When Art Museum Directors Talk Trash, Everybody Wins.
February 6, 2010
Directors at the Indianapolis Museum of Art (Max Anderson) and the New Orleans Museum of Art (John Bullard), after a series of playful trash-talking, have made public bets on who will win the Super Bowl this weekend… and they bet famous works of art.
"Ideal View of Tivoli", 1644, by Claude Lorrain, Which NOMA will loan to the IMA if the Colts win the Super Bowl.
JMW Turner's The Fifth Plague of Egypt, 1800, which the IMA will lend to NOMA if the Saints win the Super Bowl.
The wager: If the Colts win the Super Bowl, the New Orleans Museum of Art will lend Claude Lorrain’s, Ideal View of Tivoli, 1644, to the Indianapolis Museum of Art for three months. If the Saints win, on the other hand, the Indianapolis Museum of Art will lend out Turner’s The Fifth Plague of Egypt, 1800.
.
But it doesn’t matter who wins the Super Bowl this Sunday. Anderson and Bullard are winners in spreading their missions either way– just because they made the wager. Here’s why this bet is a step forward for museums in terms of mission and community engagement (and the reasons are cooler than you think):
.
1) The bet will build community and mix popular cultures.
Makes sense, right? Being a sports fan builds a sense of community; it’s something that a group of fans come together to care about. The art directors’ bet piggy-backs the art museum culture with the sport-watching culture, which is one of passion and identity. And why shouldn’t communities feel the same sense of ownership and connection with their city’s art museum as they feel with their city’s sport teams? Anderson and Bullard are demonstrating pride in their cities by making the wager, and aligning themselves directly with the members of the community- all of whom are also hoping for a win on Sunday. Anderson and Bullard are saying that the museum cares about a win just as much as the rest of Indianapolis and New Orleans do- and they’ll put their money where their mouth is. In turn, the community knows that folks representing the IMA and NOMA will be gasping, cheering, and shouting their lungs out along side them as they are watching the game; it’s a powerful thing. On the first day that the Lorrian is on display at NOMA (or Turner at IMA), a local will stand in front of it and say, “We won the bet!”
.
2) Scientifically speaking, the bet lights up the brains of art-lovers.
… but not in the way that you’re probably thinking. Many museums have missions to educate- and this public wager does just that. Of course, you learn a thing or two about art while looking over the give-and-take that led to the final wager (I certainly didn’t know that the Indianapolis Museum of Art owns a farm). Interestingly, a 2008 study from The University of Chicago finds that spectators’ brains light up when talking about sports, and their language skills are improved. According to the article, “the region of the brain usually associated with planning and controlling actions is activated when players and fans listen to conversations about their sport.” Most obviously, the bet encourages museum-fans to watch their city’s team (if only for hope of gaining a Turner or a Lorrain in their town) and art-lovers are exposed to this benefit. Or at least I will be, as I was neutral about the outcome of the Super Bowl until I realized that I will be in Indiana in the Summertime…
.
3) The bet makes art aficionados biologically happier.
To non-sports fans, the bet may seem silly– but sports fans are less prone to depression than those disinterested in sports. Gambling also increases dopamine levels in the brain, making fans– of the museum and the teams–happier. It’s a welcome change of pace, especially since human beings are hardwired to avoid conflict and we usually think of museums as on the same team. This is not to say that art museums should go betting works of art left and right, but it is to say that the friendly competition is an exciting and healthy change for museum lovers. After all, scientists credit social competition for human beings’ increasing brain-size. So thanks for keeping us happy, Anderson and Bullard– and for expanding our brains.
.
4) The bet has sass- and so do museums.
This wager makes Robert Smithson look silly for saying, “Museums are tombs, and it looks like everything is turning into a museum.” Well, at least the first part looks dumb. Case in point: check out these trash-talking (friendly) tweets. Anderson and Bullard challenge the notion that museums are cold, static, outdated, and lifeless places. These museums have attitude, and they are acting in regard to current real-life situations. As for the last half of Smithson’s quote, it seems that everything is turning into a museum– or more accurately, museums are turning into places for everything… like friendly community-building wagers.
Jeffrey Deitch and the Management-Trained Museum Director
January 27, 2010
Jeffrey Deitch will become the Director of MOCA on June 1, 2010. Photo from cityfiles.com
Earlier this month, LA’s Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) announced their nontraditional pick for new museum director: Jeffrey Deitch, a (soon-to-be) former commercial gallery owner and experienced art dealer from New York City. What’s the big deal, you ask? This is the first time that an art dealer will run a major American museum, blurring the lines between commerce and culture and business and nonprofit practices. As New York Magazine put it quite simply, the appointment is a “game-changer” for the art world.
But this is a “game-changer” in the same way that paying Gates Foundation director, Jeff Raikes, a salary of $900,000 a year is a game changer: high executive compensation– like museums hiring business managers instead of academics to lead them– represents a necessary evolution of the nonprofit sector to certain stereotypically for-profit practices.
Even more importantly, the appointment represents art museums joining the rest of the museum world, as many non-art museums already have business leaders running them.
Art museums are traditionally run by folks with significant academic backgrounds in art, and art museums are institutions in which substantive experts particularly shine. According to David Suarez, a professor of nonprofit management at the University of Southern California, in a relevant Nonprofit Quarterly publication, “Substantive experts are individuals who have a great deal of experience or training in specific disciplinary areas… Substantive experts are likely to pursue academic credentials… and management is secondary to their dedication to a field of expertise.” The nonprofit world is full of substantive experts, but art museums provide environments that value academic expertise. It makes sense. — but is it really that unsettling for the art world to have Deitch (a successful businessman with an MBA) in a management position in a nonprofit organization? It shouldn’t be.
MOCA almost went bankrupt in 2008. People are calling Deitch a risky choice. Nobody is talking about how appointing an academic who is fluent in the 1999 emergence of Stuckism with no formal management experience would have been much riskier.
Though amount of praise for the substantive expert may be a defining characteristic that sets art institutions apart from other museums, several of the top (non-art) museums in the country are run by leaders who toot educational backgrounds in management over academic disciplines. The Field Museum, California Science Center, and St. Louis Science Center are three of 2009s top 25 most-visited museums with management-trained leaders. In short, art museums are catching up with the rest of the museum world by hiring a trained manager during a time when they need a trained manager.
Though Jeffrey Deitch has a significant background in art, his appointment may open the door for other art museums to break tradition and take on management-savvy leaders from other sectors. The MOCA appointment serves as a symbolic step for art museums; it’s a step off of an academic pedestal, and into the evolving museum world. Eli Broad, who was the chairman of the board at the time of the museum’s founding, helped pick Deitch as the new director. According to the New York Times, he said, “It’s time to redo the old museum model. The world has changed.” This quote needs clarification: It’s time to change the old art museum model. The world has changed.
Lessons from Haiti: Mobile Giving in 2010
January 18, 2010
This post is a prompt by the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance to further increase awareness of the Haiti earthquake and its victims, and highlight take-aways for nonprofit organizations and their supporters.
A (made-up) business card with a call to action.
Since the 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti last week, American’s have been publicizing ways to give to those affected by the crisis– and we’ve raised well over 150 million dollars for the cause. 11 million dollars have come from a single donation method: texting. (and this is already outdated! Mashable was encouraging readers to donate in order to raise 20 million dollars by midnight last night through the Red Cross Text Message Campaign alone.)
Folks can donate $10 from their cell phone bill to Red Cross relief efforts by SMS texting “HAITI” to 90999, or donate $5 to Yele Haiti’s Earthquake relief efforts by SMS texting “YELE” to 501501. It’s the cool, new way to give. It’s easy and it adds up. Though this method of giving is not ideal for the Haiti crisis (as funds need to be delivered immediately and may be held up), the widespread popularity of this method of giving offers a new strategy for nonprofits’ to incorporate in their fundraising plans. There’s reason to believe that nonprofits who can work with organizations like the Mobile Giving Foundation to incorporate mobile giving will see, as evidenced through text-based giving to the Haiti crisis, an increase in donations and a new kind of donor. Here’s why:
.
It’s easy to give through text. The average American sends 14 text messages every day, and as a country, we send 4.1 billion text messages each day. Mobile phone use has continued to increase for years. In order to give, the donor doesn’t even need to get his or her credit card ready. He or she simply sends a text message and the donation is taken from the donor’s cell phone bill. The easier it is to do something, the more likely people are to do it. We all know how to text, so we all know how to give.
.
Mobile makes it cool to give. Cell phones are providing us with the newest and easiest ways to do everything. You can manage your bank account with your iphone or use it as a GPS. The ability to give via text message is another cool, new way for Americans to use a convenient tool that they already love. It combines technology and giving. There’s instant appeal.
.
Small donations add up. Donating $10 to Haiti via text message does not sound like a big donation– but American’s have collectively donated over 11 million via text (at the very least); that’s more than 1,100,000 people using their cell phones to donate to Haiti. Nonprofits could, over time, raise a lot of money for their cause. What if nonprofits add the call to action in their e-mail signature or on business cards? It’s an open door to easy giving that can lead to major funding.
.
Small donations build relationships. A downside to text-based donations is that it is one-way giving. Though it is up to the donor to follow-up and continue to build a relationship with the organization/make themselves known, the first step of the fundraising pyramid has taken place because the donor felt connected to the cause and contributed. Nonprofits should utilize text-based giving to strengthen their fundraising efforts– especially if they are active on Twitter, Facebook, or other types of social media where they have many fans, but are having troubles transforming them into donors.
The Nonprofit Leadership Deficit Won’t be as Bad as We Think
January 17, 2010
The Bridgespan Group released a study in 2006 revealing that we’ll need a staggering 640,000 new nonprofit senior managers by 2016 (that’s 2.4 times the number currently employed) to fill the leadership gap left when baby-boomers retire. We talk about this all the time. Thomas Tierney has famously driven the subject home: we’ll have to recruit the equivalent of “more than 50% of every MBA graduating class, at every university across the country, every year for the next 10 years.” And, according to the study, we’ll need 78,000 new senior managers in 2016 alone. That’s a lot of people!
Though we rightfully take this study very seriously in the nonprofit world, the deficit will not be this bad. The study is only three years old, but it is already outdated because it assumes that the nonprofit sector will function in the exact same way in 2016 as it did in 2006. Though there will most likely be a gap when baby-boomers retire and it is in our best interest to mentor and train emerging leaders, here’s what we need to remember about the deficit prediction:
.
1. Nonprofits will always evolve to maximize their allocation of resources (or, the world keeps moving):
- Public, private, and nonprofit sectors will need to defy the most basic rules of economics in order to hit the high numbers on this leadership deficit. For instance, according to the study, we’ll need an extra 2,000 more leaders than we do right now just because there will be more nonprofits- and nonprofit organizations have larger senior leadership teams than for-profit companies. Organizations will evolve based on their needs; that’s economics. They will learn how to appropriately allocate their resources. If there’s a leadership deficit, nonprofits will think long and hard about their existing capabilities before spending excessive hard-earned resources trying to attract an unnecessary and endangered nonprofit leader.
- The study predicts a relatively steady increase in numbers of nonprofit organizations throughout the decade following the publication (2006-2016), but the recession took a toll on nonprofits in 2009 and 30% resorted to layoffs- which means that there are fewer nonprofit employees now than there were at the start of 2009. Tierney admitted in his 2006 article that things could happen to lessen the number of nonprofit organizations, but the fact remains that something has already changed the projected numbers.
- 9,000 nonprofit leaders are predicted to transition out of the sector in the next decade, but the study does not take into account senior managers that might be transitioning into the sector. It’s not a no-entry zone; people will want to be coming in. At some points the nonprofit sector may be more or less popular, but let’s assume that over the decade 9,000 leaders (the same amount that transitioned out) will transition into the sector. Though those transitioning out should certainly be added to the number of leaders we’ll need in general, there’s no certain deficit here. It’s the way the world turns.
2. We are entering an era of social responsibility and a desire to make a difference (or, enter: Generation Y)
- Will there be a smaller supply of people to fill the roles left vacant by several thousand baby-boomer retirees? Yes. A shorter supply of leaders, though? Probably not. Generation Y is itching to make a difference, and they have the (nontraditional) skills to do it. With the onset of a new generation and a different kind of leader, it seems natural that trends assumed by the article will change– and even if they don’t, we’re looking at a generation who prefers to work for the social good. Tierney dedicates a portion of his article to the projected difficulties of recruitment during the deficit, saying that organizations will need to spend more to compete with for-profit businesses to recruit the best and brightest. In today’s world, though, many of the best and brightest are already dedicating themselves to social change.
3. If the need won’t go away, then neither will the support (or, as long as there is cancer, we will be fighting it.)
- Entrepreneur magazine says “find a need and fill it” is the first basic step in building a successful company. It’s not a new idea. As long there’s a need– such as a need to fight cancer (1.4 million people die every year in North America) or a need to strengthen our education system (70% of eighth graders cannot read at grade level)– then there’s an opportunity to raise or make money to fill that need. Tierney describes the ultimate consequence of the deficit, “While the sector stumbles, the deepest suffering will be visited upon the millions of people who rely, directly and indirectly, on the services that nonprofits provide and the social value they create.” This is only true if our society is wholly unable to respond to the deficit in every sector. And even if this is so, some nonprofit missions simply will not be ignored in society. Nobody wants to stop fighting cancer.
Though there may be fewer leaders, they will evoke change if they are good ones. Weak nonprofits that are unable to find effective leaders will consolidate to strengthen heartier nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits will increasingly team up with businesses to get their word out– and if everyone knows that nonprofits are failing, then intersectoral partnerships will benefit both collaborators: there’s money for the nonprofit’s cause, and even greater corporate social responsibility attributed to businesses that strengthen them.
This is not to say that there won’t be a deficit at all. 18,000 leaders will be retiring out of leadership roles before 2016– but we must approach the problem with more than an eye to what nonprofits must do to cultivate new leaders. We must consider that this deficit will affect the way that the civic sector operates as a whole. If even the conservative findings of the Bridgespan Group’s study are true, then nonprofits will suffer. They will find ways, however, to evolve to operate most efficiently and they will shut their doors if they cannot survive due to mediocre leadership, which may decrease mission competition and ultimately strengthen society’s ability for social change.
Survival of the Kindest
January 6, 2010
Photo by lmnop88a
According to a recent article, there’s scientific reason to believe that human beings may have evolved from the inherently selfish beings of the past (think philosophies of Darwin and Hobbes), into inherently caring and compassionate beings. In fact, UC Berkeley psychologist, Dacher Keltner, pinpoints altruism as the precise reason why we are a successful species. The article even goes so far as to say:
This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin’s observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct”
Some of our great-grandparents could have actually said, “back when competition was the most basic human instinct…”
Here are a few of the many basic points from the article from Science Daily. Again, be sure to check it out for more in-depth information:
- Our brain secretes oxytocin (“the cuddle hormone”) which promotes social interaction and compassion. “The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene,” the article reads.
- In psychological games, studies have found that the more players gave to the “public good,” the more respect they received– and those who acted in their own self-interest during these studies were shunned.
- Parents raising socially conscious kids (by teaching gratitude and generosity), find their children become more resilient (there’s an echo of the survival of the fittest).
This is more than just good news for nice guys who are sick of finishing last (and probably haven’t been finishing last for a long while). If we are physically evolving into more caring beings, then our way of life is and has been evolving with us. I believe it’s hard to say how culturally different we would be if we were still producing low levels of oxytocin.
But these studies and the possibility that we are evolving to the benefit of the public good make me excited (if only for this moment) about our growth. Though perhaps a stretch, I like to believe that the inclination for social change will continue to thrive and mature with my children and grandchildren.
Decline of the MBA, Increase in Social Good?
January 5, 2010
In November, The Economist wrote an article predicting the decline of the MBA in 2010. It calls the MBA a mythical cupid attracting the nation’s best and brightest to a less than respectable academic discipline. “The decline of the MBA will cut off the supply of bullshit at its source,” the article reads.
The recession is pin-pointed as the catalyst for this change, as MBA graduates emerge with few opportunities and “nowhere exciting to go” for the second year running. After 2009, the banking rep is not all that it used to be– and five of the top ten best-performing American CEOs in 2009 didn’t have MBAs at all (including number one: Steve Jobs).
Harsh as these assessments may be, the decline of the MBA just makes sense. After all, the world continues to move. For about 20 years in American history, it was good to be a farmer. Then, it was good to work in the automotive industry. Then (and perhaps ending now), it was good to have an MBA. We’re all dreaming bigger, and even this progression outlines the American desire to climb the economic ladder.
So, I’ve been thinking: What if this decline is a good thing? What if it’s one of the best things for social change? I’m not a hater of the MBA. On the contrary, I’ve considered getting one and my own degree is in management. Nonetheless, here are five positive changes that may result as the status of the MBA declines:
.
1) We’ll need heightened creativity and community engagement in order to succeed.
We’ve learned that you don’t need an MBA to be successful in business. Our nation’s most successful entrepreneurs are known for thinking outside of the box, not for following a hierarchical system. If the MBA is no longer the passport to success, we’ll let our creative juices flow until the next thing arises. Great things could happen. But, as we watch Pepsi step back from fancy Super Bowl commericals in order to engage and support the community, and as the onset of the social media revolution has us building communities online, signs point to a possible continuing increase in community engagement.
.
2) There will be a re-vamp of the MBA program that may result in an emphasis in social good.
Business schools, like all schools, want to attract students in order to make money and continue growing their programs. If less people are becoming interested in an MBA, the programs will have to evolve in order to meet the changing needs of society (this is much like what is going on right now in museum studies graduate programs). MBA programs may incorporate more classes in law, policy, or social work– whatever it is that is trending and may make them successful. The result? More well-rounded (or perhaps more specialized) MBA candidates. The academic approach involved in the MBA will change– and if they follow current trends in corporate social responsibility and Gen Y’s desire to make a difference, these programs may focus increasingly on social good.
.
3) More left-brained thinkers will go into socially beneficial occupations.
As the Economist article states, there’s been a glamour associated with majoring in economics or business, and in obtaining an MBA. But with that glamour diminished, left-brained folks may not have such a clear path to success. In short, we may have more left-brained thinkers using their talents to cure cancer rather than trying to make Mr. Moneybags an extra couple thousand dollars on the trading floor (social vs. individual benefit). Also, we could really use more math and science teachers.
.
4) There will be attention given to other sectors.
Studies have shown that where Generation X dreamed of working for big businesses, members of Generation Y are flocking to Teach for America, the PeaceCorps, and jobs in the public sector. In fact, Generation Y is thought to distrust big businesses and they have been called a generation of civil servants. This fact, combined with the decrease in glamor associated with the MBA, may shift national focus to the many important jobs to be done in the public and nonprofit sectors.
.
5) A different bottom line may arise (or qualitative outputs will be more easily understood).
I’m not even going to hint that money doesn’t make the world go ’round in many ways but, if there’s an increasing focus on the public sector, there’ll be an increasing focus on program evaluation– and money may not be the most obvious bottom line for the average American. The public and private sector are struggling with regard to measuring social impact, and they are feeling the pressure to measure social benefit in some quantitative way. If there’s a shift toward social good, they’ll be more understanding of public and nonprofit sectors, and this public understanding will allow nonprofits to function more efficiently (it may be socially acceptable to pay nonprofit CEOs competitive salaries without high administration costs preventing them from obtaining grants). In short, the decline of the MBA will change the landscape of the private sector, and the landscape may become more leveled with public and nonprofit sectors. What we know of business– chasing money above all else and using it as the primary bottom line– may be challenged.
*Photo credits: Salvatore Vuono
Nonprofit Careerists are Brazen (or, Thanks for Naming Me Brazen Careerist’s Blogger of the Year 2009)
December 30, 2009
I was honored to be named Brazen Careerist’s Blogger of The Year last week after this post got me nominated with 49 incredible Gen Y bloggers, and after receiving several votes on twitter for this blog.
I am still beyond thrilled to be nominated with such (downright cool) thought-food providers. In fact, after seeing Brazen’s frequently-featured favorites on the nomination list (such as Rebecca Thorman and Grace Boyle), I smiled– felt proud that a nonprofit-focused careerist might have rolled with the best of them for a little while– and tweeted a request for votes with a feeling of satisfaction, but with rather low expectations. After all, this blog is only five months old and, unlike the other 49 bloggers on the list, I focus on nonprofit organizations and experiences within the civic sector.
Along these lines, the power of community and relationship building– two critical elements in nonprofit management– were reinforced through this experience for me. There’s no doubt that there’s increasing emphasis on engagement, creating connections, and civic responsibility within the private sector, that Gen Y is itching to make a difference, and that often the best solutions to social problems arise when we are sector agnostic. These are topics that frequently arise in this blog, and I’m thrilled that these areas of focus (engagement, relationship-building, and civic responsibility) are trending quickly enough to make this blog brazen and relevant to all careerists. Moreover, I’m excited that my own optimistic take on professional capabilities during the recession is what got me nominated!
Community and relationships were important in this Brazen Careerist contest because, in order to obtain this honor, my communities of friends and followers had to vote. I asked for support and I was absolutely blown away by the response. Pacific Science Center cast a vote my way, and even The University of Chicago Magazine asked alumni for support in my endeavor. I was touched by friends, acquaintances, and strangers alike. Mostly, though, after learning a bit about the folks behind the tweets, I learned that there are many incredible and talented folks reading this blog.
So, I’d like to introduce you to some of my stellar readers who help to keep me open-minded and thinking. These are the folks who voted for me through twitter (including those on both locked and unlocked accounts, and those who voted after the deadline). I know some of these folks personally and I know some of them virtually. There are also a good amount whom I have never met, but since the contest, I’ve looked up their blogs and gotten to know a little bit more about them as well. I’m thrilled to have such a talented group of supporters on twitter!
- AJ_Bingham- AJ’s blog was one of my favorites to win the contest.
- ajlovesya- Allison created the NMBA, and writes Entry Level Living.
- amandatice- Amanda is a model and talented video host.
- anthoniaa-As a freelance writer, Anthonia is a journalism pro.
- aschulner- Alaina is a creative and resourceful event manager and marketer.
- alicesastroinfo- I dare you to stump Alice with astronomy-related information.
- BrittinR- Brittin is a museum-lover and anthropologist.
- brylog- Bryan is a neuroscientist and photographer.
- bullery- Brooke knows more about math than anyone I know.
- burntbythesun- Louis provides incredible food-for-thought.
- Camille614- Camille is a Chicago-lover living in lovely Seattle (I’ve been there!)
- cathduncan- Cath is the talented blogger behind Mine Your Resources.
- ceysav- Ceyda bakes delicious cupcakes and takes lots of pictures!
- charlesdoss- Charles is a math and fun-loving PhD student.
- Chastidy- Chastidy is a downright adorable J.D. candidate at Depaul.
- claytonw- Clayton knows all the cool places to go in Seattle.
- dannyvo- Danny is the founder of Cooler Planet (Three cheers for solar panels!)
- davescrivener- Dave is an activist and VP of U of Toronto’s Students’ Union
- dmbosstone- Patrick is the author of The Definitive Dmbosstone.
- eclawson- Elizabeth writes Nonprofit Periscope, and is a member of the NMBA.
- ejenk- Evan is a PhD student in Math at The University of Chicago.
- emortiz- Elisa is a member of the NMBA, and author of Onward and Upward.
- ethitter- Erick is an engineer, turned accountant, turned blogger.
- fentonphenom- Keith just received his PhD in immunology two weeks ago!
- frenchashley- Ashley French is a graphic designer. Check out her blog.
- fsford- As a new J.D, Flemming is off to take on Chicago.
- Girldrive- Nona is the author of Girldrive, a book on redefining feminism.
- heatwolea- Anna works tirelessly as a production coordinator for Popsugar.
- HLundqvi- Hanna makes the best brisket I’ve ever tasted.
- iamshirley- Shirley is a copywriter and proofreader with super fun tweets.
- Indigo_Nights- Moving to LA? Follow Gayle. She’s an incredible resource.
- iseff- I have dragged Ian to 29 different museums in the last 24 months.
- J2XL- Jason is a software engineer at Amazon.
- jameselbaor- James founded KR Student Loans, and is member of NMBA.
- jancartier- Janice is an artist who has incredible use of color.
- JDilenschneider- Jack is one of two of the best brothers in the world.
- Jefferysmetz- Jeff is the CEO of Bloom Metz Consulting.
- JenniferHCT- Jenn is a J.D. candidate interested in white-collar crime.
- jjgm21- Jack is a musician who always makes me laugh.
- jlabove- Josh was one of the voices on The Magic School Bus.
- joebarnes- Joe has too much marketing experience to even summarize here.
- joyolivia- Joy is a visual communicator living around the Chicago area.
- Justineedge- Justine is a super-awesome graphic designer.
- kimsong11- Living in LA is one hundred times more fun when you know Kim.
- korenashley- MBA and corporate social responsibility interest? That’s Koren.
- lameisel- Laura’s a rockin’ listener and comparative literature expert.
- laurao- Laura is a Ning Marketing manager twittering the tweets.
- laurenabele- a member of the NMBA, Lauren has an MPA and a great blog.
- Lesliehow- Leslie is the author of Leslie Writes.
- libathena- Libby is a public policy grad student at The University of Chicago.
- lillianeliza- Lilly knows how to dance for a good cause.
- LisaReyes- Lisa is a human resources rockstar.
- lnuccio- Loretta makes me laugh.
- markallan44- Mark is a law student at USC, and knows all the best clubs in LA.
- Mattlcostello- Matt is a writer and musician in Holland, MI.
- mcodik- Maurice is a rockstar programmer at Amazon.
- meepsters- Justyna is a Polish beauty with great fashion sense.
- meatapeach- Melissa is witty and wonderful.
- meshandlace- Amanda is an arts educator and author of Battling Art Ennui.
- missciciag- Caroline is passionate about theaters and arts administration.
- mitchoyoshitaka- Mitcho is a PhD in linguistics at MIT.
- mjdarcy- Mick is a poet warlord masquerading as a grad student at Berkeley.
- Mjfreelance- MJWrites is a favorite blog, and Megan is a favorite museo.
- mparad- Michele has lived in Chicago, Paris, Prague, Zurich, London, and NYC.
- Mreynaga24- Maddy is interested in advocacy for women and children.
- NISH64- Nicki’s passionate about urban education.
- okaykellen- Kellen is an improv comedian who can make anyone laugh.
- opheliacat- Laura is a knowledgable museo who values the life of the mind.
- PacSci- Pacific Science Center inspires interest in science, math & technology.
- ptcatatlyst- Danny makes the best fried chicken I’ve ever eaten.
- raysunisawesome- Ray has been on Jeopardy, and he is awesome.
- reiffe- Brian has a great band called Social Capital.
- rmccarl- Ryan is the author of the education-focused blog, Wide Awake Minds.
- ruthieki- Ruthie is a middle school computer science teacher in Chicago.
- sarachung- Sara succeeds in everything she puts her mind to.
- sloney- Lauren is preparing for a new adventure in NYC!
- slupberger- Sarah is a program coordinator at the World Resources Institute.
- stanorchard- Stan inspired me to join twitter.
- taramira- Anita is an econ-educated social butterfly.
- telleni- Trina’s Nonprofit Blog is a favorite, and she’s a member of NMBA.
- tessbrandon- Tess saves the world, one piece of oceanographic data at a time.
- ValeDeOro- Valentina offers tips to living a sustainable lifestyle in Barcelona.
- waldmae- Elin is a marketing champ.
- wenmalloy- Wendy is a great mentor in the area of public relations.
- x03- Zoe is a Seattle-based artist.
- _john- John is deserving of that gift card from the Brazen Careerist contest!
Thanks again to everyone for voting for this blog in the contest. And for those who didn’t vote, thanks for reading! I’m looking forward to getting to know you all even better in 2010!
Nonprofiteers: Personal Branding Makes You Better At Your Job
December 17, 2009
Photo from brandyourselfmarketing.com
There are many benefits to personal branding and utilizing social media–of sharing your insights and telling your story for whatever reason, whether it be to market yourself as an ideal job candidate, to share your experiences, or even to snag a great date.
But nonprofit employees also know the importance of sharing insights and telling stories in nonprofit organizations. Desired outcomes of programs are not primarily monetary– and sometimes entirely intangible for that matter. Nonprofits often rely on personal stories to communicate their need, their potential, and their impact.
So why are nonprofits (known for being slow to pick up new technologies) dominating the social media scene in comparison to private companies? It’s because social media is about personal connections and telling stories… and well, that’s just our thing. Nonprofits like people who can get the story across with authenticity and honesty while making a connection– and a good personal brander can do just that. I have noticed that the young nonprofit millennial bloggers who have been most successful within the industry are sincere and passionate. They know that it’s important to brand themselves, and they are onto something: personal branding will help you be a better nonprofiteer.
.
- If you can create connections through your blog, then you can help people connect to those in need.
Just as personal branding enthusiasts aim to display how they can contribute to an organization or corporation, nonprofits are similarly trying to demonstrate their ability to contribute to social change. Beth Kanter outlines four ways in which social media is changing the nonprofit world, and they all strengthen organizations’ ability to create connections. There’s a shared drive in personal branding and nonprofit organizations: the desire to communicate your potential power to ignite positive change. In personal branding, you are sharing your own story, values, and goals– so that you can get hired. In nonprofit organizations, you need to be able to share the story of your organization, and their values and goals– so that they can get funding. Moreover, you’ll often have to share others’ stories to get your point across (the story of the needy family who was helped by the organization, or the story of the child whose life was saved because of your organization’s research). Making personal connections through storytelling is an important aspect in fundraising and communicating an organization’s impact. Those who are engaging in personal branding have an element of practice in telling stories and making connections. After all, these tips on how to write a story are equally relevant to personal branders and nonprofit employees, though they are written by fundraising123.org.
.
- If you are active in social media and joining networks, then you can expose many people to a cause.
Did you know that 60% of folks who set up twitter accounts fail to return the next month? It is incredible when you consider that the site creates siginifcant networking, info-sharing, and message-speading opportunites. If you’re one of those 60% who didn’t return to your account, then you should think about coming back– because just the sheer act of being involved in social media will make you a better nonprofiteer. According to The Herald News, 89% of charitable and nonprofit organizations are using some form of social media, and 57% reported activity in blogging. Network-increasing capabilities aside, it’s beneficial to know about twitter and other social media sites so that you can help guide your nonprofit organization– espeically if you’re a member of Generation Y. Companies and organizations are looking to these folks to be social media savvy. If you’re not, then you’re wasting an opportunity. The greatest reason to be involved on these sites is oviously that they increase the size of your network, and expose you to a lot of great thought leaders. The more people that you can reach, the more connections you can make to social causes. Also, people can help you spread your personal brand or social cause. If they are inspired by it, they just might pass it along.
.
- If you are authentic in your branding and communications, then you can retain supporters and summon potential donors
There is no doubt that it’s best to be an authentic blogger and personal brander. Copyblogger brings up a great point that authenticity is becoming (if it isn’t already) a buzzword in personal branding, and that it takes a good story and authenticity to have impact. The take away is simple here: be real. And I’ve found that many personal branding nonprofiteers are real; they display their struggles and concerns working within the industry. Allison Jones explores her rendezvous with nonprofit burn-out, and Elisa Ortiz candidly traces her roots in the nonprofit sector. The kind of authenticity and transparency displayed on these blogs serve well in making connections and building trust with readers. Similarly, trust and authenticity are also important in nonprofit organizations for a number of reasons. Many of the qualities that make a person a captivative blogger also make them good at connecting with other people– and that’s what nonprofits are about: making connections to inspire support for social change.
5 Unexpected Ways in Which Grad School Loans Are Changing My Lifestyle
December 13, 2009
In August, I summoned my life savings, took out a Stafford loan on top of them, and headed back to school to pursue a master’s degree in Public Administration at the University of Southern California. I was prepared for the basics of living on a serious budget: cooking more and eating out less, watching my spending, avoiding shopping centers… but my terror of forever paying off graduate school loans struck me even deeper than I expected.
As I’m reaching to end of my first semester in grad school, I’ve noticed significant (sometimes accidental) changes in my lifestyle that didn’t exist while I was working full-time. While it’s true that I’ve essentially transformed into a metro-riding, hulu-watching, caffeine-deprived vegan, I’m amazed by the overall value of these alterations and how much money I’ve already saved through these good-for-me changes.
1) I’m accidentally vegan.
I didn’t realize that I was essentially vegan until I went home for Thanksgiving. It makes sense, though, when you consider that tofu costs $1.69 and two chicken breasts cost $7.49 (Ian is also lactose-intolerant, which accounts for the lack of dairy). There’s also a lovely little Farmer’s Market in Los Feliz, so I just didn’t notice the lack of meat and the sudden abundance of fresh veggies in my diet.
Here’s why it’s not so bad:
- Younger women who regularly eat red meat face an increased risk for breast cancer.
- Each vegetarian saves more than 100 animals each year from abuse.
- According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are less likely to develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or high blood pressure.
- If everyone went vegan, there would be more than enough food to nourish the world’s entire population– as it is, we cannot make enough food.
Here’s what I’m saving (roughly): I simply swapped the price of tofu that I buy in a typical month per ounce ($0.14/ oz; $1.69/12 oz) with the price of chicken breasts per ounce ($0.31/oz; $4.99/lb).
- ADD: amount that would be spent on chicken per month if each ounce of tofu is swapped out for chicken: ($29.76 (0.31 x 16 oz = 29.76)).
- SUBTRACT: amount spent on tofu per month ($13.44 for 96 oz (96 oz/month; 2 packages of 12 oz/ week) $0.14x 96 oz = $13.44)).
- TOTAL: $195.84 per year ($16.32 per month)
.
2) I’m metro-savvy
It would be a blatant lie to say that it’s easy to live in this city without a car, but I live in a fairly walkable neighborhood, and I’ve grown to appreciate the bus commute. I get all of my work done, and often by the time I get home from class, I can spend the rest of the night enjoying myself. I’ll admit that one of the happiest days of my life will be when busses have wireless internet connections and airplane-style tray tables.
Here’s why it’s not so bad:
- This is prime grad school course reading time for me.
- Taking public transportation is safer than driving.
- Every additional 30 minutes a person spends in a car translates into a 3% greater chance of obesity; each kilometer walked per day brings a 4.8% reduction.
- Public transportation generates 95% less carbon monoxide than private vehicles.
Here’s what I’m saving (roughly): I used Ian’s spending as an outline for calculating this information.
- ADD: car payment ( $250/mo; $3,000/yr) + insurance ($1,000/yr) + gas ($250/mo; $1,440/yr) + parking in apartment building ($40/mo; $480/yr) + on-campus parking ($600/yr; $50/mo)= $6,520
- SUBTRACT: 9 month student bus pass ($324/yr) + 3 month regular bus pass ($228/yr)= $552
- TOTAL: $5,968 per year (which excludes initial cost of buying a car)
.
3) I gave up cable
The idea of losing HGTV and the Discovery Channel was painful at first (RIP, access to Mythbusters), but I think these savings are worth it. Ian created our new system for watching TV, and he did the math. Check out the link for more detailed information.
Here’s why it’s not so bad:
- Hulu allows me to continue to watch addictive shows.
- I watch much less television. In Seattle, I watched about an hour everyday to wind down after work. Now, I watch about one hour every week.
- When I do watch TV, they are shows that I’m turning on the television in order to see.
- I used to relax by watching TV. I now relax by cooking or reading.
Here’s what I’m saving (roughly):
- ADD: cost of cable. Installation charge ($50) + monthly costs of Netflix, Comcast Cable Internet and Comcast Cable ($1,380 per year; $115/month x 12) = $1,430 per year
- SUBTRACT: cost of current system. Antenna and cables ($72) + costs of Netflix and AT&T DSL Internet ($600/year; $50/month) = $672 per year
- TOTAL: $758 per year
.
4) I have a job that’s not on my resume
I work 10-12 hours each week at USC’s Roski School of Fine Arts as an assistant for the MFA program. It’s low stress and laid back. While the essence of the job is indeed in line with my interests in arts, culture, and education, there isn’t a great deal of leadership discretion required. This low-key job is not going to be on my resume or my LinkedIn profile, but it’s a nice way to meet new people and make some extra money.
Here’s why it’s not so bad:
- I’m introduced to different organizational cultures outside of my program in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development.
- I meet folks from an entirely different USC grad community, and I work for Rolling Stone’s 2005 “Hot Artist” of the year.
- I get to research current artists and art happenings, which allows me to feel connected to my background in art.
- I make money.
Here’s what I’m saving:
- ADD: I make a total of $3,000 for the 9 months that I am in school.
- TOTAL: $3,000 per year
.
5) I’m caffeine-free
This was obviously a conscious (and semi-painful) decision. It was a big part of the culture of Seattle to meet friends for coffee (in LA it’s more often meeting for drinks). I was also drinking a few-too-many Diet Cokes everyday. I got horrible headaches when I stopped drinking caffeine, but now I don’t miss it.
Here’s why it’s not so bad:
- Caffeine increases the body’s levels of cortisol, the “stress hormone” that can lead to weight gain, moodiness, heart disease and diabetes.
- I sleep better.
- It’s nice to be chemical-addiction free.
- I don’t need to drink anything to feel like myself in the morning.
Here’s what I’m saving:
- ADD: average amount spent on caffeinated beverages per month before I quit, according to my Wesabe.com account. ($487.20/ year; $40.60/ month)
- TOTAL: $487.20 per year
.
Projected savings resulting from these lifestyle changes: $10,427.04 per year
It adds up!
A Good Nonprofit Leader is Worth a Million Bucks
December 7, 2009
(or 5 reasons why you should care that Jeffrey Raikes doesn’t make 7 figures)
The debate over nonprofit CEO compensation seems a never-ending issue that has professionals weighing in on both sides of the argument. Some say that higher salaries promote and attract better leadership, while others argue that lower wages are appropriate as they allow more money to go back into the organization.
The unwavering example of a CEO with excessive compensation seems to be Jeffrey S. Raikes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who makes an annual salary of $990,000. Perhaps Raikes is the excessive-pay go-to example because he’s already sitting on a fortune from his past position as the president of the Business Software Division at Microsoft. Or perhaps it’s because the former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Patricia Q. Stonesifer, didn’t have a paycheck at all (and now serves as the Chairwoman of the Smithsonian Institution for no pay). Whatever the reason, I’d like to present– for argument’s sake– five reasons why nonprofit leaders should care that Jeffery Raikes is not making seven figures.
.
1. The Gates Foundation has given away more money than the annual GDP of the entire country of Jordan– and their CEO makes less than Heidi Montag from The Hills.
The Gates Foundation gives out 3 billion dollars a year, and has made 21.08 billion dollars in grant commitments since its inception in 1994. Just one of their programs– The Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunizations– has saved over three million lives since 2000. The foundation has an undeniable impact and it’s called the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world. But it has to give large sums of money; charitable foundations are required to give away at least 5% of their assets each year in order to maintain tax exemption. This amounts to an annual giving of 1.5 billion US dollars each year from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which sits on 34.17 billion dollars in asset trust endowment. In other words, the foundation gives away the entire annual GDP of Belize each year in an effort to improve global health. And just think, the gentleman in charge of all of this (after Bill and Melinda Gates, of course) makes $10,000 less each year than the average joe can win on a game show.
.
2. Jeffrey Raikes is a personal philanthropist.
Though Jeffrey Raikes is making $990,000 each year, he’s giving a good portion of it back to the community. He has started his own foundation (with over 113 million dollars in assets) that provides support to teens and adolescents. He is a trustee at the University of Nebraska Foundation, and he is the designer of the University of Nebraska- Lincoln Jeffery S. Raikes School of Computer Science and Management. And when I looked up Heidi Montag and philanthropy, I discovered that she once served food at a Rescue Mission. This is honorable and certainly a contribution to society, but much different in scope and scale than Raikes efforts. In short, not all folks making more an a million dollars each year give back in the same way, and Raikes uses his six-figure salary to give back in a meaningful way even though he doesn’t have to because his job is already about making a difference. It seems that, to Jeffrey Raikes, philanthropy is more than a job; it’s a way of life.
.
3. Raikes isn’t the highest paid nonprofit CEO (In fact, some are paid double his salary)
According to Charity Navigator’s 2009 Compensation Study, that title belongs to the President of the University of Delaware who earns 2.37 million dollars per year, followed by the president of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies who makes 2.03 million dollars per year. In fact, CEOs in education, health, human services, and arts & culture make more money than CEOs in public benefit nonprofits such as foundations, according to Charity Navigator. This information is important because it means that Raikes does not represent a symbolic ceiling on nonprofit CEO salary. Folks in the private sector can make billions of dollars and the sky is the limit, but the most that a professional in the nonprofit sector can make is 2.37 million. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a massive chunk of change– and most nonprofit professionals don’t enter the sector because they think that is where they’ll make the most income– but the fact that there is a ceiling is hardly a good reason to keep an effective leader earning under seven figures.
.
4. Culture says: orchestrating a touchdown pass > saving millions from disease (x 4).
I don’t mean to pick on my new Trojan family, but Pete Carroll, the head football coach at the University of Southern California (a private nonprofit) makes 4.4 million dollars each year (which means I’d have to be enrolled in my grad program for 110 years in order for my tuition to pay for one year of Coach Carroll’s salary). He is also making two million dollars more per year than any nonprofit CEO in the nation. In fact, his salary is four times larger than that of Jeffrey S. Raikes. There’s a cultural argument to be made here: football has its own set of rules in terms of what is considered competitive payment (need I remind readers of the recent buyout of Notre Dame’s Charlie Weis? Check out a bit of this letter from Notre Dame Professor, John O’Callaghan, for a peek at what this nonprofit-minded educator thinks of the buyout). Though this perspective has some cultural arguments against it, I think we should look at Raiker’s salary with this kind of information in mind.
.
5. Talent costs money (but if it doesn’t, then let’s not make CEO positions exclusive to those with private means).
“Talent costs money” is a popular warrant in business articles all over the internet, in all different sectors it seems. But Felix Salmon, in his article on the CEO’s salary, doubts that there’s a correlation between payment and talent, and thinks this is a silly excuse in the argument to pay Raikes seven figures. To pay nonprofit CEOs little money because of their sector (and the effort to preserve funding for programs) is one thing, but I think the folks at Philanthrocapitalism make a good point when they argue that being a CEO for a nonprofit should not be exclusive to those with private means. As lines between public, nonprofit, and private sectors become blurry, CEO payment may start to change. In the meantime, let’s look at the broader picture before we get too upset about the salary of the CEO of the Gates Foundation. There are greater battles to be fought, and the $990,000 salary that many folks see as a travesty could also be seen as rightful, hard-earned, and important in the evolution of nonprofits as a whole.
