Host: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the “Go Beyond Fundraising” podcast. I’m 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 best-selling author.
Gentlemen, thank you both for being here.
Tim Arnold: Thank you, great to be here.
Trent Ricker: Thanks, Joanna
Host: Tim, I’d love to start with you. How do you define both/and leadership, and why does it feel especially relevant right now?
Tim Arnold: 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. We need to qualify that it’s a good thing because in our lives, we deal with all the problems to solve where there’s 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, they’re 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 now got two teenagers, but I remember when they were really young, you start by teaching right and wrong. You know, don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, and you know that 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, you know, 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 may be 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 an 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.
Trent Ricker: That’s fascinating. And 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.
Tim Arnold: Absolutely, 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, 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 just picking the right side wasn’t working for me.
You know, I had, for example, people saying, okay, you know, these are the years – these young 20s – 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 know 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 an 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, we just need to change”. “We just need to trust each other, you know?”, or “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, yes, we need to change, and at the same time, we’ve got to hold on to division. Yes, we need to trust and at the same time, we’ve got to actually hold each other accountable. You know, of course, we need teamwork, but we also need teams that can divide and conquer and really own their peace 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, executives, and leaders, and approached 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 when they need to lead into what I call an and approach, or leading with and.
Trent Ricker: That’s fantastic. We were talking most recently about one of the things that I think is maybe unusual about our time, I think it’s certainly been a situation 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, staffing, and public trust.
And to your point, I think many of the leaders in the nonprofit space get into this line of work to help make the world a better place, right? There shouldn’t be an either/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 those a little bit more, nonprofit leaders, but I’m sure you’re seeing that everywhere.
Tim Arnold: It’s not just in the nonprofit space. It’s not just in U.S. I work. 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 will say that in the decades of leadership development that I have been able to work in, this is the first one where the majority of clients want to kind of look at your slides ahead of time because they need time to say, “Oh, you can’t use that quote”, “You can’t actually use that word.” You’ve 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’ve 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, you know, 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 about politics
Trent Ricker: Yeah
Tim Arnold: That could be one side when it becomes around a workplace change, a technological stance, or 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. 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-one with leaders. Whether it’s through a scheduled coaching session or after a 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. 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 that we have almost everything in common.
We want most of the same things – for our families, for our communities – high values that we want to see lived out. We share almost all. There are 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. Yet somehow, it’s allowed us to feel like it’s completely divisive and polarized. And I don’t know if it’s right. I mean, that’s what I’m hearing over and over again, is that right, Trent? Does that resonate?
Trent Ricker: Yeah. I think you’re right on with it – because we live it as individuals. We live it as community members in whatever organizations we might be a part 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 make some decisions in order to try not to 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 also what intrigued by your philosophy – it might mean different things to different people. We as leaders, I think, are kind of entrusted in the stewardship of 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, and communities, they often sit at different points on a political or cultural spectrum, and that can make basic messaging feel like high stakes.
I do hearken back to, I think, many of our nonprofit segments, and what I want to dive into a little bit deeper – but I’m even bringing it up to human services – food banks, for instance. It’s difficult for me to think, to your point, that there are very many, if any, people amongst us that don’t think that food insecurity is something that needs to be addressed, and feeding our neighbors isn’t some isn’t something that’s important. The people who get involved in those types of nonprofit organizations have a passion and a heart about that, but with that there is also some conflicting beliefs and legislation about how that might be funded, either from the government level, and/or public private philanthropic level.
So, I think 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 that exist likely for the sole purpose of, or, I 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 the issue. But the general nonprofit space typically exists to make the world a better place and help those who do good do better. But talk a little bit about that in our space, in the nonprofit world.
Tim Arnold: Absolutely. It’s probably worth noting Trent, some people listening may not know that outside of most of my career, which has been leadership development, keynotes, workshops, writing, I did have a nine-year, kind of 180 where I ran a 40-bed homeless shelter. So that does give me a little bit of skin in this game, in terms of, I feel like the resonance is there.
And, you know, I have found in all of those chapters of my life, sometimes I refer to them as there’s two types of values. There are absolute values, and then there’s interdependent or values that come in pairs. The absolute values are the values where the opposite of them are wrong. 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 percent of whomever you talk to, no matter what political affiliation, no matter what background they have, we all share those values. We want to be kind. 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. You know, we want to embrace change and at the same time we also want to hold on to stability and tradition. 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 and 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 I’m not fully embracing it right now. I’m someone who’s a little bit more consistent and tradition-biased. I’m worried about the downsides of early adoption or rash use. You and I may feel that polarization, and yet, both of us are feeling those convictions at 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 be the best thing. We’re just looking at it from a different side.
You know, there are other values. 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 rehabilitation, and we had a food pantry. We did a lot of things that were 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. 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 actually be 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 strongly on one side, and I could sense that someone was on the other. We were able to make, I think, the best decision because I knew that when it came to the higher absolute values of difference – serving people well, using our dollars and our time. Well, I knew everyone valued those things. 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, 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 its 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.
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, well, Trent just doesn’t get it, or Trent just doesn’t care as much as I do, or he just doesn’t really understand.
Trent Ricker: Yeah.
Tim Arnold: I refer to that as lazy thinking. That’s just 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 as much? Doesn’t mean I need to go to their side, but let’s at least have the humility to say, Okay, help me understand where you’re coming from
Trent Ricker: I love that.
Tim Arnold: Because that is between agreeing and disagreeing, there is this space for understanding, and that’s, I believe, what we’re losing.
Trent Ricker: 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 the board. That board is a governance board for the most part and the nonprofit space, one of the unique things about a board is that there’s not an 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, or 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 passion at 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 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 to tension, particularly 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 need.
And then lastly, 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.
Let’s start a little bit with that, Tim. 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 fundraising case for support as well,
Tim Arnold: 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, 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.
And this isn’t always the case, but we know that as a nonprofit, we have to be mission-focused. I mean, and it’s interesting as the years have 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 making this work and continuing to grow that you can actually start to lose sight of the mission. 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 neglect of mission. And you go talk to the front line 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 volunteer. And I hear about, you know, the margin and 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 if we’re going to live out, you know, 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, you know, 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.
We all have to be mindful this tension is not going away, and our decisions, although some will be leaning towards one side, some will be leaning towards the other, our 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 and stability, not always again. I’d love your take on this but find often boards are looking at how they have to stay current and innovate and deal with you know, whether it’s policy changes or trends that they’ve got, they’re responsible for making 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 of just adopt X, Y or Z, our people won’t know what we’re all about. 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. 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. 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. All we’re doing is ultimately getting recreated into what’s called a downward spiral. We’re just not we’re not tapping into our potential. I mean, so I’ve been talking a lot. Does that make sense?
Trent Ricker: 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 a 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 nonprofits that experience was rich in some ways but also concerning in others to get to see the other side of it. 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 that project by a particular board member that they believe something would advance the cause of helping in poverty that wasn’t in the core wheel house of that particular organization, in this particular organization 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.
I bring that back because I think, and I’ve often used something on the phrase for when we’re consulting at AGP, that we’re part consultant, part therapist and part diplomat. We’re probably more therapist and diplomat, than consultant because much of the time, the leaders know what they need to do. They need coaching and accountability and consistency to do it. We see this in health industry. 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 title tells it all. It’s called “Strategy and the Fat Smoker.” If you’re a fat smoker, you already know what you need to do, right? Eat better, smoking, exercise, right? What’s the strategy? The strategy is inspiring somebody to actually do the things they need to be done. I think that to your point again, empathy that I have with a nonprofit leader is that things can be diplomatic if 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.
Trent Arnold: That’s a great way to put it. And I think with that, they have to recognize that their role is a connector. Their role is to find common ground and understanding where sometimes people feel like that 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 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. We’re not going to dig in our heels about being right.
Trent Ricker: Yeah
Tim Arnold: 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. The leader is able to ideally create that space to say, Yeah, this is, this is complex stuff, but that’s okay. We’re going to navigate it.
Trent Ricker: Well, yeah, that’s great. Let’s shift that conversation, because now you have to navigate it with your donor base as well. 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 a ship, and we need to adjust the sails to the way that the wind is blowing. That might mean that if there’s 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 two market segments come to mind that I think were hit most by it in the fall.
First, public media — public television, public radio – went through some significant cuts from the government. Whether or not we argue the merits of whether that was the right decision or a wrong decision, those that believe in serving public media as a service for local communication and local programming – that 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. People that are involved in public media would say as much. However, the funding sources changed.
What I did witness, and this is still a play, to be honest with you, I see some stations and some of our clients and some of the market that are burying their heads in the sand a little bit and being angry about it – maybe wagging their finger and perhaps getting some working up 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’s built us.
So how do we play this out and have a little bit more of an objective perspective? Let’s start there, and then I’ll go to the to the food bank market segment. In public media and just using that as an example because that was that was a pretty swift cut that’s going to be going to last for a few years, at least, 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 both internally and with your supporter base on that?
Tim Arnold: It’s a complex issue because it does get to the heart of people’s solid convictions and beliefs and kind of how things should work. I almost would rise above and look at if I was leading in that environment. We, right now, have to really do a good job of focusing on both the short term and the long term, like if we over focus on the short term, we neglect the wrong term, long term, we can be rash and make distinct mistakes that that we’re going to regret,
Trent Ricker: Yeah
Tim Arnold: and yet, if we only focus on the long term, we may not be around very long. It’s interesting. I saw, you know, even in my space of leadership development, I saw that similar conversation happened during the pandemic. You know, some folks are like, oh, you know what this we’ve been through 9/11 we’ve been through 2008 what will be fine, and some of those organizations aren’t in business anymore. I also saw some folks that pivoted so fast and adapted to new markets and funding sources that dried up that they couldn’t sustain what they created in that short term pivot.
Trent Ricker: Isn’t that fascinating, right?
Tim Arnold: Yeah, and I know that it’s, you know, 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?
Trent Ricker: You bring up a really interesting point. I’m sorry, interrupt you.
Tim Arnold: Go ahead. No, please do. That’s why we’re in the conversation.
Trent Ricker: You just you turn it into a thought. You know, when we went through Covid, it was kind of a galvanizing humankind on one of a kind, right? The whole world is 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. A 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 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 [the book] “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, the either or and the both/and. Then, if we’re looking at those facts, it is 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? If they’re not black and white, they’re very gray or very colorful, right?
Tim Arnold: Yeah, it’s interesting. You bring up the Jim Collins reference because I think in some ways it’s 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 should have to be realists all the time, you know? And Collins is like, no, no. The other side of that is that you can never lose faith in the story ends well, you know. You’ve got to be able to face the brutal facts of reality while understanding that this will serve us well. Gosh, it’s sometimes so hard to live, 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. 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.
Trent Ricker: That’s right.
Tim Arnold: That’s 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. In the short term, how do we address the brutal facts of our current reality? 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 on to 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.
Trent Ricker: That’s interesting. It reminds me of another Jim Collins kind of anchor, where he talks about, I think, is the doom loop, or the doom cycle, right? Where there’s kind of a reaction without understanding 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 what’s happening in the external they lose sight of what, 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.
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-funded. Now you might say, but that’s not fair. The government’s always supporting us, and it’s something that our taxpayer dollars should go to. I could agree with you or disagree with you, but I’m 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 clients also different ways of addressing the SNAP benefit crisis that we had here in the fall and during the government shutdown and the 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.
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 making bad decisions, and if it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be overworked and underfunded to serve the need – the politics and the emotions. Emotions I can understand because I work closely with many of our food bank clients, and you can sense the passion that they have for feeding their neighbors – you did it, right? Anytime I’m with one of our food bank clients, you’re typically there in the distribution center, you’re seeing everything in action. Is very different than other nonprofits, where you might be in the confines of an office building, but some would say that the only fund raised through kind of rage giving SNAP benefits are cut act now those nasty people are, you know, causing this issue for us, and we need to have raised 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? Then 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 their mission? Just need to hear a message in a different way.
Tim Arnold: Yeah, my mind goes into a few places. I was thinking about our homeless shelter. When we started, we were just a small, little shelter that was filling a need that there were 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 this 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 99.9% of people share a deep desire to be difference makers. Whether they identify that or not, I believe it, right? It’s in our – it’s in us. And I think right now, this isn’t the right language to use, but the play isn’t necessarily to invoke 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, you know, our food bank is actually really needs 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 – the current reality of division and polarization. Unfortunately, you know, 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 the current polarized environment means that if we don’t have people like you, we’re not going to be able to exist.
And 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 Christmas or Easter giving, but that’s about it.’ But if I know 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.
Trent Ricker: Yeah
Tim Arnold: I don’t think that has to be anti-anybody. It can just be acknowledging this is where we’re at.
Trent Ricker: There’s a shared kind of backbone message there, if you will, to start with. I think that’s what we try to consult on, that in the sense that what’s the common value? Let’s continue with, with food banks, right? That 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 right, that statement is a common value that we as the man as humankind, right, the human experience would say, No child or senior or neighbor in 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, which means more working families can 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, all of our messaging is going to 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’re going to not be able to serve those who are in need, and it’s the government’s fault. Rage giving comes about, right? But instead of doing their aspects, I think, 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 a human ability. Let’s go raise money, and let’s take care of this. Equality and equity are all good.
But I think on the other side, there are those who might believe that that sort of messaging is an attack on them as individuals for being perhaps heartless. I find that those who believe in less government believe that, almost in a capitalistic, philanthropic perspective, right? As individuals, we’re in a generous country, our tax dollars shouldn’t go to the government to fund things, but instead, we should do it. The call to action for those on the right can be, you know, in a country built on hard work, you know, no one who’s working or serve 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, it’s actually you would say this way, but it’s your political leaving 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 those words. The point is, if you if you are messaging the right way, you do cast a way bigger tent.
Tim Arnold: You do.
Trent Ricker: 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. Talk to me a little bit about that, because, again, I think it’s right in line with the and both. It’s not an either/or. It’s not that 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.
Tim Arnold: I’ve been taking notes because I love hearing about the research and kind of what you’re finding. But I think that the limited approach would be to make this a polarized approach, which means we’re only kind of leaning towards one side or the other. I’ve never heard the term ‘rage giving’, but as soon as you said it, it made sense to me because…
Trent Ricker: It’s a real thing.
Tim Arnold: 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-erm donor base, you want to be able to tap into the shared, kind of redemptive version of we all want to make a difference, and we all agree that people shouldn’t go hungry – that children shouldn’t go to school without a lunch. We all believe that. And then I think you can get 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 were remembered by caring and making a difference. And right now, in a very polarized, divided world, it’d be easy for folks like you sort of fall through the cracks, but because of people like you that’s not going to happen. 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 much more unifying and I think it’s a longer term approach.
Trent Ricker: I think you’re right, and I think that in the sense of kind of having the bipartisan fundraising mentality, I worry that if we do play into the polarization and those nonprofit 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 up front, 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?
I worry about 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 that sort of similar messaging, as opposed to the bigger tent. 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 the boogeyman is – it’s not partisan.
Tim Arnold: 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.
Trent Ricker: Yeah, you’re right.
Tim Arnold: And you know, then you’re putting yourself in a, I think, a real deficit position when there are much more proactive ways to do this that’s unified and positive and speaks to really good parts of who we are as people.
Trent Ricker: I think to that point, 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 world views, and in this case, can still see SNAP as aligned with their values, right? That’s the commonality. Where can we find commonality in the values?
Tim Arnold: 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 years at the table, I 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, whether it’s a language they speak or a skill they have, or place they travel, the moment that they find something, it’s like, oh, there’s like, high fives. And it’s just feels so good to recognize that we have that in common.
And I think, you know, use your 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. 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, 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 on those higher values, and feel like I’m part of a much bigger collective that are aligned around what really, really matters.
Trent Ricker: And you brought it up earlier. I think it’s a great way to segue as we work to close this. I could go on for hours with 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 we think about the messaging or who they will accept. 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 they take a $1million donation from that person. The reality is, though, to your point, in our community, in our schools, our kids, parents and our churches are 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 is coming from. The reality is when you break bread 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 all have so much more in common than we are different, right?
Tim Arnold: It’s so true. I was reminded of that a few weeks ago. My son is 15. He referees hockey, and I was going to pick him up, and 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 her son, turns out his name was Ethan, is on the one team. I didn’t know why their team? Well, there, it’s a close game. It’s tied up. There’s minutes left. 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 that wants to be connected with people…”
Trent Ricker: That’s right.
Tim Arnold: 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, 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.
Trent Ricker: With that, let’s, 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, so much polarization. But what are a few things that we can share with our leader listeners today?
Tim Arnold: I think the first one we already talked about Trent, and that 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.
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. 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. 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, you know, have this ability to find authentic connection with very diverse individuals?
Trent Ricker: That’s outstanding. And I would, 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 relevant and timely to the individual. 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 absolutely 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 fantastic. Thank you so much. I look forward to now I tease this because I’m going to get you back on the fall, but you’re working on something new. If I’m not mistaken, right? You’ve got a book coming out.
Tim Arnold: 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 one was around leading change. This one is all around creating a thriving workplace culture. It’s coming up 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 make sure that all of your leaders are able to benefit from the work that I’m going to be launching real soon.
Trent Ricker: 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.
Tim Arnold: My pleasure. Thank you both.
Thanks for joining us on another episode of “Go Beyond Fundraising.” We hope these conversations have equipped you with the tools and inspiration to take your fundraising, marketing and advocacy efforts to the next level. If you are ready to transform your nonprofit’s growth and impact, visit teamallegiance.com to get in touch with the experienced team at Allegiance Group and Pursuant (AGP). We are 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 you.
