Category - Uncategorized

1
Why Giving Matters More Than Receiving
2
Matterness Launch Roundup
3
Matterness: What Fearless Leaders Know About the Power and Promise of Social Media
4
3 Steps to Go-Go Juice
5
Why the NFL Needs to Be Different Not Just Do Different
6
ALS’ Happy Problem
7
Return of the Thought Police
8
The NFL: Followship Not Leadership

Why Giving Matters More Than Receiving

Screen Shot 2014-12-03 at 9.06.51 PMOn the heels of the wildly successful #GivingTuesday (first estimates put money raised at nearly $46 million just online, more than double last year’s total!) the idea of giving is in the air.

My friend Lisa Colton told me an interesting story today. She was facilitating a board retreat recently and asked the participants to pair up and talk about when they felt that they really mattered. The room was abuzz, she said, as the participants shared their stories with one another. When they reconvened she asked, “How many people heard stories about feeling like you matter when you receive something?” One person raised their hand. Then she asked the opposite question, “How many people heard a story about feeling like you mattered when you gave something?”  Forty-four hands went up. 44!

Of course, the old axiom, “It’s better to give than receive,” immediately comes to mind. But in an organizational context there is more to it than that. People want to be of service to organizations that they care about. However, as organizations became more professionalized over the last century, it seemed to be easier, faster, more efficient, less painstaking, for staff people to do more and more, for organizations to hire people to do jobs that volunteers used to do. Just because volunteers may not be available on Tuesday mornings anymore doesn’t mean that people don’t want to participate in meaningful and creative ways to help organizations. Instead, too many organizations have substituted fundraising for engagement.

Social media provide great opportunities for people to matter by contributing in lots of ways. People can help raise awareness of an issue, problem solve, gather people for discussions, do online research. The opportunities are almost endless for the ways that people can matter more to organizations. The challenge is for organizations, and their leaders, to see this as amazing opportunities to involve many more people in many more interesting ways! #GivingTuesday is a beginning, now we need a year round effort by organizations to make everyone matter more.

Share

Matterness Launch Roundup

Book wheelWow, what a day yesterday! Hundreds of tweets, Facebook posts, Instagrams, emails to support the launch of Matterness! In addition to individual posts, there were a number of articles up about the book. Here is a roundup of the articles:

The book is launched, and now the marathon begins as, hopefully, people read and discuss it on land and online. I look forward to hearing what folks have to say about it, and, again, thanks for all of your help and support!

Share

Matterness: What Fearless Leaders Know About the Power and Promise of Social Media

Matterness_Cover_RGB_200 dpiToday is the launch of my new book, Matterness: What Fearless Leaders Know About the Power and Promise of Social Media!

Matterness is the culmination of ten years of my thinking and writing about how people and organizations can be better together with social media. What I have found is that when people matter the most, the priorities of leaders change. We begin to see our organizations from the outside in, listen to suggestions and ideas, work with and not at other people and organizations. When we’re in conversation and connected we can direct how we want to work, get to the essence of our personal or professional goals, and make work manageable and enjoyable again. Matterness explains that we don’t need better people; we need better leaders.

This book feels like the end of a trilogy. Momentum described what social media was beginning to enable people to do that only organizations could previously do. The Networked Nonprofit focused on how organizations that embraced social media changed their shape and operated more like social networks than traditional hierarchies. Matterness is squarely aimed at the C-suite (and those who aspire to it) and imploring them to change the way they look at the world and their roles in it. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to be human and who want to be in conversation with people inside and outside of their organizational walls as co-creators and problem solvers.

When people like Jennifer James put Matterness to work amazing things happen. Jennifer created Mom Bloggers for Social Change, which brings together moms and causes and, in some cases, finds sponsors for trips overseas for the bloggers to help spread the word about efforts to cure a disease, get clean water to people in developing countries and alleviate hunger or poverty. In addition, the moms are actually helping to shape policy. UNICEF asked help shape the agency’s Newborn Action Plan with suggestions of ways to encourage new moms to seek perinatal health care for themselves and their babies.

Whether they like it or  not, people and organizations across every sector desperately need one another. Marrying their interests, rather than pitting them against one another, is the pathway to profits, sustainability, and success.

One last thing. Writing books are like running marathons, success requires cheerleaders and water cup holders and course correctors to make it through the course.  I will be enormously grateful to anyone who buys the book, but I also wanted to share today you how thankful I am for all of the support folks have shown me during the long writing process, and especially this week as the launch neared. I appreciate the well wishes, the emails with “hang in there!” and the little cartoon a friend gave me last week. Can you guess how it all makes me feel – it makes me feel like I matter!

 

Share

3 Steps to Go-Go Juice

It is just about a week from the launch of my new book, Matterness: What Fearless Leaders Know About the Power and Promise of Social Media! Here is an excerpt published last week in the Nonprofit Times about the variety of different ways organizations (and people) have available to them to raise capital for their efforts. They called it 3 Steps to Creating New Capital. I used Go-Go Juice for this post because anytime I can write or say go-go juice, I think I should. Same thing for whackadoodles and wingnuts!

Three Steps to Go-Go Juice

Gathering crowds to help your cause is an essential part of working in a networked world. Crowds create capital, or “go-go juice,” that can include human connections, intelligence and expertise, resources like equipment and furniture, and, of course, money. Ideas and ventures that would have been impossible when capital was scarce are now possible because of social media platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Creating capital is an essential part of what I call “Matterness,” wherein the interests and talents of people meet the needs of organizations.

Crowds can be difficult for organizations to work with because people come and go as they please, not necessarily according to the wishes of organizations. Here are the three essential steps for turning crowds into organizational go-go juice:

Understanding the Need. The first question to be answered is: Exactly what kind of “go-go juice” do we need? As mentioned above, crowds can contribute lots of different skills and resources, however, too often organizations think of them only as potential check writers. Simply asking what kind of creative go-go juice we need helps to change the internal thinking of organizations used to doing everything by themselves internally. Thinking creatively about working with crowds is a way for organizations to move from working at people to working with them.

Creating “No Fake” Zones. Crowd members want real, meaningful opportunities to help an organization. Fake requests like: Send me money today, or my opponent will win and send your children to Russia for kindergarten! do more harm than good. Fakery also include messages that look like they are from real people but are from black-hole email addresses like “no reply.” Social media are conversational vehicles. People are smart, they can see through artificial requests for help that are really just excuses to ask for donations and opportunities to capture contact information. Building trust with a crowd is essential to keeping people engaged longer.

Following As Well As Leading. There are times when what an organization wants to get is different from what constituents want to give. When this happens it is smarter for an organization to become a follower rather than a leader. Organizations need to be on the lookout for crowds that form that can enhance their efforts — but beware, these crowds cannot be “owned” by organizations. Leaders need to focus on Matterness in these instances and find the sweet spot that exists between what crowds what to give and what an organization needs. It’s there, it just may take some conversations between the crowd and the organization for it to emerge.

Successfully leading crowds takes clarity of purpose, intentionality, and some elbow grease. People need to be treated with dignity and respect, which means ensuring that their time and intelligence are respected and used well. Organizers need to think clearly about specific benefits to the crowd participants that are mutually beneficial, not to the exclusive benefit of either organizations or their crowds.

 

 

 

Share

Why the NFL Needs to Be Different Not Just Do Different

Here is an op-ed I wrote for the Chronicle of Philanthropy as part of their Rethink Pink series.

Against the NFL’s ‘Limousine Philanthropy’

On September 27, Roger Goodell stepped from his limousine to spend three hours visiting the offices of the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The stories he heard from victims of emotional and physical abuse moved him to tears.

The NFL, safely ensconced in its Park Avenue headquarters, has a history of limousine philanthropy. Heartwarming commercials highlighting the donations the NFL makes to United Ways so they can give to local social-service groups. The breast-cancer-awareness campaign every October symbolized by players wearing neon pink cleats and sweatbands has become a signature effort of the NFL.

These are painless and impersonal ways to do good for an organization that spent years dismissing the debilitating mental and physical affects of playing football and ignoring the almost routine violence against women perpetrated by players. It is easy to know that domestic violence exists—to even see the toll of its aftermath as a woman is dragged unconscious from an elevator—while still staying at a safe distance from its awful reality.

The NFL faces an existential crisis about its outsize role in American culture and whether it is going to be boxing circa 1975 or a new kind of organization that operates on a set of core principles that begins with taking care of its own players.

The NFL, its executives, team owners, and personnel should spend the next year answering the phones at domestic-violence hotlines, visiting former players suffering from dementia and poverty. They should sit with a single mom the night before her chemotherapy appointment and help her figure out how her kids are going to get to and from school the next day and who is going to feed them dinner. They should spend the next year getting out from the behind the fortress walls of the NFL and truly experience what it means to be poor and sick, the victim of an abusive partner with very few choices, the victim of a national system of demonizing the working poor by offering no paid sick leave.

After a year of experiencing life of people with few choices and resources, the NFL will have ideas of ways to truly help people and communities that they, and their phalanx of consultants, could never imagine today.

The NFL’s charge right now isn’t to do something different, but to be something different.

 

Share

ALS’ Happy Problem

Screen Shot 2014-10-06 at 1.51.20 PMWhat would you do with an extra $100 million? That’s the happy problem facing the ALS Association after this summer’s mega-viral ice bucket challenge. According to the ALS, the Challenge raised over $100 million from over 3 million people. Compared to $2.3 million last summer.

One of the first thing the organization did was let it’s command and control default setting get the best of it by trying to trademark the Challenge. As I’ve written before, the Challenge was powered friend to friend until the media picked it up. It is unlikely to be replicated at this scale again, nor should it be “owned” by an organization. ALS was the lucky recipient of a lucky and very generous event.

Back to the original question. The organization recently announced a three-fold increase in funding research from $7 million to $21 million. Eighty-five million to go.

Rather than doing more of the same, ALS has an opportunity to experiment with a different way of working. Unlike almost every other organization churning as fast they can for the next donation, the organization can take a deep breath and a step back and think about how to engage all of those new donors. Most of their 3 million new people are one-time donors, having participated in the Challenge because it was fun and social. But a small percentage of them can become regular supporters.

Here are a three ways ALS could begin to infuse their efforts with Matterness, the willingness of the organization to work different and demonstrate that everyone in their network can be important and heard, that will help it sustain it’s momentum over time.

1. Get Conversational. ALS has a nice presence on Facebook with nearly 340,000 Likes, presumably most of them new friends. The organization, though, continues to use the site as a billboard. The first thing to do with all of these new friends is to prove to them that they are part of the crafting of the organization’s new agenda, made possible by their donations. This is going to be very difficult for an organization that largely funds scientific research. They can put the parameters out there that a certain amount of their budget needs to be dedicated to research selected through, say, peer review panels. But there is still a significant amount of money to play with. How about dedicated 10% of whatever the organization has as discretionary funds now to whatever the community chooses to do with it. Start the conversation and see where it goes from there.

2. Find Some Little Bites. Not the snack food, the opportunity for all of ALS’ new friends to do something to help. Since the organization has the luxury, right now, of not asking for money, quite a difference again for the traditional nonprofit experience, it can instead find some interesting ways for people to help. Maybe there is some research on facilities treating people with ALS these new folks could help catalog. Or perhaps there are some new medical data sets being created through Obama care that the network could help crunch. Or collect information about ways that governments overseas are helping ALS patients. Anything that required too much manpower before is now on the table for the new ALS network to tackle. But, please, please, please, ALS, don’t do this work by hiring professionals to do it alone, inside the organization. You have a huge network of people who want to help, find some ways to put them to work.

3. Tell Stories. Make the funding of ALS personal. Invite people with ALS and their families to tell their stories of ways that the increased funding could help them. Just as the donors need to be properly thanked, the people battling the disease need to be recognized and given a voice.

 

Share

Return of the Thought Police

Screen Shot 2014-09-16 at 10.25.46 AMIn 1984, George Orwell introduced the Thought Police, the omnipresent, omniscient surveillance force that arrested and re-programmed people having heretical thoughts. We are living in a society that is coming dangerously close to Orwell’s dystopian vision. We live in a surveillance state where nearly every utterance  and act is being captured digitally. What is different is that the Thought Police aren’t a bureau or department of the state, but it is all of us participating in public censorship of free speech – even stupid speech.

There is a pattern to our Thought Police actions:

Phase One: Person X (generally a public person) says something racist, homophobic, racist or just plain hateful. It is captured and posted online.  This isn’t brand new, it sunk George Allen’s campaign 2006 campaign for Senator. More recently, Paula Deen was toppled from her perch atop the Food Network for saying under oath that she had used the “N” word. In these examples, Thought Police kicks in as widespread push back and revulsion happens online.  The pot is stirred further by mainstream media playing the hateful incident over and over again with panels of experts discussing how hateful it is.

Phase Two: This is the punishment phrase, this is the problematic part. Someone saying something repulsive needs to be punished, right? They are suspended from work, or taken off the air for a week, or lose their contract with their team.

These are not incidents like Michael Vick and dog fighting or Ray Rice hitting his fiancee that are hateful crimes. These are thoughts. Stupid, vile, hateful thoughts turned into speech. The Thought Police taken to its extreme is Danny Ferry being suspended from his job for saying something stupid he heard about African players. Ferry said, “He’s like a guy who would have a nice store out front and sell you counterfeit stuff out of the back.” Ferry is now on indefinite reportedly undergoing “sensitivity” training.

An even more egregious example of the Thought Police in action was the forced resignation of the Reverend Bruce M. Shipman, the Episcopalian chaplain at Yale last week. Rev. Shipman had the temerity to write this letter to the New York Times:

Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.

The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.

As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

If an institution of higher learning dedicated to the concept of free speech and intellectual inquiry cannot withstand an opinion about Israel that many Jews also hold, what hope is there for free and open discourse anywhere?

Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.

The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.

As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/sentence-chaplains-resignation#sthash.KC4NUPAk.dpuf

The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/sentence-chaplains-resignation#sthash.KC4NUPAk.dpuf

These “punishments” are just ineffective knee-jerk reactions to quiet any online uproar. The script entails a public apology, some kind of lame retribution and then people are back and on their way, maybe a little lighter in the wallet, but otherwise unchanged. The main result of the Thought Police descending on someone is ensuring that people try very hard not to say what’s on their mind. We need to be in conversation with one another and share assumptions that may be so deeply embedded in our beings we haven’t even thought to take them out and look at them in the sunlight. And the only way to do this is to talk more, not less, with one another. We need to challenge one another in real-time at work, at the health club, at the doctor’s office, at the PTA meeting about our assumptions and outlooks – openly and unabashedly. Otherwise, the hate just lies hidden beneath the surface trying to evade the Thought Police.

Share

The NFL: Followship Not Leadership

Screen Shot 2014-09-09 at 12.34.00 PMYesterday, Ray Rice was expelled from the NFL for hitting his wife. Of course, we have known this for seven months. We didn’t learn anything new yesterday, but we saw it for the first time. And that changed everything. Unfortunately. What yesterday’s reaction from the Ravens and the NFL did most of all was highlight their lack of leadership throughout the entire incident. Four days after the incident, there was a video of Rice dragging Janey Palmer off the elevator they had both walked on and dropping her on the floor like a sack of potatoes. What else did the NFL and Ravens need to drop the boom on a player who like all players has a clause in his contract calling for ethical behavior? Apparently they needed the world to see a video of the incident.

One of the silliest things I heard yesterday were people complaining that the NFL hadn’t bothered, or weren’t offered, or didn’t ask for, this video. What did they need it for? Rice hit Palmer and then dragged her off the elevator unconscious. Why does anyone need to see it to know that what he did was awful, inexcusable, and given his reaction after the incident, probably not the first time he has hit a woman. The NFL didn’t need to see it to know it was horrible, what they needed was leadership dedicated to a clear set of principles about player behavior that they will adhere to whether there is a video or not.

Organizations are becoming more reactive to online media than ever before. This is followship not leadership, organizations blowing this way and that based on what their fans, customers, donors, volunteers are seeing and feeling at any moment in time. Leaders are the ones that articulate how they expect employees to behave, what is acceptable and unacceptable, and what the consequences are for bad behavior.

Share

Copyright © 2013. Created by Meks. Powered by WordPress.