TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

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'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.

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?