|
|
I sit on a few nonprofit boards. One is the local YMCA, which is building a new building in downtown Lancaster. We don't talk about fundraising software, fundraising tactics, or nonprofit issues these days, just buildings. We've decided to build a green, LEEDS-certified building, which will have a great, positive impact on the community and the membership. At the same time, membership has pushed for all the features you'd expect--competition pool, full gym, his and hers steam rooms, etc. It's going to be a great place.
Except to accommodate all of those things we have had to build a rectangle. Even with a green roof this isn't very appealing. So the balance is between parking, curvature, and building features.
Sigh. Aesthetics will lose out on this one, but there might be things we can do with the skin--glass, shaped facade, maybe a copula. The nice the facade, the easier it is to market for building membership. Then again, do we really need to invest in a curved exterior? Sigh.
I'm on 4 nonprofit boards. I've seen a lot of issues over the past 7 years of involvement with various nonprofits, and the role of the board and advisory board is usually dysfunctional; in fact, only one of the nonprofit boards I'm involved with currently is in decent shape.
One of the nonprofits I'm involved with is having some board issues. In response, I wrote a bit of a missive, including the following. I'd like to hear what you think about this. The board exists to advise, direct the ED as a group, and raise money. The Executive Director takes guidance from the Board as a whole and reports to the Board. Board members in this role have no direct oversight of the Executive Director. The Chair opens meetings, moderates meetings, and closes meetings, and has no direct interaction with the Executive Director in that role.
When Board members volunteer to carry out a task or run a program, they do so as Volunteers, not as Board members, and report to the Executive Director. They do not have authority over the Executive Director in any way, and no Board member can or should direct the Executive Director outside the context of a unified Board action.
If we adopt these roles and rules, I think we'll all be happier, more productive and more satisfied. If you are burned out, take a break. Step back. Keep supporting, keep believing, but step back.
I'm not on this particular board. But I started the overall thing and hate to see internal conflict when we have so much external work to do. Or any time, really.
What has your experience been?
Every time I talk to people outside of the nonprofit world, they repeat myths about nonprofits that just make me cringe...
Myth Number 1: Nonprofits can't make decisions
You, our customers, make your decisions to buy GiftWorks within 33 days on average. You make decisions every day. You like to make informed decisions; once you have the facts in front of you, you make decisions quickly and with input from advisors and your board. Myth busted!
Myth Number 2: Nonprofits don't spend money
Now that's a funny one: You spend over $57 bilion a year on technology, and represent about 8% of the GDP. That's quite a little more than petty cash, eh?
Myth Number 3: Nonprofit employees aren't high quality
This on makes me really mad--the 'second-class citizen' attitude. We need to start budgeting better salaries, better health benefits, and better conditions for nonprofits and our employees (I'm speaking for my own nonprofit, not Mission Research, which is mostly for-profit, it's huge Tech Soup donation aside, when I say "our"). Nonprofits sport some of the most dedicated, most committed, most talented, most intelligent people I know.
Do you have any myths to share? Click on Comments below!
Mission Research is one of a few select companies here as part of the United Way of America's annual technolgy conference, held in San Diego this year. It's great to see all of these United Way techies from across the country. I sat on a panel on Monday as a substitute for a Blackbaud executive (Kintera isn't here either, and Convio left Tuesday), where I said what has become the term of the week: "death by committee". Too often, nonprofit projects suffer from death by committee because of the seemingly universal need for nonprofits to give everyone a voice in a decision, while painstakingly reviewing all the details all along the way. I also recounted the phrase: "Nobody ever lost their job buying IBM", and gave a possibly offensive nonprofit version: "Nobody ever lost their nonprofit job making a decision".
It's not meant to be insulting, and it's not universal. Many nonprofits have their decision processes well refined. But many more suffer from being too conservative with their decisions, dragging decision-making processes out for far longer than necessary to make well-informed decisions. When I said it I got both laughter and affirmative head nods--they know what I'm talking about. Many of the techies come from corporate backgrounds, where things must keep moving for competitive reasons. Without that same type of external driver, nonprofits must be self-driven, and frequently will allow good projects to stall.
Examination is good. Study is good. Know the details. But make decisions--move forward. Go for the 80% solution if you can't get the perfect one. Keep moving ahead. In retrospect, you'll realize how much more you accomplished by doing what you can instead of waiting for doing the absolute best. Don't give in to death by committee--trust each other, debate, make decisions, and move on. Take ownership. make mistakes, and don't fear the darkness around the edges--bring light to it.
I'm heading back in to the fundraising software sessions--it's a great time!
|
 |
|
