Technology has changed everything – including the purpose and format of meetings!
No one has to travel to get information anymore, all the information we need is at our finger tips at our desks or laptops. The real value in coming together is sharing in the collective wisdom and creativity of fellow attendees.
Rethinking conferences also means rethinking the roles of presenters and moderators. Abdale Consulting utilizes several new formats including:
Talk Show
Presenters are guests and the moderator is an interviewer. Questions are distributed in advance so guests don’t feel blind-sided, unprepared or ambushed. However the interviewer/moderator uses their skill to probe deeper on issues once the initial questions have been asked.
World Café
A series of rapid fire small group discussions that yield more perspectives on issues and ideas that the usual small group breakout-session
Pundits Commentary
Similar to a post-State-of-the-Union address where a group of experts respond to information just presented (in-person or by video feed) and the moderator guides the discussion ala Bil Maher.
There are also many informal ways to maximize participation and interaction among attendees – ice breakers, segmented and facilitated lunch groups, group exercises, etc. Not all of these formats work for every group, but to keep meetings vital and people attending we have to keep looking for new ways to maximize our time together.
Another goal of meeting in person is make the conference a starting point for new initiatives and the place where people report on work begun since the last gathering. This removes conferences from their previous “Brigadoon”-type existence and makes them part of a vital continuum of work and productivity.
Lots of people talk about term limits for board members, and even the President of the United States is limited to eight years of service, but no one seems to consider term limits for Executive Directors of nonprofit organizations.
Let’s face it - once you have decided that this is the job from which you will retire, there is a natural tendency to make sure that the boat never rocks. Consciously or unconsciously, one tends to play it safe in order to survive. Entrenched EDs are less likely to initiate change, more likely to build a board that is also averse to change and, ultimately, keep an organization from meeting the evolving needs of it constituents.
This is an issue fraught with many exceptions and many examples of decades-long exemplary leadership. However, there are also many examples of entrenched E.D.s who keep an organization in a holding pattern, are averse to risk and confuse organizational stability with safety and self-interest. Founder’s Syndrome does not just apply to founders.
I’m not suggesting that EDs, particularly good ones, get shoved out the door every seven years or so without a safety net. (I think seven to ten years is a good length of time to do anything!) There are many options for honoring an ED’s contribution and helping her/him on to what’s next.
The board can pay his/her salary for a year at another institution or for-profit firm where they can acquire additional experience and skill sets, pay for a year of advanced education, or simply fund a year of recuperative leave. A funder, or group of funders, can contribute to the separation package, hire the E.D. for a year as a consultant, or help the E.D. to find a position with another grantee.
The money for the exit strategy could be amortized over the length of the ED’s term, placed in the annual budget and set aside to be used only if the E.D. serves out her/his term and meets other criteria established by the board and agreed to by the Executive Director. Worst case scenario if the E.D. doesn’t work out, is a reserve of cash that can be used for a job search for the next E.D. or other purposes.
This can also help with succession planning. Knowing that an ED’s time is limited can help an organization prepare well in advance for a transition that is traditionally rocky and a search that can be disastrously expensive.
Another benefit is in the kind of candidate that an organization attracts when job seekers understand the policy. It can weed out those looking for a safe, life-long berth and may be more likely to engage leaders who understand that strategic change and adaptability to an ever-changing environment is necessary for an organization’s health and long-term sustainability.
I'd love to know what others think about this - expecially E.D.s - so please feel free to let me know!
I just finished the Interim Executive Leadership training at New York’s Support Center for Nonprofit Management. It was a great experience. There’s nothing like a new tool in the toolbox to reinvigorate your marketing efforts, stimulate your creativity and expand your horizons.
The session was incredibly informative, well run and reflective of the general level of excellence that defines all the Support Center’s work. The other trainees were a great group of people – all from disparate but nonetheless impressive backgrounds.
It was great to learn the difference between being and ED and an Interim. The ED requires vision and leadership while the Interim requires the ability to stabilize an organization in transition while assessing it to help the Board fully understand what they really need in their next CEO. Both require significant financial acuity. The assessment proecss is similar to what Abdale Consulting offers in our organizational scan.
It was also great to learn that I have the characteristics necessary to help an organization through such a trying time including; Optimism, Flexibility, Generosity, Humor, Intuition, and the ability to quickly establish relationships and trust. If anyone knows of an organization that needs an interim ED, please let me know and, if you are in the New York area, check out the many training and consulting opportunities at the Support Center www.supportcenteronline.org.
"I've made many sacrifices, but I have never compromised." - Karl Lagerfeld
Budget cuts are everywhere and no matter how one approaches the process, it is a painful and challenging operation. A big temptation is to institute across-the-board cuts that require every department to cut the same percentage. This can be the easiest approach and appear to be the most democratic but it can also lead to decisions that are ultimately not in the organization's best interests. For example, cutting development staff just when raising money is harder than ever, or cutting programs at the core of your long-term volunteers’ and donors’ commitment. More challenging, but sometimes more strategic, is to look at cuts on a line by line basis and to consider the long-term and ripple ramifications of each cut. At Abdale Consulting, we call this part of “Strategic Realignment” and we bring a fresh eye and a strategic perspective that can help an organization get lean yet remain viable.
Another temptation is to make a series of small cuts in hopes that the funding environment will change before bigger cuts are necessary. This can demoralize staff and encourage anyone who can to jump ship, and diminish the agency’s credibility with existing and potential donors. Wiser in the long run may be to bite the bullet just once, make bigger and deeper cuts upfront, and reassure the staff that remains that their jobs are secure.
There is also an opportunity for executives and senior staff to lead by example and defer some compensation or take short-term salary cuts along with cuts to programs. The last thing an organization needs today is to be perceived by its volunteers and donors as the nonprofit equivalent of a bonus-taking Wall Street firm where executives put their own self-interest above the needs of their clients.
The biggest challenge of all is to not let fear sit in the driver’s seat when making these decisions. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” has never been truer or more applicable. Fear makes us small in our thinking and makes us distrustful of others just when alliances and collaborations are essential strategies for survival. It obliterates our ability to see opportunities and shows us a future filled only with wreckage and ruin.
Courage is what’s needed now – courage, faith and creativity. Faith that the money follow wherever our mission leads, as long as we keep our heads, operate with integrity and maintain the balance between altruism and pragmatism. Creativity flows much more easily when we trust in our selves and the rightness of our cause.
There was an article in the New York Times on Friday, February 20, 2009 about an upturn in nonprofits using Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy laws.
It was interesting and somewhat depressing but my main reaction was “Why isn't this article in the Business Section?” It would be if any other economic sector was being profiled.
Is anyone pushing policy makers and legislators to consider the nonprofit sector as a significant and integral part of the overall economy? The nonprofit sector should be part of the mainstream discussion of economic stimulus, business development and bail-outs. It could be the "nonprofit" or "charity" nomenclature marginalizes the sector. Maybe we should think of something else to call it!
Based on a contemporary Buddhist symbol our logo represents the convergence of altruism and pragmatism and the unstoppable wave of positive energy that occurs when both these principles meet in equal measure.
This concept - the equal balance of altruism and pragmatism - is at the core of all our services. Too much focus on the the altruistic can lead to decisions that ignore financial realities or other necessary components of a healthy organization. Too much focus on the practical can lead to decisions that diminish the soul of an organization's mission and ultimately alienate donors, volunteers and staff, and institutionalize systems that no longer consider a client's best interests the primary focus of everyone's effort. Either path can lead to an organization's dysfunction and demise.
Running a successful organization is a challenge even in the best of economic times, but these days it can be considerably daunting. However, difficult times can offer tremendous opportunities for leadership, if we can remain forward looking, unafraid and generous despite the fear and paralysis around us. Difficult times distill us to our essence and test our determination and commitment. Without money to throw at a problem we are forced to confront challenges with a different perspective and become creative with resource development, new partnerships and the use of existing resources.
We can also get practical. Now is the time for economies of scale, reviewing operation efficiencies, streamlining, cutting back to core-mission programs, communicating a renewed commitment to donors and volunteers, salary cuts or deferred compensation, and outsourcing some operations to part-time staff or consultants.
We can also revisit the use of volunteers. Perhaps offer families “volunteer vacations” with week-long intensive activities that bring together different generations for meaningful interactions and education on important issues. And, in the process, lay the foundation for future funders and advocates, especially among children and adolescents.
Ask foundation, corporate and government funders what strategies they may have for the future and see if you can align your strategies with theirs. You can convene a meeting of other grantees from a single funder to discuss collaborations.
You can also review your facility costs and renegotiate your lease, or, if you are in the midst of a capital campaign, renegotiate the purchase price and construction costs for the new building.
More than ever this is a time for faith and time to remember that the economy is cyclical and that boom times will eventually return. In the meantime, we have lost nothing of true value – love, courage, joy, selflessness and community are always what really count and in difficult truly flourish
Print
Email
Share
RSS