Mediocre Nonprofits
Of course every nonprofit claims it is doing god’s work, and doing it in superlative fashion.
At least that’s the claim executive directors make to their boards … and fundraisers make to their donors.
But how true are those claims?
Issues of tactics and investment aside, ultimately superlative performance — including in fundraising — comes down to individual excellence in a conducive organisational culture, doesn’t it?
So, does your organization customarily exhibit any of these cultural characteristics?
Default to letting folks off the hook — “Hey, you did your best” — when what they really did was simply put a lot of effort into the task. See Seth Godin on this point.
Default to “Don’t touch it” — instead of, “you can make it better”. That’s another Godin gem … all about fear of change, innovation, failure.
Default to “We’ll just agree to disagree” — this is my favourite cop out. Laurie Schaecher calls it “The most toxic phrase in philanthropy”, but I wouldn’t limit it to philanthropy.
As Laurie points out, what that outcome really signifies is this: ““Agree to disagree” is code for “I’ll do my thing and you do yours” and erodes organisational alignment. It is a dangerous path that results in your team being on opposing sides of the issue instead of aligned on the greater purpose. ‘Agree to disagree’ can’t, and shouldn’t, be used to end important conversations.”
If these three defaults characterize your nonprofit’s culture, you’re in for one hell of an uphill climb … organizationally and individually.
Or you can just accept mediocrity.
Tom
4 responses to “Mediocre Nonprofits”
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
Tom,
You touched on some important points that NP leaders need to use as a check against the big M..
THE DEFINITION OF MEDIOCRE: NOT DOUBLING YOUR REVENUE EVERY FIVE YEARS. If you’re not doubling your revenue every five years (with a few obvious exceptions) then what are you doing?
This article is mediocre. What makes non profits mediocre is the following:
1. Absence of a culture of learning. When nonprofits don’t monitor, evaluate and learn from their programs, then they aren’t as effective as they can be. Similarly by not knowing what the latest developments in their technical arena are, they are operating in a vacuum.
2. Only following the money. By solely responding to donors and not to beneficiaries, you have a nonprofit that stands for nothing and lacks backbone.
Juliet – you are so right to point out an Absence of a culture of Learning! By now the number one metric Development professionals should be measuring is “level of Relationship” … NOT transactions! But that “learning” in Development MUST lead to revenue. These are not incompatible in Content Marketing.