Yesterday I had the opportunity to present an introductory workshop on social media to a few of my colleagues in the Fund Builders Alliance. We covered some of the basics of what social media is and is not, got into the how-tos and whys of facebook, twitter, linkedin, and blogging, and briefly went over the variety of other services available (pinterest, storify, g+, ...). It's always a great day when you can get together with a group of professionals that you respect and teach them something new. (And thank you to Karen and Leadership Monterey Peninsula for use of the conference room!)
Here's the thing though. Although I was pleased to present this workshop, and although I do offer social media planning and coaching services, I'm always hesitant to use the title "social media expert." As I told the group yesterday, "At the end of this session you will all be social media experts, for about three hours." Social media is such a constantly changing and evolving ecosystem that I believe it is a continual learning effort. Fortunately, I am fascinated by it and enjoy that effort. But I still realize that there is always more to learn.
I've been playing around with online communities in my personal life for nearly twenty years now. On a professional level, I got involved with nonprofit online discussions as a member of HandsNet around 1996. A few years later, I wound up working for HandsNet as the Director of Online Community Development. Since then I've continued to be an early adopter of many new platforms, including blogger, facebook, youtube, and twitter. But "expert"? ...
I hope to continue to learn and fascinated by social media, and I hope to continue to bring that experience and enthusiasm to my colleagues and clients in the nonprofit sector. But if you ever catch me using the title "Social Media Expert" please splash a cold glass of water in my face. Just try not to splash my iPhone, thank you.
Oh, and if you'd like a copy of my powerpoint slides from yesterday's presentation, just send me an email (contact info in the "about the consultant" section of this blog).
Friday, June 01, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Why You Have To Do It Better
The "It" referred to in the title of this post is Social Media. And the problem is nonprofits who are under the impression that Twitter, Facebook, etc., are just about marketing. They think that it's just fine if their postings consist of nothing more than a sales pitch (or, in the nonprofit case, a donation pitch).
Nonprofits can be forgiven, somewhat, for thinking that way. After all, using the news feeds from many local small businesses as examples, that's what we frequently see. But there's a huge difference between, say, a local burger joint and a local food pantry.
Think like a consumer of social media: what benefit do you get from following either of these streams?
The local burger joint can get away with not being social on social media. If I subscribe/follow/like them, the benefit is clear: cheap food. Finding out what's on special, getting that coupon code, learning today's location of the food truck. If I'm getting any of that, I really don't care if they engage in conversation, or provide any information other than saving me a buck on good food.
But what added value do I get from subscribing/following/liking the local nonprofit food pantry? Being asked for yet another donation on an hourly basis? Where's that "unlike" button?
No, nonprofits don't have the luxury of using social media just as another advertising outlet. We have to use it correctly. We have to be social on social media. We have to constantly put our audience's needs ahead of our own.
Subscribe/follow/like others, and engage them in conversation about your area of expertise. Answer questions about your organization, its mission, and the issues that your programs address. Tell about your successes as well as your challenges. Thank your supporters and show how much they're appreciated. Find out what your audience wants to hear from you, and then provide it regularly and clearly.
Sure, you can mention where to donate, or plug your upcoming events or volunteer opportunities. But not every time you sit down to tap out an update. To get (and keep) followers - and turn them into donors later on - you need to figure out your value added proposition. Otherwise, it's just a lot of spam.
Nonprofits can be forgiven, somewhat, for thinking that way. After all, using the news feeds from many local small businesses as examples, that's what we frequently see. But there's a huge difference between, say, a local burger joint and a local food pantry.
Think like a consumer of social media: what benefit do you get from following either of these streams?
The local burger joint can get away with not being social on social media. If I subscribe/follow/like them, the benefit is clear: cheap food. Finding out what's on special, getting that coupon code, learning today's location of the food truck. If I'm getting any of that, I really don't care if they engage in conversation, or provide any information other than saving me a buck on good food.
But what added value do I get from subscribing/following/liking the local nonprofit food pantry? Being asked for yet another donation on an hourly basis? Where's that "unlike" button?
No, nonprofits don't have the luxury of using social media just as another advertising outlet. We have to use it correctly. We have to be social on social media. We have to constantly put our audience's needs ahead of our own.
Subscribe/follow/like others, and engage them in conversation about your area of expertise. Answer questions about your organization, its mission, and the issues that your programs address. Tell about your successes as well as your challenges. Thank your supporters and show how much they're appreciated. Find out what your audience wants to hear from you, and then provide it regularly and clearly.
Sure, you can mention where to donate, or plug your upcoming events or volunteer opportunities. But not every time you sit down to tap out an update. To get (and keep) followers - and turn them into donors later on - you need to figure out your value added proposition. Otherwise, it's just a lot of spam.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Vote With Your Mission!
A new initiative from the California Association of Nonprofits (aka CalNonprofits) is the Vote With Your Mission virtual campaign. CalNonprofit's goal is to have 100% of eligible California nonprofit staff and volunteers (including board members) vote in the June and November elections. According to Jan Masaoka, Executive Director of CalNonprofits, "All of us have come to work and volunteer in nonprofits because we have ideals about changing the world. Whatever those ideals are, use your vote to further them."
I couldn't agree more with the motivation and purpose behind this campaign, and find it sad to realize that folks in the nonprofit sector are not already participating 100% in all elections - in California and beyond. Every day, our staffs see first hand the direct results of political decisions, from increased homelessness to decreased funding for the arts. We see the results of over-crowded classrooms and a poverty-level minimum wage. To not speak out when we must, and vote when we can, is to contribute to the very problems our missions seek to redress.
"But is it legal?" some of you may be thinking. Yes, it is, and CalNonprofits has conveniently included a legal FAQ on the Vote With Your Mission website. All nonprofits may engage in nonpartisan, get-out-the-vote activities. Check the FAQ (or talk to the lawyer on your board) for more detailed guidelines when it comes to ballot measures and issues.
So, what does an organization have to do to participate in the campaign? First of all, sign up at the CalNonprofits website so they know you're on board. Then select from the recommended activities, such as asking all staff, board members, volunteers, and constituents to vote, providing on-site nonpartisan voter registration materials, adding "voting in every election" to your board member responsibilities agreement, or (my favorite) granting two hours of paid staff time to vote on Election Day.
If you're involved with a California nonprofit, I hope you'll sign on at the Vote With Your Mission home page. If you're outside California, I hope you'll still encourage all of your staff, board, volunteers, and constituents to vote with your mission.
I couldn't agree more with the motivation and purpose behind this campaign, and find it sad to realize that folks in the nonprofit sector are not already participating 100% in all elections - in California and beyond. Every day, our staffs see first hand the direct results of political decisions, from increased homelessness to decreased funding for the arts. We see the results of over-crowded classrooms and a poverty-level minimum wage. To not speak out when we must, and vote when we can, is to contribute to the very problems our missions seek to redress.
"But is it legal?" some of you may be thinking. Yes, it is, and CalNonprofits has conveniently included a legal FAQ on the Vote With Your Mission website. All nonprofits may engage in nonpartisan, get-out-the-vote activities. Check the FAQ (or talk to the lawyer on your board) for more detailed guidelines when it comes to ballot measures and issues.
So, what does an organization have to do to participate in the campaign? First of all, sign up at the CalNonprofits website so they know you're on board. Then select from the recommended activities, such as asking all staff, board members, volunteers, and constituents to vote, providing on-site nonpartisan voter registration materials, adding "voting in every election" to your board member responsibilities agreement, or (my favorite) granting two hours of paid staff time to vote on Election Day.
If you're involved with a California nonprofit, I hope you'll sign on at the Vote With Your Mission home page. If you're outside California, I hope you'll still encourage all of your staff, board, volunteers, and constituents to vote with your mission.
Friday, April 13, 2012
"Have the consultant do it"?
The title of this post is written with tongue in cheek, but it does get to what's often a fine line between consulting and contracting. Even when talking with other nonprofit consultants, we don't always agree on where we should draw the line between performing tasks for our client organizations and empowering them to perform these tasks themselves.
As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).
Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.
There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.
So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.
As a prime example, when I started as an independent consultant, back in December 2003, one of the main things I did was grant proposal writing. Now, I will rarely accept those types of assignments. Basically, over time, I came to realize that the client was better served by my helping them gain the capacity to write grants in-house. One of my favorite things to do is when I teach workshops on proposal writing (next workshop is August 24 in Santa Cruz!).
Of course, there are times when it's quite legitimate to hire a contract proposal writer to supplement an organization's own capacity, and I'm happy to assist in those situations. But I believe that fund development is so central to any nonprofit organization's survival, that outsourcing it should never be more than a step along the way to building their own abilities.
There are other tasks, however, that are should almost always be outsourced. Among these, in my opinion, is facilitating a strategic planning session. Your organization may have leaders with excellent facilitation skills, but at a planning retreat they are needed as participants. A good facilitator should be neutral, and not a part of any political dynamic that exists in the group, or have a stake in any decisions that the group makes. A good facilitator empowers everybody in the room to speak and be heard, something that's not always comfortable or possible when there's a boss-worker dynamic present.
So, the next time you're in a meeting, and you hear the words, "We'll have a consultant do it," think carefully about what you are asking a consultant to do, and whether it is truly empowering and adding to your capacity to meet your mission.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Interim Executives Are Part Of Succession Planning
Yesterday, on Alan Harrison's Voice of Reason blog, he posted a great article about the pitfalls of bad succession planning and the occasional need for Interim Executive Directors. As a consultant who has five times served as an Interim ED, I agree with much of what Mr. Harrison has to say.
In Mr. Harrison's colorful example, Jack is the departing long-term Director, who helps to personally choose Jill as his successor. Jill then flounders along for about a year before being eventually replaced. The details of the scenario presented ring all too true, and a story we've all seen played out before.
An Interim ED can be a great solution following the departure of a long-term leader. It gives Board and Staff room to breath, consider mission, separate the reputation and legacy of the departing leader from that of the organization, and contemplate changes in their vision before making the mistake outlined in the blog of trying to fit Jill's round peg into Jack's square hole.
So, who should be your Interim ED?
A well-meaning board member stepping in may sound great, but unless they've sat in the ED's chair before, and have the time and attention to devote, this can be a disaster (not to mention the conflicting roles of ED and board member).
A senior staff member could be a good choice (particularly if they're "auditioning" for the permanent job), but be careful how you back-fill their regular position - or are you expecting them to do two jobs at once? Be careful of setting unrealistic expectations for anybody you put in this tight spot.
An out-of-work ED, who is looking for a permanent position has other motivations in accepting your Interim offer. They're number one goal is completing their own transition, not assisting your agency in yours. If this is somebody who you are seriously considering for the permanent position, do not make the mistake of "trying them out" on an interim basis.
Those of us who regularly take on Interim ED assignments as part of our consulting business do so because we're not necessarily looking for the gig permanently. In fact, when I've accepted an Interim job that includes searching for a permanent ED, I would consider it a conflict of interest to then apply for the permanent position.
My mission as an Interim is to work on the Board's agenda, not my own, and to facilitate as smooth a transition for the staff, clients, funders, and community as is possible.
Returning to Mr. Harrison's post for a moment, he ends on what he considers to be such an important point that he prints it in bold and underlined:
Yes, it may sound self-serving (and it probably is), but if your organization is facing the departure of a long-term, strong leader, bring in an Interim ED first, before starting your search for a permanent replacement. Oh, and I just might be available ;^)
In Mr. Harrison's colorful example, Jack is the departing long-term Director, who helps to personally choose Jill as his successor. Jill then flounders along for about a year before being eventually replaced. The details of the scenario presented ring all too true, and a story we've all seen played out before.
An Interim ED can be a great solution following the departure of a long-term leader. It gives Board and Staff room to breath, consider mission, separate the reputation and legacy of the departing leader from that of the organization, and contemplate changes in their vision before making the mistake outlined in the blog of trying to fit Jill's round peg into Jack's square hole.
So, who should be your Interim ED?
A well-meaning board member stepping in may sound great, but unless they've sat in the ED's chair before, and have the time and attention to devote, this can be a disaster (not to mention the conflicting roles of ED and board member).
A senior staff member could be a good choice (particularly if they're "auditioning" for the permanent job), but be careful how you back-fill their regular position - or are you expecting them to do two jobs at once? Be careful of setting unrealistic expectations for anybody you put in this tight spot.
An out-of-work ED, who is looking for a permanent position has other motivations in accepting your Interim offer. They're number one goal is completing their own transition, not assisting your agency in yours. If this is somebody who you are seriously considering for the permanent position, do not make the mistake of "trying them out" on an interim basis.
Those of us who regularly take on Interim ED assignments as part of our consulting business do so because we're not necessarily looking for the gig permanently. In fact, when I've accepted an Interim job that includes searching for a permanent ED, I would consider it a conflict of interest to then apply for the permanent position.
My mission as an Interim is to work on the Board's agenda, not my own, and to facilitate as smooth a transition for the staff, clients, funders, and community as is possible.
Returning to Mr. Harrison's post for a moment, he ends on what he considers to be such an important point that he prints it in bold and underlined:
It is never a good idea to have the outgoing director have a say on his or her permanent successor. No matter who the outgoing director is or how amicable the separation is. Never. Never. Never.I found this point surprising, and while I'm not certain I agree, thinking of some real life examples I'm not certain I can argue with him either. It certainly goes along with my point of using an Interim to provide "breathing room" for the Board and Staff to do some reflection on where they've been and where they want to go, rather than just trying to duplicate the leader who's just left - an often impossible and unforgiving task.
Yes, it may sound self-serving (and it probably is), but if your organization is facing the departure of a long-term, strong leader, bring in an Interim ED first, before starting your search for a permanent replacement. Oh, and I just might be available ;^)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)