Traffic jam ahead: Boomers and youth merge on social sector

There seems to be an exciting transition and self-awareness happening in the social sphere, beyond even the nonprofit/philanthropic or social sector. It’s a transition that includes the community, our personal perceptions of social purpose, and the economic interpretation of actions motivated by social consciousness.

From my view, this is having particular effects on how the boomer generation and 20-somethings perceive themselves and their work… but not necessarily each other.

I’ve been a little perplexed lately by an emerging disconnect between young social thinkers and older social thinkers… for instance, here’s the introduction to the New Voices of Philanthropy blog:

After baby boomers leave the world of professional philanthropy to enjoy lake cabins and to spoil their grandchildren, who will continue the day-to-day struggle for social justice? That’s where we come in. New Voices of Philanthropy is a place where new and experienced leaders in the foundation world can come together to share strategies and tactics to change the world. Are you ready?

This does not at all mesh with my thinking about baby boomers or the transition of leadership in the sector. In fact, I imagine that the boomers who are my colleagues would be taken aback by the notion that they are simply going to ride off into the sunset to “enjoy lake cabins and spoil their grandchildren.”

Doesn’t this make the experience of a generation sound rather disposable? I fear for the young nonprofit professional who imagines that baby boomers are all just waiting to check out and head to the beach. After all, at the very least, who do you think will be serving on your boards?

Look at the thinking of organizations like Civic Ventures. Clearly, there is a movement afoot to refresh the sector with the leadership and experience of older individuals. Many are starting to imagine the sector as the next step for boomers who still have a lot to offer but want to work with a renewed social purpose.

Two schools of thought appear to be emerging, with no clear intermediary working to bring them together.

One group is calling for the grooming of young talent, armed with the Bridgespan report and saying that the sector is going to lose thousands of its seasoned leaders shortly. (The NP2020 conference claims that the Bridgespan “statistic creates more impact on the sector as baby boomers prepare for retirement in the next few years.”)

Yet the other group claims that boomers are a fitting answer to the sector’s need for leadership. This Stanford Business Magazine article points out that “a 2006 Merrill Lynch survey of more than 5,000 Americans reported that 71 percent plan to continue work in some form past age 61, and 65 percent of boomers and 70 percent of younger workers hope to move into a new profession.”

It’s as if the social sector is a busy highway, in the midst of its own transition while also facing a leadership deficit. The trouble is, I don’t know if the drivers–the boomer in the left lane, the 20-something merging from the on-ramp–have checked their blind spot yet.

Are we effectively preparing ourselves and our organizations for this mash of the young and the old? Apparently both groups think they are going to get there first, but can’t we facilitate that change in a way that enhances professional development and advances missions?

As a young professional, that’s one of the major reasons I volunteer–to be engaged with another generation and work with them to reinvent social change so it has new meaning in our community.

One request: please don’t boil this down to “mentoring.” That’s a traditional dichotomy that doesn’t go far enough. This is about good business sense. Frankly, it’s about the vitality of the sector and its capacity to create change. Like it or not, the generations are speeding toward the spot where the sector will be tomorrow. We might as well think about creating a collaborative road map now… it will be a lot easier to understand each other and enjoy the work when we all get there.

Will you choose Michigan?

When I graduated from college, my husband and I made a conscious decision to stay in Michigan. Less than a year after graduation and securing my first job, we made another conscious decision: to buy a house in the city of Grand Rapids, in a diverse neighborhood that’s close to the growing Medical Mile and a thriving downtown.

Since then, between mowing the lawn, establishing a career, replacing the windows on the house, paying the bills, and watching friends graduate from college, I’ve experienced a nagging frustration: am I the only 20-something worried about the flight of young, talented, passionate people from Michigan?

It’s a fear that distracts me when I’m driving sometimes, especially when I’m on the road to Lansing for a meeting, wondering about how our state is going to reinvent itself as the sole means of sustaining itself. I think about it when I brush my teeth in the morning. I think about it when I’m at my husband’s lacrosse games. He coaches middle school students… kids who are two blinks away from college and perhaps only a degree away from leaving Michigan.

I feel an incredible sense of urgency about this problem of Michigan’s fleeing young talent. It seems so tangible–it’s not a slowly leaking faucet that’s easily ignored. It’s a broken water main that’s threatening our infrastructure.

A recent Detroit Free Press article only confirmed my anxieties–in fact, it made my stomach hurt. Fifty three percent of more than 600 students surveyed at Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and the University of Michigan said they do not plan to stay in the state after graduating.

Fifty three percent. Imagine half of MSU’s student body simply disappearing from the state over the next few years–about 20,000 people (when considering the total undergraduate student body). Social workers, doctors, teachers, writers, actors, philosophers, leaders… a myriad of people–resources–who are gone.

Imagine if even 10,000 of them chose to stay and bought a home. Imagine if only 500 of them became engaged in their local community. Imagine if 100 of them made a commitment to stay forever, invest in their local community, and become leaders personally and professionally. How would Michigan be different in 10, 20, or 50 years?

The answer always seems to be that this is irrelevant because there are no jobs in Michigan. Times are tough–everyone can agree on that. But I can’t submit to the notion that jobs are the end-all, be-all. Most of my peers who have left Michigan did not even try finding a job here. Most of them were talented and well-networked, meaning that there job search would have been difficult but probably not fruitless.

And some friends of mine who do have jobs–and good jobs, in their desired field–still insist that they are leaving Michigan soon. Some talk about going to school, others want to just get out and try something different.

I ask them to buy a house in Michigan and travel everywhere instead. I tell them about the incredible rates MSHDA offers on mortgages to first-time homebuyers. I remind them of economic progress, like the Medical Mile. And I believe fervently… if there was ever a time when thinking globally and acting locally was critical, this is it. If there was ever a time for ambitious 20-somethings to authentically imagine themselves as social entrepreneurs, this is it. (I’m talking about incredible people like my friend Social Citizen–I’m not afraid to name names!)

In short, it’s time to ditch the flight for some fight. The departure of talent from Michigan is not just an economic development problem–it’s a social one. It’s not just a trend–it’s the pulse of our state’s future.

And let’s get this perfectly straight: it’s not just about jobs. That’s a short-sighted excuse for a bigger question about what motivates people to invest in Michigan. This is a conversation about communities–not just jobs. I expect that unless there is some response to the departure of Michigan’s young people, the flight will continue regardless of an improvement in the job market.

This is about pride. And choice. And the opportunity to shape something bigger than yourself… beginning in your local community–maybe just the home you own–and influencing the bigger picture. Maybe it’s not the allure of Sex in the City, but it’s not just homespun simplicity, either.

Michigan is my home, but more importantly: it’s my choice. Who else will choose? If we’re not asking the question, then we’re not doing enough.

Maybe I was a suffragette in my past life.

The background: Today, during an enthusiastic meeting with fellow League of Women Voters leadership team members about our new project (We Vote), a man interrupted to ask if we are always so excitable at 7:30 in the morning. “This is what happens when women get the vote,” he laughed. He meant nothing rude by it–if anything, he seemed genuinely baffled by how we really could be so excited. I’ve been thinking about him today, thinking about others like him, and wondering about the excitement and potential of voting.

I’m young enough to still be reasonably idealistic, but grounded enough to think about change in terms of measurable, sustainable action. Because of this, I tend to be passionate in principle: the talent of youth can do so much for our communities, our home is something to be proud of, our economy can be reinvented… and I tend to be grounded in action: We should offer and promote incentives for young people to buy houses in the city. We can shop at stores owned by our community members. We should invest in educational opportunities that support the growth of a knowledge-based economy.

Over the last year, I’ve come to appreciate that there is a spot where idealism and action intersect. And it’s simple: voting.

Maybe it’s so simple that it still comes across as idealistic, but I really do believe that voting possesses a sacred spot in the underpinnings of our communities. As I think about this, I realize that I intentionally do not even say the underpinnings of our democracy.

Yes, voting is a function of democracy. But taken one step further, democracy extends voting as a tool in community building. Democracy does not establish communities–people do. And one of the most fundamental ways to do that is through voting.

Voting is personal action on the one hand and collective idealism at the same time. As a voter, I make a personal decision and offer a concrete, individual action. Yet in a collective sense, voting captures the sentiments and hopes of a community and propels them in an actionable way, for change. We can learn a lot about the pride and hope in a community by understanding whether or not its members vote and why… and we can achieve action by voicing that hope–however idealistic–through voting.

It’s the difference between wishing my neighborhood was a safer place for kids (idealism) and going to the polls to vote for someone who has promised to advocate for after-school programming in the neighborhood (idealism paired with action).

If you can’t tell, I’m adamant that our community has to be a voting community. I don’t care how it votes… it’s just important that it does vote. Of course, there are issues of access, trust, quality of information and more. I may be idealistic, but I am not naive… our voting system needs support and more community members who want to preserve its integrity.

I guess I offer all this if only for the sake of exploration… and to make a case for an enhanced perception of voting. Voting should be a celebration of our communities and their futures, and Election Day should be viewed as our community’s big holiday. Voting is like a social marketing campaign rather than a political campaign… it is action that belongs to the community, and it is hope voiced… it’s so much more than a transaction.

All easier said than accomplished. And I start with wondering how can I communicate that the next time someone wonders why we’re all so excited.

Is balanced leadership the only truly successful leadership?

That’s a big question. After all, we’d have to arrive at a common understanding of leadership to even begin to articulate the meaning of successful leadership.

I began noodling on this after reading an interesting discussion at Fast Company: Bill George, professor at Harvard Business School, and Wendy Kopp, president of Teach for America explore leadership and teaching.

I’m particularly taken with George’s comment that “the key to being able to develop yourself as a leader is to narrow that gap between your idealized self and your real self by developing a deep self-awareness that only comes from straight feedback and honest exploration of yourself, followed by a concerted effort to make changes.”

I’ve thought a lot about leadership and balance lately. What is the balance between leading externally and leading yourself internally so you can bring adequate value to what you do while feeling whole and content about who you are? The last part of George’s thought–”the concerted effort to make changes”–is where I struggle.

For those with a predisposition to leadership, how do you identify the gap George mentions and then make an effort to narrow that gap without feeling as though you are failing to lead? In that gap, there are opportunities you will probably need to turn down, but there are worthy needs that will still demand attention.

George nearly distills this narrowing of the gap to a question of being able to accept criticism and take an honest assessment of your own deficiencies. That’s part of it, I suppose, but I’m also drawn to the notion of identifying your own assets and then learning how to manage them in a way that allows them to grow, leverages them, and sustains them for meaningful leadership over time. In other words, narrowing the gap by achieving balanced leadership that can be enhanced and rewarding (internally and externally) for the long haul.

Today I shared my thoughts on balance with a colleague, and he encouraged me to think about my own mission statement. As I go forward, he recommended that I only pursue opportunities that truly align with that mission statement. The idea is that establishing this practice will not only promote balance, but it will probably make me more valuable and stronger in those things I do pursue.

I believe establishing a mission and vision is a critical way of moving toward sustainable action. Of course, it’s much easier to believe this for others, like the organizations I work with, then do it for myself. Yet George raises a good point, and it makes me wonder: is leadership stalled if you do not honestly assess personal meaning (self-perception), define desired personal values (external perceptions/impact), and then align those two (balance)?

Out of curiosity, I Googled “personal mission statements.” I found a Mission Statement Builder at FranklinCovey that offers three ways to think about your mission statement and begin creating it. It’s a little hoaky with the inspirational music on the site, but anyway… I tried the timed tool that gives you prompts, with only 30 seconds to provide a response. Unfortunately, I could hardly think of responses to some of the questions. There’s obviously some thinking to do here…

If anyone reading this cares to share, it would be fun to see what you think, read your mission statement, or learn what it might include if you spent some time thinking about it. Mission-driven comments encouraged!

Getting nostalgic about social networking.

My love of online community-building and social networks began a long time before the packaged communities of MySpace and Facebook. When I was a kid, your online popularity was quantified in the number of e-mails you received daily and whether or not your zine won any awards in online contests.

For example, here’s the award my zine won in 1997, which I found recently while poking around on archive.org:

Honestly, I ran around the house when I got this thing. I was in seventh grade, and it was a big deal. After hours of aligning size 10 Arial font and bolding only the most compelling words (I learned quickly that comic sans and abuse of capitalization were the staples of amateurs), I had not only reached out to 600 readers of my zine, but I had been recognized by the zine community.

Today, however, community, recognition and online popularity mean you are a YouTube star like the laughable lonelygirl15, or your friends listing on MySpace numbers well within the thousands (with the names reading more like a black book than a telephone book). It’s still networking, but not quite the authentic experience I began exploring more than a decade ago.

Back then, social networking was self-regulated to keep its authenticity and operate openly and organically. It seemed like a great after-school activity for a klutz who loved to write and had no hopes of making the basketball team.

I never thought my work would someday involve online marketing. It’s been fascinating to see how what I did for fun in middle school still has relevance today. One of the best parts has been connecting with people I knew years ago–Sam for example. He was from Kentucky, and we probably met on a message board for teen writers. We IMed for years, exchanging our work and talking about getting published.

Sam and I never met in person, and we stopped talking in high school, I think. Then last year, I had a surprising friend request on Facebook: Sam. There he was–no more braces and a wife to boot! I was incredibly impressed and ran to tell my husband… unsurprisingly, his look was a lot like my mom’s when I announced my zine award. A mix of trying to be excited but being mostly confused.

Even more exciting was the fact that Sam is studying media at MIT. I’m always interested in finding people who were online geeks and are now making a career out of it (well, more the online part than the geek part)… I would love to know where some of the other online editors and writers are.

A good place to start is by finding what they’re saying today. Sam keeps a blog at the MIT Convergence Culture Consortium site. If you care at all about social networks and the like, you should check it out.

One post that I think is particularly intriguing and relevant is “Xerox Touts Viral Marketing Drive…” It’s always tricky commenting on early “viral campaigns” because to be viral suggests some level of having generated appeal or buzz already.

I find it ironic when companies like Xerox “announce” a viral campaign in a traditional press release. It feels counterintuitive and therefore tends to lack authenticity… undermining and co-opting social networks rather than leveraging them to better understand and engage an audience.

It’s the A-B-Cs of social networks–just ask the zine editor in your kid’s class.

Next time, add “passion” to your resume.

One of the reasons I started this blog is because I’m fascinated with extremes and parallels, with juxtaposition, irony, and surprise. That’s also why I named this blog Upside Down Bananas… to honor and explore surprising approaches to traditional ways of thinking.

But sometimes those surprises verge on just plain baffling.

Last night, my good friend called to report that after less than two weeks on the job (the start of her career as a graphic designer after college), she was invited into a conference room, given her first paycheck, and fired.

In most cases, the first two weeks would be a highly unusual time to fire an employee. You can imagine the atrocities she must have committed to deserve this swift send-off. Stealing? Failure to show up? Disruptive behavior?

Job seekers take note: there appears to be a new threshold of expectations for new employees.

Apparently if you are not passionate enough you should be fired before the ink dries on your health insurance forms.

This was the reason my friend’s employer offered for her dismissal. She was not passionate enough about their industry. In particular, they said she did not coo over industry-related magazines enough to justify additional investment or interest in her ambition, drive and commitment.

I have tried to think of any industry that accepts only superior insiders as qualified employees. I once worked for a trade publication focused on commercial real estate–great opportunity, but I definitely did not live, breathe, and die for the real estate industry, and neither did everybody else at the company. It goes without saying that this did not affect the success of the business or more interest in the work itself… even more obvious should be the fact that it actually helped the business.

Imagine that: unique individuals with diverse backgrounds collaborating to advance a company. Before yesterday, I would have considered this approach an inherent means of survival in the economy today. Instead, the company that fired my friend must view it as an extreme, even threatening, style of work.

Now besides being frustrated with my friend, I’m curious about this unexpected passion factor. Are there other companies that operate this way? And at what cost? How do they effectively hire anyone? At a certain point, isn’t it industry inbreeding to recycle and trust only the perspectives of insiders?

Exploring social entrepreneurship

I was excited to find that this quarter’s feature story of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) tackles what I consider a relevant, intriguing discussion: Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. I have been fascinated by the notion of social entrepreneurship, especially as I have watched it surface with some uncertainty as to whether it would become another example of philanthropic jargon or a bona fide arena within (or evolved model of) social change.

I view the emergence of social entrepreneurship, not to mention the self-consciousness of needing to define it and place it within the sector, as yet another indicator of an evolving social sector.

I attribute much of this evolution to the convergence of a number of factors, including the influence of technology, which has so flattened and enhanced our global perspective that social change agents no longer view their work as beginning and ending in their local community.

Furthermore, I believe a younger crop of people is thinking about the social sector in ways that challenge traditional thinking and reassemble old models. These people view the world, its resources, and its social concerns as highly interconnected; they begin without the anticipation of traditional boundaries and can therefore create innovative, savvy models for change.

So what excites me about the SSIR article is that it brings these new social change perspectives, now collectively known as social entrepreneurship, to the surface–knowing that by effectively defining social entrepreneurship, it can be given credence, thought about more intentionally, and perhaps measured more effectively and consistently over time.

One aspect of social entrepreneurship’s proposed definition with which I truly agree involves the question of replication. As the writers Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg suggest, unless a social venture “is designed to achieve large scale or is so compelling as to launch legions of imitators and replicators, it is not likely to lead to a new superior equilibrium” and would therefore not be considered social entrepreneurship.

I believe the notion of replication is fundamental to defining social entrepreneurship, and in some ways, it speaks to the need to reduce redundancy in funding, programming, etc. in order to create stronger collective impact.

Adding replication to the definition also suggests other traits I have associated with social entrepreneurs, including high levels of networking and knowledge-sharing, more sophisticated measurement strategies, and new ideas for how community data can inform the creation of social change models… all of which contribute to the ability to effectively replicate and sustain a model. (Nicholas Kristof refers to it as simply “Do-Gooders With Spreadsheets” in The New York Times.)

As the authors offer, “a clearer definition of social entrepreneurship will aid the development of the field.” I couldn’t agree more. I expect people will disagree with some of what the authors have asserted, but this is the right conversation to be having right now… and the fact that this conversation is happening at the level it is, at the time it is, speaks well for what we can expect will be the intentional maintenance and thoughtful evolution of the sector in the future.

Nonprofit Leadership in 2020

Yesterday a friend shared news about NP 2020, a conference being hosted in part by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership at Grand Valley State University. NP 2020 will be held this summer and is focusing on emerging leaders in the nonprofit sector.

Last year, the Bridgespan Group issued what has become a well-cited report that noted that over the next decade, 640,000 new senior managers will need to be brought into the nonprofit sector. That’s more than two times the number of sector leaders presently employed — an incredible gap not just in terms of actual spots needing to be filled, but in the valuable human experience and intellectual capital that will be transitioning in and out of the sector.

NP 2020 promises to be an initial dialogue among young nonprofit and social service leaders who are emerging to not only fill this gap, but in my opinion, potentially re-envision and re-energize the sector as a whole. Even the set-up of the conference speaks to the new approach to leadership young leaders are bringing to the table. Using Open Space Technology (which I had never heard of before) the conference will tap the knowledge, interests and passion of its attendees to determine the agenda on-the-spot and essentially develop action from the bottom up.

The description on the conference registration page says it all: “Leadership belongs to no one and everyone; visions emerge spontaneously; teamwork appears without training; community is heart-felt; and participants self-manage their work for optimal results. We can go places beyond our expectations, if we’re willing to trust the process, remembering its simple principles, and letting go of control.”

I would never have imagined that description for a conference had I not been on a conference registration page… to me, what they have described is the exact model of leadership that I believe my generation is offering the nonprofit sector. It is a shared, collaborative model, with a belief in process but a genuine understanding that meaningful process has an appropriate time, place and utility.

I believe my generation trusts shared, intuitive leadership. We have a gut sense of how this leadership can be executed and measured successfully. This contrasts some of the traditional hierarchies often found in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. It makes some board members incredibly uneasy, and it unnerves some longtime staff members. In my experience, it can even cause unrest when a group of younger staff members organizes through such a model to push back on organization leadership and seek clarity on strategic issues. I often wonder if we even realize we’re doing this, to be honest… the approach is just that organic and that intuitive.

More and more, people seem to be embracing or at least discussing this approach in a genuine, actionable way. It seems like it starts with the smaller organizations, especially those most vulnerable in terms of sustainability. They have no choice but to try something new, and the resourceful intuition of a younger set is often well-suited to them.

Yet the nonprofit and philanthropic sector, including even the largest organizations, is at an incredible moment of opportunity. Why wait until staffing gaps demand that we integrate young leaders and their perspectives into the sector? The transition should start now, with key gatherings like NP 2020, so we can identify opportunities, leverage the incredible knowledge of those already in the sector and harness emerging leaders’ fresh vision of leadership.