Are nonprofits giving their power away by cutting ties with bad actors?

How do those of us on the receiving side of charitable giving get bolder in what we ask and expect of those on the giving side of the relationship? Questions of this sort, originating from fundraisers all all stripes, convince me that an increasing numbers of fundraisers are anxious to establish influential peer relationships with their donors rather than the inferior, supplicant role that we often inadvertently assume. Our conversation today on The Fundraising Talent Podcast began with Sarah Beth making a case for why we should stop giving away the power we have by divesting in companies whose decisions with disagree with. Sarah Beth wants us to wrestle with the question of whether nonprofits are giving their power away by cutting ties with bad actors?

Sarah Beth believes that rather than divesting in these relationships, we should strive to have the greater levels of influence and clout in order to change the directions of where these enterprises are headed. I would argue this means deeper, more meaningful relationships with key decision makers in the enterprises for which we are invested in. This is a remarkably different albeit very exciting place for the nonprofit leader to aspire to be. There are plenty of examples in life where we having some skin in the game in a prerequisite for having a say in our decisions are made. If we maintain the relationship, the ultimate question becomes whether we know how to be peer-to-peer with leaders in the two powerhouse sectors?

As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. If you’d like to learn more about hosting the Responsive Fundraising roadshow in your local community, email me for more information. And, if you’d like to download Responsive’s latest edition of Carefully & Critically, just click here.