TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?