We consulted with the Jewish Community to develop their start up in terms of fundraising and organizational development.
Beyond the initiatives related to funds, the hybrid model developed to set up the Development Unit saw the active engagement of the governance together with a group of young volunteers selected among the Community members upon a call for applicants.
The initial training and volunteering collaboration had the purpose of creating a solid group of dynamic volunteers who could manage the Community’s fundraising activities.
Two years later, the group counts five operational participants who  are actively committed to developing a multi-target and multi-vehicle fundraising initiative to support the Jewish Community. A significant part of the Board of Directors itself, too, is actively engaged into the whole process.
Of course, the best has (always) yet to come, but the basis was laid.

Enjoy this interview with Brett Lalonde, who is currently Vice President of the Jewish Community of Florence.

L'articolo Bridging the gap among cultures: interview with Brett Lalonde, vice-president of the Jewish Community of Florence proviene da Engagedin.

The first time I heard about Fondazione Mazzola – through their Secretary General – I thought they spoke a language that resonated to me. Starting from the mission – “to contribute to the well-being of people at risk of marginalization, by expanding the opportunities available for people with disabilities through sport” – which includes one of the most powerful tools that can literally bring out personal characteristics, like sport, which I am passionate about. And continuing with the model adopted, the Theory of Change as a system approach, their transparency on the desired positioning in terms of values and vision.
Looking a little more closely at the Foundation, a dynamic, flexible organization emerges, which inhabits the time and context in which it operates and which has a clear idea of change and the way in which it intends to achieve it, starting from a crucial trait that should characterize those who “practice” philanthropy (not only them, to tell the truth): listening.

With great pleasure, therefore, I share the ideas that emerged from the conversation with Dr. Carlo Mazzola, President and co-founder of the organization.
Enjoy the reading!

L'articolo From personal perspectives to a family foundation: interview with Carlo Mazzola, president of Fondazione Mazzola proviene da Engagedin.

[for those who, perhaps, had no idea what Board coaching is: it is a side-by-side consultancy path that brings together learning, practice and development of fundraising, as a tool of sustainability, for those organizations whose Board needs tailored and customized sessions from the point of view of skills, commitment, to say it generally the “design” of a different way of declining the issue of development for the organization.
It is a challenging job – but this always happens when dealing with fundraising -because it has no pre-identifiable solutions or models upstream, it must be developed in relation to the as-is situation and always finds original ways of development]

The organization I am writing has an amazing history, it was born from a strong motivation, has an established reputation and an appropriate number of committed volunteers. Despite these strengthen points, however, the level of their fundraising struggles to grow, being an issue to work on to secure the future of projects and programmes.

My consultancy with them has been developed following two main lines:
1) the fundraising strategy – the analysis, review and upgrade of campaigns, database development, communication and everything related to fundraising from a technical point of view;
2) direct and practical work – I would say coaching – with the Board of Directors, so that it can be the real hub towards a more effective sustainability strategy for the organization.

Once having “framed” the situation in terms of facts and figures, objectives and programmes, the transition of the conversation to fundraising saw some fear from the Board members.

While convinced – everyone! Which is already an excellent starting point – that fundraising is necessary, they showed a certain reluctance in asking, together with the fear (usually…) of creating embarrassments among friends and acquaintances, some perplexity about being able to ask.

The point was exactly this: “fundraising is fundamental, but I would never be able to do it because I don’t know how to ask for anything, not even for this organization that I care very much about”.

The Board members I am talking about are really volunteers of the organization: they not only make up the Board but have always provided professional volunteering activities on an ongoing basis to advance projects. They are genuinely involved and active in the cause. They are available to support the staff.
But they don’t feel to … fundraise.

[a short note: in the last 2 months, I guess by chance, the same type of situation has already happened to me 3 times. Evidently the issue arises, the Boards questioned themselves on fundraising and development and are interested in finding ways to overcome the stasis. And this is, in my opinion, a crucial step towards change]

As we always do during our consultations, I began to “tighten” on the subject to understand where to wedge a lever to be used to generate that change of pace that is the goal of the consultancy.
At one point, during this exchange of questions that I was leading, one of the Directors – referring to the president – reported that he had made an act of “piracy” (he literally used this term) because, dealing with the need to replace an essential surgical instrument which had broken and should have been the subject of a fundraising campaign in September, the President thought about it, rethought, worried that the broken tool would make it impossible to provide certain medical treatments. And in the end, one morning a few days ago, he picked up his mobile phone to call one of his corporate contacts… and asked him for 50,000 euros. Thus, without a shot being fired. And he got almost all of them.

I looked at him, then looked at the Director who reported the episode, and I couldn’t believe it. Not so much for the figure – I was certainly delighted for the lucky chance that perfectly fitted a need and a desire to contribute – but because the approach reported contradicted in fact what the president himself was saying until a minute earlier.
I pointed this out to him and asked him what he would call it, if not fundraising. He told me that yes, it was like an act of piracy because he went straight in with his contact and, without even going around it, told him that the surgical instrument had broken down, they could not provide treatments and that it would take a few months to replace it and, in the meantime, people would not have been able to take medical exams and that, in short, was not a good situation because it meant blocking the activity of the hospital. And the person in question replied that no, this shouldn’t happen and that he would take care of it, given the emergency.

While I was trying to put together the elements to point out, in the most flat and convincing way possible, that fundraising was exactly that thing, another Director – he too until recently was telling me that he would have no problem writing or contacting friends and acquaintances, former colleagues and anyone else, but without even mentioning the expression “I ask you to …” – he told me that a similar thing had happened to him too. Unlike the president, he had not called it piracy but rather “Providence”.
During an evening with family friends, he had talked about a project that he was following personally for the organization and that he would have liked to develop it by involving a greater number of beneficiaries and that he hoped to be able to have the funds to do it. Then, listening to one of those friends who talked about his company budgets and savings due to their efficient management, he said to him – literally – “since you still have this money in hand, why don’t you think to do something for someone else and donate for this project? “. This person had told him that he had never thought about it and that yes, he would have talked about it during the next company meeting because it was a good idea. A few days later he had asked for a meeting with the Board member of the organization and, within a few days, that money had arrived.

Providence, then. Or piracy.

Whatever you call it, it’s something these people feel more comfortable with than the term “fundraising”.

I have thought quite a bit about this aspect. As I wrote above, it happens quite frequently to me that I find myself faced with this type of approach and that I have to find the key to be able to turn it into something concrete and structured – which in my head and in my vocabulary is called fundraising but, obviously, it can also take on different names.

On this point, therefore, I would like to list two aspects / suggestions:

– Demystifying the term fundraising can sometimes be the interpretative key to change the perception and, consequently, the concrete approach (because not all Directors, I am aware of this, are “pirates” or benefited from “providence”). It is evident that it is the correct term but, if it is a repulsive one, perhaps sometimes it is worthwhile to find alternative ways to achieve the same conclusion.
Whenever I have taken this approach, in cases where it seemed necessary, it has turned out to be the right one. Of course, I had to learn to be flexible in terms and lexical properties, but it was – and is – always a useful exercise for me too. Because learning to look at things from different points of view is what it teaches to include (as well as being enormously stimulating);

– Going deep, not feeling satisfied with the first answer or perplexity or doubt, is the way to understand what the real situation of the organization is and, above all, its potential. The ability to analyze, the comprehension both of facts and figures and the context, the active listening and identification of the right questions are, in my opinion, among the fundamental tools of the fundraiser – in this case declined on a consultancy path aimed to develop the Board but, in general, valid in the relationship with donors and with anyone involved in the development issue.
Not having stopped at the first question / answer – “we are afraid to ask” – meant that, in an informal atmosphere and open discussion, without judgment or hesitation in sharing doubts and perplexities (and this “openness” must be generated, because a sometimes it does not come at all by itself), the “true” answers emerge.

In this year and a few months in which we have all had to deal with the unthinkable, my impression is that one of the lessons is precisely that of openness to the other, even when what is shown is vulnerability.

Because that’s where you build it, whereas perfection (or, to use a term I don’t like: performance) doesn’t need curiosity and insights.

L'articolo Board and fundraising, whatever you call it proviene da Engagedin.

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.

We met Giancarlo Della Luna, entrepreneur and founder of L.A. Sistemi, an Italian company based in Tuscany that designs and develops telecontrol and telemanagement systems for technological networks, industrial plants, and local areas, during our collaboration with the Fondazione Archivio Diaristico Nazionale, as a corporate donor.
Such definition, to be honest, does not give evidence to the approach of a person who embodies many roles, all connected to the culture of giving and engagement with a cause: personal engagement, progressive awareness, interest in the development of the cause , involvement in the definition of the strategic plan as a Board member. All steps that took place over a few years and that today see Mr. Della Luna to be both a corporate donor and a member of the Foundation’s Board of Directors, embodying the idea of an “ambassador of values” which is associated – or should be – with the role of a Board member.

Here is an excerpt of his words during the abovementioned lesson: I believe that the ideas emerged can give an idea of what it means to be “on board” of an organization.
Enjoy the reading!

Giancarlo, would you tell us something about yourself, who you are and how and why you approached the Archive?

I am an entrepreneur, my company works on the design and production of remote control and remote management systems for the management of technological networks, industrial plants, the territory and the environment. I am an active member of the non-profit organization Transafrica Sviluppo, an NGO that works Education and provides water supply to Mali and Niger, in particular by working with Tuareg families and communities.
More than 30 years ago, I met Saverio Tutino, an Italian journalist who was a foreign correspondent in Latin America, founder of the Archive of the Diaries. Upon his return to Italy he understood that history must not be made only on history textbooks, rather on “common people”. For this reason, he founded the Archive of the Diaries in Pieve Santo Stefano, close to Arezzo (Tuscany), a small village heavily bombed during)he II world war that, in stories of ordinary people, has a chance to reborn after that wound.
My fascination comes from this. My father was imprisoned in Mauthausen, and his story is the one of an ordinary man who did exceptional things for that historic moment.
Finding myself in Pieve, then, in a place of memories where these “exceptional” ordinary lives are the ones that I always heard myself being told at home, prompted me to join the Archive, the Pieve Award (“The Day of the Diary”, nda), to establish relationships with all those who meet annually at the Award, in September, and with whom I share an empathic love for the inner values that stand behind the stories as a work of collective memory.

You didn’t start as a donor of the Archive, but you got there because you felt the cause close to your life values. What was your first time with the Archive as a donor, from being a person who went to Pieve to becoming a donor?

I started involving the people I work with in the Transafrica Association, bringing them to Pieve; I also involved friends, let them know that place to which I felt so close, and they too, somehow, felt this magic.
Then I met the wonderful group of volunteers and the staff who work with passion in the Foundation. I am an entrepreneur and I know, however, that passion is not enough in the long run. So I started ask myself how these people (the Foundation) managed to move forward, how do they make their passion agree with the needs required year after year.
When you take part, for example, in the Pieve Award, you realize that it is a very emotional event and that emotions are what keep people together – the participants as well as the staff and volunteers; on the side of costs and expenses, however, there is always a kind of modesty, although the commitment it requires is evident.
In a “brutal” way, then, I asked them directly how the “economic matter” worked, how they managed to make the whole activity sustainable, given that the Archive works not only on the occasion of the Pieve Award, but throughout the year and that the budgets needed, in my opinion, a fairly massive corroboration.
I thought I wanted to help in some way.

This need to “help out” combines your interest towards the cause with your entrepreneur mindset. I find it particularly because you are among those corporate donors who are not stuck simply on projects but, in a most long-term perspective, think at how to make the organization (and its mission) sustainable through giving to cover the structural costs. Your motto seems to be “if I want to support them, I want to do it from a structural point of view”.
What determined you to focus on the mission rather than on one-shot projects?

Back to my NGO: to fund its projects, I organize events and I’m happy when I can find a sponsor and guarantee the visibility that sponsorship requires. However, these are spot initiatives that are useful, but do not give continuity. When you draw up a budget, spot revenues cannot be the only ones – they are certainly fine for initiatives like the Pieve Award, but they must be accompanied by more stable actions. Why do newspapers, for example, ask for subscriptions? Because this is what allows you to plan – and without a proper planning you can’t go on.
From my point of view as an entrepreneur, having a clear idea on costs means being able to focus your efforts, to involve other partners and try new activities – the Piccolo Museo del Diario, for example, is a project set up in the recent years that is raising up its importance as a museum. I care about how to ensure its sustainability, both through sponsorships and recurring gifts.

In your “journey” with the Archive, which I find interesting because it is linked to the issue of giving continuity to the organization’s mission, progressive awareness has made you become from “close to the cause” to donor, then a corporate donor, and finally a Board member. What is your approach to your role within the Board?

The first thing the Board had to this year was whether or not to realize the Pieve Award, in September, and how, because – for the first time in its history – the event was in doubt. We have taken on some responsibilities, but the inner spirit of being part of the Archive is this: being there, for the community.
My first objective, as a Board member, is to urge the Board itself on how important relationships are for the continuity and development of the mission. The great privilege connected to being on the Board is “making things go well” and, to do so, you need to be proper funded. My second commitment, then, is to look for donors following a peer to peer approach: I have already gone ahead in this direction so that, for example, the funds needed to arrange the next Pieve Award have already been secured; or the staff dedicated to fundraising is adequately trained and sized, so as to be able to properly develop the fundraising strategy .
Last thing: there are more than 9.000 diaries filed in the Archive; there is the need to expand and find new spaces to allocate the materials. It is an ambitious goal that can involve the whole community. It is necessary not to be afraid to go seeking for money because the Archive is a national value that must be developed more and more and this means, in my opinion, facing things with an entrepreneurial mindset.
We have a civic duty not to stop receiving people’s memories, and my job as a Board member is to “look” at the staff’s projects and seek for the money to make them happen. The Archive is an asset of the community, and this is how we have to consider the issue of development.
There is no economic advantage to staying on the Board of Directors, just the interest in doing well and showing that you can do things wisely.

Your story is what is usually told in the books – fundraising as it should be, progressive involvement, closeness to the cause, asking yourself the question of the sustainability of the cause over time, being a Board member who thinks in these terms and who personally goes to seek further resources.
Is there a suggestion that you feel you can give to fundraisers starting from your dual role as Board member and entrepreneur that look at the theme of fundraising from both sides?

On the subject that belongs to me most – that of continuous corporate supporter – we need to think about the reasons why an entrepreneur approaches a cause. Because it is a local entrepreneur who somehow wishes to make his presence felt? Or because it has affinity with these themes – in my case the theme of humanity, memory, being together?
I believe that we need to look for the “philosophical function” that brings us closer to the cause, and the fundraiser ‘s task is to understand the sensitivity of the “institutional” entrepreneur, the one that can be a long-term donor.
Go and look for what this connection is and then make sure that through it we can find a common thread, a way to go together: and this is the thing that may seem more difficult but, at the same time, is the essence of fundraising and the challenge for those who deal with it professionally.

L'articolo Engagement and fundraising: interview with Giancarlo Della Luna, corporate donor and Board member of the Foundation “Archivio Diaristico Nazionale” proviene da Engagedin.

These have been complex weeks. Luckily they were not difficult from a personal point of view – I had no health problems, I managed to keep my work pace unchanged and I continued to follow the projects I was working on without any interruption (cheers the technology!). And I learned a lot: not only digital tools but, above all, different ways to look at things from another perspective.

It is not a small thing; indeed, it is really a lot.

These almost 2 months of closure, silence and free spaces, have been an opportunity to deepen, study, compare and discover things.
I enrolled in an online course on classical music – more or less 30 years after leaving the Conservatory; I attended a good number of webinars focussed on digital issues – not just tools but, above all, culture of digital transformation; I took part in webinars where I was among the speakers and also at the Open Day of the Master in Fundraising as a former student; I read, not only about fundraising and philanthropy, and I listened.
Indeed, I would say that I tried as much as possible to listen. To better understand, try to look at things in a wider way, find a “remote” dimension that would allow an experience of meaning.

And I would like to share some of the things I have learned here, always of course on the topics the blog deals with – I would very much like to deal with the thoughts of those who will read, so every comment will be more than welcome.

Trust is the engine. Of everything.

The President (affected by Coronavirus) of an npo I work with, for whom “the only way to do my job well is to meet others”, who has found a wonderful way to tell about quarantine through weekly videos from home, in front of a notebook because “When you talk you have to be precise”, but with an informality made of noises from the garden, a relaxed approach and the story of a difficult situation, really difficult for the organization, is the first image that comes to mind. Without official screens and sometimes not even the right words, the measured ones; because an emergency is an emergency and the children of the community needed – to do distance learning, reassurance, attendance and comfort.

Requests of help – like this one – generate answers, often very fast.
Because an emergency is an emergency, and you need to move quickly.
Even when you don’t know each other before and you just need a phone call and an indication of a website that certifies the truthfulness of what you are telling, of an organization in distress. Even when those who intervene start from Veneto and arrive in Lombardy – two of the most distressed poles of contagion, throughout this period.

Because it is useless to go around it: if I need help I have to ask for it clearly, without mincing words or sweetened words.
A need is a need, nothing else.

What’s the meaning?

The authentic opening to the other, from my point of view. The one that makes us exposed us and that, at the same time, tells us better than formally flawless turns of words, but that they cool the message by adding intermediation levels where only emotion should speak.

In recent weeks I have seen Board members and presidents at work, some of them operationally, other behind their desks, some weaving networks to circulate information and aid. Everyone committed to coping with something unexpected and unknown, to keep together the uncertainty of the contingent situation with the need to respond to concrete and urgent needs.

This is a point that I find particularly interesting and “educational”: the claim to manage uncertainty in a rational and rigid way – especially the general one – is a chimera, generates hasty answers, works on a very short-term horizon, compels within a perimeter something that is not yet known and which, precisely for this reason, cannot be compressed.

The solution, perhaps, is to welcome uncertainty and do your part as best as possible.

A phrase that I have always loved very much, of the English poet Alexander Pope, keeps coming to mind, saying: “act well your part, there all the honor lies“.
Applies to everyone. Here, in this blog, it also applies to the Boards leading the organizations.

There is no one rule for everyone, this is the beauty of being a Board member.
There is, however, a cause and the ability to understand what needs to be done, even in times of emergency and crisis and even when the cause is not connected to the emergency, to make it progress.
Those who had already understood the concept were able to continue working, despite the difficulties, the crisis – the current one and the one that will inevitably characterize the next few months.
The rest suffered a setback. It was inevitable, the pandemic was probably just an accelerator in these cases.

There is no need to despair, however. You can learn from everything to improve – I have always been a staunch supporter of the “therapeutic” use of failures and difficulties: they relieve a lot of pressure and help correct the shot.

Smart working (perhaps) is not the ideal size, but we can make it closer.

I have always used platforms for remote meetings. In recent weeks I have discovered others but, above all, I have become familiar with the possibility of being together even on the opposite sides of a screen.
I continued to carry out my consultations and meetings; I supported a foreign organization with which I collaborate in the fundraising director’s selection process by interviewing the 9 shortlisted candidates; I held training courses in more or less numerous classes, interacting with the participants, stimulating them with exercises and active participation in the lessons.

In short, I learned to feel at ease in front of the screen almost as if I were in presence – to tell the truth: it is a substitute, the physical encounter is always the preferred option, as far as I am concerned.
And I took up a point I had talked about at the Digital Transformation Day I was invited as a speaker by iRaiser last fall: I had to talk about how the cultural process – from my point of view – brought about a change in mentality before I even came to identify the tools that would support it. In particular, my focus was on Boards of Directors, with which the theme had posed itself – and continues to present itself – as a “structural” question, not an episodic one.

Preparing the material for my session, I recovered a book that I had read a while ago and that had fascinated me – it is still on my bedside table and every now and then I open it to one of the pages marked with ears (yes, I mark the passages that interest me in this way, so the books I read – no matter if of fiction or professional texts – always have the “lived-in” look) because there are passages that I find truly illuminating.
The book is The Game, by Italian author Alessandro Baricco (ed. Einaudi, 2018) and, in particular, this sentence tells precisely, in my opinion, what these weeks of quarantine have made evident: “The digital revolution is a mental revolution, more than merely technological, because it has changed and is changing our mental posture. (…) we believe that the mental revolution is an effect of the technological revolution, and instead we should understand that the opposite is true “- first the mental revolution, then the technological revolution. Which means that a new type of intelligence has generated the tools that can satisfy it“.

What is emerging clearly is how much the two dimensions – online and offline – are not in contrast and not even distinct but, more correctly, integrated parts of the same uniqueness. I am the same person in both dimensions, I can decide how to approach both but I cannot consider some areas of my work feasible only in presence and others also at a distance – it is obvious that I refer specifically to my professional reality with its peculiar characteristics. But it really applies almost to all those who do not carry out exclusively manual activities.

Here, this feeling at ease in both dimensions is an aspect that, accustomed to dealing with live people – Boards of Directors, large donors, companies, colleagues, just to name a few – and to consider the live dimension as the only one capable of “Supporting” what is a good part of my job – the issues of legacies, planned donations, partnerships, coaching paths with the Boards – I take home as one of the things I learned.
It is a possibility, not necessarily the only one.

Time is a primary variable

Suddenly we found ourselves – everyone, and I am referring to all those who were lucky and were not directly touched by the virus – with a dilated time, capable of generating possibilities or, on the contrary, anxiety or boredom.
The first days of lockdown I remember them as facts of a non-linear, jagged, muffled time. And I remember the common feeling of being inside a bubble of unreality.
I spoke to many people in that first week, and we were all taken by something like the intoxication of novelty, from feeling part of a collective effort, of a single body that was struggling to stay alive.
Then came a certain habituation to a normality that was not so normal (and it is not) and, with this, also the need to “take stock”, reorganize in some way, give a horizon to everyday life, find words and tools to go forward “with sense”, not “in suspension”.
For me it was the contiguity between personal and professional life that was the key to finding it, this sense.

As often happens to me when I need to focus on something, I started writing.
To observe and write. And I did not need to do it in the spare time between one train and another or pinning ideas on the smartphone. I was sitting at the desk and I could choose to spend two hours rearranging my thoughts, looking at my professional world of reference through the lens of a slower and therefore deeper rhythm.

I kept the social networks at a safe distance – I don’t demonize them and I’m a regular user of social media, but at a certain point the “screams”, the speed of the messages, the quantity of the information partly overwhelmed me and partly stewed me.
It all seemed too much, as dissonant, inappropriate. And in a period in which I imagined catastrophic reports of the time of use of my smartphone, this has, however, surprisingly decreased. I do not derive universal laws from it, but a more balanced relationship with the hic et nunc, a different use of time and a more focused attention on “little, but quality” has been a source of great inspiration and benefit.

A word has represented these weeks better than others, as far as I’m concerned: integration.

Between online and offline, as I wrote; planned initiatives to be rewritten without distorting them to make them coherent with the context; personal interests and time to devote to it without feeling at fault and work time which is also reading, studying (calmly), reflection.
For me it has translated into greater creativity, both with reference to the personal and professional sphere. New projects have come out and already started projects have taken different paths, intuited on the spot and gradually developed.

Phase 2 hardly changes anything, for me and for us as a group of consultants, from a logistical point of view.
The organizations we work with and the scheduled courses are all outside the region and abroad, so we will continue to work on both sides of the screen.
I hope it will be better for everyone, yes. And that we succeed in impressing in our mind what happened – generosity, self-sacrifice beyond imagination, a sense of community, altruism, as well as the flaws of the system that emerged here and there.
I hope and we hope that all this will become a store of knowledge and awareness not to be abandoned too soon in the name of a return to the “before”.
And that we can start again, step by step, and re-think, with greater wisdom.

p.s. the picture was taken in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, last October: I was there to join the IFC Conference and I had a walk along the dune, in the noon, surrounded by these magic light and view.

L'articolo #strangedays – thoughts at the end of quarantine proviene da Engagedin.

Enjoy the reading!

Helene, the payoff on your website says “We call on all civil society organisations to match the percentage of women in leadership positions to the percentage of women in their staff”. What is the situation both in Europe and globally, from your perspective?

Women are underrepresented in top leadership positions of civil society organisations; both globally and from what we know so far also nationally. Based on the data we gathered in our FAIR SHARE Monitor, a man is currently 5 times more likely to rise to a senior management or board position than a woman. Considering the fact, that the workforce in the civil sector are largely women, this gap is outrageous and illustrates the inequalities in our workplaces.

But it is not only a gap in representation. I think, the credibility gap between the external goals of the sector around equality, social justice and human rights is even worse. How can we legitimately claim to work towards a more equitable world, if we do not manage to live up to these objectives within our own structures?

The word “feminist” is often perceived as somewhat intimidating. I personally find that it is among those words that require to be contextualized in order to grab their strength. There is a huge need to talk about what being feminist – and feminism in general – implies nowadays. What is your way to define a feminist today?

Anyone who believes in and aims to advance equal rights for all genders is a feminist. This is why we also advocate for feminist leadership as the new paradigm for the civil society sector – it strives for intersectionality, representation and collective decision-making and can be practised by men and women.

The UN Secretary-General and the Canadian prime Minister call themselves feminists so others, especially men, should follow their example and take a stand on gender equality.

This blog is focused on governance and its relationship with development of nonprofit organizations. You are a board member at FairShare, which is an NPO that has a multi-national all-woman Board of Directors. Which are the main features that, in your daily job at FairShare, are capable to express your leadership?

Our ambition is to explore feminist tools and practises also in our governance and decision-making to experiment and hopefully lead by example. This is a challenge for me to keep all the different streams of work and ideas focused and work with a large number of enthusiastic individuals to ensure that we have the best approach possible. Collective decision-making is time-consuming and sometimes exhausting but also a lot of fun and rewarding and I truly believe in the power of the collective voices and perspectives. I have already benefitted so much from insights and advice from the FAIR SHARE Action Circle – the collective decision-making body I established together with Emily Bove, the founder of The Feminist Leadership Project – and others who believe things can be different. FAIR SHARE as an organisation and me personally would not be where we are today without the amazing group of people around us.

We will have the first Italian Nonprofit Women Camp at the beginning of March. Would you provide any suggestion to women in the Third Sector to encourage their organizations to put more efforts in advance this issue?

I think, it is time we claim our seat at the table – on our own terms. One reason we started the FAIR SHARE Monitor was to give women in the sector the evidence about the gap in representation so that they can make a strong argument for organisational change. We will not significantly change the number of women in leadership without re-thinking our cultures and structures that have over-benefitted men for decades. So we have to get organised, act in solidarity and define new rules for leadership. A FAIR SHARE Monitor that looks at the situation in Italy could be a powerful starting point to mobilise around our shared goal of gender equality in the civil society sector. We would be happy to support such an effort.

Helene co-founded FAIR SHARE of Women Leaders e.V. and has been leading the setup of the initiative on a voluntary basis since then. Over the first year, she built a coalition of organisations and individuals committed to gender parity and feminist leadership in the social impact sector. The FAIR SHARE Monitor measures the number of women in leadership positions with the aim to achieve gender equality in the sector by 2030.

Before founding FAIR SHARE, she served as the Deputy Executive Director at the International Civil Society Centre where she managed the development from a start-up phase to a mid-sized organisation. In this capacity she also worked closely with the top leadership of the largest internationally operating civil society organisations on issues such as governance, accountability and cooperation. She lives in Berlin, Germany and has two sons.

L'articolo Governance and women leadership: interview with Helene Wolf, co-founder of FAIR SHARE of Women Leaders 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.

I presented a selection of these sayings a while back, during a lecture for the “Talenti per il fundraising” program, organised by the CRT Foundation in Turin (create link).
I wanted to encourage the participants – about 60 under-35s who want to make fundraising a profession – to think about the way the words we say define the boundaries of our world and can sometimes prevent us from seeing what lies beyond them.
(This is a question that has always intrigued me. Books could be written about it – indeed, they have been: run an internet search on the famous observation of German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, from his Tractatus logico-philosophicus: “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. The results could be interesting…).

So here are some of the remarks I regularly come across in my job. I’ll give them to you unvarnished, with a brief comment:

– our board of directors? No response.

Ok, so what do we do? The situation is this: we can decide whether to try and change it or to raise the white flag.
But since we’re fundraisers and accustomed to never throwing in the towel, we can try and see how to unblock the situation, starting with our own role.

For example: are we sure the directors know what’s expected of them?
Obviously, if an organisation has a chief operating officer or a secretary general, he or she is the person primarily responsible for raising the awareness of the board of directors.
But we can make a contribution too, at the very least by trying to understand the reason for the lack of activity.

On several occasions, I have encountered behaviour that, to say the least, I found odd (to be politically correct) – in other words: apparently unconnected with fundraising.
Apparently. Because, when you looked deeper, what emerged – almost always – was that the people concerned were in good faith, they had been told nothing about the role they were to play as directors, the commitment they would be required to make for the strategic development of the organisation, their duties and/or the expectations.
Of course, it’s not always like that. Even so, it’s worth trying to understand the reason.
And there’s only one way to do this, especially when you’re working in a small organisation: talking, explaining and, above all, listening are – in reverse order – the three most important skills a fundraiser should have!
This doesn’t mean talking, explaining and listening in general. It means doing so with reference to the mission and the future of the organisation, to what – in your opinion – the board of directors should do to facilitate the work of the staff. Clearly, in a non-accusatory tone, with a sincere desire to understand and be understood.
Some interesting things could emerge, if you know how to listen and to read the context – isn’t this one of the fundamental skills of a good professional needs?

– there are 5 directors (or 7, or 17, even 21, as happened to me once, the number isn’t important), but we always see the same 2 or 3 (or even 1, usually the chair).

The question that springs to mind in these cases is: why? And I’m not interested in vague, generic answers – if I am to work effectively in my role as a professional consultant, I need as clear a picture as possible about the situation to be changed. And I think the same also applies, perhaps in slightly different terms, to an internal fundraiser.

There’s always a reason for an absence, a silence. Without straying into the realms of psychology, it has to be investigated.
Were the directors absent due to other commitments? (but can this really always be the case?).
Or are there too many meetings? (I have known boards that meet 3 or 4 times a month: this may be too much, when you’re talking about voluntary directors with other external commitments).
Or – and this is an issue I’ll talk about in a specific post because it deserves to be examined separately – are the board meetings boring/repetitive/hardly ever decide anything important or nothing that comes close to the heart of the organisation’s mission? In this case, I’m not going to beat about the bush: frequently, very frequently, engagement is low, very low. Not out of malice, obviously, but simply because of an approach that is uninterested or superficial, in good faith.
I’ve seen board meeting agendas that wouldn’t even get me out of my chair.
I’ve listened to reports that are so boring they would cure the most hardened insomniac.
I’ve read reports on the fundraising plan that would kill the enthusiasm of the most passionate fundraiser (not of the donor, but before that: of the fundraiser).
Where is the passion, the love for the cause in these cases?
It can’t just be turned on for fundraising campaigns, at events, in social media posts. The internal climate is vital and is the first step for an organisation that works, that generates passion – and we all know, don’t we, that without passion fundraising goes nowhere?

So: can we change something in our approach to the directors that hopefully will reawaken their enthusiasm?
Perhaps simply by illustrating our campaigns, during board meetings, in terms of their impact, how they have changed the lives of people (places, animals and everything else the non-profit is concerned with) rather than just providing a list of numbers? By drawing out the passion, which is substance (numbers) and form (enthusiasm, engagement).
Or by directly involving the directors – if they’re there, there must be a reason – by asking them for their opinion, a suggestion, an observation on difficult or tricky questions. Involving them in fundraising, development, strategy, giving these words body and substance so they’re not just a fundraising exercise or a numerical result to be reported to the people who approve the financial statements.

– I have no relationship with the Board

Now on this point, I have to make a qualification: since I’m a consultant, it is usually the chair or the board who approaches me So my relations with boards are always very meaningful from a quantitative and qualitative viewpoint, because otherwise I couldn’t do my job.
However, the absence of a relationship between the fundraiser/fundraising office and the board is one of the things I hear most frequently.

If you’ve read the post on the board and fundraising, you’ll know my views on this, and I won’t repeat them here.
If the question is: is the absence of any kind of contact between the fundraising office (its manager)/the fundraiser and the board damaging for fundraising? My answer is yes, even when there’s a chief operating officer or secretary general who undertakes to report on fundraising strategies and campaigns to the board. This answer could perhaps be mitigated when the chief operating officer or secretary general is someone with direct fundraising expertise, because in that case he or she is familiar with the thinking, techniques and underlying reasons for the activity. This doesn’t mean that otherwise it can’t be done, of course not: but you run the risk of further “dulling” the board’s interest in development (and in fundraising), relegating it to a simple activity of raising funds. And we already know that much more is involved.

In medium-large organisations in particular, the directors are often not personally acquainted with the person responsible for fundraising.
A really quick and easy solution is to organise a short presentation of the fundraiser/office during a board meeting. I suggest this because, having tried it on a number of occasions, it has always stimulated the board’s engagement with the issue (perhaps not of all the directors, but one step at a time takes you to your destination), their involvement (there’s no substitute for face-to-face meetings: the level of interest and “feeling of participation” rises immediately), their awareness (from now on, they will no longer be able to ignore the existence of you and your fundraising).

This first short selection of remarkable sayings ends here.
I’ll be publishing other posts on this; meanwhile, if you have some “memorable remarks” you would like to share, I’ll be happy to include them in a future article and, if you are agreeable, perhaps to give you some suggestions.

Until next time!

L'articolo Short collection of memorable remarks – 1 proviene da Engagedin.