Changing the Way that Charity Changes the World.

Tag: nonprofit management

Management Advice from Patrick Esquerre

Hannibal the Great

Hannibal the Great

I recently had the chance to enjoy a lunch with Patrick Esquerre, the founder of La Madeleine Country French Café. Over a delightful meal of mussels and lamb at the impeccable Salum, we discussed Patrick’s career as an entrepreneur and philanthropist.

Patrick offered an interesting analysis of the three types of people involved in any successful venture:

  • Steppers: The majority of the workforce, which is capable of doing exceptional work but requires strong management to help them see which steps to take next. Their backs are strong but their necks are bent to look at the ground in front of them, not the road ahead. Many businesses can find companies like global PEO solutions which help aid with the management of these employees, especially if the business has hired these employees from around the world.
  • Bridgers: Those who can see the opportunities ahead, but who tend to be head in the clouds. They are more focused on the future … without necessarily how to take the steps to get there.
  • Bridger-Steppers: Those rare leaders who can both see the future as well as the steps that it takes to get there.

On the latter, he cited examples such as the brilliant military commander, Hannibal the Great, who not only envisioned a way to beat the Romans by leading his war elephants over the Alps, but had the capacity to motivate his armies to do so.

In the world of social enterprise and nonprofit management, we need more “bridger-steppers” who are capable of balancing the relentless pressure of today with the focus on improving the situation tomorrow.

This is no small feat. While our peers in the private sector can rely on executive leadership, we generally must rely on legislative leadership (as discussed eloquently by Jim Collins in his brief but wonderful volume, Good to Great for the Social Sectors). This is quite a challenge, particularly when most nonprofits are saddled with the burden of a constantly rotating volunteer governing board whose members are largely uninvolved in the organization’s daily operations (particularly fundraising). Worse, they are largely unaffected by their own poor performance compared to their peers on for-profit boards (whose incomes will be affected if their company under-performs).

Add to this the pressure of under-resourced staff teams and the chronic impoverishment of the philanthropic “annual recapitalization” financial model, and you can see why most leaders capable of being “bridger-leaders” either go into the corporate sector … or, increasingly, just start their own private venture. Entrepreneurship is a noble pursuit with its own immense challenges, but what our world needs is for more of these talents to be harnessed by the social sector. Only then will we see large-scale progress against poverty, illiteracy, disease and a faltering sense of genuine community among people at all levels of wealth.

Or, as Collins might say, we need the great to focus on the good.

Are nonprofits bloodsuckers who are raping the economy?

That's the assertion that Rush Limbaugh is making here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051409/content/01125109.guest.html

One of my firm values is the concept that nonprofits are BUSINESSES. The term "non-profit" simply refers to an organization's tax exempt status and inability to provide financial benefits to shareholders.

One of Mr. Limbaugh's accusations is that nonprofits don't contribute anything to the economy, but only "siphon off" contributions by begging.

A few problems with this argument:

  • Many nonprofits operate earned income ventures such as thrift stores, manufacturing facilities, schools and other enterprises; these are no different than their for-profit peers except that the capital that they generate is used to sustain charitable activities, not provide dividends to shareholders.
  • Nonprofits pay payroll taxes; their staff pay income tax and social security; etc. These are all dollars that are flowing back into the economy.
  • Most importantly, what would the country look like without the work of nonprofits? Could the for-profit sector be as profitable without the vital contributions that nonprofits make to the lives of their employees and customers?

I realize that Mr. Limbaugh is in the business of generating controversy. I had honestly forgotten he was alive until I heard about his rantings about nonprofits: that means that he succeeded in getting the attention of the 10% of Americans who work for nonprofits (reference here). His advertisers are likely very happy about that.

In that scenario, who's the real blood-sucker? What is contributed to the world by Rush's rantings and ravings? 

The nonprofit world needs to be scrutinized just as carefully as the government: after all, we accept public contributions and therefore need to operate transparently and with accountability to all members of the community.

But insinuating that we are "lazy idiots" is absurd. And implying that the work of fundraising is somehow "raping the economy" is ludicrous — how is this any different than providing salaries to a salesforce in the for-profit world? 

I defer to Robert Egger, the leader of the DC Central Kitchen, who makes a nice retort in this video response:

That's the "Rated G" version. You can watch the full version (with hilarious ending) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFzye1bqwag&feature=player_embedded

The Land of “Non” — an imitation piece

the land of nonbuhjiggydanceMy dear friend Stacy Caldwell, Executive Director of Dallas Social Venture Partners (whose 10th annniversary is being celebrated with a BigBang!), has launched a rather ambitious exercise to create a children’s fantasy documenting the way that the nonprofit sector is changing.

I have been in the sun all day, so here is the best I can come up with — an “imitation piece” based very largely (in fact, 90% of the words come directly) from Lewis Carrol’s “Alice in Wonderland”:

——

Jeremy was beginning to get very tired of sitting in a cubicle in a bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice he had peeped over the cubicle wall onto the computer screen his coworker was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, ‘and what is the use of a screen,’ thought Jeremy `without pictures or conversation?’

So he was considering, in his own mind (as well as he could, for the long day made him feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of photo-copying a picture of his backside would be worth the trouble of getting up and going to the copy room, when suddenly a White Rabbit with rose-colored glasses ran close by him.

There was nothing so very remarkable in that; after all, the company held large investments in various chemical and food companies, and Jeremy was always wading through large crowds of malnourished protesters on his way into the office. Nor did Jeremy think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, “Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!” (when he though it over afterwards, it occurred to him that he ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it seemed all quite natural); but, when the Rabbit actually took a grant proposal out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Jeremy started to his feet, for it flashed across his mind that he had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a grant proposal to take out of it, and, burning with curiosity, he ran down the aisle after in, and was just in time to see it pop down a large mail chute behind the water cooler.

In another moment down went Jeremy after it, never once considering how in the world he was to get out again.

Thus began my foray into the Land of “Non,” where nonprofits thrived despite the most ludicrous of circumstances.

To be continued.

The Megacommunity Manifesto

Thanks to Greg Hirsch for connecting me to this article, a segue from our revolutionary plottings with Stacy Caldwell:

The Megacommunity Manifesto
by Mark Gerencser, Fernando Napolitano, and Reginald Van Lee
 
8/16/06
Public, private, and civil leaders should confront together the problems that none can solve alone.


"A megacommunity is a public sphere in which organizations and people deliberately join together around a compelling issue of mutual importance, following a set of practices and principles that will make it easier for them to achieve results. Like a business environment, a megacommunity contains organizations that sometimes compete and sometimes collaborate. But a megacommunity is not strictly a business niche. Nor is it a public–private partnership, which is typically an alliance focused on a relatively narrow purpose. A megacommunity is a larger ongoing sphere of interest, where governments, corporations, NGOs, and others intersect over time. The participants remain interdependent because their common interest compels them to work together, even though they might not see or describe their mutual problem or situation in the same way."


Read the full article here:

Robert Egger thinks Nonprofits face “A Starbucks Moment”

Robert Egger blog, One Voice for Change, recently featured an article that describes the unique employment opportunity facing the nonprofit sector, and how approaching it in a different way could cause a permanent and productive shift in the sector’s long-term impact and sustainability.

A Starbucks Moment for Nonprofits?

http://www.robertegger.org/blog/?p=407

The full article is at the link above or posted below.

My only question: When will the nonprofit sector give rise to groups like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden? That’s the day I put down my laptop and pick up my guitar.

Continue reading

© 2024 Jeremy Gregg

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑