May 17, 2011

Sector Vendors’ Stocks Beat Broader Market

Leadership... 7 pragmatic steps to culture change

Volunteer Management... 4 groups need an ‘idiot’s’ attention

Associations... Using members to accomplish mission

Job Posting of the Week

 Twitter for nonprofit jobs

CEO
Rochester, New York

Mission, Policy, and Planning In collaboration with the Board, develop and implement direction of the organization and strategic goals and objectives in alignment with the agency's mission, values and strategic plan

Click Here To See Complete Description and To Apply

By Mark Hrywna

The stocks of public companies that serve nonprofits enjoyed a healthy year in 2010, gaining more than the broader markets, and some continued to climb into the first quarter of 2011 as the markets enjoyed their best quarter in 13 years.

One dozen public companies whose clients are made up at least partially of charities were examined by The NonProfit Times. Leading the way in 2010 were San Francisco-based Salesforce.com (CRM), up 79 percent, followed by Oracle (ORCL) in Redwood Shores, Calif., which was up 29 percent, and Little Rock, Ark.-based Acxiom (ACXM), which gained 28 percent.

As a whole, the 12-stock index was up about 28 percent, considerably better than even the broader markets, such as the Dow Jones’ 11-percent spike, the S&P 500, which was up 13 percent, and NASDAQ, gaining 17 percent last year.

As the markets continued their solid single-digit gains into 2011’s first quarter, so too did those firms that deal with nonprofits. Some companies, however, did see a little pullback, including Acxiom, down 16 percent; Microsoft, 9 percent, and Harte-Hanks (HHS), 7 percent. Overall, the dozen companies just about kept pace with the Dow, 6 percent; S&P, 5 percent, and NASDAQ, 5 percent, in the first quarter.

Leadership...
7 pragmatic steps to culture change

An organization’s culture is valuable, because the culture is usually tied to the mission. That is not to say, however, that there can’t be cultural problems, too.
Changing a culture can send shockwaves through an organization and, if not done right, permanent damage.

In their article “Stop Blaming Your Culture,” which appears in the Spring 2011 issue of the Booz and Company publication “Strategy + Business,” Jon Katzenbach and Ashley Harshak of Booz and Company write that acceptance and commitment will not bring about cultural change without discipline, alignment and the right capabilities.

They suggest the following pragmatic practices for changing culture:

* Start pragmatically. Don’t try to change everything at once. Focus on a few critical behaviors that will resonant with current culture but will raise an organization’s performance.
* Reinforce the new behaviors through formal and informal means. Provide formal metrics, incentives and process guidance.
* Seek out role models for the new behavior. Start with the people who distinguish themselves by the way they act.
* Enlist your current “cultural carriers.” These are the people who are well positioned to transmit behaviors to others.
* Use the culture you already have.  Take pains to say within the most essential tenets of the existing culture.
* Model what matters most. Be a visible and consistent role model.
* Clarify the specific implications of the new behavior. Remember that people need guidance.

Volunteer Management...
4 groups need an ‘idiot’s’ attention

Juggling greased bowling balls, walking on a tightrope over the lion cage, trying to keep the clowns from driving the car through the tent, such is the life of a nonprofit manager.

And that’s before things get hectic.

Things can feel like constant crisis in the for-profit world as well, but nonprofit leaders must also be aware of the needs and contributions of volunteers.
In “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Recruiting & Managing Volunteers,” John L. Lipp urges managers to be aware of the four constituencies demanding equal time:

* The volunteers. Even if they are serving for the most altruistic of reasons, volunteers have their own needs and expectations. Any organization that ignores those needs and expectations will find itself dealing with retention issues and low morale.

* The clients. No matter what the organization or the population it serves, they all have expectations of what the organization and its volunteers will provide.

* The organization. Regardless of the size, scope or mission of the organization, it is important to protect the integrity of the organization and view it as a separate entity that exists independent of any one person.

* Peers. Co-workers on a paid staff or other leadership volunteers serving on a committee, peers have their own needs and expectations when it comes to partnering with volunteers.

Associations...
Using members to accomplish mission

The word “member” rolls off the tongue easily for many nonprofit managers. Too easily, it sometimes seems, because the word implies an exchange of perceived value that might or might not be shared by the nonprofit and its members.

Since the mission model of many nonprofits depends on the effectiveness of the membership, a flawed model can be a handicap.

Fortunately, a little analytic clarity can help shape an effective membership strategy. The starting point is that the membership transaction is always structured, however loosely, as some kind of quid pro quo exchange. The elements of what makes membership valuable for both sides are easy enough to identify. There is an economic aspect, usually monetary, although in some cases what is exchanged might be things like the member’s time and the organization’s skill. And there is the nonprofit’s benefit(s) and the member’s gain.

Nonprofit managers who want to use members effectively must start with a clear-eyed notion of what they want members to accomplish and what they want the members to feel they’ve gained in return. In this way, members are unabashedly a tool for accomplishing a mission. Since membership is always voluntary, it can be presumed that members share that mission.

The place where most membership propositions break down is around how well the nonprofit can predict its members will react. Sometimes members disappoint because they simply don’t respond robustly enough. In most of these cases, though, the breakdown can be traced to a flaw in the nonprofit’s mission model, or a failure in execution.