up, but proceeds according to a plan that includes methods of identifying new recruits, the vetting process, suggestions for other volunteer activities until a board seat is open (non-board members may sit on committees, help with events, etc.), and a process for how the full board votes on and welcomes in new members.
Consultants (such as Mr. Wyland, Ms Temkin, or myself) can help your board with both proper training on roles and responsibilities, and with creating a board development and recruitment plan.
If your organization is interested in LinkedIn's Board Connect, you can learn more about it on the LinkedIn blog here, or go direct to the LinkedIn Nonprofits page here. While you're at LinkedIn, you can join my network through visiting my profile here.
The new Board Connect uses LinkedIn's "Talent Finder" to help you search for professionals with the skills your organization needs. Likewise, professionals interested in board service can search out organizations that meet their interests. Best of all, the service is free to nonprofits (business use of the Talent Finder can cost $1,000).
So, what could be wrong with all this? Well, in one of those active discussion groups on LinkedIn for Nonprofit Professionals, Michael Wyland (of Sumption & Wyland Consulting) says of the service that "the pitch is off-key and reflects antiquated views of board service." Michael recognizes that the LinkedIn service can be beneficial to the organizations that choose to use it, but, he notes:
"Searching algorithyms can get a nonprofit only so far. ... The 'pitch' in LinkedIn's blog makes no mention of governance, board member obligation, legal exposure, and the duties of board service in an increasingly regulated and scrutinized environment. The days of viewing nonprofit board service as an expression of noblesse oblige and an opportunity to network are fading fast, if not already gone."Terrie Temkin (of CoreStrategies Consulting) replies, in part, that nonprofits "must still do the hard work to vet potential [board members]." She states that this is true, not just of LinkedIn's new service, but of all board matching programs.
I will agree with Mr. Wyland, and add that the "antiquated view" of board service as noblesse oblige and a social activity not only exists within some board matching programs and the well-intentioned attempts at encouraging board service in corporate circles, but within far too many nonprofits themselves.
When I work with boards, I find there can be a very fine line between those boards where the members are comfortable with each other, share outside interests and relationships, but still manage to accomplish the serious business of governance of the nonprofit corporation, and those boards where their shared social situations and relationships stands in the way of good governance.
Often, the one thing that makes the difference as to which side of that line an organization is on is simply good board training. Nobody has ever gone to these boards and explained what their role is or should be on a legal, fiduciary, and ethical basis. They're not shirking their responsibilities; they've just never been made aware of their full responsibilities.
I will also agree with Ms. Temkin, and add that the process of vetting potential board members is a continuous one. It does not start when a member leaves and a seat opens up, but proceeds according to a plan that includes methods of identifying new recruits, the vetting process, suggestions for other volunteer activities until a board seat is open (non-board members may sit on committees, help with events, etc.), and a process for how the full board votes on and welcomes in new members.
Consultants (such as Mr. Wyland, Ms Temkin, or myself) can help your board with both proper training on roles and responsibilities, and with creating a board development and recruitment plan.
If your organization is interested in LinkedIn's Board Connect, you can learn more about it on the LinkedIn blog here, or go direct to the LinkedIn Nonprofits page here. While you're at LinkedIn, you can join my network through visiting my profile here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)