A few days ago, during one of these remote events, I listened to words that I pinned on the agenda, about collective leadership and social and public purpose as a methodological approach to teach to students of University courses related to socio-philanthropic subjects.

I reflected on these issues also in the light of the stimuli received from the first Italian Nonprofit Women Camp which took place at the beginning of March and I reasoned that the leadership paradigm, in nonprofit organizations as elsewhere, should – in most cases – be reviewed and updated in a way coherent with a challenging time like the one we are experiencing.

[because yes, I am convinced that the “new normal” will be, in fact, new and different from the one we knew; what we need to understand is how much good we can take with us to the “new world” and how much, instead, it will be good to leave where it is left. My purpose concerns the attention to my ecological footprint and the definition of lighter ways of setting up the profession: after 1 year of (almost total) smart working, a reflection shared with many of the organizations I collaborate with is, for example, that meetings in person, they will be calibrated well, leaving the closest interaction to technological opportunities. Mainly because this mode saves time to spend in insights and “vertical” thinking useful for everyone, avoids travel and pollution where possible and, in general, involves a rethinking of times and approach which, at least from what we have seen in the last 12 months and a half, increases the effectiveness, concentration and quality of productivity. Instead, dedicating all the time needed in presence when it is really necessary and a real added value]

Among the activities we have been working on in recent months is the “design” of the Board of Directors of an organization that is undergoing renewal after 2 terms with the same members.
After a start-up phase of the organization, years ago, which saw us collaborate as consultants for everything related to the definition of the development strategy together with the founders and staff, a period of consolidation followed during which some of the founders – not all of them – were part of the Board and contributed to the definition of the positioning of the organization.
Now is the time for a change, with all that it entails from the point of view not only of the “design” of the Board from a theoretical point of view but, more practically, in relation to the sensitivities, the orientations, the “vision” of the world ”shared between the founders and the new, future Board members.

A few days ago I had a meeting with one of them, founder, former president and historically very active person within the organization.
After a period of strong internal conflict within the Board, he had taken a sabbatical and now, slowly, he is resuming his link with the organization.
He is a person of whom we have great esteem, as well as the other Board members and the whole organization who, even in the most complicated moments, has always been able to keep the bar straight and not lose it focus on the mission, the care of their donors, the search for alternative solutions when those planned did not seem to work.

This person updated me on his months away, on how he lived them also in relation to the pandemic, on the reflections and considerations “from afar” on the organization – I must say that I consider this aspect of the personal relationship to be extremely precious within of a professional relationship. Because in many cases it allows me to identify paths and solutions by also leveraging on a feeling linked to individual stories that, especially in a profession strongly centered on values and an idea of the world that (literally) gives the opportunity to take sides, has a continuity between the two areas.

Thinking together about the development that the organization has had in recent months, the results with the plus sign ahead, a stable internal organization, he said to me: “You know, I understood that it was time to take a step back. I strongly wanted this organization, I invested time and money to bring it to life and bring it to a certain level and it was very frustrating to realize that I disagree with the majority of the other Board members. I argued, even quarreled. Then, however, I realized that I would only do damage to myself and, above all, to the staff who were under all that pressure and, ultimately, to the organization. So I walked away, even though my heart ached to do so. Now a new cycle begins, I realize it after looking at things from a distance; and yet, although I love this organization and have a great desire to want to get closer, I understand that I do not want to be cumbersome and, above all, do not want to disturb this work that is working so well. So I will keep this step back and put myself at the service of the organization in a light way“.

Here, beyond the declination that we will give to the “light way” – and that somehow I find in many reflections that I hear and that, as I wrote above, I do in this period on the subject – and the appreciation for the content of these words, I also reflected on how many times – few, in my experience of now more than 10 years of working with the Boards – I have heard “I take a step back because, even though the organization is” my creature “, I understand that I could damage it if I continue to rekindle the diversity of opinions and practices ”.
And how difficult it is, in my daily work, to be able to tell a president or a director to do so, this step backwards, for the good of the organization, its business, the internal climate. But, at the same time, how useful it is for the health of the organization to have a president or director, even more so if he is a founder, capable of looking beyond self-love and attachment to something that has been born and feels like its own thing.

It is a reflection that I carry with me as a consultant: you will hear me mention it among the best practices if we meet in consultancy or within training courses or during conferences on the subject.

It is a reflection that I carry with me as a Board member myself: not always – fortunately! – I agree with the opinions of the other directors in the Boards where I am, but I try to do everything possible to leave room for any opinion and put myself at the service of the cause even when I would have done things differently – or slightly differently, because then the gradation of the divergence is what counts in practice.

Being aware that a step back is always possible, helps to relativize one’s “weight” and, to a certain extent, to look at things from a distance when it seems that they are not going as planned.

Resuming writing here after several weeks, sharing this reflection seemed to me a “healthy” option for me who write it first and – I think – also for those who will read it.

Taking a step back from time to time and looking at things from afar but with the same loving gaze is good for us, for others, for the future.

L'articolo When a step back is a step forward proviene da Engagedin.

The end of the year is always a time for taking stock: to look back at what happened and what we did in the previous twelve months, to draw conclusions and to look ahead to the next twelve months.
As the years go by, instead of dividing time up into periods I tend to take a more fluid approach. Yes, of course, 31 December is a “symbolic” date, but I like to think of it in the context of a passage of time that doesn’t necessarily need life to be classified into pluses and minuses.

Putting these philosophical considerations to one side, however, I should like to close 2019 and begin 2020 by reflecting on a question that has given me – indeed, given us – particular pause for thought and discussion, and that is, “what makes a fundraiser?”.
Not so much in terms of a simple list of the qualities required of a professional fundraiser, as in terms of the characteristics that make a fundraiser a good fundraiser.
So for once I want to move away from the blog’s focus on Boards and fundraising, and present a reflection built up over the last few months through the meetings attended and the work undertaken during the year.

In February, I shared views on the fundraiser profession during a bilingual conversation (Italian-French) at Assif Day.
I discussed the question with the director of an international foundation we are working with to develop a plan for the introduction of fundraisers.
I compared notes with colleagues from around the world at the latest IFC in the Netherlands.
And I returned to the matter when I re-read one of the questions at the end of the session on Boards and Fundraising at the fundraising festival in May; in substance, it asked: “How does one you become a good fundraiser?”

This is a question that comes up frequently, every time we are involved in training or when we meet colleagues, especially younger colleagues. And it is a question to which, over the years, I have sought not a single, monolithic answer, but one that would reflect the multifaceted characteristics that, in my opinion, distinguish “a fundraiser” from “a good fundraiser”.
So today I’d like to identify three of the characteristics that galvanise me when I encounter them in the people I meet in the course of my work.

– Curiosity

Being a fundraiser means, first of all, grasping the essence and the essential (of a mission, a project, an activity, an objective) and transforming them into an instrument to make them sustainable. In other words, it means being open-minded – the only thing that makes it possible to maintain an “enthusiasm” for your work on a daily basis.
It means understanding that while you have your own method (of doing things, of working, of tackling problems), other methods exist, which may be quite different but are no less valid for that. And wanting to go and see what happens if you try to shift your focus, to change your perspective.

Curiosity enables you to “be in the world”, to live it, to experience it, to let yourself be contaminated by it. This is a quality a fundraiser has to have. Because this type of work consists of daily routines, of immersion in one’s mission in relation to everything surrounding it with all its many facets.

Curiosity is antithetical to the principle of dogmas (that’s the way it’s always been done). And even more so to monads, people who live exclusively in their own world, with a sense of awareness, but independently of what goes on outside themselves.

In short, it is the desire to see what lies beyond, to broaden one’s horizons in order to look for “new possible possibilities”.

– A concrete approach

I have always found fundraising’s typical mix of theory and practice to be a good combination, because I need to understand the big picture – to analyse, establish principles, identify models and formats, devise a development plan – but also to move on to a practical level, bringing all the talk down to earth so that I can generate change through action.

Recently, I have often found myself quoting a remark by Walt Disney, which I read in the very interesting book “Rebel talent. Why it Pays to Break the Rules (at Work and in Life)” by Francesca Gino. He said “the only way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing”.

That’s exactly the point: we always have to reason, reflect and plan, but then we have to act too.

A good fundraiser, then, needs to get their hands dirty, to test themselves – in relations with people, with requests, when people say no, with everything that comes up on a daily basis. In their own particular area of competence, of course, but on the understanding that you get to be a good fundraiser by “doing” fundraising. This also means testing yourself against your own limits: they don’t necessarily have to be overcome, but once you know what they are, you develop awareness.

– Last but not least – and without this I think being a fundraiser is inconceivable:

passion.

Of course, everyone will have days when their passion runs higher than on other days, but the desire to improve certain situations – those that form the basis of the mission of the organisations we work for – is the driver for everything we do.

The driver that keeps us stubbornly on track despite the difficulties.

That makes us say “let’s try”.

That makes us arrange hundreds of meetings or phone calls to get a yes.

That makes us angry when we hear the usual platitudes about nonprofit.

That brings us to our knees in the run-up to Christmas (usually) with all the work on the end-of-year campaigns and the checks and phone calls to get feedback on the donations coming in.

And that has us jumping for joy when we see our projects and targets getting a little bit closer, within our reach. Because that’s why we do it, isn’t it?

In this year-end reflection, then, these are the three “never again withouts” I am taking with me (we are taking with us) into 2020 from all the stories we have listened to, the people we have met, the projects we have completed, those we will set up in the coming months as well as those that won’t be included – because awareness also means abandoning ideas that have no prospects.

I am aware that being a good fundraiser involves far more than these qualities – and please write and tell us about your point of view – because our job is a complex and multifaceted one (luckily for us!).
And perhaps we will come back to the question in the future, who knows.

Well, no year draws to a close without festive greetings… Happy New Year to you all – may it be a year of curiosity, concreteness and passion! – from all of us at ENGAGEDin!

L'articolo “Perfect numbers are rare just like perfect men” proviene da Engagedin.

I asked Penelope to share some thoughts on “governance and fundraising” during one of the conversations that we regularly have on these issues.

Gaining new perspectives is a powerful way to learn and approach things differently.

Enjoy the reading!

Penelope, you authored a book – “Global Best practice for CSO, NGO and Other Nonprofit Boards: Lessons from around the world” – that is a compared reflection on the relationship between governance and fundraising. I read it once it was released and I found it interesting and extremely helpful in providing a global overview on this issue.
Which are the key points that mainly impressed you in comparing the American approach with the others?

No one country or culture “owns” good governance. Each fashions a system that makes sense in terms of their own cultural, political and economic situation. I think American non-profit boards can learn from their counterparts in other places, especially as America is becoming ever more diverse in its population. We need to understand and adjust to the multiple perspectives of various constituencies in order to provide effective governance.

Our respective firms partner in international consultancy projects and we already have the opportunity to co-present sessions, share best practices and practical experiences.
Generally speaking, something that seems remarkable in the Board of Directors in US is their active engagement, mainly aimed to instigate the “sense of emulation” among peers.
Which are, on the contrary, the critical traits that you face in your consultancies with US nonprofits?

Increasingly the “ultra rich” are driving the philanthropic agenda and this is a worrying trend. Because American nonprofits are very much dependent on funding from private sources, in some instances they have accepted funds from questionable sources. A recent case is the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Media Lab having accepted funds from Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire businessman who preyed on young women. Fortunately, this problem has recently attracted public attention and in some instances corrective action is being taken.

This year protest by artists led to the resignation of a board member at the Whitney Museum of American Art, Warren Kanders. Kander’s company, Safariland, produced a tear gas that been fired at migrants on the US-Mexico border. Other major museums—including Britain’s Tate Gallery, and the American Guggenheim and Metropolitan Museum of Art, have stated that they will no longer accept money from the Sackler family, who have been linked to the opioid crisis.

Besides your consultancies, you are often invited as a speaker and trainer in Asian countries. That is an area that is personally unknown to me.
Is there something – with regards to the relationship between governance and fundraising – that impressed you, or that you brought in your daily work, from your Asian experiences?

There are many important cultural differences across Asia, so it is difficult to generalize about nonprofits in such a vast region. One of the things that impresses me about the Japanese is that the practice of servant leadership is deeply imbedded in their culture. I believe servant leadership is the best global model for governance. First described by Robert K. Greenleaf as a viable model for leaders of modern organizations, servant leaders share power and put the needs of people and communities first, helping people develop and perform as highly as possible. A great example from India is Mahatma Ghandhi. Africa’s Nelson Mendala gave us another shining example of servant leadership.

Last but not least, a question on a highly sensitive issue: paid Boards of Directors as an incentive to stimulate their performance as Board members.
It is a topic explored in your book, in the section dedicated to European governance authored by Valerio Melandri, and it also is one of those issues I frequently think at without gaining an unambiguous solution.
What is your opinion about that?
Do you think that economic incentives could be considered as levers to improve the engagement by the Boards towards the big issue of sustainability?

I think that it depends on the type of organization. Some nonprofits are closer to for-profits in their operations, like large health care operations. Having individuals on the board with business expertise may necessitate emulating the for-profit governance model in this respect. The situation is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

*Penelope Cagney, a Certified Fundraising Executive (CFRE) and a BoardSource Certified Governance Consultant, is Principal of The Cagney Company. She is rated among the Top 6 Fundraising Experts in the US by Philanthropy Media and has more than 30 years helping nonprofits succeed in fundraising, planning and governance. She and her associates have helped clients achieve significant financial (more than $USD500 million raised) and organizational objectives. She has taught fund development, strategic planning, governance, and communications at the School of the Art Institute and Columbia College in Chicago; at the Arizona State University Nonprofit Management Institute; and was a Distinguished Visiting Professor at American University in Cairo, Egypt.

Penelope is editor of “Global Best Practices for CSO, NGO and Other Nonprofit Boards” (Wiley/BoardSource 2018/Shanghai University of Finance and Economic Press October 2019 – Chinese edition). She is the co-editor of the 2015 Skystone Partners Research Prize winner and cause planet.org Best Books of 2015 awardee “Global Fundraising: How the World is Changing the Rules of Philanthropy” (AFP/Wiley 2013/Shanghai University of Finance and Economic Press 2018 – Chinese edition). She is also the author of “Nonprofit Consulting Essentials: What Every Nonprofit and Consultant Needs to Know” (Jossey-Bass/Alliance of Nonprofit Management 2010).

Penelope Cagney serves on the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Global US Foundation for Philanthropy and on the Wish Fund Committee for Make-A-Wish International which fulfills the wishes of sick children through 39 affiliates in more than 50 countries, as well as having served on the Selection Committee for the Asia Philanthropy Awards.

L'articolo Interview with Penelope Cagney, consultant and author proviene da Engagedin.

Working on development with Boards of Directors is a fascinating exercise, which shines a light on the dichotomy that often exists between theory and practice, between committed directors and boards that don’t work (or don’t work the way they should).
Rolling out fundraising strategies when the governing body isn’t on board (which is what the blog’s title alludes to) is like driving on a motorway with the handbrake on: if you’re lucky, you’ll move along slowly, struggling, with the engine at top revs, to try and build up speed; if you’re not, you’ll go into a spin.
Clearly, we would prefer the first hypothesis, but neither one is desirable when you’re planning projects, positive change, effects on the community.

So?

The fact that the board is virtually absent, has little or no interest, isn’t engaged or engaging, is often considered par for the course, without adequate thought being given to the strategic implications this has for the life of the organisation and the cause it supports.

To put it bluntly:

you can’t make a problem magically disappear by pretending it doesn’t exist.

At a certain point in even the best fundraising plan, the board will re-appear from somewhere in all its (vain)glory and force everyone to jump through corrective hoops, or revise their objectives and re-define their potential Often, to undertake lengthy Zen meditations.

Simplifying complexity is one of the “guiding” concepts in my approach to this job Dismantling problems in order to make them easier to handle is a useful way to move ahead without being discouraged by apparently unachievable objectives.

Involving governance in development strategies is fundamental. It’s challenging.

It’s gratifying.

Professionalism is essential – fundraising is a cross-sector profession (cit. Valerio Melandri) and fundraisers must be able to read situations in order to interpret them. And once they’ve read and interpreted a situation, they have to find solutions and tools to drive change – in this case internal change even before external change (on the impacts of the cause).

I’ll be talking about this and many other questions at a special session at the next Fundraising Festival – from 15 to 17 May, in Riva del Garda … click here for the program, and, if you haven’t already done so, think about registering: it’s worth it, every time!
In 90 minutes, I’ll be talking about the way I work with boards to help them define and correctly “play” their role in supporting the organisation’s development and fundraising. I’ll also be suggesting useful tips and tools on working with governance, based on my own practical experience in Italy and abroad.

Because a fundraiser should take an interest in the board of directors, engage it and be engaged by it, share expectations and commitments.

Together, we’ll discuss ways of working, on Thursday 16 May at 10.30 a.m.
I look forward to seeing you at the Festival!

L'articolo 1, 10, countless ways to rekindle the love between Governance and fundraising proviene da Engagedin.

Stefano has wide experience in organisations of different sizes active in a variety of sectors and with different approaches. So his viewpoint is fundamental in building up an understanding of how the way that boards work and, at the same time, the approach of fundraisers, can create a vision for the development of the organisation’s mission.

Stefano and I have known each other for many years, we have debated at fundraising meetings and events, and his “Piedmontese” approach to communication (despite many years spent living and working in Milan) to communication is similar to my own way of thinking.

Stefano, first of all, thank you for your time. I’m very pleased to talk about boards from the viewpoint of fundraisers with you, given your great experience and your open personal approach.
The first question I want to ask you is about your current role as communication and fundraising director at the Istituto Serafico in Assisi, which means you’re constantly dealing with the organisation’s board.
Has this relationship always existed in your professional experience, past and present, or have there been situations when it has been, if not absent, then sporadic? And if so, what impact has this difference had on your work?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about a question of interest to us both, Simona, which we consider fundamental for a healthy approach to our profession.
My work at the Serafico in the last few years has consolidated my belief that a close relationship with the board cannot fail to strengthen all the dynamics of communication and fundraising. This is where our job starts and ends: strong and effective fundraising is impossible without a board that produces strong, disruptive, innovative and challenging ideas, even on a purely economic level. You can’t get very far if your only objective is the bottom line, balancing the books. The interest of board members who ask questions, examine details and want to understand the formulas to judge the success of a campaign is a stimulus to work well and to improve constantly, and to see each board member as an authoritative colleague rather than a policeman who checks, counts and restrains.
Here too, discussion is key: it is always a driver for growth in both directions, and working with a board that interacts with our activities at different levels simply accelerates something that is in itself propulsive (fundraising) and helps avoid inertia, which is detrimental to the action and image of a non-profit organisation.
In some of my previous jobs, this driver was sometimes absent, not so much because of a reluctance to engage, but rather because of the organisation’s extended and fragmented territorial presence, which inevitably shifts the focus of problems to more complex questions, and limits closer, more incisive engagement.

Can you give us an example of how a well-established relationship between Board and fundraiser facilitates and stimulates the role of the fundraiser while making the board aware of its responsibilities and encouraging it to act?

There are countless examples, and this could turn into a full-blown dissertation; I’ll just list a few and explain why each one is so important:
• Sharing planning: this helps the board understand the feasibility and scheduling of projects, and provides the fundraiser with a concrete idea of what they need to achieve and why (a sort of circular letter);
• Planning the budget step-by-step: the board doesn’t just say yes or no. It wants to understand why it should invest in one direction rather than another; the challenge for the fundraiser is to not simply toss a series of initiatives on to the table, but to put their key elements into context, and not purely from a financial viewpoint;
• Checking progress: this makes it possible to share with the board the opportunities taken or the difficulties experienced during the initiative, to understand the reasons why and to try and remove them in future; all this in an atmosphere of shared awareness, without either side ever feeling they are “under scrutiny”;
• Deliberately proposing new challenges: this is important from both sides to help the organisation progress: I have to mention legacy campaigns as an example of a tool that is as important for the organisation as it is difficult and complicated; especially if the profession or contacts of some of the board members could be a lever for this unique kind of campaign.

Do you have any suggestions you would like to share on the question of board engagement with fundraising, which in your experience has helped make your work easier and more effective?

I have never worked “on my own” at the Serafico, either on fundraising or on communication. As you know, the Serafico operates within a delimited area (Umbria) but with patients arriving from across Italy. With regard to corporate fundraising and relations with the press and the media, the fact that the institute’s president, with her contacts and direct relations, has not only made herself available for fundraising and communication, but continues to want to examine every single detail to make her contribution more decisive and significant and give each initiative the right impetus, has been of fundamental importance.
As a result, the rest of the board (on the basis of the member-get-member mechanism) strives to provide the institute with the best possible service, often following our indications and approach focusing on relations with donors and potential donors.
This is a not insignificant driver for optimal fundraising and communication.

Stefano Malfatti has more than 20 years’ experience in non-profit management, and since January 2016 has been communication and fundraising director at the Istituto Serafico in Assisi. He has held a number of positions during his career: at the Don Gnocchi foundation as a management controller in the General Management Division and later as head of the private office of the Presidency. For the last 15 years he has developed fundraising strategies in non-profit healthcare organisations, focusing his attention and experience on bequests. A blogger, trainer and educator on fundraising issues, he is a lecturer and speaker at some of the leading educational establishments in the non-profit area and on master degree courses, and has published papers on legacy fundraising. In 2014 he won the Italian Fundraising Award and in October that year the Global Fundraising Award assigned by an international jury in Amsterdam. He is president of the Fundraising Festival Association, and a member of the ASSIF (Associazione Italiana Fundraiser) and the AFP (Association Fundraising Professionals USA – International Chapter).

L'articolo Interview with Stefano Malfatti, Director of communication and fundraising at Istituto Serafico, Assisi proviene da Engagedin.