Examples of Midlife Learning to Inspire Mission-Driven Leaders Committed to Self-Care

Being in a position of leadership in a mission-driven organization can be both deeply satisfying and remarkably draining.  The benefits of this kind of work are well-known, but the drawbacks (and how to deal with them) are rarely explored in depth.

Even the meaningfulness of nonprofit work can have downsides: it can, for example, create a very intense working environment that wears everyone down over time.  Young people high on idealism and (often also) on talent, but usually lacking in maturity, frequently assume positions with much responsibility that they are underprepared for – leading to rapid growth for them, but also stress for pretty much everyone involved.  Low pay – or at least compensation below what the private sector offers (and benefits not quite on par with government and higher education employment) – creates stresses for leaders, especially those in smaller nonprofits when they are forced to contemplate sending their children to college or their own retirement.

This reality led me to focus on self-care for mission-driven leaders in my midlife memoir, Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind, and in my latest book, When in Doubt, Ask for More.  In fact, that topic takes up the final third of Changing the World.  One of the self-care success strategies that I wrote about was engaging in hobbies in ways that you develop new skills through initially being a novice at something and then progressing from there in a purposeful manner.  I came to believe that being an adult novice helps make people more humble and more playful, and also less self-important – all qualities I associate with mental health, and that are especially important for those in stressful jobs. 

As I noted in the revised edition of Changing the World, I found confirmation of this insight in an important book written by the journalist Tom Vanderbilt titled Beginners: The Joy and Transformative Power of Lifelong Learning.  He describes starting as a novice and gaining skill in surfing, chess, painting, and singing, and complements that with research about the benefits of getting outside one’s comfort zone and learning new things as an adult.

Most recently, I came across an article in the New York Times titled “It’s Never Too Late: 10 Tips for 2022.”  It quotes 10 individuals in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and (gulp!) 80s who decided they still had time to master a new skill that gave them joy and purpose and briefly describes in a sentence what they accomplished.  (In some cases, there is a link to a longer story about their learning journey.)  One woman climbed El Capitan for the first time at age 68.  Another recorded his first album of original music at 85.  A third, named Richard Klein, moved to Mumbai and became a Bollywood actor in his 40s.  The entire article can be read in about 10 minutes and may not leave you the same person you were when you started reading it. 

One doesn’t need to achieve these kinds of levels of mastery to enjoy the benefits of being a lifelong learner who develops new skills throughout their adult life.  Getting outside the comfort zone of what one is familiar with and/or already good at can bring benefits to anyone, and it can be especially important to those in demanding, intense, and essential positions of leadership in nonprofit organizations.  While this may not be equally practical for everyone — say, for single parents living paycheck to paycheck who work for a tiny nonprofit — I do believe that most people should try out something consistent with this insight.

 

How to Get a Great Job in an International Nonprofit or a Social Enterprise

In July 2013, a roundtable event was organized at the Washington D.C. headquarters of the Grameen Foundation.  With the help of an intern named John Weiller, I organized the event and invited a group of professionals within the social sector to a discussion about how to break into the international nonprofit and social enterprise sector, and about the knowledge and techniques needed to do so. Most of the techniques described are applicable to domestic and local mission-driven job hunting as well. t was originally published on the Grameen Foundation website.  Below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion.  — Alex Counts

 

Alex:  My name is Alex Counts, president of Grameen Foundation, and for years I have been having people of various stages in their careers, but mostly early in their careers, come to me to say: “I want to break into the field you’re in.” Sometimes it’s not for profit, often it is any kind of international humanitarian work, particularly doing something that feels a bit innovative.  They ask, “How do I get involved?” Sometimes they have some kind of connection to me through a mutual friend, though other times it’s just a total cold call from someone in college or a recent graduate.  I almost always talk to them.  Because there were people that received me when I was at that stage in my career, and so why should I turn someone down now.  It wouldn’t seem fair.

So I’ve been in a lot of these conversations over the years, and I often feel inadequate in giving people good advice, partly because of the unusual way I broke into this field. But I usually offer the advice that I have, and sometimes I send them to other people, in fact I probably sent a couple to you and a couple to you and at least one to you Kate, and these guys probably know more recent, more relevant information. Behind this whole thing, I feel like, to the extent I’m not giving good information to people, we’re losing great talent in the social sector. And so I feel, I don’t know why I feel this, but I feel a certain sense of, a kind of urgency, to give people the best advice I can. And sometimes I wish we could pull together some of the people that I have observed who have used creative ways to break into this kind of work. Sometimes Time magazine pulls together 7 experts in a certain field and has an extended conversation with them, and then they edit the transcript down to the best content.  This is what I am hoping for today — creating a transcript that I can send to young people wanting career advice, instead of or before I invite them to come talk to me.

So I’m very excited that you’ve chosen to join. This is part of a kind of a larger summer project that John Weiller, an intern, is working on. And maybe John, if you just want to say a couple things about how this fits in, and he may even be turning this project over to another intern in the fall, to take the next couple of steps. But firstly I just want to thank you John for project-managing this, and maybe if you want to just say a few things at the outset about what is going to be happening and what other things you may be doing.

John: Well, I’m trying to come up with a sort of comprehensive online resource for people who are trying to break into the social sector, be they college students, people transitioning from one career, or people who have worked a career for some decades. And this is definitely part of our goal on that, assembling a group of professionals. Compiling relevant online materials, collating what might be hard to find online, answering frequently asked questions, trying to create one place online that you can go to, and say, this is how I’m breaking into the social sector, and these are the steps I need to take. 

Alex: Why don’t we do a quick go around, people can introduce themselves, where they’re working, what they’re doing professionally now, any bit of background that might help us in the dialog, just to understand where you’re coming from. Kimberly? 

Kimberly: Hi, my name is Kimberly Davies. I work here at Grameen Foundation. Been here for four years, started in operations, moved over to program work on some big new exciting microsavings projects, which are now winding down. I’m transitioning to a general financial services officer, focusing on our human-centered design processes. 

Jordan: My name is Jordan Nelson. I was at Grameen as an intern, my senior year of college, and I managed to turn that into a little over a year after college at an international microfinance institution. After that I ended up back in DC, worked for a little bit with USAID and now I work with a consulting company, mostly with the IDB and the World Bank on energy policy, specifically renewable energy and energy efficiency, so kind of a smattering of everything. 

Nicole: I’m Nicole Stubbs, CEO of First Access, which is a social enterprise that’s helping consumers use their prepaid mobile records to turn into an asset and establish credit worthiness when they apply for microloans. Working in Tanzania right now, I worked in microfinance in Latin America, Africa, and Asia for several years before starting this, and the main problem I was encountering is just that there isn’t enough reliable information out there. And so, many developing countries over the last few years have started requiring that people register their phone numbers and sim cards with ID’s, which means that suddenly they have a potential personal financial record, and so we’re trying to bring those out in to the open in our kind of mobile companies and make them a usable tool for consumers.

Kate: Hi everyone, I’m Kate Griffin. I currently and working with the Corporation for Enterprise Development, or CFED, which is a national nonprofit based here in DC, and I’m actually working to help low-income Americans access services that help build their financial capability. Prior to that I spent 12 years working in international microfinance, 6 of those right here at Grameen Foundation, including a lot of work on the project Kimberly’s been spending time on, microsavings, but all of it really looking at helping folks with limited resources get access to both the financial services and other resources that they would need to help build income and hopefully assets.

Alex: By the way the microsavings project which was funded by the Gates Foundation, $9.9 million, so we can’t quite say we had a 10 million dollar grant but very close. It’s winding up this October, and in our August board meeting we’re going to be doing a kind of a lessons learned celebration and we’re also going to be doing a celebration in October in the Philippines. And so I’m sure your name will come up any time, and congratulations for setting that up so well.

Brian: I’m Brian Weinberg, actually engaged with Grameen in 2007 as part of what we call the Dallas Grameen Foundation, and I worked with them for three years until graduating college and moving on to MicroVest, which is a impact investing fund, about 200 million in assets, and I focus mostly on America, and recently I just left to start on a new social enterprise, focusing on socially responsible products.

Khuloud: Khuloud Odeh, the director of IT at Grameen Foundation. This year is actually my tenth year in the international development sector, here at Grameen this is now my third year. I worked for another international development organization called CHF International. And now it’s known as Global Communities. I also worked at as head of IT at CIL. I probably have a different career path from most here that I wanted to share. I entered this field by pure coincidence, and it ended up being a turning point in my career, where I decided to continue working in the international development sector, and I didn’t realize that I have such passion for this work, and especially for when it comes in the area of IT and security, so I’m here today to share that. 

Kaveh: My name is Kaveh Azimi; I’m the CEO of an impact investing fund called Encite Capital. Encite focuses on small-medium enterprises in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, Haiti first shortly thereafter the Dominican Republic. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in the DR for a bit and worked in microfinance in Haiti for Fonkoze. About a little over a year ago I graduated from the Harvard Kennedy school which is when I started Encite, so it’s been about a year, and I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of different organizations like the IDB before, and a little with a private equity consultant for a little bit, focusing on the small-medium enterprise space in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. 

Alex: OK!

One of the classic cases that I find is  someone who is nearing the end of their college studies or maybe recently graduated and saying, “I’d love to do the kind of thing you’re doing, but how do I get my foot in the door?” There might be a variation on that, someone who is maybe working in some good job that doesn’t really have meaning for them or someone that’s patching together money waiting tables or doing something like that, but somewhere in there had got a motivation to want to contribute, to solve problems, and often times when they come to me it’s on the international stage.

Another type of case is the mid-career person, you’ve been working your career for 10, 15 years, satisfied or dissatisfied or whatever, had lots of people, there are a lot of variations. People who left the workforce to raise kids or tend to family matters, people who want to re-enter doing something like this, so where do they go? Some had a role model; some read and said “I want this to be what I choose professionally.” Some of the reasons I’ve picked you all is you’re some of my favorite people, it’d be fun to spend an afternoon together, but also because you know, it seems that there is some sort of path like that but it’s not exactly that path, and we’re just going to get into still as many tips and ideas and resources and insights as we can from this dialog.

Hopefully it’ll go live in the fall, like every project it’ll probably take longer than we imagine, but it’ll come to market by the end of the year. I want to start by asking each of you to talk about your own experiences of breaking in, of getting in to the kind of work you’re doing now, and we’ll kind of go from there through a number of other things. But does anyone just have any questions or suggestions about the process, or things they’d like to say, because now you can kind of get what we’re trying to do here, anything before we jump in?

What I’d like to do, just because it relieves a certain tension, is usually just to start with someone and go around clockwise so we’ll probably do that. At the same time, let this really be an open forum, so this is why we kind of have the time if say, Jordan is saying something and Brian, you kind of want to piggyback on it or disagree or probe a little more about how that happened or say you had the exact opposite experience, just do that, and then maybe we’ll rejoin whatever process we were in or not, so I’ll kind of assist with a light hand, I just want this to be as organic as it can be, I think that will give us the best content. So who would like to jump in with basically just sharing your pathway, and maybe if it helps give the context what the insight or what the light-going-on motivation was why you would want to strategize and get to this kind of work.

Brian: I think it all probably dates back to when I was a sophomore, and to me it was the typical, you know, I was a business student, and I was kind of like planning, and joining contests, and people were saying I was going to go to Wall Street and make a lot of money, and that was my path. And I was kind of filling out my resume as much as one could and I ran for what I thought, had been serving in student government, and thought this was my time to run for president of the student body, and it was a close race. I’m talking Al Gore vs. George Bush. I put everything into it, and to me it was the end-all be-all situation, and I was a straight a student, very dedicated, and I lost. I lost. But two weeks earlier I was in the study abroad office, and I said my backup plan, if I don’t win I’m going to South America and I’m going to learn Spanish. I had the meeting, I picked up the program, and after I lost by like 200 votes out of 35,000 students. I thought “I don’t really know what this means, but hopefully later in life I’ll think this is the best thing that ever happens to me.”

So I spent six months in South America, and if anyone has seen the movie Motorcycle Diaries, I kind of didn’t ride a motorcycle, but I went up on bus from the bottom of Argentina up through Chile and to Peru by myself, meeting people, talking after 3 or 4 months of intensive Spanish. After I arrived home in Texas, I walked in to my house, and I was just like “Wow, this is a big house”. It was, seeing real poverty, especially in Peru; it created a distinction I had never had in my life. Europe is much different from South America, even more so with Africa, I showed up and I was kind of going through culture shock. I had this prestigious entrepreneurship fellowship, with a job and everything, and they said, well they saw I was having trouble focusing after all the things I had seen, you know, small children stealing your change at the subway and what are you going to do about it. I had all these mental images, and one of my teachers at the fellowship gave me an article in fortune magazine about Dr. Yunus. I had never heard about microfinance before, and I carried around the article in my pocket for two weeks just thinking about it, thinking, “I’m going to call him. I’m going to call Muhammed Yunus.”

But sure enough there was this other business leader in Dallas that I was kind of bugging. All I knew was that he did international business. I finally got him to go to Starbucks with me on a Sunday morning, and he says, we’re speaking Spanish and talking about the poverty in South America, and I said “I just heard about this thing called microfinance, have you heard of it?” He told me he was actually reading Banker to the Poor right now, and I pulled the article out of my pocket and he told me he was actually on the board of a local microfinance organization. And we had this idea, a program that I later became the director of, called Recycle to Eradicate Poverty, and we were recycling cell phones to fund microfinance, a Nobel Prize concept at the time, and it was an incredible moment. I ran that for three years and wrote my thesis on microfinance, and really developed my thinking, but upon graduation in 2009 which was you know, a terrible time to graduate, I had all this experience working with organizations like this.

I started off trying a new business of my own, after I kind of left this project, and I fell flat on my face. You know, you spend money to make money, end up getting in debt, and it was a tough experience. I quickly ended up getting a job at a Fortune 500 company called Fiserv, it was devastating because I felt like I had sold out, and it was out of line with my values, even if I was doing Corporate social responsibility programs. It felt like they just weren’t hearing me, and I had people telling me that I wasn’t going to get in there. People were pretty blunt. I kept trying, and applied to a lot of jobs including one at Microvest, the impact investing job I just recently left. The first interview I had at Microvest, they didn’t hire me. It wasn’t until 8 or 9 months later that they called me with another position they wanted to consider me for. I think the best advice I had in that situation was to look on the bios on the Microvest website, and have an honest conversation with yourself as to what you are missing. What are the skillsets and tools that you need to be competitive and have the talking points in those interviews? You need to be able to weather the storm, and you need to take your extra time and volunteer and learn whatever skills you need. So that’s a little more about my story.

Alex: A lot of potential follow-up questions and you’ve actually bled into the second question, which I expected a lot of you would do. Well why don’t we go with, I don’t know, Khuloud? 

Khuloud: My entry into this field was by pure chance. I’ve been in the information technology field working as a programmer and coder, and in 2003 when the dotcom market crashed that what was I doing, and I happened to have a friend who was working for an NGO, and they needed someone for the web based systems that they were working on at that time, to do an evaluation. So I went to evaluate this web-based application, and I found it interesting, the first path and project I helped in that organization was not related to IT at all, it was related to Arabic. Speaking Arabic and coming from Palestine, well, for the longest time that social aspect was what I did on the side, I grew up in Palestine in a conflict area, so working with communities and being politically and socially involved has always been part of what I do… but not part of my career. So I looked at that with IT and figured with my career, I could do something on the social side, through volunteer activities.

The first week I consulted with them, I was approached, and they said “Oh you speak Arabic, could you take a look at something we’re developing for Palestine?” For me it was exciting, in my career as an IT professional and programmer, no one had ever cared that I spoke Arabic, or that I had knowledge of the Middle East, so it was exciting to know that other parts of my passions and skills could be useful besides the technical aspects. I didn’t realize I had such passion for working in this environment where I could also contribute with my IT skills, so I ended up in a month getting a full time job with that organization, knowing that I could have just invested my time applying for the next big paying job, but really the satisfaction I got as being part of a mission, the mission of an organization that has programs in a region I know as well as other region, opened my eyes and I learned technology is not just for little gadgets, but could also be used to solve peoples’ problems.

I remember one of the interesting questions, when I was excited about the technology and the organization; I was asked how technology could help a woman fetching clean water for her family. The man who asked, he said “Tell me what technologies could do that, and I can get as excited as you about the power of technology.” That was really a hint to me that, wow, there is way more in the world where technology is needed than in these gadgets and programming language. So that, for me, was really a kind of a big source of passion and interest in that area. Working with that evaluation, I learned more about how to be sustainable, and even learned the word sustainable, and realized it’s something very hard to measure, and from there developed more interest in sustainability, and later in the year focused my PhD research on how technology can contribute to economic development. At that time, because I entered that area in a very, not-planned way, without knowing what sector I wanted to target, I kind of learned in reverse what I could have done to really establish a career in international development, and I learned a number of things about the realities of that field.

So that was the first and number one reality check, and I usually challenge anyone who comes to me and says, “I really love what you do, and I want to be a part of it.” Especially people from the information technology field. The first thing I usually say is “First you really need to be passionate, and really have the desire to help and not care as much about how much money you’re going to make.” Because for somebody switching form IT to the social sector, that is the first thing to realize. You have to be fulfilled and satisfied doing the same work you did before for a different purpose, for less money. That sometimes is an interesting reality check to start with, and I’ve even started saying that to other people, from other fields. International development looks cool from the outside, you think you can travel, go interesting places, get great experience, which is true, but it’s also very difficult, and for people coming in at a junior level they have to know it might be several years before they even get to go out to a field office, or to really go and directly be part of a development program. Sometimes people are instinctively curious, but they don’t really consider the details, and, I won’t call them sacrifices, but to be less comfortable. So I usually offer the advice that you should make sure you’re ready in terms of what you can get.

Kaveh: So I guess my path, or my story would start with the fact that I was born into a very activist family, so from a very young age I felt compelled to do something in the social sector. For me, it was always a question of figuring out exactly what I was going to do. There really could have been a lot of different things. I had no idea what to do coming out of college, after studying economics and international relations, and the thing is, I’m a very practical, non-ideological person, so the thing that got to me was international development, which seemed very practical and the most simple way to improve peoples’ lives.

So I joined the Peace Corps, out of college, thinking this was going to be an opportunity to learn a new language, get on the ground experience, experience a new culture, and I before this had not had much of an opportunity to travel much. My real sort of exposure was pretty in line with your average American growing up in California. I’m half-Iranian, so I have that sort of connection, but still very much a guy from California. 

I spent some time in the Dominican Republic, and got a chance to do a bunch of different development projects. Public health, microfinance, small infrastructure projects, community organizing. The thing that stuck out to me as most impactful was microfinance. When I finished my Peace Corps stint, I was thinking what to do next. I could have gone back to the United States and gotten a job, but the thing that drove me to Haiti to do microfinance was realizing that abroad, I could take on a lot more, and have more opportunity than in a junior position in the US. So by moving to Fonkoze, in Haiti, I got to direct a national microfinance program, being 24 and managing 15 to 20 people. You know, it’s not your typical path, and I probably shouldn’t have been managing so many people. It was a great learning experience and I had a lot of support which helped me learn which areas to improve as a team manager.

Fast forward two years, I had worked in Haiti for two years, Dominican Republic for two years, had developed a strong commitment to both countries. In both environments you have an opportunity to be very much connected to the people you’re working with, different from the interaction you get with a lot of development organizations, very grassroots. I thought what we were doing was making an impact, but I also had a desire to pivot and keep looking for the thing that was going to be most impactful, and for me that was moving from micro enterprises to small-medium enterprises. After leaving Fonkoze, I had the opportunity to study for two years and refine my understanding, figure out what was most impactful and how to make that impact. That led me to start Encite Capital with a couple of other co-founders.

I think, looking back, it sounds nice, like there was a nice and well thought out trajectory. But the truth is, there’s a real path dependency to this. Like, I did one thing, setting me on the path to do the next thing, and you can pivot in there. Looking back on it, it’s interesting to look back and realize how much was out of my control and how I was set on the path that I’m on today. I guess I will just sort of stop there, and pass it on.

Alex: A lot of good stuff, including the pros and cons of Peace Corps. I’m not sure anyone else is ex-Peace Corps, but I’m sure many of you have met people who took that course. We’ll probably come back to that. 

Kimberly: I’ve been in international development now for about six years. The real interest started after I studied abroad my sophomore year in college. I grew up in an area that was upper middle class. I realized that this was a bubble wasn’t real life. In college most of my friends studied abroad in Italy, but I decided I wanted to go somewhere to live with a family, and experience a different culture. Having worked on Spanish some, I decided to go to Chile.

I think studying abroad was one of several points that led me to where I am today. I had the opportunity to meet people who had had different opportunities than I did, and observe how things work in a different country. I think it really helped open my mind. I used to think there was a correct way to do something, and when I studied abroad just being in a different country watching someone spend five minutes just to fold two bags, because their time and resources were valued differently than in the US, was eye opening. I was once in a store and noticed how many attendants there were. It seemed like far too many people, but then later realized it was because only someone knew about the items we wanted, someone else would get them off the shelf, and someone else highly trusted would ring you up and deal with the money. There were so many employees in that store, but how a wage difference, skill difference, and turnover can create different standards than in the US. Their staffing was much more complex than I initially realized.

After my time in Chile, I ended up going back to UC Davis. I took several of courses about development, and learned about the idea of international development helping others in a sustainable way. Learning about microfinance actually came out to DC for an internship program. I was not fortunate enough to get an internship in international development-very hard to find. But, I ended up doing a research paper on microfinance to meet people and try to learn a lot more. That’s where I found out that my own little farm town where I was going to school had a microfinance organization, Freedom from Hunger. After my time in DC I went back to Davis and tried to get an internship with them. I was rejected initially because my GPA was not high enough for the extremely competitive program.

I really wanted this internship so I tried to tactfully try to remind the organization that I was available, and interested without being another. After enough follow-up a woman decided I was worth a shot. We had some interviews, I talked about my experiences, and I was hired as an intern. Sometime later the HR manager credited my careful persistence ( without pestering anyone) to ensure I didn’t slip through the cracks. Follow-up and checking in helps.

I was a part of a big intern class, and I decided my first day that I had to work really hard and stand out. Clearly ten people would not be hired in a thirty person office after this internship period. I was fortunate to be the one intern that was considered for a staff position.

Even though I spent time in Chile, and Peru, I failed the Spanish test required to work on Freedom from Hunger’s program team. I was extremely disappointed, but luckily they ended up identifying a few other organizational needs and built an operations role for me. I could come on as a receptionist, supporting travel and finance to cover all the little needs they needed. I began to take on extra projects, talked with colleagues, and while I was at Freedom from Hunger my role changed a few times into new and more meaningful opportunities. However, then the economy crashed and San Francisco, where I was, was a terrible place to be.

Big companies like Yahoo were laying off thousands of people and everyone was all in a panic, but I think what helped was that there were a lot of people in the beginning who took the time to have coffee with me, and talk to me, and tell me “Oh you know, there’s this microfinance group here…. A lot of people really took me under their wings.  I joined groups, followed blogs, started a series of happy hours with casual development conversations, tried to talk to people whenever possible, and got really lucky. I realized there were a lot of people trying for just a few jobs so I had to really apply for things I could prove I’d done before, and not just things I had the capability of doing in the future.

I focused on my experience. I landed a telephone interview at Grameen, got the job, flew cross country on a red eye and started work the next day. I tried very hard to be as involved as possible, and was just excited to be a part of the organization. There was so much to learn. I really lucked out when Grameen got a grant and was hiring some more people; I actually talked to Kate Griffin, and lucked out with a project in India, The Philippines, and Ethiopia.  I think there was an acceptance that no one is going to know Amharic, Tagalog, and Hindi, and so this language thing suddenly was not an issue. I really did luck out, and while I think it’s very helpful to have additional language skills, it’s not always required. So I got to where I am today, got out to the field in my third or fourth year in the industry, and was rejuvenated seeing why we’re here doing what we do. It’s really still exciting, and I’m continuing to learn. I’d recommend any abroad experience whether it’s studying abroad, Peace Corps, or travel after college, it’s important to see and experience a developing country on your own.

Alex: Maybe it might be interesting to hear at some point, from you Kate, about how you sized up Kimberly, I mean, you gave her that big breakthrough, her big moment. Jordan? 

Jordan: Some common themes that have already been expressed… well number one, graduating in 2009 was terrible [because of the economy]… Number two, starting out kind of sophomore year, and number three just the grind and frustration of trying to find a job. But you know, without going too far back into my own history, I would say starting college thinking I wanted to be in the CIA or the FBI, I found out that was really uncool… 

Alex: He is a CIA agent, actually.  [Laughter] 

Jordan: You know, I have been accused of that several times… but anyway, I’m not.  Which is what I would say if I was! In any case, I realized that wasn’t the path for me, and in sophomore year I went to Ecuador to stay with a family, another theme I think we can all pick up on. The person I stayed with was involved in WEM, the local microfinance group, and she told me about it. We went into the mountains to visit her group, and I thought that was really cool. Then I came back to school, and I took some courses on development economics, in Latin America and the Middle East. I also interned in Congress, and realized that was not cool either. 

Then I started thinking about what I need to do to work at one of these places, what are some skills I could gain, so I took a course on microfinance that was offered at school, pretty fortunate to have that offered, and also took a basic course on business accounting and finance, and I interned at the Grameen Foundation my senior year. I actually applied, put my application in, and it had gone kind of silent after a couple of emails back and forth. As chance would have it, Alex was on vacation in Key West (where I’m from) and he met my Mom and Dad, who are very persistent people and a little crazy, and so that I think got my resume back in front of someone at Grameen and the conversation picked up, and I was able to land the internship at Grameen. While I was at Grameen a position for somebody who had Spanish and English ability and was experienced at a small nonprofit institution in the DR, I jumped at the opportunity, they hired me, strangely, and I went down there to work for fourteen months.

That was a cool experience, because I was literally every day listening to stories about peoples’ lives and businesses, and what they wanted to do. Even if those stories got repetitive, they helped me get some insights into what was actually going on. My contract ended I felt able to hand off my responsibilities, the classic put yourself out of a job development approach, so I came back to the US and started applying until I got a job at this company that basically hired me as an employee of USAID. Worked at USAID for a bit, that was always a short-term position, and then I put out probably 200 resumes looking for another job. I got a couple callbacks, a couple interviews, and things really weren’t going well. I decided to put out five more, and if nothing happened to go home and save money. And then at my very last interview, I got hired at this company that does consulting on infrastructure, mostly water and power, in developing countries. And my very first day, they said “Do you want to do water, or power?” And I was like, well, in the DR when the power went out, that sucked… power?

That brings me to another thread a couple of people have mentioned-now I get to do things I probably shouldn’t, which is an important lesson. You have to be audacious, you really have to be audacious, and overestimate your abilities and just be a little fearless. So that’s where I’m at right now, been there about two and a half years, I’ve graduated from analyst to senior analyst, a distinction without difference.

Alex: I’d just like to object, in the strongest possible terms, Jordan’s parents are only a little bit crazy, but I will leave it at that until the happy hour[*].  [Laughter]

Jordan: The first and last connection I ever got from my parents.

Nicole: Sounds like it mattered though, that sounds really cool.

Jordan: Definitely, especially in that transitional time.

Nicole: Yeah! Well… I had a lot of similar experiences, I studied abroad in Brazil during college, I had always been really interested in languages and other cultures, and I grew up speaking French and wanted to learn something else-

Alex: You grew up bilingual?

Nicole: Sort of, my parents are Francophiles, they like French literature a lot, so they kind of nerded out on that sort of thing. So I love languages, and I wanted to learn a new one so I decided to go to Brazil because I could only go learn a new one if it was a language my school did not offer, and I went to a very small liberal arts college, Kenyon College. 

I had designed my own major there, which was another silly but great thing. I was doing mostly cultural anthropology, and I was living with this totally wonderful family in Brazil, in a very poor community, but it just was really transformative and I still talk to them almost every week. Seven years later and they’ve been a huge part of my life. My little sister was eight at the time, and she just turned fifteen in January, which is a huge birthday in Brazil. We actually managed to bring her to the United States for six weeks, she wanted to learn better English and I was like, “I speak English and I have a couch! Come, we’ll make that happen!” And I think that’s the culmination of the things I learned to do because in spite of the fact that my parents always told me “Nicole! You’re so special!” learning that I have something to contribute just being me was sort of an important moment.

I think the first moment that really sticks out at me as salient and empowering was when we went way into the interior, on a bus to visit these people who were part of the landless rural workers’ movement. Brazil has a quirky almost-loophole in its legal system, where if you go camp out on land that isn’t being used productively, you can actually earn the title to that land. This was a powerful right to have for people who do not own any land, and fascinating from a policy perspective, so we went to an encampment for the landless workers. Everyone was living in these tents made of thick torn plastic and sticks, basically, that they had made themselves. Even a little wind would blow them over, but people would live in them for months or even years.

I spent the afternoon talking to a woman living in a tiny little tent with four little kids. Her kids were awesome, and it was just so sort of surprising to see someone make this commitment to getting a little plot of land, I think they had been there for six months, they didn’t know how many years it would take, and it was a community of maybe a hundred people.  But anyway, she had no shoes. When we left, I gave her my shoes, realizing I could get more because I was going back to a city, and somehow that moment changed something in me – not that I would advocate that as a model, giving things away, but it was just the first time where I thought “I have shoes and somebody I know can really use those!” It just made me realize that there are things I have to contribute and that it’s hard to help a ton of people in a huge, sustainable way, but that doesn’t mean I should ignore individuals and the situation on the ground.

I stayed in really close contact with my host family, and when I went back to college a year later, I started focusing very intensively on economics, I had been studying cultural anthropology and while I felt like that was enabling my understanding of things, it didn’t really enable me to do anything proactive when I saw situations or initiatives that I might be able to contribute to. So I started to focus more on specific tools that would help me do something, and I deliberately didn’t look for a job all of my senior year during college despite lots of stern words from various people. I moved to China because I wanted to learn a non-Romance language, and I knew I wanted to do something with economic development. China seemed to make sense because it was experiencing the largest decrease in poverty in human history, and obviously a lot of that is unique to China but I wanted to figure out what they were doing from a policy standpoint. What they were doing right, what they were doing wrong, and whether there were any transferable lessons to other places.

So I got to China and I was living in Beijing and I signed up for Mandarin classes, found some English teaching classes, and this probably goes without saying but since no one has specifically mentioned it, if you grow up speaking English as a native language, that is a huge asset. You can use it; you can survive on teaching English part time in many parts of the world and in the rest of your time get practical experience as a volunteer doing what you want to do, and kind of making yourself essential. That’s what I tried to do, I knew I wanted to do something related to development but I didn’t know whether it would be health, education, or financial services. And so I actually found three simultaneous volunteer jobs. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I was working at Planet Finance China, which I found through Google, and happened to be in the building next door to me, in a residential building-

Alex Counts: What year were you there? 

Nicole: It was around 2007, 2008. And so I applied for the job, and they wanted a native Mandarin speaker, and I was like “I started Mandarin lessons three months ago… but, I live next door to you!” And they were like “Oh that could be pretty useful.” So they hired me anyway, bless their hearts, and one of the things I did to compensate for my Mandarin skills was to find four other volunteers through local universities who were native speakers. I worked with them to translate the things I was doing. Because I didn’t know how to do anything really practical in the field yet, I focused on making web content for them, so I did little articles on policy changes in China, and what was happening in microfinance in the country, and then they would translate it.

So I did that Monday-Wednesday-Friday, and Tuesday and Thursday I worked a public health foundation that gives free health care to Tibetans. They have an office in Beijing, and they have a clinic in Qinghai province, and so I met the founder through someone, or maybe even on Google as well, through the internet, and I went and talked to him, was really passionate about what they were doing-providing free healthcare, including meds, to seventy thousand people, in the last twelve or so years, and so I wanted to learn about that, so I did that on Tuesday and Thursday, and then on Sundays I taught at a school for migrant kids. I had a sixth grade class I sort of adopted, fifty-seven students ranging in age from ten to seventeen, so that was interesting and wonderful, they were great people. I came out of these three simultaneous internships, volunteer ships, feeling like each-education, health, and financial services-could each be argued as very catalytic for improving livelihoods, but financial services felt by far the most doable. So that was what I focused on.

Planet Finance wanted to start this thing called Escape, which is now called MicroWorld. It is a big NGO in over eighty countries also focusing on microfinance, and they wanted to create something in their network to leverage all the resources they have. And they’re a big umbrella organization, so they have microinsurance, savings; they do technical assistance for microfinance institutions all over the place. Kind of everything. And so what I wanted to do was help get capital from individuals in the developed world and funnel that to microfinance institutions. I was hired to go set that up in Madagascar. There was one person hired to go to Senegal, and another person to Mexico, to do the same thing, and then our manager was in Argentina with an intern in Paris. So five different people in different time zones and parts of the world, which was kind of complicated. 

We made quite a bit of progress, but then the government of Madagascar was overthrown, so the embassy told all the Americans we had to leave, so I went back to France after that and kind of split time between France, China and Senegal for a while, kind of setting up MicroWorld, and then I was in a similar situation as some of you guys: I had been working abroad and had gained a certain level of responsibility, and I was really loving it, but I knew if I came back to the United States I would probably end up being an intern or something like that, it would be really hard to find a comparable level of responsibility, and so I started using graduate school as an excuse to  come back to the United States, but I had also identified all these really important things I had to learn because I had never studied finance or statistics, for example.

So I knew microfinance operations extremely well and had been working with loan officers every day doing evaluations, but I hadn’t studied finance, management principles, raising capital and things like that. So I came back to the US for graduate school which I finished a year ago, and during that process I started to focus a bit more on social enterprise and entrepreneurship. Learning how to make change from scratch, which I would argue is probably the most difficult way to get involved in mission-driven work, so I would not advocate that. I think there is a much stronger argument for finding someone who has a really compelling idea, helping them on the side in your free time while you’re working or a student, and kind of making yourself an essential part of that project. I did this because there was a very specific problem that I was trying to solve that needs to be solved and no one was doing it, and had I not already started something like MicroWorld from scratch where I knew the process, with legal issues, financial management, software development, recruitment, you know understanding all these components, I certainly wouldn’t have had the courage to start something from scratch, and I don’t think it makes sense to unless you’re really doing something totally new and you have a lot of support behind you. Because I had moved to New York, I was very fortunate to be able to network with a lot of different people and raise some financial capital very early on.

So I think volunteering, particularly for startups, is a great way to get some experience, get your foot in the door on the cheap, in terms of the opportunity cost, if you are a student or if you have a day job that you can hang on to while you’re trying to understand exactly what kind of work you’d ideally be doing. Learn as much as you can in those margins of time by being proactive and getting involved in different things that interest you. If you decide to make a move from your current job or you want to work for that organization or one like it after graduating, it’s a lot easier to transition in.

Kate: I grew up in rural Ohio, went to school in rural Ohio, and I wanted to get as far away from that as I could in life, which is how I ended up studying Chinese and living in China. And all of that was sort of my international piece of it, and certainly just this idea of really understanding this thing that was so different started there, but it wasn’t actually until my senior year of college in a seminar we read a book by Frances Moore Lappé, called World Hunger: Twelve Myths, but this was a book that really talked about, you know, people aren’t poor because they’re stupid. They don’t get out of that situation when you give them money. It really talked about the root causes of problems like hunger and poverty, and about the different solutions in the world, of course one of them being the Grameen Bank. And that was really what started my mind jogging. 

After some time in China, I moved back here to DC and put the research skills I learned in college to use and looked up all of the organizations that were in that book. What ended up happening is completely through a cold call throwing a resume in the door, getting a job at the Microcredit Summit Campaign. Which is interesting, my first job in microfinance was not with a company doing direct work; the majority of what they did was convening: bringing the field together. That meant I was at the nexus of an enormous learning opportunity, and my first year I got to know all sorts of people, and I got to know all the big debates and conversations, I got to see it all up close. That sort of started me on top, it was vital to get as much knowledge and pick as many brains as possible.

One of the other passions in my life, at that time, was women’s’ rights. I had this whole other dream to go and get my Ph.D. in anthropology and work on the women’s’ labor rights movement in China. I had this amazing job in microfinance, and I spoke to the woman who was going to be my advisor for my Ph.D. telling her all this stuff I was so excited to use and she said “That’s great! In six to eight years you’re going to be able to do that!” That was when I realized I needed to do something now, and when I committed to sticking in with this.

I ended up getting a Master’s in development here in DC, and my first couple of years was just bouncing around getting to know people and networking and zigzagging my way up the ladder. Ultimately, I ended up at a think tank at the University of Maryland, where  they had this USAID contract and they hired me because I knew who Alex was, who all these people were who were up in arms about this project… who had no faith in the University, so I had to be PR for this project. And then ultimately Grameen Foundation hired me because I knew something about China, I knew microfinance and China. I was looking forward to doing more policy work and my chance was when I arrived here at Grameen, to really work in China and across Southeast Asia, so that was a big piece of it. I’ve had the opportunity to get a lot of career advice over the last few years, and I’ve taught a microfinance class over the last three years, so I’ve had a lot of people ask for advice.

Alex: One little insight related to the Microcredit Summit Campaign. It looks like “Oh my God I went into the field but it’s not a direct service provider, it’s just conferences…” It may seem like a horrible way to break in but as you found by seizing the opportunity, it was actually a great way when you compare it to breaking in with any other number of organizations, with the access to leaders and the things you can do. So now we’re going to go around, can’t hear from everyone, but I’d like you all to grapple with the question of your own experiences, and tell me what you tell people when they come to you. Perhaps you could put it in terms of, “Here are things I did, that you should do. Here are things I did, that you shouldn’t do. Here are things I saw other do that you should do.”

Kate: So the one I’m going to start with is that passion alone isn’t enough. Everybody I talk to wants to help the poor. And my eyes glaze over, because it’s tough work number one, and I think people forget you need hard skills to do this stuff, particularly when we’re talking financial services work and if we’re talking about going to work at a microfinance institution. That’s a financial institution, and they need people with accounting skills, and IT, and HR, and marketing skills, and this notion that I’m going to save the world glosses over what you actually need to bring to the table. And that’s kind of interesting for me because I’ve always sat at the level of an intermediate, so my hard skill is project management and getting money from point a to point b, and securing funding and things like that, so that’s a very valuable hard skill and one that you need to have in certain places in the field. 

I want to know what you’re going to bring to the table. What piece of this world do you have influence over, that will let you make it a better world? That’s one piece of it, and the other is I always get very frustrated with people who think the social sector is a big broad thing, like “I’m going to go work in that piece” and it’s such a heterogeneous field with so many ways to tackle it, go do your homework. Figure out who does what, what they’re trying to achieve, and find the one that really fits you whether it’s the type of organization or type of approach, but getting to that level makes you much more sellable, when you can sit down and say what speaks to you, and how you can contribute. And that, to me, is exciting and those are the people that I hire. 

Alex: Interesting.  The floor is open. 

Jordan: I would just add to what Kate said, of all the classes I took at Georgetown, probably the basic introduction to finance and the Spanish courses are the ones that got me my job, I mean, I wrote fantastic term papers on women’s’ weaving cooperatives in the Andes, and I don’t think that mattered a bit. People think too much about what they want to do and not about what the employer wants them to do. 

Nicole: I’d like to add that, I think one of the problems here is that there isn’t really a social sector. I mean, social covers the entire range of potential things that you could do with maybe very few exceptions of certain industries, but within microfinance alone you definitely need hard skills but sometimes there are things like communications. Like let’s say you love to write. If you find a volunteer job, like the Microcapital Monitor for example hires volunteers to write things that then get sent out to hundreds of microfinance professionals across the world, if you’ve got time to do research and you can write well and you can synthesize, that is a hard skill. I didn’t know anything about finance, but I loved to write, and I think that’s one thing that people sometimes overlook, and microfinance institutions like anyone else have to do well with communications. 

Language is certainly an issue, but there are lots of English speaking countries out there or countries that also speak English, or maybe you need to reach a broader international audience for fundraising purposes or something, and so there’s always that possibility. But beyond microfinance in general, one of the hardest things about being in the social sector is that it’s not a sector, like the companies I engage with are microfinance institutions on the one side but then mobile Corporations on the other. They don’t really even know what a social enterprise is. There are people doing toilet systems, or plumbing, just every conceivable thing. There are a huge range of tangible skills that you could bring to that and doing your homework on organizations, seeing their profiles and the people they hire, is a great piece of advice. Graduate programs in particular, there are a lot of people who work for a few years and then think to go to graduate school for more skills without knowing quite what they want to do, so many people do that and end up unable to specialize.

I think one of the good pieces of advice I heard before going to graduate school was “Figure out what kind of organization you want to work for, if you had to decide today, what you were going to do for the next five or ten years. Who would you want to work for?” Well I thought, maybe the Gates Foundation because they have almost unlimited resources to put towards some of the world’s most intractable problems, so I called different schools and asked if they had anyone who was working at the Gates Foundation who was a recent alumnus, and I talked to several people. It turned out nobody cared where your degree came from; they cared what you got out of it. But of course that’s an organization that’s working at a high level across practically every sector, so if you can narrow it down to “I want to work in water, or sanitation, or financial services…” there’s such a huge array out there, and some of it is just figuring out how many things there are, how many you don’t know about, and looking into them. I guess legitimacy for a social enterprise doesn’t’ come from being a social enterprise, it comes from doing what it does well, which often is a social mission, but your mission is why you’re doing something and not necessarily what you’re doing, and so you have to figure out what skills you need to make it happen rather than just the passion to accomplish this and an end goal, and especially small organizations trying innovative techniques for doing those things, don’t get any legitimacy for being social enterprises because most of the world has not heard of that, and so passion for social enterprise in general is much less compelling to me as an employer than passion for the specific work that you’re doing.

Someone that comes to me really interested in mobile technology in emerging markets for the purposes of micro transactions, and knows something about mobile payments, that’s much more engaging than just having passion. The more specific you can be, even when there are bunch of things you could be interested in, talking about one thing you are specifically interested in and why is important. Narrow it down.

Brian: One of the things I always found helpful when thinking about where I wanted to be or when offering suggestions to people was to think both thematically and functionally. Thematically, you need to know what kind of organization you want to work for, and functionally you need to know what you want to do on a day-to-day basis. And I would actually suggest that people think functionally, because the way you interact with that organization is what you do on a day-to-day basis. And the thing that is going to keep you inspired and fulfilled is feeling like you’re making a contribution, and I think that’s a function of your role with that organization. 

Kimberly: I’m going to agree, but also disagree. I think the function is incredibly important and you need to bring that value to the organization to feel fulfilled, but a lot of the time I think you also just need to get your foot in the door. I think a lot of people are very proud to have studied or worked x number of years and they have a vision of what should be happening. They are seeing current opportunities as stepping stones to what could later happen. 

Alex: So we’ll hear from others, and hear some more questions, but the basic question I have is, what advice do you give people? When someone you really want to help says, “I’m on the outside, I want to get on the inside somehow.” And the raw material (in terms of the person’s talent and intentions) may be good, and your intuition is that they may do well in whatever organization they can latch on to, what’s your best advice? 

Khuloud: My advice is, in this economy, with the difficulty of finding jobs, to network. To network any time, any event. A great example: last night I was going from the airport to the parking lot and it was like one o’clock in the morning. I was wearing my George Mason t-shirt, and the driver of the shuttle was like “Oh you went to Mason!” He asked about what I studied and where I worked, I told him IT and I worked here, and he asked if I was looking for anybody in IT. He said he had a friend with a contractor looking for IT work. And this is exactly, when people tell me to network, you have to talk to everybody. You never know what your next lead on a job is, it could be in the line waiting for a market it could be in the elevator, networking doesn’t need to happen at specific events, networking is anywhere at any time. Especially if it’s an area you’re really actively looking for, it may not be the person you’re talking to but it could be someone they know-Jordan’s parents! I think networking is key, and it’s good for your purposes. You have to be clear on the area you want to focus on; you need to narrow it down by talking to people doing different things. If you want to help the poor, you can start by talking to relevant organizations. It’s okay to start work with people who are doing different parts, and then work into what you want to do. 

Brian: So I spent time networking, and sometimes it really bugged me… 

Alex: George Soros famously said: “Networking means not working.” But can you elaborate on that?

Brian: Sure. Well, I’m coming from a conference, and the words you learn to hate are, “Where are you from and what do you do?” The way I see things is every person is important, especially in this type of work. You know, [in microfinance] we’re talking to beggars and people at that level of society  and getting them loans, and so our basic attitude is, they’re all important. And I don’t see that acted out in the networking we do. I think it’s about being audacious, even ferocious.  You have to talk to people and ask questions and do your homework and know the issues. The sexy term right now is impact investing, everyone is into it. But if you can’t talk to your clients that speak French and Spanish, what use are you to that organization? If you can’t read financial statements, and tell a story about the state of the company, how are you going to invest money as a fiduciary of someone else’s money? I really like the theme of you know, what skill sets do you have and what industry and company are you in, whatever role you have, I think everyone is important to the whole. I think the secret is to look at yourself and figuring out what skills you really have, a lot of people think they have a lot of skills but don’t really know. Especially coming out of college, when you think you can do all these things but you don’t really know yet. All of the things that I learned, you just don’t know what you don’t know, and people should assume that they don’t and be a sponge to learn. Everybody makes mistakes on their resumes, and if you really want it you need to narrow it down and get it down right. 

Alex: Networking is a series of connections and conversations that can open doors. Looking back I remember trying to make time for it, but there are some techniques that work better than others, right? 

Nicole: Kind of on that note, there are some tools available now that make it so much easier to do these kinds of things. I think social media is overrated in a lot of ways, but Twitter in particular is a powerful tool for tracking jobs and organizations. When I think of all the time I spent just on Google looking for different organizations, digging through websites, figuring out what they were actually doing, that’s all in short sentences on Twitter now and it’s live, and I think for young people in particular, that is an amazing tool that you should be taking advantage of. Follow every organization you’re interested in, look at whom they’re following and who is following them. Everything is represented on there, and I actually use it all the time for work now. I can’t really figure out how you would use it for personal purposes, but for professional reasons to figure out what’s happening in your field, there really is nothing parallel to that. 

Kimberly: I was actually really surprised last year when someone told me they made sure they spent five minutes a day on LinkedIn. You never know who switched jobs or someone you used to know just moved somewhere. People think of networking like, “I need something now so I’m going to go out there”, but it’s really continuous and something you should regularly do. You never know what the future will be like, so it’s important to stay connected, especially as industry changes and new players show up.

When job hunting, I suggest keeping a spreadsheet, or as you go from blog to blog and website-to-website you’ll get lost. A spreadsheet can keep track of interesting things you want to check back in on. You never know when you’ll be at an event and everything from online will all come together.

Alex: Interesting! Networking is very important. I think coming back to the Peace Corps and pros and cons of taking that pathway, as you did Kaveh.  It played a similar role for you that being a Fulbright scholar in Bangladesh was for me. Rotary Fellows and Fulbright Scholars and probably some things I’m not even aware of can give that first field experience.  These programs help make that first field experience financially tenable, though I have seen some people who don’t come from a lot of wealth cobble together their own pathways without institutional support of any kind, but it’s certainly a steeper climb.

Kaveh: So just before that, two quick things on the outside looking in. One: It’s important to have a pitch of yourself and your skills and how you brand yourself. At a conference or having a cup of coffee, you should be able to say who you are, your interests, and your accomplishments. In terms of getting in touch with people, I’ve found if you know the people and you email them, even a cold email, very few people will not take a fifteen minute meaning. 

Alex: Let me  just add that, from the other side, when you take the fifteen or thirty minute meeting, you quickly learn that there are some people that do that and don’t have the discipline fourteen minutes in to say “I realize I asked for fifteen minutes and I should wrap up.” And of course there are some times where you’ll say, “No, no, keep going, this is great.” But there are some that actually forget they asked for a fifteen minute meeting and immediately you make a judgment there about the person you are meeting with. 

Kaveh: Yeah, I think you hope it turns into a forty-five minute meeting, but you should have the discipline to stop after fifteen. But I think networking is really a two-way street. You should always be thinking how can I help you, not just how can you help me? In the long run you will be rewarded for that, it’ll come back to you. I think it’s useful to know what types of work the organization is doing, what kind of problem they have, and maybe you don’t have what they need but you can connect them to someone who does, you can facilitate that. That’s probably the clearest example. On LinkedIn, I’ve found it really useful if you don’t have a direct contact, you can go through your connections to get connected to the ultimate target through your mutual connections. 

Brian: When you meet someone like Alex Counts, in a conference, you need to be creative and make yourself useful to him. I met a guy who teaches at Berkley, who is a venture capitalist, and I said something like, “This guy knows what he’s doing; I want to learn as much as I can from him.” He told me he was teaching a class to fifteen universities, and asked if I knew any universities that would be interested in simulcasting his course. I said yeah, and in that odd moment I said “I’ll get you fifty!” So I had committed myself to that. Sure enough, next year we had fifty, last year we had seventy-five, and now we’ve become like great friends and he’s more of a mentor to me because I hustled and added value to something he’s doing. The other thing I just wanted to say about networking is just that you are not you job. You’re much more important than that, and sometimes we get caught up, embellishing or depressed based on what we think we have to offer, and I think it’s important to understand yourself and what you can contribute. The other thing I wanted to say on the networking is, if you have a job, you are not your job. That is not the definition of you, you are much more important than that. Sometimes we embellish, or get depressed because we don’t have enough to offer, and I think it’s enough just to be there and to help. 

Kimberly: That’s a really good point. I think sometimes we’re so passionate we define ourselves by our jobs, instead of all the other things we are. When you network, it’s okay to work in a little more than just where we work. If you focus on just that one thing, it can get overwhelming. 

Brian: One thing I learned is to make the thing that you are hearing from the person the most important thing in the world, to act like they are the one person in the world when you’re talking to them. 

Alex: I don’t agree with that entirely. I think you need to be credible, and true to yourself. When someone is saying something worrying, or wrong, or offensive, they are not the most important person in the world. People have difficulty putting themselves in the chair of the person they’re trying to get to. You all spend your days doing things that are boring or exciting or wonderful or bad, and you’re busy but maybe not as busy as people would figure you were, and people appreciate being affirmed, and there are times where being affirmed by another human being is really satisfying. Putting yourself in their shoes and thinking like they do can make a really big impression. You need to think about what can make that person come away, in a conversation, feeling better. I think each interaction is its own creative moment, and sometimes you’re very intimidated, nerves can make it hard. I mean, how many times in your life do you meet someone totally new? It can be hard to start a conversation. A lot of it takes serious practice. Just relax, and try to have a value-added human interaction with people you’re networking with, and practice that. Anyway, why don’t we go back to Kaveh, and the Peace Corps? 

Kaveh: Well, I think from my perspective there were a lot of personal things I got out of the Peace Corps, but to focus on the professional things I think you come out with a great network. You end up with people who are sort of dedicated to social good, and it’s also a great opportunity to work locally wherever you were sent. You’re going to meet a lot of people, learn the culture and the language; you’ll beat out other international competition. It’s also a great stepping stone for grad school. It gives you plenty of fodder for your essays, they give you a lot of help, there’s a lot of support and some grants, and it helps you check things off the list that maybe you don’t want to do. It can help you narrow where you are focused, and it’s valuable to be able to cross things off and know what you don’t want. The cons, maybe, well you really need to be a self-starter. You don’t have much support, you’re out there in the field, and there are too many people and not enough staff. If things aren’t going well you have to make them go well. On the personal side, I think learning a new language, learning a culture, developing empathy for these people, that is invaluable and it really stuck with me and solidified my career track. Without it I don’t think I would have the same commitment I do now, and it’s very powerful. 

Alex: Great! So I kind of tabled some questions, and I want you guys to think, as we approach the end of this, think about who will be reading this, and what little philosophies or techniques will help people. 

Nicole: I just have two things to say. So I think of the things you threw out there, I’ve got a few answers. I often get asked for advice on graduate school courses, and as much as I loved getting a degree for international relations at AU, I would say don’t get a degree in international relations unless you really know what you want to do. If you know where you want to go, and what you need, go ahead and get a graduate degree. There are multiple paths, and you are the best judge of what you are missing. We also talked about how to make yourself useful to people, well after working in the field a long time I sometimes don’t have time to keep up with all the latest literature, and a lot of the time I’d like to learn from you. If you’ve done your homework, if you have something relevant to share, I’m going to be impressed. On the same lines as talking about my degree, I am still paying off student loans. It limits you.  I was offered an amazing unpaid internship right out of school that I had no way of doing. It can be tough, and sometimes the best thing you have is internships and temp jobs to get your foot in the door, and you have to look for whatever you can get that works financially. On hiring, I know when I look at an ideal candidate who I want to hire; it’s all in the resume. Sometimes there’s nothing about microfinance, but the best people read the job description and know exactly what I’m looking for and what we need, and sell me on that.

Alex: Are they typically people that have made that point, that want to go into the humanitarian sector or people who are looking for the next job?

Kate: It’s mostly people who are really focused on it, and a lot of them are mid-career and have really done their homework. Many people come out of another career and have taken classes or training to have more relevant skills, which really shows their commitment to getting their skills and what they want to do, and the connection they make to what they want to do. 

Khuloud: A couple of resources I found very useful, a place to find all the jobs you are looking for is Devex, which was a great help for people who want to understand who the players are, even if you just look at the members there you will stay up to date. It’s kind of interesting how the focus in some areas has changed, Peace Corps doesn’t get your foot in the door as much as it did, where I used to work maybe 80% of people were former Peace Corps. Now I think that’s less so, because there are many things needed to do international development. I think other technologies and knowledge’s have become more readily applicable to development, and that is changing the entire sector. Technical skills are more relevant. 

Kimberly: One thing I wanted to add, I’m surprised sometimes I talk to a lot of people that are job hunting who say “I’ve sent my resume out to ten places today, or one hundred places, and no one has responded.” How can you accurately represent yourself to one hundred places? When I was unemployed, over six months, I actually applied to seven jobs only, and then was in the top 3 for 3 of them. Because it really took a long time, to understand what work people are doing, learn the language, write a cover letter, it can be hard, but I think a lot of people just apply with a resume that doesn’t change. You need to adjust what’s on top, what bullets are used, and sometimes it’s just down to luck. But when people get frustrated they try for quantity in their applications instead of quality. 

Jordan: I agree with that. If you’re going through all the effort to get a job in the social sector, and you finally found a job, why not find a job that really pulls you aboard and makes you excited to come aboard. You want to be able to tell them “Everything I’ve ever done has led me to your doorstep, and to this job.” 

Alex: “I’m passionate and I’ll work hard.” 

Jordan: Exactly. 

Kate: I will say that the people who I hire are the ones who come to me with really good, thoughtful questions. When I know they’re thinking about it as thoughtfully as I am, that’s a big thing. 

Kimberly: I have a book with good questions for interviews, that I used a lot applying to jobs that was a big help. I mean, of course you know a lot if it’s an organization that you want to go to work for, why not show that off a bit? I had a roommate who used to read the 990’s of non-profits and actually ask specific questions purposely to show she knew non-profits, her questions and concerns, and she’s in a really awesome job right now. 

Khuloud: And sometimes when you apply for jobs that may be entry level, it may not be that exciting, it may not be exactly where you want to be, having an entry point in an organization is always great if you’re interested in that organization. Always you can meet more people, get more connections inside the organization, and then work your way to the job you want to be doing even if you came in at an entry level.

Alex: Well this goes to an interesting question.  In the not for profit sector there are typically a lot of organizations having fundraisers and willing to train people from scratch, so I wonder, if you were earlier in your career, what would you think would be the pros and cons of going down that route as a way of breaking in? 

Kate: I think that track, once you start in it, is hard but not impossible to get out of, but I will say that fundraising is a diverse field. There’s a lot of different types of fundraising, and you have to really get into the ins and outs of the how the organization runs, and you can learn the organization really well doing fundraising. It’s really just about how, when you’re in that role, what you’re soaking up about the organization that you can utilize. 

Alex: Excellent. I definitely have met a lot of people in fundraising with great connections. Now, as we’re wrapping up, any final thoughts? 

Jordan: One thing on courses, of course I wish I would have taken basic webdesign, I don’t think there’s a single organization that doesn’t have to do something on the internet and wants to do something to improve their online presence, and if I had had that I would have been much more attractive to a lot of employers. Just a real practical skill. 

Nicole: On that point, coding for example, you can go to Codeacademy (codeacademy.com) to learn coding, it’s one of those massive online open courses (MOOC), you can take at Coursera (Coursera.org), and both are great resources for learning new skills. There are all sorts of things you can learn online.

Brian: I got this question about resources a lot.  I created this site blendedprofit.com, where we have different perspectives all coming together online in one place to grow the sector, and there are so many things on there that make it sort of a one-stop shop. In terms of the skills you need, I think web design, fundraising, and graphic design, maybe social media, those four things can make you very effective if you match them with research skills or writing ability, you’re locked to be an intern or volunteer at the very least. I think every organization can use people doing those things, and they’re a great way to get in.

Brian: I just want to caution, on the learning skills randomly.  I think back in the day people would be like watchmakers, and have trades, and your skills need to fit into your trade, hopefully they’re within your range of present skills and complement them, so you can build up yourself and be crafted to contribute.

Nicole: On that note, always have something you’re excited about, that you want to help do. There is always someone out there who can use your help. Use your weekends, use your evenings, reach out to people and ask if there’s anything you can do for them so you can later apply and tell them “I’m doing this.” It’s about what you’re excited about, what you’re doing.  So don’t spend all your time sitting around researching things but get out and do things and get experience.

Kate: That’s a great point because there are things you could do five, ten hours a week.

Alex: This reminds me that people I have stuck with the most are, first, excited about what they’re doing, and second, they don’t talk about it to the exclusion of figuring out what’s exciting to me. In some sense the topic is secondary.  I find that many people mainly respond to the energy of a conversation. In some cases I’ve made notes from a meeting saying something like, this person may not be right for the job but I’m going to track this person, to see what they end up doing. You know when you’re around someone who isn’t excited, even when they have the exact skills you need.

I’d like to thank all of you who came for this, and also our audience.  We’ve got a lot of great insights from this event. I really hope that we’ll be able to say within a fairly short period of time, where someone can tell us about a job or something they landed as a result of what they heard today.

[*] Alex and Jordan’s parents are close friends, and this comment was made light-heartedly and in jest.

 

My Acceptance Remarks Upon Receiving the Horace Mann Distinguished Alumni Award

Those of us who are fortunate enough to work in leadership roles in mission-driven organizations do not, in general, do so to receive public acclaim and recognition. But when it comes, it can be nice! Previously I published my final remarks during a gala to mark the end of my 18 year tenure as President and CEO of Grameen Foundation in 2015. Below are remarks (made in two parts on the same evening) when I received the distuinguished alumni award from my high school alma mater, Horace Mann School in New York City.

* * * 

Speech and Acceptance Remarks*

By Alex Counts ‘84

Upon Receiving the 2007 Horace Mann Award for Distinguished Achievement

November 12, 2007

 

Thank you, Tom, for those kind and eloquent words of introduction. 

If I can keep my emotions under control, I am going to tell you a little about what I do and about my 19-year journey in the world of combating poverty through microfinance. 

The only reason that microfinance has gained some significant recognition in recent years is that it addresses one of the critical issues of our time – the global poverty crisis.  This crisis does not often appear on the front pages of our newspapers, but if you read good analyses of the crises that do reach our front pages, you will find that poverty is often an important underlying cause.  When I say global poverty crisis, I am talking about the fact that three billion people, almost half of humanity, live on less than $2 per day, and that one billion of them live – if it can be called that – on less than $1 per day.

I spent a number of years living with people who earned less than $2 per day and less than $1 per day.  One of the things that struck me is that these people are very entrepreneurial.  They are hardly the passive individuals awaiting aid that our media often portrays them to be.  Self-employment is more common amongst the poor than amongst any other slice of humanity.  Why?  For the poor, there are not enough jobs – during my six years living in Bangladesh, I did not see a single “Help Wanted” sign – and there is no social safety net.  The choice that a poor person is left with in these conditions is stark – work for yourself, or starve.  Not surprisingly, almost all of them attempt to eke out some money from what economists call “micro-enterprises.” 

In this sense, they are the most rugged – not to mention desperate – capitalists in the world.  Then one must ask, as I did while living in rural Bangladesh, where does the poor’s capital come from, since that is one thing that capitalism requires.  I gained a significant insight into the answer to this question when I asked a street vendor in Manila how he financed his tiny business.  He replied, “I get my money where everyone else does.”  I said, “Where is that?”  He said, “Everyone knows.  I get it from a five-six.”  I asked, “What is a five-six?”  He answered, “It is the place where you borrow five pesos in the morning, and pay back six pesos in the evening.”  I suddenly realized why so many poor people stay poor despite their hard work.  Their entrepreneurial efforts are severely undercapitalized and very often financed by loanshark rates that can be as high as 20% per day.  Try to get ahead paying those kinds of rates!

I often wonder why it took people so long to realize that saving the poor from loansharks represented both a terrific social impact opportunity, and also a real business opportunity.  We train people at the best schools to look at social problems and also identify new business ideas, but this one was missed for decades if not centuries.  The best answer I can come up with to explain this oversight is that those of us who have education, and whose ancestors emerged from poverty generations ago, grossly underestimate the capabilities of the poor – and this fundamental misjudgment hampers our ability to address poverty in a constructive manner. 

Let me illustrate this with a story. 

About ten years ago, Professor Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, launched a mobile phone company with a European partner.  A key element of this venture was that it would set up an estimated 50,000 Grameen Bank borrowers as pay phone vendors, cellular pay phone vendors, in rural Bangladesh – places where phone service had never existed before.  People scoffed at the idea.  They questioned whether the poor could learn to use the phones, to make and receive calls, within a reasonable period of time.  Unlike us, who often pay one penny for our phones due to the fact that we are prized consumers based on our inherited or earned wealth, the poor pay full price for their phones, and under this program Grameen Bank would finance these phones with loans bearing a commercial rate of interest.   So, if the poor could not figure out how to use the phones, which after all are “simplified computers” according to some analysts, they would struggle to pay back their loans (since the phones would not be generating any income).  Some predicted that the poor women who would own these phones would be scared by them when they heard voices coming out, and figure that there were ghosts in these mysterious devices. 

Dr. Yunus said that in that case, he would forgive the loans, but it was worth a try in any case.  About one year after launching this program, he visited a village where some of the first phones were distributed to Grameen Bank borrowers.  A number of women from nearby villages had been gathered to speak to him.  He asked one how many months it had taken her to feel comfortable using the phone.  She stepped back, scratched her head, and said, “To ask me that question Professor Yunus, it makes me think that you have a very complicated phone.”    She continued, “You see, my phone only has ten numbers.  And with money to be made for my family, it took me about one minute to learn each number and I was in business in ten minutes.”  She looked at Grameen Bank’s founder for a moment and added, “Professor Yunus, you should get one of these simple phones.”

Another woman told Professor Yunus that after a few months, she had memorized the country codes of all the nations in the world.  Many Bangladeshis live overseas and called her village, and her pay phone, from countries across the world at all times of day and night.  She sensed that Dr. Yunus did not believe her, that he still doubted that they were competent users of their phones, so she issued a challenge.  “Dr. Yunus, you can give me the name of a country and the phone number, and I will dial it – blindfolded – and if I don’t get the line of the first try, the phone is yours.  Since you seem to need one of these simple phones.”

Professor Yunus had this insight, into the unappreciated and untapped capabilities of the poor, and turned it into an incredibly successful bank – the Grameen Bank – and family of companies.  His work spawned a movement, and it was rightly recognized by the high honor of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.  His bank provides capital to more than seven million Bangladeshis, mostly women, and surveys show that about 60% of them are able to overcome poverty within four years, while most of the rest take somewhat longer. 

At this point, I’d like to tell you a little about my personal journey in the microfinance movement, or industry as some prefer to call it.  The seeds of my work in microfinance and social justice can be traced back to Horace Mann, where my involvement with The Tutoring Project, which I understand continues at HM in some form, and the Oxfam Fast for a World Harvest gave me a sense of my responsibilities to the wider community.  At Cornell, I sympathized with those who were protesting against the wars in Central America and apartheid, but I did not join their protests.  Rather, I yearned to figure out what I was for, rather than focusing on what I was against.  I went on a journey to find something that was not only cutting edge in terms of delivering social justice, but that was fundamentally positive – something that could be done, ideally on a wide scale, when things like needless war and the embarrassment of apartheid were in retreat. 

This led me to the work of Professor Muhammad Yunus, and the Grameen Bank he had created in 1976.  At the urging of a mentor, in 1987 I wrote Dr. Yunus a letter with an idea that had all the naiveté one would expect from a 20-year-old.  I proposed to come to Bangladesh in order to help him spread the Grameen Bank’s strategy for addressing poverty through micro-loans to other Third World countries.  Six weeks later – remember, this was long before the Internet made these kinds of communications almost instantaneous – I received a reply from Professor Yunus. He encouraged me to come to Bangladesh and work on the project I described.  He said that he could not guarantee that his colleagues would like me, or that I would like the work.  As something of an afterthought, he said that I should try to learn some Bengali before arriving. 

I think I surprised him when, 18 months later, I arrived as a Fulbright scholar and was speaking passable Bengali – a beautiful language that I would go on to speak fluently in time.  He took an interest in me and made this HM graduate feel like his idea has some merit and could make an impact.  That gave me enormous energy and a sense of purpose.  I wrote about my experiences and sent many long letters to friends, who passed them around to people I knew, and many whom I did not.  I tapped into what I learned about writing from people like the late Mr. McCardell and Mr. Castleman , my 10th grade English teacher whom I am very pleased has joined me here tonight.  In writing those letters, I found my voice as never before.  In fact, a few of these outpourings found their way into the hands of a producer at “60 Minutes,” and led to a segment on Grameen Bank that brought its hopeful message and practical approach to millions of Americans. 

After ten months I returned home and began giving a series of eight talks in eight cities about my experiences.  The first one I gave was, frankly, a disaster.  I was all over the map, unable to drive home any point convincingly.  My approach to communicating was much too theoretical.  The evening after my first speech I regrouped, just like a poor woman would if her business had a bad day.  I radically simplified my presentation for the next day, talking for almost a full hour about the life of one woman. 

A few weeks earlier, I had translated for two journalists from Germany who interviewed Hamila Begum, a Grameen Bank borrower, for about ten hours over three days.   In my revamped presentation, I explained how Hamila had struggled to improve her economic conditions but had seen her situation deteriorate until, during the 1974 famine, she hit rock bottom when she sold her rice pot.  For a poor woman in Bangladesh, if you can at least hold onto your rice pot, you know that if you are able to buy or grow rice in the future, you will be able to cook it.  If you sell your rice pot, destitution and begging are the next logical step.

Somehow, Hamila survived that harrowing time and in 1982, she heard about something called the Grameen Bank and struggled mightily to form a solidarity group, which enabled her to borrow $40.  Forty dollars.  She used her loan to start a business selling flour from her home and the local market.  Later, this grew to a grocery stop, and in time she bought a bicycle rickshaw for her son. 

This story touched the people I spoke to on that second attempt to share my experience.  It gave them a real sense of what Grameen Bank was about.  And it gave them hope.  My story-telling approach to describing microfinance grew into a book called Give Us Credit that was published by Random House in 1996.  With the attention that the Nobel Peace Prize has brought, John Wiley and Sons has agreed to republish this book with updates next March, under the title Small Loans, Big Dreams

By 1997, when an aggressive global goal was set for expanding the reach of microfinance to all corners of the earth, I was ready to move from writing to action.  With the full and active support of Professor Yunus, I started Grameen Foundation.  Among many other things, he provided me with $6,000, which was part of a cash award that came with one of the prizes he received that year.  Fortunately, I was too naïve to know that $6,000 is not a lot of money with which to start an organization.  Still, it was enough to get the ball rolling.

I’d like conclude my remarks tonight by sharing with you four stories from the ten years since Grameen Foundation was launched.     

Grameen Foundation, at its core, is about finding people and institutions around the world that have the potential to impact poverty in their country on the scale that Professor Yunus and the Grameen Bank have in Bangladesh – and then doing everything we can to help them realize that vision.  In early 2000, leaders of three microfinance institutions in India that had been trained by Grameen Bank came to me with a proposal.  They wanted to grow their collective outreach from 46,000 poor women to 165,000 over thirty months.  The cost of that expansion was estimated to be $8 million.  They said that if Grameen Foundation could provide $1 million by the end of the year, they could leverage that and mobilize the other $7 million from local sources.  We had never raised that kind of money for a single project in a single year, but I felt energized by the prospect of having this kind of major impact.  So I called on Steve Rockefeller, who would later be a Grameen Foundation board member, and we blitzed everyone we knew who had money (Steve knew a lot more such people than I did) and we asked them to contribute to our $1 million target. 

It was May 2000, and not everyone realized that the stock market was not going to roar back, though some sensed that their 401-Ks were in the process of becoming 201-Ks.  We got most of the commitments we needed within a few weeks, and delivered the money by the end of the year.  And then something very exciting happened.  These three organizations undertook their expansion programs and reached the 165,000 family target – six months early!  This gave us confidence that big impact was possible outside of Bangladesh, and that Grameen Foundation and U.S. philanthropists could help make it happen.  We were exhilarated, and this proved to be the springboard that put us on course to mobilizing $100 million during our first decade of existence.  One hundred million dollars – anywhere except New York, that sounds like a lot of money.  Well, when your “product” is life-transforming loans of $100, it really is a lot of money.  Earlier this year, I looked at how these three organizations were doing, and I noticed that they had collectively passed the milestone of reaching two million families.  I was amazed, and very proud to have played a role in making that happen.  The dream that I outlined in my 1987 letter to Professor Yunus, when I was not even twenty years old, was coming true. 

The year after we raised the first million dollars was tougher, with the economy in its post-9/11 doldrums.  Still, we mobilized $260,000 for our work in India that year, and in an effort to do more with less, we used it to provide partial guarantees for loans from Indian banks to our microfinance partners.  The good news was that we were able to multiply the amount we raised by ten times, due to the fact that we convinced the local banks to accept a guarantee amounting to 10% of their loans made to our Indian microfinance partners.  This enhanced impact and excited people even more.  We began to see opportunities to use philanthropic grants to partially guarantee local loans, but it was a bit cumbersome, since a deal would be negotiated requiring, say, $200,000 as a partial guarantee, and by the time we raised the funds, the local bank often lost interest in the deal.  (Many traditional bankers, as I was to learn, had short attention spans.)  So this set the stage for another program of Grameen Foundation.

To understand this second story, I need to give you a sense of the first half of November 2004, which was the most emotional two weeks of my life.  It began with my 20th Horace Mann reunion, which was terrific.  Like many others perhaps, I thought of not going until the last minute, but when I did I enjoyed it immensely.  The opportunity to reconnect with lapsed friends and a wonderful period of my life was very soulful. 

A few days later, my father passed away.  The following day, a certain individual was elected President of the United States, a development about which I had strong feelings.  And a few days later, I went to the west coast to participate, with Professor Yunus, in the most significant gathering of philanthropists to focus on microcredit in history up to that point – an incredible event that was organized by my friend and former colleague Barb Weber, who is here tonight. 

We had agreed that the seminar was to be educational, with no overt fund-raising in the group setting.  However, by the early afternoon of the second day, several of the people said they wanted to “do something” and they felt the group wanted to leave with a sense of accomplishment.  So, in one of those hallway conversations that bends the arc of history, a Grameen Foundation board member and I presented a strategy to a few of the attendees, a strategy that had languished because it would have required such a large amount of resources to launch.  In its essence, the idea was that if wealthy individuals pledged a small portion of their assets into a pool, those assets could be used to guarantee loans from local banks to local microfinance institutions (MFI), who would in turn lend to the poor.  Only in the case of an MFI defaulting on a loan to a bank would the philanthropists have to part with any money.  But the catch was that to make such a facility possible, at least $15 million in pledged assets would be required, since the time and expense of setting up such a structure – which had never been tried before to our knowledge – was significant. 

Our host asked us how much we wanted.  We hoped for something on the order of $25 to $30 million, which we estimated could leverage $150 million to $160 million in local loans, generating 1.5 million micro-loans averaging $100 each.  He asked us what the combined net worth of the people in the room was.  Based on publicly available information, we thought it was about $30 billion – an amount that sounds like a lot, even in New York!  The meeting resumed.  It was awkward because I realized that those of us who met on the break had not agreed who would formally propose the idea to the larger group.  It seemed that the donors wanted the Grameen Foundation staff to do so; I thought it should come from the group.  It was nerve-wracking as the end of the day neared.  Finally, Susan Davis, our board chair, suggested in general terms something along the lines that had been discussed on the break.  After some discussion, our host got behind it, and asked if people could commit at least 0.1% of their net worth to the proposed pool.  At one point, a participant said he thought the idea was not quite “cooked” or ready enough for them to commit resources to, even verbally.  In my depleted emotional state, with my father’s death still weighing heavily on me, I somehow summoned the energy to say to this individual – who probably earned more that month than I will ever earn in my lifetime – that this was an idea that we could make happen, if the group was willing to commit to backing it.  Fairly quickly, people fell into line.  I was intensely relieved, but I also felt the burden of making it happen.

Well, due to the hard work of many of my colleagues, eleven months later we launched the facility, and it was capitalized with $31 million – almost exactly 0.1% of what we estimated the combined net worth of the attendees to be.  That was two years ago.  Just last week, I was informed that the amount of resources leveraged by this facility had reached $108 million with the closing of two transactions in Pakistan, a troubled country where microfinance is quietly having a big impact on poverty.  We are on course to fully deploy the pledged resources by early next year, which will leverage more than $150 million in loans for poor women.  There have been no defaults, so not a single dollar of the $31 million pledged has been called.  Building on this success, and seeing increasing demand all over the world, we have just begun mobilizing a second round of guarantees to increase the pool to $60 million. 

The third story I would like to tell is related to the cell phone anecdote I told earlier.  Five weeks after Grameen Foundation had been launched, Professor Yunus asked my assistance in mobilizing $10.6 million for the accelerated expansion of GrameenPhone, which included setting up 50,000 Grameen Bank clients as pay phone vendors.  Having just moved back to the U.S. after spending five years overseas, all I could think to do was to ask people who might have such a sum to provide as a grant or low-interest loan.  Within days I was describing this project to the head of George Soros’s foundation.  At a crucial moment, he asked me how much was needed.  Every bone in my body told me to somehow apologize for the amount I was to ask for, or to vaguely allude to it.  I worried about the risk of offending this person by asking for such an outrageous amount in our very first meeting.  But in an instant I concluded that if I was not direct I would come off as amateurish and the request would likely be dismissed.  So, channeling the courage I had seen in women like Hamila Begum, I said, in a matter of fact way, that we needed $10.6 million.  He wrote down the figure and the conversation continued.  I did not know what that meant.

Well, it took 18 months of negotiations, the complexity of which effectively gave me an MBA and more knowledge of telecommunications in Bangladesh and project finance than anyone should ever have to learn, but we got the $10.6 million. 

Predictably, Professor Yunus had used it to work miracles.  Today there are 300,000 women pay phone vendors in Bangladesh, six times the original target.  These are profitable businesses, or micro-franchises as they are sometimes called.  GrameenPhone has 10 million subscribers overall and is the most profitable company in all of Bangladesh, and the largest taxpayer.  The original $10.6 million loan allowed another Grameen company to retain a significant ownership stake in GrameenPhone (a European telecommunications company owns a large part as well).  The loan from the Soros Foundation* has since been paid off, and the shares it enabled Grameen to buy are now worth around $250 million.  If there is an IPO next year, those shares could be worth three times that amount.  Now, here is the best part.  Early on, Professor Yunus stated his intention to hold these shares for Grameen Bank’s borrowers, who will be able to buy them at the original price and see their asset increase by 25 or even 75 times.  This would represent by far the biggest “sweetheart deal” in history where the beneficiaries are poor village women.  Amazing! 

I should note that Grameen Foundation, through its Seattle-based technology center, has been at the forefront of bringing the Grameen Telecom model to countries as diverse as Uganda, Rwanda, Cameroon, Indonesia and the Philippines. 

The fourth and final story I will tell is much closer to home.  In the early days of Grameen Foundation, there was vigorous debate about whether we should try to bring microfinance to poor people in the United States.  Perhaps surprisingly, the strongest advocate of us acting locally was our lone Bangladeshi board member, Professor Yunus.  He said that it would be contrary to Grameen philosophy to ignore the needs in our own backyard.  So we joined forces with a newly established organization that was providing microfinance to low-income people in New York City, called Project Enterprise.  I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the co-founder of PE, Nick Schatzki, and the executive director, Arva Rice, who are here with us tonight. 

Grameen Foundation got behind PE and I was elected Chairman some years back.  It has been a privilege to serve in that role.  PE has provided loans averaging $2,000 to more than two thousand micro-businesses here in this, the world’s greatest city.  It has a plan to scale up and have much bigger impact in the next five years. 

I’d like to conclude by telling the story of one of its clients, a woman who had struggled to put food on the table after she lost her job.  She had taken a class in photography and noticed that in a working class neighborhood near hers, there were a series of beauty parlors within a two block radius.  These aren’t Fifth Avenue spas, but they represented a small splurge by people of modest means.  This woman took a loan of $1,000 to buy a good quality camera and began taking photos of women as they emerged from the parlors, and they were more than happy to pay for the pictures.  She used the income to pay off the loan and stabilize her family’s economic situation.  There are many other stories like this, and more in the future of PE if it can scale up its operations to meet the demand.    

Ladies and gentlemen, some of my classmates at HM and Cornell set a goal to one day become multi-millionaires, and many have achieved that status.  Others just became multi-millionaires, even though it was not their goal.  I respect those choices and achievements, though I set myself on a different course.  I committed myself to helping as many poor families as possible to become multi-hundredaires, through microfinance. 

You see, when you closely observe a woman increase her net worth from, say, $50 to $350, you come to realize that this is more transformative than any wealth increase anyone in this room is likely to experience in their lifetime.  And when you know that the woman has the satisfaction of feeling that the achievement was something she made happen, and that this is happening in thousands of households around the world due in part to your efforts, it is deeply satisfying.  These are my “stock options,” my “year-end bonuses,” and from where I am sitting, they are more valuable than anything else I can imagine having.

Thank you very much.

* * *

Post Dinner Acceptance Remarks

Thank you for that generous introduction and for this humbling award.  I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to the entire Horace Mann Alumni Council for selecting me for this great honor.  In particular, I would like to acknowledge Alli Baron, who just introduced me and is the chair of the Council, and to Sari Mayer, my classmate who also serves on the Council.  And I would like to extend my thanks to the entire Horace Mann community, and especially to Melissa Parento and her team who did an utterly professional job on this event, from beginning to end.

Frankly, if someone told me that I had somehow distinguished myself among those in my class with last names started with A through D, I would be impressed, given the talent in that group alone.  To be honored among all living alumni of Horace Mann, well, it is barely believable.  But I’ll take your word for it! 

I am very conscious of the fact that many people have contributed to me and my career, and quite a number of them are here tonight.  First, there is my family.  My mother, step-mother, step-father and wife Emily are all here tonight and they have given me so much at each step of the way.  Thank you all! 

I would like to especially thank my Aunt Pat for being here tonight.  Aunt Pat, it means a lot to me.  Thank you!

I am very pleased that so many of my HM classmates, including our student body president Paul Hillel, are here tonight.  And my classmates from Cornell have come out in force – thanks to Rob Bakshi for bringing this group together, and for Michael Stafford coming from the West Coast and Alex Badia from Miami.  It means the world to me that you all came!

A group of my colleagues and former colleagues from Grameen Foundation and Project Enterprise are here tonight as well.  So many of my accomplishments are just as much theirs, if not more so. 

And I would like to recognize John Gelinas, a Horace Mann alumni who I got to know long after we both graduated.  He played an important role in this process.  Thank you, John!

And I have some of my oldest and dearest friends here tonight, from Howie Erichson to Karen O’Malley and many more. 

I’m overwhelmed.

I would like to conclude by giving special acknowledgements to one institution and three individuals. 

The institution is, naturally, Horace Mann School.  It was during these years that my social conscience began to develop, through participation in some extracurricular activities such as the tutoring project.  HM allowed me to stretch myself intellectually, through courses such as honors physics, the most difficult class I have even taken.  Finally, HM allowed me to put my ideas into practice and gain self-confidence not just in my intellect, but in my ability to make things happen. 

I was talking with Paul Hillal during the reception about how we started an intramural sports league for the lower school.  I can’t remember whether we asked for and received permission to do this, or whether we were allowed to move forward without the school’s formal blessing.  In any case, we organized a league for the seventh and eighth graders to play on flag football teams and the like (since they could not play on teams against other schools until ninth grade).  I remember, like it was yesterday, standing on the field – if we were on campus right now I could walk you all to the exact spot – and watching what seemed like hundreds of students playing.  I was awed by the fact that an idea that had been hatched by Paul and me at a lunchroom table had impacted the lives of so many people after we made a decision to implement it.  It gave me a feeling that I could positively impact the lives of many other people, if I choose to do so. 

I feel indebted to Horace Mann in so many ways.

The first individual I would like to recognize is Professor Yunus.  The interest he took in me at such a young age – even then he was something of a world figure – would scarcely be believable to me if it had not happened to … me. 

The second person is my father, Robert Milton Counts, who was a physician and teacher.  He was unique in so many ways.  As I finished sixth grade at P.S. Six, he short-listed four schools for me and then allowed me complete freedom to choose the one I would attend.  When I came to Horace Mann for a visit, it was not so much them interviewing me, but me interviewing them.  HM passed!  This gave me a sense that I could be in the driver’s seat of my life earlier than most others, if I choose to put myself there.   

Even before that, I recall a conversation with my father about what career I might choose. I said that I thought I would like to be a sportscaster, as I lacked the natural athleticism to be a professional athlete.  Rather than dismiss these musings of an eight year old, he said something I will never, ever forget.  He said that I could choose any profession I wanted – including being a sportscaster – and he would be proud of me, as long as I did my personal best at what I chose.  So, that was the beginning and end of the expectations he had for me – do my personal best, at … something.  Anything I chose and loved.  So a career in microfinance, which is what I chose, was as valid as any other profession in his eyes.  And mine. 

When I told my father I wanted to go to Bangladesh to get involved with the Grameen Bank, he was initially skeptical.  He asked hard questions.   But when he realized that this was not some fad but something I deeply believed in, he backed me 100%.  When it looked like I might not receive a Fulbright fellowship, he began sending me money – cash! – in the mail so I could build up the resources to travel to Bangladesh.  Dad, you don’t send cash in the mail!  No matter.  He wanted to see me pursue my dreams, and I did.  Thank you, Dad! 

 The final person I would like to recognize is Mr. Castleman.  When I went to HM, he was the librarian but he also taught one 10th grade English class.  He taught it with such devotion, it is difficult to describe.  I have never taken a better taught course in my life, and I doubt I ever will.  He put so much of himself into it, and his effort showed.  It inspired me.  You see, I had come from the public school system to HM in seventh grade.  It took me some time to catch up with those who had been in private schools from kindergarten onwards.  By tenth grade, I had caught up in all subjects, except English.  I figured that I would always lag in that area.  One day, Mr. Castleman gave us an assignment, and I wrote the paper and put it aside.  Something about how hard he worked, and how much he seemed to believe in each of us, prompted me to re-write the paper later that night, so I could give him an essay that was at least a bit better than my first attempt.  When the assignment came back, it had a grade on it that I would never have imagined I would get in English – an A minus.  I remember to this day where on the paper he wrote that grade, what his hand-writing looked like.  Frankly, it shocked me.  I realized that I could be a competent English student, and from that point on during my time at HM, and well beyond those years, I cultivated a love of writing.  At various points in my career when I was stuck, my writing helped take me to the next level.  Mr. Castleman, thank you for making that all possible through your incredible efforts that changed my life, and those of many, many others. 

Ladies and gentlemen, three weeks ago yesterday I ran my first marathon.  It might very well be my last!  Completing it was one of the hardest and most satisfying things I have ever done.  In the Detroit marathon, they have something called “spirit stations” every three or four miles.  These are areas where uplifting music is played, and where crowds of people wildly cheer the runners on.  It made such a difference to all the marathoners, and especially to me. 

 In my life’s work to facilitate social justice, I suppose I am now at mile eight.  Tonight and this magnificent award represent a “spirit station” for me that I will never forget, as long as I live.  For that, I am eternally grateful.

 Thank you very much, and good night.


* The speech and acceptance remarks were delivered extemporaneously, with reference to a few hand-written notes.  This is a reconstruction based on the notes and the honoree’s memory. 

* It was actually made by an affiliated entity called the Soros Economic Development Fund. 

The Case Against Bonuses in Nonprofit and Mission-Driven Organizations

Three common questions I get about nonprofit compensation are these: Where can I find data about what I need to pay nonprofit employees?  Is it ethical to pay fundraisers by commission?   And is it wise to pay nonprofit employees bonuses. 

In answer to the first question, there is a small cottage industry of groups producing nonprofit compensation surveys that are available for purchase.  Larger organizations tend to have a firm on call to help them set the compensation range for various jobs, especially newly created ones.  When I ran Grameen Foundation, we started working with Quatt Associates once we passed $10 million in annual revenue and we had a good experience.  It saved us a lot of time trying to guess what an appropriate salary range was, especially for new and upgraded positions.

In terms of the question about paying fundraisers on commission, I wrote about that here.

But what about giving annual, performance-based bonuses to nonprofit executives?  When asked about them over the years, I usually expressed vague discomfort and skepticism.  In one position I accepted, the outgoing CEO had negotiated annual bonuses. I refused to accept any and discontinued the tradition, without exactly knowing why.  I guess it just didn’t feel right. On occasion I opined that the “bonus” that a nonprofit employee gets is being able to do meaningful work, and that those working in the commercial sphere get cash bonuses in some sense in lieu of being able to do meaningful work related to improving society and helping people.

I recall when a nonprofit in the microfinance field gave a large, one-time bonus (though I don’t think they called it that) to their long-tenured, retiring CEO who had arguably been somewhat underpaid for years and who had secured in a huge windfall during her time as a leader.   My recollection was that this was a rather controversial decision inside that organization.

I have recently read some books which present ideas and data that give a firmer foundation on which to reject bonuses for nonprofit employees and executives.  The underlying concept revolves around the difference between how people respond to intrinsic vs. extrinsic rewards.  In other words, in which cases are people motivated to do something because they get a reward (such as cash) and in which cases are they motivated simply by doing the right thing or applying self-defined values such as integrity, hard work, and so forth. 

One of the key insights is that extrinsic rewards aren’t necessarily additive to intrinsic ones.  For example, let’s say that on a scale of 1 to 10, I am motivated at level 7 to do a good job at work for intrinsic reasons (for example, the belief that one should always do your best at anything you engage in).  If an extrinsic reward is added, one would think that my motivation would stay the same or go up.  Not so, according to some research.  It can, and often does, go down.  One of the insights of the book Door Dash: The Behavioral Economics of Peer-to-Peer Fundraising is that paying previously uncompensated volunteers can decrease their engagement, effort and performance. 

I am currently reading the book Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman (which I highly recommend) and the author raises similar questions around bonuses in many professions.  His first point is that people tend to try to game the system to receive the largest bonuses in ways that actually undermine their long-term goals and/or society’s long-term interests.  Think of teachers that are rewarded for students’ achievements on standardized tests (and who neglect other important subjects as a result) or bankers who are given commissions and bonuses for making sketchy loans that may later bring down their firms or even the entire financial system (see: Global Financial Crisis of 2008). 

But he makes a deeper point about how in all but the most basic and rote work, extrinsic bonuses tend to erode intrinsic motivation – a force that plays a huge role in sustaining effort in a mission-driven organization.  The key quote that I highlighted was this: “A few years ago, researchers at the University of Massachusetts analyzed fifty-one studies on the effects of economic incentives in the workplace.  They found ‘overwhelming evidence’ that bonuses can blunt the intrinsic motivation and moral compass of employees.  And if that wasn’t bad enough, they also discovered that bonuses and targets can erode creativity.  Extrinsic incentives will generally pay out in kind.  Pay by the hour and you get more hours.  Pay by the publication and you get more publications.  Pay by the surgical procedure and you get more surgical procedures.”  (The study referenced can be found here.)

I believe this dynamic probably plays out even more profoundly in nonprofits, where intrinsic motivations are so important.  If you could somehow align bonuses with the long-term interests of the organization and its mission, so that you aren’t incentivizing the wrong things, they might be workable. But in practice, it is often terribly difficult to do so.  As a result, while I believe that fairly compensating nonprofit employees is important, I remain a skeptic when it comes to giving out bonuses in mission-driven organizations. 

Another Dimension of DEI: "Radical Welcome"

Ever since the murder of George Floyd led to the largest (and almost entirely peaceful) demonstrations in American history during the summer of 2020, like many people and groups I have been trying to figure out how to think and act more effectively in support of racial justice.  At that time I wrote this short blog post, but for the most part I have been quietly trying to find my way through reading, reflection, dialogue, and small acts of solidarity. 

My understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion (often referred to as DEI) was recently expanded when I read Equity: How to Design Organizations Where Everyone Thrives by Minal Bopaiah, the founder of the strategy and design firm Brevity and Wit.  I tweeted about two of my favorite quotes from this impressive book: one that says that great organizations “encourage everyone to play to their strengths instead of insecurely asking everyone to fit into the mold of the 'ideal' employee or leader” and another which asserted that “[e]quity is a big ask... But equity gives more than it takes. When we meet it with bravery and humility, equity gives us innovation and opportunity."  She proposes that we add accessibility into the mix and redefine DEI as IDEA.  I strongly endorse this short and powerful book.

I have also come to believe that diversity on nonprofit boards and staff teams is often thought of mainly in terms of the signal it sends to the outside world that it is not dominated by whites, white males, or some other dominant group.  While admirable, I prefer to see groups diversify for an even more important reason: it helps them make better decisions by having more perspectives and experiences at the table. 

Furthermore, I have concluded that diversifying in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender is essential but also oftentimes incomplete.  Many groups would also benefit from ensuring greater diversity when it comes to age, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), geography, workstyle, political ideology and party affiliation, and sexual orientation. I assume I am not the only one who periodically finds himself in groups where nearly everyone falls in a narrow age range, is of the same religion, is bicoastal, is a Type A (or Type B) personality, is a member of the same political party, and is straight (or gay).

I have written elsewhere about the painful process of being forced to resign from a board of directors due to my workstyle being different from most of my peers.  More acceptance of diversity in that aspect could have led to a very different outcome in that case.

My views on DEI were further deepened when, in a recent meeting, race and gender discrimination was brought up.  Someone responded by saying that as important as those issues were, there was also an opportunity to embrace the ideas of “radical welcome and radical empathy.” 

I had not heard the term “radical welcome” before, but it struck me as something profoundly important.  I did a quick web search on it and found the term used frequently in the context of Christianity.  I found this definition of the term in the context of being a “radically welcoming” congregation, and it resonated with me.  I felt that its distinctions between being inviting, being inclusive, and practicing “radical welcome” were also relevant in many secular contexts.

The document argues that “a radically welcoming community seeks to welcome the voices, presence and power of many groups—especially those who have been defined as The Other, pushed to the margins, cast out, silenced and closeted.” 

It later distinguishes between invitation, inclusion, and radical welcome across four dimensions of being welcoming to outsiders: the message, the goal, the effort, and the result.  Here are the differences when applied “the message”:

Invitation: “Come, join our community and share our cultural values and heritage.”

Inclusion: “Help us to be diverse.”

Radical Welcome: “Bring your culture, your voice, your whole self – we want to engage in [a] truly mutual relationship.”

In all of the groups that we are part of, let us not only diversify, but do so in the spirit of radical welcome so that we can mine the entire potential of these long-overdue outreach efforts and make those joining us feel not just included, but comfortable. 

What does radical welcome mean to you?

 

 

 

Retail Fundraising 101 for Small Nonprofits: 11 Essential Tips & Techniques

Leaders of nonprofit organizations in some sense need to be generalists – in other words, they need to be professionals who have a reasonable command of all the external and internal work that their organization engages in.  If there is any area that they are completely clueless about, they need to get up to speed enough to supervise that activity.  Some would say it is enough to hire someone to do that for them, but that makes a leader vulnerable to their in-house expert leaving or not attending to their oversight function.  Remember: As the Executive Director, President, or CEO (or some combination of those titles), you are responsible for all of it – something that you forget or ignore at your peril. 

One of the areas of fundraising I never became an expert in but learned enough to supervise was retail giving (or so-called “one to many” solicitations through email and direct mail, also known as “direct response” fundraising).  So, what exactly did I learn about “direct response” fundraising over the years?  Quite a lot, actually. 

First of all, let me credit those who helped me learn.  My teachers have been Sue Woodward, a gifted fundraising professional, Tony Martignetti’s Nonprofit Radio, several terrific colleagues at Grameen Foundation including (during my final years there) Darwin Cruz and Kari Hammett-Caster, and of course my own experiences.  I have continued to learn more through blog posts (such as this one) and from books, including a very short one titled Emails and Newsletters that Get Opens, by Rob Ainbinder and Nikki Corbett that I bought and read recently. 

Let me summarize what I learned – things that may prove useful to small nonprofits where the leader doesn’t have the money to hire staff or consultants to help or guide them, or the time to read up on the literature. 

1.       Make your written appeals to donors as personalized as possible.  Address them “Dear Mary” or “Dear Mary Davis” rather than “Dear Friend.”  If possible, include some note that references how long they have been giving, or have the board member who first got them to start giving to scribble a note of encouragement at the bottom of the letter (if it is a hard copy going through the post office) or send a follow up email (if the original solicitation is electronic).  This approach will not be possible for the vast majority of direct response appeals, but look for times when you can use it.  The acknowledgement of the gifts you do receive should also be personalized as much as possible.  In addition to an immediate gift receipt for tax purposes (which your online donation processor should generate), whenever possible send a personal letter with your signature in a color other than black (so as to signal that you actually signed it yourself) within 3 business days of getting the contribution.

2.       In wording your appeals, seek to make them donor-centric.  Instead of focusing on how effective your nonprofit is, and what your staff and volunteers are doing to solve some societal problem, frame the appeal mostly in terms of what the donor can accomplish by partnering with your organization.  In other words, use the word “you” a lot more than “I” or “we.”  Research shows that putting the donor or potential donor in the driver’s seat (rhetorically) gives them a sense of agency and most importantly, makes it more likely that they will contribute.  And it should go without saying that messages should be carefully proofread before they are sent out. 

3.       Make the email address that potential donors respond to sound like “you” (the sender).  In other words, don’t have the email address that the appeal comes from be info@grameenfoundation.org.  If the donor is tempted to respond, which is a good thing, they may be put off by the impression that their email will go into a black hole or at best to some junior fundraising staff member who may not pass it on or even read it.  My team at Grameen Foundation did something clever to address this.  While my normal email address was acounts@grameenfoundation. org, they created another one – alex.counts@grameenfoundation.org – that generated thousands of emails every year updating donors and asking for their support.  Whenever a donor responded to one of those emails, it was forwarded to me immediately and I responded without fail.  That way, it did not clog up (and potentially get lost in) my main email account, and the fundraising team had a record of who replied.  They could also hold me accountable for sending back a nice note in a timely manner.

4.       A donor isn’t “yours” until they have given to your organization a second time.  Oftentimes, a donor will give on an impulse (perhaps in response to an advertisement or at an event) or in response to a request from a friend or colleague.  This is great, but unless you pull out all the stops, they are unlikely to give again.  What’s worse, you may give back the entire amount of their donation in unsuccessful appeals sent to them over the years to follow.  If you make a concerted effort, you can secure that second donation and from then on, the default for that donor is likely to be giving on an annual basis if not more frequently.  Until they give that second donation, the default is to have that first donation be a one off anomaly.  Think about how you can stand out as a grateful, responsive, and effective recipient of that first donation.  Some groups have sent me their swag (pens, tote bags, etc.) and others have sent personal message from their CEOs or the person who encouraged me to give in the first place (such as a board member I was friends with).  Whatever you do, try to distinguish yourself as deserving of becoming a regular recipient of a first-time donor’s philanthropy.     

5.       Appeals should either contain “nourishment” (i.e., some kind of value) or be very short.  One type of appeal should seek to educate the donor (about your organization or cause) or to otherwise create value for them (perhaps by sharing some interesting factoid related to your work).  These can be longer but must not be solely self-promotional.  They can take the form of long messages or e-newsletters.  Either way, they should seek to put the donor at the center of the communication (see point 2 above) and contain something they hopefully will value.  The second type of appeal is simply a reminder to give and may be as short as a few sentences and a compelling graphic; these are especially important for past donors.  During the month of December, many organizations send up to 6 emails, most of which are of the “reminder to give” variety but at least one is more detailed and “nourishing.”  If your capacity is limited, you might simply send out a longer appeal in early December and then send shorter ones on December 30 and 31 to those who have not sent in a donation by that time. 

6.       Appeals should have compelling graphics and photos, and ideally links to short videos related to your mission.  I love the written word, and well chosen phrases can help make an appeal effective.  But people respond even more to photos, graphics, and embedded short videos (or links to videos).  So, include them in your appeals as best you can.  If you are the only paid staff and like me don’t have a good sense of design, pull in some friend, relative, or volunteer to help you put together something that is visually appealing.  Good is better than mediocre, even if you don’t have the time or talent to make it “great.”  Videos need not be highly produced; a home-grown feel can lend authenticity to a 2-minute clip.  

7.       Appeals (except some of the very short ones mentioned above in point 5) should contain both stories and data.  When making the case for a nonprofit, short, “sticky” stories are the most compelling.  They appeal to the emotions and can be a powerful part of motivating someone to give an online donation or send a check in the mail.  But don’t forget to appeal to the intellect also through weaving in data and numbers that reinforce the stories and the overall case for support. 

8.       Appeals should make it easy for donors to promote your organization if they want to, especially through social media.  Not everyone is into social media, but for those who are, make it easy for them to promote your email appeal or social media channels in a few seconds and then gently but clearly encourage them to do so.  Their actions may lead to other donations, but even more important, you are helping them form a habit of being an advocate and ambassador for your organization, and become known in their circles as someone who supports you.   

9.       Be mobile friendly.  I was surprised to learn that 61% of emails today are opened on a mobile device.  Make sure your emails are designed to be easily viewable on smartphones.  Take advantage of the fact that most email providers allow you to check out the appearance of a draft email appeal on both a desktop and a mobile device before sending it. 

10.   Timing matters.  The best times to send an email are between 10am and 2pm local time (which means you might send emails to the west coast at a different time than to the east coast), and Tuesday through Thursday seem to work better than Monday or Friday.  Also, if there is a major natural disaster or some other kind of tragedy (say, God forbid, a school shooting) in an area, hold back your emails or direct mail appeals going there until a suitable time passes. 

11.   Buying mailing lists (rather than relying soley on your “house list” to grow organically through people voluntarily signing up) is expensive and you will likely lose money on most of them in the short term.  But doing so may still be worth it – though only if you keep at it consistently over several years.  Research in a deliberate way whether to purchase lists and which to purchase, and then stick with it for a while so that the public gets more familiar with your cause and organization.  If you buy a list of (say) 50,000 names and you spend $5,000 more on it than you receive in donations, that may still be a good deal if enough of those new donors renew and become habitual supporters, and especially if even a handful of them ultimately become major donors. 

Even if you don’t have the time to study much less master the art and science of putting together the perfect email or snail mail appeal for donors, these simple guidelines will help you be more effective in raising money through emails, e-newsletters, direct mail letters sent snail mail, and other related approaches. 

The Ethics of Paying Fundraisers on Commission

Early in my career in nonprofit leadership, one of the people who trained me in fundraising said that the practice of paying staff and consultants/contractors on a commission basis to fundraise for you was “frowned upon,” though perhaps less so than in the past.  In other words, rather than paying a salary to an employee or a monthly retainer to a fundraising consultant, they would be paid as a percentage of funds they raised.  I figured that one possible way to do this would be to have anyone being paid on commission to pro-actively disclose that to people they solicited for donations. 

In recent times, a number of my clients have proposed or considered this kind of arrangement and asked my views about it.  This is especially common among cash-strapped nonprofits and ones where some or all of its leaders come from parts of the world where paying people on commission is more commonly practiced (and in more fields) than it is here in the United States.

I had been meaning to research the current positions of the fundraising and nonprofit professions on this practice and whether it is considered ethical.  Fortunately, my job became easier when someone in a terrific Facebook group I am part of – Change the World or Bust created by the effective, generous and energetic nonprofit leader Amber Melanie Smith – asked about it.  One helpful member posted a link that led me to other resources related to this matter. 

The bottom line is that this practice is still discouraged.  To make it easier for others to get a quick sampling of current ethical standards related to fundraising on commission, I have quoted some policies and guidance below.

The first place I went to was the National Council of Nonprofits page on ethical fundraising.  The relevant section reads: “It is NOT appropriate for a nonprofit to compensate a fundraising professional based on a percentage of the money raised.”  [Emphasis in original.]

The Council’s section also directs readers to the Association of Fundraising Professionals Code of Ethical Standards, which says the following: “Members shall not accept compensation or enter into a contract that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall members accept finder’s fees or contingent fees [and] be permitted to accept performance-based compensation, such as bonuses, only if such bonuses are in accord with prevailing practices within the members’ own organizations and are not based on a percentage of contributions … [and members shall also] not pay finder’s fees, commissions or percentage compensation based on contributions.”

Finally, the Council also directs readers to the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations (PANO) Standards of Excellence which includes this: “Resource development personnel, including both employees and independent consultants, should not be compensated based on a percentage of amount raised or other commission formula.”

It does appear that paying fundraisers on commission is legal, though since states regulate fundraising it is wise to check the laws in states you fundraise in to be sure.  A helpful page on a website created in part by the state government of Pennsylvania says this, “While commission-based fundraising is legal, it is generally considered to be a bad practice and/or unethical.”  It then goes on to explain why it is not considered proper. 

 

 

The Benefits of a Silent Retreat

For some time I have been thinking about the implications of leading a life that is typically over-stimulated, characterized by frequent multi-tasking, usually dominated by the urgent rather than the important, and spent on immediate reactions as opposed to thoughtful reflection and mindfulness.  In response to these observations, about a year ago I began a meditation practice that I have followed sporadically ever since.  More recently, I came up with the idea of going on a 72 hour “silent retreat” in rural Maryland and found a terrific and affordable place to do so.  As the date approached, I defined what my retreat would actually mean, in terms of what I would permit myself to do, and (more importantly) not do.

I posted about this online in advance of beginning the retreat, and was surprised by the high level of interest and support. I heard from people who had done something like this in the past, and also from those who were interested in doing so but had never tried.  In fact, my A-plan coach went as far as to say that my intention to do this spurred her to decide to do something similar later this year. 

While I would probably have written about the experience anyway, the curiosity and support I received from others made it a priority.  However, when I sat down to write something earlier this week, I realized that a more immediate need was to compose a tribute to the late Senator Mike Enzi, which I subsequently self-published.

First let me share the rules I set for myself: no talking to anyone in person or on the phone; no email or surfing the Internet; no caffeine or alcohol; no television or radio; and no tracking of news in any form. Perhaps needless to say, all of these things (except radio) are big parts of my life normally.

So with all those off the table, what did I do?  I read a lot (more on that below), reviewed around 200 goals I had written 23 years ago, wrote down some new goals for the next 20 or so years of my life, hiked on the 200 acres of grounds owned by the Overlook Retreat House (where I stayed), cooked and consumed three meals a day (including decaffeinated tea in the morning), slept, and stared out into the distance on occasion and let my mind wander. 

Did I cheat?  Perhaps surprisingly, hardly at all.  I did get a call from one of my mother’s health care providers within an hour of arriving, and I took it.  But within a few minutes I realized it was not urgent and wrapped the conversation up.  Other than that, I spoke to no one for 72 hours.  (At one point I saw another hiker and decided that if we crossed paths, I would say hello, but that didn’t come to pass.)  I sent a text to my wife about getting picked up, and another to a friend who came into town unexpectedly and wanted to get together.  I logged on to the Internet once for a few minutes to email a document to myself so it would not be lost if my computer imploded.  Other than that, I followed my own rules. 

What was the experience like?  I will admit to occasional feelings of boredom.  But in general, I enjoyed how life slowed down, how I was able to spend more of my day than normal outdoors, and all the time spent reading and doing a few “important but not urgent” things that would usually get crowded out by the various distractions of modern life. 

I recall waking up at 6:30am the first morning and feeling a bit tired, as I sometimes do.  Rather than push through my inertia in order to “get things done,” I realized that I had no deadlines, appointments, or assignments (beyond reading and hiking) for the day.  I went back to sleep until 8:15am. 

I read a lot.  First up was plowing through the last 200 pages of President Obama’s recent book A Promised Land.  Then I turned to Ten Keys to Reality (which I read the middle third of) and the second half of a book on climate change titled We Are the Weather about how personal decisions – especially about our consumption of animal products – can influence the climate crisis.  Finally, I started and completed the book Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement that I had read about in this New York Times book review a few weeks earlier (and about which I will write a separate post soon). 

Revisiting the goals I had written in August 1998, as part of a life planning exercise embedded in a workshop led by now-retired leadership expert Dave Ellis, was a prelude to thinking through my forward-looking goals now.  (I highly recommend Dave’s book “Falling Awake.”) Reviewing those 206 objectives 23 years later was an eye-opening experience, about which I plan to write separately in the weeks to come.  (Those goals spanned ones for myself personally and professionally, for organizations I was affiliated with, for people in my life, for cities and nations I have affinity for, and for society in general.) 

At this stage, my big take-aways from this visioning exercise are:

·         How many of my goals actually came true, including a few outlandish ones, such as having Muhammad Yunus win the Nobel Prize and my publishing a book on nonprofit leadership (especially considering that I had limited skills in that area at the time).

·         Given my unexpected degree of success, I realized on a deeper level how powerful it can be to write down and/or share with another human being one’s goals and intentions, even if they seem unattainable and even if you never come up with a formal plan to achieve them. (In fact, even if you never even consciously review them for decades at a time!)

·         The many ways I have similar values, interests, and desires to what I had at age 31, and also the ways they have changed dramatically.  (Few things in my life have ever clarified my consistency and my changes over time more than going over that list.)

·         How important it is for me go through a similar process now, given that I am arguably at the height of my powers to achieve things and that I probably have another 23 years (plus or minus 10) to live.  I see that the extent of my professional, personal, spiritual, and organizational accomplishments over the next 2-3 decades depends a great deal on clarifying my goals now. 

Related to my silent retreat, I think that learnings from this exercise are two-fold.  First, every retreat should have an element of stock-taking in the form of reviewing and updating life goals and plans to realize them.  Second, days spent like this afford the opportunity to also do other things that require time, focus, emotional vulnerability, and prolonged reflection. 

I would be interested in hearing from others about their experiences with silence, mindfulness, life planning, goal setting, exploring the outdoors (or otherwise unfamiliar environments), and interrupting the normal cadence of life in other creative ways. 

Memories of Sen. Mike Enzi

The first time I met Mike Enzi, the recently-retired Senator who died in a bike accident earlier this week, was at an intimate dinner hosted by my friends Andy and Peg Walton. Andy was the pastor of the church Mike and his wife Diana attended, and that we did as well.  Appropriately enough, given our political views, the Enzis sat on the right side of Capitol Hill Presbyterian Church, and we sat on the left.

As we got to know Mike and Diana, we came to admire their commitment to our small congregation, especially since the politics of most of its members were very different from their own. Over time, I concluded that they instinctively focused on areas of agreement, not disagreement. That tendency guided our many conversations during coffee hour after Sunday services.

On the first evening when we met, I was a bit frazzled from my job running Grameen Foundation, an international nonprofit organization, so I didn’t quite catch his name or figure out who he was, at least initially. When he said he had been “working on the Senate floor” with Ted Kennedy on health care earlier in the day, I wondered if he was some senior advisor to a senator.

He mentioned something else over dinner. Earlier that week, Grameen Foundation had delivered copies of Muhammad Yunus’ memoir Banker to the Poor to every member of Congress, as he had recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. When I said I was the foundation’s CEO, he immediately connected the dots and said that the book was sitting on his desk and that he had just started reading it. He was a small state senator who paid attention to details and was intensely curious.

His involvement with Grameen Foundation would grow. He met Yunus, worked to defend him against scurrilous attacks in his home country, and was the most eloquent and unscripted speaker of either party at the ceremony where Yunus was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.

He had my wife and I over for a charming, home-cooked dinner, where we discussed issues that united rather than divided us, in a natural and pleasant way. For instance, they described their humanitarian trips to Africa, and we talked about our own experiences on that continent. The Enzis were clearly interested in our insights, as they might inform their own future work there.

Later, I made one of my very few contributions to a Republican candidate for office when he faced a brief primary challenge.  For his part, Mike gave my wife and I tickets to President Obama’s inauguration.  (We guessed there weren’t too many of his constituents who wanted to make the trip from Wyoming to Washington to celebrate that transfer of power.) 

In the wake of Yunus’ Nobel Prize, my publisher came out with a new edition of my book on him and his work. Mike agreed to contribute an endorsement quote for the back cover.  I drafted something but instead of using that, he read the book in its entirety and wrote his own charming blurb. That process repeated itself in 2019 when I published my own memoir, Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind. He was still a sitting senator, but he somehow found time to read the 300-page book and write something nice about it.

When the first printing of Changing the World came out, my publisher listed him as Senator Mike Enzi, Republican Senator from Wyoming. That didn’t feel right. While he was a Republican, and a mostly conservative one at that, he was a pragmatic problem-solver first and foremost – and to me, a grandfatherly friend. He did not let his political views serve as blinders, nor did he let those of anyone else dictate whom he collaborated, dined, or worshipped with.

He was a throwback to an earlier era. Today’s politicians of both parties would do well to channel their inner Mike Enzi. He will be missed.

 

Remembering John Whitehead

This was originally published on the Grameen Foundation blog in February 2015.

I first met John C. Whitehead long after he had stormed Omaha Beach, led Goldman Sachs and served as Deputy Secretary of State.  When I came by his office in May 2000 with Steve Rockefeller, Jr., I was a 33-year old leader of a nascent international humanitarian organization called Grameen Foundation.  Yet Mr. Whitehead, as Steve always called him, ended up shaping my career in ways I could barely have imagined on that spring day.  His death, at 92 earlier this month, is a personal loss.

The day we met, Mr. Whitehead agreed to donate $50,000 to a campaign Steve and I were spearheading to scale up three microfinance organizations in India that had been set up to combat poverty through the economic empowerment of women.  Our pitch was that if we could raise $1 million that summer, these organizations could use it to attract $7 million in financing within India and increase their outreach from 46,000 to 164,000 poor women within 30 months. 

The meeting with Whitehead gave us momentum, and we were able to reach our fund-raising goal in a few weeks.  More important, those three organizations met their local capital-raising and growth goals – six months early.  That success help spawn a decade of growth in microfinance in India that changed the options available to millions of rural poor families and, like many things in India, led to its own excesses, backlash and later, revitalization. 

I tried to engage Whitehead as a long-term financial supporter, advocate and mentor.  Despite the fact that he would soon take on the thankless task of coordinating the rebuilding lower Manhattan after 9/11, he not only agreed to do all of these things, but he did them with great energy, focus and humility. 

A year after making the first big donation, he made another, which I had presumed was earmarked for further work in India.  When we ran into some financial headwinds after the post-9/11 economic downturn, I called to ask if we could reprogram the funds elsewhere.  His reply: he had a policy of not restricting donations to organizations like ours, so we were free to use it any way we saw fit. 

This expression of trust in my judgment meant a lot to me.  In fact, it formed the basis of Grameen Foundation’s Annual Fund, which was named after our second Chairman, Jim Sams, and his wife Betty, who believed, like Mr. Whitehead did, in the power of letting humanitarian organizations set their own priorities rather than having donors impose their own. 

In 2001 he agreed to mentor me.  In a half-dozen sessions to follow, he sat with me for an hour, or more, to answer questions such as how to build a great board of directors (“one good board member at a time – there are no shortcuts”), how to raise money, and when to fire someone (“by the time you are considering it, you should probably just get it over with”).  Once, his secretary called him during one of our sessions to say that the Governor of New York was on the phone for him.  To my amazement, he did not take the call, as he didn’t want to interrupt the flow of our mentoring session.

In later years he would see me, or take a call from me, whenever I asked for one.  I learned, as he approached 90, to ask for morning meetings as he struggled to stay awake during the afternoon.  We invited him to many events, and if his schedule allowed, he would always come.  He was willing to speak if we asked, but he was also content to just mix and mingle, and elevate the occasion with his mere presence.  There was no big ego to manage, stroke or potentially offend. 

Some years ago we organized a lunch to motivate three female executives at Goldman Sachs to get involved with Grameen Foundation’s anti-poverty work.  After much negotiation, we agreed to have it in a restaurant one block from their Wall Street area office, for their convenience.  We had invited Mr. Whitehead as a courtesy.  His secretary said he could only come if the lunch was close to his midtown office.  So we figured he would skip it once we settled on the downtown venue.  Not so fast.  He ambled in with a walker and took an active part in the entire discussion. 

There were many differences between us.  Our ages, for one.  I am thankful that we never discussed politics, nor attended a Harvard-Cornell game together.  But we shared a desire, clichéd as it may sound, to serve our fellow human beings and invest in the maddeningly slow, “building brick by brick” nature of most positive and lasting social change. 

I will do my best to carry on our shared ideals, ideals that he modeled for me – and stoked in me – during the final 15 years of his distinguished life. 

The Power of Thinking Big and Being Open to New Experiences

Some of the techniques and mindsets that I have found professionally or personally useful have become habitual or second nature to me over the course of time.  One example is daily aerobic exercise.  These days, if I wake up in the morning without a plan for when I will work out, I almost always figure out how I will do so by the time breakfast is over.  There was a time when I dreaded working out and seemingly spent more time finding excuses to avoid exercise than I spent actually exercising.  Those days are long gone.  Good riddance!

Others continue to require a degree of effort and intentionality to ensure that I practice them regularly; for instance, thinking big or “going for broke” in advancing my priorities.  What do I mean by that?  Most of the time, I work hard, even relentlessly, to reach my goals through incremental approaches.  I play “small ball” (to use a baseball term) very well, but sometimes to such a degree that I lose sight of the opportunity to occasionally “swing for the fences” and attempt to make a lot of progress with one bold stroke.  To counter this tendency, I push myself on a regular basis to brainstorm “big ideas” – even if many initially appear unrealistic, unaffordable, or impractical.  I then try to identify a few of them to refine and then put time into on a regular basis on the chance that they might surprisingly and delightfully come to fruition. 

To make this more concrete, I spent years publicizing the breakthrough work of Dr. Muhammad Yunus before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize about 15 years ago.  Most of my efforts reached dozens or hundreds of people.  A colleague named Jacki Lippman took a different approach.  She had a vision of Yunus appearing as a guest on Oprah Winfrey’s show, and in one hour reaching millions with his hopeful and pragmatic message about economically empowering the world’s impoverished women.  She put in a few hours every week on that idea, and after eight years of work, it finally happened in early December 2006. 

A recent attempt to channel my inner Jacki was writing down 40 bold ideas to make my two recent books, Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind and When in Doubt, Ask for More, best-sellers.  I worked with my coach, someone I found through a terrific company called A-plan Coaching that my brother Michael and Sara Ellis co-founded, on this list.  With my coach’s prodding and assistance, I will ultimately select a handful of these ideas and keep plugging away at them for a year or so like Jacki did on her Yunus/Oprah obsession.  Of course, I’ll still spend a lot of time on “small ball” attempts to incrementally get these books out there. 

One tangible example of the strategy of swinging for the fences working was my pitching the Stanford Social Innovation Review to run an excerpt of the revised edition of Changing the World.  They were my first choice, but SSIR had declined to run an excerpt of the first editions of any of my books, and I was told they rarely even considered doing so for later editions of any books.  But I prepared an excerpt with the help of my brilliant editor Karl Weber and submitted it anyway.  To my astonishment, they agreed to publish it -- and then did so without editing a single word of my submission.  It ran last Tuesday.  To think I almost didn’t pitch the idea!

Another technique that I still need to push myself to regularly practice is avoiding ruts by being open to new experiences an even seeking them out.  This is a variation of an important idea in both of my recent books – the power of always being deeply invested in something that I am a novice at.  Much research suggests that openness to new experiences, trying new things, and gaining new skills leads to greater happiness and a longer life – something that the book Beginners: The Joy and Transformative Power of Lifelong Learning by Tom Vanderbilt reminded me.  In my own life, I have found that venturing into the unknown often releases creativity, reveals hidden talents and desires, and creates joy. 

The new experience I have planned for myself this week, which will last 72 hours starting at around 3pm Monday, is to go on a silent retreat alone in a house I am renting (for an astonishingly reasonable amount of money) in rural Maryland.  For three days I will abstain from phone calls, television, the Internet, emails, news, social media, alcohol, caffeine, motorized transport, and anything else involving speaking or writing to others. 

Instead of these things that take up an inordinate amount of my time normally, I will instead focus almost entirely on cooking, eating, sleeping, reading books, thinking, journaling, staring into the distance, contemplating nature, and going for long hikes on the 200 acre property that the house sits on. 

I am approaching this experiment with a mix of excitement and apprehension – something I typically feel as I gear up for a new experience that requires me to change some ingrained behaviors, even for a short time.  I don’t know what it will lead to, but I suspect I will gain some insights about myself, how I function in society, and how I want to spend the rest of my life. 

 

Demystifying the Need for Nonprofits to Register in All 50 States in Order to Fundraise Nationally

The following article was co-authored by Alex Counts and Gabrielle Trippe (see their bios below). It received substantial input from Tony Martignetti, the host of Nonprofit Radio and a noted expert on charitable registrations. It was copy-edited by AMC Consulting’s program officer Julia Clark. In addition to taking on board the analysis and recommendations in this article, nonprofits should consult qualified legal and accounting experts before embarking on a major change to their approach to compliance.

Nonprofit organizations in the United States often struggle with the question of whether they need to be registered in all 50 states in order to raise money nationally, especially if they only solicit donations outside their home state in limited ways (such as by sending email solicitations to those who sign up for their mailing lists).  Information about this issue is scattered and sometimes contradictory.  The purpose of this article is to clarify the legal requirements and options available to mission-driven organizations.  The bottom line is that for all nonprofits except those that never plan to approach donors outside their home state, registering in all 50 states probably makes sense despite the costs involved.  Outsourcing the initial registration and annual renewals can be a cost-effective way to ensure compliance. 

Unfortunately, many states have different requirements for fundraising from their residents, which makes the process more complex than if there were national standards or if states did more to harmonize their registration procedures. This issue has become more complicated with the advent and proliferation of Internet-based fundraising including “giving days” and crowdfunding.  It should be noted, however, that the need to register in all 50 states does not always apply to educational institutions and religious groups or to organizations that only solicit their members.(1)

Which States?

According to Harbor Compliance, forty-one states and the District of Columbia require charities to either register or obtain a license before soliciting funds from even a single potential donor in that state, and then to report to the state annually for long as they continue to approach donors there.(2) The states that do not require registration are Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.(3) However, even if a state does not require registration, it  may require disclosure statements to be included on nonprofit solicitations for donations.  Furthermore, some states require you to file an exemption even if you are not required to register. An exemption from having to register in a state could be due to the organization not meeting the given jurisdiction’s threshold requirement for registering or to meeting certain criteria such as being part of a specific religious group, educational, political, governmental, fraternal, membership-based, or healthcare related organization.(4) Applying for an exemption may reduce filing fees but might not reduce the workload involved in the process. 

Nonprofits do not need to register in states that they receive contributions from but are not soliciting in – unless the contributions are substantial or frequent.  For example, if you run a homeless shelter in Seattle and your aunt in Montana sends a donation, you can probably accept it without any problems as long as you did not ask her for that donation (the possible wrinkle being if her donations are substantial or frequent).  That being said, if you send out a text, Facebook post, and/or tweet asking for money that reaches even a single person in a given state, that would be considered a solicitation and will normally require registration.(5)

Noted expert Tony Martignetti, among others, argues that outsourcing these state by state registrations makes sense for most organizations that expect to approach donors in more than one state.  This is due to the fact that the question of what exactly determines a solicitation is quite complicated and often differs by state.  Of course, if your organization registers in all the states that require it, the need to scrutinize your solicitations to make sure none are going to places you are not registered becomes unnecessary. 

How long will it take to register to fundraise in all the States that require it?

If you choose to outsource your registrations to a company that specializes in this, it normally takes up to two weeks once that firm has all the necessary documents from your nonprofit to get the applications filed.  These documents normally include:

  • IRS Form 990 (i.e., the organization’s most recent completed tax return)

  • 501c3 determination letter

  • Bylaws

  • Most recent budget

  • Balance sheet and other financial information

  • Articles of incorporation

  • Conflict of interest policy

  • Names and contact information of board of directors or trustees

  • Employer Identification Number (EIN)

  • Statement of charitable purpose.(6)

It normally takes 1-3 days of staff time to assemble that package, depending on the difficulty of locating particular documents.  Once the filing is complete, it can take up to six months to receive approval from a state, though the average time for approval is 3-4 weeks. 

If a nonprofit organization chooses to do the filing itself, perhaps because it only plans on doing so in a handful of states, much more staff time will be required.  You will need to research for what is required by each state, fill out multiple applications, and gather and send all the required documents. This could take a considerable amount of time depending on how many states you are attempting to register in.  If there are errors or omissions in any of your applications, they are likely to be sent back to you in order to refile, which takes additional time.  Therefore, the best solution for most organizations that need to register in multiple states is to outsource it to a firm that specializes in charitable registrations.

If you are only going to register in three or fewer states, it may be cost effective to do the process internally.  Tony Martignetti estimates that it takes at least 3-5 days of staff time if trying to register in such a small number of states.(7) 

How much will it cost?

Some nonprofits have the same firm that files their IRS Form 990 (tax return) submit their registration for soliciting charitable donations to the various states, as there is some overlap in the information required.  However, many other organizations choose to outsource this to a law firm or organization that specifically handles this process.  Initially, the costs will include the fee the firm charges for filing on your behalf, plus the cost (paid to the states) of the applications themselves.  There will be additional fees related to filing annual renewals, and if any deadlines are missed, fines will need to be paid.  According to the National Council of Nonprofits, some states require disclosure statements be included as part of all solicitations for pledges or gifts.(8)  These disclosure statements are intended to let donors know that the organization is registered in that state.  Filing an exemption, which is an alternative to registering that some states allow, will cost approximately $50-$75 per state.

There are several resources to find approximate costs for registering individual states and also for registering across all 50 states. The Nonprofit Hub is a good resource to find out individual state costs. If you choose to register in all 50 states, it will likely cost between $7,000-$10,000. This includes the cost of hiring a firm and the registration fees.  Below are some examples of registration costs.

Charity Compliance Solutions is an organization that offers a package for blanket registration in all 50 states.  As of 2021, the approximate cost for a nonprofit with revenue of approximately $500,000 is $7,995, and the fee increases to $8,500 once you reach the $1 million revenue threshold.  This cost includes all the state filings and fulfilling the requirements of any of the states mandating that nonprofits have registered agents (Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia).  This cost will also include any fees payable even if an organization is no longer is soliciting for or receiving donations from that state, as some states require nonprofits to do.(9) In other words, if an organization decides to scale back and is no longer receiving donations in a state it is registered in, they are required to withdraw or close the registration.  Some states require only a letter to withdraw, whereas others require an official final filing.(10) Renewals are approximately the same cost as the original filing.

Some organizations such as Labyrinth, Inc. offer the option to do the filing but have the organization pay the filing fees on its own.  One can do this for approximately $5,000 for the initial registrations. There will be a cost of yearly renewals as well which will vary slightly according to revenue but will be in the $3,000 to $3,500 range.(11) The fees themselves for all the states requiring registration will be roughly $3,000.(12)

Once a nonprofit is registered, normally it must renew its registration annually, though a handful of states require it only every two years. The cost of renewing your non-profit for all 50 states is approximately $7,000, which will include both the fee to the contractor and the filing fees.  When renewing, you need to be mindful of any changes a state has made to its registration or renewal process. Any hired firm will track any applicable changes for you.

A particularly helpful resource is Martignetti’s Planned Giving Advisors, LLC.  He offers many resources and also hosts a regular podcast on topics of interest to mission-driven organizations that we highly recommend: Nonprofit Radio.

Is anyone working on reforming this system?

You would think that with all the complications and confusion around nonprofits registering themselves in order to fundraise nationally, there would be advocacy efforts to simplify the process.  However, many nonprofits are hesitant that advocacy efforts which cross the line into lobbying might result in their 501c3 status being stripped from them.(13) Perhaps this is one reason why we do not see more advocacy around this issue.

Nevertheless, there has been some to streamline the process. The Unified Registration Statement (URS) allows nonprofits who need to register in multiple states to consolidate registration. However, there are a few states that do not accept the URS, including Colorado, Florida, and Oklahoma. Even if the state does accept the URS, they often require further documentation.(14) In other words, even this route does not completely iron out the problem of each state having its own idiosyncrasies. The Harbor Compliance notes that they have found better outcomes by filing individual state applications due to the fact that examiners process them faster and they are less complex.(15) 

According to the Board Effect, “Many states don’t have an adequate budget or the personnel to pursue unethical nonprofits that partake in fraudulent activities. On the flip side, nonprofits sometimes have to pay excessive amounts of their funds to follow through on compliance obligations. For these reasons, some advocates promote the idea of moving all regulatory responsibility for nonprofits to the federal government, which has the financial means and other resources to crack down on unscrupulous nonprofits.”(16)

Industry experts as well as federal and state regulators have been increasingly recognizing how time-consuming, expensive, and duplicative this process is and therefore have begun to develop what is known as the Multistate Registration and Filing Portal (MRFP).  The idea behind this is to have a single web-based portal where non-profits can fill in their information only one time and gain their registration status to fundraise in multiple states.  A test version of the site launched in October of 2018 in Connecticut and Georgia.(17)  It is still in the early stages, but there are currently thirteen additional states selected to participate in the pilot program.(18)

Final thoughts

According to our research, the simplest route is often to hire an organization or law firm to do the flat rate registration in all 50 states.  However, not all nonprofits will have this revenue capacity, especially when just starting out.  If your organization is soliciting in very few states, at least to begin with, or is a small community organization, you can register in those few states and perhaps register in others if and when your nonprofit expands its fundraising efforts. 

One of the key issues to consider is that if you choose to register and file on your own, the amount of staff time this will take could become significant.  Your organization must ask itself, “How is our time best spent? Is it really worth our time to figure out all of these nuances and review them yearly for any changes or updates?” Basically, time is money, and this is not as easy a process as it should be.

 

About the Authors

Alex Counts (@AlexCounts) is an adjunct professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, an affiliated faculty of its Do Good Institute, a nonprofit consultant, and a writer. He is also the founder of Grameen Foundation, where he served as president and CEO for 18 years.  He is currently the director of the India Philanthropy Alliance, a coalition of 14 leading nonprofits involved in humanitarian work in India.  His recent books include Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind: Leadership Lessons from Three Decades of Social Entrepreneurship (Revised Edition) and When in Doubt, Ask for More: And 213 Other Life and Career Lessons for the Mission-Driven Leader.

Gabrielle Trippe is an international development professional with more than ten years’ experience working in sub-Saharan Africa, India, and the United States. Most recently she has been working to catalyze philanthropic efforts and social impact among the global Indian diaspora. A William J. Clinton Fellow with the American India Foundation, Fulbright-Hays Scholar, and a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, Gabrielle holds a Master’s in Public Health from Columbia University.

 

Endnotes

 1 https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/charitable-solicitation-registration

2 https://www.harborcompliance.com/information/charitable-registration?utm_source=councilofnonprofits.org&utm_medium=referral

3 Watkins, Charles M. Esq: Webster, Chamberlain & Bean LLP, “Charitable Solicitation Registration Educational Exemptions”. May 23, 2016, page 5.

4 https://www.harborcompliance.com/information/charitable-registration?utm_source=councilofnonprofits.org&utm_medium=referral

5 https://www.tgccpa.com/2016/04/q-and-a-does-my-nonprofit-need-to-register-in-multiple-states/

6 https://www.merchantmaverick.com/start-501c3-nonprofit/

7 Interview with Tony Martignetti on April 27, 2021

8 https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/charitable-solicitation-registration

9 https://www.charitycompliancesolutions.com/services/registrations/initial-and-renewal-state-charity-registrations

10 https://www.charitycompliancesolutions.com/resources/faq

11 https://labyrinthinc.com/charity-resources/nonprofit-regulations/

12 https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-your-nonprofit-need-register.html#:~:text=Registering%20in%20all%20the%20states%20that%20require%20it%20(39%20plus,and%20register%20in%20every%20state.

13 https://learning.candid.org/resources/knowledge-base/lobbying/

14 http://multistatefiling.org/

15 https://www.harborcompliance.com/information/unified-registration-statement

16 https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/governs-nonprofit-organizations/

17 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/test-site-launched-to-make-state-charity-registration-easier/

18 https://www.wabccpas.com/streamlining-fundraising-licensure-single-portal-initiative/

How to Pass a Resolution at a Nonprofit Board Meeting

I have written extensively about nonprofit governance, mostly related to managing expectations, defining roles, forging a productive culture, and adopting sensible policies.  Recently, however, I have been reminded that sometimes what trips up nonprofit governing bodies is a certain discomfort (or lack of familiarity) with the nuts of bolts of running a formal business meeting. 

I am referring specifically to something much more straightforward than crafting a solid agenda in a collaborative manner.  Rather, the simple act of passing a board resolution often confounds people and leads to awkward moments where no one is sure exactly what to do. 

I am taking this opportunity to share an approach that I learned and adapted from my friend and mentor Susan Davis, who chaired the Grameen Foundation board for more than six years and later co-founded BRAC USA.   

Adopting a resolution normally is the last step of a process of discernment and debate that a governing body engages in.  Sometimes the discussion predates the meeting by several weeks (or even years!), while at other times it might have lasted only a few minutes.  In some cases the wording of the resolution has been crafted by lawyers and other experts through an exacting process, while in others it is briefly summarized by the chairperson or some other member and later refined in the written record of the meeting to be more succinct and clearer.  Finally, it is voted on as part of that written record at the next meeting. 

It is important to note that in less formal business sessions, such as a recurring staff meeting, people normally agree that a consensus or decision has been reached, and move on.  But in the meeting of a governing body, it is good practice to formally describe and vote on the decision and then note it in the meeting minutes. 

What is a good way to actually put forward and approve a resolution?  First, the person chairing the meeting should read or state the resolution or ask someone else to do so.  Depending on the sensitivity of the matter, reciting it word for word may be necessary, or simply describing its key aspects may be enough. 

At this point, the chairperson can either make a motion to adopt the resolution, or even better ask the group, “Is there a motion to adopt the resolution as presented?” 

Someone can respond, “So moved.”

The chairperson can then say, “Is there a second?” or more formally, “Is there a motion to second the resolution?”

Someone else, who like the person who made the first motion should be a voting member of the group, can say, “I’ll second the motion,” or simply, “I do.”  Raising one’s hand can also serve the purpose. 

Now, the chairperson should pause at this point and ask the group, “Is there any further discussion?”  If no one speaks up after a few seconds, he or she should move on to voting.  Why is this important?  Inviting “further discussion” gives anyone who believes that an unwise decision that has not been sufficiently debated one final opportunity to make their case and potentially alter or derail the resolution, or at least explain for the record why they will be casting a dissenting vote.  At the same time, by offering one final time to discuss the resolution, the chairperson is inoculating himself or herself from future accusations of squelching debate. 

Once the offer for “further discussion” is either passed up on (which is usually the case) or taken and then exhausted, the chairperson can finally say, “All in favor?” which is normally greeted with a chorus of “Ayes” or hands raised.  Then he or she can say, “All opposed?” which usually is followed by silence but sometimes with a few “Nays” or hands raised.  Finally the chairperson can ask, “Any abstentions,” which may be appropriate if someone is neither supportive nor opposed, or if they are voting on the minutes of a meeting that they did not attend. 

If the vote is not unanimous, it is important to note the number of votes for, against, and abstaining, and perhaps the names of those casting each kind of vote and those who made and seconded the original motion to adopt the resolution.  Normally, however, it is fine to simply state in the minutes that a motion was made and seconded (without naming those who did so), and then that it was adopted unanimously.  The resolution itself should be spelled out in the minutes, and any essential background materials – such as a staff, board member or consultant’s presentation related to the matter – can be included as an appendix to the minutes.

To sum up, the process should go something like this:

Chair: “Is there a motion to approve the resolution as presented?”

Any board member: “I so move.”  [At this stage, the resolution can be read or restated, but this is often unnecessary if the intention is obvious.]

Chair: “Is there a second?”

Another board member: “I second the motion.”

Chair: “Is there any further discussion?”  [Unless discussion commences within a few seconds, the Chair can move on.]

Chair: “All in favor?”

Board members voting in favor: “Aye.”

Chair: “All opposed?”

Board members opposed: “Nay.”

Chair: “All abstaining?”

Board members abstaining: “I abstain.”

Chair: “The motion is adopted.”  [He/she can add “unanimously” or “by a vote of 9-1 with 2 abstentions” or whatever the case may be.]

 

In my writings about board culture, I argue that directors should always “speak their minds and vote their consciences.”  Related to that, I make the point that non-unanimous votes are a sign of a strong culture where dissent is encouraged, rather than one of a weak or disunified board.  In fact, some conflict-averse board leaders are so fearful of having non-unanimous votes that if they fear one is coming, they defer a decision to a future meeting – even if a clear decision is urgently needed. 

You can read about this approach and other ideas about nonprofit governance in chapter 12 of Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind and on page 127 (among other places) of When in Doubt, Ask for More.      

An Insight about Dealing with the "Slings and Arrows" of Leadership

From time to time in my career and in my personal life, a conflict has erupted with another person or a group that I had little or no role in creating.  You have probably had the same experience.  There are many more times when all parties involved, myself included, have played a role in creating discord. 

What can we make of those times when others blame, criticize, ostracize, or are hostile towards us for no apparent good reason?  To take one example, I once was invited to join a board of directors mainly to bring good governance practices to the group, and when I did so I was forced to resign – an experience I wrote about here

As a mission-driven leader, you may have experienced some colleague, former colleague, donor, board member, blogger, competitor, researcher, or reporter who took it upon themselves to torment you for what felt like no discernable reason other than wanton spite or pursuing some ill-advised agenda.  It’s not fun, and it does happen.  In fact, if you are leading a nonprofit, you can expect to experience it sooner or later.

In recent times, I have counselled and comforted quite a few leaders who have suffered simply for doing their job diligently and even courageously.  These kinds of situations seem to occur in nonprofits more often than in other professions.  Perhaps this is because our field is populated by passionate people who are often underprepared for some of the responsibilities they take on.    

My advice to those who find themselves in these awful situations, and to myself when I have experienced them, has evolved over the years.  First, I urge them to consider, at some point in the future, that they may have done more to cause the conflict than they can see right now.  A few years of time may be needed to gain the perspective needed to discern whether that is the case.  For now, concluding that the fault rests entirely with others (while acknowledging that one’s own behavior is never perfect) is reasonable and appropriate. 

Here is the most important part.  While intellectually one should feel justified and blameless, and perhaps even high-minded and principled, these situations often take an unexpected emotional toll.  Having others betray us or hold us responsible for an unfortunate situation, however far-fetched their rationale for doing so may be, is usually hurtful and deflating.  It weighs us down and can lead to us being distracted or preoccupied, or experiencing self-doubt for a time. 

Whenever I found myself in such a situation in the past, I would blame myself for not being able to shake off the emotional malaise since I understood that I was on solid ground in terms of my behavior and decisions.  But this only made matters worse.  I was upset both about others being antagonistic towards me and about my inability to laugh it off. 

I have concluded that it is far better to acknowledge that on an intellectual level I can believe that I acted properly while at the same time suffering emotionally from how a situation played out.  Being unable to shake off the emotional toll doesn’t mean that we are irrational or weak.  Rather, it means that we are human

In fact, acknowledging the reality of having two conflicting responses to a painful situation can be an essential first step towards healing. It may also be a strategy for resolving the issue in some way, which may be limited to having it slowly recede in one’s memory.

Announcing Changing the World (Revised Edition) Launch Webinars on May 18 !

In just under three weeks, the revised edition of my midlife leadership memoir Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind: Leadership Lessons from Three Decades of Social Entrepreneurship will be released.  I am super excited about it. 

My small team and I will be marking the occasion by having four webinars on the release date – May 18 – two timed mainly for Europe and Asia, and two for the Americas.  Please consider signing up for one of them today. 

What has changed from the first edition?  Basically, three things. 

First, I have written a new introduction that talks mainly about how the first edition was received and what I learned from the process of promoting it, given dozens of author talks, and receiving messages from readers. 

Second, it includes a new epilogue focused on leadership lessons for managing a mission-driven organization during a society-wide crisis, such as a pandemic.  (The first edition had a chapter titled “When Leadership Is a Struggle” but it dealt mainly with crises that were specific to an individual organization, such as losing a major funder.) 

Third, I re-read the book in its entirety and tweaked the manuscript here and there to improve readability. 

Based on a recently published review of this new edition in Booklife, it turned out well. The review concludes, “This updated edition closes with a new chapter, inspired by the era of the coronavirus, that centers on nonprofit leadership in a society-wide crisis. Crucially, Counts encourages his readers to take the long view, avoid overreacting, and demonstrate grace and understanding to stressed or even angry supporters…. His book offers hard-won insight and guidance to nonprofit workers and leaders committed to living lives of meaning–but not lives of needless stress.”

Please consider pre-ordering the book – either for yourself or some idealistic change-maker – and joining one of the webinars.  We’ll make these virtual sessions participatory and fun.  I am looking for volunteers to speak for 1-2 minutes about some technique they gleaned from the book that they applied with success.  There will be giveaways.  Expect as much laughter as earnest discussion about changing the world for the better.

If enough people pre-order the book and/or buy a copy on the publication date, it will shoot up Amazon’s best-seller list in its genre, which (if it happens) will have positive ripple effects for weeks. 

I always love it when people write online reviews of the book or invite me to speak about it online or in an in-person event (which I will be resuming later this year). If you review the first edition now, it will transfer over to the new edition’s page on Amazon, so no need to wait.

The purpose of this project remains helping people who are trying to improve society while keeping their own lives in balance.  I welcome your assistance, ideas, and encouragement as it heads into this exciting new phase. 

Why Successful Nonprofit CEOs Often Go Missing, and What Can Be Done

My book When in Doubt, Ask for More catalogues 214 of the top lessons I’ve learned about nonprofit leadership and self-care.  As I have mentioned previously, since its publication in March 2020 I have continued to have new insights on these two related topics.  At some point, they could end up in a sequel to When in Doubt.

One of those new insights relates to how nonprofit CEOs can fall into the trap of neglecting the internal needs of the organizations they lead by spending the bulk of their time being its public face.  It’s not that I have only learned this recently, but rather that I’ve finally synthesized my point of view about why this happens and what can be done about it. 

Some background: Nonprofits and their leaders sometimes suddenly experience rapid growth and increased visibility.  For Grameen Foundation, we enjoyed this kind of hockey stick-like trajectory in 2003-2004.  Our budget grew from $4 million to $11.7 million during this 24 month period.  Suddenly, we were flush with cash.  As its leader, I was in demand as a speaker more than ever before.  The media was coming after us rather than the other way around. 

This sounds great, right?  In fact, it was what we had always dreamed of achieving.  But as I wrote about in my leadership memoir Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind, rapid progress in a mission-driven organization frequently turns out to be a surprisingly double-edged sword.  The chapter about the challenges of such a period was ironically titled “Coping With Success.”  I slowly realized that growth and acclaim solve one set of problems but are often replaced with another. 

A Common Temptation of the Successful Nonprofit Leader

I have observed numerous nonprofit executives being faced with proliferating opportunities, and I have experienced this myself as well.  Invitations pour in to give speeches, join high-level industry working groups, and advise billionaire donors as well as philanthropic opinion-makers – which in turn leads to more resources and influence in a self-reinforcing cycle that can last for at least a few years.  These external roles sometimes advance the organization’s mission, but they are almost always enjoyable and boost the leader’s ego.    

At the same time as these external options are growing, inside the organization things have a tendency to become increasingly messy.  People jostle for influence and resources.  Turf battles seem to come out of nowhere.  Mid-level staff demand raises, additional administrative support, new laptops, and above all, attention.  Internal critics say that you as the leader are not doing enough to take advantage of all the new opportunities.  Implementations of new systems and technologies get bogged down, leading people to point fingers (including at the CEO). 

Faced with a dynamic like this, many leaders’ tendency is to engage more and more in the relatively pleasant external work and withdraw from the comparatively taxing and unpleasant internal activities.  In small doses, this reorientation can be consistent with a leader’s commitment to both impact and self-care.  But taken to extremes, as I have seen far too often, it leads to an organization becoming increasingly rudderless.   

Many CEOs feel entitled to focus on this relatively glamourous external work, since they helped build the organization to the successful point it is now enjoying.  To some extent, they are right.  However, the bias toward prioritizing external work reinforces itself with each passing quarter.   The neglect of internal issues makes those situations even more unpleasant to deal with.  The CEO is harder and harder to pin down for meetings and decisions, resulting in thorny internal issues festering and getting kicked down the road. 

The Allure of a Quick Fix

What happens next?  Typically, at some point the board gets wind of the situation, usually when an employee or ex-employee complains directly to one of the directors.  Most often, the governing body is understandably reluctant to criticize or rein in their high-flying leader.  Indeed, they have been enjoying being associated with an organization that appears to be increasingly successful.  Instead, the board is likely to suggest spending some of the organization’s newfound resources on hiring a chief operating officer (COO) to better manage the internal issues. 

This usually fails.  Once the COO is hired and begins to make hard decisions to resolve long-simmering internal issues, the leader starts to feel marginalized as the organization’s “figurehead.” Perhaps sensing this, the staff go around the COO when he or she does not solve problems in ways they like (which is inevitable).  Like clockwork, the CEO undermines the COO, and the COO predictably starts looking for other employment. 

Once this stage is reached, another COO is usually recruited and experiences a similar fate.  A decision is then made to leave the role unfilled. If you think this is unusual, simply check how many mid-sized nonprofits survived for many years without a COO, then had a few of them, and later eliminated the position. 

Occasionally, the COO role is not exactly cut but rather downgraded to chief of staff, which is usually filled by an internal candidate.  Yet nothing fundamentally changes.  To the outside world, the organization is thriving, but those inside the nonprofit’s walls know that the situation is much more complex, and may feel adrift or even dire. 

How can the situation be turned around at this point?  Sadly, there are few, if any, easy answers.  Many approaches that I have seen fail to get at the heart of the problem.  For example, some CEOs placate the staff by giving them raises, increased benefits and more autonomy.  These steps buy the leader some time, but they also raise costs and create a degree of chaos.  This type of response often means that staff are favored over other stakeholders – such as donors, board members, and volunteers – who compete for the leader’s and the organization’s attention. 

Ultimately, the CEO has three choices: (1) reorient their efforts to focus significantly more on internal issues (which by that point they are probably out of practice at), (2) agree to be almost entirely externally focused and truly delegate to a COO type without ever succumbing to the temptation to undermine them, or (3) leave the organization entirely. 

Let me be clear.  I believe that mission-driven CEOs should embrace their external roles and invest in coalitions for the good of their movement as well as their organization’s mission.  But when that becomes a refuge from dealing with internal issues, a line is crossed, and a very challenging dynamic is set in motion.  It is far better to consistently maintain a strong focus on internal issues, as messy and unpleasant as they often are. 

Getting out of the Trap: What the Board, Staff and Leader Can Do

What can be done to turn such a situation around?  A board of directors or trustees often plays a critical role.  They should avoid the temptation to simply throw money at the problem by insisting on hiring a COO, though modestly expanding the job scopes (and compensation) of some senior staff or putting aside some additional professional development funds for the CEO may be worth considering.   Most importantly, they should use the CEO’s annual performance appraisal process to better understand how the incumbent approaches their job and why they find internal problems so frustrating and their external roles comparatively so fulfilling.  Informed empathy becomes the foundation of finding a solution that works for the CEO and the organization. 

Then, the board (or more likely, a subset of them) can identify the internal issues that need attention and discuss how best to deal with them with the CEO.  A tentative action plan for dealing with them should be customized in a way that balances the needs of the organization and the preferences of the leader and then agreed upon.  This will certainly be an iterative process that should be revisited and refined every 2-3 months until the internal issues are better under control and the leader has recalibrated his or her priorities.  Furthermore, the ideas outlined below about how a CEO can reengage in the internal workings of the organization they lead can be suggested by the board for inclusion in the action plan. 

A point person on the board might need to be appointed to quietly oversee this process in a way that does not undermine or demoralize the CEO and ensures that it does not get bogged down in some other way. 

The employees of a successful but rudderless nonprofit also have a role to play in improving things.  More than anything, they should try to look at the organization through the eyes of their leader who probably finds their external roles to be mostly gratifying, and their internal roles to be much less so. 

Staff can, for example, provide supportive and empathetic comments about their leader’s efforts to solve internal issues (even if they are only partly successful), praise the leader’s external engagements (while at the same time urging them to apply their talents to internal matters more consistently), and in general attempt to make the CEO’s internal work more satisfying and less like playing out a series of no-win scenarios.  Even a single thoughtful comment from a junior employee can brighten the spirits of a leader and motivate them to redouble their efforts to solve nagging internal issues.

But the most important actor in an effort to turn around such a dynamic is the CEO.  Here are some of the techniques I learned that helped ensure that I kept touch with and appropriately engaged in what was going on inside organizations I led:

1.      I almost never worked from home when I wasn’t travelling, so I could be as accessible as possible to staff when I wasn’t on the road. 

2.      When in the office, I would regularly eat in the common area so any staff member could approach me with ideas, concerns, or celebrations they wanted to share.  Sometimes no one joined me, though oftentimes people did.  As a result, I learned more about their experience of the organization, and became known as more accessible and interested among my staff.        

3.      I held regular “CEO Coffees” where 4-6 employees could have an off-the-record conversation with me about whatever was on their minds.  These can be done in-person, virtually, or in a hybrid manner.

4.      I committed to returning phone calls and emails from any employee in the organization within 2 business days, and nearly always did so.  For smaller organizations, this might translate into having an open door policy most of the time and not rushing through drop-in visits or reacting defensively when unpleasant issues are surfaced. Hearing from staff what is on their minds keeps a leader grounded in what is actually on their minds, and getting back to the quickly ensures that employees actually consult with (rather than bypass) the titular head of the organization they work for.     

5.      I scheduled weekly 1x1 meetings with my direct reports (in person whenever possible), monthly “skip level” meetings with those reporting to my direct reports, and quarterly meetings with virtually everyone else. 

6.      During my latter years at Grameen Foundation, I published by professional development plan for all staff to see (and also to comment on while in draft form).  I was sure to include goals for better managing and supporting internal stakeholders and projects.

A nonprofit organization’s growth, success, and acclaim are clearly desirable.  But they can also be a trap for a leader who gets too intoxicated by them and resentful of the internal problems they can exacerbate or create.  Becoming overly engaged in external work is no substitute for a holistic approach to self-care. 

Avoiding this trap, and getting yourself out of it once you fall in – as I most certainly did during one stage of my career – is arduous but necessary work if one wants to continue leading a mission-driven organization.  It can also be highly rewarding once accomplished. 

Mission-Driven Leaders and the Opportunity to Affirm Others for Big Impact

Over the course of my career, I have learned a lot about how to motivate people – something I was rather poor at when I first took on leadership roles.  Sometimes I have summarized one element of my current approach as “never stop affirming.”  In my book When in Doubt, Ask for More: And 213 Other Life and Career Lessons for the Mission-Driven Leader I titled one of the lessons “Affirmation: The 5x Rule.”  It reads, “When considering whether or not to affirm a friend, colleague, family member, or stranger—for example, by offering a compliment, a thank-you, or a gesture of public appreciation—assume that your affirmation will be five times more meaningful for them than you instinctively believe it will be. My experience suggests that this assumption is likely to be accurate.” (I also made a five-minute instructional video partly on this idea.)

From time to time something happens that beautifully illustrates one of my lessons.  This week was one of them.   

Last semester I was teaching the course “The Foundations of Nonprofit Leadership and Social Innovation” at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, as I have been doing for the last several years.  One of my students – whom I still have never met in person, due to the pandemic – had been struggling with her assignments and in other respects. 

Yet in one of the final classes, she spoke up twice and made major contributions to a class discussion on important and difficult topics.  I was impressed and mentioned during the class (as best I can recall now) that she was “on fire.”  Since many of my students had difficulties focusing, meeting deadlines, and learning during the pandemic, I tried many approaches to making them feel I was on their side and emphasized more what they were doing right than what they were doing wrong.   

The day after the class where this student contributed so effectively, I thought it would be important to express in writing that she had done so well, as a way of further encouraging her.  I didn’t overthink or overengineer my message, since doing so can be a trap leading to nothing ever being done or sent.  I simply wrote, “Great job in class this past week!”

Until a few days ago, I had no idea whether my short message had even been read, much less received as intended as an affirmation.  Then, out of the blue, she wrote these words to me a few days ago: “I remember the class before you sent this email you were telling a story [where] the moral of the story was that some types of support are not immediately measurable. The reason that I bring this up is that this email acknowledged that even though I was not performing in the way I would have liked I still managed to contribute something meaningful to the class. And that meant a lot to me and the hope it gave me will stay with me forever. So, the effects of some emails are also not immediately measurable.” 

The importance of measurement of nonprofit effectiveness in solving societal problems is a recurring theme in my class.  She was channeling that insight to underscore how my seven word email was much more effective at encouraging her than I had assumed.  How generous of her to let me know that!  Indeed, my guess that affirmations are often five times more meaningful than one intends may in fact be an underestimate. 

When it is Wise for a Nonprofit Leader to Procrastinate

One of the 214 nonprofit success strategies in my book When in Doubt, Ask for More would probably have struck me as odd earlier in my career when I overly prized decisiveness. But today, seasoned by three decades of mission-driven work and observing many others perform in leadership hotseats, I feel differently. I titled this lesson “Procrastination Pays … Sometimes.”

The lesson in its entirety reads, “It’s generally a good practice to respond quickly to people’s calls, emails, and letters. It sends the messages that you are paying attention to people, that you care about them, and that you are decisive. But when a message touches on an issue that complex, contentious, and emotion-laden—and especially when you find yourself reacting intensely to it—you should probably delay responding for a day or two. Use the extra time to seek advice and reconsider your immediate reaction. When applied to larger projects, this concept means that sometimes it is best to “muddle through” rather than make an impulsive decision or one that is simply not yet timely.” 

Similarities between the Antebellum Black Church and Bangladeshi Microfinance Programs

Last night I was reading a New York Times review of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s new book on the Black Church.  Early on, the reviewer noted an important but underappreciated aspect of the church during slavery: its success in breaking slaves’ social isolation from one another.  The reviewer quotes the scholar Mary Rivers Legree explaining this dynamic to Gates.  “In slavery,” she noted, “you couldn’t do down the road and visit anyone…. Gathering [in church], they not only prayed, but after services were over, they could talk to each other about who might have a baby up the road, who might have died, and who was sold.”  The reviewer concludes this brief reflection by saying that to Gates, “the Black church is the soil in which Black culture and political action flowered.” In other words, those simple gatherings laid the groundwork for massive progress over time.

That insight sent me back to my roots in microfinance.  During my years living in rural Bangladesh, I noticed that for many of the women members, particularly married Muslims, the weekly center meeting at which Grameen Bank business was conducted was one of the few, if any, opportunities to network amongst their peers and be relieved of childcare responsibilities.  They gossiped, traded recipes, and laughed.  It was clearly a respite from the isolation many of them experienced the rest of the week. 

Studies about Grameen, BRAC and other Bangladeshi microfinance programs back this up.  In a 1996 paper titled “Rural Credit Programs and Women’s Empowerment in Bangladesh,” written by Syed Hashemi, Sidney Schuler and Ann Riley (and summarized along with many other studies in a 2005 Grameen Foundation publication written by Nathanael Goldberg, who later went on to do terrific work at Innovations for Poverty Action), the impact of being part of a structured, group-based microcredit program on empowerment was measured. 

The authors measured nine aspects of empowerment, such as mobility, economic security, not being dominated by family members, and roles in decision-making.  It turned out that Grameen borrowers were seven times more likely to be empowered than non-Grameen borrowers in non-Grameen villages, and the figure was nearly as significant for BRAC borrowers.  Interestingly, the composite empowerment score for women not involved with either program but who lived in a village where these programs were active were 2.5 times more likely to be empowered, compared to those in villages where neither program existed – suggesting that women’s empowerment can be contagious, an encouraging possibility. 

Powerful impacts from formal and informal social institutions on how people experience society and their own sense of agency is sometimes hard to discern, much less measure rigorously in the manner Hashemi, Schuler, and Riley did many years ago.  But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. 

Whenever I start to doubt the profound social and economic impact of microfinance in Bangladesh and beyond, I think about my field observations and related studies that confirm them.  I found it fascinating that the Black church, even (or especially) in the age of slavery played a similar role that center meetings have for the tens of millions of microfinance clients.  Apart from the hotly debated issues of economic gains made by microfinance clients, these social connections and improvements may be as important, if not more so. 

This is worth bearing in mind during times like these, when microfinance is largely off the radars of the international media and philanthropy thought leaders.  Regardless of who is paying attention, at any given moment, there are hundreds of thousands of microfinance clients who are meeting with their peers to engage with a microfinance institution and in the process, strengthening essential relationships that can lead to that hard-to-define but still very real phenomenon of empowerment.  

Perhaps this insight is one more way to understand how devastating the pandemic-induced isolation imposed on rich and poor alike has been, and why so many people seek to break free of it, often at their own (and others’) peril.

How a Nonprofit Board Can Effectively Manage a Founder or CEO Transition

I have written extensively about nonprofit governance, based mainly on my positive and negative experiences serving on or close to actual boards of directors.  I have also tried to absorb as much of the literature on this topic as I can.  BoardSource, for example, has some wonderful books and articles.  In any case, I believe this is an area where a lot of mission-driven organizations fall down, sometimes very hard. 

Yesterday, a woman named Ann Hendrix-Jenkins flagged my Stanford Social Innovation Review article on governance last year as part of the commentary on a more recently published article on the topic.  This latest contribution to the literature estimates that one-third of nonprofit boards are helpful, one-third are useless, and one-third are actually harmful.  I wish I could say that my own rough estimate was more optimistic than this author’s.  I can’t.

When I was winding down my time as President and CEO of Grameen Foundation, I vowed to set a better than typical example for a founder stepping down from running the organization they established.  Furthermore, I wrote an article about what I thought should be done in founder transitions and how the board of directors of GF and I put those ideas successfully into practice.  I think the article still holds up well today, more than five years later.

One of my points was that founders (and CEOs in general) should not serve on the search committee to select their successor.  I still believe that.  Recently I heard another reason that this is best avoided.  Sometimes a search committee, when talking with a headhunter or interviewing top candidates, may want to say that they are looking for someone who is strong in areas where the departing CEO was weak.  This can be awkward if the outgoing incumbent is part of the search process, and as a result is likely to remain unsaid.  Better to have them not be involved so everyone can be completely candid.

At the same time, I believe that many of the guidelines I presented in my original article may not apply to every situation.  But if you are part of an organization that chooses to not follow one of my suggestions, I recommend you ask a lot of questions about why.  Is it grounded in solid analysis of the needs of the organization, or is it some kind of easy copout or a path of least resistance?  Answering that question honestly can save nonprofit boards immense amounts of grief.