A Preferred Future

Nonprofit guru Peter Brinckerhoff just posted his thoughts on what he hopes the future of nonprofits could hold. Here are a couple from him:

3. I want funders of all kinds (foundations, corporations, government, individuals) to accept the fact that when they fund nonprofits, they purchase services, they don't get to control the nonprofits in ways that don't benefit the mission. This means much less silly micromanagement.

4. I want everyone to be more transparent, both inside and outside their organizations. This means both nonprofits but also the funders.

5. I either want foundations and government to stop worrying about administrative percentages or start living by a 10-12% admin share themselves.

I haven't asked him, but I bet Mark Petersen would agree with these, even as he leads us in this direction through Bridgeway. Their commitment to transparency, like that of the gang at Maclellan in the US is exemplary.

How You Should Feel About Fundraising

Seth Godin again. This time passing on someone else's writing.
I got a nice thank you today from a fundraiser at a great organization in Toronto; which was interesting because we didn't send them any funds. Instead they appreciated that I'd taken an hour recently to talk with them about how Catalyst prefers to be approached and what I'd like to experience when requests are made.
Everyone who gathers resources for a meaningful purpose should read and re-read this post from Seth.
Here's a taste:
How good is your idea? How important is your cause? Important enough that you’ve given up another life to lead this life. You’ve given up another job, another steady paycheck, another bigger paycheck to do this all day long, every day, for years if not for decades, to make a change in the world and to right a wrong.

You Probably Shouldn't Try To Lead

One of the e-newsletters I subscribe to if from Patrick Lencioni. As with his best selling books, these shorter pieces are always insightful.
Here's a quote from the latest:
Whenever I hear someone encourage all young people to become leaders, or better yet, when I hear a young person say glibly that he or she wants to be a leader someday, I feel compelled to ask the question “why?”
If the answer is “because I want to make a difference” or “I want to change the world,” I get a little skeptical and have to ask a follow-up question: “Why and in what way do you want to change the world?” If they struggle to answer that question, I discourage them from becoming a leader.
It's almost sacrilegious in many circles to even suggest that everyone is not a leader. But I totally agree with Lencioni. Selfish leadership is damaging and it is all too common, especially among those who are gifted with enormous talent and charisma but limited wisdom or perspective.
I trust the remainder of the article will soon be posted here. If not, email me and I'll copy the whole text to you.

Passion and Profession

My father worked for over 30 years in a steel factory. He worked hard, took courses at night, and eventually moved into a management role. But I'm pretty sure there wasn't a day that he drove to work thinking "Now this is what I truly love to do!"
On the other hand I am part of a generation that often believes we should be able to do something that inspires us, be paid very well to do it, and have no interference from our bosses. It must make previous generations gag.
I have been spoiled (or blessed if you prefer) in that I have been able to have work I believed in and loved for the most part. I haven't maximized my earning potential but I've done fine financially. And my supervisors have been positive (in some cases excellent).
But I haven't forgotten how unusual that it and how grateful I ought to be.
Seth Godin's blog includes a great post about the risks and realities of trying to get paid for doing what you love.
I have a lot of respect for those who have found a way to combine their passion and profession successfully; but no less for those who have deliberately chosen to work to allow them to do what they love in other hours. The key to the whole thing is realistic reflection and deliberate decisions.

Why Charity Ultimately Fails

The word Catalyst gets used in several nonprofits and ministries. One that I can recommend is the Catalyst conference and all the ancillary elements they've added. I've enjoyed their podcasts for a couple years and am disappointed that I won't be available to accompany a group from our area to Atlanta next month to see it all live. It's definitely on my hit list for 2009.

One of the founders of our foundation sent me this article from the Catalyst website that explains with clear and simple illustrations why we're becoming involved with microfinance in our efforts to support relief and development for the world's poor, rather than traditional charitable efforts. We realize there are times and situations where immediate needs require free donations, but by and large we are more and more convinced that there are better ways to help in the long run.
we also hope that the time we spend researching and understanding options and strategies can help others to begin to explore some of the organizations we're enthusiastic about.

Scaleability

One of the factors we consider in evaluating grant applications is whether the proposal and the organization are scaleable. By that, I mean is there the possibility for the same system to be repeated either larger or smaller, ultimately serving and reaching more people.
That might simply mean making it possible for Catalyst to fund a portion of the requested funds allowing the organization to pursue their vision to a reduced degree initially; but ideally it means that what is being done can flex and grow with minimal costly restructuring.
This article talks about the realization by an American mega-church pastor that what works in developed urban centres in the Western world isn't scaleable in most places; and the way it has affected him and his organization.

Scaleability is rooted in the development of multiple leaders and simple, effective systems. It usually involves a return to the central historic origins of the vision and the willingness of the power brokers to open their hands and lead through influence rather than control.

Ignorant Board Members

I am learning quite a lot about the roles and responsibilities of board members. I'm realizing how very important an effective board can be to the long term work of an organization, and conversely, how crippling a poor board can be.
In evaluating grant applications one of the factors we consider is the effectiveness of the board of directors. In conversations with nonprofit leaders, board issues are often near the top of their frustration lists.
This blog post from the good people at Strive reminds me of the legal responsibly board members hold, that is rarely discussed it seems.
And by the way, why would any nonprofit not have someone designated to regularly blog on their behalf? It's an amazing way to keep your organization and your mission/vision in the minds of your constituency. Not doing so, when it costs only a little time and creativity, seems almost negligent.

Worth Reading

A quick list of websites and blogs that I find helpful:
Strive! is the best organization I've come across for helping boards learn to function in ways that don't drive themselves, staff, volunteers, donors, and clientele to desperate frustration. You should subscribe to their monthly GEMs and buy Jim Brown's book.


Mission Based Management by Peter Brinckerhoff keeps me thinking about how nonprofits can keep their focus in the midst of the daily realities of work.

Seth Godin's blog is updated pretty much daily and offers some innovative ideas about marketing that have the ring of both genius and common sense.

Open Hands is the blog of Mark Petersen from Bridgeway Foundation. Mark has been unfailingly helpful as we're getting Catalyst underway and he knows everybody.

I could give several more but this is a good start. And since it is hard to keep up with all of these I highly recommend Google Reader or some other tool that keeps you aware of updates.

In the interest of honesty

It only seems fair to acknowledge here that I also have another blog where I post things that relate less to my role here at Catalyst. The curious can feel free to visit: Worth Doing Poorly.

"Partners"

Among the many areas in which we are trying to learn as much as we can as fast as we can is the nature of the relationship between Catalyst and the various organizations we support. The common term foundations seem to use is "Partner", which we have also adopted. The intent is that we develop an interactive relationship with these organizations and can offer them more than simply financial resources.
I've tried to reflect my developing understanding of this relationship before (here.
Through another very helpful post from Mark Petersen, whose blog has become essential reading for me, I came across an article by Tom David that challenges a lot of what I want to be true about partnerships.
Basically, Tom argues that their is and always will be a power imbalance between funders and NGOs. Our efforts to minimize that gap are only effective in complicating things.
I very much want to disagree with Tom. I believe it can be possible to work productively and closely with our partners, even serving as a board member in some cases, without being manipulative or exploitative. Still, there is a certain wisdom in maintaining an arms length relationship if we want things to remain crisp and clear. I've seen examples of closer involvement being deeply problematic.
I'd love to hear from some readers on both sides of the funder/NGO relationship on this. How close is too close? What are the advantages and disadvantages of more complex relationships?
One final thought: It seems to me that most charities (esp. churches) receive a bulk of their funding from people who are directly involved in what they are doing. So it must work sometimes...

Finding Our Heart

I recently told someone that if they want to understand the mind of Catalyst they should read our website; but if they want to understand our heart they should read this blog. This is where the less fully considered and critiqued ideas are expressed. It gives insight that the more refined text of the website might miss.
I am spending the start of this week at a conference in Ft. Lauderdale with Professionals In Granting Society (PIGS), a gathering of representatives from several foundations. It is an inspiring group in many ways. I'm going to have a lot to think about from this event.
One of the most significant thoughts of the day today is the way that other foundations have identified what they are most passionate about and endeavoured to make that the focus of all their efforts. They are connecting their hearts and mind.
This is accomplished in various ways. Some have defined several separate categories of funding within their portfolio to reflect a diverse interest and strategy; others have become very narrowly focused and demonstrate great depth of wisdom and advocacy regarding the fields with which they are concerned.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this year at Catalyst is primarily about defining our interests. If we are able to effectively discern these things during our first year we will be able to bring about much greater influence in the years to come.
There is a spirituality to this. Not in any way to suggest that we should only support explicitly Christian projects, but that as we seek to express our sense of purpose we will be praying that God shows us how we can participate in those things that are part of his great story for all the world.