The American Canyon Society (ACS) is a fictitious name for a real organisation. It is not departing too far from reality to say that its mission is to circulate scientific and historical information about the canyons of America. The ACS publishes a quarterly journal about its field of interest. It also sponsors a series of symposia for scientists and outdoor enthusiasts. The journal was initially a black-and-white affair with little original content. In recent years, a new editor took over and turned it into a handsome, colour magazine with original contributions from writers who donate their time. The cost of the journal has vastly exceeded its budget. Culture.
The American Canyon Society is in a quandary about how to make ends meet. It has decided to raise membership dues, its sole source of revenue. Whenever a financial crisis threatens, the ACS always raises its dues; like a government, it reflexively “increases taxes.” As it happens, one of my colleagues sits on the ACS Board of Directors and has presented a development plan for soliciting foundation and corporate support, and individual donations to finance a number of modest initiatives. Some of the board members are intrigued. The President of the ACS, however, does not want to engage in outside fundraising because he is afraid the organisation “will lose its independence”.
The dilemma faced by the ACS is essentially:
(a) it is living beyond its means
(b) the new editor of the journal should observe budgetary constraints
(c) it should not contemplate new initiatives until the journal is made solvent
(d) none of the above
If you answered “none of the above,” you’re right. The problem with this organisation has nothing to do with the cost of its journal. It has everything to do with the culture of the organisation.
Why Organisational Culture Is Critical
To understand the critical role of organisational culture, stop and think about this: Nonprofit organisations are seeking to realise a vision of a better society. Yet most nonprofits in the United States have organisational budgets of less than $250,000 and never grow past this threshold. It is painfully evident at present, during an economic downturn, how revenue shortfalls prevent organisations from achieving their visions. But even at peak phases of the business cycle, the nonprofit sector is grossly undercapitalised. One reason among many for this is that in certain cases an internal factor stops the organisation from raising more revenue and effectively stunts its growth and thwarts its vision.
The important point to grasp is that organisations, like the societies of which they are a part, have distinct cultures. Anthropologists tell us how the culture of one society may differ from that of another. Management consultants clarify the ways in which the culture of one organisation may differ from that of another. For example, some organisations may be highly entrepreneurial. In the nonprofit world, entrepreneurial organisations tend to be those that are extremely outcome-oriented. They emphasise quality assurance and outcome measurements, and focus on customer service. Other organisations may be heavily bureaucratic. An executive I recently met had gone to work for an international children’s charity not long ago. “This place,” he told me, “is more corporate than IBM where I used to work.” The emphasis in that organisation is on the leadership hierarchy and compliance with a rigid schedule of reports and procedures.
An organisation’s culture is created by its leadership (consciously or not), its history, and its shared values, and that culture permeates every cubicle of the nonprofit. From the point of view of a fundraiser, there are three critical aspects of organisational culture in the nonprofit sector. We will examine each of them in turn. They have to do with the organisation’s dominant source of revenue and the possible diversification of the revenue stream; the extent to which an organisation is “inward-” or “outward-looking;” and the capacity of an organisation to revisit its fundamental assumptions.
A Dominant Source of Revenue or Diversification?
Nonprofits have distinct revenue streams that exert a powerful influence on the organisation’s culture. Organisations typically become wedded to a dominant revenue source, which to some degree shapes the perception of reality of the board and staff. A nonprofit that, for example, subsists on government contracts might develop a strong financial office to manage those contracts. The board of directors may be well connected to private wealth, but the organisation will not “see” the possibility of leveraging those connections to cultivate individual donors. Its individual giving program may, justifiably, be nonexistent or embryonic
Similarly, a sluggish nonprofit, like the ACS that muddles along on membership dues, may be reluctant to solicit grants or major gifts because doing so seems alien and bothersome. Another nonprofit, dependent on special events, will concentrate on booking a celebrity for its annual dinner; the tickets sold to people attending the gala will constitute its fundraising for the entire year. Other organisations build full throttle donor programs because they are dependent on a large number of donations to support their good work. In each case, one detects a singular focus that excludes other options, even a certain lack of flexibility and a reluctance to depart from customary ways. These self-imposed restrictions curtail the fundraising program.
In some cases, flexibility may mean finding multiple rivulets within the same revenue stream. That is, an agency living off federal contracts may need to seek out opportunities for state funding to minimise its vulnerability to congressional budget cuts. A nonprofit relying on major gifts may be well advised to cultivate smaller gifts to fuel the next phase of organizational growth. In other cases, a dominant revenue source can at least be complimented with a secondary revenue source which the nonprofit devotes significant resources to develop.
In the case of the ACS, dues were raised uniformly under the assumption that everyone had the same capacity to give! When my colleague proposed the idea of increasing dues according to each member’s capacity, even that new idea was dismissed as “too aggressive!” Culture prevailed: this is how we have done it before and will continue to do it. It was more than one person’s stubborn view; it was group-think! This organisation needs to look itself in the eye and tell itself the truth: Unless its stops stopping itself from diversifying its revenue, it will not stabilise its finances, let alone advance to the next level.
Inward or Outward?
The second critical aspect of organisational culture, from a fundraising perspective, is the “inward” or “outward” focus of the nonprofit. Discovering which way a nonprofit leans—inwardly or outwardly—is easy to determine from a dialogue with the CEO, staff, or Board.
To illustrate, I introduce you to the Neighbourhood Services League. The NSL offers programmes that are highly effective in helping a variety of people in need. Although oriented substantially to government grants, this organisation has had an eye-opening experience. Senior management developed a 5-year plan for future growth and discovered that their projections fall millions of dollars short of their need. They have therefore determined to ratchet up their grant seeking and establish an individual donor programme.
However, as effective as the NSL is in providing social services, it is basically invisible in the community. “We have our newsletter,” say the executive staff. True, but they do not understand the importance of outside marketing and, unfortunately, have never branded their name nor expanded their network. Raising this subject draws blank stares.
An organisation with an inward-focused culture does well with some revenue streams (government and some foundation support) but shoots its fundraising programme in the foot with individual donors. You can use state-of-the-art prospecting techniques to identify prospective donors, but their willingness to give depends on how they feel about your organisation. If they have never heard of your organisation, despite all the good it does, the emotional context for the donation does not already exist. It has to be manufactured, which takes time and effort. An outward-focused organisation creates the groundwork for asking for private money from individuals. That is why the Salvation Army (one of the largest nonprofits in the world) spent a fortune on commercials this past holiday season. The cost of those commercials will be repaid by many years of sustained giving, because the image projected by those commercials—the woman ringing the bell—has touched the heart of millions.
The bell in that remarkable ad tolls for all of us in the nonprofit sector. It tells us that fundraising and marketing go hand-in-hand. The impact the nonprofit has on its community is the product the fundraiser is selling to the prospective donor. An “inward-focused” organisation needs to think strategically about developing the kinds of programs that will amplify its impact. But it first has to understand the way its culture limits it impact and, as a result, its capacity to connect with individual donors. Even if it chooses to stay inwardly inclined, it should at least be conscious of that choice. Too many nonprofits never decide.
Revisiting Fundamental Assumptions
Finally, I want to tell you about the Peace and Justice Center. This nonprofit offers weekend seminars, in a rustic setting, on progressive issues. The Center has been around for a long time, but its adherents have aged and attendance at its seminars has markedly slipped in recent years. It has lived off of a single revenue source for most of its history—seminar fees—and has perennially been an inward- rather than outward-focused organisation. The Center has made efforts to correct these faults. In recent years, it has started (then stopped) a grants programme, been active in individual donor solicitation, and is seeking to raise its organisational profile. But it is still a failing, stagnant nonprofit. One donor referred to it as “anachronistic.” The reason why illuminates the third critical aspect of organisational culture.
It is ingrained in the culture of some organisations to ask hard questions about its fundamental purposes and operations. Other organisations bury their heads in the sand. The Peace and Justice Center has traditionally seen itself as a provider of seminars. It considers each seminar as a separate, discrete entity, and is not used to thinking in other ways or open to new ideas. If it only looked at its operations in a larger perspective, it would see that it could reframe itself as sponsor of projects. It could undertake a peace and justice project—creating an “Agenda for Tomorrow,” for example. The project would encompass a series of weekend seminars focusing on different aspects of social change. If each individual seminar in the series was marketed as a facet of a larger effort, it might draw more—and younger—participants. The whole package would be more compelling and attract more funders, and at the end of the series the Center would have evolved an attention-getting product. The Peace and Justice Center might then conceivably realise its dream of playing a more vital role in national debates. But the Center resists change. It cannot entertain fundamental challenges to the way it does business. It will likely struggle on indefinitely with dwindling finances and the same insoluble dilemmas.
I am aware that the most difficult thing to do is to take a new product to a new market. As a fundraiser I understand the reluctance of nonprofits to commit to a similar process. We are often asking nonprofit organisations to take a new fundraising strategy to a new group of donors. But we recommend these measures because 1) new strategies can be implemented faster than most people think, and 2) they are lucrative.
But the first question that must be addressed is the possible inhibiting effects of an organisation’s culture. Is your nonprofit overly conditioned to a single revenue stream? Should you go more deeply into that dominant revenue stream or diversify? Should we diversify to a second revenue source and/or more than two? Is the organisation too inward-oriented? Is the executive staff unable to take an objective look at its fundamental operations?
Therein may lay the roots of your fundraising dilemma.
What is your experience of challenging or creating organisational culture? Let us know.
Laurence Pagnoni, IFC USA