I recently returned from the BoardSource Leadership Forum in San Francisco. BoardSource President and CEO Linda Crompton opened the convening. One of her comments was that innovation is not necessarily an event or a singular killer idea. It tends to be emergent – the result of group interaction.
I was not home more than a day before my business partner, Gail Meltzer, send me a YouTube video featuring Steven Johnson who wrote Where Good Ideas Come From. In it, Johnson suggests that true innovation comes from a series of “slow hunches” that build on one another and require time to truly incubate. Most often, he says, it is the collision of idea from others that makes the hunch lurking at the back of one person’s mind actually develop into something worthwhile. He states, therefore, that we must find spaces that will allow people with different ideas to come together and bounce those ideas off one another. He offers the analogy of the coffee houses and salons of the early 20th Century that resulted in such great art and literature.
If Crompton and Johnson are correct, then the leadership of organizations that focus internally – that is, determining how they can become better funded, attract the strongest board or gain a reputation as the ‘premier organization’ in their field – are actually working counter-productively to that end. Their organizations will never be recognized as exceptional if they don’t innovate. And, as long as they choose to avoid the interactions with the larger environment that lead to the cross-fertilization of ideas, they are doomed to merely doing more of the ‘same old, same old.’
In my mind this means that leaders must create opportunities to meet frequently with their counterparts in a wide variety of organizational entities to dialog about and to piggy-back off of ideas. The entities they choose to meet with must not only be those that are doing similar work, or that share similar visions for the future, but organizational entities that bring very different viewpoints to the table.
Obviously, this requires a certain level of trust. Therefore, the convening groups will want some rules of engagement. The guidelines for brainstorming are appropriate here – e.g., to generate as many ideas as possible, to avoid judgment, to allow time for clarification, etc. The most important guideline, however, is adopting an attitude that, once thrown out, an idea belongs to the group as a whole. Any modifications of that idea are for the benefit of the community as a whole.
Just think what we could accomplish in our communities if we all took this approach!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Study on Women Donors Presents Lessons for Board Recruitment
A study(1) released this week by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy showed that women are the largest donors. They give more in actual dollars and they give more frequently than men. This is a reality that holds true regardless of the women’s own economic status; and, the disparity of giving increases with the individuals’ income. For instance, 35.2 percent of women who earn $23,509 or less annually make charitable contributions, opposed to 27.5 percent of men who earn at that same level. When income rises to at least $103,000, 96 percent of women give to charity, while only 75 percent of men of similar means give. The results, culled from a sample of 8,000 American households, also revealed that women typically give because they care about the work that is being done. Men tend to give because they are asked.
This study is already shaking up many who have traditionally turned to powerful men in the community for large financial commitments. However, it should also shake up those who are recruiting for boards of directors. According to the Urban Institute study, “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study,”(2) while women make up almost half of all boards in the US (46 percent), they tend to be found on the boards of smaller organizations – typically organizations with budgets under $100,000. The percentage of women serving on the largest (budgets of $40 million plus), most prestigious boards is only 29 percent.
One reason for the above may be that, according to Ostrower’s findings, women often do not make the cut when organizations use financial skills and reputation in the community (“affluence and influence”) as recruiting criteria. If board members are expected to be among the biggest and most committed givers, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s study should cause us to question whether organizations are shooting themselves in the foot when they actively solicit more men than women.
Perhaps of even more import is the difference the study found in why people give. Will Brown’s work (3) shows that belief in the mission is the most important factor related to board performance. Conversely, Candace Widmer (4), in a now classic study, found that joining a board because a friend asks is a temporary incentive and provides neither ongoing rewards nor participation. So, unless the organization is quickly able to provide these board members with other, more meaningful incentives, they will not stay involved. Does it not make more sense, therefore, to recruit those who are already motivated by what the organization is doing? We now know empirically, this means recruiting more women with a demonstrated interest in our organization’s mission.
________
1) Mesch, Debra. “Women Give 2010.” The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2010
2) Ostrower, Francie. “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study.” The Urban Institute, 2007
3) Brown, Will. Presentation at the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership Conference, “Boards in Uncertain Times: Exploring the implications of financial, technological and generational change for nonprofit governance.” April 2009.
4) Widmer, Candace. “Why Board Members Participate.” Journal of Voluntary Action, 1985
This study is already shaking up many who have traditionally turned to powerful men in the community for large financial commitments. However, it should also shake up those who are recruiting for boards of directors. According to the Urban Institute study, “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study,”(2) while women make up almost half of all boards in the US (46 percent), they tend to be found on the boards of smaller organizations – typically organizations with budgets under $100,000. The percentage of women serving on the largest (budgets of $40 million plus), most prestigious boards is only 29 percent.
One reason for the above may be that, according to Ostrower’s findings, women often do not make the cut when organizations use financial skills and reputation in the community (“affluence and influence”) as recruiting criteria. If board members are expected to be among the biggest and most committed givers, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s study should cause us to question whether organizations are shooting themselves in the foot when they actively solicit more men than women.
Perhaps of even more import is the difference the study found in why people give. Will Brown’s work (3) shows that belief in the mission is the most important factor related to board performance. Conversely, Candace Widmer (4), in a now classic study, found that joining a board because a friend asks is a temporary incentive and provides neither ongoing rewards nor participation. So, unless the organization is quickly able to provide these board members with other, more meaningful incentives, they will not stay involved. Does it not make more sense, therefore, to recruit those who are already motivated by what the organization is doing? We now know empirically, this means recruiting more women with a demonstrated interest in our organization’s mission.
________
1) Mesch, Debra. “Women Give 2010.” The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2010
2) Ostrower, Francie. “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study.” The Urban Institute, 2007
3) Brown, Will. Presentation at the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership Conference, “Boards in Uncertain Times: Exploring the implications of financial, technological and generational change for nonprofit governance.” April 2009.
4) Widmer, Candace. “Why Board Members Participate.” Journal of Voluntary Action, 1985
Thursday, September 30, 2010
CEO’S ARREST SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES
Q: Our CEO was recently arrested for a hit and run that resulted in some property damage. The situation made the newspapers. While the incident itself has been both legally resolved and handled internally in executive session, the board is divided about how to record this in our minutes. Some feel the issue should be dealt with head on. Others would prefer to merely indicate that a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual's file. There is a concern that we may be exposing ourselves to a charge of libel by naming the CEO as the person discussed. How private are such personnel issues?
A: I’m sure a lot of people out there are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to deal with your situation. But, the reality is that this could happen in any organization at any time. CEOs are people and people can get into messy situations. What you’ve shared happens more often than you might think.
The privacy issue you raise actually varies from state to state, so you should definitely consult a lawyer in your community. Assuming, though, that this is not a concern where you live, let me offer some other important issues for your consideration.
Normally, I subscribe to the “less is more” school of minutes. However, in this particular instance, where there was a serious offense, an arrest, it made the papers and led to some sort of restitution, I think you have to be more explicit than “a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual’s file” – unless, the board opted to do nothing about it. In that case, as a colleague of mine suggests, you want to bury the subject by making any notation in the minutes as weak as possible.
A critical question that should play a role in your decision-making is, “Did the hit and run occur while the CEO was on organizational business?” If so, your response must be stronger than if it did not. But, in either case, my concern is that donors and other supporters undoubtedly read about the incident – especially if your organization is a prominent one and/or your CEO is a fairly public figure. They will question whether and how the board acted on this. If they can’t be confident that you took this seriously and acted in a responsible manner, they may doubt the board’s ability to steward the organization during challenging times. This could lead them to jump ship.
There should be no exposure to a libel charge as long as you stay with the facts and avoid anything that is supposition, since libel requires misrepresentation. (Just a reminder for other organizations that may find themselves in a similar situation, an arrest is not a conviction.) Actually, according to Steve Nill, a lawyer I consulted on this matter, the more public a figure your CEO is, the less you have to worry because that person would have to prove you acted maliciously – that is, that you knowingly included false information in the minutes.
To protect both the board and the organization, though, I would also call your insurance company. Tell your claims representative about the situation. Often insurance companies require that they be notified so that they are not surprised if someone decides to sue. But even if your company doesn’t require such notification, the representative may have some excellent suggestions for proceeding forward at this time. Some insurance companies will even provide you with legal counsel to help you avoid potential pitfalls.
One last thought… If you don’t have crisis management policies already in place, your board should run, not walk, to grab its collective pen! It is especially essential to have a plan for dealing with personnel issues like this that have the potential for becoming public, because unfortunately, as I indicated at the beginning, incidents like this or embezzlement of organizational funds, sexual harassment, and child pornography – to name just a few – tend to crop up more often then we’d care to admit. And they can leave the organization with serious egg on its face.
The plan might be to sweep any such incidents under the rug (Not my recommendation, by the way!), wait for the media to find you and pray that they don’t, or get out in front of the incidents with the media. If you decide to speak out, the plan should indicate who will serve as the voice of the organization. The plan is a good place to consider consequences for wayward individuals, as well. It’s always easier to decide these things in the abstract, when the emotions tied in with any specific individual are not at play.
A special thank you to Stephen Nill, J.D., GPC. and the founder/CEO of CharityChannel.com, for his added insights to this response.
Note should be made that even though an attorney was consulted in the construction of this answer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. Questions such as these are sent with minimal information and the answers are necessarily broad.
A: I’m sure a lot of people out there are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to deal with your situation. But, the reality is that this could happen in any organization at any time. CEOs are people and people can get into messy situations. What you’ve shared happens more often than you might think.
The privacy issue you raise actually varies from state to state, so you should definitely consult a lawyer in your community. Assuming, though, that this is not a concern where you live, let me offer some other important issues for your consideration.
Normally, I subscribe to the “less is more” school of minutes. However, in this particular instance, where there was a serious offense, an arrest, it made the papers and led to some sort of restitution, I think you have to be more explicit than “a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual’s file” – unless, the board opted to do nothing about it. In that case, as a colleague of mine suggests, you want to bury the subject by making any notation in the minutes as weak as possible.
A critical question that should play a role in your decision-making is, “Did the hit and run occur while the CEO was on organizational business?” If so, your response must be stronger than if it did not. But, in either case, my concern is that donors and other supporters undoubtedly read about the incident – especially if your organization is a prominent one and/or your CEO is a fairly public figure. They will question whether and how the board acted on this. If they can’t be confident that you took this seriously and acted in a responsible manner, they may doubt the board’s ability to steward the organization during challenging times. This could lead them to jump ship.
There should be no exposure to a libel charge as long as you stay with the facts and avoid anything that is supposition, since libel requires misrepresentation. (Just a reminder for other organizations that may find themselves in a similar situation, an arrest is not a conviction.) Actually, according to Steve Nill, a lawyer I consulted on this matter, the more public a figure your CEO is, the less you have to worry because that person would have to prove you acted maliciously – that is, that you knowingly included false information in the minutes.
To protect both the board and the organization, though, I would also call your insurance company. Tell your claims representative about the situation. Often insurance companies require that they be notified so that they are not surprised if someone decides to sue. But even if your company doesn’t require such notification, the representative may have some excellent suggestions for proceeding forward at this time. Some insurance companies will even provide you with legal counsel to help you avoid potential pitfalls.
One last thought… If you don’t have crisis management policies already in place, your board should run, not walk, to grab its collective pen! It is especially essential to have a plan for dealing with personnel issues like this that have the potential for becoming public, because unfortunately, as I indicated at the beginning, incidents like this or embezzlement of organizational funds, sexual harassment, and child pornography – to name just a few – tend to crop up more often then we’d care to admit. And they can leave the organization with serious egg on its face.
The plan might be to sweep any such incidents under the rug (Not my recommendation, by the way!), wait for the media to find you and pray that they don’t, or get out in front of the incidents with the media. If you decide to speak out, the plan should indicate who will serve as the voice of the organization. The plan is a good place to consider consequences for wayward individuals, as well. It’s always easier to decide these things in the abstract, when the emotions tied in with any specific individual are not at play.
A special thank you to Stephen Nill, J.D., GPC. and the founder/CEO of CharityChannel.com, for his added insights to this response.
Note should be made that even though an attorney was consulted in the construction of this answer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. Questions such as these are sent with minimal information and the answers are necessarily broad.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Who Should Facilitate the Exit Interview?
The other day a respected colleague and good friend, Carol Weisman, sent a copy of her latest blog post entitled, “Don’t Just Whack’em and Plaque’em: Exit Interviews for Retiring Board Members.” As all of Carol’s writings, it dealt with an important subject, was informative and had me in stitches – Carol is one of the smartest and funniest people I know. She spoke to the value of doing an exit interview and shared five excellent questions to use in such a situation. My only quarrel was that she put the responsibility for doing the exit interview on the executive director. I have always believed an exit interview should be conducted by the board, in the person of the chair or a member of the governance/board development committee.
She and I went back and forth with our arguments. She felt that the executive director is the constant – the one who will be there after the entire board turns over. I reasoned that there is no guarantee that the executive director will be there tomorrow, let alone years down the road. I know too many organizations that make that position a revolving door. But even in the most stable organizations, a lot of long-time executive directors are reaching the point where retirement is starting to look pretty good. We’re also starting to see a number of less fortunate dying with their boots on.
Carol asked me to honestly examine how many boards step up to the plate and take on this responsibility. While I concede that the job often defaults to the executive director, by accepting that role, the executive director makes it that much easier for the board to abdicate its responsibility in the future. It is the board that benefits most from learning what it could/should be doing differently to maximize, or at least improve, its directors’ experiences. The interviewer should be taking notes that can be kept in a board book for easy referral by future boards. Carol argued that future boards won’t bother to look back. I of the “you get what you expect school” retorted that debriefing should be an expected part of the job. After heating up cyber-space for a couple of days, we agreed to disagree.
However, I was like the store clerk who gets in an argument with a customer. Long after the customer leaves, the clerk is whining about that customer to everyone else she comes in contact with that day. I ran the arguments by another colleague, Jane Garthson. Jane said definitively that it was the board’s job to conduct exit interviews. However – sneaky devil! – she said she understood if an executive director wanted to conduct his or her own exit interview to learn what he or she might do differently in the future. So, this brings me to the question of the day. What, if any, are the arguments that we are all missing? If you even agree that exit interviews for departing board members are valuable, who do you want to see facilitating them? Why?
She and I went back and forth with our arguments. She felt that the executive director is the constant – the one who will be there after the entire board turns over. I reasoned that there is no guarantee that the executive director will be there tomorrow, let alone years down the road. I know too many organizations that make that position a revolving door. But even in the most stable organizations, a lot of long-time executive directors are reaching the point where retirement is starting to look pretty good. We’re also starting to see a number of less fortunate dying with their boots on.
Carol asked me to honestly examine how many boards step up to the plate and take on this responsibility. While I concede that the job often defaults to the executive director, by accepting that role, the executive director makes it that much easier for the board to abdicate its responsibility in the future. It is the board that benefits most from learning what it could/should be doing differently to maximize, or at least improve, its directors’ experiences. The interviewer should be taking notes that can be kept in a board book for easy referral by future boards. Carol argued that future boards won’t bother to look back. I of the “you get what you expect school” retorted that debriefing should be an expected part of the job. After heating up cyber-space for a couple of days, we agreed to disagree.
However, I was like the store clerk who gets in an argument with a customer. Long after the customer leaves, the clerk is whining about that customer to everyone else she comes in contact with that day. I ran the arguments by another colleague, Jane Garthson. Jane said definitively that it was the board’s job to conduct exit interviews. However – sneaky devil! – she said she understood if an executive director wanted to conduct his or her own exit interview to learn what he or she might do differently in the future. So, this brings me to the question of the day. What, if any, are the arguments that we are all missing? If you even agree that exit interviews for departing board members are valuable, who do you want to see facilitating them? Why?
Monday, July 26, 2010
Should Board Members’ Contributions Be Designated To Pay For Their Education?
I was speaking with a couple of colleagues the other day and the subject of board contributions came up. Later in the conversation we transitioned into the importance of ongoing board education and organizations building a sufficiently-large line item into their budgets for this. And then the idea bubbled up: What if one of the expectations of board service was that a portion of each board member’s personal contribution to the organization went to pay specifically for board education?
Such an expectation would do several things. It would communicate to the world that the organization believes an educated board is important. It would provide necessary dollars for such board education, without cutting into dollars dedicated to programming. And, it would help board members value the education the organization provides, because research affirms that people ascribe more value to something for which they pay rather than get for free.
There are some issues to consider. When my colleagues and I were talking, someone arbitrarily threw out $500 as the portion of each board member’s contribution that would go into this board education fund. While a substantial amount, with an average-sized board of 16, that only puts $8000 into the education coffer. True, $8000 is more than most boards currently devote to board education. But, $8000 won’t go far if the money is to be used for a true retreat, conference expenses or coaching, for instance. Asking for a number larger than $500 might be a non-starter for most boards – at least at this stage in the game. And, what happens in those organizations that ask for a personally meaningful gift from each board member instead of a contribution of a specific dollar amount? Yes, the leadership could opt to allot the entire board member contribution to its education fund, or designate a percentage, but how can any organization create an education budget if the ultimate total is an unknown? Perhaps the answer is that the board would still have to assign to the board education line a dollar amount from its general operating funds and use the contributions just to enhance its educational opportunities.
The biggest issue may be that some people will resent this set-aside, either out of principle or the belief that they do not need education – perhaps they’ve sat on many boards over the years and believe they have the job down pat. My guess is, though, this reality may be off-set by those that clamor to join a board that devotes so much attention to its board members and provides leadership training that they can then take back to their jobs or on to other organizations.
As someone who firmly believes in ongoing board education at every meeting, I love what this concept could “buy.” But I recognize it would require a major culture shift in most organizations. What do you see as the pros and cons? Is this an idea with sufficient value to push?
Such an expectation would do several things. It would communicate to the world that the organization believes an educated board is important. It would provide necessary dollars for such board education, without cutting into dollars dedicated to programming. And, it would help board members value the education the organization provides, because research affirms that people ascribe more value to something for which they pay rather than get for free.
There are some issues to consider. When my colleagues and I were talking, someone arbitrarily threw out $500 as the portion of each board member’s contribution that would go into this board education fund. While a substantial amount, with an average-sized board of 16, that only puts $8000 into the education coffer. True, $8000 is more than most boards currently devote to board education. But, $8000 won’t go far if the money is to be used for a true retreat, conference expenses or coaching, for instance. Asking for a number larger than $500 might be a non-starter for most boards – at least at this stage in the game. And, what happens in those organizations that ask for a personally meaningful gift from each board member instead of a contribution of a specific dollar amount? Yes, the leadership could opt to allot the entire board member contribution to its education fund, or designate a percentage, but how can any organization create an education budget if the ultimate total is an unknown? Perhaps the answer is that the board would still have to assign to the board education line a dollar amount from its general operating funds and use the contributions just to enhance its educational opportunities.
The biggest issue may be that some people will resent this set-aside, either out of principle or the belief that they do not need education – perhaps they’ve sat on many boards over the years and believe they have the job down pat. My guess is, though, this reality may be off-set by those that clamor to join a board that devotes so much attention to its board members and provides leadership training that they can then take back to their jobs or on to other organizations.
As someone who firmly believes in ongoing board education at every meeting, I love what this concept could “buy.” But I recognize it would require a major culture shift in most organizations. What do you see as the pros and cons? Is this an idea with sufficient value to push?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Should US Nonprofits Adopt a Patron System?
I worked recently in Singapore. While I found many similarities in the ways nonprofits do business both there and here in the United States, I found differences as well. One of the biggest was their use of a patron system. Besides having what we would consider the familiar board structure with a chairman or president at the helm, a large number of organizations there also have a patron. Some even have a patron and a patron in chief. These are powerful individuals who wield tremendous influence. For instance, the patron in chief of Singapore’s Lyric Opera is the President of the Republic of Singapore. Its patron is the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defense. The intent is that these individuals will provide support – including, in many cases, political clout – and encourage others to support the organization as well.
In the United States, our honorary boards could be considered the closest equivalent to the patron system of Singapore. Some organizations here are able to engage major players, such as the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation which counts among its trustees James Baker, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. But the number of organizations with the capability of attracting names of this caliber are far and few between. Would it be easier for nonprofits to attract a single patron? Would a patron help nonprofits that feel they lack sufficient access to affluence and influence?
I do believe that it would be easier to find a single patron than an honorary board. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily be easy. Think of all the nonprofits that have tried unsuccessfully to find a celebrity spokesperson. And, we certainly know how quickly a good name can become a liability. Tiger Woods, anyone? Singapore has experienced this with the patron system as well. The patron of their National Kidney Foundation, the wife of Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore and current Chairman of the Central Bank, was forced to step down after defending the pay of the CEO, saying that his $600,000 (S) salary was “peanuts.” At least with an honorary board, one would hope there will be others whose reputations remain sterling, even if one of the names on that board turns bad.
As to whether having a patron would be helpful to organizations lacking affluence and influence...I'm not so sure. Singapore is a very small country. People tend to know one another and a patron's name alone carries clout. Here, the individual would have to be willing to actively use his/her influence on behalf of the organization to bring others along. Research done by Herman and Renz suggests that this does not happen as often as nonprofits hope. Besides, the reach of a single individual versus a larger group is necessarily limited, especially in a country the size of the United States.
So, even though I believe nonprofits in the United States can learn much from their counterparts in other countries, I'm not so sure I'd suggest our turning to a patron system here. But, I’m curious as to what others think. Is such a system an answer for us, especially in these difficult times?
In the United States, our honorary boards could be considered the closest equivalent to the patron system of Singapore. Some organizations here are able to engage major players, such as the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation which counts among its trustees James Baker, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. But the number of organizations with the capability of attracting names of this caliber are far and few between. Would it be easier for nonprofits to attract a single patron? Would a patron help nonprofits that feel they lack sufficient access to affluence and influence?
I do believe that it would be easier to find a single patron than an honorary board. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily be easy. Think of all the nonprofits that have tried unsuccessfully to find a celebrity spokesperson. And, we certainly know how quickly a good name can become a liability. Tiger Woods, anyone? Singapore has experienced this with the patron system as well. The patron of their National Kidney Foundation, the wife of Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore and current Chairman of the Central Bank, was forced to step down after defending the pay of the CEO, saying that his $600,000 (S) salary was “peanuts.” At least with an honorary board, one would hope there will be others whose reputations remain sterling, even if one of the names on that board turns bad.
As to whether having a patron would be helpful to organizations lacking affluence and influence...I'm not so sure. Singapore is a very small country. People tend to know one another and a patron's name alone carries clout. Here, the individual would have to be willing to actively use his/her influence on behalf of the organization to bring others along. Research done by Herman and Renz suggests that this does not happen as often as nonprofits hope. Besides, the reach of a single individual versus a larger group is necessarily limited, especially in a country the size of the United States.
So, even though I believe nonprofits in the United States can learn much from their counterparts in other countries, I'm not so sure I'd suggest our turning to a patron system here. But, I’m curious as to what others think. Is such a system an answer for us, especially in these difficult times?
Friday, July 2, 2010
So You Think Your Communications Officer Isn't Important . . .
Just this year an illustrious professional career ends abruptly; a world-wide brand that spent millions of dollars over the years to build a sterling reputation, out in front of every one of its competitors, watches its status unravel; and an international conglomerate faces an industrial disaster and its iconic acronym stands to represent its biggest nightmare.
General Mc Crystal within a week – retired; Toyota within a month massively discounting cars and invigorating the US auto industry; and BP within a few days becoming the company formerly known as British Petroleum now known as BP -- Biggest Polluter.
Companies that have allocated enormous dollars to building a public face . . . the military and multinationals. And yet with their considerable resources, both financial and professional, they did not understand how quickly their reputation could unravel. How quickly their public profile could be tarnished and how extensive the damage could be.
Are you ready for this? Do you have the resilience to survive? It begs the question that as nonprofits perhaps we need to reconsider how we court the press. How important we think it is to be on TV or in print. Can we control our message more effectively using social media and web based outreach.
So you’re thinking of promoting your organization in the press anyway. Then be prepared. When you’re pitching a story, an interview or sending out a release do you know enough about the background of the reporter and the media outlet. Have you read enough of their prior stories or seen enough of their broadcast reporting to have an understanding of the nature and tone of their coverage? What is their writing style, do they have a personal agenda and does your message fit into that agenda. If not, beware – their agenda may take precedence over yours!
Are you prepared for a crisis? Do you have a communication’s plan that specifically addresses the conversation that you must have with your constituents the moment something considerable happens that impacts the community you serve.
Have you designated a spokesperson and is that person media trained. As a nonprofit whose financial health depends on donor participation public relations must be moved to the top of your agenda. Today, let’s ask ourselves could our organization survive a media hit. Then take a critical scan of your communications efforts and the persons responsible for this most important yet very delicate task.
Robyn Fern Perlman
Founding Principal
CoreStrategies For Nonprofits, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
