Living with Hope, Part 1

Our esteemed colleague Jim Mueller recently blogged about "hope-whispering," approaching life and work with optimism especially in these challenging times. I particularly loved that phrase because I have a really inspiring three-legged Husky named Hope. With your indulgence, I'm going to post a few thoughts about her over the next few days. There are so many ways her courage and how she embraces life can be an important touchstone for us as we continue our hard and sometimes discouraging work to make the world a better place.

Today I'll share her history. Hope was found on the streets of Miami where she had somehow survived over what appears to have been a significant period of time. She was about a year old, alone, dirty, skinny, in heat, petrified and missing a left front leg. She was rescued and named by the all-volunteer nonprofit group South Florida Siberian Husky Rescue (SFSHR) .

I had just applied to the group and been accepted as an approved adopter, and Hope ended up coming to me. I don't know who was more nervous about this turn of events. I hadn't had a pet for many years and certainly had no experience with abused and physically challenged un-housebroken dogs in heat! My most pressing concerns were how to walk her on a leash in a way that she could find a comfortable gate and how to get her diaper on and off (necessary until her heat ended and she could be spayed). It also quickly became clear that she was petrified of men, was insecure about being touched and had huge trust issues in general.

While the people at SFSHR were really helpful and supportive, of course ultimately it was up to Hope and me to create our life together. As we both began to put one foot in front of the other to fashion that life, I had no way of knowing how profoundly Hope would affect me (and everyone who met her) and change my life. Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

Boards - Your Chief Administrator Wants You to Learn and Practice CEO Evaluation

Ask board members to list their responsibilities and most will include the supervision of the CEO. However, according to the findings of CompassPoint and Meyer Foundation researchers as reported in Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership, there is apparently a disconnect between what board members acknowledge as their responsibilities and what they take on, because close to half of the CEOs surveyed reported that they had not had a performance review within the past year. Adding concern, of those boards that do ensure their CEOs are reviewed, more than two-thirds may not be particularly skilled at the process, judging by the report that fewer than one-third of CEOs found their review either somewhat useful or very useful.

With CEOs clamoring for effective feedback there are evaluation basics that every board can incorporate. Assign a month within which the CEO review will be done, add it to your compliance calendar and make a commitment to follow through. Ask the CEO to consider process and goals and to explain what he or she feels will make the review valuable on both a personal and organizational level. Gather input from the entire board. Then select a few board members to sit down with the CEO to negotiate what the review will consist of. Be sure success measures and deadlines are clearly defined so that everyone has a clear picture of what it will look like when the CEO has successfully met all expectations. Provide interim assessments that ensure everyone is still on the same page and that movement toward goal achievement is on track. (See “Evaluating the Top Administrator: A New Approach” for more.)

But what takes evaluation beyond the basics and ensures an effective result? I would like to learn what those boards that are providing “very useful” feedback are doing. I’d also like to hear from CEOs about what would make their reviews satisfying and helpful. Are there tips that you can share with your colleagues and partners? Perhaps you’ve asked a former board chair to lead the process or brought in a consultant to guide it. Maybe you’ve found a book or article that provided helpful insights into the process or content. All input is encouraged.

An Open Question to Board Chairs: Do You Dare to Lead?

Executive directors have thrown down the gauntlet. In “Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership” conducted by CompassPoint and the Meyer Foundation, only 20 percent of those surveyed reported being satisfied with their board’s performance. While a few of these executive directors might have a personality conflict with their current chair or have felt particularly frustrated with their board the day they responded, there must be something more significant going on to account for 80 percent of chief administrators indicating dissatisfaction with their boards.

Determining the underlying factor(s) is particularly important in today’s rapidly changing environment where boards must be strong, strategic and steadfast so that their organizations can be responsive and achieve relevant results. Research by the likes of Herman, Renz and Heimovics, Nobbie and Brudney and others have made very clear that there is a relationship between the effectiveness of a board and the effectiveness of the organization for which the board works. While none could prove causality, each found that highly effective organizations have highly effective boards.

I don’t believe that an organization’s effectiveness can be laid at the feet of just one person. Yet, I do believe that you, as board chair, have opportunity and influence that can be brought to bear in ways that you perhaps have not tested. Be honest with yourself. What more could you do to ensure a stronger board, and ultimately a stronger organization?

For instance, research again tells us that highly effective boards use more proven practices than less effective boards. There are a lot of accepted practices out there that are actually based on myth. Are you just propagating these or are you analyzing their effectiveness? Are you making the effort to regularly read or participate in workshops and webinars to learn about governance practices rooted in science? Are you implementing what you’ve learned? If not, why not?

As an unknown sage once said, “Hope is not a method.” You cannot afford to merely come in once a month to chair a meeting, check in occasionally with your executive director and write your column for the newsletter and expect an exceptional board to emerge. Nor can you rely on years of experience with a multitude of boards. The world has changed too much. If you dare to lead, tell us what you are doing differently and what impact it has made.

Succession Planning: Is Your Board Prepared for Transition?

Everyone is talking about succession planning today. Much of the conversation is motivated by the large numbers of baby boomer executives expected to retire in the next few years. While this is a real concern deserving of our strategic attention, I have to wonder why so little attention is paid to succession on our boards of directors. After all, turnover is virtually an everyday occurrence on boards. Term limits and life’s challenges move people out of office or off the board altogether on a regular basis; and fewer and fewer individuals are stepping up and into the vacated leadership positions. The result is that boards are often forced to choose creative approaches to filling the empty chairs, such as allowing people to share the leadership responsibilities or conferring key positions on inexperienced talent. Unfortunately, experience tells us that such solutions typically result in a loss of organizational momentum or effectiveness. But, this needn’t be the case if we will commit to adequately preparing our boards for transition.

I doubt there is anything we can do to bring back the days where people will spend a decade or more working their way up to a coveted leadership position. But a strong succession plan is within reach of every organization. To see how, we must first consider what a succession plan really is, and what it isn’t. It isn’t about knowing who the next three board chairs will be. It is ensuring that you have a strong board with clear procedures in place, where everyone understands the big picture, is engaged and knows his or her role. In other words, the best succession plan is having a board that regularly operates under proven practices because a board like that will be able to continue to perform effectively regardless of what position may turn up empty tomorrow or the next day.

To determine if your board is prepared for the inevitable expected – to say nothing of sudden – transitions, answer the questions below.
 Does your board have criteria for membership?
 Does your board maintain a current pool of good prospects for board membership by continuously identifying and cultivating potential members?
 Does your board “test out” potential board members by encouraging committee or other participation first?
 Does each individual on your board have a job description?
 Does your board chair have a job description?
 Has each individual on your board gone through an orientation?
 Does your board share a collective vision for the community?
 Does your board share a passion for the mission of the organization?
 Does each individual on your board have ready access to a copy of the bylaws?
 Do the bylaws indicate how the transfer of power will operate under both normal and extenuating circumstances?
 Does your organization operate according to its bylaws?
 Are the expectations of your board members clear?
 Are board members that fail to live up to their expectations asked off the board? (Is this a given, regardless of the person’s affluence or influence?)
 Are your board members provided board education at every meeting?
 Does each individual on your board understand the issues critical to the organization’s mission?
 Do your board agendas encourage participation around substantive issues?
 Are decisions consistently made on the basis of your organization’s mission, vision, guiding principles as well as defined criteria for success?
 Is every individual on your board offered opportunities for leadership?
 Do your board members know each other well enough to look forward to working with one another?
 Does your board take time at most meetings to evaluate what it is doing well and what it could do better?
 Does your board do an annual self-evaluation?
 Does your board make changes in its behavior on the basis of its evaluations?
 Does each committee have a purpose?
 Does each committee have goals?
 Are your committees held accountable for achieving their goals?
 Does your board have a crisis management plan in place?

If you answered “no” or “only sometimes” to most of these questions, you may be left wondering if there is a future for your organization when one or more of your key leaders leave. Don’t let that happen. Make a commitment today to begin working on those conditions to which you were not able to answer a resounding “yes” and soon you’ll realize that succession is no longer an issue because your board is functioning efficiently and effectively no matter who is in the driver’s seat.

Our Boards Must Understand How They Operate

I just finished analyzing a governance assessment completed by 15 different organizations participating in a board building program sponsored by our local Community Foundation. It was fascinating. In many cases there would be one person from an organization that would answer the question in the affirmative about whether that organization had a Whistleblower Policy or a Records Retention policy – policies every organization must have. The rest of the respondents would answer “no” or “I don’t know.” In each of these cases, the executive director/CEO completed the survey along with board members. While I didn’t have the access required to manipulate the data, I’d bet my bottom dollar it was the executive director/CEO that was correctly answering the question because he or she was the one who ensured compliance. Even the answers to questions such as whether the organization employs term limits or a consent agenda revealed that oftentimes more than half the board members did not know if they did or didn’t.

While not surprised, I must admit I’m a bit disappointed. Clearly the majority of these organizations are operating according to proven practices, but the board is not aware of it. According to their answers to the question about the ease of getting a quorum, it doesn’t appear the problem lies with nonattendance. It seems as if the chief administrative officer is implementing the right policies and procedures but failing to share this with the board along the way.

What is the answer? First, maybe it’s time that the executive director/CEO turn over the implementation of board-related responsibilities to the board. Using the example above, this would mean that the development and dissemination of policies would be done by the board. And, if the board handles the job, the members would know the policies exist.

Second, perhaps the content of board education should be changed to focus more on proven practices and how the board complies with such practices. The bylaws committee might mention what section in the bylaws is guiding each action. The board development committee might create more or different talking points or initiate a short quiz at each board meeting designed to test whether the board knows how it is/should be operating. The orientation might be enhanced to ensure new board members understand what is expected and why.

Finally, there has to be a better communication. At meetings the board chair might make it a point to explain why certain actions are being taken. Committees might use a report form that spells out how recommendations relate to the organization’s strategic initiatives the budget, staffing and so on.

Hopefully, by working together more as a board each member of the board will know exactly how the board operates and why. Ultimately, that has to result in a more effective board.

Painless Giving

By Terrie Temkin

Last month I blogged about three graduate students at Rutgers University that made a life-long pledge to give a significant portion of their incomes to those less fortunate. A common response I got to the post was similar to what the three themselves have heard: “How admirable. But I wonder how long they’ll maintain that pledge once they start having families and facing the everyday responsibilities of a mortgage and car payments? But must these commitments be mutually exclusive? Can’t one still give generously without negatively impacting one’s lifestyle? There are those that would answer a resounding “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second.

After posting that last blog, I heard back almost immediately from a colleague, Dr. Donna Goldstein. She wanted to share what she does to make a difference in others’ lives that take little more from her than her time. One idea she presented is that when she goes to the grocery store she takes liberal advantage of the frequent two for one offers, even though she rarely needs the second item. She keeps the one she needs and donates the second to her local food bank. She also haunts the second-hand stores, often finding just the perfect item for her wardrobe or home. She takes the money she saves by not buying new and donates it. On top of the good feeling she gets from that, she enjoys the pleasure of the hunt.

My brother, Dr. Larry Temkin, is a Professor II in the Philosophy Department at Rutgers. A moral philosopher internationally recognized for his work on inequality, he lectures on this topic regularly. He tells his students that while some, like Donna, may actually prefer finding something unique at the second-hand store, they can still buy new and make philanthropic contributions, all without necessarily affecting their desired lifestyle. As an example he might suggest that perhaps they have been lusting over a special pair of jeans that cost $150. They are going to buy the jeans, but they just haven’t gotten around to it. Then one day, the jeans go on sale. They pick them up for half off. They were perfectly willing to buy the jeans at $150, but only had to spend $75. They could take the $75 they saved and donate that to charity without taking a dime from the pocket they know they should be designating for charitable giving.

On a smaller scale – that does add up – they can become coupon shoppers. Fifty cents here, two dollars there… If they put aside their savings, in short order they will have a full piggy-bank to share with someone less fortunate. Again, it’s all out of money they have mentally already spent, so it seems less onerous than having to come up with “extra” money that they can donate. And, of course, if they are among those that empties the change from their pockets each night and throws it into a can to sit for years and years, they have a ready source of cash that will never be missed.

I’d love to hear your suggestions for painless giving.

What Everyman Can Learn from Student Philanthropists

I’m an avid NPR listener. For awhile, now, I’ve regularly been hearing a message from the Community Foundation of Broward (Florida) on my local station that goes something like this: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are encouraging their fellow billionaires to pledge half their fortunes to charity. But why let them have all the fun. You can participate in the joy of giving by making a gift through the Community Foundation.

I don’t know how well people are responding to this proposition. While I think it’s extremely clever and I hope it’s successful, I’m sure a large number dismiss it, believing that the Gates and Buffets of the world can afford to give half their money away to charity and never even miss it. After all, Gates’ 2010 estimated net worth is $54 billion and most of us assume that one can still live pretty nicely on $27 billion. But for Main Street USA, where, according to the Federal Reserve Board’s 2010 survey, half of Americans have a net worth of less than $84,000, giving away a significant portion of your money to charity doesn’t seem very realistic.

Yet, three graduate students at Rutgers University think it’s doable. Philosophy majors Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee have made their own significant pledge to give away a set percentage of their annual income to causes that they feel will do the most good in the world – not just over the next few years, but for life.

The three say they were influenced by Australian applied ethics philosopher Peter Singer, who holds dual appointments as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. In 1972 Singer published an essay entitled “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” in response to the mass starvation found in Bangladesh. In that article Singer argues that it is a moral imperative for persons of affluence to give more to humanitarian causes than they typically do: "People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look 'well-dressed' we are not providing for any important need."

Few would classify graduate students as affluent and therefore individuals to be held to Singer’s standard. But in a December 11, 2010 Wall Street Journal article by Shelly Banjo, “Pledging to Give What They Can,” Beckstead says. "Someone who makes $25,000 is in the top 3% of the world's wage earners." Campbell adds, "It puts things into perspective and makes you realize you're on a much higher ladder than you think."

When I read the Wall Street Journal article I was incredibly impressed and began sharing the story with friends, family and colleagues. The responses I got all credited the three for pledging something so admirable. But, almost to a person added that they’d like to follow the three over the next 10 years as they graduate, start to have families and take on obligations for feeding, sheltering, educating and paying health care costs for those families – especially in America, where the costs for such basics are far more than in many other parts of the world.

The three have obviously been told this to their face. Beckstead is again quoted in the Wall Street Journal article as saying, "When people see us pledging to give away their income, some are critical and say this is an idealistic idea that they'll realize is unworkable in the real world. We think otherwise; this is a long-term decision."

I believe that a clear vision and commitment to that vision are the first steps in actually creating the world we all want to live in. Beckstead, Campbell and Lee have that vision and commitment. Whether or not they move away over the years from the level of financial commitment to which they’ve recently pledged, they undoubtedly will continue to give. And,right now they serve as extraordinary role models. Obviously, they are role models for other young people, who might be influenced to give more of their discretionary funds to charity or even join or start a chapter of Giving What We Can – an organization pioneered in Oxford, England that the three are bringing to Rutgers. But they, probably more than Gates and Buffet, are role models for the rest of us too. After all, if they can make this commitment on a 20-something’s salary, the rest of us should be able to pledge at least a bit more.

There is beautiful saying by Leo Burnett, “If you reach for the stars, you may not quite get one, but you won’t come up with a handful of mud either.” Keep reaching Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee.