The common sense advice that is frequently given about social media is to keep your personal and professional identities completely separate. Much like the age-old saw about not discussing religion or politics at social gatherings, this is meant to avoid controversy, and, more to the point, not give any work associates reason to disagree with you (or terminate your job, etc.).
I've generally followed this advice, with separate blogs and distinct Twitter identities for the personal and professional. I try to keep my Facebook "friends" to only social contacts and my LinkedIn "connections" to only professionals (doesn't always work out that way). I've not gone out of my way to completely hide one identity from the other, but I've been reasonably careful about not deliberately mixing the two.
But, really, what have I got to hide? I'm not a recent college graduate with pictures of wild parties filling my personal social media streams. There are no illegal or immoral activities shared on my personal streams (although, there are some that are fattening). If alcohol is mentioned or pictured, it's most likely in reference to a visit to one of my state's many world-class wineries. The only possible area of controversy is the political.
Then, yesterday, following news of the death of George McGovern, I wondered why I am not more overtly political on this blog. The political is an essential element of the nonprofit sector. Political decisions drive the demand for social services, the results of elections can effect the flow of grant money into the nonprofit sector. And, this coming Presidential election could possibly have a major impact on the tax deductibility of the individual donations we depend on for support.
So, let me make one thing perfectly clear to any readers who may not have already figured this out: I am a liberal. Sometimes I use the euphemism "progressive," but I don't hide from the L word. Liberalism is not just a guide to how I vote, but a key to who I am. Liberal values and ethics permeate my being, and flow through my veins. It comes from my family upbringing, it comes from my religious background, it comes from my education (BA in Politics, Master of Public Policy & Administration), and it comes from my life experiences. It's not likely to be changed by a 30 second attack ad.
My liberalism is why I have made my career in the nonprofit sector. It is liberalism that keeps me dedicated to making the provision of social services efficient, effective, and possible. It is liberalism that makes me a better consultant, more interested in looking for ways nonprofits can better serve our communities than ways to extend my contract and increase my income. Without a conscious choice to live my liberalism, I would more likely have made a career in media or the entertainment industry, and made quite a bit more money. Oh well.
George McGovern's Quixotic campaign for President in 1972 was also part of the background and education that made me a liberal. Yesterday I wrote more about that on my personal blog, here: George McGovern: Acts of Faith
Let me make one more personal, political confession: I am not a Democrat. I was, from when I was able to register to vote in 1979 till about 1995. I was registered as a Green briefly after that, but have been happily DTS ("Decline to State") since. I describe myself as "left-of-center, independent." No one party or candidate owns my vote or can expect it without first earning it.
That said, my final point here is this: The Nonprofit Consultant Blog proudly supports and endorses Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United Sates.
I believe that this President, while far from perfect, has shown dedication to the issues we work on as a sector, and that he deeply cares about the people who we serve. Meanwhile Mitt Romney's private remarks to donors about "the 47%" have disqualified him from consideration by anybody who has dedicated their career to helping those on the lower side of the economic ladder.
We need to give President Obama another term to continue the progress that he has made. Further, we need to help him by removing the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans from Congress. I am an independent, who has regularly split my vote, but this year it is vital to elect a straight Democratic ticket. I hope you will join me.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Power of We the Nonprofits
The topic this year is "The Power of We." A little more abstract than previous topics, such as water, climate change, poverty, or food. And yet, this abstract theme encompasses all the others with a single answer.
How do We address the problems of poverty, food distribution, potable water, etc? As individuals, there's only so much any of us can really do to effect the systematic change required to solve any of these crises. It is only when we come together in groups that real change happens.
Fitting the Power of We into the mission of this blog, to provide useful information to professionals in the nonprofit sector, I suggest that my readers take this Blog Action Day as a celebration of all that they do.
Corporations can (and some do) have a positive impact on their communities, but their primary focus will always be the fiscal bottom line and making a profit. Government can (and often does) work to improve the lives of citizens, but their primary focus is frequently on security and, all too often around the globe, the perpetuation of power.
The nonprofit sector - from the local grassroots organization to international NGOs - is the primary organizing mechanism by which individuals, regardless of their position in society or their level of political and economic power, come together as We to solve the problems our communities face. The nonprofit sector is how individuals put the Power of We into action.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
LinkedIn Launches Board Connect Service
LinkedIn, the social network for professionals of all sectors, has just announced the launch of their new Board Connect service for nonprofit organizations. If you're not already familiar with LinkedIn, it began, basically, as a place to post your online business profile/resume and connect with others in your field to grow your network using a "six degrees of separation" model. Other features and refinements over the years have turned LinkedIn into an essential social network for all professions, including active discussions, groups, job boards, and more.
The new Board Connect uses LinkedIn's "Talent Finder" to help you search for professionals with the skills your organization needs. Likewise, professionals interested in board service can search out organizations that meet their interests. Best of all, the service is free to nonprofits (business use of the Talent Finder can cost $1,000).
So, what could be wrong with all this? Well, in one of those active discussion groups on LinkedIn for Nonprofit Professionals, Michael Wyland (of Sumption & Wyland Consulting) says of the service that "the pitch is off-key and reflects antiquated views of board service." Michael recognizes that the LinkedIn service can be beneficial to the organizations that choose to use it, but, he notes:
I will agree with Mr. Wyland, and add that the "antiquated view" of board service as noblesse oblige and a social activity not only exists within some board matching programs and the well-intentioned attempts at encouraging board service in corporate circles, but within far too many nonprofits themselves.
When I work with boards, I find there can be a very fine line between those boards where the members are comfortable with each other, share outside interests and relationships, but still manage to accomplish the serious business of governance of the nonprofit corporation, and those boards where their shared social situations and relationships stands in the way of good governance.
Often, the one thing that makes the difference as to which side of that line an organization is on is simply good board training. Nobody has ever gone to these boards and explained what their role is or should be on a legal, fiduciary, and ethical basis. They're not shirking their responsibilities; they've just never been made aware of their full responsibilities.
I will also agree with Ms. Temkin, and add that the process of vetting potential board members is a continuous one. It does not start when a member leaves and a seat opens up, but proceeds according to a plan that includes methods of identifying new recruits, the vetting process, suggestions for other volunteer activities until a board seat is open (non-board members may sit on committees, help with events, etc.), and a process for how the full board votes on and welcomes in new members.
Consultants (such as Mr. Wyland, Ms Temkin, or myself) can help your board with both proper training on roles and responsibilities, and with creating a board development and recruitment plan.
If your organization is interested in LinkedIn's Board Connect, you can learn more about it on the LinkedIn blog here, or go direct to the LinkedIn Nonprofits page here. While you're at LinkedIn, you can join my network through visiting my profile here.
The new Board Connect uses LinkedIn's "Talent Finder" to help you search for professionals with the skills your organization needs. Likewise, professionals interested in board service can search out organizations that meet their interests. Best of all, the service is free to nonprofits (business use of the Talent Finder can cost $1,000).
So, what could be wrong with all this? Well, in one of those active discussion groups on LinkedIn for Nonprofit Professionals, Michael Wyland (of Sumption & Wyland Consulting) says of the service that "the pitch is off-key and reflects antiquated views of board service." Michael recognizes that the LinkedIn service can be beneficial to the organizations that choose to use it, but, he notes:
"Searching algorithyms can get a nonprofit only so far. ... The 'pitch' in LinkedIn's blog makes no mention of governance, board member obligation, legal exposure, and the duties of board service in an increasingly regulated and scrutinized environment. The days of viewing nonprofit board service as an expression of noblesse oblige and an opportunity to network are fading fast, if not already gone."Terrie Temkin (of CoreStrategies Consulting) replies, in part, that nonprofits "must still do the hard work to vet potential [board members]." She states that this is true, not just of LinkedIn's new service, but of all board matching programs.
I will agree with Mr. Wyland, and add that the "antiquated view" of board service as noblesse oblige and a social activity not only exists within some board matching programs and the well-intentioned attempts at encouraging board service in corporate circles, but within far too many nonprofits themselves.
When I work with boards, I find there can be a very fine line between those boards where the members are comfortable with each other, share outside interests and relationships, but still manage to accomplish the serious business of governance of the nonprofit corporation, and those boards where their shared social situations and relationships stands in the way of good governance.
Often, the one thing that makes the difference as to which side of that line an organization is on is simply good board training. Nobody has ever gone to these boards and explained what their role is or should be on a legal, fiduciary, and ethical basis. They're not shirking their responsibilities; they've just never been made aware of their full responsibilities.
I will also agree with Ms. Temkin, and add that the process of vetting potential board members is a continuous one. It does not start when a member leaves and a seat opens up, but proceeds according to a plan that includes methods of identifying new recruits, the vetting process, suggestions for other volunteer activities until a board seat is open (non-board members may sit on committees, help with events, etc.), and a process for how the full board votes on and welcomes in new members.
Consultants (such as Mr. Wyland, Ms Temkin, or myself) can help your board with both proper training on roles and responsibilities, and with creating a board development and recruitment plan.
If your organization is interested in LinkedIn's Board Connect, you can learn more about it on the LinkedIn blog here, or go direct to the LinkedIn Nonprofits page here. While you're at LinkedIn, you can join my network through visiting my profile here.
Friday, July 06, 2012
So You Want to Start a Nonprofit?
Yesterday, I tweeted out a link to the Donor Dreams Blog, asking "What do you think? Are nonprofits not "playing nice in the sandbox"? http://ow.ly/c2acO" In that blog, the author, consultant Erik Anderson, asks:
In all other sectors of the US economy we prize competition and entrepreneurship. But not, apparently, in the nonprofit sector. Elsewhere in this nation, we say, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." In the nonprofit sector, however, we're supposed to build a better mousetrap and then turn our plans over to the current leading mousetrap provider.
When people approach Mr. Anderson with an idea for a new nonprofit, he says in his blog, "It has become my standard operating procedure to sit down with these nice, well-intentioned individuals who call me asking for help and beg them to please not start another non-profit organization." He wants people with new ideas to get together with existing nonprofit organizations and "play nice in the sandbox."
How would that advice play in other sectors of our national economic landscape? "Gee, Mr. Jobs, why don't you just take your ideas to IBM and help them to develop it?" "Well, Mr. Bezos, people may well want to buy books online, but why don't you just partner with an existing store or distributor?"
How many of our mayors would be re-elected begging entrepreneurs to not start yet another small business in their city? "Another coffee shop? Please, just go be a manager at a Starbucks." "If there were a better way to make a hamburger, McDonald's would have thought of it by now. If you must be an 'owner,' why don't you just buy a franchise?"
This is the USA. We believe that competition is good. It weeds out complacency. It weeds out inefficiency. It encourages constant innovation. And it requires paying attention to constituents. Which of these goals is bad for the nonprofit sector?
Yes, a great number of start-up nonprofits will fail. Just as in the small business sector. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I too get many emails and calls from folks who want to start a new nonprofit. Many of them are unprepared. They have not researched the competition. They do not have a realistic plan for roll-out or revenue. They are not familiar with the laws in their state regarding incorporation, required by-laws, etc., etc. But I wish them well.
If you want to start a new nonprofit, go right ahead. But know what you are doing, and why, and where you fit in the marketplace. Then go and innovate.
Too many nonprofits? How can there be too many people working to improve our communities? Or too many groups feeding the hungry, or sheltering the abused? Or too many arts programs enriching our lives? Or too many entrepreneurs stirring things up in any sector of our economy?
The sad truth is most of us in the nonprofit sector only worry that "there's too many organizations going after my grants and donations." I guess we're just going to have to learn to compete.
... Why is it that every time someone has a new idea, they want to start a new non-profit organization to do it?The responses I got back all seemed to agree with Mr. Anderson: "There are too many nonprofits!" I addressed this trite bit of "accepted wisdom" just over six years ago in another posting here, and nothing much has happened since then to change my mind. While many people repeat this line, there is still no empirical evidence that this is actually true.
I find this knee jerk reaction so interesting and confounding. Instead of starting a new organization, it could be “Ah-ha, I have an idea and think I’ll take it to a non-profit organization in my community that does similar things and work with them on starting a new program.”
... The truth of the matter is that the last thing the non-profit sector needs is more struggling non-profit organizations competing for similar resources. ...
In all other sectors of the US economy we prize competition and entrepreneurship. But not, apparently, in the nonprofit sector. Elsewhere in this nation, we say, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." In the nonprofit sector, however, we're supposed to build a better mousetrap and then turn our plans over to the current leading mousetrap provider.
When people approach Mr. Anderson with an idea for a new nonprofit, he says in his blog, "It has become my standard operating procedure to sit down with these nice, well-intentioned individuals who call me asking for help and beg them to please not start another non-profit organization." He wants people with new ideas to get together with existing nonprofit organizations and "play nice in the sandbox."
How would that advice play in other sectors of our national economic landscape? "Gee, Mr. Jobs, why don't you just take your ideas to IBM and help them to develop it?" "Well, Mr. Bezos, people may well want to buy books online, but why don't you just partner with an existing store or distributor?"
How many of our mayors would be re-elected begging entrepreneurs to not start yet another small business in their city? "Another coffee shop? Please, just go be a manager at a Starbucks." "If there were a better way to make a hamburger, McDonald's would have thought of it by now. If you must be an 'owner,' why don't you just buy a franchise?"
This is the USA. We believe that competition is good. It weeds out complacency. It weeds out inefficiency. It encourages constant innovation. And it requires paying attention to constituents. Which of these goals is bad for the nonprofit sector?
Yes, a great number of start-up nonprofits will fail. Just as in the small business sector. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I too get many emails and calls from folks who want to start a new nonprofit. Many of them are unprepared. They have not researched the competition. They do not have a realistic plan for roll-out or revenue. They are not familiar with the laws in their state regarding incorporation, required by-laws, etc., etc. But I wish them well.
If you want to start a new nonprofit, go right ahead. But know what you are doing, and why, and where you fit in the marketplace. Then go and innovate.
Too many nonprofits? How can there be too many people working to improve our communities? Or too many groups feeding the hungry, or sheltering the abused? Or too many arts programs enriching our lives? Or too many entrepreneurs stirring things up in any sector of our economy?
The sad truth is most of us in the nonprofit sector only worry that "there's too many organizations going after my grants and donations." I guess we're just going to have to learn to compete.
Monday, June 11, 2012
The Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising
In the 1960s, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, working with terminally ill patients, hypothesized her five stages of grief, popularized in her 1969 publication of On Death and Dying. Since that time, the Kübler-Ross model has been applied to just about any form of personal loss, including job loss, divorce, death of a loved one, surviving natural disasters, and even incarceration.
Imagine my surprise when I realized that nobody had yet applied the Kübler-Ross model to fundraising by nonprofit boards of directors! So, here, without further ado, are the Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising:
Imagine my surprise when I realized that nobody had yet applied the Kübler-Ross model to fundraising by nonprofit boards of directors! So, here, without further ado, are the Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising:
- Denial - "I don't think board members should be required to fundraise." - "I don't know anybody with money anyway." - "I was asked to join the board for my other skills." - "Don't we have staff for that?" - "We're a nonprofit, we're supposed to live on the financial edge!"
- Anger - "My friends will hate me if I add them to the mailing list!" - "If I give myself, why do I also have to 'get'?"- "I give so much of my time, you want my money too?" - "If the staff were doing their jobs, this wouldn't be necessary." - "It's the politicians' fault that we can't raise enough money!" - "I never should have joined this board."
- Bargaining - "If I serve on the audit committee, can I get out of working on the event?" - "I brought in my old PC for the intern to use, that's worth something, right?" - "How about if I just mention I'm on the board in my family Christmas letter, that'll save you on printing and postage!" - "Tell you what, I know the name of a foundation that makes grants..."
- Depression - "The economy is going to clobber us anyway, so why bother?" - "We can't compete with all those nationally known nonprofits." - "Nobody really gets our mission anyway." - "There's no point in even asking before the next election cycle, or two..." - "I read in NPQ that even the big guys can't raise any money these days."
- Acceptance - "Do we have any brochures I can bring to my Rotary meeting?" - "Let me find out about my company's corporate philanthropy policy" - "Hey, if we each commit to just a small amount we can close that budget gap!" - "How can we expect others to spread the word and raise money for our cause if we're not willing to do it ourselves?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)