Lousy Boards, Lousy Bosses
Yesterday’s email yielded a field report from the circuit-riding Tom Ahern summarizing the dangers of lousy bosses and boards. .
He had just previewed a new training session— Everyone’s a Critic– with an audience drawn from a few universities, the Girl Scouts, some hospital, social services, arts/museums and a hospice.
Tom reports that “after two hours the group came to these conclusions:
-
“FUNDRAISING is hard work…ALWAYS.”
-
“Many B&Bs (Bosses and Boards) assume FUNDraising’s easy. HUGE! MISTAKE!”
-
“It’s Human Nature: anything you personally don’t do is “easy.” Yeah?
MAGIC! Just happens & it would happen EVEN BETTER if we [bosses or boards]—even with margarine as an ego—would also throw our opinions into the recipe. We’re THAT smart.”
-
“Suddenly, a signal flashed projected bright black against the clouds.”
#NotAlone
Because we all have or will find ourselves faced with fundraising idiocy I wanted to share Tom’s message with long-suffering Agitator readers who daily face the insufferable “wisdom” and “insights” of lousy bosses and boards.
Perhaps it’s time to fight back by instantly issuing flash cards or refrigerator magnets– on the spot– to those untrained, uninformed leadership know-it-alls who can’t resist offering their advice.
Tom suggests…
IGNORANCE IS NOT YOUR SUPERPOWER
Roger
9 responses to “Lousy Boards, Lousy Bosses”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Amazing crap, n’est-ce pas? B&Bs don’t talk to accountants or lawyers like they talk to fundraisers. Ah tristesse!!!!!! Tom and I rail about this all the time.
Lousy boards, lousy bosses. Hence my book FIRING LOUSY BOARD MEMBERS. And then there’s my “Well, Missy” story. I’m telling that in my newsyletter that drops on Monday.
However, let’s remember…Look in the mirror. “WE” bear some responsibility in this mess. How well do we set the context and explain and help people learn just enough not to be so silly?
I thought the title meant that lousy boards hire lousy bosses, and in my experience that is very true. If the board isn’t clear on its responsibilities and focus, how do they know what qualities to look for in a senior executive?
Flash card ideas for Boards:
-The letter is NOT too long
-YOU are not the target audience
-Online fundraising is NOT free
-Another event won’t solve the problem
-Fundraising budget cuts grow deficits, don’t solve them
-Golfing with your buddies isn’t fundraising
-When you invest in fundraising, you get an actual return!!
More ideas folks?
You’re hitting the nail on the head here!
Many bad fundraising decisions and policies are the rest of board interference!
Often it’s not the long suffering fundraiser who is at fault. Instead it’s the misguided board members who want to make decisions based on opinion and personal preference rather than data and facts.
Or the lousy boss who thinks that direct mail appeal letters should be one page or you shouldn’t indent paragraphs…the key is learning out how to ferret out the lousy bosses because you ultimately know that behind every lousy boss is a lousy Board who has not been effectively enabled by the CEO.
My boss has told me a few times that he hired me because of my experience and expertise. But, often, when I say or do something new or different he will push back. To which I say, “Best practices show and in my expert opinion . . . .” But, it still doesn’t change. Super lousy.
Yes. There are lousy bosses, lousy boards and lousy development people.
But do we bear some of the responsibility because we’re more willing to keep billing than say, “enough is enough”?
What Kathy said. All we can do is our best. If after a reasonable period of sharing wisdom, experiences, research and examples we can’t move the needle, it may be time to go elsewhere and find some place where we CAN be successful. After a while, playing the blame game ends up with us pointing three fingers back at ourselves.
Brilliant, Kathy! We’re going to incorporate these flash cards into our next class – with full attribution of course.