National Philanthropy Day is coming up next month.

The day is commemorated to honor the role of philanthropy in our society. And philanthropy is essentially about actively caring for others. Our demonstration of our love of humanity.

Although the official day started only as recently as 1986, the idea of acting out of filial love for our brothers and sisters is as old as humanity. People help one another in times of crisis and loss, help provide education or support for artistic or scientific endeavor, protect a piece of land, a river, or a majestic or humble species. And these individual acts coalesced over thousands of years into ongoing groups, supporting specific areas of need. Then, in the early prosperous days of the US when income tax was being created, the proposition arose that these groups doing good should be considered exempt. The idea was that those working for the public welfare should use all their profits for the endeavor. And later, the notion that gifts to those groups would also qualify as tax exempt made sense.

Today, all of this is as normal as a blue sky. So much so, we may forget that philanthropy is a choice. It is an act that each one of us is called to make. It is an act that demonstrates our sense of community on this Earth, as we spin through our galaxy, a tiny spec in the grand space of All. Philanthropy is a vote for us. It is an investment in the human race and our place here together. It is also vital nourishment, feeding us in a way as basic as our daily meals. 

Philanthropy looks different among us. For some it is giving our time to listen to a friend or bring a meal to the bereaved. For others, rolling down the car window and greeting a person on the street with a smile and some cash. Some prefer sending checks in the mail to a hospital, a school, a dance company or a food bank. No matter how it shows up, philanthropy as an act is what is important. And not just on National Philanthropy Day, of course.

The day itself is for honoring this way of life - of loving and caring for our human family, that extends to our home on Earth and all the living neighbors we share her with. Honoring that this is a choice we continue to make.

​How will you commemorate it?

A merger is like any other major leadership initiative that will have a substantial impact on the business model, the workplace and the employees: leadership should take great care in how it's communicated. "Taking care" means not simply pushing out edicts, but rather, creating understanding that builds ownership of leadership's decision.

It's helpful to think of the communications strategy involving “waves” of messages, as opposed to the "fire hose" approach. This way, decisions that have been long-in-the-making and thus, have as their foundation an evolution of understanding, may be communicated in portions digestible to those just hearing about them. Employees are particularly important to bring along since they will be significantly affected by the merger and are critical to its successful implementation.

In thinking about major initiatives requiring careful communication, it's useful to think in terms of principles that can be applied to any situation, rather than a checklist of specific steps. This is because each situation (as well as each nonprofit) is different and will benefit from different approaches to the principles.

The important thing is to think through the principles of great communication in developing the specific steps you will take in your particular situation. For example, in-person communication has different benefits than virtual communication (email, web posting, etc.) – one is not better than another, just better for certain situations. Also, inclusion in communication is an important principle – but more is not better than less, again because the value is situation dependent.

Here are a few things to think about in developing the communication plan for your merger:

1. Why is it important for nonprofit staff to be accepting of the merger? Can staff members who resist a merger hinder the success of the change?

A merger is a significant change in a nonprofit’s business model, so staff absolutely need to accept it and not only accept it, but truly understand and get behind it. Those who cannot, even with careful communication, may need to be removed so the new initiative can thrive.

2. When should the merger be communicated to the staff? Pre-merger when there is only talk? When an agreement is signed?

This depends on the reason for the merger – some mergers are the result of : a desire to move into new arenas of service, to combine forces with a like-missioned entity for greater impact, etc. Other mergers are the result of lack of capacity – the need to shore up resources, to decrease infrastructure costs, or even more difficult, to move past a poor reputation. Which category your merger falls in will dictate how much to share with the staff and when.

This also depends on the size of the nonprofit – larger NPOs may have a well-developed culture of strategic planning and new initiatives vested in the board and therefore, staff would not expect to be considered at the outset. Smaller NPOs with staff integrally involved in all aspects of the organization would do well to bring them on early in the decision-making process.

3. What information should be communicated to staff?

First and foremost the reasoning behind the merger (or the consideration there of) should be communicated – people generally do better with a change in what and how they do something if they understand and agree with why. This means it's incumbent on leadership to really understand their own reasoning for the merger – and usually, big decisions like this have a complex or matrix of reasons that may have evolved over time. This means it will be important for those developing the core messages to think through the order in which they are best conveyed – this is very much like developing a good story.

4. How should that information be delivered?

For large-scale initiatives, it's usually a good idea to communicate in person, especially at the outset. However, as said above, in large institutions this may not be practical or expected. Universities, major hospitals, etc. might be examples of nonprofits that would likely deliver information about this kind of decision in a virtual manner – letter, email, etc. However, if key staff or groups of staff will be significantly impacted, these folks should be messaged first – and in-person may be to the organization’s advantage. For example, if a position or group of positions will no longer be needed (and this is often the case in mergers), it will be important to have this communication handled early so that those leaving don't negatively impact those who will remain.

5. Should staff be involved in any part of the merger process? If so, what ways can they be involved?

Finance, marketing and programmatic staff all may be very helpful in decision-making as well as in crafting transition plans and then in implementation of new business process once the merger is complete. Getting people involved in designing how the merger will work is a sure way to relieve their anxiety and get them vested in making the change succeed.

6. What should directors do if there is staff resistance to the merger? How can they calm fear/anxiety?

All good leadership is about anticipating the response to new decisions – nonprofit boards are no different. Rather than know that staff may be upset or fearful or anxious and just ignore this fact, the board can use this as a way to develop effective communications plans. For instance, to go back to our prior example of someone losing their job – this is obviously going to cause anxiety. The board should prepare a clear transition and exit plan for those who will be leaving, including severance, letters of reference, job search counsel, etc. If the nonprofit is merging because of financial constraints, then plans that cost real dollars will likely not be possible – in this case, it is imperative that the board do whatever it can to ease the transition of these employees. And to communicate this to those who will be leaving.

7. What are the most important things board directors handling the merger should understand about guiding staff through the process?

Putting themselves in their employees’ shoes is the best way to anticipate and address employee concerns. Once these concerns are addressed, the board should show unanimous support for the merger, and be clear about the positive intent of it for the greater good of the nonprofit. Decisions like this can be easier for leadership to communicate to staff in nonprofits than in for profits because it is generally a given that everyone is there to serve a higher purpose. Helping staff see this desired outcome, even if it comes with some near-term discomfort, should go a long way with staff. Also, the board must have a well-considered transition plan so that the burden for its decision does not fall to the staff to figure out. This will demonstrate to staff that the board not only cares about the organization and advancing its mission, but also about those who actualize it on a daily basis.

Are new board members productive within the first two months of their term? Or does it take a year or more before your board members are "catching on"?

The board of a nonprofit is one of its primary assets. This is certainly true for smaller and start-up organizations without the resources to hire all of the staff needed. In these cases, the board often fills, not only the governing role, but also much-needed staff roles in areas such as bookkeeping, marketing and legal counsel. 

But the board is also a primary asset for larger organizations with a full complement of professional staff. The board in these mature organizations is essential to capital campaigns, mergers and acquisitions and other major strategic initiatives.

Clearly then, having new board members take a year or more to get up to speed is a huge waste of talent and resources. Not only is this bad for the nonprofit, it's also a drag for the volunteer board member.

So what's the answer to board members reaching their peak potential early in their terms? Onboarding.

The primary cause of board members taking a year or more before becoming productive is a lack of effective new member orientation. Too many nonprofits don't do board orientation at all. This is a shocking gap, causing new board members to muddle along, "figuring it out over time." The long-term result? All sorts of problems, including board apathy (nonattendance), micro-managing, and even negligence.

Of those nonprofits who do board orientation as standard operating procedure, much of what's being done isn't hitting the mark. A lot of what is called "board" orientation is actually focused more on what staff are doing and need to know. This is simply because staff members are designing and giving the orientation. The board's orientation should look substantially different from that of the staff because the job is not the same.

If these are issues for your board, consider the following:

1. Initiate a board-led orientation process for new board members. Having it board-led will help ensure that the material included is what a board member needs to know. Another plus is that current board members will feel more engaged and get to know new members from the outset. (If you need help, Chapter 3 of Nonprofit-KnowHow gives exactly what to cover.)

2. Create a board partner program that pairs a seasoned board member with a new one. This way, as the new member is getting up to speed, s/he has someone to turn for questions and support along the way. The experienced board member can also check-in to ensure that the new member is feeling good about their role and participation. (Chapter 3 also describes this process.)

3. Conduct an annual board self-evaluation to determine what more should be included in onboarding process, as well as other ways the NPO can optimize board effectiveness. (Chapter 1 of Nonprofit-KnowHow includes a comprehensive Board Self-Evaluation.)

The bottom line here is, for board members to add value they've got to understand the job and the nature of the organization they serve. And this understand must be from the board perspective. Lack of understanding is a big culprit in underperforming nonprofit boards. Therefore, energy spent on effective onboarding processes reaps huge dividends, including board productivity from day one.

How often do we hear the complaint, "my board doesn't do enough to help our nonprofit organization succeed"? Too often. Must we just live with this situation? After all, nonprofit boards are, by definition, made up of volunteers and we all know they can't be counted on, right? Wrong.

The biggest factor in low-functioning boards is that board members don't know what being a good board member means in the nonprofit. And sadly, nor do many executive directors (ED). Or if they do, they aren't skilled at conveying this to their boards. So, boards end up doing their best, usually a far cry from what is really needed.


But the board role is different from that of the staff. And this really must be clear to both the board and the staff to avoid problems (micro-managing and apathy chief among them) and to achieve the nonprofit's true potential.

A good general guideline for the essential difference between board work and that of the staff is "if it's a matter of what to do, that's the board's work; if it's a matter of how, then it's staff." But, of course, the devil is in the details: the actual figuring out what's a what and what's the how. This is why the most important role in the nonprofit organization is the ED, because its primary responsibility is to bridge between the board and the staff. To be effective, the ED must understand the difference between board and staff work in their particular nonprofit and act to make the delineation clear to all.

Consider these steps to get both the board and the staff working optimally:

1) The board's big job is to set the destination for the nonprofit organization - where is it headed, why and by when? These questions should be asked and answered about once a year (things change!) by the board collectively, in a facilitated process that also includes key staff members. But it's the board perspective that should prevail in this setting, meaning that the facilitator should guard against the tendency to make laundry lists of new program ideas. There's nothing wrong with this, but programs tend to be more about how and so should be considered in staff meetings/retreats.

2) The ED and the board chair should plan this session together with a seasoned facilitator so that the session is productive, engaging and results in simple, clear answers to these important questions.

3) Then the staff should be tasked with creating a work plan by which the organization will make progress toward its chosen destination. The board can review this plan and should officially approve it, along with the annual budget to make it happen. But the board's work is to ask is this plan likely to get us where we want to go and for a cost this organization can afford? If the answer is no, the board doesn't fix the plan, they send it back with comments to the staff for revision.

4) When the year's planning is complete and the implementation is set in motion, then what do board members do? 

Act as expert advisers on issues that arise and decision-makers on important policy decisions

Act as key resources and ambassadors for networking and fundraising

Monitor progress on both the work plan and budget, and offer counsel on course correction where needed

If all this sounds like an unrealistic ideal, it's definitely time to do some leadership development within the organization. It can be challenging for an ED to "train" their board - especially if the board has been functioning in the "old way" for a while. But transforming the board into a meaningful contributor, one that serves the nonprofit wherever it is in its life cycle, and one that fulfills its governing role is the responsibility of the ED (and of board leadership, when the understanding is there).

The best place to start is the ED's own understanding of the board/staff roles: are you clear about what this looks like in your nonprofit? Once the ED is clear, initiating a conversation and process with the board chair to facilitate the board's understanding and then working through board orientation, governance, and meeting processes/standards are excellent places to begin.

And remember, EDs that routinely complain that their boards aren't functioning optimally are essentially wearing a sign that reads "I don't know how to do my job." Boards do what they are cultivated, asked and supported to do. Getting this right is a big job for any ED, but it is indeed the job.

Nonprofit-KnowHow is designed to aid EDs and boards in the important work of redeeming their leadership roles. The two-volume set explains the fundamentals of board/staff roles, accountability, relations and  governance (and much more) - and provides a range of implementation tools, such as board and officer job descriptions, board orientation materials, and more. Many EDs use Nonprofit-KnowHow as the first step with new board members to help them get started on the right foot from the get-go!

While we agree that nonprofits "should run more like a business" (i.e., employ efficient systems, fiscal controls and monitoring methods), we also believe that "for profits should run more like a cause" (care about long-term effects and overall social good).

The good news is that the nonprofit and for profit sectors are really beginning to learn from each other. Nonprofit and for profit, and government too, are borrowing from each other's values and mindset to create more synergistic enterprises that CROSS traditional boundaries. Why? Because that's what works!

Where bureaucracy (that is, the OLD way of doing things) still prevents or impedes this cross-pollination, we need not accept it. Instead, we can come up with innovative ways to move those road blocks, and eventually, to eliminate them. We can do this, but only if our mindset is such that we say "Now is the time!"

And now is the time indeed. ONWARD!

Thanks to Good for the image used here..

As a fundraiser, there are countless demands on your day – are you maximizing the time you spend with your top donors, how is that grant proposal coming, are the plans for the next special event where they need to be today, is your direct mail appeal ready to mail, and why aren’t your board members do more fundraising themselves?

Those demands can overshadow an important tool for your success in fundraising: a professional association.  There are a variety of associations you can join for building a collegial and supportive network, including Association of Fundraising Professionals and The Giving Institute, and then there are industry-specific associations such as the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy.  Colleagues in these forums can offer you advice, a shoulder to cry on, and three cheers for your wildly successful endeavors.  They understand exactly what you do in your job, like no one else.

You know how it is: people ask what you do, you tell them you're a fundraiser, and either there's a blank look or they head for the hills, afraid you're going to ask them for money! But when I first joined my fundraising association, I was delighted to find myself surrounded by people who knew much more than I did about the fundraising profession, and I didn't have to explain that it goes way beyond bake sales. I met people deeply engaged in and committed their work and who were curious about mine.

The professional association that I have belonged to for almost 20 years is the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP).  My first fundraising job was at the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, and I had the fortune to work for someone who believed in the value of professional associations, especially AFP.  She supported my attending the monthly educational meetings and had the organization pay my membership dues.  She even endorsed my scholarship application for the annual AFP International Conference, which I attended in Los Angeles as a junior fundraiser.

As a member of AFP, I took the opportunity to learn from the more seasoned professionals I met and cultivated several informal mentorships.  I enjoyed being part of the group and was proud to be a member of an association that promoted ethical fundraising and continuing education to make us better at our jobs.  About five years after becoming a member and volunteering on a few committees, I was nominated to join the board.  It was an honor (and not a little bit frightening) to think that I was joining the ranks of these committed professionals.  It has turned out to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional life.

Now I am serving as the Executive Director for the AFP Colorado Chapter, and I’m excited to be playing such a pivotal role with the organization.  It’s a thrill to work on my favorite event of the year, National Philanthropy Day.  The award winners' stories are so inspiring and remind me why I do this work.  I also have the privilege to work on a premier conference, the Rocky Mountain Philanthropy Institute, held in Vail, Colorado in September.  This conference provides a venue full of networking and excellent educational offerings, all in a fabulous scenic location.  The local chapter of AFP also provides a formal mentorship program and countless volunteer opportunities to give back to the profession.

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend that you consider joining a professional organization like AFP to find like-minded colleagues and build your network.  I truly believe that I’ve reached this place in my career because of my experience with AFP.  Hopefully, your employer will support you in joining an association like it, giving you time to attend their educational sessions and paying your annual dues. It’s worth every penny! And if you choose to join AFP, please introduce yourself to me at one of our educational sessions so that I can help you take advantage of all that AFP has to offer.  

AFP is the leading professional association for individuals responsible for generating philanthropic support for a wide variety of nonprofit organizations. The Association advances philanthropy through its more than 30,000 members in 230 chapters throughout North America. Since 1960, AFP has inspired global change and supported efforts that generated over $1 trillion, with members raising more than $100 billion annually. This is equivalent to one-third of all charitable giving in North America and millions more around the world. The International Headquarters is located in Arlington, Virginia. Check out their video.

DeAnn Acosta, Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), is the Principal Consultant at Mosaic Fundraising and is the Executive Director of the Association of Fundraising Professionals/Colorado Chapter.

A recent blog post on Software Advice's The Able Altruist reminded us how terribly important something incredibly basic is: knowing the impact of your efforts on your audience.

Nonprofits spend all kinds of time developing innovative programming and describing it to donors, but far too few spend the same kind of time checking with their constituents to see if the innovations are actually working.

As the Altruist says: "it’s estimated that fewer than 20 percent of organizations assess program effectiveness by soliciting feedback from the people they serve." Yikes! This is like planning a party, sending invitations, decorating, preparing food and drink, and even having the party, but not taking notice if people are having a good time.

"Evidence suggests that beneficiary engagement levels positively correlate with program quality: the more engaged the constituent, the greater the program," according to the Altruist. And great programs not only serve constituents, they also attract donors, media attention, community awards and other positive recognition of the nonprofit. This, in turn, feeds its ability to do more good. The relationship between customers, programs and resources comes as no surprise to most nonprofits. 

The rub is less that nonprofits don't recognize the importance of customer input. Rather, the problem lies in not knowing how to efficiently get it, nor what to do with it once they have it. These are really crucial issues.

First, how can nonprofits efficiently gather input and feedback from their beneficiaries and customers? This was much more of a problem before the advances and increased use of technology. But with the proliferation of mobile devices and internet use, easy-to-use and engaging survey tools are a dime a dozen. (SurveyMonkey and SurveyMethods are two.) Those nonprofits who value the ideas and experience of those they serve will find a wide range of cost efficient means to plumb the depths of their customers' experiences.

Second, what should a nonprofit do with the information once they have it? The simple answer is customer feedback and input should be a key influencer of strategic planning initiatives. In other words, when the board sits down to assess past performance and make plans for the future, they should use the experiences, ratings, and suggestions of the nonprofit's customers as the basis of their efforts. If the nonprofit doesn't know how to do this, it's time to get some outside help. There are plenty of good consultants who specialize in assessment and strategic planning.

The important point here is, what your customers think of you and your programs matters. So, not only should nonprofits invest in new programs, but also in the means to understand if programs are working for those they're designed to benefit. Sounds like common sense, right?

A friend called the other day with a Big Idea to Do Good to ask if she should develop it as a for profit or a non-profit. That's not only a really good question to ask at the outset of any venture, it's also a more complex one than you might think - especially these days.

Why these days? Well, as you may be aware, the boundary between for profit and non profit is becoming more porous every day. First, there are the C-Corps who spin-off foundations and/or nonprofit arms to do good (Ben and Jerry's, for instance did this) - or who simply use their marketing departments as the aegis. There are also the C-Corps whose missions are socially conscious from the outset, or like Tom's that's an example of both. Then there is the growing world of social entrepreneurs, who start up projects to do good using the traditional for profit structures: LLC (Do Well. Do Good., for example), S-Corps, etc. And then, within the last few years, there are the new corporate forms such as the low profit, limited liability company (L3C) and B-Corp that are formalizing the hybridization of for profit and non.

All of these new forms and variations, even though creating more complexity, are, in my mind, good news. Why? Because they signal a growing understanding among us that doing good is not something that should be done as an afterthought or on the side, as occasional volunteer work or church activity. No. That way of thinking is dying. We now realize that we can earn our living (even a good one!) and do good at the same time - they can work hand-in-glove.

And not only can we do this, we should and must. If the reach of technology with its 24/7 stream of information has meant anything, it's meant an expanded awareness of the enormity of world issues begging for solution. From the environment to food supply, to human health and education, to poverty and social injustice, there is business to be done here. And more and more people are stepping up to take part. As a result, more ways are emerging to structure this new kind of business that does good as its mission, with a wider range of choices for start-ups.

So, how does one begin to answer the question: under what structure should I develop my Big Idea? First off, thinking of the range of possibilities in terms of a continuum can be helpful. With one end being the "pure" nonprofit and the other being the "pure" for profit, like this:

The 501(c)3 end of the spectrum of choices represents the most altruistic of missions, with the highest level of public involvement and scrutiny, as well as the biggest benefit of tax deductible donations. The other end is where the C-Corp is, with its profit motive as primary and its leaders both responsible for decisions and benefitting financially. This spectrum should not be interpreted as one of good to bad or even less money to more, but rather as a reflection of the overarching purposes of the range of corporate structures - there are, of course, plenty of nonprofit organizations with large budgets, just as there are plenty of C-Corps with small ones.

Next, ask yourself some basic questions - such as:
    
    1) Why am I considering a nonprofit? What benefits do I imagine will be gained by it?
    2) What concerns do I have about forming a nonprofit? What limitations do I imagine will be the result?
    3) What uncertainties/unknowns do I have about nonprofits? What do I think I know for certain? 
    
Then answer the same questions about a for profit structure. And with this information, you can start to weigh the benefits of the various options out there for your particular situation. For example, if you like the notion of letting people know that your Big Idea is primarily about doing good in the world, rather than making you a millionaire (which, by the way, is not bad in itself nor is it incompatible with the nonprofit, per se) then you may be leaning more toward the nonprofit side of the equation. But if, at the same time, you are concerned about wrangling a broadly representative, volunteer board in addition to managing your start-up and you don't need donations (in other words, you expect to be able to sell your product/service at a profit), then you might want to take a look at B-Corp and L3C options.

The most important thing is to do your research well in advance of filing for whatever structure you choose. Having to change your incorporation status after the fact just means more paperwork and less time to devote to your Big Idea to Do Good!

For more detailed information on what a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization is about, see Chapter 1 of Nonprofit-KnowHow - take a look here. And thanks to Sarah for raising the question!