A quadripartite mandate

Here’s a quick, undeveloped thought.

As I’ve thought about where I’d like to sit in an organization next year, I’ve thought a lot about what I’d like my mandate to be: fighting for the issue I believe in (field building in an “industry” or issue area), fighting directly for the people I believe in (service-oriented work); fighting for the organization I believe in (capacit building); or fighting for the sector I believe in (field building in the nonprofit sector).  Obviously, these don’t hold true for all organizations, like intermediaries or strict advocacy orgs, but I think it pertains to a good enough amount to give it some thought.

Some positions in organizations directly link a couple of these mandates, while others seems to focus intently on one.  After much reflection, I’ve decided I don’t want to choose, and I also think leaders should encourage folks throughout their organizations not to choose.  In fact, I think leaders should enocurage it and put resources into arming workers throughout their organizations with the skills and knowledge to successfully contribute to all four.

I would also appreciate if institutions, like schools, would take a more integrated approach to social change, then I wouldn’t have such a darned hard time figuring out what graduate degree(s) to pursue.

Thoughts?  Hopefully more on this later when I flesh out my own thoughts.

It’s not all about the $$$…

In keeping with my promise to write more, I’m taking a break from my first visit with my family since they moved to Arizona to post some thoughts about an issue that’s been on my mind.

I attended StartingBloc last week and so many of the conversations I had with fellows linked social change and $ and an MBA.  Whether it was about driving social change and making a good chunk of change (”doing good while doing well”) or launching a nonprofit venture that drove social change while earning a profit (”social enterprises” or self-sufficient nonprofits).   There was an extreme under appreciation, or perhaps misunderstanding, of the role management skills and business principles play in the bigger picture of nonprofit management.  This drives me nuts.

On doing well and doing good…great, make some money and do some good, but recognize every social problem cannot be solved by opportunities that lend themselves do doing well and doing good simultaneously (I would hope to be proven wrong on this one, but I doubt it).  Certain problems cannot be solved with double bottom line businesses because a market simply does not exist, no matter how hard you try to create one.  Certain problems tackled by nonprofits don’t lend themselves to higher compensation opportunities, even though the leaders in that organization see the need for cross-sector competitive compensation, because the funding might not flow to that cause, let alone the people fighting for that cause.  Are there opportunities to do well and do good? Absolutely.  There are many examples of social problems being tackled by extremely profitable double bottom line ventures and there are also many examples of nonprofit organizations who pay their employees extremely competitive salaries and performance-based compensation, but don’t automatically think that if you evoke a little creativity solving the problem you care about, you will be able to find an opportunity to do well and do good. (Note that none of this is a discussion of CSR, which isn’t what any of the folks I spoke with were interested in)

As for business skills, nonprofits, and profit…As I work in an organization undergoing a significant amount of restructuring in light of the economic environment, I am reaffirmed in my decision to study business and bring it to the social sector – but it has nothing to do with helping to improve the economic situation of the organization through employing strict profit-making tactics.   Simple management principles that might otherwise be overlooked or ill-understood in organizations that don’t have managers and leaders with business skills, like change management, will have a profound role in shaping the outcome of the transition of this organization.  Risk and scenario analysis, two more real management skills, had a profound role in defining how this organization would set the course for restructuring.  Management-oriented communication tactics had, and will continue to have, a profound role in ensuring buy-in for this transition.  Think about the role of business skills and discipline in a nonprofit more holistically than just helping the organization drive a profitable bottom-line.

End rant.

Not such a short hiatus…

Wow, when things pick up, they really pick up.  Holidays, an inauguration, a new season of the Bachelor, looming restructuring at my employer, a new computer (MacBook!) – you get the point.  Suffice it to say, this blog deserves more attention.  What better way to reintroduce this into my life than to reflect on why I’m even writing.

When I began, I only had others in mind.  I wanted to provide yet another optional (hopefully insightful) window into a life that a lot of folks in my generation are living due to our severely confused values (”giving back” > $$$).  I still want to offer that, but during my short hiatus, I found myself missing this for more selfish reasons: it offers a great opportunity to reflect, flesh out my thoughts, get feedback and grow, and watch the development of my thoughts and opinions over time (in all, think: public journal).  

The bottom line implications of my revelation: more writing, less polishing. Hopefully, I will better serve both parties.  

I would hope that readers see a shift in their role, too, at least for my posts.  As I try to grow into my nonprofit life and nonprofit leadership, comments provide an exceptional virtual mentorship tool, even if they involve vehement disagreement, shameless support, or just some AOL-produced incomprehensible shorthand.

WRITE ON!

Recession = Consolidation of Social Sector. FINALLY!

It is sad to think that it takes a recession for some social sector organizations to think seriously about their costs and decide to (a) go out of business or (b) merge with another organization. There are examples of social sector organizations consolidating back-office functions or merging before the financial crisis started, but they are rare.

Now, however, there is a fury of mergers and back-office consolidations. Social sector organizations are finally realizing that if their mission will not be sacrificed and they can reduce costs then they should merge or consolidate some operations.

Why has it taken until now for some social sector organizations show responsibility for the money that they have been entrusted to put toward mission? Following are some of the reasons

Sectorally Ambiguous

Over the last few months since all my Ross School BBA compadres graduated and dispersed across the country into different sectors and jobs, I’ve had a lot of interesting conversations about different work, employers, and lifestyles – not to mention I’ve done a little bit of experiencing the work world myself. I could draw on any number of topics I’ve discussed with any number of my fellow graduated Wolverines, but the differences and similarities between one’s work, job, and lifestyles between the non-profit and private sector I find especially striking.

And with every good blog post comes one good phrase that contains a word that isn’t actually a word. And on that note, let’s play “sectorally ambiguous.”

While we could just talk about where the two sectors are blurring, that is what characteristics are becoming more sectorally ambiguous, I think it’s more insightful to think about those that are sectorally ambiguous, those that aren’t but could be, and those that aren’t and likely never will be –