Author: whatifconcepts

Empowering those that inspire so they can excel at the work that matters.

Open Dashboards

Social sector organizations use dashboards with varying degrees of success.  Some enterprises produce an active dashboard that is the first document that goes to the board and staff at predetermined interval.  Other organizations use a summarizing document to track strategic initiatives.  Another grouping of causes finds dashboards to be distracting and irrelevant to their work.

I have always approached dashboards as an inside/out method.  The data is generated inside the organization and then communicated out to a small group of individuals closest to the organization.  A blog post from Beth Kanter got me thinking about possible paradigm shifts.  

  • What if the dashboard was distributed to a larger audience, say your entire membership base?
  • What if the data on the dashboard was reflective of input provided from the outside (customers, donors, volunteers, community members, partnerships)?
  • What if the dashboard was assembled by a different partner or peer organization?


What information would you choose to include in these scenarios?  What data would be meaningful?  What would be valuable to track if the audience became your entire membership?  What if the dashboard was an outside/in proposition?

Comfotable

A piece on NPR suggested that consumers are getting more comfortable with their financial position.  They are willing to invest in purchases that they had previously postponed.  Does that mean that donors are willing to make long term commitments to campaigns that are seen a viable and necessary?  What are you seeing within your social sector enterprises?  Are funders returning?  Are they willing to discuss multiple year commitments?

I am seeing some great leadership giving taking place.  I am also witness to organizations being more purposeful when they design a request or submit a proposal.  Donors are no longer a limitless resource.

Real or Fake

The big debate in cycling right now focuses on the use of drugs or doping.  One friend argued  that as a casual fan he will take the excitement of race that has the ultimate dual, such as stage 17 of this years Tour de France.



I do not know if this stage was an authentic effort of two clean cyclists or if it was the sideshow performed by athletes who managed to game the system.  Purist would argue that this finish is a more realistic moment in the sport.

How important is authenticity?  Are your patrons more excited about the show and results or the honor in which you approach endeavors?  How does your cause measure trust?

Praise for Effort or Intelligence

The beginning of Ashley Merryman’s presentation has some fascinating information for those of us trying maximize the impact of praise.  This has me wondering how self-esteem impacts the social sector?  How do you praise professional staff?  Or build a board’s engagement?  What is the best way to frame your comments?  And by the way, if you watch the whole presentation you may want to adjust your sleeping patterns.

Who Sets the Norm

One of the pleasures of working in the social sector is that I get to visit lots of different organizations.  Almost all of them are inspiring and energizing.  Each cause has its own culture.  I often wonder who sets the norm for the enterprise.  Does the founder create a culture that remains for years?  Can a class of new board members alter the chemistry?  Does one new staff member enhance or destroy the collegiality?  Can a donor impose a culture on an organization?  Does a partner organization have an influence?  What is the role of the CEO in creating chemistry?

How have you seen your organization’s culture established?  Who influences the norms?

Bringing the Screen Back

It has been my pleasure to attend a couple of performances by the Sun Valley Summer Symphony over the past week.  The symphony added a large LCD screen outside the tented pavilion so the audience sitting on the grass could see video images of the concert taking place inside the seasonal structure.  The addition of a visual element transformed the experience for the three thousand people on the lawn and suddenly connected them to the experience by adding a new dimension.  Originally, the screen was scheduled to be on location for the opening weekend.  When it was taken away, the audience missed it and demands were loud for its return.  It is back and everyone is happy- so thrilled in fact that this evening the audience sat in the rain and a little hail, watching the concert from under their umbrellas, jackets and picnic blankets.  Without the screen I believe there would have been a mass exitous but instead the concert goers were more connected with the Broadway songs being sung inside the pavilion.  The symphony’s season was forever altered by the appearance of the ‘temporary’ LCD screen.

What changes have you made that have been met with unexpected acclaim?  What changes could you make that might forever alter the way you present your services?  Are you prepared for the unexpected?

No More Charity?

Just read a comment to a blog post in which the following idea was proposed; if there was no fraud or corruption then there would be no need for charity.  Wealth would be distributed more equitably and resource readily available.

What do you think?  Utopian ideal?  Money does not meet all the needs being filled by the social sector but would the absence of fraud and corruption be an sufficient equalizer?