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.
It’s no surprise that business practices, and especially marketing strategies, are evolving due to current changes in the way people operate and communicate. We didn’t have Facebook ten years ago- now organizations that are not cultivating online networks are doomed to fall behind in building brand loyalty and summoning the benefits of organizational transparency.
These changes, combined with the growing influence of Generation Y in the workplace, have created a new force to be recognized by your organization’s marketing and development departments: free agents.
Who and what are free agents? I’ll tap into The Networked Nonprofit for my favorite definition: Free agents are individuals working outside of organizations to organize, mobilize, raise funds, and communicate with constituents for a cause. They are generally comfortable with and adept at using social media. Bloggers are free agents, influential tweeters are free agents, and your tech-savvy and socially-connected nephew who believes in your organization is a free agent, too. They are social citizens dedicated to a cause. Though not all free agents are members of Generation Y, Millennials have grown up communicating and creating networks on the internet. They have a tribe to tap into when they want to spread an important message or highlight a cause. I’ve argued before that this is a good reason why museums and nonprofits should hire candidates with personal brands: they have a network. They can help you reach people.
Why your organization needs free agents. Free agents are connected individuals who care about your organization’s cause, and their network is likely to consist of similarly-minded people who are also likely to care about your cause. Free agents not only spread awareness of your organization, but they increase morale, and may even put together events or programs to benefit your organization. For instance, a free agent may have a party in which all proceeds go to a certain organization. Though they do not work for the museum or cultural nonprofit, free agents will champion your organizations message simply because they have a network and they believe in your cause.
- A little example of a free agent in action. The American Association of Museums runs The Museum Assessment Program. It is a wildly affordable program for small and mid-size museums that helps strengthen operations, improve planning, and better serve communities through a process of self study and peer review. Applications are due by February 18, 2011. I do not work for AAM and nobody is paying me to let you all know about this seemingly-awesome resource (if you didn’t know about it already). I am writing about MAP because I support the program’s mission and I know that quite a few of you work for organizations that might benefit from MAP. I am playing the role of a light free agent for AAM because I, personally, think this program is really cool. But free agents can play more active roles as well. I might host a meet-up to discuss the benefits of MAP with museum professionals, or ask my blogger friends to spread the word, or run a marathon and raise funds for AAM to take another mid-sized museum into the program. It is not unusual for free agents to do these things.
How free agents work. Because free agents are internet-savvy folks who are independent of the organization, they are hard to control. In fact, an important part of utilizing free agents is understanding two key concepts:
- You cannot control free agents. It’s important to work with free agents, but treating free agents as if they work for you is a speedy way to lose a free agent. This is particularly bad news if the free agent you are working with has gone to great lengths to cultivate excitement around your museum or program. This also connects well to my second point.
- Free agents will come and go. Many free agents are members of Generation Y, and this generation is loyal to causes but feels skeptical about long-term loyalty to an organization. While free agents may come and go, remember to keep the door open in case they want to return to promote your organization.
Why free agents are good for your social media mentality. Certain thought leaders in the advertising field have argued that you don’t need a social media strategy (hint: It’s about values and people, not the tool). Working with free agents requires an openness and eagerness on the part of the institution. The fact that you cannot control or plan for free agents (aside from making yourself accessible) helps put museum professionals in a good place: focusing on community and values instead of trying to make rules about using social media. And “rules” have a way of fuzzing things up when it comes to brand transparency.
In sum, keep the door open for free agents. While nothing replaces face-to-face communication, it’s easy for professionals (especially members of older generations who are particularly unfamiliar with social media) to underestimate the value of online networks in helping an organization to reach marketing and fundraising goals. It may seem particularly strange to be encouraged to devote time and energy to cultivating young, sometimes still-unproven professionals. But try ignoring young professionals who are looking to support your organization, and you may find yourself slapping your forehead and (just for laughs) relating to this scene from Pretty Woman.
*Image based on photo from tremendousnews.com
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?
MSI’s Month at the Museum: Marketing vs. Mission
November 29, 2010
Did they merge the two?
Do you remember how Tom Hanks’s character walked around in a bathrobe while living in the airport in the movie The Terminal? Or how Natalie Portman got creative while living in Walmart in Where The Heart Is? I thought Kate’s Month at the Museum would be something like that crossed with Mythbusters. I imagined all-nighters spent making Home Alone-worthy physics-filled gadgets to fight off the possibility of living mannequins. I looked forward to hearing the thoughts of a normal person who has excessive time to contemplate every stage of baby chick development. I imagined a cross between entrainment and learning and charming transparency; I was excited to learn along with Kate. Instead, I learned that Kate learned.
Don’t get me wrong. I think that the Month at the Museum was engaging, fun, and a great marketing endeavour that opens the doors for several new opportunities for museums… but why weren’t mission and marketing more united in this innovative-museum-world initiative?
Kate spent her last day in the Museum of Science and Industry on November 18th. The Month at the Museum seemed to be used primarily as a marketing tool for the institution. And I think it worked well in that way. Kate’s glass cube was awesome. The competition was awesome. There’s a sort of magic about having the opportunity to spend the night (let alone several) inside a museum with doll houses, interactive activities, and a darkened 727. However, the Month at the Museum could have transcended the boundaries of a marketing project and more efficiently engaged audiences in the wonders of science while promoting the museum.
Bravo to MSI for taking on a roommate and opening their doors to the world. They have set a great standard. But, should MSI have the opportunity to take on another overnight visitor, I would like to present some changes to make the experience even more time-and-interest worthy for folks at home. The thing that unites all of the following suggestions? Making it more about people and learning, and less about Kate. Don’t get me wrong: as another female twenty-something Chicago native– I thought Kate was spunky and fun. But I don’t know if all demographics relate to Kate, or even if Kate represents the demographic that the MSI was trying to reach… even though she did frequently make me smile.
1) Get people involved during the month. The Month at The Museum initiative was arguably the biggest success during the competition stage. Over 1,500 people applied or submitted videos and folks even created a “We Applied for MSI’s Month-at-the-Museum” Facebook group. The event was publicized in newspapers, blogs, and news broadcasts all over the country. But after the winner was picked, the buzz died down. Why? There’s no reason why Kate’s adventures couldn’t be made to be news-worthy throughout the month by keeping the innovation going. The vision of the MSI is to “inspire and motivate our children to achieve their full potential in the fields of science, technology, engineering and medicine.” That’s an exceptional vision but Kate’s Month at the Museum didn’t help people do that very easily. Getting the community involved in creative ways throughout the event would have painted a more accurate picture of the institution and its values. Here’s a quick brainstorm of things that could have helped:
- putting out a call for things people wanted to see her do in the museum
- hosting a daily “Kate Report” in which she interviews visiting kids and families about what they’ve learned
- posing daily challenges to visitors such as to walk like a T-rex for the rest of the day, do their best impressions of the inner-workings of body parts, or offer a prize to the person who can best explain why a tornado spins (with creative, silly answers also featured).
- put on a could-be historically accurate skit with visitors in Yesterday’s Main Street exhibit
- conduct a real-life version of Leno’s Jay Walking and test the science literacy of visitors (with their permission, of course)
2) Make it about learning more than living. Kate shared what she learned with us through a few videos after she learned it. Case in point? SnugSci Episode 3 (or 2 or 1). However, it wasn’t often that we got to learn along with Kate. It would have been fun to see Kate go around in a snuggie and mash-up cool parts of her tour of the Science Storms exhibit with Olivia, the on-site scientist and one of the creators of the exhibit. And while snuggie science aims to teach us something, most of Kate’s videos are more of a video diary in which the audience is removed from the experience. Some ideas that wold have gotten us more actively involved? Here’s a few:
- make creative mash-ups of tours from on-site scientists
- engage in a ridiculous but scientifically-correct debate with an exhibit interpreter
- walk us through Kate’s favorite interactives as she masters each of them and challenges others to a duel
- spend a full day in the life of a coal miner, having interpreters aid Kate in learning what her day-to-day life would be like working there.
- spend a day living in the Smart Home without using any energy or making any kind of carbon footprint (or try to do that for the whole month!)
3) But a little more living would have been cool, too. Two of my favorite videos from Kate show an insight into her day-to-day life while living at the museum. I love this one where Kate pretends to go crazy being alone in the museum. I also like this one where she actually shows viewers what she thinks is the scariest exhibit at night. Kate lived at the museum for a full month, so it’s fun to see insights into how she lived. (Though I must give some serious kudos to Kate for showing just how fun it can be to work in a museum). Given the reality of time constraints, I think Kate did a good job in this arena, but here are a few things that would have been fun to see:
- a morning routine in which Kate starts training for next year’s Chicago Marathon, showing her route around the inside of the museum visiting her favorite exhibits. Kate mentions taking runs in some of her posts. Why not take us along?
- conduct a museum bathroom inspection and formally propose which bathroom is the very best in the museum
- solve a mystery (the case of the missing bernoulli ball)
- discover a secret hideout in the museum for when Kate needs a break from the cube
- sleep in the Zephyr and create physics-filled booby traps just in case mannequins come to life
- try to summon spirits within the museum
- name the chicks in the hatchery
4) Give us some more fun features to inspire audiences in science education. The Museum of Science and Industry is in the business of inspiring people and making learning fun. And learning is fun– even when you’re not a special, publicized guest living in a glass cube on-site.
- have a short, daily highlight or fun fact and compile them at the end into one video to summarize the weird awesomeness of the month
- on Kate’s first day, write down a list of science-based “Why” questions and make it a goal to get them answered before the month is up.
- make a MATM bucket list of things Kate is determined to do before the month’s end
- create a lip-dub to Weird Science with MSI staff members (this is less about science education, but highlights a sense of community)
Though I am sad that MSI’s Month at the Museum has come to an end, I look forward to seeing how museum’s will build upon the MSI’s idea. I expect to see many more initiatives involving transparency, and I hope that we will build upon these initiatives to merge mission and marketing in order to captivate audiences– with a purpose.
Have ideas for how MSI’s month at the Museum could have better merged mission and marketing? Please leave comments below.
Evolutionary Biology and Human Psychology: A Case For Museum Donor Walls
November 15, 2010
Visitors at the Virginia Holocaust Museum admire the museum's Donor Wall
There are a few activities that I consider “must-dos” whenever I visit a museum, but my boyfriend (a huge trooper who has accompanied me to over 50 museums in the last four years) only has one thing that he cares to do during a visit: Check out the donor wall. In Seattle, I thought it was just to see if Jeff Bezos had given away any money yet (and his company eventually did). But Ian checks everywhere. While standing in front of the donor wall at the first 45 or so museums with him, I thought something like, “Yes, yes. The donor wall lends credibility to the museum.” But when the Bill Gates Giving Pledge was announced in August of this year, it changed the way that I think about the donor wall.
Why Sector Blur Is Bad For Those In Need
September 15, 2010
Sector blur is among us. It’s got positive potential… but if we’re not careful, it might not be so great.
Why should you be concerned that sector blur is giving for-profits a social mission and giving nonprofits profit-motive management mentalities? It sounds great if you don’t think about it too hard… as if it means for-profits are becoming nicer and nonprofits are growing smarter. But if we aren’t careful, it seems there could be grim consequences for our poorest, sickest, and most in-need.
Yes, nonprofits are corporations that are exempt from paying taxes. These corporations, however, consistently make similar (and seemingly strange) strategic management decisions:
- Planned Parenthood has spent well over $193 million dollars in attempts to influence policies regarding pro-choice legislation and access to affordable health care. If these policies pass, Planned Parenthood could go out of business due to competition and possible reduction of need.
- The Nature Conservancy asks communities to reach out to state legislature to protect the land and water in each state. If we did as they ask, this half-century old organization would shut down.
- The Serpentine Project, a small organization that I do community engagement contract work for, provides mentorship and financial support to youth who have aged out of foster care and want to attend college. The organization supports policies that extend foster care to age 21 (verses 18), though it would make the organization irrelevant.
This is like McDonalds serving up Big Macs while simultaneously allocating significant resources to making the world population go vegetarian. It’s a good social move (studies find that vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters), but it’s a very, very bad business move. This difference illustrates one of the key ideological divides between nonprofits and for-profits:
If the for-profit sector operates with the economic market, the nonprofit sector attempts to solve market failures. During this time of sector-blur, there is danger in nonprofits putting too much focus on profit-like motives. Similarly, there is danger in for-profits putting too much focus and weight behind social missions.
Here are three reasons why we should not let sector blur completely fuzzy up our vision:
1. For-profits in social change would advocate policies that are bad for us. Think about it: a for-profit women’s health clinic– something perhaps similar to Planned Parenthood– would NOT advocate policies that would make their services more competitive. It would be bad for business. In fact, the company is likely to lobby for policies that make it harder for competition to enter the scene, and thus harder for the general public to have access to affordable health care. To use an example from William P. Ryan’s article, The New Landscape For Nonprofits, “a juvenile detention center may advocate get-tough juvenile sentencing policies to increase business. Both the juveniles and the communities, however, may fare better with a more community-based approach.” Ryan summarizes this point well: “For-profits are more likely than nonprofits to advocate public policies that favor profitability in the short-term rather than policies that help communities over the long-term.”
2. There’s business incentive for for-profits to skimp, cream, and dump. These are three things that we nonprofiteers are taught not to do early on, as they violate a moral code of public service motivation. But if your bottom line is to make money- you may well be “forced to” do these things:
- Creaming is when an organization selects beneficiaries based predominantly on which individuals and demographics are most likely to help the organization succeed. For instance, a reading program may only select children with well-educated parents- as those children are already in an environment that values education, thus making the children more likely to succeed and lead the organization to success than children with uneducated parents.
- Skimping is when an organization allocates fewer resources to individuals or entities that they don’t think will help the organization succeed. Another reading program example would be giving less talented tutors to children for which English is a second language, on the basis that they aren’t likely to succeed in the program anyway.
- Dumping is flat-out avoiding high-risk individuals or demographics that are most in need of service. If too-much emphasis is placed on profit-motives, there’s a good chance this moral code of-sorts will be left behind. If for-profits find ways to effectively solve social problems, the public must be wary of these practices. Similarly, a nonprofit that puts more emphasis on money than their social mission may take part in these not-so-helpful-to-society practices.
3. The “dumping” would happen on nonprofits. Logically, as for-profits enter the field of social change, they’ll begin by taking up the issues where money can be most easily made, and clients most easily served. This is generally not with high-risk populations. The result? Nonprofits will find themselves with the harder, complex, and more expensive cases left untouched by for-profits. And because for-profits may take up the programs where nonprofits gained surplus revenues, the nonprofits faced with the tough stuff may have significantly fewer resources. Another result? Poorer poor, sicker sick, and generally more people who will be very, very hard to help.
Sector blur, of course, has a lot of great potential. Competition across sectors which may lead to increased efficiency across the board and a global turn toward the importance of social change, to name some examples.
But what we still need is what we’ve always needed: a model (be it grown from the private, nonprofit, or public sector) that can take our poorest, sickest, and least educated and solve these market failures. Even sector blur is going to be a rough road, so let’s get all hands on deck in coming up with something even newer than this new thing.
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
A meet up at the Brooklyn Museum. Photo by Amy Dreher.
How do you quantify a social mission? The Brooklyn Museum recently underwent a mild media smack-down because they tried something new—and while many outcomes (the most important ones, some argue) were positive, the museum was painted negatively in a recent New York Times article.
I have argued before that allowing nonprofits to evolve to meet (let alone succeed) business goals and compete with for-profit companies requires more than just innovative thinking from within the sector- it requires acceptance from the general public. This is where nonprofits often run into trouble because gaining this acceptance necessitates a change in the way that the public perceives certain nonprofit organizations.
The New York Time’s article, ‘Brooklyn Museum’s Populism Hasn’t Lured Crowds,’ opens with not-so-great statistics: the goal of the museum was to triple its attendance by 2014, but attendance has actually dropped 23% in 2009. A decreased attendance is never good– but to those with an eye to the museum-world, those aren’t the notable statistics in the article. The Brooklyn Museum is actually succeeding in areas where other museums would like to succeed, and is in the position to serve as a positive model for attendance and interaction.
There are two things, in particular, that the Brooklyn Museum is doing well. These are not “attendance is down, but ____ is up” items. Regardless of overall attendance, these achievements deserve positive attention on their own, and the success of these items is being skewed by popular perceptions of what museums should be according to museums’ past reputations, which limits progress for these institutions. Here’s how the museum is breaking barriers:
- The Brooklyn Museum audience has increased in diversity. Museums have a general reputation for being stuffy places, accessible only to the upper-middle class and above who are interested in displaying their intellect. Museums across the country have done many things to battle this stereotype, and though it may be far from the truth that museums are now only for the white and wealthy, the myth’s origins often keep folks away. While the Brooklyn Museum’s overall attendance numbers have not sky-rocketed, there has been an increase in diversity– a highly-sought after increase within the industry. In fact, the article reports that over 40% of all visitors were people of color, and the average age of visitors is a surprisingly young 35 years of age. The museum is doing something right. It’s the responsibility of other museums looking to increase their number of diverse visitors to gather more information, and perhaps take a cue from this museum.
- The Brooklyn Museum has increased interaction among visitors and community members. The museum is taking on another stereotype here: the idea that museums should be quiet, serious places reserved for only those who already have a deep interest in art. The article strangely quotes Robert Storr, the dean of the Yale University School of Art, saying, “Star Wars’ shows the worst kind of populism. I don’t think they [the Brooklyn Museum] really understand where they are. The middle of the art world is now in Brooklyn; it’s an increasingly sophisticated audience and always was one.” Ouch! Featured in the article just after the mention of the museum’s younger, more local, non-white audience, this quote speaks volumes! The quote is interesting, because including it assumes that New York Times readers understand that the museum should be geared primarily for that artistically-literate and “increasingly sophisticated” audience (and who is to say the young, the locals, and those of color are not those people).
Moreover, the article somehow uses the museum’s First Saturdays against them. This a program celebrated for its richness of diversity (age, sex, race, background in art). It draws in the community– and even if the general non-Brooklynite public doesnt, the museum’s director at least knows how important that is. Arnold Lehman says, “If that environment could be replicated…on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, then I could easily retire and say we’ve succeeded and people think of the museum as a place to be of significance in their lives, not necessarily to see an exhibition.” Lehman is transcending boundaries. He doesn’t want the museum to be a stale place for exhibits, but rather a breathing and living institution that meets the needs of Brooklyn’s true community.
Though we can say “over 40% of museum visitors are people of color” and understand that that’s great, there’s no way to truly quantify the value of diversity– or of community conversation, or personal engagement. Is reaching a more diverse audience (directly related to the mission) more valuable than the number of people walking through the door (directly related to the monetary health of the organization)– a number upon which foundations often use to gauge museum success? There are arguments for both sides.
What is clear, I believe, is that if we want museums (and other nonprofits, for that matter) to continue to grow, culturally feed our communities, and remain forward-thinking institutions, then we must allow them to pursue these goals without being limited by outdated perceptions of institutions of the past. Let’s let them help us grow.
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 
