Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
There's a specific moment. A lot of nonprofit executive directors know you're staring down a funding gap and you think to yourself, I have 11 people on my board and if each of them just made three calls and then you remember, they won't, they never do. And you're back to doing it yourself. This is a real problem that so many of you face. And in today's episode, I'm going to talk about why you're probably diagnosing it wrong and what to do instead. Welcome to the Nonprofit Mastermind podcast, where we name what's really happening inside growing nonprofits and what it actually takes to design a high impact nonprofit the right way. I'm Brooke Richie Babbage, longtime nonprofit strategist and coach. Each week I unpack the systems, strategies and specific mindset shifts that help growing nonprofits get smart and intentional about growing their impact without burning out along the way. This show is about moving beyond grit to design. It's about building organizations that have the systems, structures and leadership capacity to truly hold the weight of their mission. Welcome the default diagnosis when we are staring down the barrel of this funding gap and we remember that we have a board that probably won't help us is motivation. We think they don't care enough or we think they're not the right people. The culture isn't there. So the default intervention is something like a board training, a board retreat, a fundraising training, a board expectations conversation that everyone nods through and then still nothing changes. Or as often happens, we do a clean sweep. We're just going to get new board members and the new ones will magically be. And you can't see it, but I'm putting these in air quotes fundraisers, like they're just going to be a different breed of board member. Here's the problem with those interventions. They're about the people, not the structure. They're about the people, not the behavior. And what most interventions almost never actually do is focus on structure. Right? They try to change behavior when behavior isn't the root problem. They try to change the people when the people aren't the root problem. The root problem is that the board's role, the definition of the role, the structure on which the board is built, wasn't designed to include activation, only approval. Most nonprofit boards are built to ratify. They ratify the budget, they ratify the audit, they ratify your decisions. That's how they're designed. And then we're surprised and maybe even a little hurt when the people who are recruited to ratify, to support don't spontaneously shift into action, into activating, into self motivated activation. The question most executive directors are actually sitting with is how do I change the culture without blowing something up? That's the right question, but it's being asked of the wrong system. You can't culture change your way out of a structural design problem. You have to redesign the structure. And that's what I want to talk about today. So here's the reframe and the permission. An approval board and an activation board are not the same thing. And most nonprofits have one when they actually need the other. An approval board meets quarterly, reviews what the executive director has done. Maybe the leadership team votes on some things and then disperses. The work flows through the executive director and the board is a checkpoint. An activation board has work to do between meetings and not make work, not oversight work. Actual generative work. Opening doors, making introductions, stewarding specific relationships. Note the word specific. The meetings, these quarterly meetings are where members report back on that work, pick each other's brains about problem solving, ways in which they are stuck. The meetings are not where things are happening. The meetings are where they gather to keep the momentum going. Now, the difference is not the quality of the board members. Remember before I said we think we have a board member or people problem. The difference between what I just described, between the approval board and the activation board isn't usually the board members. I have seen brilliant, well resourced, deeply connected people sit on approval boards and do nothing. Not because they don't care, not because they aren't well researched, not because they are disconnected from the mission, but because the structure really never asked them to do anything consistently meaningfully except show up and vote. Now, I know some of you are thinking this sounds like a confrontation waiting to happen. Even if you are not thinking that the forward part of your brain, deep in your brain, that that is your fear, right? If I push too hard, these are volunteers, that is inappropriate. That is offensive. I will bother them, they will be upset. If I ask too much, they will push back. So I want to push back on that directly. What most executive directors that I work with call a culture change conversation in an effort to shift the culture is actually a governance redesign. And a governance redesign doesn't have to look like confrontation. Actually, it's best if it doesn't look like confrontation. It can actually just look like evolved leadership. I've been reflecting on how we've structured the board's role and I want to propose some changes to see how we work together differently. That is not a confrontation, right I'm going to say that again. I've been reflecting on how we've structured the board's role and I want to propose some changes to how we see ourselves working together. How does that sound? That is an example of an executive director acting as a strategic leader. You're not telling board members that they're doing it wrong. You're inviting them into a better designed structure and acknowledging, because you are all grownups that the current structure may maybe isn't working. Right? That's okay. That's not an indictment on them. Unless you say and it's your fault, which I don't recommend you saying, but acknowledging that the current way that the board is working together, the current structure of the board roles, the definitions of the roles, the way they show up, acknowledging that that is not producing the outcomes that are best for the organization is leadership. It's strategic guidance. It's not a confrontation. Right. You're inviting them into a place where, or relationship where their contribution is clearer, more supported and therefore more meaningful. Most board members, when they hear it that way, are actually relieved. They're not defensive. Because most board members who hear that, who, who aren't raising money already feel guilty about it. When they're not connecting people, when they're not expanding networks, when they're not acting as ambassadors, they know and they feel some level of guilt, they know they're not doing what they signed up to do, what is best for this organization. So a well framed redesign conversation gives them a way back in. It removes the ambiguity that's been making them avoid the whole thing by just naming it and saying, let's talk. Right? Let's restructure this together so that it is more effective. It gets us where we want to go. So let's talk about three specific design failures in the structure of your board, in the design of your board structure and what to do about them. Because I really like speaking at the level of specific. So specific design failure number one, vague expectations. Most boards operate with what I call ambient expectations. Everyone knows the board is supposed to help with fundraising. It's on the board application, it's in your onboarding materials, it's in your prospectus. We talk about it at the retreat, you talk about it at every meeting. But there's no specific individual accountable risk, which means it exists as an aspiration, not as part of your architecture. The design fix is a board member role profile, not a job description. A role profile. Each board member has three to five specific concrete, time bound contributions. They're expected to make In a given year. One is financial at whatever level fits your board's policy. Right? Your board's decision about what that financial contribution looks like. Another is relationship activation. This is a defined, agreed upon number of introductions, donor conversations, event invitations, etc. The specificity is the point. Okay, These are really, really important. Financial and relationship activation and naming them at the beginning of every year, having conversations one on one with each board member with where it is clear that these are the expectations the contributions are expected to make and then clarifying what those actual contributions are on a one to one basis. That specificity is how you build the architecture from the ground up. So when you move from board members are expected to be fundraising ambassadors to each board member will make two personal introductions to major gift prospects this year. You've moved from culture to architecture. And architecture is actionable in a way that culture isn't. Culture only works when it becomes actionable. Okay, Design failure number two. There's no infrastructure for their work now. Even when executive directors do the hard work of direct conversations about things like network expansion and fundraising expectations, it often doesn't stick because there's no infrastructure to support follow through. The board member is willing, but there's really nowhere for them to plug in in a meaningful way. Here's what infrastructure means in practice. It's one of those wonky words, eyes glaze over. But it means a particular thing in this context. A prospect list. They can actually work with talking points and materials that are aligned with how they talk and are ready to go. A clear ask that they're empowered to make and an understanding of what that ask means for the bottom line of the organization. A mechanism to report back and to get follow up support in real time. These are examples of infrastructure. And without infrastructure like this, even the most motivated board member has a hard time moving. Right? They're sort of floating. They're not grounded in their actions. This is the difference between an ask and a system. We need help with fundraising. That's an ask. A system rooted in infrastructure looks like this. A board member prospectus portfolio with three names, a one page brief and a suggested sequence. That's infrastructure, right? That's a system that guides them. The first might produce guilt or avoidance because it's a little vague, but infrastructure supports action. One thing that is underlying all of this that I just want to sort of bring to the surface is that most board members who aren't raising money and aren't connecting you to networks who aren't, I should say, acting as ambassadors, right? However, your organization Defines that they're not selfish, they're unsupported. Right. They very often, even if we can't quite wrap our minds around why, don't know what to say. Right. I mentioned talking points. Organizational talking points can feel vague to board members or out of alignment with how they actually talk. Right. I trained so many boards, and so often I hear board members say, yeah, I know, that's what we do, but that's not how I talk. Right. I would never say those words to a person that I'm talking to. That means that's not good infrastructure. Right. So just using the talking points as an example, the talking points and the materials actually need to be aligned with each board member. This is not hard. This is. This happens through conversation. Right. So if you're talking with board members, if you're having a board level conversation about fundraising, that's a great space to say, start with the talking points. Let's start with the materials. Let's start with the event that we're hosting, you know, in two months. How would you, Joanne, actually share this information? What words would you say to your neighbor, to your colleague at work? Right. Good infrastructure removes the friction that board members feel in their minds. They don't want to misrepresent the organization. They don't want to damage one of their relationships. Designing that infrastructure together is how you remove their concerns about that third design failure. Accountability lives only in one direction, unidirectional accountability. This is a big one. So in most organizations, the executive director feels accountable to the board. That's the governance structure that we have set up. I have lots of thoughts about that. But for better, for worse, given most states, that's what governance means. The board evaluates the executive director approves the budget, and from a governance perspective on paper, holds the sort of power relationship. And that same unidirectional logic can infect the fundraising dynamic. Board members hear the fundraising expectation and they intend to follow through. And then life happens. And. But there's no structure that catches that gap, that catches those balls that are falling. Because asking a board member, why didn't you make your introductions? Feels like asking up. It feels, and I hear this word so often, inappropriate. And so most executive directors find some way to tiptoe around it. They don't want to do it. The design fix is to understand that your board members are peers. They are strategic thought partners. The design fix is peer accountability between the board and inside the board itself. A board fundraising committee, where members report to each other. Conversations where the board and the Executive director partner in designing the expectations and setting up accountability structures according to quarterly board self assessment that includes individual activation tracking. Right. The poor. The point is that the executive director stops being the only accountability mechanism there is. They are an important one, but they are backed up by peer accountability, by structural accountability. The executive director being the only accountability mechanism isn't really sustainable for anyone. It doesn't feel good. It's a lot of weight. When board members are accountable to one another for their activation work, they are able to support the board in moving the executive director in moving things forward. And so the social contract inside the board and between the executive director and the board shifts, it expands, it gets clearer and the confrontation risk that so many leaders are nervous about goes away. This becomes, or what you're talking about becomes a governance function, not a personal one. That's the structural move that makes this sustainable. So here's what I want to leave you with. Think about these three questions for your board right now. First, does every board member have an individual role profile with specific time bound activation expectations? Most of the boards that I work with, one of the first things we do is make sure that there are clear board agreements that everyone on the board signs every year. These have specific time bound activation expectations, not a general board description. If your answer is no, that's one element of your activation architecture that you don't have. You have ambient expectations dressed up as governance. Second question, if a board member wanted to make two donor introductions this month, could they do it without coming to you first? Do they have your prospect list or their prospect list? Do they have talking points that are aligned with how they actually talk? Is there a clear ask? Do they know what they're asking money for? Right. And where it's going? If the answer is no to any of this, then what you're actually doing is asking for behavior that isn't supported by infrastructure. Third question, is there any accountability structure for board activation that doesn't run through you as the executive director? Committees that actually work together, peer check ins, board self assessments, activation trackers that are monitored by your board chair or your board secretary or your governance committee? The answer is no. Then you are the accountability system. And that is too much work, that is too heavy. Very little is going to change because it relies on you pushing things through. So those are the three questions that I encourage you to ask as a gut check, as a sort of high level audit. And if you've answered no to any of those, first, that is really common. My expectation is that you'll answer no to some, if not all of those. And it's a really good diagnostic to do. You can't fix what you don't diagnose. You're not dealing with a culture problem, right? If you answered no to any of those, this is a design problem. And the good news about design problems, as you've probably heard me say on this podcast before, is that they have design solutions. You may not need different board members. You may not need another board training. You just need different structures for the board members that you have. I hope this diagnostic reframe was helpful to you. I will see you back here next week for more Mastermind. Thanks for listening. If this episode resonated, leave a review. I read them and they do matter. And make sure you're subscribed so that you never miss a deep dive into building your resilient nonprofit. And finally, if you're ready to move from grit to good design, head to brooke richiebabbage.com strong to take the 90 second quiz and find out where to start.