Want a quick and easy way to build a high-performing team? Envision it.

All too often, I see organizations recruiting for key leadership positions without doing anything to excite top candidates. It's more than just a missed opportunity. This routine approach can lead to poor hiring and leadership turnover that can permanently damage an organization.

Here's one example of the minimalist "we-all-know-what-this-job-is" approach from a recent job posting for an Executive Director...http://clicky.me/dOp

In a recent presentation, Michael Guillot from Gadd/Guillot shared his list of six questions designed to "energize our community through stronger philanthropy." We think these are awesome questions for anyone in any position in any organization to be able to answer at any time. They are...
http://clicky.me/cDG

When attending conferences, I always seek out off-the-beaten-path learning opportunities so the session, "A Military Perspective on Board Leadership" caught my eye at the recent regional Building Better Boards training in Florida's panhandle. Brigadier Gen. Neil Snyder (Ret.) and RADM Rick Grant (Ret.) shared the Army and Navy points of view, and also covered the Marine's perspective on behalf of Gen. Robert Milligan (Ret.) who had a last minute emergency.

As I expected, there was a fair amount of the "command-and-control" language that doesn't really translate well into effective nonprofit governance, but there were also a few pearls and gems to pass on. Read more...http://clicky.me/bsS

What does it take to lead from the future as it emerges? Leading through change often means getting to know yourself more intimately first, and C. Otto Scharmer's Theory U is rich with advice on how to get there. For students of change, it is 450 pages of complex thought about how to open your mind, your heart, and your will to the future. It's a "must-read" in my library, and it will leave you wanting to re-read it again and again. Although Scharmer's work isn't directly targeted to nonprofits, NGOs or social enterprise, his 24 principles easily translate into some awesome guidance on leading through change:

Here's my "change agent" version of Scharmer's principles and practices...http://clicky.me/bbb

I am a board member of a small (200 members) nonprofit religious organization. We have an annual membership meeting where we elect 3 new board members (among the usual annual meeting items). One general member each year insists that it is perfectly okay to get a bunch of members to vote for only 1 of the candidates (usually there is slate of 5 candidates) although 3 new board members must be chosen. This stragic under-voting effectively guarantees that his candidate of choice will be on the board and deprives the other candidates of votes. Under-voting is not outlawed in our by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order (which we follow if something is not covered in our by-laws) does not outlaw it either. We have recently changed our by-laws to allow our election committee to set policy each year on voting procedures and they announce well ahead of the election that members must vote for three candidates (no more, no less) for a ballot to be valid. Still, the arguments arise. In a large organization, under-voting would not have a great effect. In a small organization, this can throw an election. We are looking for best-management practices of small organizations that would specifically address this issue. Does anyone know of such practice guidelines?

Hi!

My name is Mazarine. I write http://wildwomanfundraising.com. I'm looking for fundraisers and nonprofit leaders, either from the US, or abroad, to interview for my blog.

I want to ask you how the downturn has affected your organization, about leadership in fundraising and in nonprofit organizations, and about realtime web giving.

My email is info@wildwomanfundraising.com.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

First of all, kudos to you for figuring this out and staying on top of the governance of this organization. Time and time again I've seen boards who are completely checked out, who have no idea what is really going on at a nonprofit.

Having difficult conversations with leadership must take place as soon as you possibly can manage it. Time is critical, especially now.

Second of all, I don't agree with the previous answer. This person assumes they know what's wrong with your nonprofit. Here are some questions.

Aside from not being proactive with fundraising,
Is this leader mistreating workers?
Is this leader not understanding how to interact with your development director?
Is this leader disorganized, harshly critical, and impervious to feedback?
Is this leader slandering workers and telling you they are all "stupid"?
Is this leader not good about keeping promises to board members about meetings?

If the answers to the above are all "YES" then to manage this leader, this is how I would have the conversation.

I would start with asking the leader what's going on in their life right now. I would tell them about one good thing that they're doing, if you can think of one. Then I would ask them if they thought they were having any challenges with this job right now. Then I would ask them if they saw their challenges, what they would like to do to begin to address them.

If the leader did not see any challenges, then I would say, This is what the board sees as your challenges right now. We are all fundraising as hard as we can. We are trying to set the best example for you. You have had 16 months to begin to fundraise for this organization. We are not seeing any forward movement on your part. We need you to have ten major donor meetings in the next three months. We need you to ask for large gifts. You can spend the first two months researching, cultivating, and narrowing down a pool of donors, but you need to do this now.

And then you can tell them that the fact that they have accomplished these meetings will count for 50% of their results to the board, and the actual monetary outcome of these meetings, the other 50% of results.

Tell them that you and the board and the development director will all be there to support them in these meetings, whether they need introductions, research, major gift coaching, etc. But that they need to get them done.

Then, if at the end of three months, they haven't gotten any gifts or gone on their meetings, then you have grounds to give them their one month notice.

I've got more about how to manage people at my website.

http://wildwomanfundraising.com

In our Third Sector Connector LinkedIn Group, a colleague recently posted this question: "Who makes up the ideal board of directors? I am looking for info on a small board start up for a nonprofit. Thank you."

I thought other members might want to chime in, so I decided to post my answer here for her (and link to it so that she can easily access the dialogue), so here it goes!

Deborah - That's an important question since your Board is ultimately responsible for leading the organization and setting critical direction based on your vision, mission, and strategic goals. All too often, I've heard people advise others to put together a skills matrix and recruit based on essential job functions. For instance, you need someone with financial savvy, so you recruit a CPA. You need someone to help with marketing, so you recruit a PR or marketing pro. You need legal advice so you recruit an attorney. You need diversity that mirrors the composition of your community.

While I agree that there's something to be said for identifying critical needs, I think that my colleague Hildy Gottlieb has articulated a model in her book, The Pollyanna Principles, which is a perfect opportunity for a nonprofit that's just getting started! In essence, she suggests that we recruit and foster boards that "Govern for What Matters" and that are learning communities focused on the mission, vision and values of the organization. You have the chance to start from scratch and bring on the people who are truly committed to visionary community change, instead of those who hold particular job titles or who meet specific diversity criteria.

Here's a link to our tips archive that provides lots of great resources on boards and shared governance.

Addition to original post: This link on creating a code of ethics also has some great questions and could be a great starting point for a new Board, too.

Anyone else have some advice to share?

We had an email come in today with a question that I thought was so good that I decided to post and answer it publicly. The question was:

"Hello, I recently had someone challenge me about why the term "third sector" is used as it implies that it comes after business and government. How do you respond when your brand is built on this term? Thanks!"

My response was:

Great question! Most societies categorize organizations into three main groups -- Government, For-profit, and Not-for-profit. Commerce and government have been around for thousands of years, but organized charity, as a well-defined category, has only been around for several hundreds of years. So, the first answer is that the community benefit sector is often referred to as the "third sector" because it is historically the newest on the scene. I should mention, too, that some people are beginning to refer to a "fourth sector" that is comprised of hybrid organizations or partnerships that in some way or other combine government, for-profit and/or not-for-profit organizations with the intent of positively impacting the community at large. The second answer is that the term "third" in this case doesn't have any rank-related meaning to it, like coming in third in a foot race would. And, finally, we recently rebranded and chose Third Sector Connector as our name because it is more global in scope.

I'm sure there are other members who can weigh in here, too, and we welcome all participation! What do you think about calling it the "third" sector?

Mark