Tagged: change

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Key Behaviors in Successful Corporate Partnerships

Key behaviors of successful NPO / Corporate partnerships

Continuing our series on Corporate Philanthropy, we take a look at what the key behaviors are that we see in  nonprofits who have developed partnerships that provide a strong, reliable and renewable revenue  stream?

1. They all have a Personal Relationship with the company leaders: As a personal investment, the requirement that we build meaningful dialogue and a unified voice in our efforts to identify opportunities for partnering is essential.  A relationship with our company partners is not a mail campaign.  It’s not a sponsorship pitch.  It is the same level of personalized cultivation applied to our individual major donors.

Getting to a partnership is a process. The flow from first connection (usually a gift of some sort) through partnership generally follows this route:  Transaction —–> Relationship—–> Information——> Partnership.   The relationship traditionally begins with a transaction of some sort: a sponsorship, a membership, a donation, a grant. Capturing the interests of the corporation and appropriately acknowledging and stewarding their generosity, a relationship is developed, where information is shared that further delineates the opportunities and shared values/goals of the two parties, which leads to a partnership.

It’s essential that you get comfortable with building personal relationships for funding or partnerships with your corporate donors. It’s crazy to even have to say that, but many fundraisers we have worked with are intimidated or lack dedication to the relationship building process.  Having a personal relationship with your corporate donors is the most important thing you can do to succeed.

2. Value proposition: Your Value Proposition is a definition of the key benefits you provide to the corporation, as a potential partner. Your client base, your donor market, your organizations core values, where do you operate, what is your brand, who do you influence?  These are value positions used to negotiate what is needed- cash, people, advocacy. Your Value Proposition is not what you do. Let me say that again: VALUE PROPOSITION does NOT equal WHAT YOU DO!

As evidenced in some of the past video and case examples, Nike and others did not partner with the chosen NPO’s because of what they did. What they did was important. And the outcomes were essential to the decision. But the value proposition of those organizations was the quantitative factors they bring to the table: who do they reach? who gives to them? where are they located? what community do they serve? What does their organization represent to the community?

Taking a value inventory will be critical. You can do this internally amongst your staff in a brainstorming session, or you can hire a facilitator to help in the process. Either way, having a very solid knowledge of  your value proposition is essential to successfully identifying and selling your organization to the right corporation for the right partnership.

3. Trust:  This is huge.  We think we know about trust, but in this sense we mean total and complete transparency, clear communication, and fulfillment. Trust is built slowly over time, as a friend recently reminded me. Its not an all or nothing position and it is only bestowed upon you or anyone incrementally with some consideration and time. It is also impermanent, it can change with the tide. Your organization must provide the framework within which that trust can be built with the corporation.  It may mean sharing challenges that you normally would not be compelled or comfortable in sharing about your programs and funding. If it knocks you out of the competition for the companies attention, so be it; better to have it done now, than after you have spent considerable time, resources and energy in building up the relationship. Trust also requires promises to be fulfilled. If you said you would do something with the funding, well you better have at it and show the results.  Things do happen that not goals off course or missed, but the frequent and candid communication you are engaged in, while building trust with your corporate partner, will have taken that into account.

4. Commitment: You know what they say- In breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.  Your commitment to long term strategies requires your organization to have a vision and a strategic direction. Commitment is not chasing the money; it is building on and resourcing the programs and services essential to your success. Nonprofits who have successful corporate partnerships have mission strategies that are imbedded in their DNA, they are clear and concise and tactical. They are committed to the outcomes, no matter what.

Following these four foundational behaviors will position your organization to be prepared for a myriad of corporate funding partnerships that provide long lasting benefits and outcomes.

NEXT POST: Developing a plan for your own corporate partnership program.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Corporate Goals in Philanthropy

What do Companies want from their Corporate Giving?

While a market presence and position is always a number one consideration for business, as they play out their social responsibility in the community, it isn’t necessarily the only factor behind their engagement. It’s important we are aware and respectful of all the driving interests, if we are to develop winning corporate partnerships.

Business benefits top the chart of priorities –

McKinsey & Company, a 75 year old management consulting firm which serves over 70% of the Fortune 500 companies listed today, surveyed 721 executives around the world—74 percent of them CEOs or other C-level executives, about corporate social responsibility. You can find the complete report here.

In their survey, McKinsey found that the vast majority of companies surveyed—nearly 90 percent—seek business benefits, such as customer acquisition and product distribution, from their philanthropy programs.

And some 80 percent of respondents say finding new business opportunities should have at least some role in determining which philanthropic programs to fund, compared with only 14 percent who say finding new business opportunities should have no weight.

So, marketing drives philanthropic partnerships… well, not so fast.

While marketing is an important driver, it should not be the sole driver or lead the development of a partnership between you and the corporation you are seeking to join forces with, as doing so may leave your reputation in question and will certainly not do anything to enhance business benefits for the company. Todays consumers are savvy, much more so than ever in history. For the marketing line to work in corporate/nonprofit partnerships, the relationship with the cause has to make Sense, it has to have Value and be Comprehensive and it has to have a Meaningful Outcome. The cures for cancer that exist which have spawned an ever growing trend of “Pink Washing”, is evidence of the many partnerships that just DON’T make sense  and result in outcomes that are anything but positive and customer building:

Remember “Bucketgate” May 2010? This drew much criticism and debate when it launched around Mothers Day.  Poor KFC, while they thought the pink would bring them notoriety, they didn’t expect the kind they received. And while any press may be good press, this just didn’t make sense, in any remote fashion. And the consumer saw right through it.  Sadly, Susan G Komens’ judgement and incentives were questioned as well.

If business benefits are a leading factor in a company’s drive to develop NPO partnerships through their giving, and pink buckets of chicken are the anti-concept, what does a philanthropic/socially responsible partnership look like?  Take a look at what might be a plausible and valuable brand and marketing position, from Nike.  The Nike Foundation created the ‘Girl Effect’ with critical financial and intellectual contributions by the NoVo Foundation and Nike Inc. and in collaboration with key partners such as the United Nations Foundation and the Coalition for Adolescent Girls. Here is their introductory video. What business benefits might they be seeking in support of this cause? What new business opportunities are they building? How does this make sense?

Not to be a KFC basher (I’ve eaten my share of chicken), but do we see the difference? This program does not appear to have the ‘slap it on a bucket’ approach of KFC. This philanthropic/socially responsible partnership ensures that market is not the key driver, but an integrated aspect of the partnership Nike has developed.

Local Impact is a close second in priorities for driving decisions on philanthropy

Executives overall say their companies are much likelier to address a broad mix of local issues with their corporate philanthropy programs than to address the social and political issues that they expect will affect shareholder value the most. In addition, interviews conducted suggest that companies see addressing local community needs as an indirect way to highlight a company’s good intentions to groups such as board members, shareholders, and regulators.

Chase Community Giving is an excellent example of a corporate giving program that was developed to have local impact. And in an interesting twist, Chase has combined their local perspective with crowd-sourcing: allowing the community to choose the charities which Chase will support.  By having the community vote on their charity of choice. Chase is empowering their community to lead their philanthropy. What is interesting about this, is that it make a case for and support the concept of, nonprofit accountability. If your NPO is not relevant in your community, if your community does not know about, care about or support your work….if you’re not doing good work and reaching meaningful outcomes- then you’re not a contender for Chase philanthropy. Their vetting process for impact is knitted into their philanthropy program.

Employee Base needs is the third critical goal of companies in their philanthropic giving –

Respondents in McKinsey’s survey most often cite employees as the stakeholder group important to the way companies think about their roles in society and as the group companies most often address with corporate philanthropy programs.

Employee satisfaction, retention, recruitment, all are critical business factors to corporations. By aligning their philanthropy with their employee base interests, they develop efficiencies in both lines. Often a company will have employee driven efforts, special programs which only employees can access for philanthropic engagement, pooled funds from employee activities, volunteer efforts devoted to employee outreach to the community and more directed at the interests and activities of employee groups.

A Recap –

The goals most often cited by corporations in their corporate giving strategies— 1. business benefits: enhancing brand, market reach; 2. working locally; and 3. building employee capabilities, improving employee recruitment and retention, all must be factored into the developed program you are building with your prospective corporate partner. If your program offers all three, its the trifecta of a corporate partnerhsip.

Who are the innovators?

Lets take a look at two award winners from the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy’s Corporate Philanthropy Day 2010. As you watch this, try to capture as many of the goals and key outcomes we just discussed, in the programs these two innovators have developed.

Pretty comprehensive right? And I can guarantee these were not created in a marketing office, but were organically developed between the company body and the nonprofit they had the closest relationship with.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Corporate Social Responsibility

What is Corporate Social Responsibility?

And more importantly, why is it an important part of our conversation in discussing our relationship with corporate partners in philanthropy?

The reality is that Corporate Social Responsibility is an emerging field. It is a very broad and evolving area of development for corporations and not for profits alike, a new terrain for which maps are much needed, but often are imprecise.

It has a complexity that is only seen in the emergence of new ideas and systems , a nucleus of thoughts, practices and evidenced based studies that are lending to the defining structure that it is becoming, following along the lines of chaos theory.   To a corporation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)  has a multitude of components, too many to review in this one small post.  Its concept and its practice is complex,  often disjointed and, currently, most often reactive.  Divergent views and information overload is nowhere more apparent than in the field of corporate social responsibility. Each company is different, each with its own challenges, corporate culture, unique set of stakeholders and management systems. Each with its own view and opinion and strategy.

But amid this swirling pool of CSR anti-matter, certain agreed upon norms and standards are being established. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development makes this statement on defining Corporate Social Responsibility:

Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large

And this from an MBA textbook on defining corporate social responsibility:

Corporate Social Responsibility  is the decision-making and implementation process that guides all company activities in the protection and promotion of international human rights, labor and environmental standards and compliance with legal requirements within its operations and in its relations to the societies and communities where it operates. (Lehigh University, College of Business and Economics)

Two very nearly similar definitions. We are getting close to a commonality of expected beliefs and outcomes, among everyone involved in defining CSR.

Despite its complexity most corporations practicing a CSR culture, administer and measure their CSR programs along these three areas:

External Business Practices: How the corporation does business.  Who they compete with, who they partner with, their supply chain, their products, their distribution lines  and the impact their business has on society.

Internal Business Practices: Their corporate governance, their corporate policies, investments, ethical balance structure and the impact their business has on their employees

Impact Partnerships:  How they respond to societal issues that specifically impact their business practices, both internal and external and who they partner with in doing so.

Secondly, most corporations will agree that the measurement of these are based on three bottom lines:  Financial bottom line outcomes, Environmental bottom line outcomes and Social bottom line outcomes. This is called the triple bottom line.

Defining 3BL

For our role, as nonprofits seeking to shift our approach in securing corporate funding, it is essential to know and understand the core concept, terms and definitions on CSR as outlined here. Our ability to engage in an educated dialogue about our partners corporate social responsibility is critical to our successfully defining a partnership that meets both our and their needs.

CSR HISTORY

Let me take you through a quick history on corporate social responsibility. Some may think it’s a new idea, a fad or a recent breakthrough in thinking. But it goes as far back as the late 1800’s. Evidence of corporate socially responsible practices among industrialized corporations can be found in some of our most familiar company names. For instance, take the Sears Roebuck Company, a company that was near bankruptcy when Julius Rosenwald, joined the company in 1895.

During his tenure as vice president, treasurer and then president, Rosenwald grew the company from a failing $750,000 a year corporation to over $50 million.  As part of his growth plan, Rosenwald invested a lot of Sears’ money into society, specifically agriculture. Rosenwald understood that the growth of Sears Roebuck was wholey dependent on the growth and wellbeing of the company’s customer- the American Farmer and its field hands. And so he invested in his company by investing in his customer, through their societal, educational and family needs.

Why Rosenwald did this was not ‘termed’ corporate social responsibility until 1953 with the publication of  the book ‘Social Responsibility of Businessmen’ by economist and college president Howard R. Bowen.

But still the term languished, without much fanfare for about a decade, until the phrase was reinvigorated in the 60’s and 70’s around the time when big international companies faced anti-corporate sentiments because of environmental and human rights issues. In fact, companies faced large scale boycotts of their goods and services to force change among corporate practices affecting society and the environment.

Through the 80’s discussion of the concept of CSR grew. During that time, most socially responsible behavior was positioned as a philanthropic activity based on a company’s fixed budget that was allocated to support nonprofit organizations – mostly doing so to “look good”. These funds were sometimes allocated to many organizations  with the idea that to satisfy as many interest groups and to gain as much visibility as possible was a beneficial goal. The commitment was usually short term and restricted to making donations that were heavily influenced by the wishes of the senior management of the organization, and mostly to bring about a marketing position through brand awareness at nonprofit events.

Then in 1989, Ben and Jerry’s distributed the first ever Social Responsibility Annual Report. People took notice, because it authentically calculated Ben and Jerry’s  business practices and policies that lead to meaningful outcomes for society and the environment and to bottom line financial benefits to the company and the communities it supported.

Academic exploration, corporate research and charitable interest in CSR began to escalate at a rapid rate. In 1992 the Earth Summit in Rio was a key moment in the evolution of CSR. At this Summit, it was reported that “the level of corporate involvement in the summit was unprecedented, unlike anything ever seen before, with a coalition of 48 companies coming together to establish a new coalition, the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)”. This coalition placed the academic and financial exploration of  CSR culture on the map in a way now other group or company had been able to do before. The BCSD would later become the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) which continues to be an authority in CSR and have tremendous influence on the corporate social responsibility stage.

Since that time, corporate social responsibility as an essential and important business practice has moved from discussion in the cubicles of most corporations, to a presence in the board room and a position on the balance sheet of almost all company’s large and small.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Influencers: NPO

INFLUENCES ON THE NOT FOR PROFIT SECTOR

The recession was a wake up call.

Many nonprofits were left high and dry when their sole funding stream, gov’t line items, grants or contracts, began to disappear. Many scrambled to pressure the feds, others sought funding elsewhere. Some sadly closed up or, if they were lucky, merged with a similar organization.

Relying too heavily on one form of funding is a death knell. Diversifying funding is essential to nonprofit sustainability. In the recently released 2010 Nonprofit Fundraising study by the Foundation Center, organizations raising over $3MM annually did so because of their diversified funding streams. Over seven different funding vehicles were used by over 73% of those in the $3MM plus group. How many funding streams are you accessing right now? Corporate giving is an important part of those streams.

Another influence on nonprofits, peeking their interest and attention toward new corporate philanthropy, is the overwhelming BUZZ on corporate social responsibility, which has not been missed by these organizations. This is making them question their approach and strategy and reformulating to meet the new corporate perspectives. Additionally, many nonprofits are now finding themselves being denied funding from previous corporate partners, many of whom they relied on for significant help, because the companies in question are realigning their giving in a more unified and strategic fashion with their CSR model.

Finally,  bad information being disseminated and lack of research on corporate giving among the nonprofit sector has a negative influence on our thinking and planning.  Corporate giving is not about marketing.  Neither is it influenced by an ‘obligation’ the company feels to society.  And if we went off and approached our corporate partners with this in mind we would be dead in the water before we got to the closing statement.

It is an investment, not an obligation; a partnership, not a market approach. And it is directly tied to their business goals.

Up tomorrow: Defining Corporate Social Responsibility to understand process, policy and approach

SHIFT- Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Influencers: CSR

THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON CORPORATE GIVING

You’ve heard me use the term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).  It is the increase in the number of corporations attemping to define and implement their CSR that is also influencing corporate philanthropy.

Corporate Social Responsibility is not a new concept. It actually has been an ‘activity’ of corporations for over 100 years. We’ll explore its roots a little further into this series.

But it is the phenomenal growth of CSR over the last twenty years, both in number of companies embracing its tenets as well as companies creating a more deeply integrated CSR strategy in their business model, which has been a driving force in the way corporations are defining and implementing their philanthropic activities. Essentially, CSR is a strategic shift away from ‘giving to’ charities, toward  ‘investing in’ opportunities with charities, opportunities that align with their business goals.

What used to look like this: A corporation giving in a variety of ways to a variety of causes that were defined primarily by societal and community pressures…



Begins to look more like this: a turning inward to investigate the corporations basic social, brand and financial benefits and then identifying a unified cause that aligns and supports beneficial outcomes to those measures.

Does this mean there is less for us?

Absolutely not, the amount of corporate giving is increasing, its just the segments in which we will be viable partners are different.

Hear from Jerry Lee, co-founder of Newton Running, talk about his desire to express social responsibility through the vision and mission of his companys philanthropy.

Up tomorrow: Influences on Nonprofit Organizations in seeking more sustainable corporate funding.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Influencers

THE INFLUENCE OF GOVERNANCE ON CORPORATE GIVING

In addition to the shifts and perspectives being discussed and implemented in the business academic world, we see advancement in environment surrounding business governance as well.

ISO 26000 was implemented September 14 2010. For those not familiar, The ISO –a network of the national standards institutes of some 160 countries that develops and coordinates standards of operations for business lines. The standards govern management of Quality, Risk Environmental and now Social Responsibility. Simply put, these standards are applied to a company’s business practices, who actively engage in pursuing compliance. When they do so, they are awarded an ISO brand of approval for achieving and maintaining these standards. These are highly coveted and companies who achieve them make them visible.

In the words of the ISO itself “The world demands social responsibility. ISO 26000, the first internationally approved standard to provide guidance on social responsibility, is a global response to this global challenge.”

The ISO 26000 is intended to outline for companies:

  • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;
  • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;
  • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;
  • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;
  • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behavior throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;
  • identifying and engaging with stakeholders; and
  • communicating commitments, performance and other information related to social responsibility.

This is the first time an organized set of standards has been produced and disseminated for companies to follow. Thought leaders believe this will be game changing for companies in strategizing and developing their social responsibility.

ISO 26000 is a response and a governance influence on corporations. IN part it may stem from the multitude of influencer’s outside the corporate circle. When JP Morgan Chase investors assemble to vote on a “Genocide Free” investing policy for the company, the pressure to conform and perform to standards is undeniable.  Loss of trust by the consumer, civil society activism and Institutional investor pressures, all bear significant influence on corporations today.

VIDEO: Highlights on ISO 26000 from inside sources            

Engaging Your board In Fundraising: Framing Your Perspective

So in my last post we talked a little bit about Passion in your Board being the driving force for Philanthropy. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Lets bring it back to the beginning.

In order to be open to new ideas, its essential we frame our own perspective on the boards involvement in fundraising.

Whats important to know is why bother? We all know that it is often easier to just do it ourselves. The board asks too many questions, is too resistant. Doesn’t believe, isn’t invested, doesn’t even give themselves. They are too judgemental, demanding and disconnected. They are naive and lack the fundamental education to be effective. They are more interested in the type of potatoes to serve at the next gala, or the color of the napkins. Maybe what time to tee off at the golf tournament, or whether its a scramble or best ball format.

Is this how you see your board?

A board’s legal role is to govern and act as fiduciary authority for the nonprofit organization. By their position, their involvement in fundraising is expected. Additionally, their presence on your board puts them on stage. The community is watching. If the community sees a board not raising money for the organization, then the community sees an organization that matters little with regard to their own donation. If the board isn’t involved, then why should they be. Board involvement in fundraising (not only giving of their money but being involved in raising it) validates the nonprofits mission. Nothing will kill an NPO faster than an invisible board of directors.

Also, no organization is an island. It would be virtually impossible for one Exec Director and a fundraising staffer to go out and raise all the money needed to survive. Its a Sisyphean endeavor. But with the board invested AND involved we have tripled and quadrupled our opportunities to get the job done. The network of your board and their networks network, act as a funnel flipped on its side to share the burden and increase the return.

Legal accountability, organizational validation and increased outreach/expanded return, three solid reasons why getting your board involved is critical to the success of fundraising in your organization.

So if its this important, then why cant they get out there and help?

Well here is the reason. And you’re not going to like it. Maybe I’ll lose my followers at this point, but the reality is:

Most board issues are not about the board, but about us.

There, I said it. And for those of you still reading, here is why.

If asked, here is what board members will say about why they are resistant to getting involved in fundraising. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but it is a good representation of some of the most commonly heard complaints:

No education

Too overwhelming

Too embarrassing (no skill)

Not aware what they were signing up for

No money themselves

Fear of rejection

Or fear that they are asking too much of someone, something the other can’t part with.

Lack of confidence in plan, process, person, organization

Disinterested

I had a board member say to me once, she would rather shrivel up and die, than ask for money. That’s hard core resistance.

What they say and what they feel are actually two very separate things, but connected. Most boards resist fundrasing because we have not done our job in leading and administering the fundraising effort. We too often lack concrete goals, lack clarity in board roles, we offer hazy expected objectives/outcomes of their efforts, we develop poor organization of the donor pool, we lack research on prospects, we have ineffective communication of organizational success, and so on and so forth. When they say its overwhelming, we have to ask- Are we being clear and concise in our goals? Is the prospect information simply understood, specific and relevant? Is the process organized and direct, with concrete outcomes, strategy and actions steps? Do we have valid measurements to share? When they say they are embarrassed, have we done our job in bringing the mission into the board room, developing passion, choosing the right board members? I can hazard a guess that the early board members of Susan G. Komen Foundation were not embarrassed about fundraising, as they had the passion for the mission, they were the right people for the job.

Being responsible for our board not fundraising doesn’t make us bad or not worthy of support. It does make us take inventory of our internal operations, our strategy, our board development and our leadership, in developing the best possible framework for the board to fundraise within. And thats were our control comes into play.

In my next post we will talk about some of these controls, starting with developing our board of directors to be an engaged, passionate board.

Slow Money…Salvaged Soul

Go here

Slow Money

Amazing concept and yet so…..organic? familiar? basic?

Principles of the Slow Money Alliance include:

In order to enhance food safety and food security; promote cultural and ecological health and diversity; and, accelerate the transition from an economy based on extraction and consumption to an economy based on preservation and restoration, we do hereby affirm the following Principles:
I. We must bring money back down to earth.

II. There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex. Therefore, we must slow our money down — not all of it, of course, but enough to matter.

III. The 20th Century was the era of Buy Low/Sell High and Wealth Now/Philanthropy Later—what one venture capitalist called “the largest legal accumulation of wealth in history.” The 21st Century will be the era of nurture capital, built around principles of carrying capacity, care of the commons, sense of place and non-violence.

IV. We must learn to invest as if food, farms and fertility mattered. We must connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises.

V. Let us celebrate the new generation of entrepreneurs, consumers and investors who are showing the way from Making A Killing to Making a Living.

VI. Paul Newman said, “I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer who puts back into the soil what he takes out.” Recognizing the wisdom of these words, let us begin rebuilding our economy from the ground up, asking:

* What would the world be like if we invested 50% of our assets within 50 miles of where we live?
* What if there were a new generation of companies that gave away 50% of their profits?
* What if there were 50% more organic matter in our soil 50 years from now?

Wow. Finally, a better way to measure our success as a society.


Luck is a matter of preparation meeting opportunity

…or as a friend said to me while we were on his boat crossing Long Island Sound one weekend, discussing possible impending storms, “Chance favors a prepared mind.”

How do we get prepared? How do we continuously scan the horizon, absorbing the bigger picture, while staying present to the tasks at hand? How do we recognize and take advantage of those life changing moments as they appear, those moments that we may look back on in hindsight and say “My life changed that day”.

It’s impossible to believe we can stay ever vigilant, that we can be prepared always, that we can be on “one hundred percent” of the time. The physiological aspect of being in a state of readiness is not a sustainable state for the body to be in:  The body’s response to being in a state of alertness cannot be maintained for long periods of time because stress hormones produced in the adrenal glands help to heighten alertness, and prolonged release of these hormones can lead to illness, injury or even death, according to leading physiology docs.

But we can:

  • Stay attuned to change. Prepared for it. Ready to accept it and embrace its nuances and its large bats……
  • Stay prepared for new ideas. Look for the unusual in everyday life.
  • Stay alert to new relationships. Being willing to share yourself with someone new. No matter what the situation.

These three easy ways to have a ‘prepared mind’ are the least stressful to your psyche and body.

And reap the most rewards.

Is your Philanthropy program the next Singer?

How many fundraising efforts die from stagnation? How many times do we do the same things over and over and expect different results? Sometimes best practices is not best practice, but the default go to brought on by years of default go to positions.

From Seth Godin “More now than ever, success today is no guarantee of success tomorrow. Sometimes we spend more time than we should defending the old thing, instead of working to take advantage of the new thing. I bet you can list a dozen “critical” industries that will be as relevant to life in 2020 as Singer is to our world today.”

What would you throw out/do differently/overhaul if you had the courage to do so?

Question the status quo, even AND especially if it is bringing you good results.  Stay ahead of the curve. Question assumptions, question the default go to position. Doing nothing different will ensure the same results. Make sure those are the results you are looking for.