Author: Vu Le

Hi everyone, you must be as exhausted as I am by the relentless awfulness that’s going on everywhere in the world. But please pay attention to Sudan, where there is a genocide taking place, with thousands recently massacred, including children, and millions displaced and starving. And like with all other genocides, the West is complicit, with the US and other nations supplying weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which backs the terrorist paramilitary force RSF that’s committing horrific atrocities against civilians. Here’s an article on Truthout to give you some context.

We must also pay attention to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where millions of civilians are killed and starved. And those of us who are using smart phones, electric vehicles, and AI, which is basically all of us, are complicit, as DRC supplies a lot of the cobalt and other materials needed for us to have these things. Here’s more information.

I know this is a lot, and I’m also just starting to be educated on these issues. But our governments, our tax dollars, and our everyday usage of technology like smart phones and AI help fuel the suffering and death of millions around the world. Please be vocal about Sudan and Congo, exert pressure on your elected officials to pay attention and act, and donate to local organizations providing humanitarian services. 

—

A few years ago, when I was leading a nonprofit, I was trying to hire a consultant to do something, probably a strategic planning process. One of the candidates asked, “Are you looking for more of a facilitative consultant, or one that’s more prescriptive?” She meant were we looking for a consultant who would help the team reach its own conclusions, or one who is actively providing recommendations about what the org should do.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot as the field of philanthropic advising has been growing significantly, thanks to the exponential rise of Donor-Advised Funds (DAF) and other wealth-hoarding vehicles. But as this article points out, philanthropic advising is kind of a “Wild West,” with few standardizations or agreed-upon best-practices.

However, that might be a good thing. We have seen how toxic many of the “best practices” we’ve entrenched in fundraising over the past few decades have been, such as treating donors like heroes and shielding them from difficult conversations about the inequitable origins of wealth. Maybe during philanthropic advising’s nascent stage, we can prevent some of these pitfalls before they gain too much ground.

One of these pitfalls I see is philanthropic advisors adopting a “facilitative” stance to their work, where they believe their job is just to be a neutral party that’s there to help the wealthy give out money, but they themselves don’t really push an agenda or encourage donors to give to one issue over another. They are just a vehicle connecting donors to what the donors care about.

—

A few years ago, when I was leading a nonprofit, I was trying to hire a consultant to do something, probably a strategic planning process. One of the candidates asked, “Are you looking for more of a facilitative consultant, or one that’s more prescriptive?” She meant were we looking for a consultant who would help the team reach its own conclusions, or one who is actively providing recommendations about what the org should do.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot as the field of philanthropic advising has been growing significantly, thanks to the exponential rise of Donor-Advised Funds (DAF) and other wealth-hoarding vehicles. But as this article points out, philanthropic advising is kind of a “Wild West,” with few standardizations or agreed-upon best-practices.

However, that might be a good thing. We have seen how toxic many of the “best practices” we’ve entrenched in fundraising over the past few decades have been, such as treating donors like heroes and shielding them from difficult conversations about the inequitable origins of wealth. Maybe during philanthropic advising’s nascent stage, we can prevent some of these pitfalls before they gain too much ground.

One of these pitfalls I see is philanthropic advisors adopting a “facilitative” stance to their work, where they believe their job is just to be a neutral party that’s there to help the wealthy give out money, but they themselves don’t really push an agenda or encourage donors to give to one issue over another. They are just a vehicle connecting donors to what the donors care about.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, this week is Halloween, which is probably my favorite holiday, mainly because I like the easy access to junk food everywhere I go. If you’re on Instagram, check out my “Scary Nonprofit Stories,” including the one about the meeting that begun with a never-ending round of introductions.  

While we scare ourselves for fun this week, there are some seriously scary things out there that we do need to think about. This week, I want to talk about the awfulness that’s going on in the tech world.

I’m sure you’ve probably heard of the GoFundMe fiasco, where GFM decided to automatically create pages on its platform for 1.4million nonprofits, without asking for any of these orgs’ consent, and with setting the default tip to GFM at 16.5% for each donation. Of course, this has been causing outrage across the sector.

For its mistake, GoFundMe has issued an apology and reversed its decision, making it opt-in for nonprofits to have a page on its site.

While we’re focused on tech malfeasance, though, there are far more awful and evil issues we need to pay attention to and act on the way we have been with GoFundMe.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, Halloween is coming up next week, which means it’s time for the annual scary stories. These are terrifying tales that are guaranteed to send chills up your spine. Gather your coworkers and read these stories together, because I don’t recommend you read them alone. Add your scary stories in the comment section.

100 MORE YEARS

The gala was well attended. It was a Poe-themed event in celebration of a hundred years of service, and attendees wore elaborate ball gowns and coats and tails, their faces half-obscured by intricate raven masks. The air was light and joyful, and food and drinks were plentiful.

Suddenly the music died down and a hush fell over the room, the space darkened by tall vermilion curtains cinched with golden ropes. A dashing man, the board chair, stood at the ornate lectern, the spotlight framing his salt-and-pepper hair and refined features.

“It has been 100 years since our founding,” he said, holding a silver chalice of red wine, “and during this time, we have fed the hungry, found clothes for the cold, shelter for the homeless. We have served thousands.”

He raised the chalice. “To 100 more years!” he said, and the crowd raised their glasses and applauded, the feathers of their masks shaking softly, stirring the air.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone. Halloween is coming up, which means it’s time for scary stories. Grab a stuffie and wrap yourself in a blanket as I tell a terrifying tale that will leave you with chills down your spine. This one is extra scary because it’s true; I didn’t make it up.

There was a nonprofit that provided vital services to the community, especially to communities that have been historically disenfranchised. It received a small grant from a foundation. But every year, it must report on its expenses to this funder, and if any line item varied 10% of more, it must provide a written explanation for why. “Last year, I had estimated our postage expense to be $250,” whispered the ED, “but we spent $277, and that was just one of the many line items we had to explain.”

Year after year, this nonprofit had to do this. And it wasn’t the only one. Across the sector, thousands of nonprofits must do this all the time…

BOO!!!

Of all the crappy funding practices funders sometimes pull, requiring nonprofits to justify line items variances on their financial reports is one of the most archaic, inane, insipid, ludicrous, and banal of them all. AND IT’S TIME FOR ALL FUNDERS TO STOP DOING IT. Here are several reasons why:

You are wasting everyone’s time and energy: Millions of hours in our sector are wasted annually on these tedious reports. I remember spending three days tearing out my hair one time because a funder wanted to know how much of each line item we spent, and to explain any variances greater than 10%, but for information pertaining to their own fiscal year, which ended in December. My org’s fiscal year ended in June.

You’re telling your partners you don’t trust them: If you trust them, why do they need to explain why they spent 12% less than budgeted on something? Who cares? And if you do, why? By requiring grantees to provide this level of financial detail, you’re telling them you have no confidence they know what they’re doing, and you’re suspicious that they’re possibly mismanaging funds or committing fraud. It’s very patriarchal and insulting. And also a completely ineffective way to detect mismanaged funds or fraud.  

…

Read full article here

Hi everyone, I’ve been stress-eating chocolate, so I’m not sure how coherent this post will be. Besides the general state of the world, I also have my book launching next week with an in-person event in Seattle, the logistics have been bringing up gala-related trauma from my previous years as an executive director.

A few weeks ago I was talking to Jacqueline Ebanks, President and CEO of Nonprofit New York, planning for my keynote at their conference on November 12^th. We were discussing challenges preventing our sector from reaching its full potential, and I mentioned our sector and liberals-in-generals’ suppressed imagination and lack of vision. “You know who do have a clear vision?” she said, “the tech billionaires.”

She’s right. These dudes have some terrifying visions for our world. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, envisions a world where artificial intelligence provides basic and vital human connections. We’d have AI chat bots for friends and even therapists, in part to address the loneliness epidemic.

Oracle’s CEO Larry Ellison, meanwhile, waxes about an Orwellian future with “citizens on their best behavior” because technology will be surveilling their every move.

And if that’s not chilling enough, there’s Elon Musk and his “Dark MAGA” movement which pushes for a future where there are no more democracy or elections or government, just society being ruled by tech bros. If you’re up for a horrifying glimpse into what he and his followers are working toward, Rosie the Resister lays it all out.

We need to take these guys seriously. They have all the power and resources, and few barriers, in making their visions a reality. One of the things we, and must, do, is to provide our own vision to counter the awful ones they’re proposing. This has been challenging. I think over time, the right-wing has controlled so much of the narrative that the left has been forced into a defensive mode, where we only think about survival and protecting communities from the awfulness. We’ve been spending so much time putting out fires that we haven’t been able to dream of what we can build when we finally stop the arsonists.

I see this in our sector. All organizations have a vision statement. Beautiful and ambitious things like a peaceful and just world where every kid is safe and there’s no more poverty or violence. But these visions run into the cold reality of financial challenges, political barriers, and white moderate tendencies of people to be “practical.” Over time, these vision statements become hollow and meaningless, something we create without believing are possible.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, a couple of announcements. First, if you’re in Seattle, please come to the book launch event I’m having on October 14^th from 6pm to 8pm at Centilia Cultural Center. Everyone is so stressed, so I want it to be a fun and community-building event. I already booked a tarot card reader, because why not? Maybe I can get a massage therapist there too. Please RSVP here. Bring reusable containers for the inevitable leftover food. (An online launch event will happen at some point too for folks who can’t attend the in-person one).

Second, this site and its email notifications system will be hosted by Ghost starting next week, so the site will look different (and cooler!) Keeping my fingers crossed that it will be smooth sailing. Thank you to the colleagues who recommended Ghost, and to Patreon supporters for covering the increased monthly costs associated with this new and hopefully better system.

This is a good segue to this week’s topic. A few months ago, I announced I would be transitioning this site to Substack, since WordPress has been horrible, often partially sending to my email list of subscribers, or never sending any email notifications to anyone at all. I got lots of feedback discouraging me from using Substack, as it has been platforming neo-Nazis. That was very helpful information that I hadn’t known, and once I knew about it, I did some research and decided to use Ghost instead.

A few colleagues though were like “Argh! How could you use Substack?! Have you no shame?! I am disappointed in you! I can’t believe I have followed you for a decade only to be betrayed like this! May your fields be fallow! May your great-grandchildren be cursed with receding hairlines! May your wifi always glitch during your favorite shows and movies forever!”

All over the internet, I’m finding people snapping at one another, sometimes over the mildest things. We’re supposed to be on the same side! I honestly can’t blame anyone. I find myself also very snappy lately, including at my kids. Last week they were goofing around and caused us to be late for school, and all my patience and coaching skills went out the window, and I ended up yelling at them. They were quiet in the car and looked crestfallen when I sent them off, the usual feisty lights in their eyes gone.

All of us are on edge as we try to navigate this rapid collapse of democracy and the US’s slide into a totalitarian regime. I don’t recall a time, even during the early years of the pandemic, when there was this much constant and relentless stress and fear. The resulting anxiety, anger, and other negative emotions get misdirected to ourselves and the people closest to us, often without our being conscious of it. This is a tactic and goal of fascism, as a populace that is constantly on edge and emotionally dysregulated is easier to control.

We’re in for a long fight, so let’s agree to try and be nicer to ourselves and one another, and save our anger and frustrations for those with power and privilege who are enabling the shitstorm we’re dealing with. Here are some tips, mostly for me; please take what’s useful, and add your suggestions in the comment section:

Remember that everyone is going through things we may not see: Besides the political awfulness, it seems everyone is also enduring all sorts of other challenges. I know so many colleagues who have been laid off, or their consulting work has been on the decline. People are also facing health issues, trying to take care of aging parents, going through divorces, addiction, depression, among other things. Marginalized people have it even worse. Let’s give one another a break.

Be aware of your emotions: The constant fight-or-flight state we’re in means we often operate automatically, including doing things we may later regret, like writing a snarky comment or yelling at our kids for throwing balled-up socks at one another instead of putting on their shoes. I’m trying to be more intentional about naming my emotions. Not just silently, but sometimes openly. Naming emotions helps keep them in check. “I’m feeling frustrated and overwhelmed right now, with a hankering for dark chocolate.”

Try to be strategically detached: I don’t like to use the words “don’t take things personally,” because really, it’s impossible to not take things personally at some level. So I’m calling it “strategic detachment.” When I get stood up, yelled at, called a sheep in the comment section, or whatever, I try to remind myself that people are fighting battles I might not be aware of, eat some dark chocolate, and try not to let it affect me too much.

Read full article here…

Hi everyone, buckle up (though, at this point in the rapid collapse of civilization, I’m not sure any of us can be more buckled than we already are). Whenever I talk about donors, people get weirdly defensive and all up in their feelings, like a mama bear when someone threatens her cubs. If that’s you, please grab some fair-trade chocolate, a cup of matcha, or whatever else that soothes you before continuing.

I grew up in Vietnam and often go back to visit. One of my favorite places is Saigon’s Bến Thành market, a giant mostly indoor market with about 1500 vendors. I took my kids there one day this summer so they could be immersed in the experience, and they were quickly overwhelmed by people shouting at and beckoning to us to buy souvenirs, dried fish, fruit, clothes, toys, hot food, and electronics. With so much competition all around, who could blame these hardworking vendors for clamoring for customers’ attention and dollars.

In a way, this giant market was a great visual metaphor for what our sector has somehow evolved into. Over past several decades our fundraising philosophies, practices, and pedagogy (how we teach fundraising), have led to a “retailification” of our sector and thus of equity and justice.

By that, I mean we have entrenched the capitalistic notion that every nonprofit is like a retail shop selling specific causes, goals, and even emotions, and donors and funders are their customers. This retailification manifests in several ways, including:

• The constant striving to ensure donors have excellent “customer service” through personalized touches such as thank-you notes and calls, invitations to special events (usually involving wine), and so on.
• The pervasive environment of competitiveness. Here it seems even worse than in retail, as nonprofits are not just competing with those with similar missions, but with organizations with completely different missions and even geographic locations.
• The use of marketing tactics like pulling on heartstrings, donor walls, and linking dollars donated to direct impact, such as “$100 dollars provides ten kids with lunches for a week.”

…

Continue Reading

In my several decades as a nonprofit professional, there are a couple of harrowing occasions that have seared themselves into my soul, causing me to wake up in the middle of the night, filled with rage. One of these occasions involved cryptocurrency, some sock puppets, and 12 gallons of bleach, but that’s a story for another time.

The more relevant occasion for this topic was when I sat facing several grim-looking board members as they chewed me out during my annual review. I came into the meeting so proud of what the team and I had accomplished that year, and left feeling like garbage, a mixture of confusion, shame, and sadness. I was seriously thinking of quitting and finding a new job. Or possibly becoming a hermit. A hermit with reliable Wi-Fi to watch Game of Thrones (It was still a great show at that time).

Annual reviews are done so horribly in our sector, because they’re often done thoughtlessly, taking toxic processes and philosophies from white corporate models. What works over there in a competitive, profits-oriented environment doesn’t mean it’ll work here in a sector where a lot of people are trying to make the world better while being underpaid, wearing “multiple hats,” using Mesozoic-era printers, and burning out. Throw in the shitstorm that is our socio-economic-political situation, and people are barely hanging on by a gossamer thread.

Continue reading →

In my several decades as a nonprofit professional, there are a couple of harrowing occasions that have seared themselves into my soul, causing me to wake up in the middle of the night, filled with rage. One of these occasions involved cryptocurrency, some sock puppets, and 12 gallons of bleach, but that’s a story for another time.

The more relevant occasion for this topic was when I sat facing several grim-looking board members as they chewed me out during my annual review. I came into the meeting so proud of what the team and I had accomplished that year, and left feeling like garbage, a mixture of confusion, shame, and sadness. I was seriously thinking of quitting and finding a new job. Or possibly becoming a hermit. A hermit with reliable Wi-Fi to watch Game of Thrones (It was still a great show at that time).

Annual reviews are done so horribly in our sector, because they’re often done thoughtlessly, taking toxic processes and philosophies from white corporate models. What works over there in a competitive, profits-oriented environment doesn’t mean it’ll work here in a sector where a lot of people are trying to make the world better while being underpaid, wearing “multiple hats,” using Mesozoic-era printers, and burning out. Throw in the shitstorm that is our socio-economic-political situation, and people are barely hanging on by a gossamer thread.

So, let’s be more thoughtful. Maybe we should ditch the annual review completely. Many companies have started moving away from formal annual performance reviews in favor of continuous feedback loops, which have been shown to be way more effective and way less demoralizing.

If you’re gonna do them anyway though, here’s some advice to minimize damage:

Think about the goals, approach, and structural challenges before you do a review: A lot of people do reviews because they think that’s best practice to just get them done, without considering other factors, including many structural issues that may affect how people do their work. Are there funding issues? Are you understaffed? Are people overworked and overstressed? Is there a never-ending apocalypse of pandemic/fascism/g3nocide that you maybe should account for?  

Ongoing feedback is infinitely better than annual reviews: Ongoing feedback, both praise as well as suggestions for improvement, is a lot more useful for encouraging desired behavior. The annual review should be a summary of the feedback that’s been given throughout the year and a check-in on progress made on the ongoing feedback. If you don’t have a system and culture of regular, consistent feedback in place, prioritize creating that instead of focusing on your annual reviews, since without ongoing feedback, annual reviews are often useless, if not actively destructive.

Use workplans to assess people’s performance: Annual reviews should be tied to people’s work plans, where goals are clearly spelled out. If a goal or objective is not written out in people’s work plans or isn’t mutually agreed to somewhere if it’s not in the work plan, you have no basis to review someone’s performance for it. No one should have surprise goals that they’re now being evaluated on.

Use organizational values to assess people’s behaviors: All organizations have a list of values. These should be the guiding principles to assess everyone’s behavior. But often, organizations don’t spell them out, leading to widely different interpretations of things. If you haven’t already, spend some time with your team to discuss your values and what they mean in everyday practice. For instance, if your value is “respect,” what does that look like? It may mean people show up on time, not being on their phone during meetings except for emergencies, answering client emails within two days, or whatever. Spell. It. Out.

…

Read full article here.

Hi everyone, if you’ve been having issues getting email notices of new blog posts, my apologies. I’m still tweaking the system and possibly might need to switch to another platform, because this has been irritating. Just be assured that unless something out of the ordinary happens (like I won the lottery), there will be a new post every Tuesday.

A few months ago, I was attending a conference where there was a panel of funders. Someone asked a question about something, and a panelist answered with this joke: “Well, if you’ve seen one foundation, you’ve seen…ONE foundation!” Everyone chuckled; one because the joke was well-delivered with good comedic timing, but also because power dynamics have conditioned nonprofit leaders to laugh at funders’ and donors’ jokes, regardless of their mirthful qualities.

But this joke made me think about how easily we just take things at face value when it comes to funder behaviors, even when those behaviors negatively affect nonprofits and the communities they serve. This oft-repeated joke, when explained, means every foundation is unique and has its own values, processes, idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes, and so on, and therefore, nonprofits would do well to do their own research on each foundation they approach instead of relying on general advice about funders.

…

Read full article here.