TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

Hello Again....

Well. It sure has been a while. I suppose my lapse in writing can be an example of the "difficulties" in maintaining a blog or using it as a professional tool.

I got wrapped up in myself, and that's why I stopped writing. Plus there were times when I didn't know what to say. It is crucial to maintain consistent....musings, if you want your blog to be of any use to others, yourself, and the community at large. I guess I fell short on that one.

Anyway, I'd like to continue in my blogging. It's good for the mind, actually. And that ties back in with pushing through the difficult times when you don't feel like writing a blog entry. It's good to remember that these posts are ways to stimulate your own curiousity, exploration, and questioning. So while you may feel that your posts are stupid, or you don't know what to say, or that you don't even think anyone's really reading--so what's the point, try to keep going. At least for yourself.

What? I have to share something?

In investigating the values of online communities (as part of my thesis work), I have come to realize the importance of public articulation of identity.  This means that, although users understand the importance of protecting one's privacy (against credit card theft, stalkers, identity-theft), there is also the understanding that the user needs to relinquish certain amounts of guardedness in order to participate.  You have to share in order to play the game.  And the "game" aspect of online communities is important as well--there is certainly a value-system built around play and delight within these communities.  This sensibility helps to create online identities (of an individual and/or group), facilitate relationships, and thusly create a web of users, which is part of the point of the World Wide Web.

Part of the problem with many (and certainly not all) nonprofits and philanthropies is a value-system of closely guarded secrets, methodologies, and identities.  True transparency is not what one thinks of when considering the operations of a nonprofit or philanthropic organization.  A sense of open sharing does not exist within this social change community to the same extent as it does with Web 2.0 folks who are concerned with open-source software and publicly articulating their relationships with one another.  Of course there are little groups that form where nonprofit CEO's can share their experiences with one another and get advice, and many of those groups have online counterparts.  The difference with those online groups and the general populous of innovative Web 2.0 online communities is the exclusivity of those nonprofit groups.  They're not willing to share with anyone who cares to join the discussion.

So there seems to be a fundamental difference between the philanthropic/nonprofit community and the new media/Web 2.0 communities.  This difference has been a slowing force for the nonprofit community in the adaptation of new media resources for revolutionizing their social change efforts and the social change community.  Now, again, I recognize that there are some nonprofit/philanthropic groups who have embraced the Web 2.0 philosophy, but the general, broad community has not--as compared to the online video-gaming community or the open source software community.

What do I think about the future of the nonprofit community and its adoption of new media tools?  I think it needs to happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will.  A lot of the culture of this community is located in a group that is not particularly tech-savvy, which might cause it to view new media tools as intimidating or just not understand all the benefits and disadvantages.  Furthermore, the community is (plagued) by a more antiquated sense of how to conduct business.  Much of the Web 2.0 community is young, tech-savvy, and therefore well-integrated into a value-system of sharing, playing, and understanding the intricacies of privacy issues and how to negotiate them.  Perhaps as the nonprofit community grows younger and has more experience with such tools and makes an effort to understand both the advantages and disadvantages of new media tools they will be able to make the shift to being able to actively participate in the Web 2.0 community.  I certainly hope this happens. 

Blog Envy

I'm experiencing a little bit of blog envy.  Take a look, for example, at White Courtesy Telephone.  I think it looks pretty cool.  Or even Future Leaders in Philanthropy, which is less flashy, but still customized and slick.  And I begin to wonder, is my rather un-customized blog....boring?  Does it matter?

I'm also wondering about my wiki (which is in development, but soon to be released).  I was tweaking and tinkering with it the other day and realized that it's not even half as cool looking as the Davis Wiki, or even the Tax Almanac (which, by the way, did an excellent job at formatting a MediaWiki software driven wiki--doesn't happen often).  And now I am suddenly concerned that my humble wiki will suffer from its lack of pizazz.

Now, you may remember my musings on identity earlier.  I still wish that we could shed preconceived notions of one another that are based on appearance, but I am still grappling with the concept of the role that apperance-based identity plays in life.

The thing with appearance-based identity is that is part of branding, which in turn helps signify content.  By understanding what content is being offered, people are able to make the decision as to whether or not to interact with it.  And quite frankly, if you are interested in social issues, then you definitely want people to interact with you.

Plus, when you are able to customize your wiki or blog, it offers a unique-ness to your product.  Since we are all unique people, shouldn't our communication vehicles reflect that? 

So, if my wiki looks cool, looks slick, looks professional, is it automatically upgraded in the eyes of potential users/readers?  Is it important to maintain a unique brand to differentiate your conversation from the rest?  Will my blog or wiki be overlooked because does it not look the part of the cool-kid crowd?   

The General Public Hearing about Innovative Philanthropy--Does It Happen?

Several days ago The Happy Tutor blogged about President Jackson's State of the Union address.  It got me thinking.  In some ways, it does not surprise me that people outside the world of philanthropy or the nonprofit sector do not fully understand what charity is doing, and has the possibility of doing, in the world.  There's not much media coverage about the initiatives that are truly making great impact.  There is, of course (as there well should be) more coverage about oversight and abuses.  I know that I'm not alone in wondering if there could be more press coverage about the positive and innovative ways that philanthropy is engaging with the world.  Could there be more press coverage about how philanthropy is attempting to move beyond the old, stodgy bureaucracy of prior days?

Anyway, I was thinking about compiling some sort of annual report that chronicles that year's round of innovative philanthropic efforts.  Does something like this exist?  Could it be circulated beyond the boundaries of philanthropy and nonprofits?  Would someone, like The New York Times use it?  (The NYT, by the way, does have a philanthropy section that does have a section on philanthropy)

Mission Matters: Attitude and Social Change

I was reading another article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy titled Making Money With a Mission:  Many charities are starting business ventures, but their goals are as much social as they are financial.

What I want to muse about is the importance of mission--whether or not you are for-profit or not-for-profit.  Now any  person with some sort of business knowledge will say "of course" and maybe roll his/her eyes at suggesting that--it's a fairly basic rule of business.  And mission is known  to be helpful for keeping a business on track, focused, and successful.  Business 101.  But the key, if you are concerned with social responsibility, is that your mission has to have soul.  Not only should the mission statement describe what you do and how you do it, and what you see your focus and responsibility as, but it should also be embedded with the passion that you hold for what you do.   In thinking about the mission statement that I'm trying to draft for  a nonprofit that I'm trying to establish, it doesn't have that resonate echo of passion and soul for our cause (yet).  It merely outlines, in a rather dry and sterile way, what we do, for whom, and the desired outcome.  I think that if your passion is honestly reflected in the mission statement, then it will be easier to consult when you need a reminder of what your doing and why.

Then, with your soulful mission statement, you do need to constantly consult that passion and mission to drive the initiatives that you are undertaking.  In the Making Money With a Mission article touches on this.  Mike Burns, former CEO of Pioneer Human Services, a Seattle charity that runs 9 businesses to contribute to the nonprofit's budget, is quoted, "What makes us successful is the passion for the mission, not the passion for the business disciplines.  The business disciplines are just a vehicle for us to accomplish our mission."

This quote reminds me of my gripe with the former museum with whom I was recently employed.  I was in the Development office and our job was to raise money for the capital campaign.  The thing that most disappointed me was the lack of passion for the mission.  Not once did I hear the leaders talk about the mission of the museum.  Not once did we discuss how the new building would actually improve the lives of others in our community (we talked about it in proposals--to convince donors, but there were no passionate reminders amongst the staff).  Money came first, everything else fell in line after that, and I have no idea where the passion for the mission fell in.   Money and profitability are important, and they can be such wonderful assets to drive your mission.  But if money comes before mission, the purpose is deflated, and the social benefit is diminished.  At the museum's Development office  I thought that we should focus less on ranking wealthy individuals and more on driving fundraising efforts with the passion for our mission.  Then, perhaps, the funds would fall into place more easily.  But to be fair, the museum has a horribly written mission statement--one that is long, soulless, and antiquated.  Again, if your mission statement itself lacks soul, it's rather hard to get passionate about it.

Now, idealistically, I think it would be great if every business set up their missions and visions like this--with a social purpose.  Which is actually probably possible if people put a little thought into it.  Then, once getting the whole organization passionate about the way you are serving others, the profitability should fall into place.  Again, profitability is essential--you have to make money to exist and carry-out your mission, but the social mission, how you are serving others, should be the driving force.

May I learn the hard way, so that you don't have to

Well, I'm trying to set up a wiki and a web page, and I'll be honest, It's going a little bit harder than I expected.  I refuse to believe that this is a total problem and a total disaster, because I want to pass on what I learn to you, and I (want to) believe that even as a non-techie you can use some of the on line tools out there. 

Wikis:
Ok, so wikis are websites that any user can log on to and add/edit content.  There are some powerful implications to this, but in order to tap into those possibilities, you've got to put a wiki out there.  The one that everyone knows about is Wikipedia, which is powered by MediaWiki.  Now, I think that Wikipedia has been done well, but any other site with it's layout, design and software are not faring as well.  Those sites seem a little more awkward.  But the most annoying thing, I've found, is navigation.  I think navigation, above all, has to be super-easy.  And the ones that look like Wikipedia  (using MediaWiki software) don't seem to have it down.  And if you're reading this, and you're not a pro, but want to set up a wiki, I suggest NOT going the root of looking like Wikipedia. 

Another wiki software is Stikipad.  This is the one that I've started my trial wiki on, but may switch.  Stikipad has different versions--free, and then different paid levels.   I'm on the free  version  right now, mainly because I'm tinkering around with it.  My tinkering is not as great as I would hope.  First, the address is cumbersome--you need to include ".stikipad.com/notes" in order to access the wiki.  Secondly, the free version does not have much to make it look "spiffy".  I don't know how many people need it to look fancy in order to use it, but it definitely looks amateurish.  But.  There are several other wikis out there, being used, and are successful, and look very amateurish.  Do looks matter?

If you want to have an easy name for people to access your wiki (which I would highly recommend), you will need to get a domain name.  Now, I am figuring this out, and have not quite got it, and that is another source of my frustration.

Websites and Domain Names:
It is possible to get just a domain name, without the whole hosted website.  Essentially you can register a name that you like with someone like GoDaddy, and  then have your name  point to the  wiki address (I believe with Stikipad, you will need to upgrade in order to allow this to happen). 

Why this may good for you:   you don't need to deal with a website and hosting it, you just pick out your name (if it's not taken--they figure that out for you) and point it to your wiki.  Then people can access the wiki through an easier URL address.

Or, you can buy a domain name and web-hosting service through a company and create a website.  This will allow you to build a site, should you like, which can have a whole host of other services (include your blog, some website builders have wikis that can be installed, have forums, sell stuff).  I thought I might want a website, and that is why I went that route.

My Website Experience:
Has not been going well, but I haven't given up yet!  I went with a web hosting service called LunarPages.   If you have a  Mac (which is what I have) this is not the way to go.  Their site-building feature only works on Windows.  Somehow I missed that, but at least they have a money-back guarantee for the 1st 30 days.  If you have Windows, the site seems ok.  It'll take some trial and error and figuring out, but you might do alright.  Their customer service is not great though.  They don't have a "live chat" function, so you need to email your question, and the last several (urgent) messages that I emailed have not been answered yet (it's been 3 hours).  Host Gator has a live chat function, which you can use to walk through the process of getting started--how do you even create the 1st page? 

I still don't have a website, yet.  But I'm working on it.  Just thought I'd share these frustrating few hours that I've had....

Blogs, Discussion, and Charity

In the December 7th issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, there is an article by Peter Panepento titled Blogs on the Rise: Online forums about charity offer advice and discuss controversies.

The article explores some bloggers in the social sector who are currently using the vehicle of the blog to create discussion about philanthropy and non-profits.  The use of these blogs range from one person's opinions about the sector (independent from his/her employer), to blogs that articulate a voice of the company, to advice-giving.  All have a purpose that's important to contributing to the social sector by initiating various forms of discussion and idea-sharing.

Independent Opinion Blogs
One such blog, which was coverd in the article, is Albert Ruesga's White Courtesy Telephone.  White Courtesy Telephone is independent of Ruesga's employing office, the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, and as such is investigative and probing.  Interested in challenging field assumptions and digging for (perhaps) better ways to do things, Ruesga wonders if such blogging efforts would "be able to decentralize and democratize intellectual and moral authority in philanthropy and thereby enrich the conversation of the field?"  I would like to chime into his musings.  Every field, every business, in fact, needs to take time to objectively look at how things are done, what needs to be done, and challenge themselves to take one more step forward.  The field of philanthropy is particularly interesting in its need to do this considering the driving force behind the field is helping others.  By not striving to push the field to new heights and possibilities, who is  really feeling the negative effects?  The poor, the needy, the disease-inflicted--those who REALLY need such innovations and compassion.

Voice of the Organization Blogs
Blogs don't have to be envelope-pushers to have an impact, though.  They can also serve a very practical purpose in serving the members of the organization, as well as its clients.  James Fruchterman's blog, Beneblog, gives another voice to the company that he leads, Benetech.  It started out as a way to talk to employees about what was going on within the company's walls and has since evolved to include a grander scale of scope.  Fruchterman now includes his ideas, advice, and opinions on business practices and issues within society.  I think what's interesting about such blogs is that they are about engagement--engaging with those who work with you, engaging with your clients.  It can be very easy to wrap yourself up in the world of your private office and assume you know what your employees and clients think, need, and want.  Even if you conduct surveys and read research articles about all of that, what is actually better than engaging in dialogue with those that actually matter?  And that can happen with a blog--you can elicit closer-to-home responses through such engagement.

Advice-Giving Blogs
Other blogs, that are very worthwhile looking at, are those that offer advice.  Some authors are in the field and describe their best and worst practices, others are consultant or financial gurus who are sharing their expertise through their blogs.  The Agitator, authored by Roger Craver and Tom Belford, offers insight on direct marketing for non-profits. 

The point is that any of these blogs create the kind of engagement that is possible and should be taken advantage of.  The way that technology and culture is moving necessitates that those interested in not being left behind contribute and interact with the world beyond their singular perspective.  The great thing about blogs is that they have a more informal, accessible tone, which stimulates conversation and connection to others.  The great thing about blogs is that they encourage active participation with readers.  This opens the dialogue up, allows you to gain other perspectives than your own, and breaks down some of the hierarchy of "professionalism" that can interfere with innovative thinking and reaching your clients.  Sartre talks about amateurs vs. professionals, favoring amateurs who have the ability to remain outside the bureaucracy that can poison thought.  Including "amateurs" in your discussion can yield incredibly fruitful discussions with surprising results. 

One of the difficulties with blogs is that in order to be used to their full potential, users would ideally post comments in them.  The article mentions several of bloggers lamenting the fact that not as many readers actually post, which is a little disappointing.  In order for a blog to increase its reach and fulfill it possibilities, those types of interactions will be necessary.  Perhaps with time, as people grow more comfortable with blogs, this will happen

Listed in the article, which I too will post, are a bunch of blogs that may be interesting for you to peruse:
The Agitator
Beneblog
The Charity Governance Blog
Donor In Site
Donor Power Blog
Don't Tell the Donor
Gift Hub
Redeeming Hope
Trent Stamp's Take
White Courtesy Telephone

Humility and Social Change

I was reading the article, "Moments of Truth: Global Executives Talk About the Challenges That Shaped Them as Leaders" in the January 2007 copy of Harvard Business Review, vol. 85, no. 1. The article is comprised of various Presidents and CEO's describing their opinions of important attributes of leaders. Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, who is the president and CEO of Nokia, talked about humility.

First, I just want to quote a few snippets from his perspective: "if (a company) is to continue to prosper, (it) has to be externally oriented. It must have the kind of humility that makes it listen to the customer and seek ideas from outside." "Managers must humbly accept that their own perspectives need to be broadened by others." These comments about the concept of humility being linked to the ability to listen and broaden your own perspective by the perspectives of others is important. This is part of the backbone to what I believe is important to initiating social change. Each change-maker limits himself in operating within isolation. A person interested in social impact must constantly bounce ideas off of others. And change-makers that are afraid of cross-sector dialogue limit themselves as well. It is scary to make yourself vulnerable to challenges that are voiced against your position. But maintaining that humble spirit is a vital spirit in assisting change.

Kallasvuo also mentions, "Having humility does not mean that you are quiet or that you lack the courage to say what you think. Courage and humility are more complementary than contradictory." I don't know, you may think that talk about state of mind is rather silly and stupid, but to me, state of mind seems rather essential to getting the job done. And initiating social change takes leadership and it takes courage. And part of being a leader is taking on a spirit of humility and service, which takes a whole lotta courage.

The thoughts expressed by Kallasvuo on humility and the ability to listen to others while informing your own perspective with the perspective of others sounds a bit like the eradication of hierarchy and controlled authorship through the vehicle of wikis. As voice is given over to many, and one gives up the illusion of control that is encouraged through single-authorship, the spirit of humility and collective action can thrive. Ideas and innovation flourish. The thought that you are giving up control actually then yields to the realization that you are better aiding your own company and also the common good. And that seems like a positive thing to me.

What Could a Wiki do for a Philanthropic Foundation?

I just read the article, Renaissance Man on a Mission, from the December issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The article discusses the purpose of Joel L. Fleishman's book, The Foundation: A Great American Secret--How Private Wealth Is Changing the World.

If you looked at Fleishman's bio and CV, he has had extensive experience in philanthropic foundations, board membership, and academia. Fleishman wrote the book to talk about the strengths and weakness of foundations. One of the major strengths lies in the ability of foundations to do enormous good for the world. He lists a series of case studies (both successful and unsucessful) in his book. One example of a positive philanthropic inititiative that is listed is the Rockefeller Foundation's work to drive "The Green Revolution".

Fleishman argues that while foundations have an enormous potential to do incredible good in the world, they also face a number of weaknesses, which could seriously hamper their ability to deliver on that potential.

The major weakness pointed out is a lack of transparency. The article quotes Fleishman's book: foundations "operate within an insulated culture that tolerates an inappropriate level of secrecy and even arrogance in their treatment of grant seekers, grant receivers, the wider civic sector, and the public officials charged with oversight." By not talking about their processes, their needs, their desires, and even their mistakes, foundations inhibit the growth of change-making while inviting greater governmental scrutiny and regulations. On the flip side, foundations also seem to have a problem with taking credit for all the wonderful things that they have done. Fleishman's book is again quoted, "Foundation leaders must find the courage and vision to rise above their self-imposed , self-imagined phantoms of insecurity and lead their institutions into a new era of transparency, accountability, and effectiveness."

Now, I have not read the book, but the point of this post is not to critique the Fleishman's text, but rather to expound upon his thesis of transparency. And I do want to note that foundations are not the only ones who suffer from lack of transparency. It's a problem that affects all sectors, organizations, and is, in fact, a human foible. But I digress.

The point is, we need to talk, we need to communicate. We need to discuss who we are, what our values are, what we need, what we expect, and how the other party feels about all of this. It's fundamental to any sort of relationship, but it seems so hard. But the possibility for such communication is there, particularly with the way technology is going. And here I'd like to offer the concept of the wiki as one of many solutions to managing transparency.

The beauty of the wiki is that authorship lies in the hands of the users. It frees the communication from the ties of one author, opening the discussion up to more democratic levels. To me, this seems like a good way to address the problem of lack of transparency. If communication is dictated by one source, it's going to be biased, or at least perceived as such. But when the direction of communication is opened to all levels, to anyone, the process has a greater sense of authenticity. There is greater potential for better, more effective feedback.

I'm in the process of developing a wiki. I'll clue you in to my frustrations, challenges, and successes once I get into it a little bit more.

Personal Problems = Transferable Skills in the Work Place?

Recently, I have been going through a break up. This exerience has triggered a lot of introspection--understanding what my values are, thinking about my strengths and weaknesses, understanding how my personality dictates the way I do (or do not) live my life. Interestingly, I am also going through the process of searching for a job. I've noticed a lot of paralells in both of these processes. I've found that my personal weaknesses have a certain cross-over sensibility, relating to the professional arena (for me, at least). And the things that I feel I can contribute to my boyfriend's life are also similar to what I can contribute to my next job. I actually wish that I could talk about such personal experiences as a break up in a job interview--to describe how I've come to a much more sensitive understanding of what makes Elizabeth Shingleton and how I can contribute to the world, in a relationship, and in a job. Somehow, I don't think it would be taken all that seriously, but maybe it should be....I wonder if HR departments consider such conversations as valuable to assessing potential candidates (I am guessing not). Would you?