Pub Affair Case

Free essays 0 Comments

PubAffair Case

Nameof Student

Theconception of Hands on Network was by a group of individuals whointended to make easier the participation of people in activitiesthat involved charity and building their communities. Theorganization mainly focused on bringing together volunteers whohelped in various communities all over. It was just around the sametime when President George Bush came up with a strategy of threeparts which made service to the community a prioritized nationalpolicy. The Points of Light Foundation was created in 1990 as anon-partisan, independent and nonprofit organization so that thespirit of service could be encouraged. In August 2007, Hands onNetwork and The Points of Light Foundation merged to form a dynamic,integrated new presence in the sector of charity. The twoorganizations got into the merger with a reputation that was adamantat the national level plus a history that was unique and a set ofsolutions to offer (Guo,et al. 2005).The Alliance was a brand new face of charity work that offered ideas,came up with innovations, and expertise. It was committed toassisting citizens at all levels to engage and taking action towardssolving problems in the community by volunteering. A merger is anintegrated or combined legal entity made up of two or more separateorganizations.

Statementof management or governance challenge

Everynonprofit organization faces challenges. The challenges involve theneed for an execution that is improved in five major areas that areof concern: mission focus, succession and planning, board governance,measurement of performance and development and fundraising. Most ofthe nonprofit organizations that have failed one of the five keyissues have been the root of the failure.

Analysisof the challenge

Ina bid to make the merger work the challenge of inventing new ways ofreaching out to people and making a difference that would tap intotheir potential to bring about change. The most successful non-profitorganizations are those that can attain that in their corporatepartnerships and in the work they conduct with stakeholders andvolunteers. For the merger between POLF and HON, their mainstakeholders were affiliates, the field and the donors.

Mostleaders in the nonprofit organizations don`t have an inherentclarified purpose or mission. Mission creep is still the worst threatto such organizations. Having countless internal and externalstakeholders can result in the entity going astray. Many funders, forinstance, put fierce pressure though subtle, on nonprofits so thattheir mission may become broader to accommodate a specific interestthat makes grants.

Raisingfunds for any nonprofit organization is a challenge considering thefact that the government underfunds such organizations. There was agreat concern when it came to money matters for the merger. Theirdiligence efforts started to tear and wear due to the financialpressures that both organizations were facing. Both of them had rundeficits within the previous years. The members of the financial taskforce had a responsibility to ensure an organization that is healthyfinancially. To attain the greater scale, money is required implyingthat, organizations have to invest in development.

Comingup with a board is another challenge faced during the process of themerger. Most people felt like a new external leader wouldn`tsuccessfully step in, and Michelle was supported for the post of CEOas a candidate. Another equally important factor was who the boardwas to be comprised of, how big it would be, and who the chair personwould be. A succession of leadership was a challenge during themerger. As a member of the board at POLF, Neil Bush showeddetermination in protecting the legacy his father had left and wasnot ready to let it go. He was not sure whether coming up with themerger would cause the demise of the POLF from the nationalmemory.Obtaining substantive data is a great challenge fornonprofits. This is to find out the performance of theirintervention. The merger didn`t have impact data that could be deemedas reliable. The inability to appreciate how beneficial measurementof rigorous performance is, is of great concern (Guo,et al. 2005).

Suggestedresponse to the challenge

Havinga mission for a nonprofit organization matters a lot. The response isfeasible because some of the funders have grants that are capable ofcausing mission creep. There is, therefore, the need to say no tosome of them. It is important to focus on the requirements of thebeneficiaries and be true to the scope of the mission. Mission creepcan stretch n organization`s resources to the point of losing theability to pursue its core goals. This leads to more positiveoutcomes and eliminates negative outcomes.

Fundraisingis a key factor for any organization. It is not advisable to spendall the additional funds on programs but to reinvest part of it indevelopment. By starting with the members of the board, by makingthem the top three players for charitable giving and they should alsohelp in raising money for the organization from other people. Theresponse is a good way to raise funds for the organization and islikely to lead to more positive outcomes than negative (Guo,et al. 2005).Doing a follow up to find out how much each board member hascontributed does the work right.

Itcounts to have a clear measurement. The randomized controlled trialis the gold standard of methods of evaluation. It is not usuallypartaken due to the expense but not embracing them is a risk offailing the organization. They are capable of transforming theorganization positively and helps to focus on strategies that work.By providing data, the impetus to act is given making it of enormousvalue.

Havingan effective board is a sure way of making the organization muchbetter. Board members are supposed to deeply and directly engage inthe organization`s work. Without the engagement, board meetings willonly degenerate into exercises that involve rubber stamps, and theleaders of the organizations would be deprived of their requiredstrategic guidance and as a result, feel like their time has not beenwell spent. Having a board composed of diverse leaders ofprofessional backgrounds. The personalities of board members shouldalso be diverse. The board should comprise of those with thego-getter attitude as well as the conservative ones. With thediversity, there is a rich and ultimately helpful discussion andcauses balance in the decisions made.

Withchallenges to do with succession, it is important to plan for asuccessor as early as possible. Intentional succession is an absoluteimperative for an organization that is led by a founder who isdynamic and visionary. This makes the transition smooth in anincredible way as there is no hustle for leadership when the timecomes and also increases cohesion as the successor is determined bythe whole group.

Conclusion

Thechallenges discussed are matters of permanent vigilance for allorganizations. Conceptually, they appear simple, but mostorganizations find it a challenge implementing them since they dependon trade-offs that are perennially challenging in nature: shouldgenerous grants be accepted or should they be declined for the sakeof protecting the core mission? Should money be spent on programs orbe invested in fundraising? The success of many nonprofitorganizations depends on the ability to have such trade-offs incheck, rather than the aptness to embrace the latest phenomena.

Reference

Guo,C., &amp Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration amongnonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency,institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly,34(3),340-361.