Navigating Polarization in Nonprofits

Speaker A: Welcome to the Go Beyond Fundraising Podcast, brought to you by Allegiance Group plus Pursuant. We're a passionate team of strategists, practitioners, and technologists who believe in the power of nonprofits to create positive change. Each episode, we host insightful conversations, practical tips, and inspiring stories from experts on our team and change makers around the globe. Together, let's explore how to go beyond traditional fundraising and unlock the full potential of your mission. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to another episode of the Go Beyond Fundraising Podcast. I'm, um, Joanna west, and I'll be your host for today's conversation. Today, we're diving into a challenge that's showing up across every sector, but feels especially complex in the nonprofit space. How leaders navigate growing polarization while still staying true to their mission, their donors, and their communities. In a world that often pushes us toward either or thinking, what does it actually look like to lead with a both and mindset? How do you balance conviction with connection without alienating the very people you're trying to engage? And what responsibility do nonprofits have, not just to navigate division, but to help unify moments like this? To help explore this and offer practical perspective on how this comes to life for nonprofit leaders, I'm joined today by Trent Ricker, CEO and Chief Strategy Officer at agp, and Tim Arnold, leadership development expert and bestselling author. Gentlemen, thank you both for being here.

Speaker B: Thank you. Great to be here.

Speaker C: Thanks, Joanna.

Speaker A: Tim, I'd love to start with you. How do you define both and leadership and why does it feel especially relevant right now?

Speaker B: It's a great question. The relevance and the timeliness of and leadership, I don't think has ever been more important than right now. It's interesting because when we face challenges in life, and this is true of leaders, this is true of anyone, we often react with what I sometimes refer to as an either or response. You know, we pick the right side. It's this or it's that. It's right or it's wrong or it's good or it's bad. And I need to qualify. That's a good thing because in our lives we deal with lots of, I call them, problems to solve, where there's a right answer. The challenge, though, is leadership often has us leading tasks, teams, projects, people where situations aren't right and wrong, they're right and right. Often leaders, what's at their desk or in their inbox or the hard, complicated issues that other people don't want to touch, those. The situations that have complexity. And sadly, Joanna, I feel like often leaders are ill equipped to be able to deal with these complex situations. We do really well with the either or and it comes naturally. I know even as a youngster, I've got now two teenagers, but I remember when they were really young, you start by teaching right and wrong. Don't cheat, don't steal, don't lie. And you know that if, uh, you can choose what's right, you're rewarded. If you choose the other side, you're punished. So we get that straight then. I know here In Canada, about 12 years of our lives are in elementary and high school. And that whole era of our life is around getting the correct answer. And the opposite of the correct answer is the wrong answer. So if I can just pick the correct answer, if I can get my hand up quickest and get the best grades, I'm going to get ahead in life. The problem again though, is we get out of school and we start dealing with problems that maybe that right, wrong, correct, incorrect approach just doesn't cut it anymore. Not that we're leaving that behind, because even in my life every day I still would deal with right and wrong. But the complexities in life, the situations that leaders deal with, when you talk about the polarizing issues, if we deal with these in a either or, right, wrong, good, bad approach, all we do is add to the polarization. We don't actually help ourselves and others move forward.

Speaker C: I think that's fascinating. And, um, we go back a few years. You've been preaching this through your books and your seminars for quite some time. And in fact, you've been able to join us at our Converge conference with some senior level leaders, talk a little bit about what got you into this kind of way of thinking. And that started your path down towards authoring on the topic, and particularly the five pillars, if you don't mind sharing those as well. Absolutely.

Speaker B: Thanks for that. I kind of got out of university, I would say, being a pretty expert, either or thinker. I was raised in a pretty conservative upbringing, so I knew right from wrong. I kind of had a real black and white perspective on life and I had a degree in accounting, so I was pretty good at getting the right answer. What I found, Trent, though, was I realized in my 20s that I started to deal with situations where that just pick the right side wasn't working for me. Uh, you know, I had, for example, people saying, okay, you know, these are the years, these young twenties are the years where you want to be really financially prudent, you want to be saving money, really looking at building up some equity, go hard right now, because if you can just save and be responsible financially, this is going to set you up for the rest of your life. I had other voices in my life saying, you can't take it with you. And you may look back and realize these are the most fun years you have. So get off your wallet and have some fun. You realize, okay, is it spend or is it safe? Well, of course the answer is yes. How do you navigate that tension? I was also finding myself doing work in leadership development. And it was interesting, Trent. I started out as a outdoor adventure facilitator. So I took groups like your executives outside, and we did harnessing and high ropes and rock climbing, and we do these amazing programs. And then after the adventure, we'd have these debrief sessions and people would say things like, oh, uh, we just need to change. We just need to trust each other. We just need teamwork. And in my head I thought, yes, and I think it's bigger than that because you didn't need me for an hour or a day to get you to that place. We knew that. What's missing here? Well, yes, we need to change, and at the same time, we got to hold on to stability. Yes, we need to trust, and at the same time, we've got to actually hold each other accountable. Of course we need teamwork, but we also need teams that can divide and conquer and really own their piece with space. It felt like all of a sudden, everywhere I looked, these easy, almost too easy answers just weren't cutting it. And that got me down a rabbit hole of research and I think starting out, just applying it to my own life. But also I realized that as I worked with teams and executives and leaders, this and approach to the tough situations that we face, there just wasn't a lot out there around it. So I spent the best part of my career researching and writing and trying to guide leaders in understanding what, when they need to lead into what I call an and approach or leading with.

Speaker C: And that's fantastic. And I think when we were talking most recently, one of the things that I think is maybe unusual about our time, I think it's been certainly a situation, uh, over the last decade or so, but it seems to be more prevalent than ever. Leaders in our space kind of now name polarization and an unpredictable political climate as mission critical challenges that can complicate funding and staffing, public trust. And to your point, I think many of, um, the leaders in the nonprofit space get into this line of work to help make the world a better place. Right there Isn't there shouldn't be an either or, or us, them? But increasingly, I think there's some tension that's developed as it relates to the polarization. What do you see in that as it relates to the broader spectacle? And I kind of want to come into that a little bit more with nonprofit leaders, but I'm sure you're seeing that everywhere.

Speaker B: It's not just in the nonprofit space. It's not just in the U.S. i work. I mean, in the next three weeks, I'll be in Mexico, Australia, Canada and the U.S. and I'm dealing with similar conversations everywhere I go. I will say that in the decades of leadership development that I have been able to kind of work in, this is the first one where the majority of clients want to kind of look at your slides ahead of time to say, oh, you can't use that quote. You can't actually use that word. You got to be careful. People are. And they're not doing it to be hard on me. They're doing it because people are really nervous. You can't say the wrong thing. You got to make sure that you don't tap into this polarization. It is unlike anything I've experienced in that it almost feels like we're constantly walking on eggshells. We're really playing it safe so that we just don't get into what might be a divisive or polarizing situation. I think, again, I go back to. I think that a lot of us haven't been trained and equipped to say, how do we deal with this? So that at the end of the day, our leadership isn't diluted or we don't just appeal to one side. And I'm not just talking politics that could be one side when it becomes around a workplace change or a, uh, technology stance or a, uh, social issue. I mean, leadership means a lot of things, but often leadership is about helping others move forward, helping others go where they wouldn't go if it wasn't for leadership that isn't just for some. I mean, effective leadership should be for all. And yet I find that right now, and I don't just see this in my slides getting edited. I see this when I'm talking one on, um, one with leaders. Whether it's through a scheduled coaching session or after a, uh, program over a meal, folks are feeling like, I just don't feel like I was equipped for this to really be able to unify and help people. And what's fascinating, and I hear different versions of kind of the same thing over and over again. It's almost like we believe that you have two sides, and those two sides have nothing in common. And yet, I think almost everybody believes, but we have almost everything in common. We want most of the same things for our families, for. For our communities. The higher values that we want to see lived out, we share almost all of. There's definitely a few around, politics around, social changes, around, company changes that we may not be on the same side around, but that's a few. And yet somehow it's allowed us to feel like it's completely divisive and polarized and. I don't know, Trent. I mean, that's what I'm hearing over and over again. Does that resonate?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think you're right. On with it. Because we live it as individuals. We live it as community members, and whatever organizations we might be a part, uh, of, we live it as team members. We live it as leaders. I think as a leader during this time as well, there's sometimes a sense of trying to dilute some decisions in order to try to not be too disruptive or displease a faction trying to please everybody. At times. I catch myself saying, geez, got to make some tough decisions at times. And I want them to be grounded, obviously, integrity and whatever the right looks like. And I think that's what. Also I'm intrigued by your, by your philosophy. Right might mean different things to different people. And we, as leaders, I think, are kind of entrusted in the stewardship of, uh, leading on behalf of a team and making some of those decisions. But in this day and age, I think when you think about nonprofits, staff boards, donors, communities often sit at different points on a political or cultural spectrum, and that can make even basic messaging in this day and age feel like high stakes. I do hearken back to, I think, many of our nonprofit segments, and one I want to dive into a little bit deeper. But if I'm even bringing up to human services, food banks, for instance, it's difficult for me to think to your point that there's very many, if any, people amongst m us that don't think that food insecurity is something that needs to be addressed, and feeding our neighbors isn't something that's important. The people that get involved in those types of nonprofit organizations have a passion and a heart about that. But with that is also some conflicting beliefs and legislation about how that might be funded either from the government level and, or a public, private, philanthropic level. So I think we're. We're seeing that emerge with that core Both and tension where mission clarity coupled with kind of a big tent inclusion. How do you stay clear and honest about your values while also keeping the table open for those who might disagree with you on some issues. So let's take it to a level a little bit. When you think about those that have chosen to follow a path, particularly I think in those mission driven nonprofit organizations, but I would say aside from advocacy organizations who exist likely for the sole purpose of, or should say usually for the sole purpose of moving legislation on a particular belief, put them aside for a minute. Because that's part of both, I think working within, talking to their tribe and expanding their tribe around an issue. But the general nonprofit space typically exists to make the world a better place and helping those who do good do better. But talk a little bit about that as in our space in the nonprofit world.

Speaker B: Absolutely. And it's probably worth noting, Trent, because you know this, but some people listening may not. Outside of most of my career, which has been leadership development, keynotes, workshops, writing, I did have a 9 year old kind of 180 where I ran a 40 bed homeless shelter. So that, uh, does give me a little bit of skin in this game in terms of. I feel like the resonance is there. And I have found in all of those chapters of my life, sometimes I refer to them as there's two types of values. There's absolute values and then there's interdependent or values that come in pairs. So the absolute values are the values where the opposite of them are wrong. So what's interesting is I would suggest that when it comes to absolute values like I value difference making, I value kindness, I value hard work. I would argue that 99.9% of whoever you talk to, no matter what political affiliation, no matter what background they have, we all share those values. We want to be kind of, I think we want to be difference makers. We want to be responsible, period. Where this gets a little bit tricky is that there's another set of values that we navigate in life that are values that come in pairs. We want to embrace change, and at the same time we also want to hold onto stability and tradition. And it's kind of like breathing, inhaling and exhaling are two values that come in pairs. And with breathing, if you pick one side and neglect the other, you're in trouble. The moment I am all about inhaling or all about exhaling, I'm not very healthy. Well, these values that come in pairs, if I'm all about change and there's no stability in tradition, it's chaos and confusion if I'm all about tradition and stability, but there's no innovation and change. I'm outdated. So as an organization, we're wrestling with that tension. Well, you and I right now, Trent, may be making a huge decision in the organization around how we are or aren't embracing AI. Let's use that example, because I'm hearing that a lot. You and I may be polar opposites in terms of the decision. You're maybe someone who's innovative and change savvy and can't believe we're not fully embracing right now. I'm someone who's a little bit more consistency, tradition, bias. I'm worried about the downsides of early adoption or rash using. Sorry, it's not the right word. You and I may feel that polarization, and yet both of us are feeling those convictions around some higher values of we really want this organization to thrive, and we really want this organization to make a difference, and we really want to actually do the best thing. We're just coming at it from a different side. There are other values. Like, I would say that there's a value, especially in the nonprofit world, of independence and collaboration. You know, I was part of a homeless shelter, and we had a facility for, um, rehabilitation, and we had a food pantry, and we did a lot of things kind of our way, and we had a unique kind of brand, and we had some really cool identity. And I know that there was lots of people in our community, volunteers and staff, that would love us to be even more independent. You know what? We've got a unique thing going here. Let's brand it. Ah, there were other people that are saying, wait a minute, there's 16 other people doing this. Why are we not working more collaboratively? And we would have great conversations. I put great in quotation marks around, should we be more about our unique brand, or should we be actually more a piece of the puzzle? Well, we made decisions constantly that sometimes would be one side or the other. But even when I was really strongly on one side and I could sense that someone was on the other side, we were able to make, I think, the best decision. Because I knew that when it came to the higher absolute values of difference making, serving people well, using our dollars and our time, well, I knew everyone valued those things. So I'd be able to say, trent, wow, I'm not there right now, but I know that you value this, so help me understand kind of where you're coming from, because I'm not there.

Speaker C: But.

Speaker B: But I know when it comes to the higher values. We agree. And what's interesting about understanding is that it doesn't mean always agreeing. I can have some strong convictions, whether it's workplace change oriented or political affiliations, and I don't need to give up my point of view to understand and appreciate yours. It takes a bit of courage to do that because it makes me a little uncomfortable because our point of view is part of our identity. So I have to be willing to say, okay, I'm going to hold on to my values and beliefs. But I'm curious because the easy option would be say, oh, Trent just doesn't get it, or, uh, Trent just doesn't care as much as I do, or he just doesn't really understand. I refer to that as lazy thinking. That's just such an easy option when someone's on the other side to say, well, they don't get it or they don't care as much as I, or we do, push yourself to say, what if they get it just as much? What if they care about who we serve just as much? Doesn't mean I need to go to their side, but let it. Let's at least have the humility to say, okay, help me understand where you're coming from. Between agreeing and disagreeing. There is this space for understanding. And that's, I believe, what we're losing.

Speaker C: Yeah. One of my favorite phrases, help me understand, which I think you know, as you said, it comes from preaching curiosity rather than conviction. How can I be curious about what's driving another perspective that's really strong and I think it's a good lead. I was thinking about the dynamics of the nonprofit leaders that typically listen to our podcast. They have to kind of manage in different ways. Right? They need to manage up to a board. That board is a governance board of the most part, and the nonprofit space. One of the unique things about a board is that there's not a equity perspective. Right. It's a heart perspective. AGP has a board of investors. And so we look at Dynamics in a different way. And they're stewards of their own investors that whatever investment that they're representing and we're trying to create, in AGP's case, a mission driven company and also create shareholder value. That's part of what we do. I would think that shareholder value in a nonprofit, though, is important as measured by the impact of what the mission otherwise was. But those board members come in typically with a passionate heart. Many of them might actually be major donors themselves. They may not even align with what the founder's vision might have been, and they're influencing some level of governance. I want to come back to that in a minute because that's, that's tension. For a nonprofit leader, like a chief development officer or CEO or chief marketing officer to work up that way, you have to work sideways to work with your peers. So in that C suite that I just referred to, there may be tension that, like you just described, around a decision about AI, they need to work within their team related attention, particularly in the nonprofit space where those folks that are passionate about the cause, maybe the frontline fundraisers or the mission delivery. In your example of the shelter, there's folks that are literally working with those in need, and there are those working with the community to solicit fundraising in order to serve that, to fund that need. And then lastly, uh, certainly not least, and we'll spend more time on this because it's part of what many of our listeners do in fundraising. That leader also has to work with their donor world. That's very diverse and could come from all sorts of different perspectives. So let's start a little bit with that. Tim, um, help some of the. How do nonprofit leaders work in a way with their board, for instance, during this kind of tension of polarization, or even if it may not be polarization from a political perspective, it may even be from something that you discussed related to mission delivery or marketing. The mission and the, um, fundraising case, uh, for support as well, I think,

Speaker B: and I'd love this just to be a conversation because you're in it more than I am so you can push back and we can have a good chat. I think when it comes to boards, uh, specifically when you're dealing in a nonprofit world, I think there's a few tensions that the leader wants to constantly be mindful of, because often the names that I would have for them is the tension of mission versus margin and the tension of innovation and consistency. This isn't always the case, but we know that as a nonprofit, we have to be mission focused. And it's interesting as the years progressed, of me being the executive director of our shelter, you would think that the mission focus would be so easy, but you just get so busy running the operations and the, uh, making this work and continuing to grow that you can actually start to lose sight of the mission. So you have to be deliberate about being mission focused. I have found often that it's the board that is on the margin side, like they're responsible to make sure this runs well, effectively responsibly compliantly and yet we can do that to the neglected mission. Then you go talk to the front line and like, yeah, that's all great, but this is the person I'm serving, and this is why I come to work every day. Or this is why I've volunteer and I hear about the margin, the bottom line and efficiencies, but at the end of the day, I'm only in it for this. And yet it's the leader that has to say, yes, both of those things are true. And, uh, if we're going to live out our mission vision and values, which often we put in the wall of the building, we've got to constantly be making decisions that are both mission and margin focused. We have to realize that those two things, if we only pick one, it's like inhaling and holding it or exhaling and holding it. If we're all margin and kind of bottom line and efficiencies, but we lose sight of the mission, this will become just another social service, just another organization. If it's all about mission and we don't keep our eye on the bottom line in the margin, we're not going to be serving many people or even maybe operating very long. So we all have to be mindful this tension's not going away. And our decisions, although some will be leaning towards one side, some will be leaning towards the other, our, uh, decisions have to be grounded in making sure they help us manage that tension. Well, the other tension that I have found surfaces a lot in nonprofits, specifically around leadership or boards, and the organization is around innovation and consistency. Sometimes they call it change instability, not always. And again, I'd love your take on this, but I find often, you know, boards are looking at how they have to stay current and innovate and deal with whether it's policy changes or trends that they've got to. They're responsible to make sure that they're innovating and changing. And yet often the organization is like, yeah, but we've got something that works here and we're known for something. And if we kind uh, of just adopt X, Y or Z, our people won't know what we're all about and our services won't have the same impact. And again, you're navigating that situation where it's like, both of those things are true. So we've got to live in a space where we still make hard calls. But they're mindful of the fact that change on its own, without stability is chaos and confusion. Stability on its own, without change is Actually outdatedness and not living out our potential. So we've got to be able to live in that tension. Often it's the leader's role to actually create space for everyone to understand. This is an and situation. And the moment that we have two sides, you know, the change side, the stability side or the mission kind of why we do this side and the margin, let's do this effectively side. All we're doing is ultimately getting into what's called a downward spiral. We're just not, we're not tapping into our potential. I mean, I've been talking a lot. Does that make sense?

Speaker C: No, it does, it does. That's also, I think, important in the sense that the stability of the leader and the tenure of the leader usually has to deal with the rotation of board members too, that may have polarizing views or different perspectives about where that organization may want or need to go. I served on the board of a poverty fighting organization here in the Dallas area that served health for those that were in poverty, homelessness, sold hope hunger pantry, similar to some of the things that you were talking about. I think my experience on the board, which running an agency that serves nonprofit, that experience was rich in some ways, but also concerning in others to kind of get to see the other side of it. Because that debate about what the nonprofit should do to your point, was a little bit out of touch. More than just a little bit than what that frontline C suite CEO CDO were experiencing on the front line. And what was capable there might have been a pet project by a particular board member that they believed something would advance the cause of helping in poverty that wasn't in the core wheelhouse of that particular organization, in this particular organization that, that got that organization in trouble. They were basically writing checks they couldn't cash, saying that they would do things in the spirit of helping those that were in poverty, but in ways that really were then beginning to dilute the overall focused mission of the organization. So I bring that back because I think in your both, and I've often used something on a, uh, phrase for when we're consulting at agp, that we're part consultant, we're part therapist, and we're part diplomat. And we're probably more therapist and diplomat than we are consultant because much of the time the leaders know what they need to do. They need that coaching and accountability and consistency to do it. We see this in health industry. Why do you know, why does the health industry exist as it relates to gyms and the workouts and things that go along with the accountability, if you will, for personal trainers. Right. There was a book quite some time ago, I can't remember the author, but the, the title tells it all. It's called Strategy and the Fat Smoker. You know, if you're a fat smoker, you already know what you need to do, right? Eat better, lose weight, stop smoking, exercise. Right. But what's the strategy? The strategy is inspiring somebody to actually do the things they know that need to be done. So I think that to your. Again, empathy that I have for the nonprofit leader is they need to be diplomatic. They have a role to listen to, be curious, to not be grounded and convicted in their own views and beliefs, but be willing to listen to board members, be willing to listen to the market as well, which we'll get to in a minute.

Speaker B: It's a great way to put it. And I think with that, they, uh, have to recognize that their role is a connector. Their role is to find common ground and understanding where sometimes people feel like that, uh, common ground is just not there. Where I go back to even those tensions of mission and margin and change and stability, it's the leader that's talking about those tensions, constantly saying every opportunity they have, they're saying, listen, we are going to be all about change and innovation, and we're going to do it in a way that's holding on to what works and make sure that we have proven practices. They're saying that again and again so that when they're sensing tension, they can say to folks, hey, this is okay. This is the. And that we're talking about. And we want people to bring their perspectives, and we want to be a place where people can disagree because we're going to make some hard calls. It's not a situation where it's right or wrong, where, okay, well, there was one right answer and four bad answers. Those are all right answers. Those are all great options. So we're not going to, like, dig in our heels about being right. We're going to actually all dig in our heels about choosing what's best. That may not be. Even though my perspective or my idea may be right, it might actually not be best right now. So the leader is able to ideally create that space to say, yeah, this is complex stuff, but that's okay. We're going to navigate it well, yeah, that's great.

Speaker C: Let's shift that conversation, because now you have to navigate it with your donor base as well. Um, and I think in this day and age, I haven't seen the polarization to this level we could have a whole podcast on the why behind the what. But it really, for me, my advice is always, we're, uh, a ship and you need to adjust the sails to the way that the wind is blowing. That might mean that if, if there's, uh, a specific administration in office that's influencing the way that you raise money, that may be the boogeyman at the time, but you still need to serve the mission that you were founded to do. Uh, two market segments come to mind that I think were hit most by it in the fall. First, public media, a public media space, a public television, public radio, uh, went through some significant cuts from the government. Whether or not we argue the merits of whether that was the right decision or the wrong decision, those that believe in serving public media as a service for local communication and local programming, it's a very important aspect of the fabric of the United States at least, and it's a worthy cause that's worth fighting for. The people that are involved in public media would say as much. However, the funding sources changed what I did witness and this is still in play, to be honest with you. I see some, uh, stations and some of our clients in some of the market that are burying their heads in the sand a little bit and being angry about it and maybe wagging their finger and perhaps getting some, working up their, their base for some rage, giving, but not really trying to solve the problem. And I see others that are adapting to it a little bit and saying, hey, wait a minute, you know, this is not a left or a right issue, this is a funding issue. And whether we agree with the legislation or not, this is the hand that' dealt us. So how do we play this out and being a little bit more of an objective perspective. So, uh, let's, let's start there and then I'm going to go to the food bank market segment, but in public media and just using that as an example, because that was a pretty swift cut that's going to be lasting for a few years at least it seems to be through this administration. How would you coach through leadership and board where there might be storm clouds in the horizon and then it really does come and rain pretty hard. How do you work, um, both internally and with your supporter base on that?

Speaker B: It's a complex issue because it does get to the heart of people's solid convictions and beliefs in how things should work. I almost would rise above and look at, if I was leading in that environment. I would say we right now have to really do a good job of focusing on both the short term and the long term. And I feel like if we over focus on the short term and we neglect the long term, we can be rash and make mistakes that we're going to regret. And yet if we only focus on the long term, we may not be around very long. It's interesting. I saw, even in my space of leadership development, I saw that similar conversation happened during the pandemic. Some folks are like, oh, you know what? We've been through 9, 11, we've been through 2008, we'll be fine. And some of those organizations aren't in business anymore. I also saw some folks that pivoted so fast and adapted to, uh, new markets and funding sources that dried up that they couldn't sustain what they created in that short term. Pivot.

Speaker C: Isn't that fascinating?

Speaker B: Uh, right, yeah. And I know that it's apples and oranges, but I do think right now, when it comes to some of these pretty significant changes, we have to say, okay, how do we right now really be mindful of the short term impact and mitigate the negative impact and really try to just not put our head in the sand and yet be thinking constantly, what will this look like for us three or four or five years from now?

Speaker C: You bring up a really interesting point. I'm sorry, Tim, to interrupt. You go ahead.

Speaker B: No, please do. That's why we're in the conversation.

Speaker C: You just, you triggered a thought. You know, when we went through Covid, it was kind of a galvanizing humankind, one of a kind, right? The whole world going through something simultaneously and a lot of uncertainty in the early part of COVID put aside what it ultimately may have become polarizing as well. But earlier on, fear, uncertainty, galvanization moment. For the human experience to go through these things in the nonprofit space largely stepped up to the plate. I mean, they showed resilience, they showed creativity in both serving their constituencies through difficult challenges and still raising money through difficult challenges. We saw very generous support, particularly for those organizations that were willing to be nimble and think outside the box. Like you said, we saw some incredible things with some clients. Now, you compare that, I think, to some of the things that we're going through today that may be instead of a galvanizing kind of apolitical decision that's otherwise creating the crisis. What creates the crisis? Yes, we should advocate and work hard in order to change policy. That might be in the best interest of the mission of the nonprofit. But we also have to be, to use Jim Collins phrase, from good to great Deal with the brutal facts. And the brutal facts are very objective. Take that on a little bit because I think you do a really nice job of just saying there's something. There's just facts, there's black and white, the emotions that we might have and the either or. Or the both. And if we're looking at those facts the right way, then I think we might be able to come to the possibility of what we need to do to address that crisis in a different way than if we're emotionally charged around what those black. They're not black and white. They're very gray or very colorful. Right?

Speaker B: Yeah. It's interesting you bring up the Jim Collins reference because I think in some ways it is the most relevant kind of link to what we're talking about in that. In good to great. He says, I think it's the Stockdale paradox, where, yeah, we will only actually have resilience and make it through these tough challenges by facing the brutal facts of reality. And I remember I heard Collins interviewed once about his Stockdale interviews and the stories. And he said, people said, oh, so you're just saying that we just have to be realists all the time. And Collins is like, no, no, no, no. The other side of that is that you can never lose faith in the story ends well. You've got to be able to face the brutal facts of reality while understanding that this will serve us well. Gosh, it sometimes feels so hard to let those things live together, to say, hey, this could be the defining moment of our organization, and this may be the very hardest point of our organization so far. So this is where leadership can actually muster courage to say, we will get through this, but we've got to really get our head again around those short term realities, regardless of your biases or political affiliations, because we aren't all going to agree. And that's okay. But at a higher level, we want the organization to thrive. We want to serve people well. So in the short term, how do we address the brutal facts of our current reality and in the long term, keep our eyes focused on the things that we will not let go of along the way and how we're going to continue to hold onto those kind of core guiding values no matter what our decisions are. And again, that's the leader that allows people to kind of rise above to that level of. And thinking to realize, like, okay, the sky's not falling. It might feel like it, but we will do both of these things.

Speaker C: That's interesting. It reminds me of the other of another Jim Collins kind of anchor where he talks about, I think it's the doom loop or the doom cycle, right. Where there's kind of a reaction without understanding and it's kind of a frantic for the antithesis of the great company and those that, and I worry at times, those that are nonprofit leaders that become so emotionally tied to, to what's happening on the external that they lose sight of what they can still control. Right. Because if you react without that understanding, to your point, an understanding of both what's happening, but also the thinking of those that might be able to help us get past this crisis. So for public media, they've lost some government funding. That is a brutal fact. If they still feel like they're a worthy cause, which they do, they should be able to articulate a case for support to the general public the same way that a capitalistic product might be able to do so and then be able to sell that vision and self fund it. Now you might say, but that's not fair. The government's always supported us and it's something that our taxpayer dollars should go to. I could agree with you or disagree with you, but I'm, um, not the one that makes that decision. All I can do is deal with the brutal facts of today so that if we don't do that, then we're not going to survive. And I think that's a really important aspect. So let me shift that to food banks a little bit because I think we saw with some of our food bank lines also different ways of addressing the SNAP benefit crisis that we had here in the fall and during the government shutdown and the lack of SNAP benefits, there was a. I hate to use the word opportunity. That's the wrong word, but there's a news event that allows for fundraising. Uh, we have a problem. We need to do something about it. Your neighbors who counted on government benefits that are now being suspended and potentially reduced or eliminated need your help. And we're an organization that helps feed your neighbors. So our services are likely going to be in high demand. That was a very objective way of explaining what was happening. The subjective way was those bad guys in Washington are making bad decisions and if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be overworked and over underfunded to serve these, the needy. The politics and the emotions got in the way. The emotions I can understand because having worked closely with many of our food bank clients, you can sense the passion that they have for feeding their neighbors. I mean there's nothing but m. You did it right. You know, anytime I'm with uh, one of our food bank clients, you're typically, you know, you're there in the distribution center and you're seeing everything in action. Is very different than other nonprofits where you might be in the the confines of an office building. But some would say that the only fundraised through kind of rage giving mhm SNAP benefits are cut act now those nasty people are causing this issue for us and we need to raise more money. What's wrong with that is you're alienating some folks who may agree with the need to help the neighbor but disagree with how you do that. And I'll come back to that in a minute because we worked with some clients that tested some messaging to those that we knew were more right leaning than left leaning. But let me start with that with you, Tim. If you're working in an organization that is as a tribe aligned in a particular perspective, there isn't a both and it is the thing we believe in. How do you step back on that when you aren't really amongst those that might have a differing opinion, but you might with your donor base be alienating true and important funding resources that also still believe in your mission. Just need to hear a message in a different way.

Speaker B: Yeah, my mind goes into a few places. I was thinking about our homeless shelter and when we started we were just a small little shelter that was filling a need that there was no government programs for. And in those early years when we were kind of just trying to meet a real need, I felt like the level of all in ness for people, whether it was volunteers or donations, everybody was in because they wanted to make a difference. And it's interesting, Trent, I feel like if there's one thing that I've seen over the last 25 years that I believe to the core of my being is that it's 99.9% of people share a deep desire to be difference makers. Whether they identified that or not. I believe that it's what, it's what

Speaker C: we're called to do.

Speaker B: It's in us. And I think right now this isn't the right maybe language to use. But the play isn't to uh, necessarily evoke rage giving, that's polarized. It's to acknowledge that hey, right now there's a lot of polarization and division in our world. And as a result our food bank is actually really needing you more than ever. Don't make the government the enemy. Don't make anybody the enemy. Just say right now because everyone understands and resonates with polarization and division. So just talk about that. Listen. Because of the current reality of division and polarization, unfortunately, our food bank really needs people like you to rise above all that and just actually step up and make a difference. And I think you can do that in a way that doesn't necessarily pick sides, but does acknowledge that the current polarized environment means that if we don't have people like you, we're not going to be able to exist. And, uh, in some ways there's a bit of a paradox because if I feel like, hey, I'm willing to help or give, but I know that ultimately you're good with programs and funding and everything else, I might do the Christmas, Easter giving, but that's about it. But if I know, like me being part of this is make it or break it, my level of agency goes up in this. And I think right now there can be some conversations on, like, listen, regardless of where you're at and what you believe, we need you more than ever. And I don't think that has to be anti anybody. It can just be acknowledging this is where we're at.

Speaker C: There's a shared kind of backbone message there, if you will, to start with. And I think that's what we try to consult on that in the sense that what's the common value? Let's continue with food banks, right? No child or senior or human being in our community. So that's the connection should go hungry. I don't know to your point of a person who would argue with that, that statement is a common value that we as humankind, the human experience would say, no child or senior or neighbor and our community should go hungry. Now what does that mean with the problem that we might have? Well, you know, rising food prices, if you want to kind of touch on inflation or it means more working families can't keep up. Right. Or snap and local partnerships that keep food on the table being debated and potentially could be eliminated. Right? So. Okay, pause there to that point. Those are objective values that are hard to argue with and keep the issue in front of us. Now one of the things that we tested and again, some food banks I think went very much and said, we're gonna, all of our messaging is gonna be very much, you know, that this is the government's fault. We need your money now. And if we don't get it, we are gonna not, uh, be able to serve those that are in need. And it's the government's fault. Rage giving comes about, right? But in so doing. There's aspects I think to the, to the left leaning organizations where you might say we're the wealthiest nation on earth. So allowing families to go hungry is a policy choice, not an inevitability like let's go raise money and let's take care of this, uh, equality and equity. All good. But I think on the other side there are those that might believe that that sort of messaging is an attack on them as individuals for being uh, perhaps heartless. I find that those that believe in less government believe that almost in a capitalistic philanthropic perspective. Right. That the individual, we're in a generous country, our tax dollars shouldn't go to the government to fund things, but instead we should do it. So the call to action for those on um, the right can be, you know, in a country built on hard work, you know, no one who's working or served our nation should have to choose between rent and groceries. Okay. That's a message that's going to resonate to somebody who's saying patriotically our neighbors. It's actually, you wouldn't say it this way, but it's your political leaning that's causing this crisis and putting upon you. So now you need to step up, you need to fund this because you don't want the government to. Now you wouldn't say it in those words. Point is, if you are messaging the right way, you do cast a wider net. It is a bigger tent.

Speaker B: You do.

Speaker C: And we did find when we had our split messaging based upon political affiliation that those with right leaning beliefs actually out fundraised those with left leaning. That doesn't mean they're more generous, it just means they showed up in a way that with the right messaging you couldn't argue with that central value. So talk to me a little bit about that because again, I think it's right in line with the both and it's not an either or. It's not, we need to get through this by appealing to this rage giving and make the government a boogeyman. It's actually no senior or child or neighbor deserves to go hungry in our community and it's our job to serve that mission.

Speaker B: I mean I, I been taking notes because I, I love hearing about the research and, and kind of what you're finding. But I think that the limited approach would be to make this a uh, polarized approach which, which means we're only kind of leaning towards one side or the other. I've never heard the term of, of rage giving but as soon as you said it, it made sense.

Speaker C: To me, because it's a real thing.

Speaker B: It's a real thing. And I don't know this, but I would anticipate it's also a short term approach because I can buy into that right now. But to really sustain a long term donor base, you want to be able to tap into the shared kind of redemptive version of uh, we all want to make a difference and we all agree that people shouldn't go to bed hungry, that children shouldn't go to school without a lunch. Like we all, we all believe that. And then I think you can get. It's just a higher level of thinking in terms of messaging that unifies as opposed to divides and ultimately pick sides. But the reality is we all want this and we all want to be difference makers. We all want to be individuals who will remembered by caring and making a difference. And right now in a very polarized, divided world, it'd be easy for folks like we served to fall through the cracks. But because of people like you, that's not going to happen. Because in times like this it's people like you that step up and actually get behind those values that we all share. I think again that's uh, a much more unifying and I think it's a longer term approach.

Speaker C: I think you're right. And I think that in the sense of kind of having uh, the bipartisan fundraising mentality, I worry that if we do play into the polarization and those non profit leaders that are listening that have this challenge internally, we also condition that newly acquired donor to give related to how they first gave. Unless you're educating them more broadly. If I give a premium upfront, we know that premium based donors, those that might get a front end premium of the mailing labels or a calendar or whatever else it might be, many of those are giving out of guilt to the premium. I finally got my mailing labels from XYZ organization. I'll write you a check for $20. Their renewal usually needs to be tied to similar premium. Right. And I worry a little bit about the rage giving. If we're framing things that way, then likely that acquired donor, in order to be a sustaining donor and a progressively upgraded donor is going to have to have that sort of similar messaging. M as opposed to the bigger tent where you know again most Americans in both parties have a favorable view of SNAP benefits and supporting those. It's not a question of what we should do about it or who the boogeyman is. It's not partisan.

Speaker B: Yeah. And then the last thing I think you want to do is get into a situation where you have to continually fuel the rage and in some ways intensify it. And you know, then, then it it that you're putting yourself in a, I think, a real deficit position when there are, I think, much more proactive ways to do this. That's unified and I think positive and speaks to really good parts of who we are as people.

Speaker C: Yeah. And I think to that point, and I think that's the core of what you speak to, we're not changing what's true. We're changing how we start the conversation. So people with different worldviews and in this case can still see SNAP as aligned with their values. Right. And to your point that that's the commonality of the both end, where can we find commonality in the values?

Speaker B: It's interesting. And when I do workshops, sometimes I'll do a quick activity where if you're at a table, you know, there's five or six at the table and said, okay, I'm going to give you five minutes to come up with the most unique thing that you all have in common, you know, and oh, it's so hard. And they just, you know, they're trying things and then one person doesn't, you know, whether it's a language they speak speak or a skill they have or a place they traveled, the moment that they find something, it's like, oh, there's like high fives. And it just feels so good to recognize like, we have that in common. And I think, you know, user SNAP benefits. It's so easy to say, okay, well, where don't we agree on this? Where are we divided? What side are you on? But let's go above that divisive and say, but what do we agree on when it comes to ultimately the impact of making sure people don't go hungry and making sure kids go to school actually ready to attack the day with energy and positivity. We all want that. We all want that. So we actually, as an organization are going to rise above the polarization and division and engage all of us to make sure that that happens. And when I start to feel that, that, oh, we all are agreed on that, well, the differences are still there. They just don't matter as much. And I feel like people are yearning for that type of leadership, that messaging that again, not that I need to give up my side or my unique convictions, but I can live with those perspectives and convictions in a way that is aligned, uh, on those higher values and feel like I'm part of a, uh, much bigger collective that are aligned around what really, really matters.

Speaker C: And you brought it up earlier. I think it's a great way to segue as we, as we work to close this. Uh, I could go on for hours with you though, Tim, but I think you brought it up earlier. There's so much more we have in common when we think about some nonprofit organizations, when they think about the messaging or who they will accept as a. We can't have that guy as a major donor because of what he said about this and that, and we can't. Our people will be very upset if we take a million dollar donation from that person. The reality is, though, to your point, in our community, in our schools, our kids, parents, in our churches, we're all a lot more alike than we are dissimilar. Some of the most rewarding moments of my career is when we bring together leaders at Converge, which you've spoken at. And they're from all different market segments, from ministries to hospitals to human service organizations to advocacy organizations. And I've sat at dinner at tables with leaders from organizations that are very much on different political spectrums for where they might be founded. And most organizations shouldn't really even have a political bend, but it might be where some of the funding's coming from. Reality is when you break bread and you're having dinner and you're talking about figuring out how to make the world a better place through their leadership, you know, what can be done through them, leading through them, loving through them, living through them as leaders, we're all so much more common than we are different, right?

Speaker B: I was reminded of that a few weeks ago. My son, he's 15, he referees hockey. And, uh, I was going to pick him up, but I got there early for this big game. It was just a bunch of 10 year olds. I'm just checking out the game. There's about 15 minutes left and I'm standing next to this woman who was very excited. She's jumping up and down and anyways, I got to know that, uh, her son, turns out his name was Ethan, is on the one team. I didn't know why their team. Well, it's a close game, it's tied up, there's minutes left. She is, with a couple minutes left, she's grabbing my arm. Ethan scores. We are cheering, high fiving, literally hugging. Pick up my son. I leave. And I just was thinking, first of all, I'll never probably see this woman again. We just had this most wonderful shared moment because at the end of the Day. We just wanted the same things. We wanted the kids to win, you know, we wanted to just them to have a great time. And I just thought, you know what, there's just so much of us, uh, that wants to be connected with people, that wants to feel like together we're cheering for good stuff. And I think again, in this divisive, polarized current culture, we can lose that. Because I don't know if I have things in common, but it only takes a leader to kind of say, hey, hey, hey. Absolutely. There's things where we're not on the same page, but I know, and I'm going to help you see that when it comes to what really matters, we're aligned, we want the same stuff. And as an organization, we're going to be about working off that higher ground, and we're going to make decisions that unify as opposed to divide. And you can still have your affiliations, and you can still have strong convictions and values, and they don't all have to be the same. But we know that when it comes to difference making, when it comes to kindness, when it comes to actually standing up to injustice, we all want that. That's what we're going to be about. And it's the leader that allows people to go from that either, or to start to see, oh, wait a minute, there's an and here.

Speaker C: So with that, let's close with this. Let me ask you this as we bring it back together, like, what are two or three practical takeaways that nonprofit leaders could apply the next time they're kind of facing some of these issues? Because they're not going away. This is going to continue to evolve here in the complex world that we live in, with so much information and so much polarization. But what are a few things that we can share with our leaders listeners today?

Speaker B: I think the first one we already talked about, Trent, and that, uh, is I believe that the probably most important skill of a leader right now in these divisive and polarizing times is deliberate curiosity to certainly have strong beliefs and convictions and values and recognizing that I don't have to agree with people to learn from them. And if I only hang out with people that I agree with, my learning goes way down. I'm going to learn the most from people who push back and who see things differently. So I want to start sentences with things like, help me understand this. You know what, Trent? I'm not there, but I can see this matters to you. How'd you get there? What makes you feel that I want to be curious. Not that I need to change my mind, but what I've learned is that I don't need to give up or exchange my views for years, but I can expand my views and curiosity allows me to do that. And I think the other piece, and again, I think it's surfaced in our conversation, is that right now the leader is the person who's striving to be known as a connector. You're the person who helps people find common ground that don't see common ground as an option, that allows people to rise above those divisive points of view and align themselves on those higher level, shared kind of absolute values of fairness and difference making and kindness. That's the leader that allows people. So I'm always looking at how can I be kind of a relational catalyst connecting people that generally they need that catalyst? How do I do that? How do I constantly have this ability to find authentic connection with very diverse individuals?

Speaker C: Uh, that's outstanding. And I would extend that for our leaders, too. When you're thinking about fundraising outside of your four walls and how you communicate, we are already doing a great job, I think, as an industry and being sensitive culturally now and having imagery and communication that's, that's relevant and timely to the individual. So I think that we have to broaden our thinking that there are people who might not think like me or believe in the things that I believe, but still believe in supporting the cause that I support.

Speaker B: Absolutely.

Speaker C: And as leaders, just to take a pause on that and say, well, what would that look like? I can't step outside of my belief system, but I need to have people who can help challenge me about the empathy that individual might have and what sort of messaging I can tap into in a relevant way that's going to get them, persuade them still to support our cause and ultimately become a philanthropic priority. And it doesn't matter. Left, right. What color you are, where you come from, 100%. So it's the human experience. Tim, I appreciate you. This is, this is fantastic. Thank you so much. I look forward to. Now, I'm going to tease this because I'm going to get you back on in the fall, but you're working on something new, if I'm not mistaken. Right. Got another book coming out.

Speaker B: I am. I've got a book coming out this fall. It's the third and last book in what I call the Thriving Workplace series. The first one was around the tensions that we face when trying to tap into high performance teamwork. The second was around leading change. This one is all around creating a thriving workplace culture. It's coming out this fall, and we'll just kind of whet people's appetite. We're going to do something fun for your community, so stay tuned because we definitely want to, um, make sure that all of your leaders are able to benefit from the work that I'm going to be launching real soon.

Speaker C: Fantastic. I can't wait to see it and get you back on the show in the fall. Thank you, Tim. Have a great day.

Speaker B: My pleasure. Thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you both. Thanks for joining us, uh, on another episode of Go Beyond Fundraising. We hope these conversations have equipped you with the tools and and inspiration to take your fundraising, marketing, and advocacy efforts to the next level. If you're ready to transform your nonprofit's growth and impact, visit teamallegiance.com to get in touch with the experienced team at Allegiance Group and pursue it. We're here to help you make a lasting difference. Until next time. Keep up the phenomenal work you do every day. Together, we can create a brighter future.

Speaker C: Sam M.