Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Bridge To Everywhere … The Social Side of Entrepreneurs Need to Re-Up Their Strengths

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

The meltdown of the financial markets presents serious issues for the nonprofit sector. Among other things, it is very likely that many service agencies will decide to return in force back to their bases in light of the many individuals and families who will find themselves in need.

A great, hopefully large foundation grant to assist the underemployed can be a great incentive to a struggling vocational assistance agency.

The question is whether this retreat to terra firma will also be used to set-back the movement towards developing relationships between responsible investors and their socially engaged partners to be?

Obviously, some investors—venture capitalists or angels with a heart—could we be forced to rethink the money they make available to new and risky ideas. If this happens, some new partnerships will naturally go on hold.

Hopefully, this alone will not be terminal for well-evolved nonprofits that are working with a diverse pool of supporters, or at least those who have designed their tools and techniques to be flexible to the ups and downs of financial realities—something most nonprofits often forget to factor in when they rely solely on grants, major donors or large government contracts.

But what will be the results for the majority of nonprofits who are just beginning to look toward social innovation and profit-taking as the basis of the future? After all, economic insecurity simply ADDS to the challenges that virtually all nonprofits are now living with: the fact that more and more nonprofits are competing for a limited and often limiting pool of traditional charitable philanthropies.

As of this writing most of the advice is just bemoaning the situation. Few have yet proposed many suggestions. So what is a forward-thinking nonprofit leader to do?

Continue moving cautiously toward a better future. Continue with your most valuable asset: the ability to share with smart investors that you have something to bring to the table where tomorrow’s most exciting investment partnerships are being made.

Today’s insecurities in money and lending should be used as an object lesson: profits are always difficult to count upon. But they are the life-blood of healthy businesses that look to use these results to make a measurable difference in a future that counts!

Socially Responsible Government — Many Lessons to Learn

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

Government has many of the same problems nonprofit agencies have. It seldom has much faith, trust and confidence in what it learns from what it does! And it has virtually no incentive to use these lessons, even as the rest of the world turns toward responsbile enterprise ideals which are supposedly based on effective assessments.

For the most part, government views itself as a simple service provider. While various departments might develop or buy and refine various infrastructure elements (such as software systems), the overall mental picture of government of itself and its leaders–particularly by policymakers–is that it is not a smart entrepreneur charting a new course of opportunity.

Unfortunately–or perhaps fortunately!!!!!–the facts actually suggesting that its poor self-concept is undeserved. There are a great number of possible avenues of opportunity (and even new methods of service and operation) that government and its partner the nonprofit sector can travel down if their mission is truly to find pragmatic answers that actually work.

Many years ago I was involved in the early development of a vocational training project that sought to teach formerly mentally ill men (and some women and families) how to learn core job training skills. We decided to do this in Richmond, California, using food service and grounds maintence business ventures. (You can see how well this has worked by visiting Rubicon Programs, where this agency now reflects the succeses of lessons learned over those many years!)

Jump ahead now to the social enterpreneur movement. When the idea works right, it should be able to ferret out these hidden values from the helping sector, in no small part because of the practices and resources of the for-profit sector and mentality. And now there is a growing interest in seeing just what role the government itself might be able to play in making this transformation happen.

Take for example the following ideas presented by Root Causes, a consulting effort that seeks to learn more and teach the world about the concepts underlying both philanthropic and governmental growth into the field of global enterprise:

While government currently lacks a comprehensive and strategic approach for collaborating with social entrepreneurs, isolated incidents do exist of local, state, and federal employees working with social entrepreneurs through five primary methods. ….:

These Public Innovators have the ability to

    * Encourage innovation overall
    * Create a general environment that favors creativity
    * Reward success when it is found, even when found among community providers
    * Put in place the elements of an economy of scale that allow progress to be affordable
    * Produce and recognize the value of the lessons of learning

At Venture Charities we agree … and encourage even more work of this kind. But we also need to make sure that what has already been learned by the nonprofit sector is appreciated and finds its way to the table where the discussions are being held before everyone forgets where the ideas all started.

Doing so would serve as an exceptional way to demonstrate that socially responsbile govenment is desirable and affordable while boosting the self-esteem of the giving-back community of professionals.

But we still have to translate these great goals into useful tools and approaches that make sense to the average community agency workers who still focus most on very basic needs of customers from neighborhoods in need.

Of course, we now have to wonder whether the current financial services catastrophe will put whatever progress we have made on the back burner ….

A 10% Solution Against Campaign Finance Reform Missteps

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

This stuff can be depressing. Even the good guys spend so much time with their hat in hand that they must become fans The Amazing Money Machine. Or so says TheAtlantic.com in a piece by Joshua Green, June 2008:

The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

Faulty necessity or not, the problem does not lie with the money. Any more than is it axiomatic that socially responsible investors are just bad people dressed up in globabl friendly capitalist clothing.

The issue is how the money is spent; how the underlying model for the bottom line of change, progress and, ultimately, justice takes shape. Or, how well the initiator has it ingrained into his or her thinking that new systems of support are viable … something that should come naturally to one with an innovative community organizing mentality.

Put another way: Obama should know better.

Take the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, for example. Where Barak Obama messed up is not on calling attention to the system’s flaws, nor even on opting out; his mistake was in not recognizing that the underlying system is good and necessary for effective political reform. Obama should have instinctively elected to direct his successful money-raising infrastructure in the direction of change that favors a core understanding of the concept of Clean Money even if he still opted to put the money in his pocket.

I believe he could have bypassed nearly all of the criticism of the Campaign Finance Reform boondoggle very simply: by committing to raise, after the election, an amount equal to .. say .. 25% of the amount he raised otherwise by circumventing a generally good solution. These funds could then be directed, competitively, for direct use by the good-government reform agencies whose very existence is nearly always threatened by the fact that their solutions so often fail to generated sustained charitable contribution.

[It is exactly this same criticism, by the way, that underlies my concern that with more than $25 million being invested by corporations in California's struggle to move CAForward, virtually no one within the supportive organizations are planning on how to capitalize on these early investments in change if victory comes their way. See the preceeding post giving thanks to the Eva Patterson and the Equal Justice Society.]

A payoff of $10 to $20 million dedicated to innovative thinking fto fix the damage done by bypassing good government ideals might not be a bad substitute for doing the right thing outright. In fact, it could well be an exceptional progressive lesson in realpolitic, especially if it actually still gets us to the promised land of clean money.

Thanks Eva and your Equal Enterprise Opportunity

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Thanks Eva Patterson of the Equal Justice Society for posing the following in a commentary yesterday regarding the pending/evolving/devolving monetary crisis:

Today has been a wild day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 500 points. An already jittery nation wonders how Wall Street’s woes will affect Main Street. I have been watching the melt down of the housing situation with ideological interest. How does a progressive person view what we are seeing? Is there a progressive analysis of the economic woes that are affecting us? Woe and whoa!!!

Indeed, is there? And, to be presumptuous, why not? Perhaps we need a Equal Enterprise Society?

Sure some will argue that we can blame the entire issue on self-interested regulations that disproportionately favor the wealthy. Which is undoubtedly true. But on the other hand, this is mostly just a RE-action to the uncomfortable reality of an economic model that even some conservatives find distasteful—one that allows business opportunities to run amok at the expense of the most vulnerable, just because greed seems less ugly when it is hiding around the corner.

The fact is there is no real balanced and fair response because progressives have two challenges they too easily shy away from:

    Knowing how to convert social justice ideals into practice enterprise opportunities that reward equality; and,
    knowing when to stand up for those ideas UNTIL they become accepted ways of thinking or acting.

My work to develop the concept of Venture Charities (VentureCharities.biz) spins off of both of these unfortunate realities. The economic momentum of the day favors social entrepreneurism, wherein the supposed best of both global and community responsibility meets someone’s bottom line of profitability. But in reality, the vast majority of the work—and by far the majority of venture capital dollars—go toward ways to make the business partners more efficient, not in recognizing, refining, or even appreciating the underlying justice ideas that are now being usurped.

The passionate and committed nonprofit executives, volunteers, leaders and advocates who sit on one site of the teeter totter much too often allow the appeal of the day to just push them off the balancing beam on to their forgiving butts.

For some reason, we simply allow this to happen even when there are clear signs that “blended values,” as Jed Emerson likes to call them, have true credibility. (See BlendedValues.org for a taste of what Mr. Emerson means. Or, take a peek at SocialEdge.org where some good-hearted business leaders are struggling, from their perspective to understand if not fully reward the social aspects of healthy enterprise.)

I believe we have an incredible need and chance to address this imbalance. And the pending election is an exceptional avenue to follow.

There are some very good players associated with the pending California initiatives (including those most honestly connected with Proposition 11, the independent redistricting effort), though some of them have a long way to go before they understand all of the implications of what they are helping to unfold.

More than 10 million dollars is likely to be donated to the “good” side of Proposition 11 (CAVotersFirst.org), mostly by corporate giants who would normally not pay any attention to good or justice government ideals. The same is likely to happen with the California Forward effort (CAForward.org), though the progressive leaders of these efforts seem rudderless at this time. More than $15 million is already available for something to happen to move CA Forward!)

I hope your post-election gathering is productive in laying a strong, visible foundation for a real paradigm of responsible entrepreneurship—otherwise much of the same will simply slither right back around the corner again.

Thanks Eva.

The Wrong Debate on Our National Commitment to Service

Monday, September 15th, 2008

The Nonprofit Times got part of it right with this quote, following the McCain and Obama presentation on their visions of a nation in service:

“Now is the time to unleash the energy and entrepreneurship of a new generation of social innovators, and ServiceNation will help bring about this transformational change by putting citizens at the center of community problem-solving,” said Michelle Nunn, CEO, of Points Of Light Institute in Atlanta.

The problem, however, was it was only the insiders looking in at their own world who saw the power and potential of this “new generation of social innovators.” The candidates themselves seemed to be aware of none of it. They made little if any mention of such potentials for innovation. Nor did they see any of the energy that has begun to be captured by the business and nonprofit leaders who are looking to the infrastructure details of entrepreneurs for communication and connectivity, social and otherwise.

Obama went out on a bit of limb to note that he was aware of the problem that exists within the nonprofit sector: they don’t really value skills and abilities even when presented directly to them. Obama noted, for example, that it was harder for him to FIND a job in the community-change sector that it would have been for him to “lawyer-up” with corporate America.

But he never really followed up on the logic of this, tending, like McCain, to focus much more intensely on how quality service is at least as good as a term or two of military enlistment–the truly noble service that drew the vast majority of their attention.

So what does it mean when the comments of the leading candidates seem significantly out of touch with what may well be the most significant advancement of the helping sector: a fair and balanced integration of charitable values into for-profiting thinking and acting?

Why do our presidential contenders seem so out-of-step with the future that is heading directly toward them?

Let’s start with competition

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Competitive Thinking Shortchanges Nonprofit Talents

    Is it hurting your career opportunities?

Competition can be seen as a good or a bad thing. Or a bad thing, if it is not seen as an opportunity.

Take, for example, the recent write-up by Commongood Careers (cgcareers.org), an employment agency dedicated to building on the spirit of socially responsible businesses and the creative job market. The actually tag their mission as an effort to get “Uncommon talent working for the common good” – a message that I absolutely love.

Their call to action motivated by various dynamics in the labor market of today:

For-Profit Competition: The nonprofit and for-profit sectors are rapidly converging, most notably through the rise of both social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility. [A key understanding of VC.] Although these changes are resulting in exceptionally positive innovations throughout society, they are also bringing leaders from both sectors into direct competition for a limited pool of talented, socially conscious professionals. Unfortunately, in the ‘war for talent,’ nonprofits are poorly matched ….

But is this really the case? Or is it more the case that neither sector really understands the value of those whose careers grow out of the caring sector, and, as such, causes unhealthy competition for a few instead of healthy competition for folks who tend to play the game differently?