Skip to main content
Category

Indianapolis

Mar 25

Employee Engagement: The driver of company culture

By Feature, Human Resources, Indianapolis, Leadership

By Julie Struble, Charitable Advisors

Research repeatedly confirms that employee engagement drives organizational success. We know it’s important,but have trouble with misunderstanding of expectations and turn-over.  

At last month’s HR peer group, Tony Dill, owner of HR Partnerships, discussed employee engagement with HR professionals at the HR peer group.  With several decades of both HR experience and working for nonprofits, he has the perfect blend to understand nonprofit HR challenges. During Dill’s one-hour presentation, he clarified what engagement is and isn’t and how to develop your leadership team. If you missed the session, here are some highlights of his presentation. 

When you hear the term ‘employee engagement’ what comes to mind? 

A common misperception is thinking your staff is satisfied, happy and motivated.  You’ve garnered from organization satisfaction surveys that your staff is pleased with the benefits offered and with the work environment. While those are important, they don’t measure the emotional commitment an employee has to the organization and its goals. In part that may explain why a seemingly happy team member jumps ship when a competitor’s offer comes along.

Employee engagement = Emotional commitment + discretionary effort

In contrast, Dill sees employee engagement defined by emotional commitment and discretionary effort.

Typically, emotional commitment is tied to people whom we are closest with — parents, spouse or our children. But according to theHarvard Business Review, workplace relationships are important to create a sense of purpose and ownership. Close work friendships boost employee satisfaction by 50 percent and companies with satisfied employees outperforming the competition by 20 percent.

It follows then if engaged employees have meaningful relationships at work, as a leader, you also need to invest in your staff and get to know them and invest in building relationships. This starts on day one. In fact, Dill recommends employee onboarding should last 6, 12, maybe even 18 months and includes socializing the employee into your culture.  Some examples of what this would look like:

  • Ongoing, regular meetings with the new hire at least every 30 days to help with defining performance standards and meeting company expectations.
  • Solicit monthly feedback about the employee’s experiences, what would help him or her and how the work experience could be better.
  • Have socializing activities during work hours with new hires and current staff.  A group lunch is an easy way to accomplish this.

The other component of engagement is discretionary effort.  This is when an employee perseveres beyond what is expected and goes the extra mile. For example, those employees who are willing to complete a project under a deadline versus asking for an extension.  Another way to look at discretionary effort is someone who looks for innovative ways to do things. Discretionary effort is motivated by a passion and is often linked to the mission or the well-being of team members, or both.

8 leadership traits

If your organization wants to foster engagement where does it begin?  Right at the top of the organizational chart. Organizations with a culture of engagement demonstrate eight characteristics in their teams. The leadership traits are: self-aware, authentic, humble, trust, innovation, vision, passion and confidence.

During Dill’s presentation, the audience elaborated on the top three characteristics; their ideas are worth sharing.

  • Self-aware leaders continue to develop themselves professionally and personally. 
  • Authentic leaders interact with their staff and get to know them as a person.
  • Humble leaders are servants. Putting others first.

The management team needs to take ownership of these leadership traits and demonstrate them first. Dill reassured that your staff does not need to exhibit all eight traits. Yet, often, they will pick them up from the “trickle-down” effect. Driving employee engagement and developing a company culture often happens in tandem. 

It all begins with trust

Dill explained, as leaders embody the eight leadership characteristics, they become more trust worthy and authentic.  In return, staff will feel comfortable to share. As staff gains trust, it builds a two-way commitment between the manager and employee. When an employee feels safe enough to open up and share, a feedback loop is created. Open communication allows the manager more opportunities to clarify what the employee needs to focus on and this in turn accelerates the organization’s productivity.

Dill offered advice to embrace this change in culture. First, help each team member, even the hired hand in the warehouse, understand how their contribution is linked to the organization’s strategic plan, and ultimately, its mission.  Additionally, but equally important, have a conversation about how staff’s goals play into the overall plan. In the nonprofit sector, this is where things get a bit dicey.

As a leader, you’ll probably learn your staff’s goals revolve around learning a new skill, getting a promotion and increasing compensation — things that while commonplace in the for-profit community, are often a luxury for many nonprofits.  If your organization is on a shoe-string budget, the attendees offered creative ways your organization can help its staff achieve their goals.  Such as, If the employee foots the bill for a training, he or she can be rewarded with extra PTO time. Bring in an expert in your industry for an employee lunch and offer a free lunch-and-learn. Create an internal training program.

Remember, engagement discussions are not one-time conversations.  Most people need to hear something eight times before they own it. Be creative and communicate your organization’s message in a variety of ways.

Julie Struble is the marketing and sponsorship director at Charitable Advisors.  With the company since 2002 and with five years as a HR generalist, one of her responsibilities is to coordinate educational opportunities for the CA’s affinity HR peer group, and secure speakers with expertise to discuss the challenges in the nonprofit HR department.


May 12

Putting overhead under scrutiny

By Feature, Fundraising, Indianapolis, Sustainability

By Lynn Sygiel, editor, Charitable Advisors |

So you donate money to your favorite charity, and you find out later that the money went to buy a new roof. Or new computers. Or to replace the muffler on the company van that shuttles needy clients around the city. Was this a good use of your money?

For many people, any conversation about money is difficult.

But when the conversation is about overhead or unrestricted dollars, and it’s between a nonprofit and a donor, it can be even more difficult.

Six years ago, in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard wrote about what they called the nonprofit starvation cycle and challenged foundations to start an open conversation about overhead and analyze the true cost of running a nonprofit. They cited statistics from a five-year study by IU’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics, which reviewed more than 220,000 IRS Form 990s and surveyed more than 1,500 organizations with revenues over $100,000.

At the time, the nonprofit sector equated low overhead with high performance and best allocation of dollars. Donors depend on online rating sites such as Charity Navigator or GuideStar to help them give wisely. If there’s a perception that a nonprofit spends too much on overhead, it can have a negative effect on donations.

Indiana grantmakers have started a conversation to address the issue.

Last year, the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance included the topic at its annual statewide conference for grantmakers. There were two sessions that took on the topic, said Marie Beason, director of professional development and special initiatives for IPA.

“It included both sides — not only the direct costs of overhead but true costs of programming. It was a very rich conversation,” said Beason.

Besides a keynote address by Bob Lupton, author of Toxic Charity, five Indiana foundations shared experiences about what it truly costs a foundation to run all the programs it funds and operates.

Based on the responses to these sessions, IPA felt there was an opportunity for additional conversations on the topic. So in early June, they are hosting five IPA/GIFT regional forums facilitated by Lupton. Besides outlining the elements of toxic charity, the sessions will provide foundations and nonprofit partners an opportunity for frank communication about achieving results, using these practices.

While Beason has seen some change, she said conversations have been more casual. She also cautions that no two nonprofits are created equal when it comes to overhead.

“It comes up, I’m sure in every internal grant application review committee. We have not found a format or template that has been strong enough to lead us to a formal initiative, but what we have learned is that folks want to learn more.”

At McCoy, President John Brandon said it is a regular internal staff conversation, and annually with his finance and budget committees.

In the last five years, he has broached the topic with donors, too.

“We have had conversation fairly regularly with donors and givers because I think we have to help them understand the true cost of doing business,” he said.

Sometimes, though, the toughest conversations he has about overhead are in his own head.

“I’m justifying allocating money in my budget to buy that or pay for that and even though it’s not direct programming expense and it improves the quality and effectiveness of our organization. We’re trained to say, ‘Let’s do more with less.’ If we spend hours and hours trying to figure out how to do more with less, we’re wasting time and effort, that we could really be putting into more effective things,” he said.

Without accurate data, and open communication with funders, both argue it is difficult for donors to know what actual costs are.

“So instead of making excuses for overhead,” said Beason, “I do see a movement afoot to really articulate the importance of the work, the importance of the investment and the outcomes, rather than, “Oh, we’re sorry but we could really do this for much cheaper.’

“It all leads back to communicating the value of the work. Oftentimes the nonprofits come begging, which is not the appropriate mindset to raise funds. Now I’m seeing a shift both in donors as well as foundations to recognize it more as an investment,” she said.

The Nonprofit Finance Fund (http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/), according to Beason, has done a great job articulating overhead costs associated with a cup of Starbucks coffee and how that might equate to the nonprofit sector.

Beason suggested that nonprofits start by asking:

  • What is the true cost of programming?
  • What are the real outcomes and not just outputs of what the organization does?
  • What are the things that work and how does the organization build support for that?
  • What are the donor’s expectations?
  • Why is this an appropriate funding source?
  • What will the nonprofit gain from this funding source that will that allow it to effectively reach the outcome that it is hoping to achieve?

Both Brandon and Beason agree this has to be a two-way conversation, and it is critical to have open conversations about how each partner – donor and nonprofit — can benefit from the work.

“It’s not just the foundations understanding that personnel and insurance, and utilities and fully funding a program is important, it’s also getting the nonprofits to understand how best to plan for, manage and raise funds for those line items effectively,” she said.

Apr 14

A brand new approach

By Feature, Indianapolis

By Lynn Sygiel, editor, Charitable Advisors

Tangram-Logos-Main_1The name was direct and to the point — Independent Residential Living of Central Indiana – and it served the Greenfield-based nonprofit agency well for over 20 years. The organization referred to itself as IRL.

When the agency moved to Indianapolis in the mid-2000s, Chief Executive Officer Connie Dillman was alerted to a potential problem. In Indianapolis, the auto racing capital of the world, IRL stands for the Indy Racing League and although there was no confusing the missions of the two organizations, name recognition was clearly one sided. In Indy, if you say IRL, you think of fast cars, Memorial Day weekend and the Indianapolis 500.

Dillman knew her nonprofit needed a name change, but she also knew it couldn’t happen overnight.

After nearly two years and thoughtful discussions with board members, clients, community donors and stakeholders, IRL made the switch to Tangram in 2008.

If the goal was to put distance from the racing series, Dillman certainly succeeded. But why Tangram?

“We just weren’t hitting on the right name,” said Dillman.

After starting the process informally, she was reminded of a national speaker whose words ultimately provided the tagline: reshaping the idea of a disability. For staff, the name had to convey the traits of people with disabilities – brave and strong. Paging through the dictionary one evening, something her grandfather had done, she came across tangram, a dissection puzzle that creates many shapes.

Dillman isn’t alone. She is among a growing number of nonprofit leaders reinventing their brands or at the very least, raising questions to determine if their names still reflect their missions and work.

classicalmusicindy-logo   In the past several years, other area nonprofits faced similar situations:

  • Early Learning Indiana changed from Day Nursery in 2014
  • Fort-Wayne based Headways Counseling changed from Family and Children’s Services in 2012.
  • Classical Music Indy changed from Fine Arts Society in 2014
  • Indiana Downtown, Inc. switched from Downtown Indy in 2014

Downtown_Indy_ColorEach nonprofit approached the rebranding process a little differently.

External help varied, but all hired consultants, several paid for with grant dollars. Some parsed out the project, hiring different consultants for specific tasks, and three hired consultants that shepherded the entire process. The costs for these rebranding efforts ranged from $20,000 to over $100,000.

ELI_ComboLogo (2)The shortest effort lasted six months, and the longest took two years. In general, all agreed that swift name changes are not recommended because the public needs time to digest the changes, especially with veteran nonprofits that have deep ties to the community.

Three leaders — Early Learning Indiana’s CEO/President Ted Maple, Downtown Indy’s President Sherry Seiwert and Classical Music Indy’s CEO/President Charles Stanton – were new to their positions, and within the first year announced name changes.

8_8 logo ideasWhen Maple was hired in 2013, his board had just completed a three-year strategic plan with an emphasis on communication. Armed with a grant from Lilly Endowment, the 115-year-old nonprofit hired Well Done Marketing and embarked on a process that might or might not include a name change.

After two months of market research and interviews, what became clear was that families were looking for a solid educational experience. The name, over a century old, did not convey that, and sounded like a place to buy outdoor plants

The nonprofit’s statewide role had expanded, adding preschool advocacy and teacher training. It also provides resources to other child-care providers through its Child Care Answers program. The name Day Nursery was no longer sufficient to describe the daily work. The entire rebranding process took about 18 months, and included a new logo, website, signs for its centers and marketing dollars to share the change publicly.

A nonprofit’s moniker is more important than ever. With the rise of Facebook, Twitter, blogs and other online media, an organization’s name has constant public exposure. Large nonprofits have known this, but smaller ones are now not only aware but are spending time critically reviewing their brands.

When Stanton arrived, first as a consultant, the board and staff was aware that the 47-year-old organization’s name, Fine Arts Society, no longer fit. Started by Lilly employees, originally it put on events that integrated fine arts. Over time, its focus changed to just one fine art – classical music. Stanton believes that what an organization does should be evident in its name.

“Overwhelmingly, the feedback from the community members and people who listen was ‘I think classical music should be in the name,’” said Stanton.

“The fortunate part for me when I came into the organization, the board and staff had already decided that they needed a name that better reflected the work that they do. And that was really their only stipulation. It made it very easy because they had already self-identified what their primary weakness was that they wanted to overcome,” said Stanton.

When Downtown Indy’s Seiwart arrived at the organization, one of her first tasks was to oversee the co-creation of a five-year strategic action plan for downtown.

“Our agency didn’t have its own strategic plan, but had partnered with the city. Out of that planning process several tactics emerged, including refreshing the brand and name to be more reflective of the vibrancy of downtown,” said Seiwert.

The agency had hired a consultant to redo its website and database, and the refresh was an add on.

“They were the ones who suggested the name change,” she said. The community wanted the 21-year-old organization’s name to reflect a vibrant downtown, and thought that “Inc.” was too corporate sounding. While the organization didn’t officially change its name, it hit the refresh button and is essentially doing business as Downtown Indy.

Both Dillman and Stephen Jarrell, Headwaters Counseling’s executive director, were longtime employees, and had witnessed other changes. Jarrell, a 17-year-veteran, said there had been talk about changing the name during his entire tenure.

“In Indiana, there were a number of family and children’s services. A lot of us started as children’s organizations and family organizations that merged. We were incorporated in 1947, and in 1948, along comes the welfare department, which became known as the Office of Family and Children.

“Many people thought we were, in fact, the welfare department,” said Jarrell. The nonprofit’s new name incorporates its services (counseling) with a bit of geography. In Allen County, headwaters refers to the source of the area’s three rivers. The agency did not legally change its name.

All five nonprofits spent time researching and learned through interviews or surveys what the public’s perception of their organizations were and insisted on a thoughtful process.

“I think there is always risk in change, and regardless of whether it’s a name change or changing a logo or changing a program. I think the risk is extremely minimized when you go through a proper process and you allow for input,” said Stanton.

“We reached out to all of our most significant, most dedicated listeners and donors and other community stakeholders in the arts community and the community at large. We asked them their thoughts in general about what the organization does, what the community would like to see us doing. There were no leading questions. It was simply: Will you give us some suggestions?

“That was round one. And round two was synthesizing that information and rolling it into a few bite-size questions,” said Stanton.

For all organizations, clearly just changing a name is not enough – spreading the word is critical. Some did it with social media, others with paid ads and new websites. Early Learning Indiana added billboards to capture audience attention.

Seiwert said even the little things are important. Downtown Indy partners with many organizations and has its name on many things, including pocket parks and signs along the canal.

“We thought we had a done a pretty good inventory, but the other day, I was walking and looked down and saw our old logo on small signs along Washington Street.”