You may be in a battle you needn’t be.
Charities operating in the same field, trustees governing in the same boardroom, the senior team and trustees working at the same leadership, fundraising aiming for the same purpose. Competition is an unwelcome reality in the charity sector. But it doesn’t need to be this way.
Just like trees growing in the same forest, craving the same light and using the same soil for growth, you can learn crown shyness: allowing for others’ success as you yourself grow, and benefiting from each other’s skills and experience. Working together. All it takes to develop this is respect. And communication. No doubt strategy too. Ok, I simplify, but these are key ingredients in mutual effectiveness.
Let’s take two or more charities working alongside each other in the same sub-sector, be that education, hospice care, community services or the arts. The charities may become aware of each other and the negative effect this has on activities, fundraising, donor development, public communications and future planning. Yet with thought and humility, the charities could help each other by:
- Frank conversations to share plans;
- Understanding their respective strengths;
- Pooling admin and management resources;
- Shared service commissioning;
- Joint projects;
- Informal or formal collaboration;
- Recognising no single charity can do everything.
From improved communications and planning to collaboration or even merger. Imagine the difference that could be made by a collaborative attitude between charities.
Internally, charities can also benefit from reframing apparent difficulties. There can be personality troubles from several people wanting to lead a particular area of the charity’s governance or decision making. Even if not this, then there can often be inefficiencies in how risk management, decision making and strategic thinking is undertaken. Red flags include: taking too long over minor issues, not prioritising important matters, duplicating effort between senior management, committees and the board, one or more people dominating a process, not recognising conflicts of interest, and ignoring risk management save for a swift annual exercise. But reframing could include:
- Improved communication between committees, board and the senior team;
- Standardised report commissioning, preparation and consideration;
- Strengthened risk management, starting with better understanding and focus;
- Skills auditing of those involved in decision making;
- Transparent and regular meetings between key individuals;
- Training on essential responsibilities;
- Agreeing named individuals and target times for important steps.
If a charity’s governance is not maximised, then it deserves to stand back and refocus so it can be the best that it can be.
Trying hard to maximise our personal effectiveness and our charity’s success, whilst allowing for the same positive development in others. Those trees can teach us a great deal!
For further reading, take a look at my free resources or contact me.
