MBAs over MSWs in Foundation World

Earlier this month, the Ford Foundation announced the selection of a new President who will take over the reigns of one of the nation’s second largest foundation early next year.

The surprise choice is Luis A. Ubiñas, who has worked for McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm, for 18 years, to lead the organization, the nation’s second-largest foundation, with $11 billion in assets. I don’t know Mr. Ubiñas, but he comes with many great assets for Ford, first and foremost of which is that he doesn’t come from Ford.  In addition, he has a personal story of rising from poverty in the South Bronx and going to private schools in New York on scholarship and eventually Harvard. He has content knowledge in new media and technology which Ford sorely lacks and a passion for providing educational opportunities for minority students.

But, I was struck by a paragraph in the announcement printed in the New York Times on August 14th:

Increasingly, however, high-profile nonprofit jobs are going to people who have done well in the business world or in politics, a reflection on the pressure on charities and foundations to become more accountable.

I read this paragraph a few times hoping that it would make sense the more I read it. Like many mths that aren’t actually true but people come believe them to be over time, this paragraph is both unfortunate and untrue.

Since when did it become conventional wisdom that an MBA is better suited for social change work than an MSW? Since the Ford Foundation has financial assets greater than some country’s gross national products, and presumably some of their hundreds of employees are financial people charged with competently investing and managing those funds, why exactly a business degree and, in this case, business consulting experience, is preferable to someone who has done the work of the grantees, is confounding. Since it appears from his resume that Mr. Ubiñas has never actually run a large organization himself, one reason in particular that some businesspeople might be sought out to run a large foundation, how and why his professional background makes him preferable to other candidates who have actually worked in philanthropy or nonprofits is mysterious.

One has to wonder if his selection reflects the habits of board member, who are very often successful businesspeople themselves, to select one of their own. Or do these trustees have such a low opinion of the talents, skills and experiences of nonprofit professionals that they automatically assume that a “real” business person would be more qualified to run a large institution.

And this brings me to the word “accountable.” The term “accountable” is more often used in a financial context and certainly it is true that how foundations use, or misuse, their money has become closely watched by bloggers, reporters, watchdog groups and state attorney generals. But, again, is the presumption that only a person from the for profit world would not use foundation funds for their own vacation homes and first class travel a safe assumption?

But the word accountability also gives me pause because I spent over a decade teaching nonprofits how to plan and evaluate their programs and organizations. I helped organizations more clearly articulate what they were trying to accomplish, and then measure the results in order to continuously improve their efforts. Many, many times I found that newcomers from the for profit world were confounded by notion that nonprofit impact goes far beyond producing something but to changing the way that people think, believe, and act. We don’t manufacture cars or build computers, we build the self esteem of children to increase their love of learning, rather, we help people become more self sufficient, we raise awareness of climate change issues. And no MBA classes teaches you how to do that.

I wish Mr. Ubiñas the best of luck at Ford, they could use a shot of adrenaline and new ideas. But I reject the notion that the sector, as a whole, needs to be saved by for profit business people. I’d like to propose that any for profit person tapped to run a nonprofit or foundation be required to spend at least three months working for a nonprofit service or advocacy group to find out first hand it’s a heck of a lot harder to serve people and communities than to make widgets.

Change.Org Matchmaking Activists and Candidates

Welcome back to me! In my Inbox on return from vacation was a link to the new Presidential Matchmaker on Change.org. “Find out which presidential candidate most matches your views” promised the email. So, I went and guess what, Change.org thinks I should marry Hillary Clinton. And they’re right, I am a huge Hillary fan and recently sent her a donation!

But let’s get down to how the matchmaker works. Aside from the small technical detail that only a recovering evaluator would notice that the five point Likert scale is backwards and should be moved to the more natural progression from oppose on the left to support on the right, the biggest challenge is developing a methodology for squeezing the candidates positions into the soundbite questions. I am struck by the amount of effort that went into defining the answers to the questions and the corresponding candidates’ positions. For instance, if you click on the first question in the survey, “Abortion is a woman’s right” the following definition comes up when you click on it (which I didn’t realize at first, a point I’ll come back to.) The definition begins with the following:

POSITIONS

• Strongly Support means you believe: Abortion is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. You believe in the `Right to Choose’ and are strongly pro-choice. The right to abortion empowers women and is an important part of women’s health rights and women’s reproductive freedom. That right includes the right to a government subsidy for poor women who want an abortion.
• Support means you believe: Restricting `Partial-Birth Abortions’ or other specific procedures is reasonable, but clinic access should be unfettered, since other women may choose differently than you. You are pro-choice, but believe that some restrictions are acceptable.
• Oppose means you believe: The fetus is a human being who has rights independent of its mother’s rights. You are “pro-life.” While abortion under certain circumstances might be tolerated, the basic rights belong to the fetus, not the mother.
• Strongly Oppose means you believe: Abortion is immoral because it kills a human being, and should never be tolerated. `Roe v. Wade’ should be overturned and we should protest abortion clinics as other forms of injustice are protested.

When my answer and Hill’s were compared, that we are both staunchly pro choice, here’s what Matchmaker had to say about Hill’s position:

Answer Based on the Following Stances:

* Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases
* Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too
* Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania
* Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice
* Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose
* Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
* Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion
* Supports parental notice & family planning
* Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
* Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
* Expand embryonic stem cell research.

So, a few reflections on the site and the idea of position matching with candidates. At first glance, I thought that the survey was going to be a string of leading questions (e.g. do you like dogs, are you appalled by the Bush administration, do you think climate change is bad?) that would end with a pronouncement that my IQ is very high (really, extraordinarily high!) or that my perfect mate was waiting in a chat room and I could talk to him for a $10 charge. But although the survey questions themselves were at times a bit trite verging on silly (“drug use is immoral; enforce laws against it for the very large legalize drugs and don’t enforce laws contingent) the thinking and content behind them was very good. Here are a few suggestions for improving the site for the next go round:

It would have been very helpful to have an introductory explanation from Change.org of the methodology behind the matchmaking content. How did they pick these issues? What criteria were used to develop their ranking of the candidates’ positions, meaning how did they decide that a candidates statements, votes, actions constituted strong support or strong opposition?

Next, some of the user interface could have been clearer. For instance, it took me a while to figure out that by clicking on the survey topic itself a window would pop with the criteria for that question. Also, when I compared my results to others, again it took me a while to understand that by clicking on the question mark next to the candidates’ response the rationale behind the candidate’s response would pop up. Two critically important pieces of content were hard to find.

Those are the mechanical difficulties, there is a larger issue of creating side-to-side connections and participation that Matchmaker has the potential exploit that it doesn’t do yet.

First, the site could have a chat room for those interested in discussing and tugging on the criteria to go to. These criteria and survey questions should be considered works in progress, not finished products, and as such ongoing discussion of how to continue to refine them would be a wonderful, community-building effort. Second, we can send our results to friends in my address book, but I’d love a way to meet other Hillary lovers on the site, or better through a Meetup, as a result. Third, Change.org you had me at hello, now what do you want me to do? Where and how can I explore these issues and candidates further?

Overall, Matchmaker is a great start, clear, easy to use, great potential, another UI iteration and more connectedness and it will be a terrific addition to this and future campaigns.

Getting Real About Online Organizing Skills

I had a meeting this week (I know, the shame of having any meeting!) tthat was so interesting because of the popularity of social networking sites and yet the difficulty that traditional organizations have in developing a side-to-side ethos. I met with an advocacy group that is creating their own social networking site (of course, we all need our own sites since no other social networking sites exist!) They were so very concerned about the functionality of the site – do the buttons work right, is the navigation good, etc. Great, I said, so why exactly do very busy people need more friends on your site?

I had just read Britt Bravo’s excellent piece on questions groups should ask themselves about building online communities. It’s five questions groups should ask and answer before venturing forth into this crowded field, and before they spend too much time building a house no one wants to buy and move into. The questions are easy and clear, although it’s always astonishing to me how seldom groups actually ask themselves things like, “why would our users/members/participants/donors want or need this new tool?”

We spent a good amount of time talking about the need for someone on staff to facilitate, fuel and encourage connections and conversations on the site. Communities rarely form themselves, they have to be nurtured. And then, predictably, when we discussed who exactly would foster and facilitate these online communications all heads turned towards the poor webmaster. It’s online so the geeky coder guy is the right choice, right? Wrong!! Couldn’t be wronger, in fact, as Seth Godin points out here online organizer is a crucial, poorly understand, but critical position. If I were counseling a young person interested in a career in social change, I would strongly suggest they train and practice being an online organizer since it includes all of the organizing, listening, facilitating, communicating and connecting skills that will make them successful in whatever else they do.

A Lotta Help from Hamburger Helper

I received an email from Jessica Pieciul who is spreading the word on Hamburger Helpers new grant program. The program is called “Hometown Helper.”

According to Jessica, “It helps local groups make a difference in their own community. Imagine seeding a community garden, putting a new scoreboard up at the local high school baseball field, re-stocking a small town library with new/additional books. Starting August 1st, you can apply online at www.myhometownhelper.com for a one-time grant from $500 to $15,000 to help fund a project.”

Looks like a great grant program for small, grassroots efforts, check it out!