New address…

…please visit actinglocal.blogspot.com instead.

Women’s Equality Day: 3 ways to engage

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge that today is Women’s Equality Day, which commemorates the 1920 passage of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote.

I’ve shared before that I think voting is not an end game–it’s just a tool in a larger democratic process, one in which still do not have a very stable, sustainable role. To quote Alice Paul:

I always feel the movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us puts in one little stone, and then you get a great mosaic at the end.

In 1920, the right to vote was just one little stone. Today there are many others that we (meaning men and women, young and old) still need to contribute. Here are three ways you can be a part of the mosaic that’s been building since 1848, when the first woman’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, NY:

Get informed. Learn more about the democratic process from established, respected, nonpartisan resources such as the League of Women Voters.

Get active. Today’s equality movement needs diverse resources to thrive, and it also offers diverse opportunities to engage. Join your local League, mentor a young woman, or donate to an organization related to the movement. You can also pursue an appointment to a board or commission. Michigan is one of many states with a women’s commission, and many counties are now establishing women’s commissions. But women’s perspectives are also needed on other boards and commissions at the local and state level… and it’s a great way to get started in local government and increase your leadership over time.

Get campaigning. I love that The White House Project cuts to the chase: “Add women. Change everything.” And they’re trying to do just that by training women to run for office. It’s nonpartisan and, from what I’ve heard, it’s a great experience. Regardless of whether they decide to run, I think more women should get some political training. Politics requires a different kind of savvy that can enhance other leadership skills.

Does a “diversified community” come with unexpected costs?

A lot of good conversation has been happening in response to Robert Putnam’s recent study (see also: Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, CitizenPost). It’s a fascinating discussion in a broad/philosophical sense—but more practically, I’ve been interested in how recent activity in my own community connects to the questions Putnam raises about diversity and how it relates to the civic health of communities.

For instance, last Sunday, the local paper’s letter from the editor shared differing perspectives of an area of Grand Rapids that is diversifying economically, socially, and culturally. Our downtown area is experiencing a boom right now that will bring new industry and new people to the city. Urban life has become a draw for many who may not have considered living so close to the city’s core (if in the city at all) in the past.

The letter profiled Jim Wilson, who has lived near downtown for 12 years and who questions the consequences of the development… not to mention the intentions of people moving to the city from the suburbs. As he says:

“We love living in the city, and we are living in the city. Not above it… There’s a sense of melancholy about what we’re losing. Pushed out will be the colorful characters, the street people, the restaurants that were tacky, but had real personality, the neighborhood grocery and drug stores. I miss that blend. The Press story, with pictures of a rooftop swimming pool bothered me. Those people live far above the gritty world down below. I hope that these more affluent types, who gladly pay $12 for a bottle of extra virgin olive oil, will also gladly come down from their towers and walk the streets.”

Reading Jim’s thoughts, I couldn’t help but feel a great sense of urgency… as we speak, as the cranes whittle Michigan Avenue into a new “medical mile”, something is changing forever. In one sense, the area is becoming more diverse, but is that potentially at the cost of other, perhaps less-monitored and less-noted diversity? (After all, would the Press really give quirky neighborhood features like those Jim mentions the benefit of the business/economic development coverage the rooftop pool received?)

Let me be clear—I’m very much for progress. But like Jim, and perhaps like others who have responded to Putnam’s study, I think this progress—the diversification of our communities, our people, and our economies—deserves a deeper, more questioning look, so we can understand the ramifications and seek ways for everyone to benefit.

In Grand Rapids, I’ve learned that one of the effects of our changing community is a shift in voting patterns. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m part of a team that’s developing a neighborhood-based voting project called We Vote. A significant portion of our work to date has involved collaborating with the Community Research Institute (CRI) to review voting patterns over time.

As we started the project, CRI produced color-coded maps to demonstrate local voter turnout. We had been told to expect that the city’s core would be void of color, with the colors getting more intense, and in pretty defined rings around the core, as we headed further from downtown and into the neighborhoods where voting activity is much higher. This is how the data had looked for some time.

But when we used more recent numbers, we realized the ring effect had become garbled. The definitive “donut” we had been told to expect could not be spotted. At first glance, some people interpreted this as a really positive indicator that voter turnout is on the rise in Grand Rapids, which some might also positively relate to a rise in civic engagement.

I’ve never been as comfortable with this conclusion, however, and it gets back to this whole idea of communities “diversifying” at a potentially unknown cost. When I looked at the map, I wondered how it might relate to a map of neighborhood transition from the same time period. For instance, we know that some families from suburbs that are more traditionally engaged (i.e., Rockford, Jenison, East Grand Rapids) are moving into the city. As they move in, they bring their sense of civic responsibility with them, and they also bring expectations and savvy about the kind of community and access they need and deserve.

Even from a logistical perspective, their move affects voting and other access points of civic engagement… more residents might mean additional or different polling locations. A different kind of resident (higher income, consistent voter, etc.) might also mean more attention from or access to politicians.

As Jim points out, while this transition occurs in the city, another kind of neighborhood may feel distanced or may even disappear. Perhaps people from different backgrounds, including those more likely to feel disenfranchised, no longer feel at home. Or perhaps their homes are literally transformed for this new set of urban dwellers. For instance, what happens to low-income renters whose landlords want to take advantage of downtown’s economic upswing?

In a sense, there’s diversity in all of this. But it’s diversity displaced. And when that happens, civic confidence and civic engagement are undoubtedly affected. At least from my initial reading of the Putnam conversations, that’s the key point. This isn’t about diversity threatening the civic equilibrium of places like Grand Rapids. This is about making the civic equilibrium one that is collaboratively defined, with equal access to the process, and with shared responsibility for making that process rewarding for all community members.

3 Simple Gestures: Leading on the inside

I’m a big believer that the little things count, particularly when it comes to leadership. Coming out of the NP 2020 conference, it’s tempting to continue thinking about visionary, systemic strategies for leadership, but that can’t be at the cost of dismissing smaller gestures that contribute to good teams and work cultures.

It’s amazing how much time we spend talking about the big, external strategies when we could just as easily lead right now, within our own organizations, through simple gestures… hence the following:

3 Simple Gestures: Leading on the inside

1. Attend staff meetings.
   Physical presence is underrated in a world where so much gets done by e-mail. This makes staff meetings more critical than ever. Set your staff meetings as a recurring commitment on your calendar and make it a point to show up on time, every time. When it’s impossible to attend on a certain day, follow up with a colleague and ask them what happened. Ask someone who might not usually talk to–it’s an easy conversation starter and a way to show you’re invested in the team.
2. Ring a bell.
   When something great happens (again, big or small), it’s good to make some noise. One organization I worked for rang a bell each time we raised some money. Where I work now, there is a bell in the design team area (a central location in our office), and every time there’s something to celebrate–from completed projects to baby announcements–you’ll hear ringing. This is a gesture that crosses both internal and external lines… our clients are always surprised to hear ringing and cheering, which provides a great opportunity to tell them more about our culture.
3. Post your work.
   “Working in a vacuum” is probably one of my least favorite work-related phrases and habits. People talk about it with frustration and then seem to just go back to their cubicle to work in silos once more. One approach that has worked really well for me is making work more tangible by posting it on a wall. When I was part of a transitioning marketing team, I posted a snapshot of our current projects, a draft of the annual report, and a broad timeline of what was coming soon. People began to stop by to talk about the work. I was able to learn more about them and how they shared our message–and I could therefore be more proactive in identifying communications projects. The number of our “emergency projects” decreased, and rather than fighting politics to be at the table for certain meetings, other staff members began to request that the marketing team join in strategic conversations.

I’d love to hear more simple gestures from others, even those you’ve tried that did not work as you intended…

NP 2020: Mentoring and the language of intergenerational dialogue

The NP 2020 conference wrapped up today, and in our final open sessions, we were encouraged to reach some systemic recommendations regarding next steps.

An opportunity that surfaced again and again related to mentoring in the sector. As I’ve alluded to before, mentoring always gives me pause because of its varied interpretations. Those variations came through today both in terms of the problem-solving that groups did and in terms of the tension that could be sensed as we debriefed on key themes from our previous day’s work.

After Susan Morales-Barias (our facilitator from GVSU’s Johnson Center) shared key themes from Friday’s sessions, she invited participants to add comments. One participant, a Baby Boomer, asked that we all be more mindful of the language we use as we try to engage in conversations about mentoring, professional development, and transition in the sector. She said she felt that the tone of the group seemed to put the blame on another generation while also making large generalizations about the intentions of Boomer leadership.

Rather than dwelling on “Boomers do this to me…”, this attendee asked that we consider outside factors that affect Boomer and young leadership alike. Rather than relying on generalizations or assumptions about Boomers, she encouraged us to speak based on how we perceive Boomer leadership.

This comment provoked exactly the kind of fresh dialogue I was hoping to find at a conference like this. Some of the younger participants seemed to agree with the woman, but others argued that our generation needs the space to come together and put concerns on the table without semantics, politics, and feelings getting in the way. One participant went so far as to say that such interjections from Boomers had made her feel like she was being “scolded by a parent.”

I’ll be honest, the notion of being scolded by a Boomer hits home for me. I have definitely felt that way before, and tried hard not to feel that way at NP 2020 in a couple instances (like when one Boomer participant chided that we all “need to read our history”). At the same time, I count many Boomers as friends and mentors. I could never devalue or dismiss their role in getting me to where I am. But…I definitely feel that their approach to mentoring differs from the approaches of some of their Boomer peers.

So I say, yes, let’s propose mentoring as a solution. But let’s also clarify the language of intergenerational dialogue, which obviously needs attention based on exchanges like the one at NP 2020. If we fail to clarify this language, our generations will continue to merge haphazardly, perhaps even oblivious of one another.

With that clarification, I think mentoring itself will be strengthened. Mentoring is too often viewed as a transfer of knowledge—one person transferring a skill set, content expertise, etc. to a less-experienced person. In reality, it’s time for mentoring to be viewed as a vehicle for advancing the sector, not just an add-on for getting into the sector. One Boomer in my dinner group told me she’s participated in an approach called “appreciative inquiry”—I love that term and am going to look into it.

To set some sort of direction for all this, here’s my take: Mentoring needs to be as much an organizational development process as it is a talent development tool. As Susan pointed out, the leadership deficit is happening now—it’s not going to happen when 640,000 executive leaders leave their positions. We don’t simply mean people when we refer to a deficit. There is a deficit in meaningful exchange of knowledge and perspectives. There is a deficit in common understanding and common ground to voice concerns and celebrate progress. And if we don’t have candid conversations about that now, the changing of the guard could be the least of our worries…

NP 2020: Generating conversations…

Blogging from the first full day of the NP 2020 conference… the open source approach is interesting and definitely creates a different atmosphere than other, more structured conferences. It’s like a spontaneous focus group for the nonprofit sector… the conversations are not necessarily designed to lead to conclusions, but they do produce a fair amount of observations that those not in attendance (especially current leadership and funders) can use to inform their work and the development of their relationships with the next generation.

Because of the organic nature of the conference, I don’t have a nicely packaged post to offer. Instead, I’ll offer a series of questions and some immediate thoughts…

I attended a “session” (they are loose so it’s hard to put them in that box) that emerged from an original question of: Commitment to the cause, or commitment to the sector?

How do the two inform one another, and is it possible to have a commitment to the cause through various levels of relation to the sector (staff, board, volunteer, for-profit)?

This question interested me because it’s something I’ve been asking myself lately. As I have transitioned from working within a nonprofit to advance a mission to working for a for-profit communications firm that helps nonprofit clients advance their missions, I’ve wondered about how I fit in both the for-profit and the nonprofit worlds. I sometimes feel like I’m not a true resident of either sector… and I’ve become part of the statistics that indicate many young people are leaving or planning to leave the sector. At the same time, my commitment to strengthening the sector has probably only increased with my transition to this new job.

I don’t know that the conversation necessarily affirmed my personal question either way, but it did prompt the following:

• Is the difference between for-profit and nonprofit careers simply a matter of the demands of answering to shareholders and the demands of serving community members/clients?
• Is a degree any guarantee that a person is “qualified” to lead?
• Our conversation evolved into one about the “professionalization of the sector,” as one participant put it. This professionalization involves not only staff credentials and qualifications, but also higher standards for accounting, management, etc. I’m still noodling on this one–a lot. I do feel that if professionalization of the sector is to be valuable, its definition and standards need to be articulated in a way that allows it to adapt to organizations of varying sizes, visions, regions, etc.
• And this leads me to another question: Does the professionalization of the sector potentially threaten accessibility to the sector? Is a certain level of “soft skills” lost in the effort to professionalize? I also wonder about cultural competency in particular… at the extreme, the sector could be highly professionalized, highly standardized, and highly regulated. Is there room in that mix for leaders to emerge from the neighborhoods being served via programs? I feel like the notion of professionalizing the sector could, in some ways, be at odds with other thinking about “citizen-generated” social change (see the Case Foundation in particular).

Like I said, I have to keep thinking about that whole topic. I’m off to another session for now.

NP 2020: Leaders ready, but nonprofits need stronger response.

After a long, unexpected hiatus from my blog, I’m glad to be back. I once had an English professor tell my class that if we didn’t actively write, we had no business calling ourselves writers. As an English major at heart, nothing makes me more uncomfortable than having to count myself out as a writer because I’ve been lazy with my craft… unsurprisingly, I think the same goes for blogging.

And I am returning to blog about something I’ve touched on before, except now it’s happening: the NP 2020 Conference! It opened tonight and–I know I’m a nonprofit nerd through and through–the energy is already contagious. Being around the flurry of networking nonprofit professionals is refreshing, especially when they are young, talented, and ambitious.

It’s that kind of energy that may both affirm and counter the conference’s core question: “Will you lead?” I think tonight is already an indicator that there is a new generation of nonprofit leadership and it’s not just willing to lead; it’s ready to lead.

The question we may really need to think about over the next two days of the conference is, “How will the sector invite you to lead and support you in leading?”

Lisa Rose Starner of Mixed Greens touched on this in the opening speech when she encouraged everyone to think about the leadership deficit not as an issue only for leaders themselves to solve, but as a part of organizational development that requires funder support. She noted that funders should consider investing in transition planning rather than programming alone.

I would add that such funding should be coupled with stronger standards for how transition of nonprofit leadership occurs. I don’t think many nonprofits have considered a rationale for transition planning and talent development. If such development occurs, it is often put together in a way that is not systemic or sustainable… maybe not even replicable from one organization to the next? I once shared an idea for a mentoring and talent development program internally–it was well-received but then landed on my work plan for the next year, right back in the vacuum I was trying so hard to push it beyond.

Without a more common understanding of what we mean when we say “talent development” and “transition planning,” it seems like there is not a solid “product” the nonprofit sector can offer funders… after all, this is still programming in a way, just internal programming. (And I would not even say it’s capacity building, because depending on the program, it has benefits beyond the nonprofit organization.)

In my experience, outside leadership development organizations (i.e., American Humanics, which is supporting NP 2020) are good at placing talented young leaders in organizations, but the organizations themselves don’t have a system in place to identify, groom, and keep that talent. There should be some good practices organizations can borrow from each other and translate into a localized plan for transitioning the nonprofit sector. That would not only seem more strategic, but more worthy of the kind of funding needed to impact many organizations in a measurable, long-term way.

I hope some of this will bubble up tomorrow… it’s going to be great to watch the conversation and networking continue. I’ll post more here as time allows.

Something old, something new: Let’s skip the debate and reimagine the system.

How happy was I to see that the day after I talked about a potential generational disconnect in social sector leadership, Tactical Philanthropy tackled the old-new relationship in a great post. I love the thinking:

I don’t believe that “old philanthropy” needs to be replaced by “new philanthropy”, rather I think that Arianna Huffington got it right during the Morphing Media session when she said that we need to bring together wisdom and innovation. When the wise and the innovative are brought together, the positive outcome is not a result of each side politely acknowledging each other’s strengths and then going their separate ways. Rather the two sides are best served by engaging in verbal combat, where the weaknesses in each side’s point of view can be exposed and the strengths revealed.

Innovation needs wisdom so it may be properly cultivated. Wisdom needs innovation so it can continue to have meaningful relevance. And if I take it one step further, progress is the application of experience in innovative models… which is why I continue to think that this is about more than traditional development within the sector… it’s about intersecting the assets of old and new in a way that evolves thinking, practices, and social investment.

But does this happen only through “verbal combat,” as Tactical Philanthropy and other blogs have suggested? Hmm. I’m not sure that competition or controversy are best suited to prompt the intersection of innovation and experience. Perhaps a certain amount of competition or verbal combat helps make a relevant case where the new and the old can merge… I can’t ignore that this has happened somewhat in my experiences.

Yet I wonder if philanthropy will evolve to a point that it does not require the spark of debate to leverage what I view as the inherent assets of the new and the old. The benefits of innovation and experience seem so connected to me that no debate is needed to create their synergy.

Instead, I imagine that organizations will begin to change and be structured in a way that receives and appropriately allocates the resources of innovation and experience for the greatest impact. I’m getting systemic, but I think this is about reinventing the work of philanthropy (and the framework of how decisions are made) so that the new-old debate does not happen at the surface… instead, it’s acknowledged somehow in the infrastructure and leveraged when appropriate.

I think we are expecting the new and the old, or the innovators and the experienced, to carry too much weight via “verbal combat.” Instead it is the institution of philanthropy itself that must evolve to carry the merger of innovation and experience.

There is not a universal answer for how this could be achieved. I expect the field to keep changing, and perhaps new organizational models will emerge. I just don’t think traditional organizational hierarchy can accommodate this sort of thinking… where does the organic intersection of innovation and experience fit in a large, traditionally-structured organization? And furthermore, how do we honor the success of established organizations while migrating them to more relevant models… before jumping to the conclusion of simply creating new philanthropic organizations?

And what does this mean for donors, volunteers, nonprofits and funders? Is there any way to anticipate how much additional impact we’ll achieve if thinking like this is somehow operationalized? What’s the result: more effective programs, streamlined services, greater competency, more efficient investments, the attraction of new people to the sector?

After all, at the end of the day, philanthropy is about impact, and these days, it’s particularly about measurable impact. Of course, we sometimes only apply that expectation to our funded partners–they have to worry about systemic change all the time these days. Is this old-new issue an opportunity to be accountable to the sector in the same way?

Perhaps this is why we can’t move beyond “verbal combat”: it’s too challenging to quantify a case for why more systemic change is needed, and without identifying a clear, in-demand outcome, where’s the sense of urgency to move from verbal combat to a new model?