Stanford Social Innovation Review

Bully!  The Scourge of Nonprofit Boards, and What to Do About It

Like every other human organization, a nonprofit board of directors is subject to being dominated by an internal bully. Nonprofit boards are actually more at risk of bully dominance than other groups, because the only compensation for serving is psychological. For most board members, the psychological reward is the consciousness of doing good in good company—but for some, satisfaction can only flow from being utterly and completely in charge.

The bully turns a nonprofit board into a corporation of one, and deprives the executive director (ED) and the agency of everyone else’s expertise and skills.

Here are three common forms of nonprofit board bully, and what to do about them:

The Martinet Bully: Often a man, and often the board chair. He is determined to import the standards of the business world to the nonprofit sector whether they’re applicable or not. His methods involve an exaggerated concern for efficiency: meetings start early, whether or not people are there, and discussion is foreshortened with a remark such as, “We’ve got the report—let’s just vote.”  In the short term, the ED should gently say, “I’m not sure everyone’s been heard from yet.” In the medium term, give the martinet a project he can handle by himself which will keep him out of others’ way. In the long term, find someone else willing to serve as board chair who will practice for that position by deliberately sticking a spoke in the current chair’s wheel when he starts running over the rest of the group.

The Expert Bully: “I’m on 33 other boards, and it’s always done this way.” He or she shuts down others’ opinions with a look of condescending pity for those lacking experience.  Interestingly, this brand of bully is rarely willing to serve as board chair (too busy with the other boards, perhaps). In the short term, the board chair and ED should make sure they know of at least one example of things being done differently, and mention it. In the medium term, give the expert a project that can be handled exactly as the expert bully pleases. In the long term, identify and work to empower other board members in specific areas of governance—personnel, say, or taxes—and thus gradually reduce the scope of the expert’s terrain.

The Passive-Aggressive Bully: “You can do it that way if you want, but then I’m going to have to quit.” This one arises most frequently at the pivotal moment when an agency is finally adopting a minimum gift. The bully hopes to make everyone else feel guilty for having too much money and not enough sympathy for poor little Passive-Aggressive. In the short term, the board chair and ED can pretend not to hear what’s been said. In the medium and long term, ask other members of the board to pretend not to hear what’s been said. The only way to handle these bullies is to ignore them.

Kelly Kleiman, who blogs as The Nonprofiteer, is a lawyer and freelance journalist whose reportage and essays about the arts, philanthropy and women’s issues have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and other dailies; in magazines including In These Times and Chicago Philanthropy; and on websites including Aislesay.com and Artscope.net.

Posted by Katie Harrington

4 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Who are you? How do you know?

Psychologists love questions about identity and its multiple dimensions—from attitudes to behaviors. Geneticists are also ready to weigh in about your identity with different perspectives and data. Demographers will chime in—disaggregating you along various dimensions. Historians and biographers have something to say, cross-referencing what others will say about you with the written record and whatever paper trail you may leave. Religious communities and traditions also may claim part of you, sometimes regardless of whether you claim them. You may identify with a single race or ethnicity or with many of them, and this may shift over time or remain steadfast. Gender identity, though singular for many, is more fluid and plural for others. Answers to the questions, “Who are you? And how do you know?” may vary depending on who asks you and when you answer.

Why am I talking about this? Today I went to two conferences. First, the Jewish Funders Network, where questions and discussions revolved around funding Jewish identity.  Everyone agreed that there are multiple ways to identify as Jewish and multiple ways people come to those identities. The conference was held at Sixth & I, a 100 year-old synagogue that, like so many in big cities, spent decades as an African Methodist Church. It was recently renovated back into a synagogue, and now thrives as a Jewish cultural hub and house of worship for Jews of every denomination. It sits in D.C.‘s Chinatown.

Then I took two subways and one cab ride to the National Harbor, a brand-new, man-made city emerging on the horizon south of D.C. the way Oz rose over the poppy fields. Overlooking the Potomac, the conference center encases a fake mini village with a glass wall several stories tall and about a football field in length. There, the Council on Foundation‘s Philanthropy Summit—with its 2900+ people from 40 countries, three hip-hop groups, two gospel choirs, and one Chinese lion dance—was just getting underway. As I checked in for the conference, I watched the council’s staff members apply banner flags to the nametag; you know, the multicolored ribbon-thingies that say “Foundation Board Member,” “Moderator,” “Presenter,” “Newcomer,” and so on. I saw at least 12 different ribbons and I wondered if anyone was wearing a foot-long name tag with all of these identifiers attached. These ribbons, intended to mark you for the benefit of others, address the aspect of identity, which is assumed, assigned, or placed on you by the outside world, the setting in which you find yourself, or the context in which someone meets you.

Even the simplest question, “Who are you?” has many possible answers. As we embark on philanthropic programs perhaps we should acknowledge the dynamism, uncertainty, and relativity of our endeavors. Data may not be as standardized as you might want to think. That fact should not thwart anyone’s gusto for good work. On the contrary, questioning our assumptions, probing the data, considering the sources, and re-calibrating our measures are vital to learning and making progress.

Lucy Bernholz is the Founder and President of Blueprint Research & Design, Inc, a strategy consulting firm that helps philanthropic individuals and institutions achieve their missions. She is the publisher of Philanthropy2173, an award winning blog about the business of giving and serves as Executive Producer of The Giving Channel on Fora.tv.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Why Do People Really Give to Charity?

In February I wrote a post positing that people give to charity as a way to satisfy their deeply held need to find meaning in life. The post is now the number 2 result in Google for the phrase, “why do people give to charity.” The number 1 result is a publication of The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis titled, “The Economics of Charitable Giving: What Gives?” The paper discusses theories of giving labeled “Perfect Altruism,” “The Warm Glow,” and “Prestige,” and concludes:

“Although some people may be altruistic when giving, economics tells us that the dominant motivation is the internal satisfaction that individuals derive from the act of giving itself. Individuals derive utility from giving much in the same way they obtain satisfaction from buying a new car or eating at a restaurant; especially when the number of donors is large, and the social context of other people’s giving is overshadowed by the satisfaction of one’s own giving when considering how much to give.”

I think the paper is a bit misleading. When trying to predict behavior, economics assumes but does not prove that people act in ways that maximize their own self-interest. Economics does not “tell us” that internal satisfaction is the dominant motivation for humans. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines altruism as, “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others” or “behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.” But I believe that only an incredibly narrow view of life holds that helping others is somehow separate from helping ourselves. Humans are communal animals. Without “others” we find life intolerable. If a person sacrifices for another, it is not simply “unselfish,” it is because they would be completely miserable if they chose to look the other way. Any parent knows that the happiness and health of their children is more important than their own needs. This isn’t “unselfish,” it is just something hardwired into our DNA.

The narrative of philanthropy is dominated by the concept that people who give do so for personal gain. I’ve seen many references explaining that Warren Buffett’s gift to the Gates Foundation was a way for him to exploit a loophole to avoid taxes. However, I think that narrative is false. Humans are interconnected with each other whether we like it or not. The fact that helping others also helps us does not diminish the act of giving. It is the brilliant fact of life that makes community work.

I’d now like to address a number of counter arguments I received in response to my original post.

Comment: “…I wonder if the wealthy individuals who create these foundations do so because they are self-actualized or need a tax break.”

The idea that people give because they “need a tax break” is widely believed, but is completely disingenuous. My professional expertise is in helping people structure the financial side of giving in the best possible way. The definition of “best possible” depends on the person’s goals, but limiting taxes is always a consideration. But let me clarify, you cannot legally structure a charitable gift so that the donor receives a net increase in their wealth. If you give away $1,000, you might be able to structure the gift so that you reduce your taxes by as much as $700 (or even more). However, at the end of the day you still have less wealth than if you had kept your money and paid the taxes.

I am not saying that taxes have no affect on donations. Taxes often drive the timing of gifts. However, it is important to note that the decision to part with money is a difficult one for most people. Even after an individual decides they want to make a donation they often stall on actually going through with the gift. It often takes the approach of the year’s end for donors to finally give up the gift qualifying for that year’s tax deduction.

I get plenty of phone calls from people who are interested in setting up some sort of charitable vehicle for the sole purpose of generating a tax deduction. But once they learn how foundations, charitable trusts, and donor-advised funds work, they are always disappointed and end up not setting one up. The idea that wealthy individuals who are sophisticated about money and taxes would give money away just to generate a tax deduction simply does not make any sense.

Comment: “Mother Teresa once said, ‘give ‘til [it] hurts you.’ Only giving which hurts the giver in some way is supreme.”

The idea that goodness comes from pain is deeply rooted in some religions. Personally, I believe, as I wrote in my essay, that humans are hardwired to enjoy the act of helping others. Feeling happy and good about helping others is a sign of positive mental health. Needing to feel pain to feel good is called masochism.

I also don’t believe that all donations are rooted in self-actualization. Certainly, many people (myself included) enjoy the social approval that comes from our peers when we make a gift. But this isn’t bad. This is part of the hardwiring that encourages humans to be social animals.

There is one criticism of philanthropy I find compelling: the idea that some gifts are motivated by a reciprocal benefit that is paid in non-monetary terms—for instance, a gift could be given to a university with the hope that it will improve the donor’s children’s chance of acceptance. These kinds of gifts are absolutely real. But they are a small minority of philanthropic gifts. Since it is illegal for a donor to claim an income tax deduction for a gift made in exchange for something of value, these kinds of gifts are a problem of our tax code, not a problem with philanthropy.

Sean Stannard-Stockton is a principal and director of Tactical Philanthropy at Ensemble Capital Management. Ensemble Capital provides families both traditional investment management and philanthropic planning. He is the author of the blog Tactical Philanthropy and writes the column On Philanthropy for the Financial Times.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

3 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Are We Still Involved in the Pursuit of Truth? If Not, Why Not?

Sam Davidson shares a great quote he saw at the National Civil Rights Museum:

“Truth comes from being involved, and not from observation and speculation.”

Amen to that. The pursuit of truth is really why many of us came into the nonprofit sector. Most of us were looking for something real, something meaningful happening in this big bullshit world. But the question is, do most of us find it when we get here, or do we just find more spin, just as much posturing as we see coming from our politicians? As Jeanne Bell will tell you, we pay a price for the stories we tell about ourselves. Because the problem with many nonprofits today is that we are supposed to be in the business of making social change—the kind that can be funded, measured, replicated, and tied up in a pretty red bow. The kind of change that can only happen in air-conditioned offices with receptionists screening our calls, that doesn’t need to speak out against anything because the good work speaks for itself. We think we know what the community needs even though we’ve never set foot over on the east side of town. We have our protocol and our fears about getting too political, and we think we’re doing some good if we get a little mentoring program up and running without addressing the piss-poor state of the school system.

Really?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the inauthenticity of keeping quiet. I moved to DC in 2004 after participating in the March for Women’s Lives, a huge march on Washington and a real protest to secure reproductive rights for women in the face of the Bush administration’s actions. I helped organize one of our bus groups of women’s studies students from Richmond to DC and it really felt like I was doing something, for once in my life. My grandmother thought I was insane to be involved with such an event, and was convinced I would forever be on the “government’s list.” And the college feminist radical in me really wished I was indeed on some watch list. I was proud to be identified as a dissenter. I wanted it to be on the record that I did not agree with the political decisions that were being made on my behalf as a woman. I got involved because NOW (National Organization for Women) along with the Black Women’s Health Imperative had provided me with some real knowledge I wouldn’t find in the history books or on primetime TV. And they showed me what it meant to take action, armed with that truth, to drive change. Yet somewhere along the way I traded in my protest signs for business casual and board meetings. I’m not really sure how I feel about it now, I’ve been wondering if this is the same sector I discovered in 2004. I mean, we can’t be all about protest and dissent 24/7, right? Someone has to pick up the pieces. But maybe this sector dichotomy is just a representation of the way we’re being trained to toe the line. As Elisa, one of my readers, comments:

It doesn’t help that our educational system and the organizations we work in don’t encourage us to do this kind of try and fail experimentation. I don’t know about anyone else, but where I went to school, toeing the line was going to get you farther all the time. Then you transition to a work place that is the same way and it becomes in your best interest (at least in terms of staying ‘comfortable’) to again toe the line.

And I have to be honest here, a lot of my idealism from four years ago has since waned because I’ve seen how nonprofits really work. But I’ve been thinking about what my responsibility is to the Rosetta of four years ago, the one who found out what was really going on and told everybody about it. What is my contribution if I forgo seeking truth in order to avoid getting into some kind of trouble? Where are we going as a nonprofit sector if we lose our drive for the pursuit of truth at all costs? And what good are we as independent organizations if, when we find it, we are too afraid to speak truth to power?

Am I the only one that’s lost a little of my college idealism? What’s been your experience?

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, DC area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

10 Ways to Become a Better Nonprofit Leader in 2009

It’s that time of year when we all are making our New Year’s resolutions. This is the best time to be thinking about how your nonprofit career will grow in the coming year as well. The economy dealt us nonprofit folks a difficult year (especially in fundraising), and undoubtedly there are more unknown challenges ahead for all of us. But we have to remember all the things that we ARE in control of: our actions, our intentions, our career choices. Here is my top ten list of things to add to your 2009 goals if you want to enhance your leadership in the nonprofit field. Please add your own in the comments!

1. Clarify your purpose: Don’t go into 2009 without first asking yourself if you are in the right place. Are you really doing what you want to do? Take some time to reflect on who you are and why you are in the nonprofit field. Where is your passion? Does your job have anything to do with the way you want to be in the world?
2. Speak up: When someone asks you what you think, tell them! 2009 is not the year of the shrinking violet. We need more nonprofit leaders, especially young people, to share their ideas and innovation to help move organizations forward. This is not the time to get intimidated by your boss or Board Chair, there is too much at stake. The most damaging behavior in a nonprofit is when everyone says yes to everything. Be the one who says “no” or “why” if you know it is the right thing to do.
3. Join a nonprofit board of directors: There’s no leadership training like the experience you get serving as a board member. Over the past year, I have learned so much more in my board role than I ever would have in my day to day nonprofit job. You will undoubtedly learn about finances, staffing challenges, fundraising, and make decisions regarding pretty much everything. On a board, you HAVE to lead, that’s all there is to it. You also make some neat friends along the way. Start with boardnetUSA to find openings in your area.
4. Find a mentor: We all know of someone whose leadership we admire. If you want to learn about the career of a leader who you feel has “made it” to where you want to go, reach out to them for a brief call or meeting. Ask them if they would be willing to be a resource for you and get together a few times a year. Most people aren’t that busy they can’t talk to you once a quarter. If you meet you role model at a conference, get her card and contact her right away to reintroduce yourself. Mentoring relationships have to be cultivated like any other; don’t expect your perfect mentor to magically find you.
5. Learn how to raise money: The reality of being a nonprofit leader is that most of the time our big ideas require funding. You can talk a good talk all you want, but be sure you have the skills to make things happen. People respect a leader who can get things done, and in the nonprofit field, asking for money is the only way we can do the work. Take a fundraising class at your local nonprofit state association and practice as much as possible.
6. Write an op-ed or start a blog: Putting your voice and name out there in print is scary, and people will respect you for it. Op-eds or blogs allow you to speak up about a cause you care about to a large audience that can end up helping to move your issue forward or at least call attention to it. Your reputation as a leader will soar once people see that you aren’t hesitant to say what needs to be said. Don’t get bogged down by always trying to be politically correct; the days of bullshit are over. People want to hear about values and truth. Everyone’s not always gonna agree with you; that is impossible. But chances are, there are thousands of people who feel the same way you do, and are so glad you said what they were too afraid to. Visit the Op-Ed Project to learn how to write one.
7. Advocate for your cause: Just because you are an administrative assistant at a food bank doesn’t mean you have to stay behind that desk. Get up and go testify to your local government officials about legislation that would affect your clients. Write letters to your state representatives to show your support or opposition to policies that affect your cause. Don’t just feed the poor. Ask why the poor have no food. Visit the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest to learn all you need to know.
8. Build your network: We all know that when you’re ready to take that next big leap in your career, it’s really more about who you know than anything else. Take the time to attend at least one networking event per month and go to professional conferences to meet people both in and outside of your field. Pick a social network you like and connect with like-minded folks. You never know how people will be able to help you through the power of Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn until you dive in. I know the membership fees can be steep, but you can meet so many great people (and potential mentors) through professional associations. If you’re a fundraiser, join the Association of Fundraising Professionals!
9. Explore a slash career: Need more money in the new year? Don’t quit your job just to make $5,000 more or get a demeaning job at Target. This is the perfect time to explore another career alongside your nonprofit job that allows you to pursue one of your passions. And if you’ve been working in the same job, it might be time to think about trying something new to sharpen your skills and ability to adapt. Always wanted to teach? Try contacting your local nonprofit association or community college to see if they could use your expertise. The sky is the limit.
10. Take care of yourself: My grandmother constantly reminds me that I can’t take care of anyone else if I don’t take care of myself first. Make 2009 the year you put your health first, stop working so late, spend time with family and friends, eat right and exercise. Build it into your schedule so that you can’t say you “don’t have time.” Set up a recurring appointment (let your Blackberry remind you) in the morning or evening for time to just be.

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

It’s Time to Turn Back the Dial

I woke up today to a brand new America. An America where any individual can live their wildest dreams and where our collective action can make a difference. I was fortunate to be at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. yesterday as our new President Barack Obama was sworn in. The subsequent Inaugural speech he delivered was so right for the moment. It was as if our incredible crowd of a million people were being forgiven for living mediocre lives for so long, and were now being given permission to be our naturally wonderful selves again.

Sometimes we just need someone to give us permission to fly.

What President Obama has given many of us, I think, is a new sense of responsibility—to our country and to ourselves. Poet Maya Angelou has said that we all must take responsibility for the space we occupy. Shirley Chisholm put it a slightly different way when she declared that service is the rent we pay to be on this Earth. However you want to spin it, millions of Americans all over the country today are inspired to do something better with their lives. Pop diva Beyonce was beside herself with emotion last night as she sang “At Last” to the new President and First Lady, saying that Obama makes her want to be smarter, to get more involved. The voice of the next generation, in particular, knows now what we must do.

It is time for us to begin turning back the dial.

John St. Augustine knows a little something about the span of a life. He gave a talk last year about “living the uncommon life” and how urgent it is for us to make deliberate choices with our time here on Earth. If, on average, we will only live to age 77 or so, what will you do in those short years during the remaining timeline of your life?

Most of us already know what we must do. What we have always longed for in our heart of hearts, in our wildest of dreams.  My Life List has even compiled 90 of the most sought-after human goals. What has happened is that we have tuned out for so long, keeping ourselves busy with everything else on our to-do lists. We have lost the signal.

I believe Barack Obama, in his inaugural speech yesterday, did not just lay the groundwork for a new attitude in America. He also called us as individuals to be responsible for the space we occupy. He called us to turn back the dial and reclaim that signal of hope, that radio station on the inside that compels us to live well and do good.

Deep inside of each of us, there is a glimmer of wanting light that wants to do something real and true. On a clear day like yesterday at the Capitol, you could see it on the faces of a million people shivering in the winter air, wearing nothing but hope on their faces.

We have been forgiven for so many years of waiting until we get our ducks in a row before we do what we want to do in our lives. We have been given permission to fly as far as we want to go. We have all been inspired to turn back the dial and become better Americans in the process.

Listen for what it is that you are called to do. And when you hear it, don’t wait. Do it now.

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

‘Blood money’ that became a force for good

Like everyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 Steve and Liz Alderman were devastated when their 25-year-old son, Peter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack. Like many, they chose to honor their son’s memory by creating a foundation in his name.

Of the 303 non-profit organizations launched in response to 9/11, only 27 were still operating five years later, according to a study by the NonProfit Times. What has kept the Peter C. Alderman Foundation going is his parents’ focus on maximizing the impact of their foundation through rigorous analysis. In the words of Peter’s father, Steve: “We will abandon anything that doesn’t work.”

When the Aldermans received $1.4m from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Liz thought of it as “blood money” and almost turned it down. She told me recently that she used to lie awake at night thinking about the people she wanted to kill to avenge Peter’s death. But, with Steve’s encouragement, they accepted the money and launched a private foundation to help victims of terrorism and mass violence round the world.

“Using the money for a good cause was the best revenge,” Steve told me. “The only way for us to counteract great evil was with great good.”

Today the Peter C. Alderman Foundation, in partnership with Harvard University, builds mental health clinics and provides local doctors with the tools they need to treat the emotional wounds of victims of terrorism and mass violence in places such as Cambodia, Uganda and Rwanda. Its work has attracted partners such as the US Department of Health and Human Services and the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lily.

When I spoke to the Aldermans about their foundation, I was struck by the fact they, unlike most philanthropists who talk about the grants they have made, talk about the effect they have had. With an annual operating budget of $500,000 they have set out to help people across the globe. Liz and Steve found that, to have the impact they were seeking, they had to identify outstanding partners and find ways to leverage their giving.

“Starting a foundation was like starting a small business,” Steve said. “Our daughter, Jane, even got her MBA when she realized that we didn’t know enough about business.” She is now the foundation’s executive director.

The Aldermans represent the vanguard of philanthropy—individuals who have recognized that philanthropy is not defined by the act of giving but by the achievement of impact. It is both an emotional act of love by the giver as well as a strategic investment in our social fabric. The Aldermans have discovered that the most emotionally satisfying philanthropy is a gift that has impact.

Unlike many relatively small foundations, the Peter C. Alderman Foundation has an in-depth strategic plan. Through its mental health clinics, the foundation has reached 65,000 people with traumatic depression. Many grantmakers simply measure themselves by the scope of their activities, but the Alderman foundation goes further and documents that it has seen 80 per cent of the people it has treated return to productive lives.

In Cambodia, where the legacy of the genocidal Pol Pot and the brutal Khmer Rouge still grips the populace, the Aldermans have proved they can treat traumatic depression. Demand has been so large that the foundation created a second clinic to eliminate the 14-month waiting list. Importantly, the Aldermans have shown they can achieve their mission cost effectively; the Cambodia clinic system provides services at a cost of $50 a head.

The Peter C. Alderman Foundation is not the first to have a strategic plan, strong partners and demonstrated impact. But it is part of an emerging group of relatively small family foundations that are demonstrating how to use effectively these tools.

The Aldermans have shown that the most effective way both to help people and soothe their own emotional wounds is through a focused strategy and measurement of impact.

I was struck by how the Aldermans talked like seasoned social action experts with impact data and leverage statistics dominating our conversation. But, in the end, the Aldermans are grieving parents trying their best to make sense of a devastating loss. “I’ve realized that you can’t cry when you’re working on the computer,” Liz said. “You get the keys all wet.”

Sean Stannard-Stockton is a principal and director of Tactical Philanthropy at Ensemble Capital Management. Ensemble Capital provides families both traditional investment management and philanthropic planning. He is the author of the blog Tactical Philanthropy and writes the column On Philanthropy for the Financial Times.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Speaking YouTube

YouTube contains a lot of content: according to cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch some 20 hours of new video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. But all of it represents a new form of cultural literacy, Wesch says—a new language of shared images and intensely personal revelations that can be used to connect people in new ways and, perhaps, even get them to care more about each other.

As a professor of introductory anthropology at Kansas State University, Wesch says he has a “front row seat” from which to watch new cultural trends emerge from the youngest adult generation, and for the past two-and-a-half years, Wesch has been inviting his students to help him analyze the vast YouTube community.

After trawling through mega-gigs of content, watching hours of videos and posting videos of their own, Wesch says, he and his students “are finding that the same conditions of ease and anonymity that enable people to get snarky online” can also encourage them to participate in meaningful and collaborative new projects. In fact, he’s discovered that YouTube and social media can mitigate the cultural tension between teens’ conflicting needs for independence and community by offering them “connection without constraints.” What looks like narcissism and individuality is actually a search for identity and recognition, Wesch told the digerati attending this week’s Personal Democracy Forum in Manhattan. “In a society that doesn’t automatically grant identity and recognition, you have to create your own.”

Wesch says he’s hopeful that social media will ease the “narcissistic disengagement” of many young people and encourages them to be more politically and civically engaged. Already, he says, some heroes have emerged—including the anonymous YouTube character who filmed himself giving hugs to strangers in the streets, and One World, the person who wore a Guy Fawkes mask and used his anonymity as a platform for collaboration, asking people to write messages on the palms of their hands and to hold them up to their Webcams for sharing. Millions of people shared this way, mostly about the need to love one another and to look beyond themselves.

“When I’m using a Webcam,” Wesch explains, “I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to it. When you’re Twittering, you’re not talking to me, you’re talking to it. Or when I’m on Facebook, I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to it.” The point, says Wesch: When communicating face-to-face, people bring many different versions of themselves into a conversation based on the context of that conversation. “But when you’re sitting in front of a camera, or twittering to hundreds if not thousands of people in a community who you cannot see and who cannot see you, you don’t know who you are talking to or when or in what context, and so [communication via social media] it is forcing a kind of context collapse—a deeper level of self-awareness not present in simple, everyday conversation. People can get deeply self-reflective on YouTube and confessional…and reveal things they would otherwise refuse to reveal, even to their family and close friends.”

Wesch urged the journalists, techno-geeks, business developers, and academicians attending the PDF conference to start thinking of YouTube as a new kind of public sphere, where new types of conversations and forms of communication can occur. “The YouTube debates [during last year’s presidential election] were flawed in that they allowed TV to dictate that conversation,” Wesch says. “We have an opportunity, on YouTube and with other social media, to create a whole new groundwork for the way these [civic] conversations work.”

Wesch then challenged attendees to help the culture move away “from its current state of ‘whatever, I don’t care’ ...to one in which we can say ‘I care, let’s do whatever it takes by whatever means necessary.’”

Wesch connected: attendees stopped tweeting long enough to give him a standing ovation.

For more about Wesch and his observations about the cultural signifiance of social media, see the lecture he gave last summer at the Library of Congress.

Marcia Stepanek is Founding Editor-in-Chief and President, News and Information, for Contribute Media, a New York-based magazine, Web site, and conference series about the new people and ideas of giving. She is the publisher of Cause Global, an acclaimed new blog about the use of digital media for social change. She also serves as moderator and producer of New Conversations for Change, Contribute’s forum series highlighting social entrepreneurs and new trends in philanthropy.

Posted by Jason Chua

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Fundraising, part 1: Scholar calls for improvement

While they generally do a good job involving their boards in fundraising, securing major gifts and planned gifts, and focusing their fundraising on their donors, U.S. charities get only an average grade overall in their fundraising, a leading fundraising scholar says.

“I would probably give it a ‘C’,” says Adrian Sargeant, the Robert F. Hartsook Professor of Fundraising at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. “There is a whole range of thing we’ve done very badly and it’s masked because people in the U.S. are very generous and getting more generous.”

Nonprofits do a terrible job retaining donors, raising money online and securing bequest pledges, Sargeant says.

The fundraising profession also lacks a mechanism for learning from the latest research, which in turn generally has failed to study why people actually give and what would spur more giving, he says.

And nonprofits typically focus their fundraising on the “transactional” strategies and tactics of raising money, Sargeant says, rather than on givers, the causes they care about, and the way fundraisers treat them.

“We’re too hung up on the mechanism,” he says. “Donors are interested in solving problems and making a difference, and whether you call it an annual fund or a capital campaign is irrelevant. We need to organize around what interests donors.”

Marketing perspective

Sargeant, who is believed to hold the only endowed fundraising chair in the world, brings to his research a marketing perspective.

After holding marketing jobs in the business world, he decided he wanted to teach at the university level.

So he enrolled in the master’s program in business administration at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, where he did research for the YMCA of Scotland on its declining supporter base.

“And I’ve been hooked ever since,” says Sargeant, who later received a doctorate in marketing from the University of Exeter.

“Fundraising for me is a form of marketing,” he says.

In comparison, he says, fundraising in the U.S. typically has a public-relations perspective.

Fundraising research

In fact, he says, research on fundraising has tended to focus on the economics of fundraising, such as the impact of tax rates on giving, or who gives and how much they give, and also has drawn on the psychological or sociological perspectives of why people give.

“There needs to be more work in the domain of philanthropic psychology,” he says.

“That’s important because one thing we need more research on is growing the pie,” he says. “We live in a time when a smaller proportion of American society is giving, the giving base is declining,” he says. “There is still a lot more we need to know about donor retention and what we can do practically to improve rates of attrition.”

Research is needed to explore fundraising opportunities that have not been tapped fully, including bequests, online giving and the use of social media, Sargeant says.

“All of these things are potential audiences we can grow,” he says, “and research that helps fundraisers do that is really key.”

Next: Givers’ psychology seen as key

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Jason Chua

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Fundraising, part 2: Givers’ psychology seen as key

Equipping fundraising professionals with research-based tools to help them be more effective in their work is key challenge for the giving sector, says a leading fundraising expert.

And fundraising research needs to take a much closer look at why givers give, says Adrian Sargeant, the Robert F. Hartsook Professor of Fundraising at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

One scholar who is looking at the psychology of fundraising is Jen Shang, an assistant professor at Indiana University who was one of the first recipients of the doctoral degree in philanthropy the school offers.

Shang, who is married to Sargeant, focused her dissertation on public-radio fundraising appeals.

She found that public-radio listeners who phoned their stations during on-air appeals and were asked to give an amount equal to what some of the most generous givers had given the previous year gave 10 percent more on average than they otherwise would have given.

And when the person fielding the call indicated the gender of the person making that higher-level gift the previous year was the same as that of the current caller, the size of the caller’s gift increased by 30 percent.

“It’s because people are not giving in a vacuum, they’re giving in a social context,” Sargeant says. “You’re giving them information about someone else like them, so they’re giving to match that amount.”

And gender, the characteristic tested by Shang’s research, represents only one identity that any given giver has, Sargeant says.

What is important for nonprofit fundraisers is to understand “what identities are important to your donors and prompt those,” he says.

“We know that when you do that, it increases giving, people feel better about their giving when you’ve linked it to an identify you care about,” like being an environmentalist or a dog owner, he says. “If you have a strong sense of identity, you feel good about giving because that’s been prompted.”

Public trust

Public trust, or the lack of it, also is a key factor in charitable giving, Sargeant says.

While Americans overall tend to give more each year, the percentage of Americans who give is declining, Sargeant says, a decline he attributes to erosion in public trust.

Fundraising scandals related to the misuse of funds given to address victims of the 9/11 attacks were partly to blame for that erosion of trust, Sargeant says, as is the fact that roughly 40 percent of nonprofits claim on the Form 990 annual reports they file with the IRS that they spend nothing on fundraising.

“Those sorts of claims tend to educate the public that it’s somehow achievable that everything they give can be applied to the cause and not be spent on fundraising,” he says.

“What we need to do is educate them on the realities of how modern nonprofits operate,” he says. “That’s a way to build public trust and confidence in the sector. You have to be open and honest about how things work. Why hide it?”

Next: Research-based training urged

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Jason Chua

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

How to Become a More Resilient Nonprofit Leader

The nonprofit sector is changing at such an alarming rate, even those of us that do the work of social change day in and day out cannot keep abreast of all of the economic, political, and environmental trends affecting our field. In the midst of layoffs, program cuts, and fundraising concerns, most of us would rather stick our heads in the sand rather than face the fact that there’s no more business as usual. Most of us freak out in the face of change, even going so far as to change careers when the going gets too tough. Especially when it comes to Generation Y, we have to wonder whether our youthful passion for change gets overshadowed by the sheer and utter difficulty of the work we thought we so desperately wanted to do. I know my peers, and I have to admit that there is some truth to Baby Boomers’ complaints that we don’t stay in jobs very long. Where is our resilience?

Merriam-Webster tells us that to be resilient means

a) capable of withstanding shock without permanent deformation or rupture or
b) tending to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.

In short, being resilient means that we have the ability to bounce back from crisis like an elastic rubber band. But how do we cultivate resilience when all day long we’re putting out one fire after another?

Learn From New Experiences

Maxine Dalton writes about the importance of developing strategies to learn how to adapt to changing circumstances. Our experiences with change can be either rewarding or unpleasant, but we can be intentional about how we react to them. Dalton suggests four key ways to prepare to deal with challenges and ultimately become more effective learners.

1. Take Action: Try learning how to do a new task through trial and error versus research or a how-to book or class
2. Think: Gather data about a new situation by reflecting on past experiences, imagining likely outcomes or scenarios of a possible decision
3. Feel: Develop personal strategies for managing with your fear or discomfort that results in experiencing something new or unfamiliar
4. Access Others: Seek advice or instruction from others who have been in a similar situation or use another person as a model or example for what you need to figure out
Develop a Spiritual Practice No matter if you meditate or practice an organized religion, the crux of your spiritual practice can serve to make you stronger if it helps you to focus on your core purpose in life. I love how Oprah defines spirituality for herself and how it comforts her in times of uncertainty:

When you begin to realize that you are more than your body, that your purpose is greater than your profession or your career—that every life, because you were born you have a right to be here and there is a calling on your life—it means you live your life without fear and you know that no matter what happens, no matter what happens, you are going to be all right. You are going to be all right. That’s what spirituality is for me.

Fail Upward Sometimes we think we have failed, when in fact all we’re doing is being true to ourselves. I remember when I heard the news that Darian Rodriguez had resigned as Executive Director of the Craigslist Foundation, I was sad. Until I heard that he was going to travel all around the world for six months. Talk about awesome. Most people don’t just up and go fly around the world, so undoubtedly that was something he had always wanted to do. Some might say that Darian gave up, that he failed because he left the organization - not so. There’s a big difference between failing and failing upward. When you fail upward, you give yourself permission to follow your joy, even if it means you’ll screw up every now and then. This month’s Oprah magazine quotes Robert Mack from his book, Happiness From the Inside Out: The Art and Science of Fulfillment:

All great champions, most of whom are optimists, have become great because of-not in spite of-great adversity. Michael Jordan, a perennial optimist, once said, “I have missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game’s winning shot…and missed. I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.’ If ever there was a case for optimism, this is it.

Take a Vacation Paul Schmitz, CEO of Public Allies talks about the importance of taking a vacation, even in the midst of the hectic pace of nonprofit work. Paul believes that taking time off helps him to be a stronger nonprofit CEO:

I believe that the balance I try to strike makes me more effective. I have had some of my best insights and strategies emerge when I have been away from the office and unplugged from the day to day. And a good vacation brings me back energized and feeling excited to be back.

The inconvenient reality for nonprofit leaders is that there will be no going back to the “old days.” There will be no return to normality after the recession is over. We have to find ways to become better and stronger while we work with less resources and more demand. The good news is that we have done this before, as Barbara Kingslover puts it so beautifully in High Tide in Tucson:

Every one of us is called upon, probably many times, to start a new life. A frightening diagnosis, a marriage, a move, loss of a job. And onward full tilt we go, pitched and wrecked and absurdly resolute, driven in spite of everything to make good on a new shore. To be hopeful, to embrace one possibility after another - that is surely the basic instinct . . . Crying out: High tide! Time to move out into the glorious debris. Time to take this life for what it is.

We must strive to become as resilient as possible if we are going to be able to strengthen our organizations in times of uncertainty. Our communities need the kind of leaders that will stay the course of social change, even after being knocked down and out. Even when the rules of the game change right before our very eyes. Even when the going gets so tough we just feel like giving up and going to work for corporate America. How do YOU maintain your resilience and strength as a nonprofit leader?

---

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Jason Chua

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Social Entrepreneurship vs. Activism; SOCAP09 vs. Momentum09

A couple weeks ago was the SOCAP09 conference attracting social entrepreneurs from all over the world.  Last week was the MOMENTUM conference attracting the leading activists from all over the world. Interestingly there was only minor overlap in the attendees. Is there a divide between these two camps?  The civil society is already fragmented enough. If there is a growing divide between the social entrepreneurship and activist camps then surely the greater good would call for us to bridge the gap.
 
Sure enough during a Tuesday evening cocktail networking at the Tides Momentum Conference, I oversaw Ellen Friedman (ED of Tides and the host of this conference) at a table with Kevin Jones and Rosa Lee Harden (the co-founders of the SOCAP conference last week among other important endeavors).  It was as if both gang leaders were huddling up in a dark alley to decide the fate of civil society, or so I melodramatically imagined.  I was intrigued and so I interviewed them the next day. 

Friedman mentioned that they did discuss this divide and are keen on beginning a dialogue to start bridging the gap.  In fact, Friedman suggested that one important outcome from the conference might be this very dialogue. She intends to “keep the conversations going.”  I met with Kevin and Rose Lee separately and they confirmed their interest in strengthening the dialogue and start to build bridges. So keep an eye out and start pressuring from your end.  All those with the passion to drive social progress need to find a way to stay united. 

I also asked their opinion on the difference between activism and social entrepreneurship. There was consensus that entrepreneurship is about creating something new while activism is about taking action of any kind so you can indeed be both an activist and a social entrepreneur. Friedman gave Kevin Bales and Willie Smits as examples.  Both changemakers spoke eloquently in the Momentum conference about their work. Bales’ mission is to end slavery over the next 25 years while Smits’ is to curb global warming, save local fauna & flora while simultaneously developing local jobs in Borneo, Indonesia.  Both individuals are creating something new and innovative but are required to influence government and others in positions of power as part of their important work.  As Friedman eloquently put it, “often you need to build a movement and a market.”

Most social entrepreneurs, like me, don’t identify with activism, but, like corporate managers have understood for a long time, we mustn’t overlook the fact that influencing those critical non-market actors in positions of power is often a critical part of our work as well.  One can influence non-market actors in two ways: with votes or with dollars.  Most social entrepreneurs don’t have the deep pockets of the corporate world, so they will have to follow the path blazed by the activists: build political leverage with votes.  On the other hand, activists should also start to recognize that their work will only be enhanced by learning from a new wave of changemakers who want to go beyond the traditional activism born out of the 60s to incorporate principles of the market and best practices of management and private industry to achieve the same goals.  The millennials, particularly in the US, don’t identify as activists but will usually need to incorporate their best practices for the purposes of movement formation and advocacy.

Do you think the activist community and the social entrepreneur community are divided?  Should that divide enough of a concern to be seriously addressed now?

Lloyd Nimetz founded the online giving market HelpArgentina.org. While pursuing his MBA at Stanford Graduate School of Business, Nimetz has focused on for-profit business models that address social challenges. This summer he will launch a payments platform for India’s bottom billion.

Posted by Jason Chua

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Real stories critical for giving

In a world ravaged by poverty, hunger, poor health, violence and intolerance, philanthropy can change lives.

Just ask Ron Archer.

At the 2009 National Philanthropy Day luncheon sponsored by the Triangle chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals in North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham region, the motivational speaker and former All-American middle linebacker smashed through the comfort zone that can insulate giving from the people it serves and the problems it addresses.

A one-time preacher who now runs an international economic-development network, Archer told a harrowing tale of a 10-year-old Cleveland kid who wanted to kill himself.

The boy was a “trick baby,” born to a teen girl who had become a prostitute at age 14 after her family plunged into poverty.

The boy’s childhood was a living nightmare.

With German and Caribbean grandparents, the biracial kid was an outsider who fit in nowhere and was shunned everywhere.

His teen mother was the victim of brutal physical and sexual abuse, abuse that Archer described graphically.

The boy stammered and was a chronic bed-wetter.

He himself was raped.

So at age 10, in possession of a gun, he wanted to end it all.

It was then, Archer told last week’s luncheon crowd, that philanthropy “found” that kid, who of course was Archer himself.

Somehow, some way, the often invisible world of social services discovered and connected with that lost child and helped him find and help himself.

Archer’s talk – it was more akin to a fire-and-brimstone sermon – stunned the crowd of roughly 270 fundraising professionals and donors at last week’s luncheon, held at Prestonwood Country Club in Cary.

And while Archer was swamped after the talk with well-wishers, a few of those in the audience privately voiced outrage at the blunt and disturbing details he shared about his life.

That reaction was unfortunate.

People working in the charitable marketplace, especially those whose job is to raise money from donors, often talk about philanthropy’s power to transform lives and fix urgent and horrific problems.

Professionals in the giving sector also emphasize the importance of telling stories that are authentic.

But real stories about real people and their real problems can make some philanthropy professionals uncomfortable.

The business of philanthropy is to heal and change lives, and the job of fundraising professionals is to engage givers and secure the resources their organizations need to be change agents.

A powerful tool to engage givers is storytelling – telling stories about people, the problems they face, and the role philanthropy can play in addressing the symptoms and causes of those problems.

Two of the organizations honored last week by the Triangle chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals were InterAct, an agency that supports victims of domestic violence, and Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina – agencies that offer precisely the kinds of services that can change the lives of people like Ron Archer and his mother.

Their stories, and those of others like them, need to be told, and told again, so that more givers get involved in making a difference.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Jason Chua

1 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Why Gratitude Is Good For You

Every once in a while, I’ll pick up the phone and call my grandmother in Ohio before she has the chance to call me and ask why I haven’t contacted her in over a week. As soon as she picks up the phone, I immediately start singing the lyrics to Stevie Wonder’s hit song, “I Just Called to Say I Love You.” If you don’t know the song, I’ll give you a temporary late pass until you click the link and listen. It’s a beautiful melody with this catchy chorus:

I just called to say I love you
I just called to say how much I care
I just called to say I love you
And I mean it from the bottom of my heart

I sing the entire chorus as she starts chuckling on the other end of the phone. By the time I’m done, I know she’s making that sentimental Grama face that says she’s happy and about to cry. I ask her how she’s doing, and I actually listen – no matter what I’m doing, no matter how many deadlines I’m sitting on.
This is my way of expressing gratitude to my grandmother. This is how I tell her ‘thank you.’

My mother had me when she was in the 10th grade and Grama was the one who raised me while my mom finished high school and went on to college. Grama was the one who taught me how to read when I was four years old. I still have the Dr. Seuss books she used – Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, In a People House. Although we never had much money, Grama was the one who made sure I had good memories of Christmastime and birthdays. She always made sure I had a birthday cake. She used to special order a fresh strawberry shortcake from the Puritan Bakery across town, just for me. She called me her little Strawberry Shortcake. Remember the cartoon character from the 80s? She even bought me the doll and took it to a dollmaker to have her face painted brown instead of white so she looked more like me. I loved that doll. But more than that, I loved myself, in my own skin.

The gift of a grandmother’s love is priceless. And most of the time we take it for granted. But I find that when I do take a few moments to acknowledge her role in my life, everything becomes much clearer. Life just seems more awesome. Gratitude can do that.

I recently came across an amazing website called Five Daily Gratitudes, an online community gratitude journal started by Marcos Salazar as a “positive psychology tool that helps you integrate the power of gratitude into your life by providing a quick and easy way to list five things you are thankful for each day.” I love it. And it’s good for my mental health and stability as a leader. Marcos points out what UC Davis psychologist Robert Emmons has demonstrated in his research:

The evidence that cultivating gratefulness is good for you is overwhelming. Gratitude is a quality that we should aspire to as a part and parcel of personal growth…Specifically, we have shown that gratitude is positively related to such critical outcomes as life satisfaction, vitality, happiness, self-esteem, optimism, hope, empathy, and willingness to provide emotional and tangible support for other people, whereas being ungrateful is related to anxiety, depression, envy, materialism, and loneliness.

Much of Emmons’ work is based on the ideas of Dr. Martin Seligman, the founder of Positive Psychology and the author of Authentic Happiness. Seligman’s research shows that it is possible to be happier — to feel more satisfied, to be more engaged with life, find more meaning, have higher hopes, and probably even laugh and smile more, regardless of one’s circumstances.

Indeed, in times such as these – when folks are still losing their nonprofit jobs even after news of a “recovery” and the need for basic services like food, shelter and clothing are at an all-time high – we need more gratitude. More optimism. Not more stuff to be happy about, just simply more expressions of being grateful for what we already have or experiences we’ve had in the past.

There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle. – Albert Einstein

How are you living?

Rosetta Thurman is an emerging nonprofit leader of color working and living in the Washington, D.C. area.  She holds a Master’s degree in Nonprofit Management and blogs about nonprofit leadership and management issues at Perspectives From the Pipeline.

Posted by Jason Chua

4 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Rethinking self-esteem

Building self-esteem in children or among disadvantaged communities is at the core of many social programs. Now, Professor Roy Baumeister’s article concludes that high self-esteem does not lead to personal or societal success.

What do you think?

Posted by Perla Ni

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Issues That Matter

This post is about nine issues that matter to you—whether you work in a nonprofit public benefit organization, are a philanthropic funder, or happen to be a commercial technology company that serves those markets. Now, even if I do say so myself, “issues that matter” is a pretty gutsy title. Matter to whom? When? Why?

These trends matter to other people as well, but for other reasons. I’m not here to talk about them. I’m here to talk to you. My goal is to raise up some questions you might not know you’ve been harboring, shift some of the ways you think about issues so that you consider a new side to them, and—most importantly—point out some patterns between issues and ways that they are dynamically linked that may explain why you feel like time is too short, information too plentiful, and decisions require too many variables.

Here are the issues that matter:

• Demographics
• Groups
• Ownership
• Mobility
• Markets
• Price
• Forms
• Time Frames
• Alignment

And here is why these things matter:

Demographics Matter
I’m going to start here because people matter. According to the 2000 Census, the U.S. is older, larger, and more diverse than it has been at any other point in time.

How many people reading this are caring for your kids and worrying about, or actually caring for, your parents?

Age matters. An increasing old population affects jobs, taxes, social needs, volunteering rates, and philanthropy.

Youth matters. The young population affects jobs, taxes, social needs, volunteering rates, and philanthropy.

These trends shape who works, who votes, who needs what, who pays taxes, who draws benefits, who supports whom. They will have strong affects on the much-tauted Intergenerational Transfer of Wealth – which is actually a three-generation phenomenon, rather than two.

Think about the demographics where you live and work. What does your community look like now? What will it look like in 20 years? How will you benefit from the changes?

Groups Matter
At first, this seems a derivative of the demographics issue. The first one is about people, the second one is about what people do together.

But Groups Matter is also about how people do things together, and with whom, and when, and why, and for how long.

Think about this – from a technological perspective on groups (let’s call it social networking). We’ve gone from an arcane academic term to Friendster to MySpace to Facebook to OpenSocial in about two years. Groups are driving users of technology, driving audiences for innovation, and driving forces in our economy.

And people are members of many groups. For different reasons. At different times. No single nonprofit organization or philanthropic effort is going to meet a person’s lifetime of needs. Go back to the question I asked you in the beginning, about kids and parents. Those of you who answered that question with a nod or a moan are members of different groups that fit your identities as (and I’m drawing some generalizations here, feel free to challenge me later) individuals, parents, children, professionals, men, women, religious, volunteers, and ethnic and racial. You use different resources for different goals, drop out of groups when they no longer serve your purpose, and create new groups for new reasons. (I just received an email from a group of neighbors volunteering to clean up the beaches around San Francisco Bay. The group is also raising money to help clean shorebirds. The group didn’t exist one week ago.)

We also know that groups are good at decision making (you’ve heard of the wisdom of crowds) and that diverse groups are even better at decision making.

Groups matter. They matter to us as people, they shape the way we work, give and volunteer, and they matter to us as technology innovators, nonprofit managers, and philanthropists. Groups matter.

Ownership matters
This seems a little bit further away from people and groups, but it’s connected, trust me. For example, groups own things – like the sky, the oceans, and the freedom to create. Entire economic revolutions have occurred in my sons’ lifetimes by companies that built enormously powerful tools – specifically Google and eBay – and own none of the things those tools are used for.

Ownership matters in our digital age. It is changing in our digital age (new versions of copyright and patent law, new expectations for the value of sharing).

Do you know what these little icons on the bottom are?
Social tags – They let you post and click and tag and save content from one place to another. We may “own” something, but in the digital world, it is very hard to control it.

Most of the discussion about this in today’s press is set up as a battle between record companies and musicians, or television networks and user-generated video or, in the case of writers and distributors, it’s set up as a strike. For the rest of us, however, I prefer to think of it as a choice – for your foundation, your nonprofit, your technology company. It’s a choice between business models and the choice is this:

“Will you be more successful building something that is protected and proprietary, and then factoring in the costs of defending it, or will you be more successful building something that gains value as it is shared, and letting it loose?”

Mobility Matters
Part of the reason ownership matters is because not only can digital content live anywhere, it can go anywhere. Think of where you do your work today. Is it at a desk? With a PC wired into the wall? On a wireless laptop?

How about the millions of people who use only their cell phone to make purchases, find out prices, sell their wares, or notify local emergency officials of danger?

What about the foundation executive who says to his CTO, “I’m not lugging my laptop with me anymore – I want everything fed to my Blackberry via a RSS feed.”

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot; it’s not just data that move so easily. People move. Jobs move. Skill sets move. Groups move. Ownership moves.

Markets Matter
Markets matter to social good in so many ways that I could focus this whole post on this issue. I won’t – I’ll just send you to my blog, Philanthropy2173, where I’ve been writing about this literally since I published a book on it in 2004.

For the sake of this discussion, let me say that “markets matter” is shorthand for the changing ways that social goods are produced, distributed and financed, the changing roles of public agencies, and the blurring of revenue sources for public benefit work.

There are three large ways of thinking about how markets matter:

1. President Clinton reminds us in his foundation work and in his book giving, that the capital markets for social good are “underfunded and under-organized.”
2. Capital for social good is now as likely to come from fees for service, government contracts, private investors, social venture funds, or socially responsible investment funds as it is from philanthropic gifts.
3. We are increasingly surrounded by market approaches to social goods – from private companies that manage public libraries to commercial restaurants that focus on job training to double bottom line investment funds.

Markets matter in general. They really matter when considered in the context of changes in the public sector and the independent sector. One reason markets matter is that they remind us to never try to predict changes in one sector – say commerce – without also considering changes in the public and independent sectors.

Price Matters
There is a book out called Strategy of Giving. It has nothing to do with either philanthropic planning or preparing for the holiday gift giving season. It is about the value that is created and attained when products – ideas, designs, music, information—are exchanged for free. In other words, they are given away.

A decade ago this would have seemed like heresy. A decade or so ago the closest example I could think of was the razor blade business. Sell the razor for cheap, make a fortune on the blades. But that’s cheap. Not free.

Then came Google. And FireFox. And MySpace. And Ubuntu. And YouTube. Everything they provide to the user is free.

This takes us back to our point about ownership and markets and that basic business model choice – will what you are doing or selling be more valuable if it is free? Is there a business model that’s about location, ads, or transaction services that might be worth a look?

Or are there other assets – information, networks, and human resources come to mind – that you are hording rather than sharing, and in so doing, limiting your effectiveness rather than strengthening it?

By the way, the book The Strategy of Giving is available for purchase. The price? It’s free. You might also check out Chris Anderson’s new article in Wired - it is all about “Free as the new price.” Oddly enough, the magazine is not free.

Forms Matter
So we’ve looked at individuals and groups. We’ve considered the meaning of ownership, mobility, markets and price.

What about form? If everything so far is really changing – who we are, how we congregate, what we own, where we use it, and how we exchange it with others—it falls to reason that the structures we use to organize ourselves are also changing.

Some of the changes have to do with technological innovation – remote workplaces, telecommuting, PDAs and airplanes that get you across the world in a day. Organizations are more global, flatter, more dispersed, and more creatively chaotic.

Other changes are arriving in the form of regulatory and structural innovation – think of hybrid nonprofits and social enterprises and corporate social responsibility officers. But also be aware of totally new structures, such as Limited Profit Liability Companies (or L3C s) and B Corporations – which are public benefit corporations supported by commercial sales.

Keep your eyes open for continuing new forms of social organization – where the movement meets the flash mob, for example. Or where giving circles, social networks, and financial innovation around charitable vehicles come into play. Keep your eyes open for new forms of giving, new organizations in philanthropy, and new structures for social good.

Time Frames Matter
Ah. Not a minute too soon. These forces work at different speeds:

Technology changes quickly. Organizations? Not so much.

Markets can shift suddenly or steadily survive bump after bump after bump.

Groups can last for 100 years. And then fall apart.

Some of us change jobs and cities frequently; mobility is part of our identity. Others will stay put for as long as possible.

Time frames matter. They are not synchronous across these trends – some move quickly, some are slow. Make sure you know which one you are dealing with, as well as what kinds of forces can accelerate or decelerate the pace you’ve calibrated.

This is not just about work, or giving, or volunteering. This one – time frames – is about everything. Some things you can and should do quickly: assess the role of new competitors, take advantage of a political window, or jump on a opportunity to be with your loved ones.

Other things will need more time and should be given it – strategic mergers, the pursuit of social justice, and the time spent reading with your children.

Make sure your time frame makes sense. That’s what really matters.

Alignment Matters
New forms of action. New prices and markets. New ways of moving and owning and sharing information, innovation, and ideas.

Just make sure there is some alignment across them, OK?

With so many choices in form, groups, markets, platforms and pricing, nonprofits, foundations and technology companies should be constantly adjusting their strategies to make sure their efforts are aligned.

We’re seeing this in the attention to mission-related investing as foundations seek alignment across financial assets as well as their intellectual and human resources.

We’re seeing this in the way savvy nonprofits are using their volunteers, social networks, fundraisers, and blogs.

We’re seeing this as individuals try to align their full financial portfolio with their values; that means their philanthropy, political giving, and investing.

Without alignment, really, the rest of this will be chaos. Consider your choices. Play to your strengths. Put power behind all of the oars in your boat and make sure they are all pulling in the same direction.

Take them all together –

1. demographics
2. groups
3. ownership
4. mobility
5. markets
6. price
7. form
8. time frames and
9. alignment. (If I were Julie Andrews I’d burst into song right now)

Somewhere in that mix is the cause of, and the answer to, your big organizational questions, your time and information challenges, and, perhaps, even something for yourself. There you have it. Nine issues that matter, and why.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Why Do People Give to Charity?

As an investment advisor, I regularly consult with wealthy individuals about how to maximize the financial resources at their disposal. I specialize in working with philanthropic families, and that work often lays bare the seeming conflict between maximizing resources and giving them away. If humans want to maximize the resources available to them, why do they take such joy in giving these resources away?

I believe that giving is motivated by humans’ deeply held need to find meaning in life. For most people, meaning is deeply intertwined with community connections (defining community as narrowly as family and as broadly as the full community of life). Humans want to feel a sense of connection and a sense of purpose to life. Giving (time, money, and energy) is a central way that we strive to find meaning.

Much has been made of selfish motivations behind giving. No doubt, some giving is motivated by selfishness. However, if we look to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (a central theory of what drives human behavior) we find that while humans are driven by items that benefit them, once these needs (food, sleep, security, etc.) are met, they are driven by the desire for self-actualization. Maslow describes self-actualizing people:

• They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
• They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
• They are creative.
• They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
• They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
• They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
• They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.

To me, this is a wonderful description of the very best philanthropists.

Because what is good for our community is good for each of us (in that individuals in thriving, happy communities are generally happier themselves), there is a way in which giving comes back to benefit the giver. This feedback loop is wonderful, but I believe that humans’ motivation to give is rooted in their desire to find meaning through community, not the hope that doing so will benefit them.

Recently, much research has focused on how our brains are hardwired to chemically reward us for acts of giving. To some, the idea that giving would trigger this sort of response implies a level of selfishness behind the act of charity. But this logic implicitly suggests that breathing, eating, and falling in love are all “selfish” as well, since our brain chemistry rewards us in similar ways for these actions. Rather than suggesting that giving is selfish, I think the research shows that giving is a central need/desire for humans. This is actually quite remarkable, since logic would dictate that giving is something we do for others, and that we must lose something for others to gain. Instead, the research suggests that giving is a motivation much like eating and breathing. It is something we must do to survive and thrive.

The motivations of each individual giver are of course unique. But just as we eat to satisfy our desire to live, we give to satisfy our desire for meaning.

Sean Stannard-Stockton is a principal and director of Tactical Philanthropy at Ensemble Capital Management. Ensemble Capital provides families both traditional investment management and philanthropic planning. He is the author of the blog Tactical Philanthropy and writes the column On Philanthropy for the Financial Times.

Posted by Katie Harrington

7 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Why a New Nonprofit Might Be a Good Idea After All

The Nonprofiteer wasn’t all that psyched to participate in the Day-of-Service project scheduled for yesterday by the local Obama group–she already has a regular Monday volunteer gig and making sandwiches doesn’t float her boat. But her closest colleague from the Obama campaign organized the project, and he asked her to attend, and she didn’t want to disappoint Mauricio—whereupon, snap! It became clear why it might be valuable to society at large for the Obama volunteer network to find reasons to stay together. The desire to serve society may be a vague and transient emotion, but the determination not to let down your friends is a concrete and lasting one. (To borrow a lesson from another sector: people go into combat because they’re ordered to, but they perform well under fire because they want to be true to their buddies.)

And that in turn means it may be a good idea for a preexisting group to form itself into a new nonprofit, rather than break into its constituent parts and join up with existing groups. In theory there are too many nonprofits, and in theory the power of volunteerism in that preexisting group can be harnessed by someone else, but in practice people go the extra mile with and for others to whom they already feel a sense of loyalty.

A new group may not be the most efficient way to provide social services (or education, or the arts), but neither is volunteerism in general.  As long as we’re going to rely on volunteers to provide essential services, let’s recognize that a key component of their (our) compensation is getting to provide those services in the company of their self-identified comrades.

As for the new Era of Service being inaugurated today: the Nonprofiteer is PLENTY psyched for that!

Kelly Kleiman, who blogs as The Nonprofiteer, is a lawyer and freelance journalist whose reportage and essays about the arts, philanthropy and women’s issues have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and other dailies; in magazines including In These Times and Chicago Philanthropy; and on websites including Aislesay.com and Artscope.net.

Posted by Katie Harrington

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments