David La Piana

As a sector, nonprofits are poised at an historic moment.

Several developments are coming together to make the next few years a time of unusual opportunity for positive change in the way we are structured, the way we work together, and the way we interact with constituents.

The sector has already been buzzing about a perceived generation gap, particularly as it relates to leadership succession planning. But this generational shift has implications beyond the role of Executive Director.

The sector has to adapt to engage constituents as well as leaders.

The aging of the Boomer generation presents opportunities for emerging leaders to step into key roles in the sector and for experienced Boomer leaders to redefine their roles as they redefine retirement.

Still, the generations will need to bridge differences and work together as partners for years to come.

At the same time, many nonprofits will need to fundamentally shift their expectations for engagement of supporters in internal processes, decision-making, and “membership” activities if they are to survive. We have recently worked with several large membership groups which recognize that engaging younger generations will require a different kind of organization.

In my first Getting To Yes post, I described our collaborative committee model and the requirements for joining the collaborative effort. Then I described the process of defining an organization’s seemingly intractable problem and discovering a solution that satisfies previously rival stakeholders.

At this stage, we advise clients to begin testing this solution with key constituents who are not on the committee.

It is at this stage that a strange and wonderful thing happens.

The committee members, with newly found “ownership” of the possible solution, become advocates for it. And the committee of previously rival stakeholders begins to form a real team.

The larger organization takes notice: “If Joe and Jane can agree to anything, it must have some merit,” they think. And the ownership of the solution spreads throughout the organization.

A lasting benefit of this approach is that it can model collaborative problem solving throughout an entire organization. Often the original problem addressed through the collaborative committee model is just one component of a much larger organizational conflict, and the process serves as a successful strategy for leaders to address other large and complex issues facing their organization.

In my previous post, I described a first step in addressing the complex interpersonal issues that can hinder an organization’s governance effectiveness. After forming a committee of rival stakeholders we work to clearly define the issue that has the organization seemingly deadlocked.

This process includes detailing the history of the issue, past attempts to address it, and any other pertinent facts or observations.

But the goal of this process moves beyond pure catharsis when we begin to pose “what if” scenarios. By engaging the committee members in a reasoning process without immediately requiring they declare their support or opposition for any given idea, stakeholders begin to see commonalities of interest that were previously masked, and the vague outlines of a solution start to emerge…

Complex questions about governance structure, function, and purpose often get confounded by interpersonal histories. This leads to avoiding key issues rather than risk facing the wrath of fellow board members who are in different camps.

Our collaborative committee model is a simple yet amazingly effective technique. Our approach brings together varied interests from large organizations to tackle what have been seen as intractable problems.

The key ingredient to this model’s success: forming a committee of stakeholders who represent the organization’s different, and even conflicting, viewpoints.

We propose our client’s adopt two requirements for committee membership:

1. Members must be identified within the organization as staunch advocates for their position and as key influencers. Any compromise these members reach will cause others throughout the organization with similar views to take notice.

2. Members must be reasonable. Not necessarily easygoing or un-skeptical, but members should be critical thinkers who are capable of fair and rational judgment.

When targeting prospective clients and seeking new contracts, other consulting firms may focus on the size of an organization’s annual operating budget or on how their particular offerings can be repackaged and served up to fit a prospective client’s need.

At La Piana Associates, we approach our prospective clients as partners.

Our earliest motivation to serve an organization usually stems from the nonprofit’s compelling mission. We get inspired by our clients’ causes. Whether it is protecting human rights, saving the planet, or healing victims of abuse, it’s the mission that animates our work.

Next, we are moved by the possibilities for personal connection and collaboration with the people at the client organization. Our best work comes from partnering with clients who are open to learning with us, open to change, open, ultimately, to seeing us as partners.

For example, the consulting project may not be well-articulated by the client at the outset, which is natural because they are seeking help, in part, to frame their understanding of the issues. Through our joint scoping process, we partner with the client to help define the project goals and reinforce why it is important.

If a prospective client views our firm in a more utilitarian light, what Peter block calls “an extra pair of hands,” the client is overlooking one of our greatest assets – our eagerness to forge a long-term relationship. As partners, the relationship with our clients does not end at the close of the project. We keep in touch, clients feel comfortable coming back to ask us questions, or we might forward an occasional article they may find interesting…

Unlike other firms who may focus solely on project outcomes and deliverables, La Piana Associates invests in relationships.

The recent New York Times news article, “Tax Exemptions of Charities Face New Challenges,” discusses the alarming trend of how nonprofits are perceived by government and society.

Few will argue that Massachusetts imposing a 2.5% annual fee on Harvard University’s $35 billion endowment is unreasonable, but where do we draw the line?

Rather than raise voters’ taxes, government officials are hastily seeking less politically suicidal “revenue enhancements.” While government needs a workable financial model, it should not forget its dependence on the nonprofit sector.

When government reduces its services, nonprofits step-in to fill the gap, and in many cases, offer higher quality services at a lower cost. Government contracts with these nonprofits – off-loading responsibilities to organizations that cover the difference between their costs and the government’s payment rate through a combination of fees, donations, and below-market salaries.

Government’s short-sighted trend of taxing the nonprofit sector’s narrow margins will have a crippling effect and many nonprofits may not survive. This will hurt the communities they serve and will result in fewer nonprofits for government to rely on over time.