Blog

leadership, logic model, planning, rationale, strategy, theory of change

6 lessons nonprofits can learn from the Avengers

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of superheroes. And why wouldn’t I be? They’re all about people doing extraordinary things to tackle problems for the greater good.

This year saw the second team up of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes in Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron, bringing Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Hulk, Hawkeye, and others together to take down a global threat. While the movie had its ups and downs, I realized that nonprofits can learn a lot from this group of do-gooders. After all, they too face seemingly insurmountable problems and have to overcome internal and external obstacles to achieve their goals.

So here are six lessons nonprofits can learn from the Avengers:

  1. You can’t do it alone. The Avengers are a group of superheroes who do plenty of good on their own. They each have their enemies and problems that they tackle in their own corners of the world (and universe). So what would force these different heroes to come together? A problem that none of them could overcome by themselves. Yes, they had differences to work through (see below) but they knew they needed each other because none of them could do it alone. Nonprofits are often like Iron Man or Thor, thinking they are mighty enough to do it all without help. Others are like Captain America, rallying others to work together, some are like Black Widow or Hawkeye, ready to work with others as needed, and others are like Hulk, afraid of working with others at all. The bottom line is that if nonprofits want to tackle big problems at scale – solving systemic, root causes – they need to come together. This is how the buzzword “collective action” came about: the idea that we need to work together to achieve real, lasting change. Each organization has its own goals and niche but we come together around a common vision and collectively succeed.
  2. Teamwork is most successful when each member gets to apply their unique skill set. Yes, they’re all pretty fit and strong, but the Avengers are a hodgepodge of heroes, each with their own talents. They clash when there is ego and competition – who’s strongest, smartest, fastest? – but they succeed when they each respect one another’s unique talents and divide the work accordingly. The same is true for nonprofits, whether it’s within an organization or different organizations working together. Instead of one person or organization taking charge of all the work, it’s important to recognize the point above – you can’t do it alone – and divide the work such that each member gets to apply a unique set of skills. Be respectful of each other’s contributions and be humble enough to let others have ownership over something.
  3. Disagreements can be healthy discussion for growth. Because they’re big personalities, each with their own experiences and perspectives, the Avengers don’t always see eye to eye. Captain America and Iron Man/Tony Stark notoriously butt heads, eventually leading to a Civil War among heroes (to be featured in a film next year). In the latest Avengers film, Tony ends up disagreeing with not only Captain America, but Thor and Bruce Banner too, as he pursues his own agenda for creating a security system for the planet. But in the end, these disagreements are how Tony learns to set aside his personal goals and be a better teammate. Sometimes in the nonprofit world, we’re so consumed with our perspective that we don’t want to hear others’ opposing viewpoints. But being open to others’ views and ideas can help strengthen our own by showing us our weaknesses or by offering new questions, thoughts, and insights that help us develop and expand our own thinking. Smart organizations seek out new ideas, rather than dismissing them.
  4. The best intentions can have unintended consequences. In his attempt to protect the planet from another alien invasion, Tony works on the Ultron Project: an artificial intelligence system designed to act as a first line of defense. Of course, what he didn’t foresee was that the system would be so intelligent it would consider humans a threat to themselves, and therefore attempt to eliminate humankind. Similarly, nonprofits set out to solve problems but don’t always consider all the possible effects their actions may have. Taking a simplistic or myopic view of your work and its outcomes may leave you unprepared when things change or the unexpected happens. Organizations should invest in scenario planning – considering different possible futures you may encounter – and in risk assessments that lay out mitigation plans. The best way to ensure you are successful is to plan ahead and be prepared to adapt.
  5. Tackling problems means going after root causes. The Avengers track down Ultron with the aim of destroying him before he destroys humanity. As they attempt to stop their enemy, they also make sure to take care of all the people in danger’s way. But while the Avengers save innocent bystanders, they ultimately they go straight after the root of the problem. Nonprofits don’t always do the same, sometimes dealing with the immediate without ever tackling the root cause. While it’s important to handle the effects of the problem until the problem is solved, it’s far more important to go after the source of the problem, staving off any further negative effects. Effective organizations go after root causes to ensure a lasting solution to the problem they’re facing.
  6. Solving problems means following through to the end. Because Ultron was an artificial intelligence, it wasn’t enough to just destroy his physical form. In order to ensure that Ultron was eliminated for good, the Avengers had to destroy every last robot he built and controlled, so that there was no remaining piece of the program that could survive and rebuild itself. Nonprofits should work towards doing the same – going after the problem with the aim of eliminating it. Not reducing it and not just treating the symptoms of it but pursuing the eradication of the source of the problem. It isn’t going to be easy, but hey, neither is anything worth doing. Organizations should be making progress towards reducing the problem, not just keeping it at bay.

So go ahead. Mock me for liking comic books and superheroes. But don’t dismiss these important lessons for anyone aspiring to tackle societal problems and creating lasting change….

fundraising, planning, strategy

5 things most fundraising plans are missing

A fundraising plan is a critical document for any organization. After all, it states how the organization will generate enough revenue to cover its costs, and if it can’t cover its costs, it can’t make progress towards its mission.

While an organization can do without a formal plan written on paper, the benefits of having a detailed plan are manifold – being strategic can focus one’s efforts, ease decision-making, create efficiencies, and improve effectiveness.

I’ve seen many fundraising plans, ranging from a few ideas jotted down on the back of a napkin to lengthy, sophisticated plans. Yet I repeatedly find some components missing that are often the most useful aspects of a successful fundraising plan:

  • Situation analysis. Development teams often design a plan looking forward, setting goals based on what they achieved the previous year, but they don’t go far enough to look at what else worked and didn’t in their prior efforts, nor how circumstances have changed. The best plans incorporate lessons learned from previous years, consider the current conditions, and avoid repeating mistakes made in the past.
  • Diversified revenue sources. Most plans think about the two common funding sources – individual donors and institutional funders – and that’s it. But if you can diversify your portfolio, you’ll have greater financial stability and resilience in the long run. Think about different way for your organization to generate revenues and earn income, and be sure to consider sources of both restricted and unrestricted funding.
  • Resource assessment. Fundraising plans are organizational, and so they often focus on what the organization needs to earn. They don’t always focus on what the organization will need to be successful at fundraising. What resources do you currently have to execute the plan? What resources will you need at a minimum and what resources would you want to have to expand your efforts? Taking stock will help ensure that your plan is practical and that your development team is set up to succeed.
  • Detailed work plan. More sophisticated organizations know that having a list of how much you want to raise from different sources is just the start. If you want to actually achieve your fundraising goals, you need to know how you will execute. This includes what your timeline and benchmarks are, what your priorities are, what your activities will be, and who will be responsible for what tasks. Having a detailed work plan makes the execution far more efficient and effective, especially if you’re working on a team.
  • Contingency plans. No fundraising plan is foolproof. There is always risk involved, with some revenue sources more likely than others. So what happens if you fail? What’s the backup plan? While most fundraisers can tell you about the probability of receiving funds from different sources, many cannot say what will happen if they don’t meet their goals. If you want to increase your chances of success, do a bit of scenario planning to account for different possible outcomes. It will improve your organization’s financial sustainability in the long term.

If the planning is done right, it should be easier to meet your goals. And if it’s easier to meet your goals, you’re more likely to raise enough funds for your organization. Now who doesn’t want that?

For more on how to develop a strong fundraising plan, check out this upcoming workshop – Smart Planning for Financial Sustainability – at the Foundation Center in San Francisco on Tuesday, June 2nd. Register today!

 

case for support, communications, fundraising, invaluable, leadership, management, planning, strategy

3 misunderstandings about nonprofits that prevent them from succeeding

It’s been six years since “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle” was published and two years since Dan Pallotta gave his famous TED talk about the financial burdens facing nonprofit organizations. Despite these widespread, articulate, and compelling calls to arms – and a plethora of research, reports, guides, and tools – the sector continues to suffer from financial struggles that have broader impacts on its progress and success at tackling societal problems. In 2013, Guidestar, Charity Navigator, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance started the campaign to end the Overhead Myth, but letters and signatures are meaningless unless we actually put words into action.

What is it that’s stopping us from taking action? Why do we continue to do things the same way when we know there’s a problem and there are solutions at hand?

It strikes me that what drives our behavior is a set of underlying assumptions and beliefs about nonprofits – paradigms that paralyze us from doing things differently. These unspoken paradigms perpetuate the funding and management practices that keep nonprofits from thriving financially and successfully responding to societal problems at scale:

  1. The Misnomer of Non-profit. We associate profit with personal gain and nonprofits with the public good, but nonprofits are businesses, and any successful business needs to earn a surplus. For nonprofits, this surplus isn’t doled out to investors but rather it’s reinvested in the growth and improvement of the organization. Without making a profit, nonprofits live under stressful conditions and cannot expand or innovate to have more impact.
  2. The Overhead Problem. We all know the story: not enough money goes to the nonprofit enterprise – the business side of things that provides for the programs and services we all love and desire, a.k.a. “overhead.” The problem is that the overhead-to-program ratio is seen as an indicator for efficiency, when in fact, it’s actually not, and varies with an organization’s business and business model. We should care less about the overhead ratio and more about important things like effectiveness, or whether the organization is actually solving the problem.
  3. The Restricted Nature of Giving. Unlike the way we invest in for-profit companies, with nonprofits we feel we get to specify how our funding should be used, because hey, it’s our money, right? Unfortunately, this restriction on spending limits an organization’s decision-making and reflects a lack of trust that the organization knows how to spend our money wisely. We should have more faith in the people who dedicate their lives to the causes we care about and the organizations we value so much. (And if we don’t have that much faith in them, should we really be giving them our money?)

There are many different efforts out there to improve nonprofits – how to write better fundraising appeals, how to use social media to attract more support, how to manage volunteers, etc. – but those efforts will only have limited success if the deck is stacked against nonprofit organizations as a whole. Until we get at the root of the problem and change the way we value and invest in nonprofit organizations, everything else is like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

For more on these paradigms – and how funders and organizations can break them by doing things differently – download a free copy of Invaluable today.