OnlyUp: The Key to Change is in the Word “Social”
January 17, 2011
This morning, OnlyUp launched. It is an action-oriented, bimonthly journal about young adults in the nonprofit sector. The online journal seeks to engage the nonprofit sector in conversations related to social change leadership. The first issue features articles from bloggers and thought-leaders such as Allison Jones (one of four creators), Robert Egger, and Akhila Kolisetty and covers pressing topics in the sector. This post presents my first contribution to OnlyUp. You can view the article here.
If you’re a nonprofit professional, then you probably come across the word “social” at least five times today. Nonprofit blogs and literature are running wild with terms like “social change” and “social justice.” We’re giving the word the leading position in mash-ups with other buzzwords like “media,” “entrepreneurship,” and “capital.” Not to mention, we’re well aware of its match with “security” and “worker.” It even has connections to topics we cover in school like social studies and social psychology. But are all of these terms linked because they include the word “social”? Does social media, for instance, have anything to do with with social workers? I think it does.
It seems as though the words that we use with “social” are increasingly giving us not-so-subtle clues about key ways to bring about large-scale change in the upcoming decade. It’s as though we are providing our own cheat-sheet to bring about public good and possible solutions are coded within our own daily language.
The State of Now: an Era of Social. Our first clue that change-makers should pay attention to this word is apparent in the definition of the word “social” itself. “Social” means related to society or human relationships. It makes sense, then, that the word would come up frequently during this era of collaborative learning in which we are seeing an increase organic, horizontal workplace structures. Moreover, members of Generation Y (born roughly between 1975 and 2000) are thought to be one of the most social and collaborative generations of all time. These individuals are now making their way up the ladder and securing positions as nonprofit leaders. The generation is said to be team-oriented, and with the rise of instant communication technologies, they are easily and constantly connected to one another.
Barack Obama made a call to service in 2009 and, though often called the “Obama Generation,” Millennials weren’t the only ones who listened. Despite economic hardship, overall corporate giving increased in 2009. In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in corporate social responsibility and PricewaterCoopers claimed, after completing a recent report, that a social conscious is a core business value in today’s market. With things like the Pepsi Refresh Project, it’s clear that giving and supporting people is an increasingly important societal value. Science Daily even recently reported that we are evolving into a species built upon the notion of “survival of the kindest.”
What’s in a word? We are in an era in which people, collaboration, and caring for others really counts- and counts even more from one day to the next. Because “social” means related to people and society, it makes sense to look at the things we call “social” with an eye toward how they can help pursue social change. For instance, four seemingly unrelated “social” terms can inform nonprofit leaders of key ingredients for making a difference:
- Social entrepreneurship: Change will take leaders. A social entrepreneur is a person who recognizes a social problem and summons their ambition and business acumen to create, organize, and sustain a social venture to solve that problem. It’s no question that large-scale change will require several hundred social entrepreneurs (if not thousands). It takes a critical, forward thinking leader to be a social entrepreneur. This is a type of mindset that the sector will likely need to cultivate and empower in order to bring about change.
- Social media: Change will take collaboration. Social media is providing a basis for information-share and crowd sourcing that can help bring people together to solve complicated issues. This new way of communicating makes it easier to get in touch with people who share similar interests in promoting a cause.
- Social capital: Change will take people, connections, and compassion. Social capital is the network, spirit, attitude, and personal connections created through social interaction. We “build” social capital by interacting with and relating to people. There’s a connection here to empathy because we are more moved by a cause when it affects someone that we care about. In order for change to happen, we all have to care. And in order for us all to care, we need to be connected.
- Social psychology: Change will take an understanding of the people we serve, and the people we’re trying to motivate to contribute. Social Psychology aids us in understanding one another. If the goal of large-scale change is to help people, then we must understand these people’s needs and emotions in order to be effective. Moreover, we must understand those who similarly give and choose not to give to our cause. In the private sector, companies are always aware of their external economic climate. Nonprofit leaders must keep a finger on the pulse of the social climate as well.
Leaders navigating the nonprofit landscape looking for the buried treasure of social change need not feel discouraged. Our own language is providing us with possible keys to this treasure as society opens up to embrace a turn toward the social. As best practices grow even more powerful and efficient, nonprofit leaders will be armed with the connections, compassion, community, and communication tools to spread the word and support one another in achieving social change.
Recently, there’s been talk among nonprofit millennials about how personal branding might negatively influence the potential for an individual to be hired…. even though personal branding will make you better at your job. The idea is that nonprofit HR folks may note the strength of a candidate’s personal brand and take it as an indicator that a candidate may be more concerned with their own brand than the organization’s brand. Overlooking a candidate with a strong personal brand because you’re worried that they will care more about themselves than the company is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Some of that worry is practical. Members of Generation Y (a large portion of those with personal brands) don’t feel the same level of personal connectivity to their jobs as Baby Boomers and Traditionalists that came before them. In fact, members of Generation Y aren’t as likely to consider their organization of employment to be as integral an aspect of their personal identity, and Gen Y has different workplace motivators. Is that a bad thing for organizations? Maybe. But the world keeps moving and we are entering a future that is ruled by information, ideas, and an entrepreneurial mindset. A big part of that is keeping a fresh perspective.
1. Personal branding is indicative of an Institutional Manager– which is the kind you want to hire. In the popular Harvard Business Review article, Power is the Great Motivator, David McClelland and David H. Burnham identify three types of motivation: power, achievement, and affiliation. Arguably, of these three, candidates with a personal brand fall into the desire for achievement category (there are over 50 million blogs so power isn’t as direct, and personal branding doesn’t necessitate a need-to-please, especially since controversial posts often get the most traffic). The Institutional Manager is identified as the most effective organizational leader and is someone who is highly motivated by both power and achievement. On top of this, the authors found that for folks with balanced power and achievement motivation, then “stories about power tend to be altruistic.” This is more than an ideal manager; it’s the ideal nonprofit manager. This ideal leader is driven by achievement motivation; the same kind of motivation driving those with personal brands.
The opposite of the institutional manager is the personal-power manager. This is the kind of manager that people think they are weeding out if they cut out candidates with personal brands. These candidates are only motivated insofar as the organizational operations result in personal power. The personal-power manager has high power motivation like the institutional manager, but has low achievement motivation. Not only is personal branding indicative of an institutional manager because it necessitates achievement motivation, but it is directly at odds with literature on the personal-power manager.
2. Personal branders allow you to tap into a tribe. Speaking of power motivation, we nonprofiteers have that, too. According to popular blogger and author, Seth Godin, what we all want is to change things. Nonprofit employees, arguably more so than private sector employees, want to change things. Many of us believe strongly in large-scale change or we wouldn’t be working in the sector. What Seth Godin argues is that leaders spread ideas about change by leading tribes. Tribes are silos of interest and Godin argues that tribes will change the world; “It’s about leading and connecting people and ideas.” People with (good) personal brands and a message usually have a tribe– or a group of similarly interested folks who are interested in or agree with their message.
Especially for those interested in nonprofits, personal branding is often about connecting people in order to create change. When you hire a person with a personal brand, you’re signing on their tribe. Your organization will be a key part of their ideas and learning, and that person will share their lessons and passions for your organization– and likely its mission. As a slightly related side, word-of-mouth marketing is one of the most powerful kinds of marketing. Social media is a mecca for word-of-mouth marketing and if you’re signing on someone and your organization is becoming part of their personal brand, then they are recommending you to their tribe.
3. Personal branders are social-tech, brand, and community conscious– and you likely need these areas of expertise in your organization. People on social media are constantly connected to other people, and they often know what’s going on in an industry thanks to their networks. A successful personal brand utilizes social media. If you hire someone with a strong personal brand, then that candidate is likely knowledgable in at least three areas that are important in the business world right now: social technology, branding, and community.
- Social technology: This person knows how to utilize Facebook, Twitter, and other sites to spread a message– or at the very least they’ve had experience with spreading a message.
- Brand: If the candidate has built a strong brand on their own, then they’ve developed branding skills that can be utilized by your organization. There’s a lot to learn here: the proper amount of transparency, tone, and the way to think about brands in this era of the social media revolution. Hire someone who knows and you’ll save time on trial and error.
- Community: As mentioned above, a good personal brand is about building a strong community and getting the attention and respect from the right tribe. This person knows how to connect with other people through the Internet; a skill that will become increasingly desired.
While there may be a tendency to think that job candidates with personal brands may be personal-power managers, the tendency is often unfounded. This is not to say that there aren’t a few bad apples in the bunch, but if a person would be a personal-power manager, there are likely hints of this in their personal brand. Instead, it may be helpful to think of personal branding as a resume of the future; folks can often control their personal brand much like they write their own resume. Social media is already helping organizations hire employees more intelligently. Looking for candidates with personal brands that match your organization’s goals and mission may be a key indicator that the candidate has the characteristics your organization not only wants, but needs in order to survive.
And if you don’t have a personal brand, what are you waiting for?
41 Ways Museums Are Merging Social and Tech to Engage Audiences
October 18, 2010
In preparation for the IMLS webinar series- Connecting to Collections- I’ve been thinking about some of my favorite ways that museums are merging social and tech to engage audiences. Part of the series, Using Social Media to Tell Your Collection’s Stories, will take place from 2:00pm to 3:30 pm EDT on Thursday, October 28th, 2010. I’m pleased to be serving as commentator, and working with presenter Nancie Ravenel (@NancieRavenel) of the Shelburne Museum. This series is free and you can register here to learn more about how museums are utilizing social and technological elements of communication to engage audiences and stay ahead of the curve.
Technology is a powerful tool for cultivating community, and the merging of social and tech in museums is occurring more and more frequently. Here are my 41 favorite examples of museums building social capital through social media and technological endeavours.
Let’s start with some museums that are making the most of social media and online community engagement’s most powerful and basic building blocks:
1. Twitter. Are you following The Women’s Museum on Twitter yet (@TheWomensMuseum)? This is just one museum. There are over 871 museums on twitter.
2. Facebook. The California Science Center gets visitors involved by featuring a Fan Photo Of the Week on their Facebook page. Simple, yet effective.
3. YouTube. The Renaissance Society has its own YouTube Channel that allows folks to access gallery talks and events after they’ve happened. In fact, a lot of museums have YouTube channels.
4. Flickr. Which museums are using Flickr as a valuable photo sharing resource and a way to communicate with visitors? Here’s a taste.
5. Website. Have you noticed how many of the nation’s most visited museums feature social media information above the fold on their homepage?
6. Social Media Pages. The Art Institute of Chicago has a whole page devoted to social media and interactivity. So do many other museums, like the Smithsonian (well, they have many pages….)
7. Blogging. A crew of professional sailors teamed up with Pacific Science Center educators to sail Around the Americas. Good thing they’re so social; they used a blog to take us along for the ride.
8. Mobile Applications. The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis hosts Art on Call, which allows you to listen to tours on your cell phone. A lot of other museums offer this feature. MoMA was ahead of the curve when they created a mobile app for audio tours in 2008. They’ve recently revamped the app.
9. Foursquare. Become the Foursquare Mayor of the Vancouver Police Museum, and you and a guest receive free admission AND a 25% discount in the gift shop.
10. Virtual Conferences. The American Association for State and Local History made their annual conference accessible to folks who could not get to Oklahoma City this September by putting some of their best (in my humble opinion) conferences online in an interactive format.
Museums are taking interaction even further and building upon Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, mobile applications and web-based platforms. Check out these initiatives, competitions, and downright cool ideas (in no particular order):
11. Looking for a short-cut to becoming a museum-displayed photographer? The Denver Art Museum gives community members prime gallery realty by featuring a Flickr Cascade Installation that displays photos of the museum taken by Flickr users. Even cooler? They give proper attribution to each photographer.
12. Mixing social and tech isn’t just for older folks. The Walters Art Museum gets families talking by highlighting an interactive game featuring their lovable mascot: Waltee’s Quest: The Case of the Lost Art.
13. Please just visit the Adobe Museum of Digital Media. No need to take off your PJs or put your shoes on.
14. This list would be silly if it didn’t include the Museum of Science and Industry’s Month at the Museum. Out of 1,500 applicants, Kate has been chosen by project judges and the public to spend a full month living in the museum.
15. Now this is super sneaky. Three cheers to the International Spy Museum for creating themed geocaching adventures with a fun twist.
16. The Contemporary Jewish Museum melds art, technology, and Judaism through their new LINK initiative which bringing in monthly speakers to explore the intersection of Judaism and new technologies. I love this post about Jaron Lanier’s talk.
17. I could go on forever about how the rock stars at the Brooklyn Museum engage audiences through social media. But I’ll just give you this example. Oh! And 1stFans must be included. Okay. Done.
18. Combining Twitter and Flickr to engage visitors in science education? It’s no problem for the Museum of Life and Science in North Carolina. They created NameThatZoom- an interactive game moderated by the museum in which folks are shown flickr photos and challenged to identify those photo via twitter using the #namethatzoom hashtag.
19. Remember playing capture the flag as a kid? Try playing it as an alternate reality game at… (are you ready?)… The Smithsonian American Art Museum.
20. Meet SCREENtxt, a real-time live text messaging and photo streaming location-based social network created by The Mattress Factory and updated/created by museum visitors. Get confused there? Their blog helps explain. Oh, and I cannot forget The Mattress Factory’s iConfess!
21. Did you know that on September 1, 2010 over 340 museums took part in Ask a Curator Day on twitter and #askacurator became a trending topic?
22. If you’re a tech tinkerer, you can’t really beat tinkering at the Maker Faire in Detroit at The Henry Ford- the birthplace and showplace of one of the world’s most famous tinkerers.
23. Like to babble about art (or rather, babble about cool videos about art)? A lot of us do. And we do that on ArtBabble, thanks to these museums.
24. The planned hijack of LACMA’s twitter account by The Office star, Rainn Wilson, could easily have been called “Operation: Who’s stuffy? Not This Art Museum.”
25. When art museum directors at the Indianapolis Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art talk trash regarding the Superbowl, everybody wins.
26. The Skirball Cultural Center’s lovely Build a Better World Project encourages you to share how you are making the world a better place via Facebook, and hopes you’ll pass the message along using small decorated tokens as powerful community symbols.
27. The Smithsonian National Museum of American History tapped into talent by conducting a YouTube competition (O Say Can You Sing) featuring folks signing the National Anthem. The winner (out of over 800 entries) got to sing the anthem at the museum and at the Baltimore Orioles vs. Atlanta Braves game on Flag Day. Check out the winners contest entry below:
28. Want to see something cool? Try making The Getty’s Augsburg Display Cabinet and experience augmented reality at it’s best. As it is, this project may be high on the tech and low on the social aspect. But trust me, you’ll want to show a friend.
29. If it weren’t for twitter and YouTube, so many folks wouldn’t know about “Those About to Die, We Salute You,” the downright awesome staged battle featuring warriors represented by The Queens Museum of Art (the hosts), Brooklyn Museum, The Bronx Museum, and El Museo del Barrio.
An image from the battle. Click for more photos and video.
30. This is the public wiki for the Smithsonian’s Web and New Media strategy process. Prepare to learn.
31. Folks at The Autry created Trading Post, a site to facilitate conversation between the museum and its visitors regarding current events.
32. One of the most powerful and important jobs of museums is storytelling. Please check out Culture Shock, a site full of digital stories by people in the North East of England.
AMNH's new application allows you to share museum findings on social media.
33. The Australian Center for the Moving Image has created Generator, a “creative studio space for teachers and students to explore exemplary work by their peers and industry professionals. Comment, tag, and share creative work and education resources.”
34. The Auckland Museum’s Hybridiser is an interactive kiosk where visitors can create their own orchards and then share them with folks in their social networks.
35. The American Museum of Natural History’s new mobile application, Explorer, has many highlights. My favorite? It allows you to easily share finds in the museum with your own networks on Facebook or Twitter.
36. Open Museum is like “Facebook meets Blogger and Flickr for the visual arts.”
37. Could you inspire America in six words or less? The National Constitution Center asked folks to aid Barack Obama in their project, Address America.
38. We’ve covered that there are over 871 museums on twitter… but I don’t think I mentioned that museum artifacts are hitting the social media space, too– and making folks laugh in the process.
39. Follow treasure maps, decipher codes, uncover hidden objects- The Smithsonian American Art Museum’s multimedia scavenger hunt, Ghosts of a Chance, is downright cool.
40. The Guggenheim says YouTube videos may be art. In fact, they took the time to go through 23,000 video submissions to create a short list of videos to be featured in the museum.
41. The Virtual Museum of Canada allows visitors to create their own museum and point members of their online networks to the collection.
Do you know of a cool way that a museum is merging social and tech that you think belongs on this list? Please feel free to comment with additions below. Please feel free to provide links!
* Photo credits: Top image from www.ieplexus.com/blog/
Why It’s Smart to Listen to Your Gen Y Employees’ Overshare
September 2, 2010
If Mattel were employing millennials, Barbie might still be in charge
It’s no surprise that members of Generation Y can cause annoyance in the workplace when their behavior is at-odds with the established norm. However, this doesn’t mean that it’s wise to brush these young employees aside. In fact, in between Gen Y’s disregard for hierarchy and tendency toward overshare lies information that could make or break your company.
A strategic inflection point is a point of massive change for a company. “Sooner or later,” Andrew S. Groves- author of Only the Paranoid Survive- says, “something fundamental in your business world will change.” It happens when the old way of doing things suddenly shifts to the new. It sounds simple, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it can put big companies (like Blockbuster) out of business, and threaten many others (like Intel). These types of large-scale changes render environmental scanning systems (put in place to help predict environmental trends) useless.
Why strategic inflection points and blind spots are important: MGA Entertainment created their line of Bratz dolls after noting a trend: young girls wanted dolls that looked more like their hip, older sisters. Mattel’s Barbie doll lost a full fifth of her realm almost immediately because Mattel didn’t catch on quickly enough. And Mattel didn’t even see it coming. Bill Gates even holds “Think Weeks” at Microsoft where employees take time to focus on the bigger issues facing the company. The hope is to uncover developing trends that will catch Microsoft off-guard.
Perhaps the Titanic wouldn’t currently be at the bottom of the sea had those in charge of the ship realized they were at a strategic inflection point, argues Brian Huffman, an associate professor of management at the University of Wisconsin- River Falls. “The Titanic’s fate seems less unlikely when one considers that the most experienced of the vessel’s officers had begun their careers when commercial ships were made of wood and powered by wind and sail.”
But you shouldn’t just pay attention to Gen Y because they aren’t “old fashioned.” You should pay attention because, Huffman and Groves argue, CEOs are nearly always the last to see these big changes coming; the little guys see it first. In fact, the higher you are in the organization’s management, the less likely you are to catch onto environment-changing trends. Reasons for this include blissful ignorance, an unwillingness for folks to tell you, and “inevitably incomplete and distorted data” which reaches upper management. The biggest reason is quite simply that these managers just don’t consider that these kinds of game-changers could arise. The key, Huffman argues, is to include lower level managers in important conversations regarding periphery, as they are often the first to catch onto these kinds of environmental trends.
Is Gen Y making “mistakes” or providing information that could save your company? Andrew McAfee recently wrote a Harvard Business Review blog post in which he calls to attention two common mistakes of millennials at work. The first is Gen Y’s tendency to overshare. The second is acting “as if all employees are equals, and equally interested in airing the truth.” But really, the biggest mistake would be to rid Generation Y of these characteristics.
In fact, Gen Y probably could have saved Mattel’s market share by performing the exact same “mistakes” that McAfee discusses (had they been in the workforce between 2001-2004). They would be talking about trends openly, and they wouldn’t have been afraid to tell the big guys. It’s also in the spirit of spreading ideas despite hierarchical constraints and encouraging potential overshare that Gates holds true to his “Think Weeks” that help keep Microsoft moving.
If your organization is the Titanic and you have a few millennials on board, your much less likely to sink. That is, if you take a moment to listen to some of what we say in between comments on what we’re having for dinner and our superpower of choice…
The Organization May Have Zilch, But You Won’t
July 12, 2010
Nonprofit employees have the most honed leadership characteristics.
Does that sound silly? I’ll admit I am biased– not because I am a nonprofiteer or graduate student in Public Administration but because nonprofit management trends are on the rise and I am entrepreneurial (which, they say, comes with the Gen Y territory). Entrepreneurial traits such as vision, adaptability, flexibility, and a willingness to do some bootstrapping (thanks, Guy Kawasaki) are necessities when you work in a nonprofit organization that has limited monetary resources.
When an organization has limited funds, employees must rise to the occasion and they do. For example, according to a recent study, small nonprofit organizations are outperforming larger organizations online. These organizations with “zilch” saw an increase in online giving, had greater e-mail click-through rates than richer organizations, and generally had greater ROI from online outreach. These organizations are truly doing more with less.
A small organization with limited funds has the ability to have open communication among employees and a horizontal structure. The professional benefits don’t stop there: working for an organization that is doing more with less allows you to build doing-more-with-less into your professional mindset. And wiring yourself to think this way makes you a better leader. Here’s why:
When you’re on a small team, you get to wear a lot of hats. Whether this is exhausting or invigorating depends on your outlook. The required diversification for your skill set, however, is likely to be extremely beneficial in the long-run. In organizations with limited funds, it’s not unlikely to have a marketer who writes grants and has experience in program delivery. This person, regardless of formal title, is a marketer, fundraiser, and program coordinator in one. In this single position, the employee gets a chance to experience nonprofit management and exert leadership in several different roles. This person sees more than just one corner of the office, and developing and exercising these multiple skill sets- though famously contributing to nonprofit burnout- may provide a greater long-term advantage to nonprofit employees than the short-term disadvantage.
When the organization has zilch, everyone gets to bring their individual strengths to the table and you get to pick your area in which to shine. This makes shining much easier. Love shooting footage on your flip camera? Go make some videos for your organization (I pieced together these ones). When I worked at Pacific Science Center in Seattle, we saved thousands of dollars on our large-scale public events by summoning talent of internal staff members who were talented face-painters, astronomers, magicians, food composters, marine experts, or scholars on the physics of bubbles– and they were as excited to show off their talents as we were thrilled to show them off.
Flexibility and agility are often built-in to the culture by necessity, which facilitates constant ambushes of creative thinking and innovative ideas– and creative thinking is thought to be the most important leadership characteristic of the next five years. In order to do more with less, you need to come up with ideas of how to do more with less. One of the coolest parts of my work at a small nonprofit is sitting down with the CEO and hashing out ideas. Things come up when you work for a small organization that cannot be foreseen: graduate students ask to write a PR plan for you for class, employees stumble upon great new grants that are due next week, community partnerships develop and new events and opportunities arise. When your organization is this flexible, there’s room to be creative, and opportunity is always at your fingertips.
Resourcefulness is a high-demand attribute in both the nonprofit and for-profit world. Though the constant growth and energy often required to work in nonprofits with limited funds may lead to infamous nonprofit burnout, the benefits of this kind of work far outweigh the negatives. The lessons you learn working for an organization that is consistently doing more with less have the potential to pay off over and over again as you continue to lead organizations in the future.
This post is created in conjunction with other members of the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance. Our posts this week (all with “Zilch” in the title), explore perspectives on how nonprofits can do more with less. Check out other members’ posts and get in on twitter conversations regarding these posts by using the hashtag #NMBA.
5 Reasons Why I Chose to Pursue an MPA over an MBA
May 17, 2010
USC's 2009-2010 Officers of the Graduate Policy and Administration Committee with Associate Dean, Carol Rush
MPAs and MBAs have a lot in common: they are both professional degrees that provide management training by way of economics, policy, statistics, and finance. What made me pick an MPA (Master of Public Administration) over an MBA (Master of Business Administration), you might ask? The MBA is surely a beaten path with many, well known benefits…but considering my interest and passion for museums and nonprofits, an MBA just wasn’t for me. I liked the idea of a professional degree, but an MBA overlooked the defining features in my field of interest. Here’s why I decided to pursue an MPA over an MBA:
1) Museums and nonprofits have harder-to-measure outcomes
A defining characteristic of the nonprofit and public sectors is unmeasurable outcomes because the point of most nonprofits is to fulfill a social mission (nonprofit organizations cannot distribute profits). A powerful business is one that can make the most money (measurable). A powerful nonprofit is one that helps more people, most effectively (not-so-measurable). This does not mean that impact assessments are not critical in the nonprofit world and that they are strongest when they include quantitative data. However, to get an MBA would mean overlooking an opportunity to really think about solving problems of nonprofit outcome measurement and would mean focusing heavily on a monetary bottom-line, which is just not a characteristic of the sector. The MPA focuses on social missions while also emphasizing the skills required to obtain funding for an organization, which is much more relevant to my continuing work with nonprofit organizations.
2) It’s a problem-solving degree- ideal for an evolving sector
If MBA programs study the market, then MPAs try to solve market failures– and there’s an obvious difference between studying and solving. In the former, it’s been figured out, you’re just learning how to do it. In the latter, there’s a large-scale problem to be solved. MBAs are hired to make an individual company more profitable and there are books on this (lots of them!) with clear rules (“buy low, sell high,” “always be closing”). In contrast, MPAs are hired to take action to lead their organizations in making the world a better place… and our literature is not nearly as abundant and the tone is less certain. Our academic journals are filled with what’s happening right now or what’s happened in the past. This is ideal for the nonprofit sector because need and the way people communicate and connect (securing funding, donors, etc) is always evolving. There is certainly no better degree in this case, it’s just based on your goals and interests. Considering my interests, an MPA was the way to go.
3) My utility function includes public service
This is not to say that my utility function– and those of my MPA peers– doesn’t include income at all (or that the utility function of MBA grads never includes public service), but it is to say that public service drives my behavior more than money, and most likely drives the behavior of my classmates as well. It shouldn’t be surprising that nonprofit CEOs don’t make as much money as for-profit CEOs. On top of that, nonprofits are often understaffed and leaders may suffer from serious burnout. So why would us MPAs put ourselves through that? Because we want to make a difference. For some of us (and I’ll blame my background at The University of Chicago for the sincerity of this statement), we want to solve big problems and aren’t afraid of hard things. Some people might hate to look back and say, “I wish I made more money.” I respect that– and to each, his own. But for me, the most heartbreaking thing that I can imagine saying is, “I wish I made a difference for someone,” or “I wish I spent my life doing something I deeply cared about.” The MPA degree helps me build the skills to accomplish the things that I care about.
4) MPAs want to change the world… but we’re not impractical about it
I spend every day with folks who are determined to change the world. Are we starry-eyed and optimistic? Maybe. Too impractical to be effective? Definitely not. These professionals come from top tier institutions, much like the professionals that enter top MBA programs. Moreover, as an MPA, our speakers, mentors, and professors are professionals in policy and the nonprofit sector– rather than bankers and for-profit professionals. If I were to have pursued an MBA, our speakers and mentors would be those who best understand investment banking recruiting and achieving measurable outcomes– which would be much less relevant to me and my interests. Instead, I am surrounded by future foundation CEOs, grant writers, program producers, and nonprofit directors. A frequent happy hour topic for us: how not warm-and-fuzzy it is to work tirelessly for a mission.
5) The future: society’s priorities are placing higher importance on social good.
Signs are pointing toward the need for corporate environments to take on social missions– or at least some corporate social responsibility. Does this mean we might see some MPAs in corporate environments changing up the system in the near future? Perhaps. Consider this: Generation Y, the incoming professional leaders, are said to run on public service motivation. Unlike Generation X, these folks would much rather work for the government than a corporate giant. They want to give back to communities. Moreover, customers are more likely to consume goods that align themselves with some sort of social mission– and communication, transparency, and connection (nonprofit focuses) are beginning to lead corporate environments. In sum, the days of caring primarily about income and individual companies may be coming to a close. In fact, that’s what The Economist predicted for 2010 when they discussed the oncoming decline of the MBA.
When young nonprofit and museum professionals spout their desire to get an MBA because that’s what they think they “should” do, I cringe. There are many incredible reasons to get an MBA and great reasons to get an MPA as well; but I think it’s the responsibility of professional-degree-advocates to know why they are choosing one degree over the other.
Photo credit to agentgenius.com
More and more for-profit companies are beginning to function like nonprofits– and perhaps for good reason. It seems that nonprofits are becoming less like slow-to-pick-up organizations, and a little bit more like the sector that’s onto the trends.
There’s a lot of talk about how nonprofits gain by functioning more like businesses. Among other things, nonprofits must keep up with the innovation taking place in the for-profit sector, or nonprofits will be weeded out by for-profit competition. But nonprofits are not the only ones looking to other sectors for inspiration. In fact, nonprofits have a few things going for them right now that for-profit companies seem to really want:
1. Competition
Companies will need social missions to attract the next generation of customers. In fact, according to a USA Today article, 69% of Gen Yers consider a company’s social commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially responsible– and that’s just attracting customers! Companies will need to step it up a notch if they want to hire new MBAs and MPAs (whom are increasingly socially conscious, by the way). The next generation is civic-minded and cautious in regard to where and how they spend their time. And on top of all this, the human race as a whole is evolving into beings that value kindness.
Companies are already publicly rising to the occasion and deep-rooting their identities in crowdsourced cause marketing. The Pepsi Refresh Project, American Express Members Project, Google Project 10^100, Chase Community Giving, and Target’s Bullseye Gives may be just the tip of the big-companies-crowdsourcing-for-social-good iceberg. Not only are these companies recognizing their need to “do good,” but they are making it a part of their social identity by fostering communication and asking communities to participate in choosing where their money goes. Recently, this has helped for-profits build up legitimacy in yet another area where nonprofits (as opposed to for-profits) are known to shine…
2. Communication-
Nonprofits are said to be kicking private sector booty in building relationships through social media. They have quickly taken up this way of telling stories and spreading social missions. Sure, social media has its serious pluses for nonprofit organizations: it’s generally affordable, it can be done by a volunteer, and site visits and bit.ly clicks are measurable (an often-rare quality for activities taken up by nonprofit organizations). But most of all, social media is a hit for nonprofits because the ability to connect, ignite excitement or empathy, and create and maintain strong interpersonal connections has always been an element of survival for nonprofits– both on the administrative end and in the front lines. The community engagement– as well as individual connections– that nonprofits are often able to summon is an object of desire for private companies in the evolving world. The days of putting a product into the world with an overarching one-way message are coming to an end. During this time, companies will need to steal and ingrain the nonprofit practice of building meaningful connections in order to thrive.
3. Costs-
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is credited for saying, “I think frugality drives innovation, just like other constraints do. One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.” This could have come out of the mouth of any nonprofit CEO out there. Granted, the for-profit sector has an arguably greater ability to take risks than nonprofit organizations, which have several stakeholders and constraints beyond the budget. Bill Gates proved that scrappiness and frugality were the way to go back in 1976 when he created Microsoft. In fact, Guy Kawasaki dedicates an entire chapter in his book, The Art of The Start, to bootstrapping. In the current economic climate, there’s a need for businesses to reevaluate spending. In this case, it is less that businesses want to be more like nonprofit organizations– they have to be.
Nonprofits are not often thought to be business trend-setters. Perhaps that’s why the nonprofit sector– as a whole– don’t seem to take the time to pat themselves on the back. Right now, nonprofits are onto something. Social missions are in. Personal connections are in. Even endearing scrappiness is in. Instead of looking longing at the for-profit sector’s freedom and financials when it comes time to allocate resources or cut already-decreased spending in nonprofit organizations, we should take a moment to focus on the sector’s incredible strengths. Nonprofits, it turns out, are teaching private companies a thing or two about how to connect to communities and champion a good cause.
I owe a thank you to Dr. Peter Robertson, a professor of organizational behavior within USC’s School of Policy, Planning, and Development, for raising an eyebrow and saying, “I think in the future businesses will function as nonprofits,” when I spoke nonchalantly about nonprofit evolution to private sector practices during a recent meeting.
The Nonprofit Manifesto for Generation Y Leaders
March 23, 2010
Attributes of Generation Y will shape the nonprofit sector as oldest members of the generation turn 30 and take up more powerful positions in organizations. Just for fun, I’ve combined some of my generation’s stereotypical characteristics to create a little manifesto for generation Y nonprofit leaders. I present (trumpets, please):
1. Thou shalt question perceived sector constraints and manage according to what is best for my organization
I will manage my organization with an eye for each unique situation, and I will not back down when perceived sector constraints stand in the way of progress in achieving a social mission. I will channel the entrepreneurial spirit of my generation and nontraditional leadership skills in order to come up with creative solutions. I will consider accepting high administrative costs if it will bring me better leaders and that is what I need. I will produce products and sell them to support a mission. I will employ business best practices suitable for my situation. Above all, I will ask, “Why not?”
2. Thou shalt manage with professionalism but understand the importance of soft skills
I will lead with compassion, kindness, professionalism and a strong sense of morality. I will not let my feelings jeopardize what is best for the organization or let things slide for employees just because it is a nonprofit organization. I understand the growing importance of soft skills. I will combine hard and soft skills to cultivate a culture of both compassion and professionalism.
3. We shall remain the sector of interpersonal relationships under my watch
I will share my organization’s mission and the captivating stories of the communities I serve. I am civic-minded and social, and will create and develop personal relationships with individuals who share the desire to improve these communities. I will be driven, passionate, imaginative, hopeful, and ambitious within reason. My demonstration of this sincerity will contribute to the fire of the sector as a whole.
4. Thou shalt realize that I do not own social change
My generation understands that what matters is getting the job done in achieving a social mission. My organization and even the nonprofit sector itself does not own social change. When I do contribute to change, I understand that often credit belongs not only to myself, but to employees, donors, volunteers, corporations, and often entire communities. Often, the private and public sector are just as capable of serving social missions as the nonprofit sector, and can effectively evoke positive change. For me and my generation, making a difference is important, regardless of sector.
5. I am not better than anyone else because I am motivated by public service.
I derive utility by helping others. I understand that some individuals do not share the same primary motivation, and I respect this. Many individuals working in the private sector do, indeed, want to help others, and they will become some of my organization’s most valuable donors and terrific friends.
6. Thou shalt always be brainstorming
I will be constantly thinking of ways to make my organization more efficient and brainstorming innovative ideas. I understand that brainstorming may produce many unwise ideas that I shall not act upon, but great possibilities arise from brainstorming as well. I will read blogs, utilize the internet, and engage my networks in coming up with creative solutions to problems facing my nonprofit organization. I will utilize my spirit of collaboration to work with others to come up with new ideas.
7. Thou shalt expect employees to take time to rest
The nonprofit sector is strongly associated with burnout, but I will change this because I understand the importance of work-life balance. Giving employees adequate rest, reward, and relaxation will make them happier and clear their minds so that they may produce higher quality ideas. Allocating time for my personal life makes me a better, happier leader and I understand and expect that employees need this time as well. I will be sensitive to burnout.
8. Thou shalt bring an understanding of social media to the table
I am part of the first generation raised with computers, and I understand the importance of generally keeping up with technological advances. Social media and online marketing skills are of growing importance in nonprofit organizations in this day and age. Staff and board members can generally look to me for guidance in understanding social media.
9. Thou shalt seek mentors in every organization
I believe that older employees have valuable wisdom to share, and I will actively seek their guidance. Especially in nonprofit organizations, I count on older employees to pass along the culture and unspoken ideals upon which the organization was founded. I respect this culture, and I will handle it with care– even if it must be transformed for the good of the organization. I believe that there is much to be learned from older employees and I am appreciative of their mentorship.
10. Thou shalt understand that the world is always changing and that sector practices must evolve according to those changes.
I understand that working in the nonprofit sector is not easy. There will be ups and downs in every organization and throughout the sector. Some predict that we will face a severe 2016 leadership deficit. Others predict that increasing CEO salaries will bring better leaders to the sector. Whatever the future brings, I will summon my talents to tackle problems facing not only my organization, but the sector as a whole.
Do you agree, disagree, have points to add, or just want to give your seal of approval? Please share in the comment section!
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.
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
I work with zoos, aquariums, and museums in the realm of audience engagement using social technology. I specialize in creative community involvement, new media, nonprofit sector evolution, and the role of Generation Y in the workplace. Learn more about me 
