Janette Mitchell’s Post

Lots of insight in here about Board dynamics - well worth a read.

Great article. There are several “Duties” that boards, for-profit and not-for-profit must legally follow. The Duty of Loyality is the original principle of a fiduciary relationship. Too often not followed by not-for-profit boards. https://lnkd.in/eKUeUYRq

Charity leaders, this is an interesting article and digs into the relationship between Trustees and CEOs. Debra points out that a Chair is not the ‘boss’ of the Trustees and gives some great insights. This one has really resonated with me: “Never, ever force your Chair, by your inaction, to initiate ‘management performance’ conversations without the whole board being able to contribute their views.” Have a read 👇 #Charity #Trustee #NonProfit

A very useful read

How do you go about finding a Chair of trustees? 🤔 We at Football Journeys are on the hunt for a new Chair. But it's not like people walk around with "Looking to become a Chair of Trustees" sign hung round their neck. Obvs the ad is on Reach Volunteering but where else to hunt? They can just be a normal human. Ideally one who: • can build strong relationships and collaborate on plans and oversight of the charity's work with young people in London 🤝 • understands a bit about good charity governance 📊 • is genuinely nice to work with 😊 Being at the top of the trustee table doesn't mean they should be • a dictator 🚫 • all knowing on all issues 😇 • someone who'll ignore everyone else's input 🙉 Should we looking for people who are passionate about young people, football, and filmmaking? ⚽ 🎥 Or should I think of just have a general interest in the charity sector? Have you ever recruited a Chair? Any tips or tricks for finding the right person?

To Ask or Not to Ask: The Shakespearean Fundraising Dilemma If people enjoy giving, why avoid a fundraising ask? Being solicited and the joy that can arrive from giving aren't synonymous. Relatedly, giving isn't what brings joy, it's how the person feels after. I don't give because I feel sad, I give in hopes of feeling not sad and ideally, psychologically rewarded. Giving is a three-part act: --Act One: Being solicited --Act Two: Act of giving or not --Act Three: How one feels as a result of Act 2 choice But if Act One never happens because the person avoids it, it's a short play. Think back to December grocery trip and the inevitable encounter with the Salvation Army bellringers.  What did you do? Go in the door where they weren't? Avoid eye contact? Or maybe seek them out? Regardless, this isn't a foreign situation. Everybody knows what's gonna happen; you'll be asked to donate whether verbal and explicit or non-verbal, implied. Your behavior is informed from your past. If I gave and felt good about it (vs. pressured or guilted) and if I hadn't given already this year, I might be inclined to seek them out or at least not actively avoid them. On the other hand, what if my prior experience felt guilt inducing? Or perhaps it was good, but I gave last week. An experiment (Andreoni, Rao and Trachtman, 2011) was run outside a grocery store with researchers monitoring foot traffic. It was a 2x2 design with 1 door or 2 having Salvation Army bellringers and actively asking versus not. Giving was lowest with a bell ringer at only 1 of 2 doors and no verbal, active asking and highest at the other end of the continuum - ringers at both doors and both actively asking. The researchers found that avoiders don't give even when they're unable to avoid.  Said differently, there were plenty of folks who avoided saying no but when unable to avoid it, did so. The more active asking 'converts' those who are not avoiding saying no but rather, avoiding having their empathetic response activated since they know they'll either give or feel guilty for not doing so. None of this is not sticky giving, it's fueled by low-quality motivation, a one-off. The bellringer isn't getting repeat donations or even donor names, which would be fine except the guilt induced gift doesn't build brand connection or goodwill, it kills it. It's short term "gain" for long-term pain. All these dynamics play out with passive, non-interpersonal fundraising - i.e. mail, email, digital of all sorts, etc. How much of our declining acquisition rates and 2nd gift conversion is because we're trying to convert the unconvertible or trying to keep the new donor who gave for reasons with no staying power? Donating is not the same as feeling good about it. One of the ways to improve Act One is making it more tailored and personalized to Identity and Personality and making sure it's need supportive. Another - be explicit in the ask about how the donor will feel after.      

To Ask or Not to Ask: The Shakespearean Fundraising Dilemma If people enjoy giving, why avoid a fundraising ask? Being solicited and the joy that can arrive from giving aren't synonymous. Relatedly, giving isn't what brings joy, it's how the person feels after. I don't give because I feel sad, I give in hopes of feeling not sad and ideally, psychologically rewarded. Giving is a three-part act: --Act One: Being solicited --Act Two: Act of giving or not --Act Three: How one feels as a result of Act 2 choice But if Act One never happens because the person avoids it, it's a short play. Think back to December grocery trip and the inevitable encounter with the Salvation Army bellringers.  What did you do? Go in the door where they weren't? Avoid eye contact? Or maybe seek them out? Regardless, this isn't a foreign situation. Everybody knows what's gonna happen; you'll be asked to donate whether verbal and explicit or non-verbal, implied. Your behavior is informed from your past. If I gave and felt good about it (vs. pressured or guilted) and if I hadn't given already this year, I might be inclined to seek them out or at least not actively avoid them. On the other hand, what if my prior experience felt guilt inducing? Or perhaps it was good, but I gave last week. An experiment (Andreoni, Rao and Trachtman, 2011) was run outside a grocery store with researchers monitoring foot traffic. It was a 2x2 design with 1 door or 2 having Salvation Army bellringers and actively asking versus not. Giving was lowest with a bell ringer at only 1 of 2 doors and no verbal, active asking and highest at the other end of the continuum - ringers at both doors and both actively asking. The researchers found that avoiders don't give even when they're unable to avoid.  Said differently, there were plenty of folks who avoided saying no but when unable to avoid it, did so. The more active asking 'converts' those who are not avoiding saying no but rather, avoiding having their empathetic response activated since they know they'll either give or feel guilty for not doing so. None of this is not sticky giving, it's fueled by low-quality motivation, a one-off. The bellringer isn't getting repeat donations or even donor names, which would be fine except the guilt induced gift doesn't build brand connection or goodwill, it kills it. It's short term "gain" for long-term pain. All these dynamics play out with passive, non-interpersonal fundraising - i.e. mail, email, digital of all sorts, etc. How much of our declining acquisition rates and 2nd gift conversion is because we're trying to convert the unconvertible or trying to keep the new donor who gave for reasons with no staying power? Donating is not the same as feeling good about it. One of the ways to improve Act One is making it more tailored and personalized to Identity and Personality and making sure it's need supportive. Another - be explicit in the ask about how the donor will feel after.  

Are you looking to give back to our community? Quite often when talking to founders I get asked "what can I do to help?" And this is such a huge question, because it's all connected. Community centres like this give opportunities to people, give them a space to connect, and a place to come together. By building communities we become a place of collaboration and support instead of competition. If you'd like to get involved, take a look at Charles Tyrer's post below.

important and useful analysis as always, all charities should read

Things I learnt at this morning's networking event at Venue16 with guest speaker St Elizabeth Hospice. 1. When you haven't networked for a while you just need to dive in to chat with people and not wait around too much. 2. Seeing at least one face you recognise can help if you're feeling nervous. 3. Having tea/coffee and some bacon sarnies helps keep you fuelled for networking. (There were lovely bacon sarnies at this event.) 4. It's good to speak with as many people as you can even if you can't work with each other, or help each other. It means you're learning about different industries. 5. Some people are just better at networking, so don't get imposter syndrome. Generally people want to hear about you. 6. It takes me a while to warm up, but I do enjoy talking to people about what I do. 7. I need a business card! 8. St. Elizabeth Hospice have 1,500 volunteers and it costs them £12m a year to run their services. This surprised me, but I don't know why it would when I know how much it costs to run a smaller youth work charity. It was a great event with great people, and I will go back.