TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

Cross-Sector Dialogue: Where's It Happening? #2

I have come across another website, a wiki, where cross-sector dialogue is encouraged.  The website is The OLPC Wiki, which is the wiki for the nonprofit organization, One Laptop per Child.  The website is designed in the Wikipedia format, but is based around the initiative of the One Laptop per Child team. 

The folks behind the wiki hope to get feedback and ideas while spreading the word about their initiative to bring children around the world an affordable labtop computer.  The wiki allows the organization to actively update news, changes, and information about their software, hardware, and software development. 

In the Ask a Question area of the site, upon scrolling down, one may find a Discussion area.  Here there are articles written by users on various aspects of the OLPC project, as well as opinions, other ideas, and suggestions.  Within this Discussion section, there is a Learning Learning link.  This section of the wiki is authored by Seymour Papert, but a link to other stories about learning can be found on this page (whew, quite the run-around).  As of now, there are only two entries, but I found them interesting.  Here users post stories about learning--how they have seen it happen, how they have done it, exciting new innovations in learning.  I find this really rather interesting and the potential for some great ideas about how learning does and can occur can really be facilitated by such an engagement.  Such a simple thing as offering a place, a forum, for others to share their thoughts on how learning can occur, can really inspire new ways to affect education--in your own home or throughout the world.

Why The OLPC Wiki is worth mentioning:  this website ties into my area of interest in social impact, and is setting up an arena that allows some sort of dialogue and questioning to occur on the focused topic of the One Laptop per Child initiative.  Innovation better occurs when ideas are shared, and this is website encourages such encounters.

What Makes a Triple Bottom Line Business a Triple Bottom Line Business: Part 2

I started a post on this topic here. And I think that the problem in this question lies within what I talked about with Corporate Social Responsibility here.

Triple Bottom Line needs to be strategic, and when it is strategic, it is ingrained in the company and is inseparably aligned with the company's core competencies. It must be unique to each company--custom designed to fit that business's location, staff, product/service, and competition. A real "Triple Bottom Line" Company needs to go beyond the generic, the ready-made list, and expand to innovation. So the concept of standardization is limited--not out--but limited. The ready-made, standardized list provides the very first baby-step. Where things get interesting is when a company looks at itself as a unique entity and thinks of how it may become singularly Triple Bottom Line. The custom-tailored aspect of this process cannot be overlooked.

Now, back to Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer's article, Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, HBR December 2006.
They talk about "Looking Inside Out: Mapping the Social Impact of the Value Chain" and then "Looking Outside In: Social Influences on Competitiveness".

Looking Inside Out: Mapping the Social Impact of the Value Chain
"The value chain depicts all the activites a company engages in while doing business". This includes firm infrastructure (financing, investor relations), human resource management, technology development, marketing and sales, data collection, supplies--everything. Within all these areas are opportunities for triple bottom line innovations.

For example, let's take human resources. A generic (and good practice) triple bottom line practice is offering at least a living wage to all employees, not just the minimum wage. But for triple bottom line to grow even more inseparable from the actual company's core competencies could mean having a company-only wiki that eliminates hierarchy and allows each employee to contribute their ideas for how the company can improve, innovate, and work better for its employees. Finding a way to involve all your employees for a thorough investment is unique to each company and allows each company to tap into each of its unique assets--its people.

The point, though, is to design something that looks at all the unique characteristics within your company and use them to your advantage within a triple bottom line framework, and it's going to vary from business to business, but you've got to start mapping it out and then brainstorming.

Looking Outside In: Social Influences on Competitiveness

Looking at a company's unique diamond framework (Context for Firm Strategy and Rivalry, Local Demand for Conditions, Related and Supporting Industries, and Factor (Input) Conditions) will affect its ability to compete.

Context for Firm Strategy and Rivalry are "the rules and incentives that govern competition". A company needs to look at the way the game is played and find oppotunities for triple bottom line innovation (could it be using only fair trade practices, complete transparency and reporting)

Local Demand Conditions are "the nature and sophistication of local customer needs". This could mean only using organic and locally grown produce and also advocating for the regulation of such practices. Maybe it means offering educational classes to locals about your advocacy efforts and establishing a community of advocacy. But don't make the mistake of creating innovations that are separate from your core competencies. If your company has nothing to do with children, don't make a day care for the local community (day care for you employees may be fine--but that's part of the Inside Out issues above), when it has no relevance to you.

Related and Supporting Industries are "the local availability of supporting industries". This is one of your opportunity to invest in your community with other businesses. This is where people need to come together and look at all the ways they can partner and support each other--not in martyrdom, but to the benefit of all.

Factor (Input) Conditions talks about the "presence of high-quantity, specialized inputs available to firms". This means looking at what human resouces are available locally, what kind of training does your firm offer, access to natural resources, availability of scientific and technological infrastructure.

Using a simple framework of people, profit, and environment, a triple bottom line business will map out all of these areas as they uniquely relate that that business and innovate ways to become a truly integrated triple bottom line business.

What's the Big Deal with Identity Anyway?

This is not really very related to the social sector, or maybe it is, but. Well, I have to say I'm fascinated with people's fascination with their own and others' identities--or the outward manifestations of it. We have the competing adages, "Don't judge a book by its cover" and "First impressions matter most" [or whatever it is, it is my less favored adage of the two ;)]. A lot of this comes down to outward adornment. And interestingly, as people study idenity and it's presence on-line, it is the outward adornment that is scrutinized (colors, pictures used, font style, music included). I guess for me, I just don't think of my outward adornment as shaping my identity. My face is an integral part of my identity, surely, and definitely. But my clothes? Not so much. Even my hair is not that integral to what I identfy myself as.

Truthfully, I'm not all together sure as to what shapes my presentation of myself to the public, but I find the obsession with the adornment as identity a little odd, for some reason. Perhaps it has some biological root--animals have outward adornment to identify and stay away from their enemies and to stick together for preservation purposes with their own kind. And in the identification of flora--how are we to know what is healthy or poisonous save the outward appearance?

But we're all humans, and no amount of changing the outward adornment of our species is going to change that. It seems that our clothes, and hair styles, and whatever else alienates us from fruitful relationships with those that we percieve to be so different from us. It's rather sad, really. And it's really interesting to notice how much of an obstacle outward adornment can be to a simple conversation.

Could an online community be a place to shed some of these obstacles since we cannot see each other and pass judgement on what the other is wearing? I'm not sure, because, as mentioned, the online communities push their own signifiers of identity. I've even started doing it with my color choice, the (all of two) music preferences that I've listed. I guess I am hoping that it can be a place, nonetheless, where a little of that may be shed, and we can start having conversations with one another and seeing where that could possibly lead us....

Cross-Sector Dialogue: Where's It Happening? #1

This list is not (I hope) complete, but I thought I'd start compiling a list of places, nooks, and crannies where there are conversations brewing that cross-over the lines of feverishly-held identity. I know that it is human nature to develop an identity and associate with a group of people who have like-minded objectives; and that people are very defensive about those identities. But I want to search out those places where people can leave a little bit of their prejudices, self-preservation, and utter devotion to only their own thoughts behind, and entertain a conversation with an "other". So, I'm on the search.

My first thought was of wikis. The collaborative authoring efforts are extremely interesting for information sharing. Now, I did just realize that there is still a difference between information sharing and dialogue. The two are not inherently the same, so something like Wikipedia is not what I'm after. I'm looking for something that encourages a bit more interactive dialogue.

Ok, here's one, it may be a bit of a stretch, but it's a start: FluWiki According to FluWiki, the purpose is "to help local communities prepare for and perhaps cope with a possible influenza pandemic. This is a task previously ceded to local, state and national governmental public health agencies....But no one, in any health department or government agency, knows all the things needed to cope with an influenza pandemic. The world is filled with competent others who are likely to have credible and useful information about some aspect of each of these tasks." So here, there is a cross-sector dialogue between the public, the government, and health agencies about the topic of flu pandemics--with the idea that such dialogue can increase a knowledge base as well as knowledge flow. There also seems to be a discussion forum (I'm a little confused as to the navigation and it took a round-about way of getting there, but it does seem to exist) where users can maintain discussions with each other.

Why Flu Wiki is worth mentioning: I'm not sure how much actual cross-sector dialogue actually happens, but the point here is that there is a place where it is encouraged. With a defined subject matter, but an undefined user-base, people of all opinions and theories are able to exchange their views.

Now, for a side note. In the middle of my writing this post, I came across a blog titled, eastwikkers: a group blog on technology, communications, and the place where they meet , who launched a project titled, "33 Wikis". "33 Wikis" is a compilation of "best-practices in wiki-based collaboration". This is, in fact, where I discovered FluWiki. And their process of compiling and posting on these wikis spurred me to do it in a similar style--instead of searching for all the wikis I kind find and including them in one post, I will continue the search and post them, with different numbers in the title. (whew, that was a long sentence, was it hard to follow? I can do that sometimes). So I'd like to steal their methodology, if I may, and use it to list my places of cross-sector dialogue.

Continuing the Conversation: How Do We Define Corporate Social Responsibility?

I just read an article in the Harvard Business Review, December 2006, titled Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer.

The authors offer a way for businesses to look at Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage; as opposed to a PR scheme, a way to mitigate bad press, or an obligation. The key is to fully integrate CSR into each individual company's unique strategy and identity.

Often, the prevailing method in approaching CSR is a disassociated effort that is ad hoc and responsive. This approach focuses on "the tension between business and society rather than on their interdependence" and usually uses generic methods. According to Porter and Kramer, "Responsive CSR comprises two elements: acting as a good corporate citizen, attuned to the evolving social concerns of stakeholders, and mitigating existing or anticipated adverse effects from business activities." This is all okay, but it is limited. Positive corporate citizenship initiatives may have some interesting social benefits but they remain incidental to the company, doing little to strengthen the core competencies. And along the lines of mitigating damage, "some companies will be more proactive and effective in mitigating the wide array of social problems that the value chain can create. These companies will gain an edge, but--just as for procurement and other operational improvements--any advantage is likely to be temporary."

Porter and Parker suggest that companies adopt a more strategic approach to their CSR initiatives. This involves looking at the company's core competencies, its place within society, its customers, its competitors and then discovering "shared value by investing in social aspects of context that strengthen company competitiveness." This means eschewing the boring, generic approaches to CSR that leave everyone wanting something more and something different. Hopefully, a company can develop a corporate competitive strategy that is inseparable from its social impact. By understanding one's own company from a competitive level and combining that with an understanding of its social impact, the two can come together to create a force that is truly beneficial to all. This is integrated, as any competitive strategy, throughout the whole organization, as opposed to those pithy ad hoc efforts.

I think that Porter and Parker are spot on. The whole thing is that CSR does not need to be a ball and chain. As with anything, if a company looks at it with the right attitude, opportunities come bubbling forth, offering myriad ways for increasing competitiveness, innovation, and ultimately greatness. The thing that I found lacking in this article was an encouragement for dialogue between the sectors. While Porter and Parker talk about the importance of changing the perspective of "us against them" or the social sector pitted against the business sector, there's no real mention of the two (or any other groups not lumped into these convenient titles) having dialogues. Perhaps it's obvious, but then I think that the obvious bears repeating. There's a definite need for cross-sector dialogue.

Cross-sector dialogue will (hopefully) start to alleviate that tension between sectors. Cross-sector dialogue will also give rise to those opportunities for coporations to find where they can make a social impact and the social sector groups can find partners to aid their mission. It spurs on action and innovation and makes the strategies of both sides much more effective.

I wonder if their are other examples of different kinds of "cross-sector" conversations going on.....I'll have to search for that.

It's Been so Long....

Well, it's been awhile since I last wrote. I got a little overwhelmed with the wrapping up of the school semester and my job, which ended last week. I shall be back on track soon!

What makes a Triple Bottom Line business a Triple Bottom Line Business?

Within the social sector, or those that are concerned about their footprint, there seems to be a lack of definitions and criteria. I've talked a bit about this, in some past posts, in relation to nonprofits, but does this hold true for triple bottom line businesses as well?

So in this quest to find some measurable criteria, I first looked up Wikipedia's definition of triple bottom line, which locates the concept in a set of values that measure organizational success based on profit, environment, and social. Yes, this is what it is, but I'm not answering the question with such a definition, am I? The question then becomes, how? How are you measuring organizational success in the environment and socially (profit's easy--net gain or loss).

From a bit of research, it does seem as though there are some firms that are instating accounting reports and measures. Here is Ernst and Young's method for reporting a company's sustainability efforts:

The problem with this is that it's very company specific--it focuses on defining, for a specific company, the ways in which it may develop it's own sustainability practices, as opposed to a way for everyone to recognize good sustainability practices. Is it possible to sum up your social and environmental performance to arrive at a defensible, coherent bottom line?

GreenBiz.com featured an article titled "Adapting Your Accounting Practices to Triple Bottom Line Reporting". They, too, talk about each company developing it's own concept of standards as they relate to: percentage of materials used that are wastes, direct energy use segmented by primary source, standard injury lost days, absentee rates and fatalities, as well as including such peformance indicators as total recycling and reuse of water to help calculate profit, for example. Is there, though, a sense that one can understand it's positioning in relationship to profit and environmental and social benefit? Or is it fairly subjective?

I will keep searching, but as of right now I can find no explicit standards defining success in environmental and social "profitability". There is a general sense of how businesses should conduct themselves, but there are no real standards or definitions. Much seems to be based upon each company's unique strucutre and position within the marketplace. So. More later.

What is a Blog, and How Can YOU Use One in Your Organization?

There are still a lot of people out there who don't know what a blog is. And even if they know what a blog is, they don't know how it can be of use to them within their organization.

What is a blog? A blog is a website consisting of a collection of posts, written in a journal style, and is viewed in reverse chronological order. One of the powerful aspects of the blog is the ability to share it with an enormous audience base over the internet.

Possible uses for your Organization's Blog:
To Give a Voice to People in Your Organization: Having your employees post blogs creates a more democratic culture, disseminates information, allows people to get creatively engaged in driving your mission, spurs on innovation, spreads news throughout....

Bottom-Up Shift in Power: This can mean feedback from your customers/audience. You're working for them, why not find out what they REALLY need/want? A Bottom-up shift can also mean feedback from your employees. Again, speaking to a democratic structure, it allows your employees to actively engage in driving your mission and can play a role in improving low morale, giving ownership to all in the group, and addressing issues right as they come up as opposed to when they blow up.

Fundraising: Blogging about your fundraising needs could get a lot more people intrested in the passion that you are trying to promote and, consequently, YOUR needs in addressing that issue. Due to a certain personal nature of blogs, your issues may have a greater resonance with the readers, thus expanding your network, your cause, and perhaps your funds to advance your mission.

Advocacy: Since you have the possibility of a greater audience through the internet, just imagine how many more people can learn about your cause. Seriously, try to imagine it. Yeah.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Here are some other people advocating for the use of blogs within (all types) of organizations: Zafar S. Shah in the Nonprofit Quarterly, some of the big guys are doing it, Britt Bravo from NetSquared gives a few reasons for nonprofits, a BusinessWeek article, and this blog post from the blog Creating Passionate Users just caught my eye, take it or leave it.

The thing about blogs is that they can be a bit intimidating. They were intimidating to me. But have no fear. I am seriously technologically challenged, but I've managed to set up a blog and I've waded through a little bit of information on what it takes (or doesn't take) to integrate technolgoy into your life. Even when you have no idea how technology works.

So here's a Non-Techie Resource on starting a blog: Some blogs require you to know HTML code. Some also require you to obtain a server.

I don't know HTML code, so I'm sticking to the ones that don't require me to use it. As for the server, I'm thinking about getting one for some future projects that I will delve into, but you don't need to set up server capabilities for a blog.

Also, remember, some blogs are fee-based, some are free. If you're using your blog for within an organization, you may want to use a service that IS fee-based as they tend to have a few more options as to design, number of authors, and may look a little more professional.

A free, no-need-to-know-HTML blog service is Blogger

A free + fee-based options blog service is TypePad from the folks over at Six Apart. For techies they also have MovableType. Another option for those who have tech-knowledge is WordPress, which is free, but is more complicated (for me).

I chose TypePad. I currently use the Plus Level. I do not know (yet) how to create my own templates, but they have enough to satisfy my needs for now. If you use this platform, be sure to check out the widgets section. Widgets are elements (things) that users interact with on your webpage. Over in the Left Hand column there, you will see a variety of widgets that I am playing with such as the blog search, and the Swicki tags. Widgets allow for more interactivity and usability in your blog. Your readers can search your blog for a term without having to page through each entry, for example. Or they can find other blogs that cover the same issues. Or they can listen to the music you are promoting. Or, you could find a widget that allows people to donate to your cause. I HIGHLY recommend that you use them.

Also, with a blog, think about keeping it simple. Again, we're not master techies, so make it easy to read. One good way to do this is to utilize categories. These act as a table of contents so that others can quickly find information that they need to find.

TypePad will guide you through using their service to create a simple blog. And that's all you need in the beginning. Seriously. I think it's easy to get caught up in all the technology that even just a blog can offer. And I think it's great, but for those of us who are not techies, I do not think we need to suddenly become one. You need to focus on your mission of saving the world; and my point is that you don't need to be a techie in order to do that. Know what your options are, but don't get bogged down in the massive details--let an expert deal with that. But, now, you've got a tool that can really get you going--doing the work that you love and want to tell the world about.

Amazing Resources You MUST Know About

So, part of this blog is to provide a listing of the useful resources that I come across. I've decided to break them into 2 categories: Non-Techie Resources and Resources for Anyone. These category headings are probably fairly self-explanatory, but I'll explain them anyway.

Non-Techie Resources: Resources for those that are technology-illiterate (like me). As I mentioned in my bio, I'm not a techie by any stretch of the imagination. But I don't think that this has be a limitation. I would like to use the internet as a resource, but remain in my passion for social change. So, as I come across definitions, how-to's, tips, and tools I'll put them in this category.

Resources for Anyone: Resources that anyone--techie or non-techie--would find relevant as it relates to the social sector/social benefit.

Feel free to alert me to any resources you've found helpful as well!

"The Strength of Weak Ties"

I wanted to go into a bit of history about this concept--"The Strength of Weak Ties" (this is actually a formal theory that was well articulated back in 1973 by  American sociologist, Mark Granovetter).  This concept has to do with how information spreads within a community.  In the 1973 piece, Granovetter asserts that each individual's social community consists of close friends (strong ties) and acquaintances (weak ties).  An individual's set of close friends, most of whom probably know each other and have many possible lines of communication and relationships, creates a densely knit network.  The set of acquaintances is a low-density network, and the relationships between an individual's various acquaintances may be low or (for the moment) non-existent.

As each individual's set of "ties" is comprised of other individuals with their own set of "ties" and networks, the acquaintance (the weak tie) of Individual A is not merely a random friend, but rather a bridge between two networks of densely knit social networks.  And, in fact, these two sets of closely knit friends may not be connected to each other, save that weak tie between Individual A and his/her rando friend, Individual B.  I may not know John, but I am close friends with Sally and Sally is close friends with John, and Sally may set me up with John at some point.  I may have never met John, if it had not been for Sally.

Things get interesting as you start to examine the way that information flows between these densely knit groups of close friends and low-density networks of weak ties.  As Granovetter suggests the "individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends.  This deprivation will not only insulate them from the latest ideas and fashions but may put them in a disadvantaged position in the labor market, where advancement can depend...on knowing about appropriate job openings at just the right time."  What's really sticking out at me is the word deprived.  Before jumping into this issue of depravity, I want to share what Granovetter goes on to say--"The macroscopic side of this communications argument is that social systems lacking in weak ties will be fragmented and incoherent.  New ideas will spread slowly, scientific endeavors will be handicapped, and subgroups separated by race, ethnicity, geography, or other characteristics will have difficulty reaching a modus vivendi."

I find this issue of depravity to be really fascinating.  And I'm sensing that it is hitting a nerve in the state of the nonprofit world.   So, to re-articulate in terms of the nonprofit word, what Granovetter is saying: nonprofits either tend to talk either only within their own organization (this seems to be fairly true with my current organization) and/or only with other nonprofits.  Maybe there's a little "outsider" voice that's represented through a board member.  Within these insular worlds, some really good discussion is being had, I'm sure.  And there are some interesting possibilities for partnerships, ideas, and approaches to dealing with the problems that nonprofits address.   But, there is little discussion with those outside the immediate, densely-knit community of nonprofits--even with the not-so-distant relationship of the philanthropist.  Rarely with a for-profit business.  But to not talk with for-profits, with philanthropists, with the government, the media, or the community at large, nonprofits are starving themselves of very relevant information and opportunities.  And with the internet, it really couldn't be easier--in theory. 

For your reference, here's a little diagram illustrating weak and strong ties in a social network: