The Center for Ethics, Governance, & Accountability

There is perhaps no greater right granted under our Constitution than freedom of speech. As we go about our daily lives, we hear and read ridiculous things – totally incorrect things – and, with very few exceptions, it is pretty much legal for anyone to say anything about everything.

So, why is there such silence around the non-profit board tables across the country?

I recently wrote an article about an ill-conceived project by one non-profit that has effectively stymied an entire group of non-profits in that community. My theory was that there were plenty of “right minded” board members, but that they took a back seat to the “strong minded” ones. The “right minded” people chose not to speak up.

I remember taking a leadership test many years ago. It was based on a survival exercise where a team of people were stranded in the desert and had to select among certain items (matches, tarp, blanket, etc.) to survive. And, according to expert survivalists, there was a correct combination of items. In other words, it was possible for the team to select the wrong combination of items and likely not survive in the desert. The larger group was divided into teams of five people. The point of the exercise was for the team to work together, using its collective wisdom, and collaborate on the correct survival items to choose. After the exercise was completed and the correct answers announced, there was plenty of arguing with the survivalist (freedom of speech!) about which excluded items should have also been included in his official list. However, it turned out that the specific items selected were not the point of the exercise. Instead, the manner in which the team worked together to come to consensus on the selected survival items was the key point. It was all about leadership attributes: style, intelligence, persuasiveness, and, well, the willingness to just speak up!

What I remember most about the exercise was that the right combination of these attributes constituted the best leader; the wrong combination had dire consequences. For example, just about every team emerged with a “leader” – at least that person was the spokesperson for the team when it was time to announce the survival items that it selected to the larger group. The key point was this: the worst leader had very strong persuasive skills and very weak knowledge; in other words, the worst leader could prevail upon the team to make the wrong decision. The best leader was the one who could collaborate with the entire team and reason through the options to guide the team toward the best decision.

The revelation of this exercise has stuck with me for 25 years. It is a perfect example of what takes place every day in many different situations, including – the point of this article – the non-profit board meeting.

Let’s look at some of the key issues involved as a board member sits around the board table:

1. The board member must show up (you cannot participate if you are not there). Sounds pretty elementary, but how do you exercise your first amendment rights when you are not even in the discussion?
2. It is critical that the board member have knowledge of the issue being discussed. However, it is not necessary that the board member be an expert; it is only necessary for there to be some basic level of knowledge and ability to think – and speak up! So, reviewing the basics of the issue before the meeting is critical.
3. There is an old adage that says the person who speaks often gets little notice and the person who speaks last often carries the issue. So, at the board table – especially if the board member is not an expert in the issue under consideration – it is critical to listen more than talk. But, again, the board member must exercise freedom of speech at some point in the meeting.
4. Importantly, it does not matter if the comments of the board member are seemingly ridiculous. After all, the point is exercising freedom of speech – sharing ideas no matter how right or wrong – which, hopefully, will keep a board from heading off in the wrong direction because there was not enough discussion and debate before a decision was made.

As I write this article, we are in the throes of the primaries and caucuses that will lead to the selection of a Republican candidate for president. Perhaps in no other arena is freedom of speech so wildly exhibited. People seem to be able to say whatever they want about anything, everything, and everybody. Right or wrong never seems to get in the way of freedom of speech. Then there is the media: one day you hear one thing, the next day something entirely different. (One of my pet peeves is that we often do not hear anything from the media on issues of great importance…) Maybe – just maybe – the point is that it’s not so much what is said (right or wrong) but whether speech can stimulate thought, then analysis, and ultimately reasoned decision.

A good while ago, I wrote an article on whether executive directors should be board members. Apparently, that is an issue of great concern in the Non-Profit Sector. I still don’t much like the idea and the primary reason is that I believe a fundamental duty of a non-profit board is to set policy (not implement plans – that’s the appropriate job of the executive director) and my experience indicates that boards that include the executive director as a member ultimately become boards that are led almost entirely by the executive director, thereby losing the criticality of the input of the board itself. I would doubt there is anybody who has ever served on a non-profit board that has not witnessed inappropriate guidance exerted by an executive director on his or her board members (whether openly or behind the scenes).

The point of this article is that the style and strategy of non-profit boards must encourage freedom of speech by all board members. Generally, the leadership required to make sure every board member is heard will come from the board chair. But, even in cases where the board chair is weak – or too strong – every board member has the right and obligation to speak up. I am very much of the opinion that intelligent board members regularly allow poor decisions to be made by not exercising their right to offer their thoughts on the issue at hand.

So, as we get deeper and deeper into the political season where freedom of speech is a cornerstone issue and we will be reminded of it ad nauseam, I suggest that now is a great time for all non-profit board members – and executive directors – to remember that the most powerful asset they bring to the board table is their voice. Use it. The Non-Profit Sector really needs to hear what you have to say.

After all, the last thing you want to have happen is to be stuck in the desert without any way of making fire because you allowed a strong and persuasive, yet wrong, leader to have taken you into that situation.

Author’s Note: I had a strong desire to write this article several years ago and started outlining it in my mind over and over. My outline was pretty much shaped up several months ago. The first draft was completed several weeks ago. I was having a hard time deciding how to end the article, so I stopped writing and let my subconscious work on it for a while. I believe the issues addressed in this article are among the most challenging any non-profit will face. I know of several similar situations. It is very hard to speak up – and sometimes reverse course – when an influential board member (or, worse, several influential board members) push an agenda that is detrimental to the non-profit organization. I hope the ending to the article is now appropriate.

What is a non-profit organization (NPO) to do when its most influential board members are just plain wrong? And, what are the implications for other NPOs, particularly in a small to medium-sized community when a single project emerges and sucks the life out of the collective non-profit community by demanding tremendous amounts of donor contributions (public and private) and human energy? As non-profits struggle more and more in this down economy, a well-intentioned, but just plain ill-conceived community project can wreak havoc on the community’s welfare for years and years to come. In fact, one could argue that it would be impossible to compute the long-term damage to the community.

As an aside, non-profits need to know that the accounting rules changed some years ago (well before Sarbanes-Oxley) so that “multi-year” pledges offer no accounting benefit to the donor and, arguably, can confuse the contribution issue. Multi-year pledges by a corporation or foundation must be accounted for, in full, in the year the pledge was made – not the year in which the funds were actually dispersed – even if the donor uses accrual-based accounting. It makes sense when you think about it: the donor has incurred an Account Payable for future years and that pledge (commitment) needs to be taken into account (booked) in the present term to properly value the debts of the company.

Why does the booking of multi-year pledges and an ill-conceived community project present a “perfect storm” that can wreak havoc on a small community? To use an example, an excessively expensive community project was championed by influential community leaders (let’s refer to these leaders as the “best and brightest”) and large contributions were requested from local corporations which required the payment of those contributions over, say, a five-year period. Because the accounting regulations required the booking of the donation in the year in which the pledge was made, corporations had unwittingly tied up their contributions budgets for several years into the future. This was particularly problematic for regional operations of larger corporations (such as banks) – whose local management did not even know about the accounting requirements – and for other local non-profits who were expecting to be back in the running for funding in the subsequent years. Many non-profits were even told they were over-reacting, not to worry, and to come back next year with their funding request. Unfortunately, many non-profits were taken out of the funding loop for at least five years due to the multi-year commitments made toward one large community project.

Let’s put some numbers to this example to make it even clearer. If a solicitation was made to a local corporation in the amount of $250,000, chances are that the corporation would have to “spread” the actual contribution over several years (from a cash flow standpoint). With pressure applied by key community leaders in the solicitation of unprecedented large contributions to a single capital campaign, not only did that individual pledge exceed the donor’s current-year total contribution budget for the community, but the donor, in essence, “borrowed” from its contributions budget in future years in order to be able to make the large pledge and be part of the “in crowd” to help meet the target of the capital campaign. There was much confusion between the solicitor, the donor, and all the rest of the non-profits that were left out in what was thought to be only a one-year funding crunch. Make no mistake about it: the pressure that key community leaders can place on virtually all of the corporate and private donors in a small community is very real – and frightening – especially if the project is ill-conceived. Few donors are able to resist the pressure when the community’s “best and brightest” come calling.

As the actual future unfolds over the next five, ten, or fifteen years, this particular example would be an excellent case study in governance and accountability to determine the long-term, negative effects of an ill-conceived community project that was made possible only when the “best and brightest” (which we, unfortunately, often define as those with access to the most money) board members of just one non-profit exerted major community pressure to force a “solution” (project) to a community “need” that did not even exist.

As we continue to attempt to learn about the proper (best practices) governance of organizations within the Non-Profit Sector, it is difficult to understand how the community’s “best and brightest” could be led down the so-called primrose path (i.e., delude themselves) into conceiving a project of such magnitude that no logical business plan could sustain. The small non-profits – those with the “regular” board members – were able to see the writing on the wall, but despite numerous efforts by many other truly wise community leaders, the “magic project” forged ahead – literally at all costs.

Let me mention another pet peeve of mine. I am of the opinion that most any group can form a non-profit and solicit funds for a capital campaign (i.e., the construction or purchase of a facility to house the non-profit). We see this happen all the time. It is not unusual for even a small community to have multiple capital campaigns under way concurrently without any coordination among them as to the timing. However, when the capital campaign is over, funds never seem to be forthcoming when it comes to the actual operation of the facility. (Worse, many large foundations limit or exclude requests for contributions to operations.) So, a successful capital campaign can launch or expand a non-profit only to see it fail because sufficient operating funds were never available.

Again, let’s make this example clearer by putting some numbers to it. Let’s say the budget for the construction of the new building was $50 million and its annual operating budget was projected to be $25 million. (By the way, the projected annual operating budget for this one new project exceeded the sum total of all the other arts and cultural NPOs in the small community, thereby making the ill-conceived “magic project” even more disastrous; surprisingly this fact was never fully understood by its board or the community at large.) And, sadly, things got worse: the construction budget went from $50 million to $100 million! How could something like this happen? After all, the community’s “best and brightest” were on the board, celebrities from all around the state, nation, and world were being hauled into the community to tout the magnificent vision of such an ambitious project; certainly, once and for all, the community would finally be “put on the map” as a true destination location.

Unfortunately, things just continued to go bad. The construction budget was again exceeded, community donations had long since dried up, and even the “deep pocket” contributors were becoming nervous. Somebody on the board dreamed up a solution of obtaining personal guarantees from some of the wealthy board members to cover the construction loans – never intending to need to call on those personal guarantees if the ongoing fundraising was successful. But, the notes with the personal guarantees were called by the banks when the recession hit and the scrutiny on bank lending practices came under intense review.

Some would say there was a bright spot in this worst-case scenario project: the construction was (basically) completed and perhaps the most spectacular grand opening event in the history of the community was staged. “Regular members” of the community were even invited to participate with the “best and brightest” and the festivities were indeed unprecedented. Every dignitary imaginable was invited to come and congratulate the non-profit organization for its commitment and vision.

And, so, the new project was completed and opened to the public for visitation.

But, nobody came.

And, the operational problems continued and began to surface.

At first, the fact that the projected attendance figures were all wrong was simply explained as not a problem. After all, the project was to draw people from all over the state, the country – even the world – and it would take some time for the marketing and advertising to produce results.

With the grand-opening festivities complete, the “best and brightest” board members retired or resigned and the remaining and new board members inherited an unbelievable reality: funds for the operating budget had not been raised. The inaugural executive director died suddenly, newly hired staff members were terminated, operating hours were reduced, entrance fees were increased (this was a particularly curious decision since the visitation was already nil – if people were not paying a $5 admission fee why would they pay a $10 admission fee?). Just about anything that could go wrong went wrong, including mechanical equipment malfunctions, architectural design problems, and a contractual dispute with a key tenant in building. A mid-summer storm even flooded one of the main ground floor galleries! What else could go wrong? The non-profit even approached several public (governmental) entities to rescue the project, but those requests were denied.

An answer soon came: the economy went into recession. In a sordid way of looking at things, this was a blessing for the “best and brightest” because there was now an excuse for the unbelievably poor project planning: it was nobody’s fault; the recession caused all the problems. (Sadly, to this day, some people actually believe that story to be true…) The board was meeting in private trying quietly and quickly to solve its problems, other NPOs were yelling “we told you so” and with the festivities and celebrations and public acclaim over, the “best and brightest” disappeared from sight (and site).

So-called “worst-case scenarios” like this one could occur in any community. When attempting to teach best practices for non-profit projects, the challenge is to look back at how the problem was allowed to reach such negative proportions and determine what can be learned to prevent it from happening again. Such a review should be all the more important when, truly, the community’s most benevolent and dedicated donors were all at the board table and determined to move forward with the project. Is it possible that they were ALL duped? Ideally, it would seem that someone would have questioned the assumptions. However, in reality, appropriate questioning does not often happen around the NPO board table (and this must change with in the Non-Profit Sector). CEOs have taken quite a public beating in recent years (rightly so) and it seems logical that any CEO must be more focused on his or her primary business than the business of any non-profit board that he or she serves (in other words, if the board member cannot give thoughtful focus to the NPO, that board member has no business serving on the board). From a governance standpoint – and an accountability standpoint – this situation presents serious consequences for the entire community.

It would make sense to continue this article with suggestions that could prevent, or even remedy, such ill-conceived projects; but, instead, I will choose to leave the question open – hoping that this article can provoke some thought and action within the important Non-Profit Sector. Just what does a community do when its wealthy and, therefore, powerful citizens come together for all the best intentions, but royally botch the project? Who picks up the pieces when these leaders disappear (i.e., run for cover)? Are there lessons to be learned and will those who messed up allow the lessons to be learned? Are powerful citizens able to admit failures and discuss course-corrections? Will they put their own money (not that of the stockholders of company which they lead) into solving the problem they created? Will they put their own time (not that of the company whose stockholders pay their salary) into making the hard decisions? The answers to these questions will affect the success or failure of the Non-Profit Sector in every community. There simply must be accountability for the board-directed, non-profit organizations that make bad decisions.

Let me return to my “Author’s Note” at the beginning of the article. Not until the state of the union address by the president, and the media comments that followed, did an appropriate way to end this article finally hit me. One of the journalists that I most admire is Bob Schieffer – he is very experienced and, quite frankly, has reached the pinnacle of his career; whereupon, he can pretty much say whatever he wants to say. Hearing him speak after the state of the union address, I was reminded of a totally unrelated “Face the Nation” episode where Bob Schieffer closed by saying words to the effect, ‘after all my years in this business, I keep asking myself when politicians will learn to just tell us the truth.’ Amen. If there is a serious community problem – particularly of the magnitude portrayed in this article – then the “best and brightest” owe the community the truth – as quickly as they determine it – not after they have tried to cover it up – and not after they have chosen to run away from it.

Something tells me that if the truth is shared during the non-profit project conception and planning stages, the community will be capable of making any necessary course-corrections to avoid disasters. Yes, Bob, your question was well-stated: when will ‘they’ learn to tell ‘us’ the truth? Equally importantly, when will ‘we’ demand it?

It’s that time of year again! As we approach the end of the calendar year – the end of the tax year for individuals – the Non-Profit Sector is soliciting funding support more than ever before. While this could be assumed to be an exaggeration, it is not; two critical issues prove the point in the non-profit world today: the world economy is hurting virtually everyone in one way or another and has affected contributions; and, there are more non-profit organizations (NPOs) today than in any time in U.S. history. You will not have to search long if you want to verify both of these points.

So, how does your NPO make the most of its year-end solicitation letter?

I suggest that the letter be no more than one page. Numerous studies warn of information overload (which I prefer to call data overload because too much data does not translate into useful information, so the use of the word “information” seems inappropriate to me). People just cannot absorb all the data that is being sent their way. One recent study I saw indicated that the average time you could hope to capture someone’s attention used to be 30 minutes, but is now down to only 5 minutes. You must make the best use of the limited attention span of your intended audience. Keep your letter short and to the point.

If your NPO can accept on-line donations, then refer prospective donors to your web site. For most NPOs, the web site is the best marketing tool available (assuming you have spent the time to keep it up to date and interesting). Be bold in announcing your commitment to ethics, governance, and accountability by so stating on your home page. If you have adopted a Code of Ethics for your NPO, provide a link to it. Remember: you are looking for every advantage to set your NPO apart from the multitude of others. I submit that nothing speaks louder these days than a commitment to ethics.

Too many things in our world today are impersonal. I suggest that you avoid email solicitations, or post cards, or letters with mailing labels on them, or postage from your in-house postage meter. Instead, personalize your correspondence as much as possible: send a letter, hand addressed, with a cheerful holiday stamp. Make sure that your donor database has current addresses and take the time to double-check the salutation (you don’t want to send a letter with an inside address to “Mr. Tom Smith” and then open with “Dear Sue” or “Dear Smith”…). Similarly, I advise against a salutation of “Dear Mr. Smith” and a strike-through with your pen and a handwritten “Tom” above it. Always, always, always take time to personally sign your name to the letter and do it in blue ink (today’s copiers are so good that it is nearly impossible to tell an actual signature in black from one printed in black or copied in black).

Sure, these steps are simple, but they take extra time – and that is precisely the point – you can visibly show that you cared enough about your solicitation to the donor to make it as personal as possible in an impersonal world. I assure you that your letter is more likely to be read if you follow these simple steps.

I suspect that you have a database of previous donors and that you will be sending your solicitation letters to them as well. Keep track of the date you mailed your letter and don’t be afraid to follow up after a week or ten days with a phone call to the major donors upon whom you have come to rely. Follow the same rules with your follow-up phone call as your letter: be brief, but be personal. Explain how much you appreciate their previous contributions and let them know how much you are hoping on their continued support. Don’t forget to wish them Happy Holidays.

While these are simple suggestions for your year-end solicitations, they are time-tried and proven. Please use them and let me know if they work for you. Also, if you have other suggestions that our readers could use, please join the dialogue and share them.

Let’s face it: in today’s world – whether for Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) or Private-Sector companies – people do not necessarily operate with honor and integrity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in situations where money is involved. Best intentions, friendships, hand-shakes, and promises no longer seem to carry the commitment that we expect. We find ourselves surprised and disappointed; but, the truth of the matter is that trust should not be lightly bestowed.

When I enter into a business transaction – and this applies equally to NPOs – I expect two things: (1) that people will do what they told me they would do; and (2) that people will be held accountable for what they said.

This article focuses on the challenges of the NPO because of the extremely uncertain economic times that most are facing. Even if an NPO had strict policies and procedures in place for contracting its business transactions and collecting its accounts receivable, I am seeing instances where the economic climate is causing people who know better to react in ways far more tentative than ever before.

Before we go any further, examples are always helpful, so let me present two:

1. BACKGROUND: A museum – we’ll call it Museum A – was struggling before the recession and is really in a precarious position today – but now finds itself in what appears to be a win-win opportunity with another museum, which we’ll call Museum B. The two museums are in the same community, have been rivals for many years, and there are lots of examples of unacceptable behavior initiated by each toward the other. However, new executive directors are in place and both truly have the best intentions for mending the fences and working well together in the future. A number of examples exist that indicate the bridge has been built between the two NPOs and the problems of the past appear to have been overcome – even if not forgotten by long-standing board members.

SITUATION: An opportunity arises whereupon Museum B wants to borrow an artifact from Museum A for a year. Without animosity, and in an attempt to solidify a mutually beneficial business deal, the executive director of Museum A asks what Museum B will provide to Museum A in the way of compensation for borrowing the artifact. This is a very fair and appropriate question in a professional relationship. The executive director of Museum B offers to have its volunteers – long known for their skill in artifact restoration – perform the much-needed restoration on another artifact of Museum A. This arrangement is mutually agreeable to the two executive directors and a deal is struck over the telephone. Museum 1 delivers the loaned artifact to Museum 2. Museum 2 meets with Museum 1 to review the artifact in need of restoration. Both museums are in agreement as to the terms of the deal, each to the other, and the transaction is heralded as another example of how the former rival museums are now working in harmony. However, a year later, Museum B still has the artifact it borrowed from Museum A – but, Museum A has not received any restoration services from Museum B. The deal has gone bad for Museum A and its executive director wonders what to do.

1. BACKGROUND: A social services organization – we’ll call it Services 1 – has never been able to afford to hire an experienced grant writer, but has received a contribution from a donor that is designated for a grant writer and one is hired.

SITUATION: A grant comes along that offers an opportunity for Services 1 to partner with another social services organization – we’ll call it Services 2 – to fulfill a portion of the scope of work outlined in the grant that exceeds the expertise of Services 1. Neither Services 1 nor Services 2 has ever been in competition with each other because their missions are sufficiently different. The grant writers of both organizations work together diligently on the Request for Proposals for the grant, submit on time, are selected as finalists, and receive the grant award. In a meeting of the two organizations to determine who will do what and how the grant funds will be divided, the discussions are good and an agreement is reached. A spreadsheet is prepared outlining the responsibilities for each item in the scope of work for the grant and grant funds are divided among each item, thereby enabling both Services 1 and Services 2 to know how much funding each will receive and what is expected from them. The grantor intends to disburse 25% of the funds at the start of the project, 50% spread among each month of the project duration when invoiced, and the remaining 25% when the final report is completed. Services 1 has a challenging cash flow; Services 2 has sufficient cash. The grantor is pleased to see a partnership between two NPOs, but requires one to serve as the grant administrator (fiscal agent) and the other to be a subcontractor. So, in the spirit of cooperation, Services 2 agrees to take the role of subcontractor and invoice its grants funds from Services 1 at the end of the project, thereby allowing Services 1 to serve as the grant administrator, utilize the grant funds throughout the project, and help minimize its cash flow problems. The two organizations work well together, the project is a success, and they complete the final report in a manner that makes each proud. The partnership went well, although there were the usual disagreements that partnerships often face as a project progresses; but, overall the relationship was very satisfactory – and there is talk of working together on future grants. Services 2 is ready to invoice Services 1 for the amount agreed upon in the spreadsheet that guided the project, but receives a message from Services 1 that it would like to discuss reducing the amount of funding to Services 2, stating that it did not appear that Services 2 was as helpful on the project as originally intended. The executive director of Services 2 is shocked and disappointed – and wonders how to handle the situation.

In pondering how to best address each of these two examples, I decided to spend less time on the mechanics of the relationship between two organizations in partnership; instead, I will focus on the integrity of the deals and suggestions for bringing about a successful resolution. As a consultant to non-profits, this is almost always the approach I take in my practice. Experience indicates there is little need to tell the client what they should have done; the focus needs to be on how to solve the problem.

Obviously, the mechanics of both situations could have been more professionally handled in a more detailed manner. There could have been written agreements or contracts that contained written provisions for what would happen if any such problem arose. We do not know to what extent the board of directors of each organization was involved, but I would argue it is irrelevant – if I were one of the board members, I would expect the executive directors to resolve what is clearly an operational problem that belongs within their purview. (I will comment on a possible exception later in this article.)

Why am I not so concerned about the mechanics (written contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding, etc.) of the deal at this point? Simple: at this point, the challenge of solving the problem is the same. Unlike what we read about the regulatory settlements of large companies on Wall Street and tort liability settlements among huge corporations, NPOs (and small businesses in general) rarely have the time or the money to sue over disagreements – even when all the written documentation is in place. In the Museum and Services examples, no such contracts exist. The resolution to both of these examples lies in the integrity of the deal and the ability of the two organizations to discuss a mutually successful outcome that is founded upon trust. This is much harder to do than it sounds, which is precisely why the credibility and ethics of every NPO is its one of its most important core assets. Would you want to do another deal with either Museum B or Services 1 at this point? I doubt it.

I suggest three specific approaches to resolve this problem – which, in the end, is actually the same problem (trust, ethics, accountability, future relationships, etc.) for both of the examples:

1. Stay as calm and collected as you can. This is very difficult to do, especially if somebody has something of yours (Museum B) and if somebody is unfairly critical of your performance as a means to their end (Services 1). But, the truth of the matter is that “time” is your primary asset and you cannot afford to get emotionally tangled up in the problem and its resolution. Even if you could, your performance would be less successful because your emotions cloud your good judgment.
2. Although “could’ve/would’ve/should’ve” may have avoided the problem (with a written contract or agreement), go back through your hand-written notes of meetings and your emails to the partner organization and see what you can find that supports your understanding of the original deal. Talk with members of your organization to see what they recall about the specifics. In other words, get the facts straight.
3. Once you have the details you were looking for, send them to the party with which you are in conflict. I suggest doing this by email because then you have stated your position in writing for future reference and it seems less threatening as you are trying to settle the disagreement. Be cautious and intentional about the wording of your email; ask someone else in your organization to read your email to see if they perceive the same tone as you intended. If you need a more formal approach, you can always send a letter at a later time. Don’t be afraid to tell the other party how you feel: surprised, disappointed, unhappy, and determined to find a fair resolution. Provide them with the evidence you have collected to support your understanding. Ask them to review their notes and see if they find anything different. Ask for a meeting (not email or telephone, but face-to-face) and remain committed to a cordial resolution. You might also point out that you are hopeful that the two organizations can work together in the future and that it is important to you to find a mutually satisfactory resolution. Make sure you have at least one other person with you as a witness to the discussion. Prepare notes for your file immediately after the meeting. Agree on a date by which the other organization will provide its feedback.

I mentioned that I would have more to say about board involvement. Generally speaking, I do not like to see board members get involved in operational issues with non-profit organizations. I believe the governance of the NPO should be established in such a way as to define the roles of the various members of the organization. However, to be fair, the two examples I have mentioned in this article are very challenging (with potential political community repercussions) and, hopefully, an unusual happenstance.

To that end, I would consider recommending the board chair (of Museum A and Services 2) contact their fellow board chair (of Museum B and Services 1) to discuss the matter. While I would like to believe that a phone conversation among the board chairs of two community organizations should resolve the matter, a further step would include getting both board chairs together with both executive directors. It has always been my experience that when all of the individuals are in the same room at the same time, things get sorted out and resolved rather quickly. It is fair to assume that someone’s ego will be bruised in the meeting (in both of these examples, somebody has done something wrong). If the issue is resolved, then I would recommend ending the meeting on a high note by discussing the success of the project or the opportunity to partner again in the future.

Over the past few weeks, with both of these examples and others, I have given a lot of thought to the fact that we seem to be more and more of an “enabling” society. When we fear pointing out a problem, we reinforce the actions we do not like from the opposite party. The longer we wait, the more difficult our recollections of the specific issues become and the more likely the other party is to assume their position will prevail. Of course, we should always be committed to “playing nicely” – but, we should learn from our mistakes and become more comfortable in dealing with problems (particularly misunderstandings between individuals) as quickly and factually as possible.

While I believe it is true that the economic times we are presently suffering tend to bring out the worst in people, I will always believe that every NPO’s strongest assets are its ethics, governance, and accountability. You can only develop these key assets from your diligence, but you can lose them in an instance. Be on guard, be proactive, stand your ground, and work to become more comfortable in settling challenging issues.

I wish I could count the number of times I have attended a non-profit strategic planning session, or discussed the need to have (or update) one in a board meeting, or been invited to serve as the facilitator. It has always – always – struck me that the strategic planning session should just be starting about the time that it is actually ending (e.g., too much time is wasted at the beginning and then a frenzy results at the end). The purpose of this article is to outline some observations over 30 years of strategic planning experience and to share suggestions that will improve the chances for a successful outcome.

Holding a Strategic Planning Session

At some point in time, every member of a non-profit board is going to hear the suggestion: “let’s hold a strategic planning session!” from a fellow board member or staff member. It’s not a bad idea but, unfortunately, it’s often a waste of time and produces no measurable outcomes. I want to share some observations and thoughts about strategic planning – invite debate – and see if we can come up with some guidelines that make the investment of time worthwhile. I have often said that strategic planning is a ‘process’ and not an ‘event’ – and I still very much believe that statement is true. However, maybe I should also add the caveat that a successful ‘process’ does indeed require an ‘event’ – or series of events – which is precisely the point. If you agree with my belief that the event often ends about the time it should be starting, then you would have to agree that additional follow-up after the event is required in order to create a meaningful strategic plan because the plan stopped short of completion during the original event. And a lot of time was used inefficiently, which also makes people reluctant to participate in the future.

A Working Document

Without a doubt, the primary way that I judge a successful strategic plan is by seeing a copy of it a year after the ‘event.’ If it’s a bit too dusty (which is often said in jest, but is true!) and if the pages are in pristine condition, then the event that created the plan was obviously not successful in motivating action. However, if the copy is dog-eared, marked up, added to, pages tagged, and otherwise well-used; then the event was super successful because a ‘process’ was indeed born and the need for ongoing action was instilled. In my opinion, successful outcomes are too rare in the strategic planning ‘implementation’ phase. The copy of the strategic plan that I described as a success is one that has become a working document, which is what planning is all about.

Defining ‘Strategic’

From an analytical standpoint, one way to define something is to determine what it is not. Strategy is different from ‘tactical’ or ‘operational’ (which is actually performing a task). Strategy is more subjective and cerebral; it involves thinking about an issue in broader terms than usual; thinking about circumstances that do not currently exist (i.e., future oriented) and determining how to adapt the organization to benefit from those predicted opportunities or avoid anticipated threats. Often, it involves thinking about an issue totally differently than ever before (which is VERY hard to do). Strategy development is not the same as operations implementation. For example, when I have been invited to ‘do’ strategic planning for an organization, I always ask if there is an Operating Plan; i.e., if you don’t know how to perform your core business every day (Operating Plan), why would you want to spend time working on a future-oriented process (Strategic Plan)? Strategy (highly subjective) is the opposite of operational (highly objective/defined/specific). Objective is ‘cut and dried’ – there is a procedure/process/outcome that arises from certain actions, done at certain times, in a certain way to produce known/certain outcomes. We already know if we do these certain things what we will get. Most people can adequately perform what they are taught/instructed. However, developing strategy – even the process of thinking about it – is very different. A strategic planning session led by a ‘doer’ instead of a ‘strategist’ and ‘critical thinker’ will yield disappointing results; however, ‘doers’ can be very helpful in participating in the development of strategy if they are properly guided. A couple of very simple examples of strategic vs. operational issues will make the point:

Funding

Operational – How are we going to make payroll next  month?

Strategic – How do we need to adapt our operations to comply/excel with the recent changes for non-profits by Congress?

New Program

Operational – We need to add a new program to our existing series.

Strategic – We need to add a new series to cover new topics that will take our organization in a new direction.

Operating Plans Are Important

Let me be quick to tout the benefits of an Operating Plan. Properly executed, an Operating Planning Session can provide or refine specific guidance/clarification/policy on any number of day-to-day issues that really can be a big help when running the organization. The primary difference between strategic and operating (which is a huge difference) is that operating plans deal with the ‘here and now’ – with processes and policies that will improve the current business function – strategic plans, simply put, engage the participants in thought processes meant to challenge the current business function by looking into the future and assessing opportunities, threats, weaknesses, and strengths. A good Operating Plan can minimize daily confusion/questions about the manner in which specific job functions should be conducted. The ‘event’ of operations planning – getting the appropriate team together to discuss, debate, and decide the issues – is, in-of-itself, a very worthwhile team-building and clarifying session (if properly planned and executed). While Operating Plans are beyond the scope of this article, I wanted to make sure they were mentioned in a positive context.

The Mission Statement and The SWOT Analysis

Unfortunately, most strategic planning sessions seem to begin with either a review of the mission statement or a SWOT analysis. Both are usually ‘deal-busters’ in that they bog down the process of innovative thinking for strategic planning. For example, unless the core business of the organization has been totally disrupted (e.g., by lack of funding or policy, political, social, or technology changes), then the existing mission statement should be in reasonably good condition. To delve into the mission statement – and debate specific words and placement within the text – sucks the life out of the planning session and can often pit individuals against each other right from the start over silly things like wordsmithing. Not only is this unfortunate, but I would suggest that it is totally unnecessary. How can you revise a mission statement until you go through the rigors of the strategic planning process and determine whether or not there are bona-fide strategic issues worth pursuing? My preference is to hold the mission statement for a separate planning meeting after the strategic plan has at least been through an initial rough draft process. Perhaps a good analogy is to look at the mission statement from the back end – maybe it should be thought of as more of an executive summary?

Preparation For The Planning Session Is Critical

There is probably no exercise that requires more preparation than strategic planning. Why? Because the participants must be the right ones (those with authority and accountability), the purpose of the exercise must be made very clear (to stay ‘on point’ and eliminate confusion and fear), and the process must be known and engaging in advance (so participants can be prepared to contribute their very best). The most obvious difference between a private-sector strategic planning session and one for a non-profit organization is the inclusion of volunteers, namely the board of directors. The good news is that the planning session will include a diversity of opinion; the bad news is that most board members have probably been through some type of strategic planning before and have preconceived notions about the process based on their previous experiences (hence, the importance of preparing for the session in advance). I will discuss the dynamics of the volunteer participants in a later section.

I strongly recommend using an experienced professional outside facilitator (not a staff member, a board member, or a friend of a friend…) for at least three reasons:

(1) It is important to have 100% involvement of the entire board and staff members, so using participants to lead sessions or write on flip charts takes them out of the game.

(2) The selected facilitator must fully understand the main points presented in this article and have familiarity with applying them in actual planning sessions. (I will discuss some thoughts on selecting a facilitator in a later section.)

(3) You cannot be a prophet in your own land – your fellow board members and/or staff will resent you for being the strategic planning leader (even if you are experienced). Obtaining outside help eliminates this problem.

If possible, share copies of previous strategic plans (with the participants and the facilitator) as part of the preparation process that takes place well in advance of the event. Successful planning takes more time in preparation than it does in execution; this is a good rule of thumb to remember. If very little (or no) planning goes into the preparation, the participants will show up without direction and without having pondered creative solutions to some known issues to get their juices flowing; the event will likely be a disaster (and a waste of a lot of precious time).

Conducting The Advanced Preparation

Plenty of lead time is important; six months is not too long. Start by regularly discussing the need/desire of a strategic planning session at board and staff meetings. A letter to the board from the chair is a good way to officially announce that a strategic planning session is necessary. That letter should include a few examples of issues that are pressing the organization for strategic solutions. The board may wish to name a committee responsible for the planning (or, the board may already have a Strategic Planning Committee). Remembering that the plan is intended to be forward looking, it is important to involve up-and-coming board and staff members; their participation will be critical to the future implementation of the plan, so it is imperative they be involved in the development of it. Newer participants are often more reluctant to engage during the planning session because they conclude, perhaps rightly so, that there is a lot of history that they do not know. Remembering that strategic planning is forward looking, the facilitator must work hard to bring everybody into the dialogue because past history is less important than future strategy.

Let’s cover a few aspects of the advanced preparation checklist:

Participation

Remember that inviting the participants is easier than getting them to attend the session! This is one of the best reasons for beginning the discussions about the planning session six months in advance. My suggestion (this is a bit radical) is that it be made clear that if a participant cannot arrive on time and stay for the entire event, then they should not attend. This rule will make clear the importance of full participation. Reiterating this for several months prior to the session will make it less likely to have a misunderstanding on the day of the event. (If the organization is extremely proactive, then it already has a policy on board attendance and what is considered an excused absence.)

The Venue

How important is the selection of the place to hold the planning session? I would argue that it is more important than most people think (i.e., it is very important). I would strongly suggest that the venue be away from the normal meeting places. In addition, distractions like golf courses should be avoided; and, selecting a location where there is no cell phone reception takes care of a whole host of problems. Included in the selection of the venue are a number of other seemingly mundane issues, but planning in advance can make the difference between success and failure. A few examples:

Make sure the primary meeting room is extraordinary. It must be comfortable in every way, from the chairs to the location of the restrooms. If possible, select a meeting room with full technology tools; you want the session to be impressive.

Do not expect the attendees to bunk together. Secure enough rooms in advance to accommodate all of those who plan to attend. Private bathrooms are a must.

Food selections should be made in advance, particularly taking into account vegetarian preferences. Avoid caffeine and sugar as much as possible because studies have found that while both spike attention, there is ultimately an attention crash.

Decisions about alcohol, smoking, group recreation activities, etc. should all be made in advance. To keep things simple, I suggest avoiding all of the above.

Regular breaks – where some exercise is suggested and some quiet/alone time is provided – will increase the productivity of the output in the sessions. Make sure there is a printed agenda – distributed well in advance of the session – and spell out all events to the minute. Do not deviate from the schedule.

Length of the Planning Session

Determining the proper length of the session is important. I continue to believe that planning sessions end about the time they should be starting/continuing. Why? Because without a lot of advanced planning and attention to detail, the event begins sluggishly and does not naturally find a participative course until too late. However, I have never been to a multi-day ‘seminar’ that I thought was worth my time because I do not play golf and am not looking at seminars or planning sessions for my recreation and social outings. I feel strongly that the importance of the planning session should be kept paramount in the minds of the participants. There is no reason to draw things out just for the sake of having a lengthy planning session. How short is too short? A strategic planning session cannot be successfully held in one morning. How long is too long? Anything longer than a couple of days will cause a negative impact on the operations of the organization, given that the entire leadership team is at the strategic planning event. However, the best session I ever attended lasted the better part of three days. And, it was a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (intentionally selected so as not to interfere with normal operations).

Planning Session Case Study

An appropriately sized inn was selected – in a rural area and about 90 minutes out of town – and the organization rented the entire facility. It was extremely well planned, in advance, and all contingencies were considered (private rooms, meals, walking trails, multiple meeting rooms, no cell service, personal time built into the agenda, etc.) Written materials had been distributed weeks in advance. The facilitating team (outside consultants) had met individually with each participant prior to the event; the five-person consulting team arrived Friday morning to set up. There were 24 participants (ranging from the CEO to new managers), who arrived after lunch on Friday, checked into their rooms, and were in place for the afternoon (opening) session at 3 p.m. on Friday. Another session was conducted after dinner on Friday evening and multiple sessions were conducted on Saturday. The event concluded at 2 p.m. on Sunday. Of special note is that every participant left the session with a copy of the draft strategic plan that commemorated the first session in the planning process. Updates were added as they became available in the days, weeks, and months to come. Goals and objectives were established to produce measurable outcomes and revised as necessary. Organization-wide communications were important, so assignments were made to brief the entire employee population on the plan and its iterative changes. This strategic planning event remains the best I have ever attended. Contrast this brief description with the planning events you have attended and you will see the difference that commitment can make. And, important to mention: the resulting strategic plan completely transformed the organization, as was intended (the organization reduced its service territory and its product offerings, opting to focus on its core strengths). A better outcome could not be imagined.

The Cost of Strategic Planning

I do not believe in the old saying, “you get what you pay for.” Instead, I believe you will get no more than you pay for and you might not even get that much if you are not fully engaged with the service provider. Good strategic planning is not cheap. Many for-profit organizations cannot afford it, so it is no surprise that the non-profit organizations struggle mightily with the cost. A common practice is to have a friend-of-a-friend conduct a 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (with lunch!) planning session for free (or for a few hundred dollars). How successful is this approach? I would suggest not successful at all – and, potentially giving a negative impression to strategic planning because the session was so grossly inadequate. If this is true, then it is literally better not to have a strategic planning session that to have a bad one. Fees vary all over the board but, for example, the case study presented above cost $50,000 (negotiated down from $75,000 in conjunction with the experimentation of producing the draft plan during the session) – and that was over 15 years ago. I am familiar with a recent strategic plan for a non-profit organization – conducted by a national consulting firm specializing in the operations of that specific non-profit industry – and the cost was $75,000 about two years ago. However, take note: a donor sponsored 100% of the cost under the belief that without a strategic plan, the organization was in trouble. So, my suggestion would be to seek donor funding for the strategic planning costs. Also, I would suggest that the organization tout the existence of its strategic plan in its printed material and on its web site, thereby demonstrating that it is proactive and performs in a business-like manner, which can provide a competitive advantage during fundraising.

Selecting a Strategic Planning Consultant

The case study above mentions a five-person consulting team. This was part of an experiment that required that number of consultants because the end product, as explained above, was a draft copy of the strategic plan in the hands of every participant. This required the appropriate technology to be on hand (PC, projector, screen, copiers, etc.) and a typist who was the fastest I have ever seen. Part of the experiment was to enable the participants to be fully engaged in the conversation by not taking notes; instead, everything that was said was typed on the PC and projected on the screen. During breaks, the consulting team would group suggestions into logical sections. One consultant handled all contingencies. The other three took turns facilitating the various sessions to offer a distinct change of pace. During lunch on the closing day, copies were made for all participants and reviewed in the final session before adjournment. Admittedly, this was extreme; however, it certainly was effective. Generally speaking, however, find a consultant from a reference, meet with the person (or persons) to determine if you have a good personality fit (important), discuss the specific scope of work, ask for references (and check them), and ask to review copies of other strategic plans the consultant has led (these may be proprietary, but a reference can provide you with a copy – or at least let you look at a copy – so you can see the actual work product and evaluate it). Make sure that the consulting fee includes preliminary work and follow-up work. Also, make sure that the consultant’s background is a good fit for the type of organization (some people believe that a good facilitator can facilitate anything, but I disagree; there are always strengths and weaknesses in a person’s knowledge base).

The Dynamics of the Planning Session

The biggest challenge for any planning session is to keep the group ‘on point’ (i.e., on the subject) and to involve, ideally, everybody in the group in the dialogue. Speaking of ‘dialogue,’ the word is not interchangeable with ‘discussion’ – you want a dialogue not a discussion – the word discussion is derived from percussion which indicates ‘banging, striking, scraping, etc.’ (precisely the wrong connotation) and is usually an informal debate (also the wrong connotation). Dialogue, on the other hand, is a conversation and an exchange of ideas (not a debate). Managing personality differences, tenure differences (who knows what because of how long they have been associated with the organization), starting on time (even if everybody is not present!), ending on time (i.e., following the agenda), and recording the comments of the participants are rightful expectations for the client to have of the facilitator/consultant. Basic issues of respect (we are all adults) is the responsibility of each participant. I have never attended a strategic planning session where there was not at least one person who did not want to be there – and, unfortunately, it was obvious through words and body language – which projected a certain amount of negativity on the entire group. In cases such as this, it is up to the CEO to determine how the situation should best be handled; I recommend removing the negativity from the session.

Next Steps for Successful Implementation

Too often (if not the majority of the time!) “what happens at the strategic planning retreat stays at the strategic planning retreat…” While this may work in Vegas, it is a sorry outcome for serious strategic planning! Information must be shared after the retreat. My experience indicates that success comes from follow-up, follow-up, and more follow-up. I suggest a “champion” – an individual (or very small team) that will manage the implementation of the strategic plan – with unimpeded, direct access to the CEO. (If the CEO is not fully supportive then the strategic plan is doomed to failure.) Most importantly, I suggest that everyone involved understand, accept, and embrace the unequivocal fact that additional changes will be needed during the implementation phase. This is as it should be. Documenting these changes (and why), revising goals and objectives, timelines, assignments and providing printed copies to be inserted into all the individual strategic planning notebooks is the best way I know to keep the entire team involved in the process. (Remember, we are striving for a process, not an event…)

Conclusions/Recommendations

The purpose of this article was to share some observations over 30 years of strategic planning experience and to share suggestions for pre-planning that will improve the chances for a successful outcome. I remain concerned that the non-profit sector (more so than the government sector or the private sector) is typically not ready for strategic planning because they don’t have the funds to do an adequate job and the pre-planning is not thorough. A successful outcome from this article would be to get non-profit leaders to think about the subject of strategic planning more seriously – and to halt any existing plans until key elements of this article are at least considered. Entire books are written on the subject of strategic planning, so this article does not portend to be conclusive, only to make clear the importance of strategic planning and doing it right. Feedback and comments are invited.

As readers of my articles already know, I believe that the Non-Profit Sector has amazing growth potential for the future. My standard pitch has not changed: the issues facing our communities today are more and more complex – and neither the government sector nor the private sector is positioned to make a difference. Accordingly, there are tremendous opportunities for Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs).

BUT, executive directors must understand some of the emerging issues in the NPO field and meet them head on. The purpose of this article is to outline several of these issues and start a dialogue among executive directors who truly get it and want to play a leadership/mentor role now and in the future. I am not interested in executive directors who are stuck in their ways – and do not get it – I want the executive directors who are on fire and ready to make a difference during what appears to be really tough times in the industry. Passionate about the role their organization can play, these executive directors are willing to surround themselves with a team of talented individuals that will position their NPO to excel among its peer group.

By the way, when I mention “peer group,” I do not mean for executive directors to think solely about their “competition” – although we would be fooling ourselves to pretend that funding for NPOs is anything but competitive, especially in this economy. However, let me urge executive directors to rise to the next level – beyond funding concerns – and realize the need to excel and benchmark against whatever norm is applicable within the NPO group to which you belong (social services, museums, schools, health care, etc.). If the performance of your NPO consistently tops those in your peer group, believe me, others are going to want to know how it was done and you will have established yourself (and your team) as performers worthy of replication. No greater honor could be bestowed. We desperately need leaders and mentors as the demands upon NPOs increase.

Let me provide some background/context as to how the subject matter of “executive directors” and “teams” came about and prompted me to write this article. I was attending a “family picnic” which we laughingly call an “experiment in humanity” because while there are several extended family members present, mainly it is an event with friends of friends by the dozens. The venue is a beautiful, rural creek bank. Nobody really knows each other, the varied walks of life (and beliefs and behaviors) are fascinating to observe, and everybody gets along really well, which several of us less-experienced “party types” find very interesting indeed. All joking aside, it’s a beautiful thing to experience and convinces me further that we can all work together for the good of our communities. So, that was the setting for a conversation that prompted this article.

One of my wife’s cousins (we call ourselves “kin”) was chatting with me about her work in social services. Let me tell you, she is one sharp cookie and her dedication to her work is exemplary. She works mainly with single moms, downtrodden in most every way imaginable, and victims of circumstances initially beyond their control (and beyond the understanding of most people in our society). The success rate is not high, the job satisfaction is hard to come by, and the current state of the economy (and the growing mindset of the American people against social service programs of all types) makes going to work after 25 years a bit less rewarding than when she first started.

I was dismayed to hear her tell me that she was pondering leaving the non-profit sector for something (anything) else. I told her that I hoped she would reconsider, that I believed NPOs were both the present and future solution to our challenges, but that I could certainly understand her frustration. I believe something is very wrong when career employees – the good ones – start thinking about quitting the profession. Why can’t it be the other way around? Why can’t the NPOs weed out the non-performers and build a team of performers? A 25-year investment of time in one field is extraordinary these days. The question I was left to ponder was how we could realistically address her frustration level.

I have written extensively on the subject of performance (ethics, governance, and accountability) and the importance of measurable outcomes within the NPO sector. While gathering my thoughts for this article, I ran across a piece (one of many) that points out philanthropists are beginning to require continuing business education – and proof of it – among the executive directors of NPOs before any contributions are made. Given our very challenging economic times, we should not expect any less of those we count on to fund our community non-profits. Especially when times are tough, even the most charitable individuals and foundations want to make sure that their donations are providing maximum benefit. And, I believe the best of the executive directors (and staff teams) should be equal to the task.

Let me be the first to admit the word “team” has been over-used – or, maybe better described as misunderstood and incorrectly used. I believe in the concept of “team” so strongly that I will never stop using the term, nor will I stop trying to explain what it really means (or should mean). That’s the purpose of the remainder of this article. Here are five issues that I believe can improve the health and performance of any non-profit:

We need to create organizational systems that supports safe dialogue.

A clear warning sign for the organization is the fear of staffers to share ideas – especially negative or corrective ones – with the executive director and/or the broader leadership team. Without an open dialogue, positive change cannot take place; without positive change, the organization will absolutely die (it’s just a matter of when). Staffers tell me all the time that “complaining won’t do any good because nobody listens,” – to which I reply no, if you do not complain, nothing can change. Complain is clearly the wrong word. Through the leadership of the executive director, staffers must feel safe in putting any and all thoughts – the very best they’ve got – onto the table (so to speak). Once an atmosphere of safety is established, it must continue to be nurtured by the executive director. We are not talking about a short-term fad; we are talking about a permanent systems shift. Such change can begin with something as simple as an request from the executive director to the staff. Depending on the depths of fear that have been established over the years, the executive director must be genuinely committed to a newly open dialogue and must continue to extend the invitation for as long as it takes to make staffers feel safe.

We need a much higher level of camaraderie among the leadership staff.

Once safe dialogue is established and trust is earned, the executive director and the staffers have a responsibility to improve camaraderie. What does this mean? It means the establishment of a true working and functional team with a genuine enjoyment of the job and the organization. Interestingly, the team approach will not work if the group has to work too hard to make it happen. You will know it has been achieved when the team is comfortable “sharing their stories” – frustrations, ideas, and suggestions. I am not suggesting that lines between professional and personal relationships be erased; instead, I am suggesting that the professional relationships become more relaxed and more productive (with everyone understanding they are part of a team with an important role to play).

Working relationships among partner organizations must be stronger.

All NPOs have relationships with other NPOs (peers) that really need to move from competitive to compassionate. The thought “we’re all in this together” applies here. We have reached the so-called ‘tipping point’ where rampant competition among service providers is no longer healthy or tolerable. Just within the last year, I have observed some very good progress on this front and it began through the leadership of the executive directors (and board members) to demonstrate uncharacteristic support of their peer NPOs. True success cannot be achieved until the staffers of both organizations feel compelled to lead change externally, which should be a positive outcome of safe dialogue and deeper camaraderie internally. I do not anticipate the ‘working relationships’ to improve spontaneously or even simultaneously; but, rather, that one organization will have to intentionally reach out (leadership, again) to another. I have seen this done successfully through a breakfast meeting of the executive directors of both organizations, and the top staffers, whereupon the executive directors make clear their desire to improve the working relationship; there is something powerful that happens when the staff is present and part of such an experience.

Everyone in the organization should be encouraged to make bold moves.

The time is now for bold moves in policy change, staff empowerment, and client expectations (for social service organizations). With safe dialogue, staff camaraderie, and strong relationships with partners, there are no systems impediments remaining that would prevent bold changes (usually to issues long known as problems in need of attention) that will improve successful service delivery in the community. This is the responsibility of every NPO. I have seen examples where two long-standing rival organizations began working together and the coalition immediately grew to twelve organizations and more. How would you define ‘bold?’ I would suggest that bold means going after the toughest issues – the ones everybody knows about but has been afraid to act – and looking for big victories from the very start. For example, I asked an experienced social service worker what percentage of the time she could identify the clients that were not going to make it before they even started. Her answer was a pretty high percentage, so why are we spending so much time with clients that don’t even want to participate and have no chance of succeeding? Bold changes are needed if we are to significantly increase the efficiency and performance outcomes of our NPOs.

The “team” (board members, executive director, staffers) must put pen to paper.

Some may call this ‘strategic planning’ – if so, that’s fine. But, after all the dialogue and team-building, nothing is going to happen unless ‘pen is put to paper’ and specific, measurable actions (forget the terms ‘goals and objectives’ – think ‘action’) are defined along with the assignment of responsibility for implementation that also comes with authority and accountability. This is a process and not an event. It must become standard operating procedure and not a document. Actions of the bold magnitude we are talking about require constant tweaking – mainly because the big issues require agreement from a number of partner NPOs.

With these five changes fully implemented, I suggest that any NPO is poised for greatness. However, I remain concerned that these changes can best be done without personnel baggage; i.e. with new executive directors, board members, staffers, partners, etc. The biggest challenge is to make the internal changes with current staff. However, we do not have the luxury of replacing staff members until the chemistry among them is just right. One thing I know for sure is that each of the five suggestions above requires the personal commitment of every individual on the team – and none requires permission from anyone other than yourself.

The Non-Profit Sector must work hard to retain its most knowledgeable and talented staff members.