There is No Such Thing as a Diverse Candidate


A new article
from the Nonprofit Professionals Advisory Group reminds us to be careful how we use language in the business of nonprofit management. Words matter. And if you participate in hiring or recruiting staff, volunteers or board members for your organization, you NEED to read this.

From Rhetoric to Practice: Recruiting Strategies to Make Diversity More Meaningful in your Organization

One thing that stuck out for me in the article is that, as search consultants themselves, the authors take a practical view of diversity (not just a moral one). A big takeaway comes when they point out the all-important point that nonprofit hiring managers (and even search committees) often miss.

Ready?

There is no such thing as a diverse candidate. 

As the article clarifies:

It is common to hear non-profit executives and human resources personnel refer to “diverse hires,” candidates with “diverse backgrounds,” and the like. The implication is that the person in question – because of his or her gender, race, ethnicity, age, experience, or some other factor – embodies diversity; she or he is diverse. However, individuals are not diverse; groups are diverse. To use an analogy, we can assemble apples, oranges, pears and plums to compose a diverse bowl of fruit, but no single piece of fruit is “diverse” in itself. Diversity is possible, and possibly meaningful, only in the context of the group. Using this framework, it becomes clear that there is no such thing as a “diverse candidate.”

Again, there is no such thing as a diverse candidate. 

You might wanna put this on a t-shirt. Or just chant it over and over at the beginning of your hiring team meetings with a stick of incense burning in the middle of the table. Whatever works.

So, if nonprofits aren’t supposed to be looking for “diverse candidates” or “diverse hires,” what should they be seeking instead?

. . . in the hiring context, the intent must be to identify candidates whose attributes, experiences and perspectives complement and enhance the strengths, needs, values and composition of the work group in ways that will advance the organization’s mission and objectives. It is also important to be honest and explicit about what would NOT be a good fit for a team. Some backgrounds and, especially, belief systems, can challenge the organizational culture in counter-productive ways at certain stages of an organization?s evolution.

Read the rest here.

The authors also outline some key action steps to take if you’re in the midst of hiring or recruiting for a new position right now. It’s good stuff. Print it out and give it to your HR director.

Further reading:

Jeanne Bell: Ideas for Leading a Sustainable Nonprofit

Jeanne Bell is the closing keynote at the second annual Conference of Nonprofit Communities of Hawai`i. Jeanne is the CEO at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the co-author of Nonprofit Sustainability: Making Strategic Decisions for Financial Viability.

Here are a few thoughts that Jeanne shared in her presentation on nonprofit sustainability.

***

Sustainability is an orientation, not a destination.

Nonprofits have dual bottom-line business models. Your business model is your hypothesis about what impacts will incite which users/payers to pay. Sometimes the people who benefit from the services are the ones who pay. Sometimes the cost of services are subsidized. Sometimes the funders are the ones who pay for the services but don’t get the direct benefit.

There is inherently broken logic to the idea that nonprofits should spend exactly what they bring in every year. A lot of boards and funders think nonprofits should just break even and not have any “rainy day fund” or additional money to support the growth of the organization. But you have to think about your business model statement vs. your mission statement. Your business model statement should go beyond the mission to explain how your work is financed. What are clients/funders “buying” from you? Then be ready to adjust and experiment with it. There are problems with the old frames of nonprofit management – the nine-month strategic plan process given the shifting landscape, led by the board who aren’t the most knowledgable about the organization’s business model, that gets implemented over the next five years.

Strategic planning the old way: planning and implementation

Strategic planning the new way: periodic planning, ongoing decisionmaking, execution and learning

Deferred decision-making costs nonprofits money, morale and impact. Keeping someone in the wrong job for a year can cause a drop in morale in addition to costing the organization money. There’s never a time when there’s not a personnel issue going on.

Sustainability involves both financial and program sustainability. One impacts the other.

Every time you write a grant proposal, you’re setting a price for your impact. Our systems tell us that we break even, but nothing ever really breaks even.

Everything looks like a money tree when there is a grant to cover it. A good example is special events – if you don’t track your staff’s time, it looks like  it was successful. But if you tracked your staff’s time, it would be a money-loser. You need to have a way to track whether your programs are covered or not.

At any given moment. our organizations are better at some things than others. There’s a lot of reasons not do something, even if it’s on mission. Just because the community or your population needs your services doesn’t mean you’re good at it.

Jeanne introduced the concept of the sustainability matrix (explained quite well on the Greenlights for Nonprofit Success blog). Your mission statement is a bad way to approach decisions. You may be holding onto “stop signs” in your organizations.

Shrinking can be good – think about what impact you want to have in the next few years. Then build your new business model around that. It could mean having a smaller budget, less staff, a shorter lease, fewer programs, etc.

***

Learn more about Jeanne’s book here.

Back to the Future: Will We See a New Generation of Nonprofit Organizations in 2011?

Back to the Future Tribute

Earlier this year, I wrote about my problem with the term “next generation leaders” because young people are already leading and doing amazing things in the world. So, we’re not “next”, we’re NOW. But the main reason I wanted to coin the term “now generation” leaders is because I think the “next generation” moniker gives young people (and everyone else) the permission to delay leadership. It gives the impression that we have to wait for some undetermined time before we can lead and assert our ideas for change. That we have to sit on the sidelines until we get tapped to jump into the game. And until then, we’ve got to sit quietly with the other kids and try to catch the crumbs of wisdom and power that fall from the big kid’s table.

But, I digress. We don’t have to agree on the terminology. What I think we can all agree on is that yes, there ARE new leaders coming into the nonprofit organizations with new ideas that have the potential to dramatically change the way social change happens in America. So, it’s time to ask some new questions. I think we need to ask ourselves whether a new generation of leaders can transform the nonprofit sector into a new generation of organizations that are attune to the changes happening all around us and responsive to the urgent needs of communities with one goal and one goal only.

IMPACT.

I’ll be thinking and writing more on this theme over the next few weeks, but first I wanted to resurrect two important leadership and management frameworks that I think we need to pay attention to in the coming year. These ideas came about in the last three years and received quite a bit of attention when they were all new and shiny, but not to the extent to which they deserved over the long-term, in my opinion. I think we need to consider (and reconsider) more seriously the implications that the changing landscape has (and should have) on the nonprofit sector and the work of social change overall. Just because we’re still in a shaky economy shouldn’t preclude nonprofits from continuing to grow and evolve into better organizations that are better equipped to bring about a brighter future for all of us.

What would happen if we stopped talking about the new generation of leaders and started talking about a new generation of organizations? Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod-Grant did just that with their 2007 book, Forces for Good: Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits.

Forces for Good

The authors of this breakthrough book made clear what most of us already knew but weren’t putting into practice: high-impact nonprofits work with and through other organizations and individuals to create more impact than they could have ever achieved alone. Specifically:

High-impact nonprofits build social movements and fields; they transform business, government, other nonprofits, and individuals; and they change the world around them. Forces for Good uncovered six practices that high-impact nonprofits use to achieve extraordinary impact. These nonprofits:

  1. Work with government and advocate for policy change
  2. Harness market forces and see business as a powerful partner
  3. Convert individual supporters into evangelists for the cause
  4. Build and nurture nonprofit networks, treating other groups as allies
  5. Adapt to the changing environment
  6. Share leadership, empowering others to be forces for good

In addition, the authors pointed out that high-impact nonprofits have mastered the basics needed to sustain their impact: attracting and retaining great people; finding sustainable sources of funding; and investing in their infrastructure and capacity.

To be able to implement the six practices outlined in Forces for Good, however, it was clear that nonprofits needed to look both inward and outward for capacity and organizational change. La Piana Consulting began to look at the most important trends through their Nonprofit Next Initiative in 2009.

La Piana Consulting’s Nonprofit Next Initiative

La Piana conducted this research project to enable the nonprofit sector to better understand what trends would have the greatest impact on the sector’s structure, activities, and leadership over the next five to ten years, and spark a dialogue about the future of the sector. These are the six trends they came up with.

  • Generational Shift: The aging of the baby boomers enables younger leaders to step into key roles as experienced leaders move on or redefine their roles. As this shift slowly unfolds, the generations will need to work together for many years to come. Beginning immediately, however, nonprofits will need to adapt in order to engage younger supporters. Our recent strategy work with groups such as Sierra Club, ACLU, and Amnesty International, has demonstrated the fading appeal of traditional conceptions of membership. Important causes need to reinvent themselves as “networks” to retain or grow their membership levels.
  • Economic/Political Uncertainty: This recession is more than a deep down-turn; it presents in many ways a fundamental shift. After 28 years of anti-government rhetoric leading to a smaller government, the new role of Washington, D.C. as backstop and investor of last resort will increase public recognition of the important role of the public sector. The nation’s swing to the right may be at an end. If Obama succeeds in navigating this economic crisis, a generational swing to a prolonged, more liberal era may be at hand.
  • Technology and Networking: Web 2.0 social networking presents a non-hierarchical, non-controlled, still-evolving, and thus not yet fully understood format for connectivity among nonprofit workers and activists, and between the sector and its constituents. This technology is a game-changer for everything from fundraising to community organizing to staff recruitment.
  • Diversity: The 2008 Presidential election turned attention to race, gender, ethnicity, and the larger topic of cultural competence – how we manage difference – in ways unimagined just a year earlier. A door has been opened, and it is up to the nonprofit sector to walk through it, leading a new national dialogue on difference.
  • Nonprofit Boundaries: Traditional sector boundaries are evaporating. Corporate leaders now head major foundations; businesses develop nonprofit subsidiaries; socially responsible corporations seek “B-Corp” and “L3C” status; investment houses aggressively compete with community foundations for donor-directed funds; nonprofits develop fee-for-service programs; regulations that once preserved human services as an exclusive nonprofit domain are falling; local governments question the value nonprofits provide to the community; and Washington asks if nonprofits that do not help the poor deserve tax exempt status or deductibility of gifts.
  • Virtual Work: Concerns over unstable oil prices, high downtown rents, rising greenhouse gases, and the quality-of-life impact of long commutes from the suburbs, combined with the possibilities offered by fast Internet connections, high-quality video conferencing, affordable all-in-one printer-scanner-fax-copiers, and hosted intranets, make “virtual workplaces” an appealing alternative for many organizations – particularly nonprofits, which traditionally have less money to spend on infrastructure anyway. Office culture is on the wane. What will we lose by not meeting around the water cooler, and how will we replace it?
    Do you think these two frameworks are still applicable going into 2011? Combined, do you think they represent where a new generation of nonprofit organizations needs to go? What would you add or take away?

The Case Against Outsourcing Social Media

Over the past year, I’ve taken on several nonprofit and small business clients to help them with implementing social media initiatives related to their mission. For some of the engagements, it was clear that I was the “face” that was managing the social network(s). For others, me and my team were behind the scenes pushing out the content and connecting with their community under the name of the organization. Sort of like a ghostwriter. Not this Ghostwriter, who was awesome. This one.

I’ve also provided social media training for nonprofit organizations and small businesses getting started with figuring out strategy and learning how to use the tools. I’ve enjoyed that work a lot more because I felt confident I was actually helping them build the capacity to tap into the power of their online communities. For instance, yesterday I gave a “Social Media 101″ training for a small group of nonprofit leaders who wanted to learn more about how to make social media work for their organizations. They were able to see examples of how other nonprofits were using the tools successfully and get answers about how they might best incorporate them into their own work. From the conversations I had with them afterward, I could see that they felt empowered by having this new information.

So, I’ve learned a lot from both of these types of experiences and I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the best way to take full advantage of your social networks is NOT to outsource social media to a consultant, but to increase the capacity of your organization to do it in-house and align it with your existing marketing and communications strategy.

In fact, Jay Baer just wrote a fantastic piece about why 2011 will be the year of social media convergence that emphasizes the importance of investing in social media from the ground up. We already know that organizations that use social media are more successful than those that don’t. And if Jay’s predictions are correct (and I’m pretty sure they’re on point), nonprofits and businesses are going to have to get even more social in 2011.

What that means is that we’re all going to have to learn how to use social media for ourselves. The way I see it, social media tools are communications tools just like the telephone and email. Would you hire someone to answer your phone or email pretending to be you? Maybe you would, but I definitely don’t recommend it. Outsourcing social media can save you time, but in the long run I think it’s a missed opportunity. If you do hire a social media consultant to work with your organization, ask them to train your existing staff or volunteers or board members on how to use the tools. That’s where the real value is.

Here are a few reasons why:

Cost

Outsourcing social media means that you’ll always have to pay to bring that expertise inside your organization. And many times, the hourly fee or flat fee to hire the consultant or firm adds up to someone’s full or part-time salary over the course of a year. From a budgeting perspective then, it’s cheaper to train current staff and build the cost into their salaries to make it a part of their everyday duties.

Missed Connections

Unless your social media consultant is extremely well-versed in your industry as well as your particular mission, vision, objectives and goals, they will miss important opportunities to connect with or proactively reach out to the kinds of folks who can support your organization through social networks. For example, if I don’t know who your funders or potential funders are, how can I find them online and then build relationships? Your staff knows this stuff in and out, so its best for them to be the ones at the helm of the tools looking for opportunities to connect with the right people.

Sustainability

A good social media consultant can set up great tools and systems to manage your social network, but if you never learn how to use them yourself, you’ll always be dependent on them and forced to pay for their time. If you train current staff to do it, you not only increase their expertise, but you also increase the capacity of your organization to learn and act on new ideas. When social media is in-house, staff expertise will only grow and get more sophisticated as they experiment with the tools and learn from their efforts.

For these reasons, I’m shifting my social media work away from hands-on consulting to training and empowering staff to take on these initiatives themselves. In the long run, I really think organizations need to own their social networks and build their internal capacity to leverage the power of their online communities.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you agree or disagree? Should organizations completely outsource their social media initiatives? How is this method working or not working for your organization?

Opportunities for Social Justice Collaboration in the South

12 Ways to Pass the Torch: Trusting a New Generation to Sustain the Social Justice Movement

The final day of the the Southern Partners Fund 2010 Regional Grantee Gathering in Atlanta was all about ideas for further collaboration. Grantees talked about many of the economic, political and social/cultural trends in the south that were having an impact on their work. One trend that stood out in many of the conversations was that racism and division within various communities has increased due to the state of the economy, with some using race to divide people of limited economic means.

Opportunities for Collaboration

Share resources

  • Collective resource development
  • Support for methodology and research
  • Share outcomes from reflection and evaluation
  • Share frequent flyer miles to help other leaders get to the same conferences
  • Use respective funders as a means of connecting similar organizations for collabroation

Share best practices

  • Leadership development
  • Accessing funds
  • Community building
  • Ongoing training about working with local government
  • Land retention
  • Identify training needs
  • Identify skills and abilities that can be used as collaborative training  to address current challenges

Build capacity for collaboration

  • Build collaboration organically to coincide with specific events throughout the year, i.e. the Southeast Social Forum (conferences present opportunities for a “container” to continue the work)
  • Ongoing conversations with each other from state to state, community to community, organization to organization about what’s working and what’s not
  • Identify groups that work on similar issues
  • Be efficient and effective in collaborative efforts or it will present too much of a challenge for organizations. Collaboration needs to save time, not use more. Time management is important.

Be transparent in collaboration efforts

  • Utilize MOUs to formalize collaboration
  • Ensure equitable resource sharing from joint grants
  • Sharing organizational values upfront
  • Get buy in from both organizations for joint ownership of the collaborative work

Out of all the suggestions that were put forth, it was clear that organizations need to be more proactive instead of reactive when it comes to collaboration. But by the end of the gathering, grantees had committed to further collaboration in the spirit of community interests over self interests.

Full disclosure: Southern Partners Fund paid me to provide blogging services for this event to leverage the power of social media to share their stories with the wider philanthropic community. The views expressed here are solely my own, however, and I stand by my commitment to authentic coverage of these issues.

Loading...
Sign up for blog updates and get a FREE chapter of my book, How to Become a Nonprofit Rockstar!