Following (Part 2): Listening

“Listen up!” An odd little phrase. I was surprised to discover that this slang term originated in the US military and became popular in the 1970’s as the Vietnam War unfolded.

An essential skill for good followship, it would be easy to make a statement like “listening is important”. We all know this, but so many of us don’t practice it. I believe one reason is that we are so preoccupied with our own ideas that there is little room to accept what someone else has to offer. We might be prone to listen more closely to an individual who is leading us, for fear of missing something important or out of a sense of responsibility, but in my experience its rare to be really engaged in the act of listening, really zoned in. 

Another reason we aren’t great at listening is that it is difficult to break through all the noise we’re bombarded with. So many people, needs and ideas vying for our attention through a range of channels. 

In an improvisation, no idea moves forward without listening. When you are working collaboratively to explore the edges of things understood and are wading into that liminal space between what you know and what you have yet to discover, if you are not engaged in listening, you’ll miss it. That nugget of truth or inspiration.

“Listen up” may be a throw back military term, but it is well suited in the exploration of followship. It is a command from a leader to a group of followers, calling them to attention and demanding that they focus on what he/she is saying. Most leaders in non-profits don’t bark like a general, but they do want your attention nonetheless. With a little practice, the best followers can give their leaders what they need.  

If you know you need to learn to listen, then you know you need to be DOING GOODER.

Following (Part 1)

We seem obsessed with leadership. You only have to scroll through your LinkedIn feed for a minute and you’ll see article after article on being a better leader, or a meme with a pithy leadership quote. Are we so devoid of good leadership in our organizations that we’re clambering to fill these gaps? More likely, in our “me” obsessed culture, labelling oneself a “leader” is the high watermark of self-realization. For me, this hyper focus on leadership begs the question, “where are the followers?” I’m not talking about those who exercise some form of false humility, waiting for a supervisor or manager to fail so that he/she can fulfilled his/her own leadership aspirations. I mean real followers, people who aspire to be the best followers possible. Those interested in “followship”.

As I write this I can think of at least four skills a good follower must possess, all of which require strength, self-awareness, creativity, boldness and control. Good followers listen carefully, ask clarifying questions, support the leader, and make important contributions of their own. Followers get the job done.

These four skills are also valued in an improvisation partner. If each person in an improv tries to lead, the improv ends up going nowhere, each “leader” trying to pull the other along. Instead, when one partner, in humility and strength, submits to the other person’s ideas, the improv moves forward. But far from sitting back and allowing the leader to carry the load, the follower’s job has just begun. Following well is not passive. Far from it. It’s a job, I’d argue, that must be done well if the leader is to succeed.

Whether you are in a formal leadership position, working with a designated leader, or in the case of fundraising, building a relationship with a donor, understanding “followship” can be a game changer. 

To find out more about developing "followship" skills, visit doinggooder.com

Renaissence

Last week, CBC host Anna Maria Tremonti interviewed Dr. Chris Kutarna who convincingly argued that we at are in the early stages of a second renaissance, the first taking place almost 500 years ago. 

Whether or not one agrees with his position, one can’t ignore the fact the world is changing at a record pace. Dr. Kutarna outlines a number of ideas that any non-profit wanting to maintain donor relationships through changing technology, social, cultural and political realities, would be wise to consider. 

1. Stretch you imagination. Moving forward, we will need to think beyond our current paradigms. This means that what has been best practice will need to be questioned. Successful fundraisers will dream up new ways to create a meaningful experience for donors. 
2. Draw new mental maps. To get from point A to point B will demand that we open new channels. Organizations will need to go on journeys of discovery and will need to explore ideas that could be the foundations of future success. 
3. Expect good and bad. Change is neutral. How change occurs and the final outcomes of change can be positive or negative. The possibility of negative outcomes will cause many to hold tight to current thinking. For these folks, the risk of a negative result will be paralyzing. The only guarantees in changing times, however, is that change will indeed occur and avoiding change will certainly end badly. No organization will transition unscathed, but the ones that will survive, and likely thrive, will be the ones willing to let go of what is in anticipation of what will be. 

The sooner non-profits can begin imagining and exploring what a new normal might look like, the more likely they will capture the hearts and minds of donors who are themselves navigating these new realities. 

Need to imagine a new way? You need to be DOING GOODER. 

Change

“Change is difficult and takes time.” This paraphrased quote from John P. Kotter’s book “Leading Change” has been a go-to statement with my team these last few weeks. Today it was almost as if I was spitting the words out of my mouth - one part reminder, one part encouragement, one part prayer for forgiveness. 

Change can be hard, but it is also unavoidable. To allow oneself to be swept up by it and thrown off balance, is to live in a state of anxiety and resentment, not to mention the general bad attitude one exudes that can be spotted by coworkers twenty paces away. 

It’s difficult not to dismiss the naysayers and feet draggers when by all accounts change is necessary. It’s especially difficult when the excuses given for avoiding the change has everything to do with being married to a particular way of doing something rather than being committed to an outcome. In fundraising, this can be an event, for example, that’s seen a steady decline in fundraised revenue year-over-year along with increased expenses but little is done to remedy the situation because “someone” MIGHT not understand the change and have a difficult time adjusting. 

As fundraisers, we can’t cater to the 5% at the expense of the 95%, otherwise all we’ll be left with is a small group of constituents who find us comfortable and a majority who find us irrelevant. 

Don’t get me wrong, change for change sake is rarely helpful. That said, to avoid change because it is uncomfortable, unknown or just different is to choose to fail. And that’s the point, your organization and fund development strategy must succeed. You work hard to make the maximum impact and sometimes that demands a change. 

To learn more about managing change visit www.doinggooder.com  

Apathy

After speaking to a group this weekend about the work Mennonite Central Committee is helping accomplish in Lebanon and Syria, someone approached me and asked what was the biggest challenge I faces raising funds for this work. Almost without thinking, I responded, “apathy”.  The rest of the afternoon I’ve been thinking through exactly what I meant with this response. Apathy is a very loaded word.

If you are like me, the busyness of day-to-day activities, the pre-occupation with my own “challenges” and my own special brand of selfishness, keeps me from doing anything that seems even remotely good such that it would leave a dent in the ever increasing mass of wrong taking place all around the globe. When I hear the news of another earthquake, war or oppression, I find it challenging not to put my head down and make my world as small as I can, protecting my state of normalcy. When that happens, its game over. I’ve shut down and even the most heinous or dire of situations won’t stick to my heart or mind. It’s as if all bits in my body tasked with feeling have been Teflon coated. Nothing sticks. 

So its not that I’m not interested or concerned, it’s that I’m unwilling to let any new stories in. I’m full up. I haven’t exercised my values in such a way that I’m feeling I have room for more. 

What does this mean for those of us raising funds for important causes? 

There is so much talk these days about the value of good storytelling in fundraising. I agree. Stories are essential for connecting with donors. But if your stories aren’t sticking? If your audience shuts down when you start to talk, you need to find a new way connect. You need to start doing gooder.  

For more information on DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com

A Response Gerald Caplin and the Globe & Mail

While I appreciate Mr. Caplan’s desire to draw attention to the needs of many non-profits during the lean summer months, his article perpetuates a narrative many organizations are working hard to rewrite.

Mr. Caplan rightfully applauds organization’s that seek to work cooperatively with other organizations, as well as those who prioritize working with local partners. These actions are a part of a relief and development model that is now considered “best practice” by most NGO’s. But his understanding of the donor perspective in assessing an organization is out of date and does little to help someone who is motivated to give consider anything of great value, as the title of his article suggests. 

To use terms like “begging” to describe the activity of raising funds for important causes creates hurdles for many prospective donors and worthy organizations. This term suggests that there is an “us” and “them” in a transactional experience. 

The reality is that inherent in the act of giving is an opportunity for a mutually transformative relationship. Making the decision to release personal resources for the benefit of another is a truly radical act in a culture that regularly tells us success in life is dependent on the accumulation of more. Yes, the recipient of donate funds, goods or services may find his or her situation transformed, but in choosing to release these resources, the donor has exercised his or her personal values. In doing so, the donor has become more like the person they hope to be. This is a great reward and of great benefit for the giver. By giving, the donor has chosen to express a love for humanity, the very definition of being “philanthropic”.

Mr. Caplan also chooses to extoll a tried and not entirely helpful measurement matrix, one where the highest virtue an organization can express is that of efficiency. In this system, top marks are given to the organizations with the least amount of administration costs, this being the working definition of efficiency in non-profits. The trouble with this matrix is it does little to assess an organization’s effectiveness. I, for one, if ask to choose between efficiency and effectiveness, would choose to give to the organization that was having the greatest impact, the organization that is most effective. Not that efficiency isn’t important. It can be a good measure of how seriously an organization takes its responsibility for stewarding well the resources entrusted to it. That said, if 100% of the money I give to an organization is designated to “administration” but in doing so, that organization can change the lives of thousands of people, rather than hundreds of people the organization could help when holding fast to a policy of spending no more than 20% of its budget on admin, I say “designate my gift for administration and blow the roof off the efficiency metric”. I want to see impact, it’s the number one reason I give.   

What most donors long for is to participate in making the world a little bit better. When choosing an organization to partner with choose an organization that helps you best express your values. Then terms like “begging” and “efficiency” will have little to do with which organizations you consider and how you ultimately choose to express your love for humanity.

For more info on DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com

“Once Upon a Time” by Paul Lagasse | Advancing Philanthropy, Summer 2016

The subtitle of this article is “How storytelling can motivate donors to support your nonprofit without being asked”. Quoting fundraiser and author Ken Burnett, Lagasse distills a breadth and depth of storytelling resources into a handful of opportunities fundraisers can employ when working to motivate donors. Of particular interest may be an idea that turns upside down the default story narrative of charities, that of extolling the virtues of the organization. 

Donors want to read about themselves. 

There are three possible characters in a fundraising story; the charity, the recipient, or the donor. Most often organizations write stories that establish themselves as the hero of the narrative. If an organization creates an alternative to this common storyline, they will often replace themselves with the recipient. Now the beneficiary becomes the hero. But it is rare for organizations to make the donor the hero of their stories. Quoting Burnett, Lagasse writes that the purpose of stories to is motivate donors “to leap to their feet, passionate, angry, impelled and determined to make change happen.” In a list of suggested approaches, Lagasse leads off by suggesting charities write stories “about the reader, not the cause.” 

Donors don’t empathize with an organization, because donors aren’t organizations. Donors can sympathize for those in need, but the donor is not in their situation. But the donor who reads a story about another donor making an impact, a person living out his or her values, is inspired. The narrative is aspirational. And if the story is authentic and well crafted, the fundraiser is well on the way to creating opportunities where donors self-identify as supporters and the fundraiser’s need to craft a formal “ask” takes a back seat.

To know more about DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com