Hi everyone, quick disclaimer. I am still bitter and annoyed over the Game of Thrones finale, which I am sure many of you can relate, so this blog post may be affected with occasional spoiler-free snarkiness that may not make any sense if you haven’t kept up with Game of Thrones. Also, a quick reminder: This is the last week for filling out the Fundraising Perception Survey, so please do so if you haven’t. It’ll take 10 minutes and the data will be valuable for our sector.
A while ago I read Jan Masaoka’s thought-provoking article “Aspirin and Democracy,” where she discusses the effects of the professionalization of the nonprofit sector. One such effect, according to Jan, is that:
“new executive directors can write personnel policies and grant proposals while practicing self-care, but they don’t know how to get 5,000 people to a protest demonstration or 50 parents to a city council meeting.”
This article and sentence have stuck with me. Our sector, and progressives in general, has a problem with excessive intellectualization. We’ve become really good at it. There’s nothing we love more than summits, white papers, theories of change, data, coming up with new terminologies (*cough, solutions privilege), and voting with sticky dots. We’ve basically become more like Bran, less like Sansa or Arya.
everyone, before we launch into today’s topic, please do me a huge favor and
fill out this Fundraising
Perception Survey. It’ll take you about ten minutes. The survey is designed
by a group of fundraisers, including me, to gauge how folks are feeling about
the way we do fundraising in the sector. The survey is by no means perfect; it
is simply a temperature check on how the sector is perceiving fundraising in
general. You do not need to be a fundraising professional, or live in the US,
to fill it out. The survey will remain open the rest of this month, then will
be analyzed and the findings reported this summer. Please help spread the word.
I always joke that the nonprofit sector is a lot like Game of Thrones, but with less frontal nudity. Nonprofits also have power struggles, scheming, manipulations, and an urgent need to unite everyone around the common threat of zombies. But what if it were the opposite, what if Game of Thrones were more like nonprofits? Here are some possible scenarios, in no particular order (and sorry, not all major characters are included). Caution: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD. Join in the fun on Twitter using #GameOfNonprofit
Hi everyone, Game of Thrones is done for the year, so I am slightly down, so this post may be a little cranky. I was surfing the Nonprofit Happy Hour Facebook group (which you should totally join, because it’s full of brilliant and hilarious people), and saw that a colleague had asked for advice on how to respond to an online job application that asks for her salary history: “I’m worried I will be shortchanged on my pay because my ‘salary’ has been low, but I have actually provided MUCH more value to my org than that.”
Employers who do this generally claim that they need to know what you’ve earned in the past because it helps them figure out how much you should be earning with them, or so that they can screen out candidates who are earning way more than the position pays and presumably won’t want to take a pay cut. But neither of these reasons holds water. First, companies should be able to determine a candidate’s value for themselves; they don’t need to look to their competitors to tell them a candidate’s worth (and if they really do need to, their hiring process is pretty messed up). And second, if they’re concerned that you’ll be unhappy with the salary they’re offering, they can solve that by posting their range up-front or ask you about your salary expectationsrather than salary history. So it’s BS, and it’s BS that’s designed to give them the upper hand in salary negotiations.
After thinking about it these past few months, I’m going further to make the argument that asking for salary history is not just annoying, but actually borders on UNETHICAL and all of us need to put a stop to it immediately. Here are some reasons why all of need to agree to drop this harmful practice:Continue reading →
Hi everyone, this post is one of the toughest I have written. Mainly because I just watched the latest episode of Game of Thrones and now am feeling depressed and anxious about which character I like is next to die. Just kidding—kind of. This post is difficult to write because individual donor cultivation is complex, and I have been so focused on other areas of our sector that this seems like new territory for NWB. Today’s post, then, is more an invitation for discussion, and I hope fundraisers, and donors, will weigh in with thoughts and counterpoints.
Over the last few years, we have been sharpening our fundraising knives on the whetting stone of donor-centrism in order to carve into the gluten-free loaf of equity and social justice. (This may just be the worst metaphor I’ve written since the Vitamix of summits blending the margaritas of community engagement). Because of the constancy and complexity of fundraising, the brilliant development professionals in our field—Pamela Grow and Mary Cahalane being two that I learn from—have created a model where the donor is at the center. It is not about us and our organizations and programs, but about the donors and their relationships with our missions. I’ve been making sure donors are thanked quickly and in personalized ways and are constantly kept in the loop, for example. And I’ve been learning to say “you” way more often in all my communications, both at work, and even at home—e.g., “YOU do the dishes!”Continue reading →
Last week I went to Boise, Idaho to give a keynote speech. And to eat an Idaho potato in its native setting, which is number 37 on my bucket list. (What, like your bucket list is so much more interesting). Boise is a lovely town, and I think my speech, titled “Happy Hour: A Tool for Social Justice,” went over pretty well with the crowd of 300-or-so friendly Idahoans. It was 45 minutes of profound concepts mixed with hilarious nonprofit jokes like “Why did the ED cross the road? So he could hand-deliver a grant proposal while one of his staff drives around the block…” You know what, you had to be there. (See “8 Classic nonprofit jokes to tell at parties.”)
Anyway, it would be cruel to make you read the entire 7-page, 5,000-word speech. So I’ll just summarize the main points, the chief of them being that we all need to get out of our office more often, because happy hour is not just about getting a drink with some colleagues. It is a tool for social justice, and the fate of the world may just depend on it.Continue reading →