Category: For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

‘Best practice’ is a lie…and boring

Holy Grail
Image Credit: drp

Best practice is a lie; but if true, best practice is boring. What is best for any situation depends on many factors within the context.

Once all factors are established and certain, sure, I’ll submit to best practices existing. If the stakeholders, time, place, operating environment, leadership, and what people had for breakfast that morning are all set, I’m sure best practices could be identified. But then the world would be solved and we’d all be drones with exact plans of action for any scenario.

But otherwise, there is no best practice, only good practice.

Good practice depends on good leadership

Can the leader inspire a shared vision around the good practice? Can they motivate and encourage creativity around the practice? Can the model the good practice rather than just preaching it?

Good practice depends on stakeholders and place

Every community is unique. Every organization is unique. Every individual is unique. The uniqueness lies within history, interrelationships, culture, social norms. Best practice is not an ointment to be applied as directed in the instructions on the tube.

Good practice depends on the external operating environment

What works in boom times doesn’t always work in a recession. What works in times of emergency doesn’t work in time of peace. What’s going on in society – are people leaning left or right, looking out for themselves or others, recycling or wasting, etc. etc. Even so, I would say (of the top of my head without any direct evidence) that what often exists as a norm today came out of something radical and “bad” practice in the past.

In closing…

Best practices in one specific context can be useful beyond that context. They can give you ideas. They can build the literature around principles of good practice. They help with community, organizational, or individual praxis. But they aren’t a holy grail.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Social impact and mission myopia

Image Credit: Sam Catchesides

The origin of this post first came out of reading Marketing Myopia, a Harvard Business Review classic from 1960, for my MBA Venture Analysis course. But the theme comes up over and over again for me. Good drill bit companies don’t sell drill bits, they sell holes.

Focus on the purpose, not the product.

An aside: Yesterday was the final day of the third core course in the Certificate in Dialogue and Civic Engagement program I’m taking. The course, Citizens Engaging Citizens: Issues and Practices, was facilitated by Charles Dobson, author of The Troublemaker’s Teaparty: A Manual for Effective Citizen Action and The Citizen’s Handbook, both great resources for social changey types, especially Canadian ones.

Part of our work today revolved around ideas that people had for citizen to citizen engagement in their own lives. We were outlining goals, objectives/campaigns, strategies, tactics and actions. The hard part was the objectives bit.

People were often inclined to describe a project output (product) as an objective. For example, “the objective of this project is to create a community asset map/hold a conference for animal rights activists/make Trina chocolate cupcakes.”

However, the true objectives were often related to a change in attitude, a change in relationships, a change in state: some sort of social impact.

Social impact ≠ output

Social impact does not occur because a video gets produced, an art project is implemented, a conference happens, or Trina gets her chocolate cupcakes. Social impact occurs and is measurable because change happens.

If organizations frame their mission, or plan their projects, around an output, measuring success is a check box. Did the the conference happen? Check. Did the asset map get created? Pat on the back. Did the resource get published? Can I has some more funding puleez? Did Trina get her cupcakes? Where are my bloody cupcakes?

If organizations frame their mission, or plan their projects, around an output, they risk becoming irrelevant to their clients. Times change. People change. Needs change. Focusing on the output, the program, the product, is what I call mission myopia: Losing sight of what is really important, and not adapting to the needs of your clients.

Does your organization sell drill bits, or holes?

Instead of the product, think of the need of your clients, your community, that you are satisfying. If you want to create a community asset map because you want to increase community connectivity (which would be important to define before you get going, btw), success should not be defined by the creation of the map.

I would challenge the above in this manner:

  1. If you created the map, but community connectivity didn’t increase, would that be success?
  2. If you increased community connectivity, but the map didn’t get done, would that be success?

Organizations that sell holes would agree with #2.

Practical Implications for the BC Society Act

Making sure your organization defines itself by its clients’ interests rather than a specific program description is incredibly important when writing out the purpose of the organization in your consitution as a part of registering under the Act. If your purpose is related to selling drill bits instead of selling holes, you may find yourself operating outside of the realm of your constitution as times change in the future. Find out more about appropriate purposes in Appendix A of Information for Incorporation of a British Columbia Society (pdf).

Read more on social impact

Other Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance articles on social impact:

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Tongue tied and the Next Leaders Network

Image credit: Tim Ellis

I was interviewed recently for Charity Village article on an initiative of Vantage Point (formerly Volunteer Vancouver) for the next generation of nonprofit leadership in Vancouver, for which I am a steering committee member. The Next Leaders Network.

You know there are some days when the words you want to say roll off your tongue exactly as you intend, and others when you can’t believe how or what you’re saying? This interview was on one of the latter days. When I hung up the phone with Karl, and even throughout the conversation, in my head I was thinking, “I can’t believe I just said that.” Nothing bad or controversial, just silly phrases like “betterment of the global family”. Did I really just say that?

Anyway, you can read the article here, and find out more about the Next Leaders Network here.

The next learning/networking session in the Next Leader’s Network is coming up…

Leading with Direction

December 1, 2009
4:00pm – 6:00pm

Join 3D Visioning expert Gary Ansell for an experiential workshop designed to help you achieve a greater sense of gratification and fulfillment in everything you do – by defining your purpose and having a clear goal in sight.  

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

$50,000 in creative services on offer for Vancouver/Calgary nonprofits

Near the end of my time at YWCA Vancouver, the organization was undergoing rebranding. A very expensive and time intensive endeavour. YW had most of the services donated, but it was still not cheap. And it was a bit of a pain (and I wasn’t even in the thick of it), but the results seemed pretty nice in the end.

One of the things I learned from the process is that it is VERY important for your creative company to “get” you. While they have experience and knowledge with marketing/branding, etc., your organization has experience with and knowledge of your organization, its clients and supporters. Don’t forget that.

So, if you organization could help further its mission through some donated creative services, read more below. I touched base with the previous two Vancouver recipients and they each seemed incredibly pleased with the process, though each year the recipients obviously go through some media training by Karo and stick to key messages (yawn).

Deadline: November 30, 2009 5pm

Forwarded message:

Karo Group, a branding agency with offices in Vancouver and Calgary, is giving away $100,000 in creative services to two non-profit organizations  – one based in Vancouver and another in Calgary ($50,000 each). This is the third consecutive year that the company has donated the services as part of its initiative, Karo Kaus.

Theatre Under the Stars (TUTS) won Vancouver’s 2009 Karo Kaus grant. The rebranding transformed the company’s logo, website and communications materials while creating a unified brand that previously had not existed. Without the $50,000 grant, TUTS could not have afforded to do such a makeover. The 2008 Vancouver Karo Kaus recipient was Potluck Café and Catering.

For full details, visit http://www.karo.com/about/kaus.

James Cronk, TUTS ED was so excited about the experience he used all capitals.

WE RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS FROM OUR GUESTS AND SUPPORTERS THAT THEY HAD NEVER SEEN SO MUCH TUTS MARKETING – BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE DID THE SAME AS PREVIOUS YEARS – IT WAS JUST NOTICED MORE!

Granting timeline

  • Deadline: November 30, 2009, 5pm
  • Shortlist made by Karo employee committee: Early December, 2009
  • Shortlisted candidates present to the Karo committee: January 12, 2010
  • Winning recipients notified: January 21, 2010
  • Creative work complete: End of 2010
Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Volunteer intersectionality – grassroots vs. big image

Image Credit: wili_hybrid

Well, I’ve been a bit AWOL for the past few weeks – busy @work, crazy sick with lots of vomiting, final MBA papers due, and a recent death in the family. Let’s just say I’m glad to be moving forward from here.

So a few weeks ago a young woman set up an interview with me to help her with a paper she was writing about volunteers and why they volunteer where they volunteer. She wondered what made some people work with small organizations, and others work with large organizations, like for the upcoming Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Vancouver. It sounded like someone else that she interviewed thought that those volunteering with smaller organizations were more interested in social and environmental justice, whereas those volunteering with large organizations and events like the Olympics are interested in getting the name on the resume, checking off the experience on list of things to do.

Why not both?

I do both.

I’ll be volunteering with the Opening and Closing Ceremonies in February. I’m incredibly thrilled and am so wrapped up in the spirit that’s been demonstrated along the torch relay in communities across the country. I’m proud to represent my country as a volunteer (because I am never going to be a world-class athlete) and be a part of something bigger.

I also currently volunteer with the Take a Hike Youth at Risk Foundation which does great work supporting youth in grades 10-12 who face a multitude of barriers, providing a mix of adventure-based learning, academics, therapy, and community service with great results. I volunteer with Volunteer Vancouver (recently rebranded as Vantage Point, which I’m not sure I get, but I digress) on a steering committee for a young professionals network and have done curriculum development and delivery for them in the past.

Maybe these last two aren’t social or environmental justicey enough to cut it for the hard cores out there. Sure, I don’t happen to currently volunteer at my local farmers markets, but I shop there and think they do great work. No, I don’t happen to currently volunteer with Pivot Legal Society, but I buy the Hope in Shadows calendar, and think Pivot does great work. Maybe I will in the future, but I’m a little tapped out at the moment.

Are volunteering for brand name organizations and small grassroots groups mutually exclusive? I hope not.

Volunteer Intersectionality

I often perceive that certain causes and passions are not visually marriageable. I guess what I mean by that is that they don’t fit together by first glance. And if you are involved with one, you must be against the other. For example, if you support homeless rights, you must be anti-Olympics and vice versa. People make assumptions about you based on one characteristic. By voicing that viewpoint,  you risk excluding potential supporters (i.e. me). Why define the boundaries of supporters? Maybe it’s just my introvert self perceiving and overthinking something that’s not reality, but I don’t think so.

I’m lucky to have great friends that share this awareness. They may personally disagree with Olympics, but they ask me how my training is going and don’t chastise me for my involvement. They’ll tell you I’m not uneducated or unaware. I’m just a passion-diverse person. And if you want my support, you’re going to have to accept that.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Extroverts vs. introverts in the workplace

The first time I took the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), the results gave me some comfort and understanding. I had been fairly extroverted in my youth, but some long term experiences travelling and living alone helped me to realize the enjoyment I find when I have time to myself.

For those of you familiar with the MBTI, you’ll understand that I’m an ‘I’ on the E-I spectrum. This means that I’m an introvert. It doesn’t mean that I’m shy, but it means that I get my energy from focusing on my “inner world”. I often get asked, to my surprise (and annoyance), “Are you OK?” Apparently being deep in internal thought makes me look upset. What? Am I supposed to walk around with a goofy grin?

The results of an MBTI, like any other ‘personality’ test, can be used in a variety of ways. It’s easy to use your ‘type’ to offer excuses for your behaviour (“It’s OK that I always turn in work last minute; I’m a ‘P'”); instead, I try use my ‘type’ to understand the habits that I default to and the impacts that my behaviours have on those around me.

But enough about me. Here’s a breakdown of some general E vs. I characteristics.

Characteristics of ‘E’s and ‘I’s

Extrovert

 Introvert
  • outgoing
  • people person
  • comfortable in groups
  • wide range of friends and acquaintances
  • jumps quickly into activities
  • gets energized by being around others
  • thinks aloud
  • “talker”
  • reflective
  • reserved
  • comfortable alone
  • small group of close friends
  • thinks before starting activities
  • gets energy from time alone
  • processes thoughts internally
  • “(over)thinker”

Impact on the Workplace

An estimated 75% of the general population is extroverted (Tieger & Barron-Tieger, 1995) and reward systems and job recognition are generally set up to value extroverts. Extroverts get rewarded because their work is apparent. They talk openly and often about what they’re working on and how busy they are. You see them and they just look like they’re getting things done. Lots of meetings, people to see, places to rush off too. They’re good at marketing themselves. And somehow, I swear they walk louder.

With extroverts, often “what you see is what you get.” They thrive on the world around them, so the world around them knows what’s going on when them.

But what about introverts?

Introverts…

  • like working in quiet spaces
  • enjoy working independently
  • are reluctant to delegate, but when do, provide little information
  • work well without supervision
  • think and reflect before taking action
  • sometimes share ideas only when prompted
  • listen well
  • appear calm under pressure
  • have good depth of knowledge

Unfortunately, these introvert characteristics can come off in a negative light. Introverts can appear to not be “team players”. They may seem aloof, slow, serious, secretive or lacking ideas. They seem not busy, not productive or not outwardly stressed enough given the pressured circumstances.

Who’s Responsible?

So how can the best be drawn out of introverts?

Supervisors of introverts

  1. Ask their opinion. If you don’t you may be missing out on a whole wack of great ideas.
  2. Be prepared. Give them information (e.g. a meeting agenda) beforehand so they have time to process their thoughts internally before having to share.
  3. Use email. If asking for important input, give your staff time to consider their thoughts rather than putting them uncomfortably on the spot.
  4. Delegate properly. Give them the authority to make decisions on their own without interrupting and micromanaging.
  5. Be flexible in recognition. Don’t assume everyone’s idea of fun and reward is a big party.
  6. Find out where credit is due. Introverts don’t often sing their own praises, so be sure you are thanking the right people when things go well.

Introverted staff

  1. Share your route of thought. When explaining your opinion or providing instructions, don’t assume that everyone else has gone through the same thought process, as obvious as it may seem to you.
  2. Prepare. Request or research information before meetings so that you can prepare your thoughts ahead of time.
  3. Share you successes. Make small daily goals to share a project you are working on, a great meeting you had, or a positive outcome that you have reached. It doesn’t have to be about bragging. Share your passion instead of your ego.
  4. Create space. Whether when working on an important project or debriefing from an intense meeting, find a quiet place.
  5. Share your ideas. Again, make small daily goals to speak up once in a group setting. And don’t fret afterward about whether or not people thought your idea was silly. They’ve probably moved on.
  6. Seek out other introverts. If you have an event or activity to go to, buddy up with an introvert. Use it as an opportunity to go out of your comfort zone and mingle, knowing you can rejoin your buddy if you need to.

In Summary…

Neither introverts nor extroverts are “better” – they are just different. In order to demonstrate personal and professional leadership, understanding self and others is important. Take the time to learn about your co-workers and how they operate.

Additional Implications for the Nonprofit Sector

  • Think not only about your staff, but also about your clients. Are programs and services developed and marketed in ways accessible to both introverts and extroverts?
  • Think even further to your donors. Are solicitations and fundraising activities developed and marketed in ways appealing to both introverts and extroverts?

More Resources

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Balancing paper and prospects

This rant on paper waste is a part of
Blog Action Day 2009 | Climate Change.

Image Credit: striatic

Many people that I work with know me to be obsessive about using less paper. First I reduce, then I reuse, then, at last, I recycle.

This carries over beyond my work life and into my personal life. I’m one of those people that calls my service providers to be removed from solicitation lists (did you know you can even get the paper inserts taken out of your credit card statements, even if you can’t get bills online?). I’d love to get zero mail (confession: birthday cards are still OK;).

This carries over beyond my work life and into my philanthropic life. I donate online.

I’ve worked in fund development before. I know that it’s important to meet donor preferences.

But this rule seems to breakdown when it comes to reducing paper.

Exhibit A

  • I donated to at least 5 different organizations last year. All of them I donated online with.
  • Of those five, four of them followed up with print material – direct mail, invitations, newsletters, etc.
  • Of those four, I emailed each of them asking them to remove me from their (paper) mail lists, though I added that I was happy to receive any information by email.
  • Of those four, NONE have sent me any email. I actually had to email two of them after getting paper mail an additional time. I have received no further solicitations from any of them otherwise.
  • Of those original five, only one continues to connect with me via email. Very intermittently – nothing to be considered spam. I also have found out about their campaigns via Twitter and Facebook. I have followed their campaigns’ success online.  And surprise, they’re the one I donate the most to and have begun to donate most regularly to.

It (figuratively) breaks my heart to see nonprofits not getting it. Traditional ways of communicating with donors (ie mail) are still important for connecting with traditional donors. But “new” ways of communicating with donors (though “new” is debatable – the web has been used commonly for over a decade) are important to connect with and retain new donors AND cut down on paper.

Reduce and prosper?

Nonprofits should play their part in reducing waste (in both paper and the cost for stamps) by – at the very least – respecting the methods donors have gone out of their way to request to be solicited.

Read on: