How do we effect change while minimizing fear and risk?

Hi everyone, happy election day if you're in the US. I am inspired by what happened in Brazil and Serbia, where people organized to successfully push back fascism. I hope we can do that here, with a strong blue wave from this midterm.

One of the questions I get asked a lot after my keynotes is “How do we change things while dealing with all the risks associated, such as losing donors or funders or our jobs?”

I have said before that our sector is full of brilliant people whose vital work is often hampered by fear. A lot of that fear is for the people we serve; namely, if nonprofits lose funding, programs and services may have to shrink or close, and that would affect a lot of people who depend on nonprofits for a variety of reasons.

Some of the fears are for ourselves. The consequences that result because we offended a donor, funder, government official, board member, or senior leader could affect our jobs and the resources needed to pay the bills and feed our families.

But it’s clear that a lot of things continue to be awful or getting worse. Not just in our world, where the attacks on trans people are increasing, fascism is on the rise, and so on, but also internally within many organizations. Many donors continue to be demanding and controlling. Board members are often useless or destructive and prevent a lot of change from happening. Some EDs/CEOs suck. Too many funders continue doing the same frustrating, destructive things. We're dealing with a lot on all fronts.

So, how do we change things, considering the fears and risks involved? Here are some thoughts and advice. Please feel free to add yours in the comment section.

Think about the risks of NOT taking action: There are plenty of risks we take on when we rock the boat, especially around DEI work. But I always think of what our colleague Jennifer Njuguna, Co-CEO of Common Future, said: "What are the risks when we don't act?" The status quo remains, inequity continues, injustice proliferates. And we continue being complicit in advancing the things our sector set out to stop.

Examine the underlying assumptions that a lot of fears are based on. Fears are often based on many layers of assumptions. For example, if you take a public stance on something controversial, donors will get upset. That’s one assumption. Another assumption is, if they get upset, they will stop donating. And yet another assumption is, if they stop donating, there’s no way to make up the loss in other ways.

But are those assumptions necessarily all accurate? I mentioned in the past of my friend’s organization releasing a statement supporting Black Lives Matter and defunding the police (back when it was still controversial to do so). They lost a few donors, but others were inspired by their courage and stepped in, and it was their best fundraising year ever. Many of the assumptions our fears are based on often prove to be false, and it’s good to examine them.

Work collectively to prevent punishment of individuals and organizations. The entrenchment of the survival mentality and the funding hunger games means many of us have developed the habit of working alone by default. But working in collaboration with others is often way more effective, not just in changing systems, but also in dispersing the risks to individual leaders or organizations. An organization telling a funder its grantmaking is archaic and everyone on its staff and board should wear powdered wigs and codpieces, that could risk retaliation. But several organizations getting together and writing a joint letter or asking to meet with the funder as a group may lead to better outcomes while protecting everyone from potential blowback.

Use multi-pronged strategies. As I like to remind people, a lot of the work of changing things in our sector is like trying to feed the brussels sprouts of equity to toddlers in power. It requires patience and creativity (and the self-control to not throw the sprouts at the toddlers and running screaming into night, never to be heard from again). A single strategy may not work and could lead to backlash. But several strategies deployed strategically and at the right time could be helpful.

For instance, staff at a foundation trying to increase payout rate and fund more equitably may think about having a book club (some recommendations: Dimple Abichandani’s “A New Era of Philanthropy: Ten Practices to Transform Wealth into a More Just and Sustainable Future,” Vanessa Daniel’s Unrig the Game: What Women of Color Can Teach Everyone About Winning,” and Glen Galaich’s “Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short”), bringing in the authors and other experts, mobilizing the community to be more vocal, and writing an op-ed in the local newspaper or article in a relevant publication.

Use art, joy, and humor: While the work we do is very serious, our strategies don’t have to always be, and in fact, we can be more effective if we use creative tactics in tandem with more serious stuff. In Brazil, for example, people used music, dance, and even circus arts to rally votes for President Lula de Silva. And remember in Portland, people dressed in various costumes, such as the now iconic frog, to protest the federal government’s fascist occupation of the city; knitters, meanwhile, have brought yarn and needles to protest ICE. And if you need something else to brighten your day, read this article about how Bogotá, Colombia deployed mimes to direct traffic.   

Those with more privilege, use it for good: The risks involved in trying to change inequitable or ineffective processes and systems are not equitably distributed. They often disproportionately affect women of color, disabled people, trans people, and others who have been subjected to the most inequity and injustice in our society. They are often the ones who get fired, demoted, or ostracized for speaking up. Those who have a lot more privilege—cis men, white people, and white men in particular—should be aware of these dynamics and use their privilege to push for change while shielding their less-privileged allies from repercussions.

Funders, you can mitigate a lot of the risks: Funders can play a significant role in mitigating risks for nonprofits, especially when organizations and leaders are taking public stands on DEI and other related issues. I know of many progressive leaders and orgs that have been doxxed, sent death threats, and otherwise attacked. Funding so these organizations and leaders to hire lawyers to protect and countersue, along with other types of assistance, are vital in minimizing risks to those who are speaking up against injustice.

Whatever happens this midterm election in the US, our sector will continue pushing for a more just and equitable world. That in itself carries risks and consequences. Simultaneously, we have a lot of internal philosophies and practices that are terrible, and changing those will also incur risks.

But let's remember the risks involved in not acting, examine the assumptions our fears are based on, work collectively, use different strategies including some unconventional ones, and those of us with more privilege, let's use it to shield our colleagues who often take disproportionately more flak for trying to create change.

--

Thank you to monthly Patreon supporters and Ghost subscribers for keeping these posts ad-free and open to everyone...and not written with any intentional help from AI (Please ignore the typos, run-on sentences, nonsensical metaphors, and other human errors).