Ed Batista

Holly Ross is Awesome: The Nonprofit Times Top 50

Holly Ross, the Executive Director of the Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN) is one of the smartest, most caring, and most genuine people I know.  She's the definition of a community leader.  But she's also one of the most self-effacing people I know, quick to deflect attention from her accomplishments and to credit her peers and colleagues, and at times I don't think she's gotten the recognition she truly deserves.

Not anymore.  This week Holly was listed among the Nonprofit Times Power & Influence Top 50, along with 49 other key leaders from the nonprofit sector, and it's hard to keep a low profile when you're standing next to people like Bill Gates and Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America.

As the first Executive Director of NTEN, I had the privilege of working alongside Holly for 4 years, first as a leading community member and a consultant and then as the second member of our staff.  I'm really proud of what we accomplished as an organization, but one of my most lasting memories of that experience is simply how rewarding it was to work with Holly.  And knowing how rarely she takes credit for her talents, it's particularly meaningful to me to see them recognized by the NP Times.

Kudos, Holly!  It couldn't have happened to a nicer person--or a better leader.

Forces for Good and High-Impact Practices

What common practices are shared by "high-impact" nonprofits?  And can organizations in other industries benefit from these same practices?  Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant tackle the first question in their soon-to-be-published Forces for Good (due out October 19), and based on an excerpt that came out today in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, it's clear that the answer to the second question is an unqualified yes.

In the SSIR article, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant discuss the six high-impact practices that make up the heart of their book, and in my opinion all of these concepts have relevance beyond the nonprofit sector.

Their key theme is that what's happening outside an organization is more important than what's happening inside, and yet so many of our efforts aimed at improving effectiveness are focused on activities within an organization's formal boundaries.  (And not, I suspect, because that's where we can have the greatest impact, but because that's what's easiest.)

Here's are the six high-impact practices identified by Crutchfield and McLeod Grant, with brief excerpts from the SSIR article and my interpretation of how these concepts could be applied more broadly:

1. Serve and Advocate

High-impact organizations may start out providing great programs, but they eventually realize that they cannot achieve large-scale social change through service delivery alone. So they add policy advocacy to acquire government resources and to change legislation. Other nonprofits start out by doing advocacy and later add grassroots programs to supercharge their strategy. Ultimately, all high-impact organizations bridge the divide between service and advocacy. They become good at both. And the more they serve and advocate, the more they achieve impact.

So what's the equivalent of "advocacy" outside the nonprofit sector?  Lobbying.  Just take a stroll through the Lobbying Database to see how much "high-impact" companies are spending.  Microsoft has topped $8 million annually for the last 4 years, and Google went from $200K in 2005 to over $800K last year.  I'm not saying this results in good public policy, but it's reality.

2. Make Markets Work

High-impact nonprofits have learned that tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. No longer content to rely on traditional notions of charity, or to see business as an enemy, these nonprofits find ways to work with markets and help companies "do good while doing well."

Not much to add here.

3. Inspire Evangelists

High-impact nonprofits build strong communities of supporters who help them achieve their larger goals. They value volunteers, donors, and advisers not only for their time, money, and guidance, but also for their evangelism. To inspire supporters' commitment, these nonprofits create emotional experiences that help connect supporters to the group's mission and core values.

What jumps out at me is the emphasis on "emotional experiences."  Is your organization creating any emotional experiences for your supporters?  And if not, why would you expect them to evangelize on your behalf?

4. Nurture Nonprofit Networks

Although most nonprofits pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other groups as competition for scarce resources. But high impact organizations help their peers succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their fields.

This is more industry-specific.  If you're in a mature industry and focused on stealing market share, collaborating doesn't make as much sense.  But if you're in an emerging industry and growing the overall market is a quicker and cheaper path to success, you need to take a broader view of the competition.  A zero-sum perspective will limit everyone's growth potential.

5. Master the Art of Adaptation

High-impact nonprofits are exceptionally adaptive, modifying their tactics as needed to increase their success. They have responded to changing circumstances with one innovation after another. Along the way, they've made mistakes and have even produced some flops. But unlike many nonprofits, they have also mastered the ability to listen, learn, and modify their approach on the basis of external cues.

I love the phrase "external cues."  What cues are you picking up from beyond the boundaries of your organization?  But listening is just the beginning--what are you doing with that information?

6. Share Leadership

The leaders of these 12 organizations all exhibit charisma, but they don't have oversized egos. They know that they must share power in order to be stronger forces for good. They distribute leadership within their organizations and throughout their external nonprofit networks, empowering others to lead.

I'm reminded of this comment on from Bill George: "To me, the great leaders today are able to align people around a sense of purpose and values and get that consistency all around the globe, and then empower other people to step up and lead.  And I've found that in organizations that are really effective at generating leaders, there are thousands of leaders because people empower them to step up and lead."

Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good People

Why do so many well-meaning people give such bad presentations?  Last year Andy Goodman and Cause Communications sought to answer that question in Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes, an outstanding book that I can't recommend highly enough.  (Ironically, I've been involved in planning a series of presentations this year, but I only just rediscovered Goodman's book because my wife and I are moving to a new apartment and sifting through all our belongings. Timing really is everything.)  The title's emphasis on good "causes" stems from Goodman's work in the nonprofit sector, but his conclusions are broadly applicable in any industry.

Goodman's perspective is similar to Seth Godin's Really Bad PowerPoint, but he dramatically expands the scope of his critique with the help of data generated by 2,501 respondents to a 43-question online survey in Q1 2005.  Here are Goodman's "Fatal Five," common problems that can derail a presentation, with comments from survey respondents:

1. Reading the slides. ("Watching someone read PowerPoint slides is a form of torture that should be banned under the Geneva Convention.")
2. Too long, too much information. ("Too many slides with too many words, too many points, too much data, too long, too didactic.")
3. Lack of interaction. ("Presenters have a responsibility to mine [their audience's life and work experience], direct it, and facilitate the economical sharing of that information among the group.")
4. Lifeless presenters. ("Even if I'm interested in the topic...if the speaker is boring, I'm easily distracted by other goings-on in the room like someone's cool shoes or outfit.")
5. Room/technical problems. ("The frequency with which respondents mentioned these kinds of problems suggests that...presenters often do not anticipate them or fail to have a backup plan.")

But Goodman's respondents didn't just complain about bad presentations--they also told him what factors contribute to an excellent presentation.  Their "Three Most Wanted" list:

1. Interaction. ("Interactive presentations that create opportunities for the audience members to work together and with the presenter are almost always top notch.")
2. Clarity. ("Clarity of three to four well-framed key points the speaker wanted the audience to take away, coupled with smart use of metaphors/anecdotes that helped drive them home.")
3. Enthusiasm. ("Whether respondents used the words energy, passion, engaging, dynamic or lively, they all wanted the same thing: presenters who were enthusiastic about their topic and conveyed that interest to the audience.")

If an audience and a PowerPoint deck are in your future, "Bad Presentations..." is well worth your time.  And if you're a full-time employee at a nonprofit, foundation, government agency, or educational institution, you can get one free copy.  (If you work for The Man, it's still just $17.50.)

UPDATE: A digital version of "Bad Presentations..." is available for free from Andy Goodman.  Printed  copies are no longer available from Goodman, but you can usually find a few copies on Amazon.

Lest We Forget

One year ago today, on August 23rd, 2005, Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas.

New Orleans still needs your help--please give to the charity of your choice at Network for Good's Katrina page.

Jane Jacobs, RIP

Writer and activist Jane Jacobs died yesterday, just a few days short of her 90th birthday.  She was a hero to all of us who love cities and the unique richness of urban life, who prefer walking to driving, and who believe that individuals left to their own devices will typically make a better world than top-down, bureaucratic planners.  (She also deserves acclaim simply for her ability to be both an influential theorist and an effective activist while working independently, without the support of a university gig or some other cushy sinecure.)

She wasn't perfect, and I don't think all of her theories hold water, but we're all in her debt nonetheless.  Her work became popular in the early 1960s, just as opposition to urban freeways began to grow in cities throughout North America.  Local writers such as Allen Temko and activists such as Sue Bierman were ultimately responsible for blocking those freeways here in San Francisco, but Jacobs' writings played an influential role in the larger movement.  And as I look out my window at the Panhandle, a beautiful park that was slated to be turned into an eight-lane highway running right through the heart of my leafy, tree-lined neighborhood, I'm so grateful to her and her contemporaries for their efforts.

UPDATE: Leonard Gilroy of the Reason Foundation has a great piece on Jane Jacobs in the May 2 Wall Street Journal:

Given urban planners' almost universal reverence for Jacobs, it is ironic that many have largely ignored or misinterpreted the central lesson of "Death and Live"--that cities are vibrant living systems, not the product of grand utopian schemes concocted by overzealous planners...

[Contemporary] planning trends run completely counter to Jacobs's vision of cities as dynamic economic engines that thrive on private initiative, trial-and-error, incremental change, and human and economic diversity.  Jacobs believed the most organic and healthy communities are diverse, messy and arise out of spontaneous order, not from a scheme that tries to dictate how people should live and how neighborhoods should look.

She felt it was foolish to focus on how cities look rather than how they function as economic laboratories.  "The main responsibility of city planning and design should be to develop--insofar as public policy and action can do so--cities that are congenial places for [a] great range of unofficial plans, ideas and opportunities to flourish," Jacobs wrote.

There's a thread running through these ideas: "messy," "diverse," "spontaneous," and perhaps most importantly, "unofficial."  As I noted earlier, Jacobs believed that individuals making choices on their own will build a better world than any bureaucracy, no matter how well-intentioned, and when we act independently, without formal authority, things get messy.  And that's an essential element if a city is to function as an economic and social marketplace, if it is to have life.

tag: jane jacobs

Katrina Online Resources

NOLA.com, the Times-Picayune's outstanding website.

NOLA Post-Katrina Wiki.

Network for Good's Hurricane Relief page.

Instapundit's ongoing list of Katrina-related charities.

The Truth Laid Bear's Blog for Relief Page, where you can log your contributions and recommend charities.

Blogs

The Interdictor, a guy who's been keeping his Internet company up and running in downtown New Orleans throughout the entire storm and post-flooding madness.  He's also running a streaming webcam, with a view of what appears to be St. Charles Avenue in the CBD.

Auryn, a nurse who lives in LaPlace and rode out Katrina at her hospital in New Orleans.

CobaltGreen, a TV producer and filmmaker who's lived in New Orleans for the past five years.

Brendan Loy, a second-year law student at Notre Dame.

New Orleans MetroBlog, a group blog.

Eyes on Katrina, by the Biloxi Sun-Herald.

Kaye Trammel's Hurricane Update, by an LSU professor.

Josh Britton, a student at LSU.

GulfSails, by a guy in the River Ridge area just west of New Orleans (ZIP code 70123).

Ernie the Attorney, by a New Orleans lawyer.

Katrinacane, a Live Journal group blog.

Polimom Says..., a blogger who's also launched a  Katrina resources site at Polimom.com.

WWLTV's blog and home page.

Other Resources

Interactive Katrina Information Map that allows users to add informative updates to a Google map of the Gulf Coast.

PRNewswire's Roundup of Katrina blogs, articles and related sites (which tipped me off to most of the blogs above.)

Alex Hessler's New Orleans flood damage map, which he created from a range of sources.

NY Times' interactive map of New Orleans.

Cultural South Update, from the American Association of Museums.a

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, with extensive maps and demographic information on Orleans and surrounding parishes.

Aerial Photos

NOAA's entire post-Katrina Gulf Coast photo index, including the New Orleans photo index.  Most detailed shots I've seen, but it's a little tough getting oriented, because the photos haven't been rotated to correspond with the map.

Here's the eastern half of the French Quarter, and part of Faubourg Marigny.  (The circular-patterned park at the top is Jackson Square.)

Here's the Convention Center (top right) and Harrah's (top left).

Here's the Superdome.

new orleans katrina hurricane katrina

Hurricane Katrina Update

Things have gotten much worse in New Orleans since my post below.  There's nothing we can do from San Francisco to ease the suffering in Lousiana, but giving what we can will speed the recovery.  My wife and I have given $400 to the American National Red Cross, $300 to Second Harvest of Greater New Orleans, $200 to the Touro Infirmary, and $100 to the Charity Hospital of Lousiana at New Orleans.  We've also contributed $40 to Network for Good, the fantastic nonprofit online donation service we're using, to help keep their own systems up and running.

We hope you'll join us in doing what you can to help.  Click on the links above, or go to Network for Good's Hurricane Relief page to find more organizations that are helping Katrina's victims get back on their feet.

Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts

Although it could have been much worse, Hurricane Katrina has passed through southern Louisiana leaving a trail of wreckage in its wake.  New Orleans is a very special place to me, and I'm encouraging people to visit Network for Good's page on Hurricane Relief Efforts, where you'll find numerous ways to help the people who are now putting the city back together.

I just donated $100 each to the American National Red Cross, Charity Hospital of Lousiana at New Orleans, and Second Harvest of Greater New Orleans.  I also gave $15 to Network for Good themselves, to help support their efforts to make online giving easier and more secure.

UPDATE: Although the storm itself didn't cause as much damage in New Orleans as was expected, the aftermath has been terrible and continues to get worse.  The levees have burst, pumps aren't working because there's no electricity, and the floodwaters are continuing to rise.  If you can help, click on the links above.

new orleans hurricane katrina

Staying On Message...Or Not

Mark Frederickson commented on my recent post about Michael Stein's interview with Michael Gilbert:

I think I have to weigh in on the Gilbert side of this debate, and for one simple reason: message. Email allows for better control of what you are saying and to whom. I believe the thought of allowing anyone the opportunity to add, change or diffuse an organization's message is scary (to me at least).

I come from an electoral background, where message manipulation is the primary focus of the campaign. I've seen campaigns burned by allowing anyone to use their websites as a soap box. In a similar vein, remember MoveOn.org's "Bush = Hitler" ad fiasco?

(I apologize in advance for linking to a Washington Times article - I would have found something better but I'm in a hurry ;-).

With email, an organization does not need to worry any (even well meaning) person hijacking the message.

My $0.02

Thanks for the comment, Mark.  As I noted in my post, I agree with Gilbert's underlying philosophy, but I also think that the combined proliferation of (on the one hand) self-publishing tools and (on the other) spam are working to move dialogue out of the Inbox and onto more public online spaces.

And for related reasons, I disagree with the idea that nonprofits should be focused on delivering a honed message (and on preventing anyone from altering that message.)  I'm sure you didn't intend it to sound this way, but that idea strikes me as patronizing, suggesting that "we" (i.e. the organization) have the right answer, and our job is to deliver a compelling message that will convince "them" (i.e. activists, donors, etc.) that we're right and motivate them to act accordingly.

Instead, I think that nonprofits should be focused on engaging their constituents in an active dialogue that's about listening and learning as much as anything else.  The idea that the people at the center--the organizational professionals--have all the answers just isn't true.  No matter what issues you're involved with, there are vast networks of people out there with a great deal of expertise and plenty of creative ideas. 

These people are your audience, and they want to get involved.  But they don't want to be told what to think.  They want to tell you what they think.  They're willing to listen, to be educated, and to be recruited to your cause as well, but treating them like passive recipients of your message is a sure way to turn them off and drive them away.

In recent years there's been a steady progression toward greater interactivity and responsiveness on the part of all institutions (except where they exercise monopoly control).  Nonprofits, schools, political campaigns, and businesses in every industry are increasingly engaged in conversations with their markets (see Cluetrain).

Email is great for broadcasting messages, broadcasting will continue to be important for most institutions, and email isn't going away any anytime soon.  But blogs and other public, visible, searchable and archivable web tools provide a much better platform for ongoing dialogues between an institution and its constituents.  Continuing to prioritize email over these other tools is a mistake and a missed opportunity for any institution.

cluetrain

Outfoxed

Outfoxed is a Firefox extension that allows you to rate websites (thumbs up, thumbs down, or dangerous), share your ratings, and rely upon the ratings of those you know or trust.  Check out my Outfoxed page: it shows that I've accepted Stan (the author of Outfoxed, a grad student in Germany) and the Outfoxed home page as "informers," i.e. people whose site recommendations I'm interested in, and it shows a list of my "reports," i.e. sites that I've issued a rating on (which at this point is simply the list of Firefox bookmarks that I allowed Outfox to import when I installed it.  (It's somewhat similar to Delicious and Stumbleupon, but Stan does a better job than I could of explaining why Outfoxed is better.)

Applications like Outfoxed that run on social metadata, i.e. information about our preferences and habits that we share with others--Audioscrobbler is another example I wrote about recently--are going to have an enormous effect on the way not only on how we use the web, but also on how we connect with other people and how we make ourselves known to them.

Today in some circles it's seen as odd if you're not actively blogging, because that's simply how you engage the community--you present your ideas, comment and expand upon others' ideas, all on a platform that's discoverable, searchable, archivable and linkable.  You make yourself known and you participate in a community through your posts and comments--your data.

What if your social metadata could have a similar impact?  What if it could be used to make yourself known and visible to a larger community?  OTOH, metadata's not as rich as data--voting thumbs up or thumbs down on a site is a shallow substitute for a lengthier blog post explaining that vote.  But OTOH, metadata's much richer than data, because there's so much of it and more is piling up every second you're online--the challenge is finding the appropriate mechanisms to capture, measure and analyze that metadata in order to extract meaning (and value) from it.

Thanks to Steve Gillmor and Seth Goldstein of AttentionTrust for the tip.

outfoxed metadata social metadata