“One day, going on Facebook will be synonymous with going on the Internet.”
“In the future, there will be far fewer middle managers.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if, someday soon, every brand on the market will be tied to a nonprofit or a social cause.”
I don’t think these are futurist claims. It seems to be that what we think of as likely happening in the near future is actually happening right now. Often, it has already happened.
It’s possible that going on the Internet will be synonymous with going on Facebook, but in many ways, that’s the case right now. There are already fewer middle managers in the workplace than there have been in recent years, and corporate social responsibility has been called a new, necessary value for corporate survival. There are a lot of seemingly confident predictions that we make everyday in nonprofit organizations. Usually, these casual comments aren’t just predictions that we share conversationally with coworkers, but important perceptions and clues to strategic organizational evolution. Casual comments about the future are key to organizational periphery because adapting to ‘the future’ as if it were right now is likely to keep cultural nonprofits relevant and better able to adapt to change.
Here are six societal changes that have already started happening in a big way:
1. Nonprofit, for-profit, or individual: only the kind survive. Evolutionary biologists (from Science Daily and other places, too) predict that kindness may trump fitness in the next leg of human evolution. We’re seeing clues of this already. Much of the youngest generation entering the workforce is looking to be hired by nonprofits and public sector entities (though that doesn’t mean they don’t hope to change a few things). More than ever before, folks want to be doing meaningful work. When unemployment went up even early in the recession, so did volunteer rates. When people lost jobs and were unable to volunteer money, they volunteered their time to helping others instead. We are becoming nicer, and we are placing increased value on organizations that are nice. In 2009, Time Magazine called the change in societal and consumer behavior a Responsibility Revolution. According to Towers Watson, being socially responsible is no longer an option for private companies. It’s required for organizational survival. In sum, we’re all high on feel-good oxytocin and we feel it and spread it when we’re nice.
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Champion your mission- Work your cause!
- Help yourself while helping others- Team up with other nonprofits and social causes.
- Make it easy for people to show publicly that they support you- You look good and so do your passionate supporters.
2. Online and virtual communication has changed how we operate. Speaking of oxytocin, we also release it when we use social media and it contributes to feelings of trust and security. Perhaps this is why virtual relationships feel “real”… because, according to our brains, they really are real. There are 600 billion people on Facebook, and all that friending, sharing, and liking has already had effects on what we value. Namely, transparency has been a transformational force in the global economy. Because everything is online and in the open, we want nothing to be hidden. Combining the movement toward positive public good described above and transparency born from the Web has yielded radical transparency. Now we need see-through CEOs. Information share, information access, creating connections, building relationships, learning new skills… It’s all already moved online.
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Update your public relations plan. Value-alignment is more important than making sure everyone says the same exact words during a PR crises.
- GET ONLINE. – And experiment with social technology.
- Be real. Be sincere, identify yourself and your relationship to the organization, and speak conversationally.
- Don’t be defensive. People will wonder what you are hiding.
3. Content is king. And his reign is stronger than ever before. Speaking of wanting everything to be in the open, Information rules. In fact, every two days we create as much information as we did from the dawn of man until 2003. This is in large part thanks to the web, but don’t be quick to think that’s we’re robots spouting crazy facts like those people in the Bing commercials. Studies have found that people who really need information seek it from other people- especially people they already know. (Re) enter: Facebook. It’s not just a platform for personal connections, but for sharing ideas, gathering information, and a mecca for word-of-mouth marketing. This means that social media is great news for organizations. It builds connections while building on a museum’s mission to educate by sharing information- and making it easy for other people to share that information, too.
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Know your stuff- If you have information to share (more than something to sell), then you have value.
- Share your stuff- Make your organization accessible and share your information.
- Become a hub- You don’t need to know all of the answers. If you’re unsure of one, point your fan or follower to someone who would know the answer. They’ll remember.
4. Employees of an organization work with one another, not for one another. The idea behind flat organizations is that removing intervening middle-managers empowers employees, allowing them to play an active role in the decision-making process, creating organizational buy-in, improving morale, and therefore strengthening the entire organization. Flat organizations move more quickly than hierarchical organizations and have several other structural benefits. These organizations are gaining attention. This is how modern businesses run themselves now: with an eye toward employee empowerment. This is in large part due to the web and the growth of information-share. This type of organizational structure should be of particular interest to nonprofits, as it allows organizations to move quickly. A side, fun fact? The science of teams is now actually a science.
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Remove the walls and encourage conversation- Put the museum director in meetings with the coordinators.
- Encourage more teamwork- Because teamwork improves learning and career success.
- Reward new ideas- Or make developing new ideas possible like Google does.
5. If you’re a softie, now’s your moment. There may be no crying in baseball, but we’re moving closer to crying in business. Well, at least business is becoming more subjective, emotional, and related to non-measurable aspects of conscientiousness. Given all of the shifts mentioned above, this isn’t much of a shock. Now even MBA programs want folks who are more creative team-players than the old-fashioned my-way-or-the-highway guys. All this sound feminine? It kind of is. Does that mean the pay gap will catch up and the nonprofiteers (often masters of soft skills) will be making all the dough in the future thanks to their in-demand leadership skills? I sure hope so, but I guess we have to wait and see…
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Hire soft-skilled employees- Look for people who are resourceful, collaborative, and display a positive attitude.
- Celebrate your employees and coworkers- Because chances are, they already display the soft skills that are leading your cultural organization.
6. Generation Y is taking the reigns. And there are a few general qualities that make up members of this generation: entrepreneurial, tech-savvy, over-confident, casual, team-oriented, and we value time over money. There’s value in getting this demographic on board and connecting with your charity. The key to that is in supporting them. I think blogger Sam Davidson says it best: “More Millennials would rather buycott than boycott, and we’d rather volunteer than vote… Gen Y has the potential to change the world, just not in the way you think.” Aside from the fact that they operate in ways that mirror big societal changes taking place and they can keep you current, here are a few more reasons to hire and engage Millennials.
At-a-Glance Updates:
- Hire young folks as managers- or staying relevant may be a bit harder…
- Listen to young employees’ over-share- It could really help you!
- Understand there are things to learn- They operate differently sometimes.
- Know that the way everything operates is changing- And will change even more with Generation Z.
4 Valuable Online Resources for Museum Futurists. No…Right Now-ists.
February 16, 2011
There are six practices of high-impact nonprofits, according to Crutchfield and Grant’s findings in their book, Forces for Good. One of the central six? Nurture Nonprofit Networks. It means share knowledge (grow the pie, work together for change…) Knowledge sharing is a practice that nearly all of the world’s most impactful nonprofits have in common.
Nurturing networks and spreading best practices is one of many things that sets the nonprofit sector apart from the private sector, and it may be one of the biggest differentiations. You won’t catch Thomas’ English Muffins freely giving away the secret to their “nooks and crannies” just to bring the entire world (competitors included) one step closer to creating the perfect English muffin. If they can’t do it, they don’t want anyone else to do it. But nonprofits will put themselves out of business if it means bringing the world one step closer to a common goal.
People are becoming a bit like organizations as individuals build personal brands and play important roles in information dissemination to advance social change. A museum must be conscious of its brand and the professional advantages supplied by the institution. But a museum should not overlook the more personal/professional advantages that can be leveraged when museum employees have the tools they need to connect and engage with other professionals If nurturing nonprofit networks creates high-impact nonprofits, then certainly nurturing nonprofiteer networks leads to even higher-impact nonprofits.
These are four basic online resources for arming museum professionals with the social technology tools needed to embrace new media and encourage both sector transition and innovation:
1. MUSEUM 3 “Museum 3 is a nonprofit organization dedicated to exploring the future of the cultural institution sector. Since it began in 2007 as a social network, Museum3 has grown to almost 3000 members from across the world. In 2010 Museum3 incorporated into a not-for-profit organisation. This has allowed us to plan for extended services including conferences, masterclasses, public talks, new partnerships and new cultural products including podcasts and vodcasts.” One of the reasons why I think that this site is so cool is because it’s international. Talk about sharing the knowledge.
2. MUSEUM-ID: Another cool connecting site is MUSEUM-id, which is also run through Ning and called an “ideas exchange and social network for museum professionals.” Let’s not go nuts here- neither of these social networks is booming with the activity of your Facebook or Twitter feed, but when you consider that these social spaces exist to exchange ideas with similarly-interested professionals, the spaces are pretty darn cool and extremely useful.
3. MUSE TECH CENTRAL: How did I find the leads for so many of these innovative museum social technologies? I started out on Muse Tech Central. I adore it. Muse Tech Central is the Museum Computer Network project registry and it’s a gold mine of museum inspiration. It’s pretty simple, too: it is a list of new and ongoing technology-based projects taking place in museums.
3. CFM’s RESEARCH ROUND-UP: Recommending AAM’s Center for The Future of Museums to museum futurists (right now-ists) is like recommending Mashable for a social media fan; it’s been done and you probably already know a lot about it. Yes, the blog is awesome… but have you checked out their Research Round-Ups? They have everything from academic findings to news articles to essays to commentary. It’s a great complement to the weekly Dispatches from the Future of Museums that you can sign up to have arrive in your inbox, but I don’t see the Research Round-up celebrated as frequently. Knowing what research has been uncovered can be a powerful tool for your museum. Why reinvent the wheel? It helps to take a look at what we’ve figured out thus far.
Getting involved in these networks and checking out these websites probably shouldn’t replace normal social media activities like engaging professionals in your network on Facebook and Twitter- but it’s a great start and a terrific complement to those efforts. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that keeping an eye on these resources will keep you smarter than the average museum social media guru. Not to mention, they’ll keep you thinking, questioning the future, and preparing for new ways to engage audiences online.
*Header image from The Nonprofit Quarterly
On Nonprofits, Detroit, and Doing The Hardest Thing
February 8, 2011
A portion of Diego Rivera's Detroit Industry Mural, featured on the wall of the Detroit Institute of Arts
It seems as though when my classmates and I graduated from The University of Chicago, we were professionally expected to go one of two ways: into research or into investment banking. The College places a strong emphasis on living the life of the mind. There’s value in dedicating yourself fully to ideas, theories, and (the hardest part of) your practice.
“How many University of Chicago students does it take to change a lightbulb? Shhh… we’re studying in the dark.”
Perhaps I took my college education too seriously because when it came time for me decide which graduate degree I wanted to pursue, I chose the hardest thing. Making a difference is hard. We’ve generally figured out how the economic market works- but market failures like feeding the homeless and freely educating the masses? We need leaders there. We’ve seen individuals beat the odds pursuing the American Dream, making millions on their ideas for their own profit. It’s been done. It’s becoming more commonplace. Those individual dreams aren’t the greatest odds facing us and they never were- the collective odds are greater. I deal with the inner-workings of a sector that many of my undergraduate classmates wouldn’t dream to tackle… And building a career there? No way. “It’s just too hard.”
Nonprofits take up the barren no-mans-land between government reach and the private sector motive. Yes, it’s hard. Generally, there’s limited professional development opportunities, lower wages, and the inconveniences of “asking” for money and not taking profits…. But it’s not as bad as the rep that it gets. Perhaps people focus on common misconceptions of the sector to justify retreating to less-dire social problems like obtaining the highest energy beverage sales (why are so many of our nation’s most talented minds going into things like this?!)
The nonprofit sector is generally both under-respected and fiercely important. It’s worth more than the reputation that we bestow upon it.
Like the city of Detroit, the nonprofit sector needs help battling ruin porn. Ruin porn is what you’re looking at when you see pictures of a mangled, forgotten, crime-ridden city… but the photo ignores the new building next door and the high-achieving school down the street. It’s media bias to create a story and make things look black and white. Don’t go into the nonprofit sector if you’re forward-thinking and goal-oriented. Don’t go to Detroit.
"In the foreground, the disintegrating old Cass Tech High School that is often featured in media reports on Detroit, eclipsing the snazzy new Cass Tech located immediately next door."
Both Detroit and the nonprofit sector get a bad rep. But they are both critical to who we are as a nation and how we’ll move forward. Detroit got some positive press on Sunday during the Super Bowl in the unsuspecting form of a Chrysler commercial. If you’ve been to Detroit, you probably lost your breath for a moment and said something like, “well it’s about time.” If you’ve never been to Detroit, I hope it made you think twice about that lovely, important city.
Aside from being unfairly judged, nonprofit work and the city of Detroit have a lot in common.
- They are an important part of our history. Henry Ford invented the assembly line, the cornerstone of the industrial revolution that forever changed the way businesses operate and large-scale production takes place. He did it in Detroit. Motown music was born in this city. Our automobiles are still built here. Nonprofits shape our history as well. Thanks to nonprofits, we have universities and museums, research support, and platforms throughout history upon which figures have lobbied for the right to vote and have shared famous dreams.
- They are critical to our future. A world without nonprofits would be awful. There would be extreme hunger in the United States and a much greater divide between the rich and the poor. We’d be uninformed, uninspired, and disconnected. We’d be overcome by disease (having given up on research and prevention) and there would be few places to go if you do get sick. There would be no great college education. Individual interests could not be supported, and change could not happen. Similarly, Detroit has a rich history and a meaningful story that can inform our future.
- They foster passion and excitement. Have you ever met someone from Detroit? People from Detroit are passionate about the city. And I don’t just mean that they cheer for the Lions despite the odds. They seem to only have good things to say about the place- and they champion Eminem and Kid Rock like they are heroes. Remember when this article by Mitch Album came out and moved readers in 2009? Nonprofit employees are passionate, too. We are champions for our causes- and also for the sector.
- They represent The Hardest Thing. Both the city of Detroit and the nonprofit sector have problems to be solved and present an open opportunity for leaders and great thinkers. They both need educated thought leaders who aren’t afraid to be uncomfortable. Detroit needs young minds to stay in the city and build it up. The nonprofit sector needs to attract young minds and help build up the sector.
I’m not from Detroit. I’m from Chicago. But I think that Detroit is tragic, lovely, strong, and fiercely important. I think the nonprofit sector is the same way.
When I (or you) say, “I work in the nonprofit sector,” and someone says, “Awww. That’s so great and nice! Good for you!” That person is wishing away the sector’s truth: that every day, you work toward something seemingly impossible. Working in the nonprofit sector is noble and serious- and perhaps the hardest thing (business-wise) a person could chose to do.
As a side, I ran my first half marathon this weekend (in my Henry Ford hat) and a girl running in front of me wore a shirt that read, “My sport is your sport’s punishment.” I am honored and thrilled to be working alongside all of you in the nonprofit sector, making a difference and doing the hardest thing. Whether you feed the homeless or work in a museum that constantly strives to educate and inspire communities, our work is rough.
And while I may not have a lot of money in my pocket, I’d say the pay-off is pretty great, too.
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?
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…
Last week, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly published an article by David Suarez, PhD. titled, Street Credentials and Management Backgrounds:Careers of Nonprofit Executives in an Evolving Sector, in which Dr. Suarez identifies four types of nonprofit executives categorized based on management skills and nonprofit experience.
The nonprofit sector contains many executives who are oriented toward mission-driven nonprofit work, but only half have a management background.
Suarez finds that in nonprofit organizations, it is more common for executives to have nonprofit experience, while management experience remains relatively uncommon. After considering this finding and examining Suarez’s four types of nonprofit executives, one cannot help but wonder: are we hiring the right people? If we’re not hiring skilled managers and we’ve obtained a reputation of inefficiency, perhaps a solution lies simply in hiring more well-versed managers.
I’ll go over my take on Suarez’s four type of executives briefly below, but for much more information and to read about his other findings, check out the article.
The Nonprofit “Lifer” (high nonprofit, low management) – Suarez calls these folks stereotypical nonprofit leaders. They are drawn to a social problem(s), but are more interested in direct work with the organization’s clients than organizational management. With their mental divide between the nonprofit sector and other sectors, I’d guess these leaders might lean toward a more conservative view of sector evolution than the Substantive Expert.
The Substantive Expert (low nonprofit, low management)- These leaders are less concerned with their sector of employment, and are specialists in specific disciplinary areas. Despite having minimal management backgrounds, they usually have significant academic credentials. We see these kinds of executives frequently in museums and similar institutions. (As a surprising side, much of the art world was upset recently when MOCA appointed a Social Entrepreneur as Museum Director instead of a traditional Substantive Expert)
The Social Entrepreneur (high nonprofit, high management)- This person is not to be confused with the definition of the rare social entrepreneur made popular by Martin and Osberg. In fact, this type of executive is nearly as common in the nonprofit sector as the Nonprofit Lifer. These folks, however, have more of an interest in the organization’s plans for scale, replication, and sustainability than Nonprofit Lifers- according to Suarez. They are high on nonprofit experience, ascribe to a nonprofit ethic, and have management training.
The Professional Administrator (low nonprofit, high management)- Like the Substantive Expert, the Professional Administrator is not married to the concept of working in a nonprofit environment. These folks have management experience, but do not have a particular draw toward the nonprofit sector over the for-profit sector– or are at least more flexible in their sector of employment than other types of executives.
I believe that we should continue to aim to hire Social Entrepreneurs. They are, after all, skilled managers with an orientation toward social missions. The problem, perhaps, may lie in how we are employing executives that fall in the other three categories. Though it may not make sense to deny Nonprofit Lifers the “hands-on” jobs that they desire, hiring managers should consider that sometimes the right kind of employee is more dependent on the position than on the candidate’s sector of preference.
For instance, we often hire Substantive Experts (low nonprofit, low management) to take on heavy nonprofit management jobs without question. Or we hire a right-brained drama-aficionado to manage the budget for a nonprofit theater without considering a more suitable candidate for this left-brained task. For some reason, we let the bond of a shared desire for social good fuzzy up our judgement.
After all, who wants to say ‘no’ to a job candidate who desires to make a difference? I don’t think we always have to. But I do think that if we want the sector to evolve, we must hire folks that can help our organizations grow.
Another possible solution for nonprofits? Invest in more professional development and create managerial opportunities for current employees so that even Nonprofit Lifers who are comfortable with the sector feel the need to push the boundaries of sector constraints and encourage organizational growth.
Nonprofit Management Ideology: Are You Liberal or Conservative?
August 16, 2010
When discussing the future evolution of the nonprofit sector with colleagues and classmates, I often explain myself and then say, “but that’s coming from a Nonprofit Lefty…”
Everyone wants nonprofit progress, but there are different trains of thought in the nonprofit world about which practices and mentalities will get us there.
Nonprofit right: On one hand there are folks that are set on keeping the sector ideologically separate from the others. They advocate the more conservative and traditional practices that got us to where we are today– such as championing low administration costs, hiring predominately folks who work only for nonprofit organizations or are experts in the field, and drawing out the moral differentiation between the civic sector and private sector. When I think of a nonprofit thought-leader focused on reform and progress from a more “conservative” standpoint, I think of Rosetta Thurman.
Nonprofit left: On the other end of this nonprofit political spectrum, there are organization leaders that favor a more inclusive definition of the nonprofit sector which merges practices with other sectors and approaches each social mission as its own unique battle. This point of view advocates an entirely fresh way of thinking and allows for a complete evolution to something new (if that’s what’s best). For better or worse, this often means taking a lot more risks. Dan Pallotta is a prime example of a nonprofit thought leader on the left side of the spectrum.
Definitions of the word liberal include broad-mindedness; having political or social views favoring reform and progress, and being not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition. Though I’m a self-described nonprofit liberal, I don’t always agree with folks like Dan Pallotta. Ideology reform, however, is at the core of many of my nonprofit beliefs. I believe that:
- Calculated risks that challenge sector constraints are absolutely necessary and breed progress
- Publicizing individual nonprofit failures is critical and the benefit to the sector of sharing failures far outweighs individual organization’s potential donor loss for making the mistake
- High administration costs may be necessary in the future and a sign of competitive, forward-thinking organizations
- Social change-makers are not just nonprofit workers. Donors and connectors are change-makers as well
- Business leaders may bring the most innovative ideas to organizations in the future and nonprofit leaders’ skill sets may bring the most innovative ideas to the business world
- Nonprofits are businesses
- Social change belongs to all sectors, and intersectoral partnerships– when they aren’t effective market solutions– will be powerful tools for learning and evolution for all sectors
- Because nonprofits have different missions, they cannot always be grouped together or taught to abide by specific nonprofit management rules
- We must lower the education barrier for nonprofit management positions
- Nonprofits must try very hard to attract talent, and that talent will pay off in the end.
More conservative nonprofiteers have their own educated guesses grounded in nonprofit tradition and sector differentiation. And in fact, the conservative ideology has gotten us far. After all, there are over 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in the United States- most of which develop and adhere to a more conservative approach because a) it’s tried and true, or b) out of sheer necessity. For one, it’s easier to get foundation funding with low administration costs- and hey, if the system ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
And maybe the system’s not broken… but it can certainly be improved to make organizations more effective and sustainable. This is something both “liberal” and “conservative” nonprofiteers seem to agree upon.
Where do you stand on the nonprofit management ideology spectrum? Do you value the merit of popular nonprofit practices and tradition, or do you believe that the future of nonprofit leadership lies in a more open-minded approach?
*image from ttoes.wordpress.com
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.
I’ll be honest: when I left my full-time gig at the Science Center in order to become a full-time graduate student last year, I was terrified by how this change would alter my own viewpoints and how I am perceived as a professional. I was concerned that I wouldn’t be taken as seriously if a majority of my time (the “full-time” part) was spent studying sector management as opposed to actively working in the sector.
Even as I am halfway into my graduate school experience, I can already look back and say that I had a right to be as terrified as anyone undergoing a big change (especially when thinking that my experience might be like this)– but I’d never take back the change in perspective that I’ve undergone for the time-being. I know full-well that by this time next year, the status will switch back and I will return to the full-time working world (oh, the magic of a professional degree; the point is to go back). But I will always understand the importance of thinking like a graduate student. Here’s why:
1) It forces you to see the big picture. There are things going on in every industry and the way we do business is always evolving. Currently social media, communication, soft skills, and Gen Y’s public service motivation are shaking things up in the nonprofit world, but even after those things run their course, there will be something else. When you are a graduate student you see these things– and what’s more: you see their collective effect on the industry because you spend nearly every day piecing together the puzzle. Thinking like this is extremely valuable because it helps you to mentally tackle many sector problems at once, and scientifically, this kind of thinking helps build up solutions more creatively than tackling one at a time– which is often done in a working environment. Thinking like a graduate student in this sense means always keeping an eye on the bigger picture of the industry as a whole, and it will result in creative solutions and a more complete understanding of where your difficulties lie.
2) Grad students have built-in microscopes or telescopes. That’s like having science tools built into their brains (for a few years), folks! This is directly related to point #1. People often joke that grad students always think what they are doing is important, even though it’s not. What’s really happening here (and the reason we grad students think what we’re uncovering is so important) is that we have a different perspective. As mentioned above, in professional degrees, we zoom out on the sector. Academic degrees tend to zoom in on a part of the sector. Either way, grad students are thinking in a way that is not common in workplace environments (whether it’s with their internal microscopes or a telescopes). Thinking differently spawns innovation. Grad students see something non-graduate students don’t see (and often vice-versa). There’s terrific potential here. When faced with a problem after graduate school, I’ll strap my telescope back on and see if I can think about things differently.
3) It makes you aware of your own strengths and interests. In graduate school, you can pursue your own interests within your degree. Beyond MPA student, I have no role defining my duties in one specific area (I can choose as I go). There is a lot of freedom in these programs to make yourself an expert on whatever strikes your interest. Similarly, in graduate school you must do everything from public presentations, to writing case studies, to leading debates, to drawing graphs to illustrate possible solutions to market failures. You learn quickly where you shine… and also where you stink. The bottom line lesson here, however, is to keep exploring and taking up new challenges in the working world. It may lead you to interesting solutions to problems. And trying new things helps you learn a lot more about yourself and how you handle certain situations– it’s teaching me a lot at any rate!
4) It gives you a feeling of purpose (which helps you live longer and makes you better at your job). I have two years while I’m obtaining my degree to challenge perspectives, share crazy ideas freely, and sink my teeth into the sector. I feel a sense of purpose when exploring skills required to improve the sector. Feeling a sense of purpose does more than reduce your risk of getting Alzheimer’s and help prevent depression. It actually makes you live longer. Studies have shown that purpose motivates us to accomplish things and grad students spend two years (or more) devoted to developing their purpose and career goals so that they can work hard for you (or themselves) after they graduate. What can people who aren’t in graduate school do to develop this mindset? Make time to focus on what you are doing and why.
5) It keeps you humble. Folks tend to feel like they are improving in their careers based on how many people are reporting to them throughout the years– or at least I felt this way a bit before I came to grad school. Now, nobody reports to me. I study with a lot of accomplished people and I take classes from distinguished professors. This is humbling. Also, full-time graduate students often take a financial hit to attend school (even if they are employed by the university or working a part-time job– or in my case, both). I’ve worked in hierarchical environments and I’ve started at the very bottom– but being broke, living on ideas, and being surrounded by thought-leaders is every bit as humbling as it is romantic and drive-inspiring. I will strive to keep this perspective and treat everyone as an accomplished classmate, regardless of their background or experience. Good ideas come from everywhere, and there’s no need to get cocky about my own.
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 
