By now you all know that Lance Armstrong is not contesting the doping allegations and will be losing all of his Tour de France titles. When this story broke late last week there was all sorts of speculation that this would have negative consequences for his cancer fighting charity, Livestrong. But the latest news is that the opposite is happening: donations are skyrocketing. This would never happen if any of the leaders of most other charities went through a scandal. In fact, I’m willing to bet that a number of charity leaders do have a scandals and none of us notice. The difference with Lance Armstrong is that he is a celebrity and public figure whose personal issues will have an impact on his foundation, whether he intends it or not.
Source: John Edwards 2008
This case sheds light on a larger issue that several nonprofits (and other organizations, like Apple) face: the difficulty in separating the organization from their charismatic leader. Clearly Livestrong has not yet distinguished itself from Armstrong (and maybe he doesn’t want it that way yet), otherwise it would have been minimally impacted by this doping news. This will be their challenge moving forward – for the organization to be able to have its work speak for its reputation and growing support, rather than one individual’s unrelated actions. It was a smart move, however, to start going by the name ‘Livestrong’ in 2009 rather than ‘Lance Armstrong Foundation’. That will insure, in the long run, the organization is able to create a unique brand identity related to its mission and also have the flexibility to innovate and differentiate from its founder’s original intention without having to undergo a massive rebrand.
For nonprofits like the Jane Goodall Institute, separating the founder from the organization is just as, if not more, difficult. Not only do they have to try to create a unique identity for the charity, but they also have to do this quickly because they face the very real and approaching reality that they will no longer be with their founder. Can they maintain the momentum they have had with their famous leader when she is no longer around? Will people still know what the Jane Goodall Institute does when fewer people remember who she is? Or will they have to go through a rebrand?
Charismatic and famous leaders have an uncanny ability to catapult an issue or an organization into public consciousness. For example, Michael J Fox has helped to raise awareness of and funding for battling Parkinson’s disease. Organizations like his can grow rapidly and gain a large pool of supporters. But this is a double edged sword. Firstly, it could come at the cost of smaller, perhaps more effective organizations that should scale up but don’t have a silver bullet like a celebrity to help them grow funding and support. And, secondly, there is a constant struggle for celebrity-led charities to separate the work and the organization from the founder. These organizations need to both embrace and shun their leaders at the same time – a fine line to walk and perhaps one that is not even possible. Ultimately, donors and charities alike should strive to give a voice to the issues and solutions, rather than one individual.
