|
|
The case of Sub-Saharan Africa
1. What needs to take place before we can even discuss knowledge transfer—in this case, skills development?
2. How do we engage the African Diaspora professionals to be a part of the long-term economic solution in Africa?
3. How do we go about creating the system/infrastructure that will support those social entrepreneurs who are willingly trying to transfer knowledge?
4. How do we bring dramatic new forms of public/private partnerships to provide a stronger support network for Africa?
5. How do we mobilize highly qualified and self-motivated African social entrepreneurs for capacity building?
It is time for a celebration!
Our friend and frequent Social Edge commenter, Dr Prakash Vinjamuri, recently wrote to tell us that his program - the Life-Health Reinforcement Group of Hyderabad, India, of which he is Executive Director - will celebrate its tenth anniversary on August 13th.
We on Social Edge would like to extend our warm congratulations to Prakash and his team, to wish him many more years of success -- and to invite those who read here to join us in that celebration by discussing your own beginnings.
- What brought you to the field of social entrepreneurship?
- How did your organization come into being?
- What anniversaries have you celebrated, and how?
Prakash also mentioned a couple of things that seem worth comment here: he said that Social Edge had given his organization a "wonderful platform to express ourselves" and spoke of the "warm feeling" he gets when he logs in here. Those would be gratifying comments to read at any time, but they also touch on two issues that seem crucial to our efforts here.
We want Social Edge to be a platform for social entrepreneurs, indeed, we'd like it to be wonderful.
- How are we doing?
- Have you found this place a useful platform?
And we want that "warm feeling" - more specifically, we want this to be a place where people can get to know and trust one another online. Because trust is the foundation for collaboration, and collaboration is one of the great multipliers of effort.
Businesses run on the single bottom line rely on financial gain as the great motivator for cooperation, while we in the social sector have an equal or greater emphasis on goodwill.
- Do you feel a kinship with those whose words you read on Social Edge?
- Have you made any friendly contacts here?
- Begun any collaborations with those you've met here?
We'd like to encourage that sort of contact, here on The Edge.
Prakash ended his message by saying he hopes to see "all our friends on The Edge during the dialogue." Let's join him and Charles “Hipbone” Cameron in the celebration and the conversation.
If ever there were a group that takes a beating in the world of social change, it is boards.
To avoid dealing with board-induced headaches, social entrepreneurs often put off legally incorporating or filing for tax exemption. Established governance advisors have become household names around the globe, as they strive to address “the problem of boards.”
Most of us could recite the laments by heart:
• Board members “check their brains at the door.”
• Board members “make decisions at the board table they would never make in their own businesses.”
• Board members micromanage. Or they rubber stamp.
• Board members won’t raise money.
• And board members refuse to change!
With the drumbeat of frustrations voiced about boards, one would think we humans are genetically predisposed to be bad board members!
Is this really the best we can do?
In his talk at TED this year, Barry Schwartz (who holds Swarthmore College’s endowed chair as Dorwin Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action) shared his findings about what motivates people to go above and beyond in their jobs. According to Dr. Schwartz, the answer is neither about rewards (e.g. certification) nor punishment (e.g. strict enforcement of board expectations and policies).
What Barry Schwartz found, and what my own experience supports, is that the path to excellent performance is inspiration.
I have watched previously dysfunctional boards quickly transform to accomplish amazing things for their organizations and their communities. These are not well-heeled board members bringing in a lot of money or connections to people of means. They are ordinary people doing extraordinary work on behalf of their communities.
The single most important factor in that transformation has indeed been inspiration. Boards who are inspired to hold themselves and their organizations accountable for creating significant change in their communities not only accomplish tremendous end results - they also meet their legal and fiduciary requirements, as a means towards those visionary ends.
• What approaches have you used to aim boards at accountability for their highest potential - leadership towards creating significant community and/or global change?
• If you are a board member, in what ways do you see your role contributing to the impact bottom line? What barriers prevent you from focusing beyond the financial governance?
• How can social entrepreneurs ensure they recruit and educate board members who will aim their board work at accountability for impact, not just fiduciary obligations? From there, how can a group maintain that community-results-focused culture on the board?
• How can we make visionary, community-driven boards the norm rather than the exception in this sector?
Join Hildy Gottlieb, President of the Community-Driven Institute, in the conversation.
When Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus and Jamii Bora Founder Ingrid Munro joined me in New York City in January 2009 to announce that the Microcredit Summit had surpassed its goal of reaching 100 million of the world’s poorest families with a microloan, it was the culmination of more than 30 years as a social entrepreneur in the loneliest of fields—advocacy.
I’d founded RESULTS, the international citizens’ lobby on ending global poverty in 1980, organized Candlelight Vigils around the globe a few days before the 1990 World Summit for Children and launched the Microcredit Summit in 1997.
Here is my list of the three best and worst decisions I’ve made as a social entrepreneur.
• The Best Decisions
- Ask questions and listen to my gut
When I’d gotten over my hopelessness about global poverty in the late ’70s, I heard experts call for the political will to end it. I found that only 200 out of 7,000 students I spoke with knew the name of their Member of Congress, so I paid attention and started RESULTS with an emphasis on our second goal “to empower individuals to have breakthrough in exercising their personal and political power.”
- Partner with the most visionary, action-oriented leaders I can find
Beginning in the mid-1980s it was the late-Jim Grant of UNICEF, starting in 1987 it was Muhammad Yunus, and in 2006 it was Ingrid Munro of Jamii Bora in Kenya. Every advocate needs heroes and these are some of mine.
- Link all my work to bold global goals for which progress can be measured
Whether it was the World Summit for Children Goals set in 1990, the Millennium Development Goals set in 2000, or the Microcredit Summit Goals set in 1997 and 2006, it matters to know where you are headed and whether you are making progress.
• The worst decisions:
- Give up too easily on bureaucrats
I knew David Bornstein’s book on social entrepreneurs was real when I read how much resistance each of them faced, usually from government officials. But I can be more creative about taping their vision and winning them over.
- Give up too easily on funders
Setting bold measurable goals to be reached 10 years down the road are too much for most people to grasp. I need to be more creative in laying out bite-sized activities that produce progress toward long-range goals.
- Never fully embrace being a good manager
Starting up project after project is time consuming, but I can devote more time to listening to and supporting staff.
What were your best decisions? What mistakes have you made? Join Sam Daley-Harris, director of the Microcredit Summit Campaign, in the conversation.
Social Change: Women’s World Banking and the Power of NetworksAs microfinance continues to evolve at an astonishing pace, we in the industry face the challenge of how to best navigate this changing landscape. One of the keys, I believe, to moving forward lies in the very way in which microfinance began – with the poor helping each other through the creation of strong support networks. The group lending model has helped millions, especially women, to lift themselves out of poverty.
As a network of 54 microfinance institutions (MFIs) in 30 countries, Women’s World Banking applies this theory at the macro level – that working together as a network is far more effective than going it alone.
Microfinance is context-specific and ultimately driven at the local level by individual MFIs. However, there is an exponential benefit to MFIs leveraging each other’s resources and expertise through a global network. By offering technical advice; assisting with market research and product diversification; and connecting MFIs with capital markets, a network can help MFIs develop institutional capacity and grow to scale in ways they could not on their own.
Perhaps the most important benefit of a network is the exchange of knowledge among peers. WWB has sent Moroccan MFIs exploring the feasibility of becoming regulated institutions to Peru, and our Uganda affiliate to Ghana to study different approaches on mobilizing savings. We regularly broker 7-10 exchanges annually. This interactive approach not only provides vital sharing of innovations but also serves to build smaller, equally essential networks amongst MFIs.
Similar to the group lending model, networks are also powerful in enabling members to hold each other accountable. WWB promotes open discussion among members to identify shared principles, including rigorous performance standards to which all members must adhere. WWB’s network members are secure in the knowledge that as they pursue large-scale social change—poverty alleviation through the economic empowerment of women—they are supported by an entire network of peer organizations that share their collective vision.
Some initial questions:
• In these days of limited funding, there is often a need to convince donors that supporting a network is as effective as supporting an organization that provides direct services. Do you face this challenge and how do you handle it?
• As a network it can be hard to quantify impact and also to get recognized for contributing to successes and inputs (for how much of the institution's success can a network take credit?). Have others faced similar challenges and how do they quantify their impact?
• Are organizations headquartered in the West/US and Europe or global networks perceived to be at a disadvantage compared to regional networks and grassroots organizations located in the countries which they are serving? What is the value-add of being a global network headquartered in the US?
Join Mary Ellen Iskenderian, President and CEO of Women's World Banking, in the conversation.
I wasn't at the Skoll World Forum in Oxford this year where Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health gave his "Loyalist's Critique of Social Entrepreneurship. Mike Lee, who was present, described Dr Farmer's presentation thus: he "throws fireballs and gets a standing ovation." That's enough to make me want to learn more.
Here's some of what Dr. Farmer said:
What's been shocking to me over the past 25 years is the lightning speed at which policy makers, themselves shielded from the risks [that the poor face], decide that a complex intervention is too difficult or not cost-effective in Haiti or Africa, or not sustainable.
In microfinance parlance, many of my patients are 'poor credit risks.' But aren't they the very people we claim to serve in the first place? This is why I termed my speech a 'Loyalist’s critique' of our movement.
Commenting on these paragraphs, a blogger at ThinkChange India writes:
It's not that I'm anti-scale. As the Skoll Foundation states, we believe that social entrepreneurs "represent a powerful force for large-scale impact or equilibrium change". The tipping points for large scale problems are liable to require large interventions -- how can I say this -- which need to be large in scale, but also human in scale.
Quantity and quality: dollar figures and real people.
Quantity and quality: social programs and the people they serve.
Perhaps if we called ourselves servant entrepreneurs, we'd more easily remember what we're here for.
Questions:
• If you were at the Skoll World Forum and heard Dr Farmer, what nuggets of inspiration did you carry away with you?
• Have you found that funding requirements contradict your own needs and experience?
• Have you seen "efficiencies of scale" interrupting "effectiveness of human intervention"?
• How do you scale up without cutting corners in terms of the humans you serve?
Please join Charles "Hipbone" Cameron in this discussion, and let your voice her heard.
Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod spent the last four years studying a dozen of the most successful U.S. nonprofits of our time. The groups included the well-known (Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America), the less known (Self-Help, YouthBuild USA), and the surprising (Exploratorium and The Heritage Foundation). Their secrets to success, as told in their book, Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits? To achieve wide scale, systemic social change, the social entrepreneurs must influence institutions beyond their four walls.
Great nonprofits:
1. Work with government and advocate for policy change
2. Harness market forces and see business as a powerful partner
[See the first discussion here]
3. Convert individual supporters into evangelists for their causes
4. Build and nurture nonprofit networks
[See the second discussion here]
5. Adapt to the changing environment
6. Share leadership
This is the third of a three part discussion series and focuses on the fifth and sixth of Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits practices: “Adapt” and “Share Leadership.” See also Part 1 for Advocacy and Business Partnerships and Part 2 for Evangelists and Networking.
For social entrepreneurs, adaptability is encoded in their very DNA. It’s the key to survival as well as an instrumental component to success. As Charles Darwin observed, it’s not the swiftest, or even the smartest, of the species that survive in the end-- it’s those that are the most adaptive. Adaptability encompasses the unique ability to balance creativity and innovation with disciplined systems and business planning processes. That way, successful nonprofits don’t get stuck in old ways or mired in bureaucracy; but they also aren’t overwhelmed by unbridled creativity and rampant innovation that can dilute their efforts across too many program areas.
“Share Leadership" involves the ability of successful nonprofit leaders to let go and share power with those around them—including founders! This does not mean that the founders and CEOs of the 12 nonprofits we studied aren’t extremely powerful leaders with exceptional entrepreneurial talents. But we think their success is inextricably tied to their ability to share that power with others, giving true authority and accountability to their senior management team, and finding ways to engage their board as leaders for the organization as well.
Some questions that this raises include:
1. Social entrepreneurs are known for introducing innovative ideas, and the typical social entrepreneur will inevitably produce many social innovations over the course of their lives. The challenge is how to harness all of that creative energy and develop strategies for focusing on a limited number of opportunities to achieve maximum impact. How have social entrepreneurs overcome this challenge?
2. Founders are notorious for their inability to let go of their organizations—it’s their baby after all! What strategies have you seen work to help Founders ease off the reigns and share power so that they don’t become the stop-gap that’s holding the organization back? What hasn’t worked?
3. Our “share leadership” findings resonate closely with Jim Collins’ “Level 5 Leader” concept, which he introduces in his business management book, Good to Great, and with his observations about the need for nonprofit leaders adopt “legislative leadership” abilities, which he writes about in his monograph, Good to Great for the Social Sectors. How have these frameworks helped Social Edge participants think about honing their own leadership potential?
Join Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant in the conversation.
Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod spent the last four years studying a dozen of the most successful nonprofits of our time, including City Year, Environmental Defense, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, National Council of La Raza, and America's Second Harvest.Their secrets to success? To achieve wide scale, systemic social change, the social entrepreneurs must influence institutions beyond their four walls.
Great nonprofits:
1. Work with government and advocate for policy change
2. Harness market forces and see business as a powerful partner
[See the first discussion here]
3. Convert individual supporters into evangelists for their causes
4. Build and nurture nonprofit networks
5. Adapt to the changing environment
6. Share leadership
[See the third discussion here]
This is the second of a three part discussion series and focuses on the third and fourth of Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits practices: Evangelists and Networking. See also Part 1 for Advocacy and Business Partnerships and Part 3 for Adaptation and Leadership.
This week, we will
• Convert individual supporters into evangelists for their causes, and treat their volunteers and donors as far more than just sources of free labor or an occasional check.
• Build and nurture nonprofit networks, approaching other groups as allies rather than as competitors for resources.
Discussion Questions:
• Inspire Evangelists
• Does your organization engage individuals as volunteers or donors, and have you built a larger individual member base?
• Do you have any high-powered evangelists for your cause, who can help take your organization to the next level? If not, why not? What’s holding you back?
• If so, what have been your experiences with engaging individuals from outside your organization (i.e. beyond staff and board)?
• How do you keep this community inspired and engaged over time—what are the tactical things you do in terms of convening or marketing?
• What have you learned from engaging individuals that you might share with others? Any advice or examples of what worked?
• Nurture Nonprofit Networks
• Does your organization work with other nonprofits or affiliates?
Please describe how your affiliate structure works…
• Do you see yourself as a field-builder, and seek opportunities to expand your impact by sharing power, credit, or resources with the field, and collaborating rather than competing? If not, why not? What’s holding you back?
• If so, what have been your experiences with nurturing nonprofit networks, or working in coalitions and alliances?
• How do you keep this network connected over time—what are the tactical things you do in terms of convening or communicating to the network?
• What have you learned from “nurturing networks?” that you might share with others? Any advice or examples of what worked?
Join Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant in the conversation.
Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod spent the last four years studying a dozen of the most successful nonprofits of our time. The groups included the well-known (Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America), the less known (Self-Help, YouthBuild USA), and the surprising (Exploratorium and The Heritage Foundation). Their secrets to success, as told in their book, Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits? To achieve wide scale, systemic social change, the social entrepreneurs must influence institutions beyond their four walls.
This is the first of a three part discussion series and examines the first two practices of High-Impact Nonprofits - Advocacy and Business Partnerships. Please see also Part 2 for Evangelists and Networking, and Part 3 for Adaptation and Leadership.
They found out that great nonprofits:
1. Work with government and advocate for policy change—rather than shying away from lobbying or avoiding politics altogether.
2. Harness market forces and see business as a powerful partner, rather than just dismissing capitalism as the root of all evil
3. Convert individual supporters into evangelists for their causes, and treat their volunteers and donors as far more than just sources of free labor or an occasional check.
4. Build and nurture nonprofit networks, approaching other groups as allies rather than as competitors for resources.
[See the second discussion here]
5. Adapt to the changing environment, and find ways to balance creativity and innovation with disciplined systems and structure that allows them to achieve maximum impact.
6. Share leadership, empowering others to be forces for good, both within their organization and throughout their fields.
[See the third discussion here]
In addition, high-impact nonprofits have also 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.
We’re looking forward to sharing with you more about each of these six practices, and now will focus on the first two --working with and through government and business to expand your impact. We were surprised to learn that all of the great nonprofits we studied eventually gravitated toward engaging in policy advocacy and working with and through the private sector to affect social change.
1. How can social entrepreneurs overcome the obstacles that prohibit many nonprofit leaders from lobbying for policy change? For example, some are confused about how much lobbying is legally allowed, others are worried that they will lose donors or have trouble raising support for policy work, and others see politics as unseemly or just beyond the scope of their mission.
2. What are some the best practices of social entrepreneurs that do engage in policy advocacy--do they hire professionals or build capacity from within? Do they open offices in their capital city? What are some of the best tactics to succeed at policy work?
3. What are the best practices of social entrepreneurs that work with business to create social change that go beyond basic charitable relationships and create win-win outcomes for both the business and the nonprofit?
4. How do leading social entrepreneurs harness market forces for social and environmental gain, and change business practices for the better?
Join Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant in the conversation.
an do to encourage and support a fine entrepreneur and his worthy social venture.David was born and brought up in Barbados in the West Indies, and when he heard about the destruction of the neighboring island of Grenada in 2004's hurricane Ivan, he felt compelled to do something. With school closures, new builds and a continuous renewing of resources in Scottish schools he wanted to recycle the discarded textbooks, furniture, computers etc., and help Grenada at the same time.
Thus far, on his own initiative, he has been able to send four ocean freight containers of educational equipment out to Grenada, and is hoping to send more. Next week one of his containers will be filled with surplus from 14 primary (elementary) schools, and he already has three other 40-ft containers fully loaded and ready to go.
Through sheer persistent foot-slogging and networking, David now has a source of surplus ocean freight containers at no cost, is getting ISO certification for them, another company has offered him free storage capacity, and a large high school which is being totally re-equipped has offered him all their desks, chairs, book cases, whiteboards, and other furnishings without charge. In addition, the Justice Dept. of the Scottish Office is providing him with youths to do community service by moving everything for him. These are kids mostly from less favored socioeconomic backgrounds who grew up with his children in the neighborhood where he has lived for 17 years.
Meanwhile, David says, there are schools all over the world that are under-resourced, where the children don't even have a desk to write at, let alone a chair to sit on. And mountains of good quality surplus educational resources are ending up in landfill throughout Scotland and probably Europe.
As you see, David can do a great deal with enthusiasm and persistence: he has the entrepreneurial spirit in spades, but not the training of a businessman. He's a Scottish schoolteacher with five months to go before retirement, at which point he wants to ramp up his efforts. He's also untidy, unbureaucratic, not an "office person", wonderfully warm-hearted, and in need of support from someone who can talk him (patiently, he says) through the various aspects of taking a wonderful and desperately needed idea and establishing it, leveraging his existing efforts to create a revenue stream that can sustain and grow his campaign.
Now that David's story has inspired you, can you help him? He needs::: support from people with business expertise and social conscience
:: help in evaluating his project, its strengths and weaknesses
:: to know where the project stands in terms of sustainability
:: where the project stands in terms of scaling up
:: support with all the administrative issues, business planning, presentation preparations etc related to the project, and
:: help in maintaining and updating his website.
Let's talk with David. Let's see what we can do as a community.
Can the sheer size and success of a project imperil the good that we're setting out to do?George F. Kennan, in his book Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy, wrote:
"We are, if territory and population be looked at together, one of the great countries of the world -- a monster country, one might say, along with such others as China, India, the recent Soviet Union, and Brazil. And there is a real question as to whether “bigness” in a body politic is not an evil in itself, quite aside from the policies pursued in its name."
That's strangely compelling question, especially when you generalize it, by dropping out the phrase that limits it to "a body politic."
There is a real question whether *bigness* is not an evil in itself…
The whole business of the connection between excellence and success is not something we understand very well – can sufficient "quantity", by itself, change the "quality" of something from good to bad? Can there be – as the saying goes – "too much of a good thing"?
And to get more specific here, in terms of social entrepreneurship: is there a size beyond which further growth of a successful program has diminishing (and eventually perhaps, even negative) returns?
• Is growth axiomatically a virtue?
• Does enough quantity have the power to impact or change quality?
• Have you seen dangers or difficulties associated with the growth of your own enterprise?
• Is the change that often occurs as an initial visionary hands over the reins to those who can extend and expand his work most often helpful or harmful?
• Is there a "best size" for human projects, in the same way that there seem to be "best sizes" for community and communication within human groups?
• Do you have any advice for others about scaling up? Is there a "tipping point" to be avoided, beyond which additions of scale are counterproductive?
Your intuitions and counterintuitive suggestions are most welcome.
Join Charles "Hipbone" Cameron in the conversation.
Social ventures often fall outside the typical boxes that we learn in business school. From value proposition to organizational design to marketing models, these enterprises seem to challenge conventional notions and management theories. But such structures hold relevance for the social entrepreneur and he or she must master them. Along these lines, for any new venture, one of the most complex tasks is achieving scale. Social enterprises are no different in this regard. In fact, the process can be even more complex in the realm of double- and triple-bottom line organizations.
When an entrepreneur launches a company with a mission in mind, the objectives tend to focus on social value – such as lives impacted, energy conserved or some other beneficial outcome that creates broader productive environmental and societal externalities. However, such businesses also need to abide by the classic laws of business and focus on topics like growth plans, mergers and acquisitions and exit strategies. These might seem like anathema to the socially conscious individual, but these concepts could be crucial to taking a social enterprise to the next level.
Like many things in business, scaling up is not quite an art, more like a science. So, we will try to develop some shared understandings to syndicate within the Social Edge community and beyond to the broader realm of people working in social enterprise. By considering some case studies and exploring ideas, we will evaluate scale-up strategies for social ventures that might enable an organization to amplify its operations and magnify its mission.
To get the ball rolling, some questions to consider could include:
• Are the challenges of growth similar or different for social ventures in comparison to traditional businesses?
• How should a social venture weigh potential tradeoffs when evaluating a scale-up opportunity?
• What are some examples of organizations that grew effectively through partnerships while maintaining their core mission?
• What are some examples wherein the venture diminished its effectiveness as a result of its particular approach to attaining scale?
Join Jonathan Greenblatt in the discussion.
If a strategy or program is successful in one place, more of the same elsewhere will be even better. “Because we’re interested in doing good while doing well, doing even better by doing even more may not just be a powerful challenge, but also a significant way to reduce the ills and sufferings of the world around us,” writes Charles Cameron, host for this event.
Last July, Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO of the Acumen Fund, hosted a workshop on Scale and Replicability.
This wasn’t the only time we’ve looked at issues of scale here on the Edge – the subject keeps recurring. You may want to visit Willy Foote’s event on Geographic Expansion or Bonnie Koenig’s on Going Global.
Jacqueline Novogratz quoted the 5 R’s of scaling up from Rick Dees et al., Scaling Social Impact [Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2004.]
Readiness Is the innovation ready to be spread?
Receptivity Will the innovation be well-received in the target communities?
Resources What resources are required to get the job done right?
Risk What are the chances that things don’t turn out as expected?
Returns What is the bottom line in terms of quality and quantity of impact?
Those are five important questions, and I hope we’ll take advantage of this event to revisit them.
Some points we may want to pursue from the earlier event:
Picking up on Rick Dees’ fourth “R”, Cgasca noted, “It is important to understand that best practices or models are not always transferable to other cultural contexts.”
Probing a bit further, Peter Reese raised what seems to me the fundamental question: “Is the focus of multiplication on using similar methods in other settings or on achieving comparable results?
Along similar lines, Mitra distinguished between scaling up innovative ideas, and organizations. He commented that if your idea is sufficiently better than the ideas your competitors are proposing, they may become your local affiliates rather than your competition.
And Stefanski pointed out that if achieving the greatest social return while remaining sustainable is optimal, “it may be more practical for the entrepreneur to simply offer their knowledge and for future entrepreneurs facing similar challenges to find and apply the knowledge to their unique conditions.”
Each of these points probes the overall idea: they reflect some of the subtleties we should consider when thinking about the power of scaling up to multiply the good.
What’s your experience?
[Note: This is the first of two consecutive events focused on scale: the second, starting next week, will address what we might think of as the opposite imperative -- EF Schumacher’s idea that small is beautiful.]
Patrick O'Heffernan - Apr 11, 2006 3:47 pm (# Total: 25) I recently talked with a NPO leader who started a very successful local program that addresses a national problem. When I asked about national plans, she said she would not expand to a national program because the program would lose its personal contact which is what makes it work. I suggested a franchise and she agreed but neither of us could think of any NPO franchise examples. Do you know of any?
nxtrev - Apr 11, 2006 9:31 pm (# Total: 25) Would you consider reviewing a Christian outreach org. called Christian Business Men's Committee (CBMC)?
If so, consider - the org. first finds a man ready to take on the task of leading - this leader then works in his area to develop a leadership team (the committee) - The committee - made up of about 6-12 people with like minded attitude towards the outreach begin small and grow thier own 'franchise' as they see fit. They take on resp. for finances and work while following bluprint of the Org. james luther nxtrev.org
JColborn - Apr 12, 2006 7:40 am (# Total: 25) The Ford Foundation
Some great thinking on this topic has been done by Kirsten Moi and Greg Ratliff at the Aspen Institute. See http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.613655/k.70FA/Scale_and_Sustainability.htm for more info, papers, etc...
At Ford, we've done some thinking about scaled impact (not necessarily through social enterprise approaches). A publication that reviews some of our thinking appears at http://www.fordfound.org/publications/recent_articles/docs/asset_pathways.pdf.
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 12, 2006 10:06 am (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi, Patrick:
- she said she would not expand to a national program because the program would lose its personal contact which is what makes it work
I personally don’t know of any NPO franchises, and a quick google brought me to a similar discussion at Omidyar where nobody mentioned any – but the idea of franchising tools was mentioned, along with a link to NGO-in-a-box:
- NGO-in-a-box is a physical box of CDs consisting of a complimentary set of peer-reviewed and selected Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) solutions tailored to the needs of not-for-profit, non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In order to keep the product current and adapt to changing and regional user needs, the Tactical Technology Collective recommends establishing "a community of regional point people" to review use and make recommendations on how to adapt the box to suit the needs of their users.
Putting that another way, I suspect franchising as a term focuses on the organizational level, and that memetic seeding (ie the spreading of approaches and tools) may be the method by which the social entrepreneurial sector "scales up" organically…
Organizational scaling up is another matter altogether, in my view, because while it requires the development of leadership across an increasingly distributed organization, it doesn’t demand the same fierce level of individuality that originating a concept, approach and / or organization does.
I guess what I'm saying is that bottom up, a given successful approach can be scaled by others borrowing its concepts and implementing them in their own arenas -- while deliberate expansion of a success story from one arena to many is liable to be a top down phenomenon.
Entrepreneurs in general, perhaps, and social entrepreneurs in particular, are likely to be less focused on the organization (brand, continuity of org) and more on the process (insights, outcomes)…
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 12, 2006 10:36 am (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi James:
And welcome to SocialEdge.
You write of the Christian Business Men's Committee (CBMC):
- the org. first finds a man ready to take on the task of leading - this leader then works in his area to develop a leadership team (the committee) - The committee - made up of about 6-12 people with like minded attitude towards the outreach begin small and grow thier own 'franchise' as they see fit.
It's my impression that whether a particular project is faith based or not isn't the important distinction for us at Social-Edge -- our focus is on entrepreneurial spirit with social impact.
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 12, 2006 12:51 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi John, and welcome to the SocialEdge forums.
I very much appreciate your pointing us to Ford Foundation and Aspen Institute resources on the topic of scale – one of the best affordances of a web portal such as our is the chance to bring resources together in a way that facilitates a fast learning curve for best concepts and practices in a given area. We’re also interested in building community, in the sense of bringing the people who post here together in ways that facilitate mutual trust and regard – the foundations of successful networking – so I’d like to invite you to comment at some point on your own work for Ford, your areas of interest etc.
On the specific topic of scaling, the Aspen Institute site you linked to details an approach which will provide:
- A new model for moving to scale with applicability in community development finance and, more broadly, in other areas of the nonprofit arena.
- A better understanding of the critical stages through which individual organizations and a field must move to reach scale, and the obstacles/challenges at each stage.
- A better understanding of interventions, intermediaries, systems and infrastructures that can facilitate and/or accelerate the process of moving to scale.
- A better understanding of the funding needed at each stage, and who the broader universe of partners/participants/stateholders might be.
- Descriptions of future research activities to fill gaps in knowledge and/or test critical hypotheses.
I’d like to ask you for your own sense of scaling up in general and franchising in particular. Many of the projects we discuss here are located in the developing world, and differences of culture and resources may be greater than within, say, the American urban environment. Is it your sense that “scaling up” in these circumstances should focus on something other than the organizational level, and if so, what other options do we have for optimizing the impact of our best practices a widely diverse circumstances?
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 12, 2006 12:54 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi John:
In the Ford publication on pathways to large-scale impact you refer us to, I was impressed by the final paragraph of Elizabeth Campbell’s Forward:
- While all frameworks are flawed in that they cannot fully capture real-world complexities, many can be helpful in organizing ideas and actions. We offer ours as a potentially useful tool for grantmakers and social-change agents wrestling with the puzzle of obtaining greater impact in their quest to eliminate poverty and injustice.
I have a keen personal interest in developing humanistic thinking tools to mimic nets or webs of tensions of this kind, with special emphasis on the inclusion of emotions -- which give intensity and coloring to the tensions involved – and a special interest in the application of such tools to conflict resolution in particular.
One of the major differences between linear (text based) analyses and visual (concept mapping) approaches is that they don’t privilege some of the ideas in play over others – whereas linear presentations (as in white papers, etc) emphasize assumptions and conclusions, and tend to polarize other positions accordingly. But this in turn carries a powerful implication for our manner of thinking about such things:
It implies that raising and holding a question in mind may in some sense be "truer" to the nature of complex problems than any particular closure-providing answer…
That's a somewhat unexpected idea, considering our society's usual "decision-support" orientation, isn't it?
tutormentor - Apr 13, 2006 3:50 pm (# Total: 25) Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection
I think part of the answer to whether or not an organization should scale up is what type of revenue stream does the organization have to support its operations in one or more places; and what type of work does the organization do.
For instance, in the traditional business model people exchange dollars for goods and services. If a business offers something people want at a fair price, most people will buy. Henry Ford got rich on this concept.
However, most non profits, supported by philanthropy or government grants, can't depend on this simple cash for goods/services exchange. Donors and grant makers are driven by many different emotions and politics, which means money does not flow consistently to any single organization on a consistent basis for a long time.
This article by Clara Miller, titled The Looking-Glass World of Nonprofit Money: Managing in For-Profits’ Shadow Universe, does a great job of illustrating why non profits struggle so much to be successful: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/section/704.html
Thus, it would be foolish to try to operate multiple locations if you cannot assure consistent funding for staff and services.
A second consideration is the nature of service. If an organization is a "cookie-cutter" operation, that can be easily duplicated, with a few trained people, it's likely to have success operating in multiple locations. McDonalds, Starbucks, and many other corporations do this well. However, if the complexity of operating is more in depth, and varies depending on the client/customer and the community, then it may be more difficult to assure an even level of service across many locations.
I read a study of the Quantum Opportunities Program back in 1995 (here's a link:
| www.aypf.org/publications/RAA/12quant.pdf - |
One thing I always remember from this research was a statement that said "while you can franchise structure, you cannot franchise commitment". Thus, if an organization is a cookie-cutter operation that is easily duplicated, McDonalds, Starbucks, it is probably profitable to franchise. However, if the operations require a greater deal of local flexibility, or creativity, driven by variables such as the clients/customer, or the nature of the community, it's more difficult to operate multiple locations with any degree of consistency.
Thus, I follow Stefanski's advise, “it may be more practical for the entrepreneur to simply offer their knowledge and for future entrepreneurs facing similar challenges to find and apply the knowledge to their unique conditions.”
I maintain a library of examples of what a tutor/mentor program might look like, as well as my own vision of what a program might look like. Then I organize events that enable people to look at this information and make their own choices of which ideas they will apply to their own situation.
I go a few steps further by organizing knowledge and a database of youth programs, and then leading efforts to help them get critically needed resources, so that the local owner has more of the resources he/she needs to innovate ways to keep a youth involved.
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 13, 2006 3:55 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi again, Dan:
I think your quote, while you can franchise structure, you cannot franchise commitment hits the nail on the head.
Always a pleasure to read you...
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 14, 2006 12:25 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Well, it's passover season for some and Holy Week for others -- I just wanted to note that if we slow down for the weekend, I hope we'll be able to pick up again therafter, and perhaps continue this discussion for another week.
And in the meanwhile, to wish all participants and lurkers the appropriate holiday good wishes...
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 20, 2006 7:45 am (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Ah well, I have the feeling in any case that we've continued this conversation over in the newer "scaling" item, the one devoted to the proposition that small is beautiful, or meaningful, or appropriate -- or that appropriate is beautiful, and meaningful... however you'd like to phrase it.
Please join us over there for continuing discussion of just how to ensure that good ideas and best practices get shared in ways that are responsive to local conditions... appropriate and sustainable.
One last stab at the idea of scaling up...
Think global, the saying goes, and act local. Scaling up can be thought of as the reverse procedure: acting local, then thinking global – or at least, thinking expansively. And whereas the basic logic of "think global, then act local" ensures that the wider context is considered while focusing down on problems at the level where they can be addressed in all their local specificity, "act local, then think global" has the advantage of taking success and hopefully replicating it, or in social entrepreneurial terms, doing better by doing more of the same good.
Pamela McLean - Apr 20, 2006 12:03 pm (# Total: 25) Thanks for this discussion, and the other related ones. There is so much I would like to join in on here - but I'd finish up writing chapters.
So - thanks to Charles and all contributors - and just an observation regarding “how the saying goes”.
I have had it wrong all this time – I genuinely thought it was the other way round. I'm always quoting it to my Nigerian friends involved in local community development as "Act local - think global..." This is because I want them to find time to share what they know with a wider audience, because what they are doing is relevant to so many other locations in rural Nigeria – and maybe elsewhere in Africa. They are are addressing real problems and have learnt so much over the years about what does and does not work.
It seems to me a tragedy if that expertise is only applied locally. Small is beautiful. Bottom up development is appropriate development. But local doesn’t have to stay completely local and unreplicated. We have to do far more to enable local actors to contribute to global thinking – but that entails opportunity costs for them – and local activists tend to be enormously overstretched. However they are the real experts and efforts should be made to learn from their experiences and knowledge. Surely now we have easier access to ICTs this should become more and more achievable. Maybe the saying should become “Think global – learn local – then act”
Pam McLean
Cawdnet convenor
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 20, 2006 1:31 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi Pam:
Lovely to read you here once again..
FWIW, I just googled and got 187,000 hits for think global act local and 41,600 for think local act global -- and topping them both, 940,000 for the portmanteau word, glocal !!
Where that leaves us, nobody knows!
ValerieB - Apr 20, 2006 1:31 pm (# Total: 25) (oops, Charles slipped in while I was posting...)
Thought-provoking post, Pamela!
Learning how to do anything is such an iterative process. What I think a lot of us crave is the opportunity to reflect on what we are learning as we go with others on the path.
Volumes have been written about best practices, and much can be learned from reading them, but it's just so much more compelling to have a chat with someone who has been there, done that, and has some war stories to tell.
It's why I hope conversations like this one will continue.
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 20, 2006 1:37 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi, Valerie:
Welcome to SocialEdge!
- Volumes have been written about best practices ... but it's just so much more compelling to have a chat with someone who has been there, done that, and has some war stories to tell.
Pamela McLean - Apr 20, 2006 2:01 pm (# Total: 25) Thanks for the replies Charles and ValerieB.
Ref "Learning how to do anything is such an iterative process."
Absolutely. And it's only as you are learning that you begin to understand what the question really is (or what it should be). Which IMHO is why the "traditional format" for doing proposals is all back to front - because too much funding is directed to "giving solutions" (as defined in the funding proposal - before work gets underway). Unfortunately precious few resources are available to get the question right first - so the "solutions" are often "less than helpful". Usually the people who do understand the questions/problems are not the people providing the "solutions" (Except where local self-funded solutions are provided to solve local problems - which is done with insufficient resources - by people too overstretched to put a proper funding proposal together). To get things right you need money,ideas, skills and networks - too often the money goes out insufficiently supported.
Ref "It's just so much more compelling to have a chat with someone who has been there, done that, and has some war stories."- I think my rant above comes from a feeling that Valerie and I may have some similar stories 
Pam
ValerieB - Apr 20, 2006 2:50 pm (# Total: 25) Er, yes, I imagine so!
I have been struck more than once with how things get sort of twisted around when one is writing a grant application... in an effort to make one's own initiative sound like a good fit for the solution proposed by the funders, one spins what is hoped to be a compelling narrative. By the time I'm through, I almost believe the story I've written.
It would be so refreshing to be able to write a proposal which said something along the lines of, "well, we're not sure, exactly how we are going to go about this, but we have some really smart, experienced people helping us and we think we stand a good chance of figuring it out if we're permitted to explore a bit!
Pamela McLean - Apr 20, 2006 3:32 pm (# Total: 25) And what about the ones that only seem interested in paying for the fancy stuff. So when you want help to kick start a new project or part of a project they only seem interested in photo-opportunity stuff (the stuff that actually you could manage to do in cheaper ways than they are willing to pay for) It seems they'll pay for "shiny-and-new" rather than the "make-do-and-mend" "second-hand" "borrow-mine" "let's make a bit more space over here" creative maximising of resources that is the cultural norm - at least it is with the projects I know. But then they but won't help with the essentials - the things that can't be rustled up without finding the necessary money - because that's "only people" or "consumables" etc.....
tutormentor - Apr 21, 2006 1:46 pm (# Total: 25) Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection
Pamela, as one who writes too many grant requests that are mostly rejected, I feel your pain. Thus, I've been trying to change the paradygm and get funders to make choices of where they fund, based on where the need is, and what organizations in those areas are doing work that the donor wants to support.
One way to draw attention to where the need is would be for local organizations and their clients to use blogs to tell their story.
Ethan Zukerman wrote about aggregating blogs in his own blog at http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog?p-452 . I repeated his message in my own http://tutormentor.blogspot.com message of March 30, 2006.
If groups who have a common goal, or a common geography, or a common problem, can find ways to form networks of purpose, I think they can attract the attention of donors to their cause and perhaps make a significant shift in how funds are awarded.
I'm trying to apply this concept in building support for volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs.
Dan Bassill Tutor/Mentor Connection
JessicaMargolin - Apr 21, 2006 4:09 pm (# Total: 25) Cameron said, "I think your quote, while you can franchise structure, you cannot franchise commitment hits the nail on the head."
But, actually you can franchise commitment to some degree:
Step 1a, you see what parameters are necessary for commitment; to the extent you can build those, there might be a decision to proceed even if those areas aren't met.
Step 1b, you determine where value is created -- where the commitment is coming from. You can then incorporate the value-creation components of the structure of the franchise model.
Step 2 is of course creating feedback mechanisms and intervention points
Step 3 is stress-testing it.
I think it's important to leverage and learn as a way to reduce risks for potential funders, organizers, volunteers, and community members.
That said, the return might be longterm for a community, so I am always hesitant with "first you start with a self-sustaining enterprise...." as a stipulation for the franchise concept.
tutormentor - Apr 22, 2006 6:16 am (# Total: 25) Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection
I agree Jessica, there are some ways to approach it. However, I don't think many of these are likely to result from the efforts of the small entrepreneurs who are creating new enterprises.
Instead, I've been looking for universities who might partner with the Tutor/Mentor Connection, to take on a role of "creating leaders" who might populate the field.
If I were a business with large sums of money, I could endow a chair at a university, or pay for this service. However, as a small non profit, my enticement is "vision" and the potential of a university to provide 'tipping point' type impact across an entire social sector.
If someone from a university wanted to tackle this problem, then some of the steps you've suggested might be steps they would consider.
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 22, 2006 6:23 pm (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Hi Pam, Val.
Okay, here’s the same basic issue surfacing in two places. Pam writes:
- it's only as you are learning that you begin to understand what the question really is (or what it should be). Which IMHO is why the o"traditional format" for doing proposals is all back to front - because too much funding is directed to "giving solutions" (as defined in the funding proposal - before work gets underway). Unfortunately precious few resources are available to get the question right first - so the "solutions" are often "less than helpful".
- things get sort of twisted around when one is writing a grant application... in an effort to make one's own initiative sound like a good fit for the solution proposed by the funders, one spins what is hoped to be a compelling narrative.
What are the obstacles to changing this pattern?
What can be done in individual situations where this pattern obtains? What can be done to address this pattern at a meta-level -- ie not only in terms of your own particular situation and project, but in terms of changing the overall approach?
Dan is offering one response in his post -- the use of blogs by local organizations and their clients to tell their stories. This is a grass-roots upward response -- but are there ways to ensure that the problem faced at the grass-roots level gets heard by those who need to hear it?
Dan also suggests forming networks of purpose -- but the key point he makes, I feel, is the need for an approach that addresses the paradigm under which we're operating:
- , I've been trying to change the paradigm and get funders to make choices of where they fund, based on where the need is, and what organizations in those areas are doing work that the donor wants to support
Pamela McLean - Apr 23, 2006 4:20 am (# Total: 25) Reference "Places to Intervene in a System" (Charles please give us the link).
It seems to me that there is often a good match between what funders want to achieve and what activists are trying to do. However,the mismatch comes at the point in the system where they try to communicate with each other. It is a typical problem of top-down and bottom-up failing to link up.
I am reminded of a useful analysis of this problem, by Stephen Musgrave (I could find the full reference). The analysis is based on a study of top-down and bottom-up initiatives related to e-gov in the UK, but he takes a systems approach which is widely applicable.
He describes something that I remember as “areas of confluence” (though that my not be his exact term). Basically – he suggests that more attention needs to be given to areas of confluence if the different inputs of “top-down” and “bottom-up” are to meet together and flow on effectively. Steven addresses the problem of mismatch between the cultures by suggesting that each side should have people who are given *equal status* who meet at the area of confluence – he calls these people “information czars”.
Dan’s suggestion of blogs is a step in this direction. In a way it is offering a strategy for crossing the culture gap, so that funders can get to understand something of the culture in which bottom-up initiatives work, and, as a result offer more apporprate mechanisms for awarding funding.
Another example of communicating on equal terms equally at the area of confluence was the redevelopment of a public open space in a run down area of London (near Kings Cross station). It was a requirement that anyone putting forward a scheme must show evidence that their proposals reflected local opinion and need. The plan that was finally adopted had taken an innovative approach to consultation. The company concerned had provided public consultation opportunities, but recognised that no young people ever attended, so their voice was not being heard. The invitation to the consultation process simply did not seem to apply to them. I often have similar feelings about funding proposal processes.
To overcome the problem of youth involvement the company sent out a professional film crew, with a young person acting as interviewer. They went to local youth clubs and other spaces where young people met, and asked their opinions. The resulting video was presented along with written reports of standard consultations.
The point of this example is that both sides were able to communicate without leaving their cultural comfort zone. The young people presented their opinions in a natural way –speaking informally and spontaneously to someone they felt comfortable with; wearing their normal casual clothes; and on their own territory. They came up with useful insight into problems and possible solutions. Similarly the decision makers heard those opinions in their cultural comfort zone - formal suits; offices and conference rooms; considering evidence in formal ways that they felt comfortable with.
Somehow activists and funders have to develop a cultural meeting point that is appropriate for both sides - I'm hopeful that Social Edge is the place it could start to happen..
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Apr 24, 2006 10:38 am (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Pam:
You write:
- Reference "Places to Intervene in a System" (Charles please give us the link).
Places to Intervene in a System is Donella Meadows’ classic account of where interventions will have the greatest impact -- an astonishingly important paper for anyone hoping to change the way things are. Using Jay Forrester’s systems rtheory as her basis, Meadows shows that the greatest impact doesn’t come by influencing quantities (numbers, material stocks and flows) but from playing with the rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints), the power of self-organization, the goals of the system, and above all the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid790.php
Dancing with Systems: What to do when systems resist change is an excerpt from Donella Meadows's unfinished last book. Systems thinking says the future can't be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought lovingly into being. Systems can't be controlled, but they can be designed and redesigned. We can't surge forward with certainty into a world of no surprises, but we can expect surprises and learn from them and even profit from them. We can't impose our will upon a system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone. A brilliant essay in favor of a fully human and humane understanding of complex situations, problems.
http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Dancing.html
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - May 3, 2006 9:29 am (# Total: 25) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
This may or may not be a Biob Dylan quote, I forget -- but eirther way, this event will still be open for another week, so let's all just carry on carrying on..
A conversation between our most intriguing leaders in social invention explores the vital challenge of growth:
Audio Taken From Social Fusion Panel Discussion - October 28, 2005 at The World Affairs Council, San Francisco
|
Panel Discussion |
Q&A from audience
|
Session Introduction from Jane Wales: 
A number of the discussions on Social Edge deal with the different false dichotomies that have developed over time in the environment in which many of us work – business profit vs. social mission, government vs. business vs. nonprofit sectors, etc… I believe, from my work with a wide range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and institutions that support them (foundations, support groups, etc..), that there is another false dichotomy out there that has received very little attention - the belief that NGOs are either domestic or international, and those that are “international” comprise a very small group. This belief often continues with the idea that there are a few very specific types of NGOs that are international, generally falling into the following groups. (1) Those that do work that is focused in other countries – over there - for example aid groups or human rights groups; (2) Those that work in an area that is increasingly believed to not have borders – such as the environment. And some people are increasingly aware of a third group: (3) Membership groups, mainly professional societies, that have members from other countries However, there has been very little attention to the growing number of NGOs that don’t fall into any of these categories but do consider themselves members of a global community. The reality is that there are numerous NGOs that have a strong local or national base, but are engaging internationally, many of them outside of the focus and programs of national networks and support groups, and thus often without useful resources.
  |
What do I mean by the term engaging internationally? It is probably not a term unique to me, but I use it to refer to organizations that are in this growing group that are rooted firmly in local communities, or nationally, but have found ways to be part of a great global community while continuing to serve their local constituencies. It may not be apparent from the outside looking in, or even from their mission statement, but it can play a major role in influencing the organization they are, and how they do business. Often organizations evolve in their international engagement along a spectrum of engagement, becoming more engaged over time, or deciding they are happy at one spot along the spectrum. If you are working with an organization that is looking to engage internationally or expand its international engagement it can be very useful for your leadership to agree on where it thinks the organization currently is on the spectrum, and where it would like to go.
Why should NGOs and others that work with them be aware of this trend? Being open to discovering ideas from other cultures or countries that can be beneficial to the organization’s own national or local programs, or providing professional development and networking opportunities for those who are affiliated with the NGO, are just two of the many reasons why saavy leaders are broadening their global awareness and mindset. The participants in the discussion this week may have others to share or want to discuss this concept further. Sometimes there may just be one or two people within the organization who are looking to convince others of this perspective and looking for some good rationales (and you may be one of them)!
If you work with a group that is increasingly becoming internationally engaged, or would like to be more internationally engaged, how can you help your colleagues, staff or volunteer peers to make this transition? It can include an organizational cultural transition, new program development or just understanding that there are “easy to do” steps to take to begin or enhance your engagement.
Some questions the organization’s leadership will want to ask include:
- What is motivating your organization’s interest in an increased international engagement?
- Is your organization’s culture open to a broader outlook on the world?
- Are your vision and mission compatible with international engagement?
- How will/could increased attention to international trends advance your mission, goals or programs?
- What do you hope to accomplish by an increased international engagement?
- Do you already have members or other leaders in your organization from outside your headquarters’ country? What role(s) do they play?
- Integrating attendees and speakers from other countries in your annual conference.
- Expanding your network for information exchange and learning (forums like this are a great opportunity!).
- Summarizing relevant international ideas and themes for your organization’s leadership and staff (perhaps as an article or column in a newsletter).
- Integrating lessons from other countries into your own daily operations or programs.
Bonnie Koenig - Jan 18, 2005 11:45 am (# Total: 7) President, Going International
Welcome everyone to this discussion on operating in an international (or global) environment. I hope that we will be able to discuss our own experiences with engaging internationally and share some ideas for how to do this more effectively. I suspect that we all might be on different parts of the spectrum (from working with organizations that are primarily local or national but are just beginning to engage internationally, across the spectrum to those that operate more globally) so it might be helpful when you post a message if you share the perspective you are coming from with us.
Feel free to focus on any of the topics I’ve raised in my Introduction to the workshop. I’ve chosen one as well to help get us started: If you are currently working with an organization that is looking to engage more effectively what are some of the challenges you are facing?
Bonnie
oliver - Jan 19, 2005 5:53 am (# Total: 7) Web Community Resource Networks
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the intro Bonnie.
Web Networks is a unique non-profit web service provider, based in Canada. We are extending our work with the Inuit to assist other aboriginal groups world wide use technology to support their culture and language.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has published a story about this work in the territory of Nunavut to provide a new platform for Inuktitut computing, Attavik.net
We are interested in hearing from anyone interested in assisting--I'm at 1.800.932.7003 x.18 or oliver@web.net
Thanks,
Oliver Zielke, Executive Director
web.net
Evelyn Arce White - Jan 19, 2005 7:36 am (# Total: 7) International Funders for Indigenous Peoples
Thank you Bonnie and Oliver for your comments on such an important topic. My name is Evelyn Arce-White and I work for International Funders for Indigenous Peoples (IFIP) a recognized affinity group of the Council on Foundations . IFIP is an association of donors that support or are interested in supporting Indigenous Projects internationally.
Our mission is not only to provide a forum to funders to effectively increase resources to Indigenous communities internationally but to bridge the leadership and vision of Indigenous communities to the philanthropic world.
I do feel that giving internationally is a topic that still has a whole lot of room for organizing and research. For instance, we have seen research that shows that US Foundations give 1/4 of one percent to native projects in the US but there is no stats yet for how much is given internationally to Indigenous projects. The only other stats that I have seen is US foundations give 3% internationally but 2% goes to European projects so I would guess a very very small amount goes to really grassroots org and indigenous communities.
I think one of the best ways to link all of our circles is to attend meetings and conferences that address this topic inorder to learn the latest and who to partner up with and build RELATIONSHIPS. I believe strongly in collaboration and I think we waste alot of money and time because we sometimes don't want to collaborate and combine our resources.
IFIP is holding it 's annual conference on May 19 and 20 in NYC and welcomes donors to register. We will be bringing in expertise to speak about the latest on how the Patriot Act is affecting international grantmaking and how now several Indigenous communities are being labeled terriorist, we will be looking at International Indigenous educational and language intiatives and also look at some funding strategies, coordination and long term goals of the Indigenous peoples that were affected by the Tsunami amongst other topics such as sustainable development and environment.
IFIP has collaborated with First Peoples Worldwide in publishing the "Indigenous Peoples Funding and Resource Guide" that was developed to assist Indigenous communities and grassroots org to become effective grantseekers inorder to build capacity for their communities. We have been able to distribute hundreds in English and Spanish to communities and org all over the world and do so by asking donors to purchase hard copies for their grantees, it is a win-win situation. The guide is 167 pages and has a listing of over 200 foundations, elements of writing a proposal and provides techniques on how to research foundations with a listing of resources.
If you want more info about IFIP, how to become a member and our work, send me an email at ewhite@firstnations.org
Respectfully, Evelyn
Bonnie Koenig - Jan 19, 2005 8:24 am (# Total: 7) President, Going International
Thank you Evelyn and Oliver for your posts. I agree with Evelyn that “giving internationally is a topic that still has a whole lot of room for organizing and research”. I see that Caroline Hartnell of Alliance will be hosting a workshop on Social Edge on this topic next month.
Evelyn (and Oliver indirectly) also make a very important point about relationship building. As most people who are reading these posts are most likely aware, relationship building is very important to succeeding internationally. However, those of us who are not from cultures where the time needed to build relationships (sometimes even years) is a given, can underestimate the amount of time and commitment building successful relationships cross-culturally and across national boundaries will take. I have found that this is an important shift in organizational culture that may need to take place in local or national organizations that are increasing their international engagement.
Bonnie
Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jan 22, 2005 7:02 pm (# Total: 7) HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates
Bonnie, you wrote:
those of us who are not from cultures where the time needed to build relationships (sometimes even years) is a given, can underestimate the amount of time and commitment building successful relationships cross-culturally and across national boundaries will take
Thank you so much for this. It gets, I believe, right to the heart of enduring relationship, which is trust -- a real, human quality, not something that can be recommended over the weekend by a seminar leader, noted on the back of an envelope and be in place in one's life on Monday.
I see many drivers in the social entrepreneurial community that have to do with quantity -- and the urgency and vast scope of need in the recent tsunami are illustration enough of how important quantity, scaling and speed can be -- but here in the social sector above all, it seems to me, we must remember the importance of the qualitative, of the small and the slow and the subtle as well as the vast and the accelerated and the basic.
Both head and heart have their blessings, and likewise both the quantitative and the qualitative, both the immediate and the profound. Let's make sure we don't lose sight of the significance of either one.
Trust is a wonderful example of this -- there's a kind of quick trust that we very often rely on, that's based on signalling the immediacy of a situation -- but like so many other "quick" versions of things, it's a temporary fix, and its enduring counterpart, though more costly in time, effort and sincerity, is far more reliable and richly rewarding for all involved in the longer term.
Bonnie Koenig - Jan 24, 2005 1:25 pm (# Total: 7) President, Going International
You make a wonderful point about the balancing of the quantitative and the qualitative, and the need to be flexible in how we balance them – this goes back to one of the themes I initially introduced about the false dichotomies that are out there and how important it is to understand that what may appear to be at opposite ends of a spectrum, are not always mutually exclusive.
You can often start a relationship (especially in the entrepreneurial or “private sector” environment – where something tangible needs to get done right away, or goods or services need to be exchanged) but it is often hard to sustain that relationship unless you take the time to build it. This is something that engaging in the international environment – and taking time to learn about different cultures – can teach all of us. Your example of the tsunami relief is illustrative – it is one measure to organize the important but temporary relief supplies, and a whole different challenge and set of measures to organize programs that are sustainable once the initial media focus has passed.
I have been told of a Chinese proverb that talks about the many levels of trust – from the casual (or business) relationship where you might trust someone in a one-time exchange, all the way to the trust between a parent and child, and how important it is to understand at what level trust has been given.
Do others have examples of where they or their organization have learned lessons from other cultures through engaging internationally?
Bonnie Koenig - Jan 25, 2005 7:21 am (# Total: 7) President, Going International
Thank you to everyone who joined the workshop this week - either by actively posting or by just "stopping by" to see what ideas were being discussed. I hope you found some ofthese ideas thought provoking...and continue to work with them. Making local-global linkages can be a powerful tool for the work we all do.
Bonnie Koenig Going International