TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

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:

The Spirit of Giving

as we near the time of year where giving is more on the forefront of our thoughts, i thought i'd write a little post on the spirit of giving. this also ties into the conversation i had about corporate social responsibility.

in the conversation with the guy at the bar--the one that didn't go as well as i would have hoped--i realized that what was also wrong about his approach in thinking about corporate social responsibility (CSR hereforth) was his attitude, his spirit of giving. his first question to me was whether or not i thought that CSR should be mandated. i don't really. i think it needs to come from the values and ethics and moral fabric of your company--not something that is forced upon you by the government. because then the concept of it is skewed. you do it because you want to run the best company that you can.

the other issue, that relates to the spirit of giving, is that within the conversation with this guy at the bar was an issue of philanthropy. he kept going back to philanthropy being something only the wealthy can do. i believe this is a gross misunderstanding, one that is fairly common. i think philanthropy should be an attitude more than an amount of money. you don't have to give big bucks in order to be philanthropic. you don't even have to give money to be philanthropic. the point is to be recognizing issues in our communities and societies and finding creative ways to address them. money is not what come first. money may play a role, but the first part is the spirit and the attitude. (oh man, i know i sound so preachy, forgive me). the thing is, this issue with money seems to plague nonprofits, too. in the sense that they (some, not all) focus their efforts on how they're going to get the money, as opposed to the mission of the organization and what they are trying to achieve. this is my issue with the nonprofit at which i am currently working. here, money is the first thing--who's the wealthiest, how much can we squeeze out of them...i think the first issue needs to be what we're trying to do and what this means to our community.

anyway, when giving a gift, you have to truly want to give it. otherwise it's not a gift. and quite honestly if you give it with the wrong spirit--that you want to get something else out of it, you have some alterior motive, then don't give it. it's something else entirely, just don't call it a gift anymore.

Corporate Social Responsibility

so. i was out the other night, and happen to engage in a conversation about corporate social responsibility with some guy who's in the corporate world. the conversation didn't go that well. for 2 reasons. 1: i did not do the best job at articulating what i meant about corporate social responsibility, and 2: he was focused on the money aspect of it all, meaning that he didn't think he had the resource so to put toward such efforts.

i realized the incredible importance of understanding your definitions. when i attended a conference for the Nonprofit Congress this very issue came up--that it can be hard to articulate what nonprofits do. and because of this, many people do not understand how nonprofits play an integral role in the fabric of our economy and society. there are many misperceptions about what a nonprofit is, what they do, what is expected of nonprofits, how they operate, etc. this is a liability for nonprofits, or anyone advocating for them. articulation is very important.

i am going to take the time to plug a book that i think is quite great. it relates to corporate responsibility, leaning more toward a environmental sustainability approach, but it's fascinating. it does a good job (in my opinion) of pointing out that corporate responsability is just plain good business. it makes sense for so many reasons, many which are touched upon in the book. not investing in your employees, not understanding your footprint in the environment, is really bad business--you can end up loosing valuable people and costing yourself waaaaay more money.

you can get it on amazon.

More on Like-Minded Communities

last week, i conducted an interview with david tabak.  mr. tabak is the CEO of the Catholic Guild for the Blind here in Chicago.  i interviewed him because he has started a Yahoo! group for nonprofit CEO's.  it is limited to nonprofit CEO's and mr. tabak gives the approval as to whether or not you may join.  he also reviews each post to ensure it's relevant and not reiterating a previous post.  he does this to engender a sense of trust and value. 

according to mr. tabak, the site has been enormously helpful for him, and the community has seen a lot of growth--they might spin this off into a real, hands-on initiative.  he has found that he is able to ask a question--any question that he deals with from employment, to dealing with donors, to ethical dilemmas, and is able to receive a response within 2 hours--much faster than having to go to a meeting of other nonprofit CEO's that's happening a month from now.  plus, people are able to speak candidly about their own experiences.

i think this forum is great, but i'm curious about some of it's limitations--specifically related to the member base.  i get that trust is important and having a censor-like system of regulating who is able to participate helps to foster such an environment.  but it's really curious because mr. tabak and i also discussed the possibility of having frank, open discussions--donor to nonprofit.  he thinks this would be great, but does he think it will happen?  no.  it's also curious because opening up a forum to different approaches and mind frames could have really interesting results.  he could also have the opportunity to discuss certain issues that others outside the nonprofit world criticize--like his salary.  "i'm not going to apologize for my salary", he mentioned to me.  i agree, but you're preaching to the choir, mr. tabak.  perhaps it'd be good to discuss that  with those that seem to take issue with it....

so, it's seems interesting that a lot of these forums keep small, tight-knit groups of cohorts.  this is understandable to a degree, but there are countless studies that larger groups with more weak ties yield the greatest results within such a framework.

Understanding the Dynamics of Social Network Sites and Nonprofits

in reading some writings about social networks, the importance of "weak ties" is often cited.  having a larger, looser network--one that has more weak ties outside of the core network--results in a space in which new ideas, innovations, and discussion occur.  new ideas, innovations, challenges, different approaches all help to make up that fertile ground where change may occur.  but it seems rather lacking in these communities who actually do wish to be agents of change.  rather, the nonprofits seem to love to only run with themselves.  i guess it's safer, and easier to trust and open up.  the artist circles seem to do that, too.  last week i went to a Bad at Sports round table discussion at ThreeWalls,called "Where in the Art World is Chicago." (i'm looking for the link and will post it once i find it).  There seemed to be a lot of limiting definitions thrown around and the fact that the whole room was filled with like-minded folk kept the discussion also limited--in the fashion of remaining in the comfort zone of like-minded notions of what is and what should be.  some people did bring up the fact that there wasn't a diverse cross-section of others involved in the discussion--others that would be relevant:  the uber-commercial gallery on Michigan Ave, the respected gallerist who does not show Chicago artists, the rich philanthropist....while participants still engaged each other and challenged each other, it's hard to question all the facets of the Chicago art world when not all are represented.

that prompted me to wonder about definitions.  they are central to our world, to our identity, to our progress, but are they, in fact, limiting--at least in terms of trying to activate social change?  or at least the way we define our audience and thus the "other", are those interested in social change preventing it from happening on a larger scale partly because of those definitions?

and that leads me to my other thought about  audience.  it's easy to surround yourself with like-minded folk.  and obviously people want to associate with those that think like them, hold the same beliefs and values, but in the interest of social change, is this healthy?

So This Is the Beginning

so why does it seem that nonprofits don't really use all the technological tools to advance the sector and expand the possibilities of large-scale social change? for starters, most nonprofits don't have the technological know-how--if they were tech geeks, most likely they didn't go into nonprofit work. so adoption is limited by the fact that many people in nonprofits don't know how to use all those technological options out there. i know that i don't, really. but i'd like to share what i learn so that others can use these tools to their advantage. so i'll be posting my experiences, useful links, and tidbits that i discover along the way.

i was also thinking about blogs. in the organization that i currently work, i don't know anyone who uses blogs for professional use (i do work in a more " archaic" institution). i think there's a stigma around blogs--that they're unprofessional, they're for play--not for work, what the hell is a blog anyway?, and they're for kids. i can't imagine my boss using a blog, but truthfully, i think it could be a really interesting way to communicate with the rest of the office and the rest of the organization.