Social Sector

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?

Pack Mentality

Have you wondered why endurance athletes compete in a pack?  What law of attraction pulls so many people together in such a close proximity?  There are some demonstrated benefits, such as drafting a competitor in a cycling race can provide 30% less work than leading.  But why is it rare for us to see a marathon or stage of the Tour de France where a lone competitor strikes out by themselves at the start and attempts to solo to victory.  Breakaways take place but often the attempts become more bold when the finish line is closer and the certainty of reaching it becomes higher.

How often is our strategy determined by what our peers and competitors have done?  Many organizations perform an environmental scan prior to launching a strategic planning effort.  This exercise can be illuminating and constraining at the same time.  I frequently find organizations gravitate towards changes that competitors have made.  Another enterprise hired a Director of Advancement to help them with their fundraising effort.  The conversation quickly becomes, ‘should we hire a professional for our development campaign?’ Organization X will produce a unique marketing piece and suddenly replicas appear from other organizations.  Mirroring another cause is human nature but expecting to standout by staying in the pack is difficult and sometimes irrational.  

Begging for Change: The Dollars and Sense of Making Nonprofits Responsive, Efficient, and Rewarding for All
Is your goal to finish the race with the other organizations?  Robert Egger in his book, Begging for Change would argue that this strategy can be optimal for your organization if you rely on the success of partner enterprises.  It is a worthy philosophy to consider.


Are you in the race and running with the pack because it is the optimal way for your organization to advance its mission?  Are you trying to standout as an organization?  So when do you take over the lead?  Do you even need to be in the race?