Burn-out resulting from out-sized expectations for fundraising is one of the leading causes of premature departures among nonprofit executives.  Yet board members seem not to get the message. Instead, they ratchet up the development goals with which they greet the next leader and then scratch their heads when burn-out hits again.

Fortunately, it is possible to break the vicious cycle if board leaders keep four essential truths in mind. These are:

1) You’ve hired a CEO, not a miracle worker. No leader, regardless how gifted, winsome, and/or ambitious, can pull major gifts out of a hat or turn around a lagging fundraising program overnight. It takes time to get to know the faithful, reconnect with the lapsed, and seek out new friends. It also takes time for that new CEO to get his or her fundraising “sea legs.”

2) If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Faced with immediate financial challenges, first-time CEOs (and first-time fundraisers) may rush into the work, leaving planning for a later, calmer time. The board needs to give the CEO permission – better yet, a mandate – to slow down long enough to develop a solid plan for the organization. Remember, money follows vision and the organizational plan is where vision resides  (or should).

3) Fundraising is an ensemble performance. There’s no denying that the CEO’s participation is essential to success in fundraising. However, the strongest development programs are the result of a team effort, with a whole host of players – staff and volunteers – pitching in on behalf of the organization. Only in exceptional instances do the efforts of one person out–perform a competent team working together toward shared goals.

4) Appropriate goal setting is key to fundraising success. Most nonprofit organizations, including those with a faith base, have good ideas galore, and as a result, struggle to set “just right” fundraising goals. It’s the blessed CEO whose board is wise in discerning the difference between fundraising targets that challenge supporters to stretch in their giving and goals that are simply beyond the ability of a constituency to achieve.

From what I’m reading and hearing, the economic climate isn’t going to turn to the better anytime soon, which means fundraising will continue to weigh heavily on CEO shoulders. That said, burn-out need not follow.

Your board holds the keys to a longer, more successful run for the man and woman you’ve recruited as CEO. Use them.

Forget the politics (of which there are plenty). The real teachable moment in the brouhaha is what happens when an organization “ jumps into a highly controversial area of public debate without a communications strategy, stays silent, and therefore lets others take over the public dialogue, perhaps permanently redefining the organization and its brand.”

That’s the word from marketing consultant Kivi Leroux Miller. Her suggestion? “Watch and learn, so you don’t make the same mistake on whatever hot button issues your organization might be wading into.”

Good advice, except that learning from the “other” is easier said than done. Bulverism runs rampant in today’s politically charged environment. It’s ideological purity uber alles.

The slightest hint of admiration for tactics is deemed tantamount to agreement with an opponent’s views. And that’s too bad, because refusing to acknowledge that anything good can come out of (fill in the blank) is cutting ourselves and our organizations off from potentially valuable  insights.

Which brings me back to the Komen/Planned Parenthood face-off and the advice it’s generated about social media usage and crisis communication.  I’ve plucked a few references from the hundreds of online articles that have been generated in recent days.

Disclaimer: The political ideologies espoused by the authors listed below don’t necessarily represent my own. Their insights about social media and crisis communication do.

FOUND HANGING AROUND THE BLOGOSPHERE

From the Agitator, good questions to ask.

What if a crisis of confidence and trust in your organization arose? How prepared would you be to acknowledge the facts, respond with alacrity and truthfulness, describe and implement with full transparency the needed changes, and get back to the mission of communicating the positive work of your organization to your donors, other key constituencies, and the media?

From Ventureneer, advice to organizational leaders.

Look at your policies, partners, and crisis management plan. Good governance means preventing — or at least anticipating — a crisis. Three rules that should guide you:  1) Never underestimate the power of social media. 2) Plan ahead. 3) Be consistent.

From Forbes, six learnings for communicators when it comes to delivering controversial news.

• Create a receptive environment in advance by engaging with key audiences and explaining your planned actions.
• If possible, deliver messages in a face-to-face environment, and answer questions forthrightly.
• Enlist the support and aid of outside experts who can help deliver the message.
• Develop a strategic plan anticipating media and audience response, and be ready to either pre-empt or react quickly.
• Engage early and often in the social media space. Monitor discussions and anticipate the tipping point.
• If you are the recipient of negative news, assess your position and its impact, and be prepared to mobilize your stakeholders to take a desired action.

From Jew Point O, the  importance of cultivating “free agents.”

Leaders of today’s organizations should educate themselves about free agents (read The Networked Nonprofit for starters) and think deeply about how to work with free agents on an ongoing basis, and in fast paced environments as well.   Millennials in particular are well positioned to be free agents, and as they continue to mature, their modes of engaging and supporting organizations may look more and more free-agent-y.  As Ben Wiener said at the 2011 Jewish Future’s conference, “We don’t meet, we tweet.”

For an example of women of faith engaged in a civil exchange of ideas in response to the Komen/Planned Parent debate, check out Kate Wicker’s blog post titled “Let’s Talk about Komen (& Why I’m Leaving the BlogHer Network).”  Be sure to scroll down to the comments. These mostly-mommy bloggers understand the power of social media!

And finally, from the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at the University of Western Ontario, a helpful essay and 5-minute video on “Learning from the Enemy.” This resource preceded the Komen/Planned Parenthood discussion, but is relevant nonetheless.

TALK BACK: Where have you seen social media used especially well? Where are you at in using social media for your organization? How do you feel about my premise that it’s possible to admire tactics without condoning ideas?

It’s never to early to start giving, and a $5 gift could set you off on a voyage that will become a lifelong venture. An hour spent volunteering would be another way to being the journey. Your time, energy, and skills are powerful gifts.”

Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, philanthropist, author, and teacher, from Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Your World (Jossey-Bass, 2012)

“Hope all you want,” I mutter at the computer screen. But the article has my attention, so I read on.

“. . . do not fear provocation!  The therapist provokes, so too the medical internist, the concert pianist, the art gallery curator, the movie director, poet and prophet.  Jesus provoked.”

Then it hit me — one of those Sunday school flash-back moments complete with a scripture text in tow. Hebrews 10:24 (in King James language) with its edgy pairing of seemingly paradoxical concepts zips across my mind’s eye. “Provoke unto love and to good works” is an unlikely mash-up. Yet that’s exactly what’s expected of participants in God’s new and living way — including those who lead Kingdom-focused organizations.

As the DGI article tells us, “Provocation begins and sustains vision-directed leaders and organizations.  Persons and ideas sharpen one another, clarify and push, test and affirm.” In other words, it’s good to be provoked and provoking be if it serves to spur us, our organizations, and our friends on to love and good deeds in God’s name.

So go ahead, dear readers. Make complete pests of yourself. Goad. Urge. Encourage. Whatever it takes to keep me moving in the right direction. I promise to return the favor.

Most nonprofit organizations handle well the sweet sorrow of parting as these special volunteers exit the boardroom. There are the tributes, the plaques, and parties. But after bye-bye board member, then what?

Despite declarations of continuing devotion, absence seldom makes the heart grow fonder — at least when it comes to former board members. Unless you are intentional about trying to stem the natural progression of things, all those years of service to your organization very quickly fade to a pleasant memory. Before you know it, bye-bye board member turns into good-bye friend.

I’ve thought often about this challenge during my many years of consulting with, writing about, and serving on boards of faith-based organizations. It makes me sad when former board members drift away from causes to which they’ve given so much. I don’t have a sure-fire, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem, but let me suggest three beginning steps to holding the affection of departing members.

ASK, DELIVER, USE WELL

First, ask and not assume.You may wish otherwise, but there’s no use fighting the fact that not every soon-to-depart board member wants a significant role beyond his or her term of service. This doesn’t mean these folks take their board work lightly. It’s just that when their allotted terms of service come to an end, so does their sense of obligation to the organization. And that’s all right. You can bless them, and send them on their way, guilt-free.

Fortunately, many board members will welcome a continued connection with a cause to which they’ve given much time, talent, and treasure.  But it’s always better to ask and not simply assume.

Second, be realistic in what you promise. Caught up in a flurry of optimistic fervor, it’s tempting to create opportunities for involvement that are beyond the organization’s ability to deliver. But think before you leap into something new. Be sure there is ample staff support to engage former board members and that the opportunities offered are of real value.

Consider, for example, the idea of a special organization for past board members. It sounds easy enough, in theory. However, when faced with staffing the group and giving it meaningful work to do, well, that’s another story.

The more prudent course is to capitalize on what already exists. It’s my observation that even very small organizations have enough going on to make good use of the talents and interest of former board members.

Third, ban busy work. When it comes to engaging former board members (or any volunteer, for that matter) “significant” is the word of the day. You need to believe that giving folks meaningful and interesting work is the sincerest form of appreciation — and then act accordingly. In the case of board alums, this might include:

• Asking departing members to write about what serving on the board has meant to them and then including the testimonials in the board handbook or as part of new member orientation.
• Inviting top performers from each departing group to sign on as mentors to the new crop of board members.
• Recruiting members from the near past to help with special projects such as a capital campaign or strategic planning process.

So back to the question.

After good-bye board member, then what? In the case of a few of these folks, the answer is not much of anything — regardless how hard you work to keep them in the loop and engaged. However, for most former board members, if you ask, deliver, and use well, it’ll be “hello friend” for a long time to come.

James Hudnut-Beumler, Anne Potter Wilson Distinguished Professor of American Religious History at Vanderbilt University and dean of the Divinity School, from Generous Saints: Congregations Rethinking Ethics and Money (The Alban Institute)

These words from an August 2011 post here at Generous Matters are repeated in a recent piece by Washington Post religion writer Lisa Miller. Like me, she’s concerned that “as religious affiliation in America declines, so, correspondingly, does generosity.”

The occasion of Ms. Miller’s reflections on religiosity and giving was the release of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s tax returns and the resulting tizzy over his 10 percent tithe to his church. (Overall, Americans give between 2 -3 percent of annual income to charity.)

Miller uses Romney’s giving record as the doorway to a broader and, in my opinion, more interesting discussion about the impact of “religiously observant Americans” on society at large.  I encourage you to read the full piece, but here’s some of what Miller has to say.

This correlation between religious giving (and, I would argue, giving in general) and niceness, or altruism, isn’t just a cute trope dreamed up by academics. In an America defined by a dramatic lack of fairness, at a time when that lack of fairness is a top-tier political issue, the question of who’s giving to what, and how much, matters. And it matters not just in the ‘thousand points of light’ sense: The more individuals and corporations give, the less the government has to.

Giving, and giving until it hurts, forces you to recognize that, like a parent, you’re responsible for other people — whether in your own community or around the world. When you lay down your money, you say, ‘This (church sanctuary, child, environmental hazard) is my problem.’ Providing a sense of interconnected obligation is traditionally what religious communities have done best, and it is no surprise that the religious groups that are growing fastest in America — Mormons, Pentecostals, certain sects of Jews — are those that make demands on their members’ time and money.

I’ve said it before, and I say it again. Generous matters.

Related articles:

10 things pastors should remember about giving

Doing good without us

Reaching Millennials through stewardship evangelism

Teach your children (to give) well

“Have a heart that never hardens, and a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts.”

Charles Dickens, the great English novelist, who was born on this day in 1812. 

• In identifying the primary motivators of their philanthropy, 81.7% of women put desire to make a difference at the top of the list, with organizational efficiency coming in at a close second (80.5%), followed by commitment to their local communities (78.2%). In addition, 65.7 percent of women say they put their money where they volunteer.

• When asked how they choose the organizations they support, almost 82% of respondents cited personal experience with the organization, 72.5 percent identified an organizational connection to self, family, or friends, and 46.4 percent listed the organization’s communication of impact.

• As for factors that lead women to stop giving to a specific charity, 49% pointed to too frequent solicitation or inappropriate ask amount, 41% said they had decided to support other causes, and 31% listed a change in household circumstances.

Do women on boards improve governance? The answer is “yes,” according to a December blog post from Corporate Secretary, an online resource to corporate secretaries, general counsel and governance professionals in North America. While plowing through a “growing body of evidence” about the impact of women directors, CS’s deputy editor Aarti Maharaj unearthed a plethora of gender-specific factoids, including the following.

• A 2008 study by professors Renée Adams of the European Corporate Governance Institute and Daniel Ferreira of the London School of Economics found that women tend to have better attendance records at board meetings than their male counterparts.  “In fact, the more women on the board, the more men’s attendance record improves,” says Richard Leblanc, associate professor of corporate governance at York University.

•  Women tend to raise questions their male counterparts often disregard. “Men are more concerned about strong internal controls, keeping up with the new regulatory environments and good corporate governance processes,” says Henrietta Fore, board chair and chief executive of Holsman International, an investment and management company. “Women, on the other hand, are particularly concerned with succession, growing the senior staff and sustainable shared value, and this tends to lead to good governance.”

•  Companies with higher numbers of female directors are likely to realize long-term management and communications benefits, some governance scholars say.

The yin and yang of leadership: A study out of Stanford University reports that women who are in touch with and able to control their masculine side do very well professionally.

“Being able to regulate one’s masculine behavior does not simply put women on par with men, it gives them even more of an advantage,” the researchers state. In fact, “self-monitoring masculine women received 1.5 times as many promotions as feminine women, regardless of whether those women were high or low self-monitors.”

The message to women who aspire to leadership? Go for balance. “To be successful, you must be assertive and confident, but if you are aggressive as a woman you are sometimes punished for behaving in ways that are contrary to the feminine stereotype.”

Perhaps in our rapidly changing world, pessimism itself is an anchor. It makes us more sure of ourselves, knowing that bad things will inevitably happen to someone, somewhere.

It should not be so for people of faith. Better to embrace uncertainty and the potential for positive change — and with it the possibility of seeing God at work in the world.”

Ardie Goering, writer and tree farmer, from her “Due Consideration” column in Mennonite Weekly Review