by Susan Detwiler | Jun 17, 2013 | philanthropy
Did you read the BBB, Guidestar, Charity Navigator letter about The Overhead Myth ? I did. And even as I cheered the message, it felt wrong. It was written to the wrong audience. The donors who commented were not convinced.
The same day I read Michael Schrage wrote in Harvard Business Review’s Good Leaders Don’t Use Bad Words, and I saw the problem; the authors were being lazy with their words. Instead of speaking to their audience’s needs, they were speaking to their own.
Nonprofits will certainly be better served if donors don’t focus solely on overhead as a measure of competence. But what’s the upside for the donors? Why should they care? That’s where the authors fail.
Donors should be looking for measures that demonstrate value to society. Are people’s lives being changed? How lasting is the change? How is the nonprofit making sure that it’s effective? What does it need in order to stay on track? These are the measures that donors should be looking at.
Instead of telling donors that overhead is the wrong measurement, we need to help them see the benefit of seeking alternatives.
by Susan Detwiler | Jan 19, 2012 | governance, management, mission, nonprofit, Standards, Uncategorized
My husband and I talk about this a lot, as we watch the daily news. People are always trying to wiggle out of responsibility for the mistakes they’ve made, the people they’ve injured, the messes that others have to clean up.
Whatever happened to “I’m Sorry?â€Â Whatever happened to “It’s my fault?â€Â  Whatever happened to “I made a mistake, I will fix it?â€
This post from Sarah Andrus says it clearly and concisely. When we make a mistake, we must own it and make reparations. Her post talks about individuals, but it’s equally true of organizations. “My Bad…†or How to Handle Mistakes With Grace
This is where a culture of ethics and accountability can make all the difference. If your organization has a culture in which individuals – both board and staff – are known to take responsibility for mistakes and are not unduly punished for them, then each person can feel more comfortable owning his or her mistakes. Honesty and integrity become the hallmarks for which you are known. The receptionist can feel proud of working for you, the donor can be proud of supporting you, your community will offer up new board members.
Think about it. If all the time and energy spent in evading responsibility were instead spent in fixing the problem and taking steps so it doesn’t happen again, then the entire organization moves forward that much faster.
Where would you rather work – where energy is spent covering it up, or where energy is spent making it right? Â
by Susan Detwiler | Dec 19, 2011 | management, nonprofit, philanthropy, Uncategorized
Quit calling it donor relations.
It’s people relations. It doesn’t matter if she’s a prospective donor, a volunteer, a parent or a student. It doesn’t matter if he gives time, money, or attention. Or none of the above. 
If you care about your organization, then you should be building relationships with every person.
Every single person you encounter.
Segmenting the people you know for the purposes of sending appropriate messages is one thing. Segmenting them because you think that somehow donors are different from other people is completely different.
A person is a person is a person is a person. A person has dreams, hopes, and ambitions. A person has quirks and traits and tendencies. Anyone might have a reason to care about your organization, and it might not be the reason you think.
But if you only look at her as “soccer mom,†you might miss that this particular person dreams about somehow personally making a difference. If you only look at him as “volunteer,†you might miss that he hopes to introduce his kids to philanthropy through your organization. If you only look at that couple as “stay-at-homes,†you might miss that they really are seeking for the best way to invest their time and energy together.
Everyone should be in your database, so when you encounter that person, it doesn’t matter whether he’s a donor or not – you have an entrée into a conversation about their dreams, hope and ambitions.
A chance encounter with a community member was a forceful reminder of this truth. His kids are really into soccer. My client was an arts organization that educates children. A mismatch? Not at all. Not after he wistfully said he wished his kids could learn a little discipline. What is learning to play an instrument but learning discipline? Sure, it’s a lot of other things, too. But one big part of what it brings to kids is the knowledge that if you keep at it, you become better. Maybe the class in rock can do that for him.
Everyone you meet is a potential relationship. And every relationship starts with seeing every person.
by Susan Detwiler | Oct 1, 2011 | management, nonprofit, philanthropy
Challenging the Relationship Model of Fundraising
Received wisdom now says that relationship building is the way to raise more money from donors. It’s why we changed the name from Fundraising to Development; we expect to develop relationships with people, with the ultimate goal of getting them to make a big gift (or two, or three).
This may still be true, but a study from Matthew Dixon and Brent Adamson challenges the notion that relationship building causes higher sales in the for-profit environment. What this means for the nonprofit sector is up for debate.
Dixon is Managing Director of the Corporate Executive Board’s Sales and Service Practice. Adamson is Senior Director of the Sales Executive Council, a division of the Sales and Service Practice. Their new book, The Challenger Sale: Taking Control of the Customer Conversation, is the result of studying 6,000 sales representatives across more than 100 companies around the world. Detailing their work habits, their motivation and their results, they classified the reps into 5 groups:
- Relationship builder
- Lone wolf
- Hard worker
- Reactive problem solver
- Challenger
These groups are described in the HBR Blog, but suffice it to say that the Relationship builder was NOT the best performer.
Surprisingly, Challenger, who did not acquiesce to every client whim, who did not work to smooth over any tension, and in fact made a point of asking penetrating questions about client assumptions, outperformed the others in complex and challenging situations.
Now, if these economic times aren’t challenging for nonprofits, I don’t know what would be. Perhaps it’s time to (ahem) challenge our assumptions of how to deal with donors in these times.
More study is definitely needed.
by Susan Detwiler | Jul 6, 2009 | management, nonprofit, social media
For a mid-50 year old, I’ve been a pretty early adopter of communications technology. I used computers in 1969; owned my own computer in 1985, had email shortly after and a website since 1995. I most definitely am not as advanced as many of the people I follow on Twitter, but they’re the cutting edge. I’m still just an early adopter.
Yet despite all the changes in media, there are a few rules of social and business conduct that hearken back to the days of print and telephone and still make sense. Or rather, in the words of Douglas MacMillan, columnist for BusinessWeek, “Don’t be Stupidâ€.
In his May 8, 2009 column, MacMillan told the story of an advertising agency executive whose client learned that they were wooing one of his competitors – via a Twitter post by one of the agency’s own employees.
There are the numerous Facebook pictures of young adults who don’t take down the beer pong pictures before applying for a job. In fact, I just noticed a student affairs professional who is listed as a “Fan of Beer Pong†on Facebook.
Now that summer is here, there are numerous status updates on Facebook and Twitter of employees who proudly indicate that they’re counting the minutes to quitting time or planning on being sick the next day so they can get to the beach.
Why am I writing this in a blog about nonprofits? Because the basic, overall guidelines remain the same for every individual and for every enterprise: Think Before You Communicate!
In a future post, I’ll invite a specialist to write about how to guide an employee who uses digital media on behalf of the organization. But for everyone else, here are some social media guidelines.
Rule #1 is for you – the employer, the manager, the boss. Acknowledge that your employees will be on digital media. There’s no getting around it. You wouldn’t have been able to keep them from having a radio, a television, a cell phone, or a computer; you can’t keep them from continuing to engage in the next technology.
The next 6 rules are for sharing with your staff:
1 –  Keep organization secrets secret. Just as you shouldn’t sit down at a bar and talk to a reporter about an internal mishap or the board member who is totally overbearing, you can’t broadcast anything like that in the media. Your donors and board members are everywhere, and so are potential new funders. They’ll think twice about doing business with you if they don’t think you can keep things confidential.
2 –  Don’t bash the competition. If you identify your employer ANYWHERE, or the organization is even just known by anyone, you are seen as representing that organization even on your own time. Bashing another agency invites bashing right back and is just plain rude. It also gets tiresome for the readers, and raises questions among donors about your professionalism.
3 –  Don’t grumble about your boss. Again, if you identify your employer ANYWHERE, you are seen as representing that organization even on your own time. If the employees are seen as unhappy, your potential clients, donors and goodwill ambassadors may have second thoughts about doing business with you.
4 –  Don’t be an obvious clockwatcher. I wonder about the wisdom of individuals who send tweets like ‘only 2 hours to go’. Either you don’t really doesn’t care that your employer might see this clockwatching, or you are demonstrating contempt for a boss who will never see it. Either way, it’s not a good image for your organization.
5 –  Keep it clean. Yes, I know this is a personal account. But I can’t stress this enough. If you identify your employer ANYWHERE, you are seen as representing that organization. You wouldn’t want to see your child’s elementary school teacher standing outside a bar using foul language every other word. You may be on your own time, but it sure doesn’t reflect well on you, and ultimately on the school system.
6 –  If you’re not sure, ask! Sometimes it’s good to post new insights in your field, demonstrating the expertise of your organization. But occasionally, those insights might be proprietary. If you’re not sure, find out whom to ask for guidance.
And overriding all of the above is a single thought to keep in mind: Assume your mom, your boss, your friends, your relations, your future friends and relations, and your future bosses are all reading it.
The old rules used to be, “don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to your mom,†and “don’t write anything you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times.†In this time of instant access to the writings of almost anyone, what you write today can affect your future.
Don’t be Stupid! Thanks for the reminder, Douglas.
Recent Comments