what kind of holiday do you like?

In Canada, we just finished celebrating our Thanksgiving holiday. I have to admit it is my favourite holiday. There is no gift-giving and financial and emotional stress associated with each gift. We come together and do a potluck dinner complete with a stuffed turkey, home made pies and vegetable dishes so there is very little advance work on one person's shoulder. I cherish the time to enjoy family in a very simplistic way.

To me, Chrismas is the opposite. I like the inital thrill of the first snow fall and of hearing Christmas carols, but the holiday is now a holiday season. We hear Christmas music continuously for about three to four weeks. We are constantly hit with Christmas advertising messages to keep buying. We are anxious about our gifts. Are the recipients going to like the gifts? Should we spend more money? We seem hard pressed to try and remember the reason for Christmas or for any religious holiday since the daily messages are to keep buying!

As I was thinking about the holidays, I also started thinking about how some executives like to run their organizations like some of the hectic holidays. They thrive on chaos and the hussle and stress. Other executives thrive on simplicity and peacefulness. I wonder if these executives celebrate their holidays in the same way they manage organizations?!

I know that when I ran an organization, I had a goal to take a holiday in the Grand Canyon six months after start-up. That meant I had to get the organization to a calm state where I could leave without worrying about a crisis. Coincidentally (or not) I also crave ways to simplify my holidays so that they are relaxing and thoughtful.

Many want to know what their leadership style is ...perhaps it is revealed in your preference for how you like to spend your holidays.

Something to think about!

Labels: leadership styles, non-profits

posted by Brenda Northey @ 5:29 PM 0 Comments

Wealthy charities

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote about how executives should be measured on performance and should be rewarded upon that. I suppose I had better be clearer, given the previous week's scandal in Toronto, Canada.

"Sick Kids charity boss gets $2.7 M send-off" was one headline of a major newspaper in Canada. Because the head of the foundation was given an early send-off, the foundation had to buy him out of his contract, which included his $600,000 salary. This story hit all the major papers in Canada, but it seemed to die out rather quickly without much follow-up. The foundation has taken responsibility and promises greater transparency. Their next Foundation President will make $400,000 plus bonuses- still a hefty amount when compared to other heads of organizations that do more than just fundraise.

Charities are supposed to be accountable in delivering services to their clients. Fundraising should be based upon need. We need $1000,000 to support... therefore, we need to raise $1,000,000. Yet when you hear that 40% of every dollar raised goes to fundraising, you wonder whether the charity has forgotten who the client is and also whether the money raised is necessary for the clients or is it just a fundraising goal. Turning it around, if the charity only raised 60% of the goal, then that would be sufficient for paying for the client services ( which includes research). Part of the 40% should go to pay for costs incurred, but over 20% could support another charity or many other charities that are also in need. It should begin to make us skeptical of fundraising goals and of rewarding those charities that raise money just because they want to reach a goal, not because there are well-defined projects to fund.

Something to think about.

Labels: charitable excesses, scandals

posted by Brenda Northey @ 3:38 PM 0 Comments