There is an article in Forbes this month that bothered me. Carrie Rich, co-founder and CEO of The Global Good Fund, argues that more nonprofits should move from a “donor-driven organization” to a “revenue-producing social enterprise.” Instead of “relying on donor funding” more organizations should “create revenue-producing services.” In essence she is encouraging more nonprofits to figure out how to sell their services.
The problem with her argument, though, is that it encourages nonprofits to think one-dimensionally about funding sources instead of developing an overall financial strategy that may or may not include earned income.
Rich’s argument is that earned income, or what she calls “revenue-producing social enterprise” is a more sustainable and impactful way to create social change. She goes on to list all sorts of reasons (10 actually) that revenue generation (or earned income) is better than contributed income. These reasons include that revenue generation allows nonprofits to be “more responsive to change,” “attract employees who seek growth,” “accelerate growth and impact,” “become more financially sustainable and mature,” and the list goes on.
Rich is echoing a repeated dichotomy in the social change space between traditional, broken nonprofit approaches, and new, more sustainable and impactful social entrepreneurship approaches. Her line of argument stems from a distaste for fundraising done badly.
Believe me, I get it. Fundraising is broken. But just because traditional fundraising is flawed doesn’t mean we should eschew all contributed income.Yes there is deep dysfunction within the nonprofit sector – I talk about it all the time. But the answer is not to simply dismiss the sector and all of its trappings (and revenue sources).
Let’s remember that a nonprofit organization is often created to provide a public good that is not offered by the market. In other words, nonprofits are selling what someone is unable to purchase.
Thus, nonprofits typically have two customers:
- Those who benefit from the services (“Clients”), and
- Those who buy the services (“Donors”)
When social change organizations are able to conflate the two – when the client becomes the buyer – a social enterprise is born. And while that is great, it is rarely the case. Therefore, market-based solutions will never provide all the social change we need.
Every social change organization must analyze their overall strategy and develop a financial model that best delivers on that strategy. That financial model may have earned income elements, contributed income (individual, corporate and foundation grants) elements, government funding or, most likely, some combination of all of these. And every nonprofit should at least analyze whether earned income is right for their financial model. But social enterprise will never be right for all nonprofits, or even a majority of them.
Instead of completely throwing out “traditional charity models,” let’s make them better. Rich argues that one of the many reasons earned income is better is that it allows organizations to “afford the best technologies to help them succeed.” If social change organizations need more capital investments for technology (which they definitely do) then let’s make capacity capital ubiquitous in the sector. But let’s not erroneously assume that more earned income equates to more capital investment.
Let’s move past these social enterprise vs. charity debates and instead focus on helping social change organizations develop smart, sustainable financial engines that include the right revenue (and capital) mix.
Photo Credit: Yoel Ben-Avraham
Note: Fifth and last in my list of guest bloggers this summer is Laura Tomasko. Laura is a network developer at the Council on Foundations, where she follows trends related to private capital for social good. Here is her guest post:
Perhaps like some of you, I dedicate a good portion of my internet reading to blogs like Social Velocity, Re: Philanthropy, and Philanthropy 2173. When I am browsing a blog unrelated to nonprofits, philanthropy, and impact investing, I do a double take when I come across a topic from my professional sphere.
One of those non-work related blogs that I read is Popville, which chronicles activities in Washington, DC neighborhoods. This July and last, two local businesses sought financing through crowdfunding platforms, and reached out to Popville readers for support. Both cited the community focus of their enterprises as reasons to financially support their efforts. What ensued in the comment thread of both posts provides a snapshot into how those outside of the philanthropy and impact investing field understand and discuss crowdfunding, charitable giving, and investing with the intention to generate social and financial returns.
Last year, a local business named Pulp posted to Popville to request “donations” to improve the store and website, including repairs to fixtures, new paint, windows, and other related costs. Even though they said they wanted donations, Pulp actually sought no-interest loans, a distinction clear on their Clovest crowdfunding page but not on Popville. Confusion and opinions swarmed the comments section as people tried to figure out whether Pulp wanted a donation or a loan, and shared their musings on the whole situation.
This July, another local business, Three Little Pigs (TLP), used Popville to promote their Kickstarter campaign, accurately requesting donations for infrastructure improvements to enhance the business that will allow them to build a community space on their third floor. In exchange for donations, TLP offers gifts, like a pound of maple-cured bacon, to donors.
The comments to both posts provide insight into how local residents react to financial requests from community-focused small businesses. Such requests may increase given the passage of the JOBS Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules that allow non-accredited investors to get an equity stake in a local business through crowdfunding platforms.
Here are common themes about local businesses raising money on crowdfunding platforms raised by commenters:
- Is This Charity?
While both businesses used words associated with philanthropy to appeal to the charitable sense of local residents, neither provides a charitable tax benefit to the readers. This created confusion and commenters wrote in to ask whether the business would provide a tax benefit or repay the money. One Pulp commenter asked, “Does anyone know what the tax implications are to this approach? I doubt they realize the tax-exemption you typically see with donations to non-profits. Or do they? Could this be an interest free loan as well as a tax-free donation?”Questions such as this one suggest that those using crowdfunding platforms to raise money need to clearly state what they ask of their potential supporters and what they will get in return. For example, they should distinguish between how the funding will benefit the community and whether it is a charitable donation, a donation without a tax benefit, or loan.
- Should You Donate to a For-Profit?
Many commenters bemoan the idea of a for-profit business asking for donations instead of raising the necessary capital through the sale of goods and services. There seems to be an expectation that the business should either flourish or fail based on the value of the good or service, and donations should not supplement either course. While some were happy with the idea of donating to a for-profit, most did not support the concept.
- What About Traditional Financing?
Several wondered why the businesses did not get loans through banks or pay for these expenses using a credit card. Others supported crowdfunding as a way to get around the hurdles of traditional financing. While one TLP commenter in support of traditional financing noted, “There are plenty small business loans and lines of credit they can apply for at the mentioned banks,” one in favor of crowdfunding stated, “If you can’t meet every requirement, the major banks will usually turn you down due to high risk.”
The confusion and concern that arose from these two crowdfunding experiences suggest that language matters and concepts like crowdfunding and impact investing are still new to people accustomed to distinguishing charity, which generates social benefit, from business and investing, which seek to generate financial revenue.
In addition to local businesses on crowdfunding platforms, mainstream media use language associated with charity to describe impact investing activities. An interesting example is coverage of the bridge loan that Laura and John Arnold made to the National Head Start Association during the 2013 government shutdown. Covering the story, the New York Times uses the headline, “$10 Million Gift to Help Head Start Through Shutdown” and Politico writes, “Philanthropists pledge $10 million to restore 7,000 Head Start seats.”
Tucked within both articles, after terms like “donation” and “gift,” are brief mentions that the money might be paid back as a no-interest loan if government restores funding after the shutdown. However, to those scanning headlines and not reading the entire article, it is not clear that the Arnolds have made an impact investment in the form of a bridge loan to the Association.
With increased interest in social entrepreneurship and impact investing, many use charitable language to describe financial transactions ranging from donations to impact investments. Until the concept of impact investing becomes as mainstream as charitable giving, taking the time to distinguish between the two could increase awareness, and eventually adoption, of both traditional and untraditional forms of financing for social good.
Language matters and those raising capital from local residents, as well as those in the media writing about these transactions, should differentiate between the desired financial transaction and its charitably-minded purpose. Crowdfunding may bring impact investing to new audiences, and let’s make sure that the message gets there clearly and accurately.
Photo Credit: zeh fernando
Note: Fourth in my list of guest bloggers this summer is Jessamyn Lau. Jessamyn is Executive Director of the Peery Foundation, a family foundation that invests in and serves social entrepreneurs. Here is her guest post:
At the Peery Foundation, we’re hungry for insight into what a truly grantee-centric approach to philanthropy looks like. About five months ago we had an idea. What if we could hear regular, brief, unfiltered feedback from our grantees on what we do and how we do it?
We occasionally solicit input from our grantees on delicate questions, like “how should we give feedback to a grant-seeker when we have major concerns about leadership?”. Our grantees have incredible ideas, often helping us solve problems and ensure we incorporate their experience into solutions. But what about capturing their untapped insights into our everyday grant making approach?
This doesn’t generally happen because 1) grantees are rarely asked for their opinions on funder practices, 2) when they are asked, grantee opinions are heavily filtered to prevent potential risk to future funding. We think the Peery Foundation team, and a large proportion of philanthropic professionals, could benefit from regular open feedback from grantees. In a February 2014 Stanford Social Innovation Review article entitled “Assessing Funders’ Performance” Caroline Fiennes suggested listening to grantees as a core part of funder performance assessment. This resonated with our idea of what it means to be truly grantee-centric. So we thought about how we might do that – without reinventing the wheel.
We landed on a very simple anonymous rating tool, similar to the rating systems used by Amazon, Uber, and other service providers. The good folks at Advocate Creative built us a prototype site – which we named, imaginatively, Funder Feedback. It’s a very simple, concise survey that solicits anonymous information from our grantees (or anyone else I interact with), at any time they choose. They rate me out of five stars on three aspects (currently Respectfulness, Consistency, Value), and then leave any feedback for me in a text box. It takes 30 seconds to fill out – 90 seconds if you ponder on what to write in the text box for a minute! Each person on our team has their own survey link, so the results can be used for individual professional development. You can see my survey here.
Over three months the Peery Foundation team and the Tipping Point team piloted the tool, inviting people to give us feedback on our recent interactions. At the end of the pilot our results were delivered to us on a dashboard in aggregate (see below), with no time or date stamps – so unless someone mentioned their organization they are anonymous.
So did it work?
Our team’s response rate ranged from 10 to 40 completed surveys for the pilot. The star rating system yielded average results from 4.7 to 5 stars. Given this clustering it’s clear that the rating system is not a proactive way for us to find out where we need to improve, but could serve as a warning system that will alert us if something needs attention. We could also potentially change the three starred rating topics from values to processes, e.g. “Please rate us out of 5 stars on our due diligence, reporting, and grant making exit processes”. Something to consider down the road.
Over 50% of respondents left us written feedback. The overwhelming majority of feedback was positive and reaffirming. It served as personal affirmation of the aspects of each individual’s approach appreciated by grantees (transparency was mentioned consistently for one team member, another received specific feedback around the value of their preparation for meetings with grantees).
There was also feedback letting us know what we should keep doing as a foundation. For instance, we had several people comment on how valuable warm introductions to other funders had been. This was great to hear because in the past year we’ve allocated significant time to building and maintaining our funder network. We knew this time was useful for us – as we shared pipeline and recommendations with other funders – but knowing that this provides real value to our grantees makes it an even higher priority for us to continue and improve.
What didn’t work?
We would like to receive even more specific and critical feedback. We believe the tool will become truly useful when grantees and others we interact with are clearly invited to give us more constructive opinions. We want to ensure they are comfortable in doing that, which will probably involve tweaking the way we frame the tool, and also building trust that we will truly listen to and implement advice as often as we can.
To solicit distinct feedback, we’ll change the descriptor text on the text box each quarter to give people permission to be specific and critical. For example, next quarter it might say “Please compare the Peery Foundation’s reporting process to that of other foundations you’ve worked with. What can we learn from other processes?”, and the following quarter it might be, “What’s one thing we should keep doing and one thing we should change about the Peery Foundation’s philanthropic approach?”.
Continuing the experiment
At the Peery Foundation we’re accustomed to the process of iteration and, when appropriate, dropping a project that simply isn’t working. We like to experiment. For now, we think we’ve seen enough promise to continue developing the Funder Feedback tool. On an individual level it can help us as philanthropy professionals see where we have room for growth. As a foundation, we know we need insights from our grantees to become truly efficient and effective.
And philanthropy as a field might do well to turn the tables a little, listen regularly to grantees’ insights, and reign in the power imbalance inherent in our work.
So, for now we’ll keep experimenting with the Funder Feedback tool and articulating the changes we’ll make with it to help us become a genuinely grantee-centric foundation.
Photo Credit: Imperial War Museum
In addition to the Social Impact Exchange conference I mentioned earlier, I will be traveling a lot this summer connecting with nonprofit and philanthropic leaders. I’ll be blogging about what I learn in my travels and conversations. And, I’m really excited to announce, that I have an amazing group of guest bloggers who will be posting throughout the summer as well.
These guest bloggers are people who really make me think and will offer some really interesting perspectives. I’ve invited them each to take over one Social Velocity blog post sometime during the summer.
Below is the guest blogger lineup with some background on each of them. Their posts will begin in late June. And I will continue to post throughout the summer as well.
Social Velocity Summer Guest Bloggers
Robert is the founder of DC Central Kitchen and LA Kitchen, as well as the nonprofit sector advocacy group, CForward. Robert was included in the Non Profit Times list of the “50 Most Powerful and Influential” nonprofit leaders from 2006-2009, and speaks throughout the country and internationally on the subjects of hunger, sustainability, nonprofit political engagement and social enterprise. He is a tireless advocate for the nonprofit sector, encouraging nonprofits to take their rightful seat at the table. He is always pushing us to think bigger and smarter about social change. You can read my past interview with him here and my post about CForward here.
David is the founder of Idealistics, a former social sector consulting firm that helped organizations increase outcomes, demonstrate results, and organize information. He has worked in the social sector for the last decade providing direct services to low-income and unhoused adults and families, operating a non-profit organization, and consulting with various social sector organizations and foundations. David’s professional focus is on improving the way social sector organizations use information to address poverty. He writes his own blog, Full Contact Philanthropy, which I highly recommend. He will make your head hurt, but in a really good way. You can read my interview with him here and watch the Google Hangout he and I did about Using Real Performance Data to Raise Money.
Jessamyn is Executive Director of the Peery Foundation, a family foundation based in Palo Alto, California. The Peery Foundation invests in and serves social entrepreneurs and leading organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the world. Jessamyn helps shape the foundation’s strategy, develops programs, strengthens the foundation’s portfolio, and supports existing grantees. Her experience as part of the founding Ashoka U team has given her the perspective and skill-set to help the foundation develop new methods to support and build the field of social entrepreneurship. You can read my interview with her here.
Adin is Senior Director of Community Impact and Innovations at the Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund. In this role, he develops new strategies and programs to bring about change and impact within JCF’s mission. Adin focuses on defining metrics to document impact, maximizing measurable impact and increasing the visibility of the organization. Prior to JCF, Adin was a nonprofit consultant and had his own blog, Working in White Space, which was phenomenal. You can read my past interview with him here.
Laura is a network developer at the Council on Foundations, where she tracks philanthropic trends and builds relationships with leaders advancing the common good across sectors. She also leads an impact investing initiative and regularly interacts with those interested in the changing landscape of social good. Previously as manager of public-philanthropic partnerships, she built the capacities of federal agencies interested in partnering with foundations. Before joining the Council, she worked at Grantmakers for Effective Organizations and at the Central New York Community Foundation. Laura has been named a Global Shaper by the World Economic Forum. She is also a StartingBloc Fellow and writes for UnSectored, serving on advisory boards for both organizations. You can read my interview with her here.
So there you have it. A summer guest blogging lineup that I am thrilled about. I can’t wait to read what they all have to say. Stay tuned!
Photo Credit: Holger.Ellgaard
Crowdfunding is quickly becoming the new shiny object in the world of social change. From Giving Days, to new giving platforms, to lots of articles and studies (here and here to start), it seems that crowdfunding is everywhere lately.
I’m all for innovations in the funding of social change, but I’m not convinced that crowdfunding is really creating anything fundamentally new.
Under “crowdfunding” I include efforts like Kickstarter where a creative effort (a film, art exhibit, library) can garner small investments from a large number of people. And I’m also including Giving Days, at the city and national level, where nonprofits try to raise as much money as possible in a 24-hour online “event”. What these efforts all have in common is they raise money, from a large group of people, over a short period of time.
I earned my fundraising chops working public television pledge drives, one of the earliest “crowdfunding” efforts. The technology was different (TV screens and telephones, instead of CRM systems and social media), but I’m not sure much else is.
So I would like to see us separate what is potentially exciting about crowdfunding from what is just hype. To help in that effort, I offer some questions:
How much is truly new money?
It’s unclear to me how much new money crowdfunding brings to social change organizations. For example, nonprofits participating in Giving Days encourage their annual donors to give on that specific day so that Giving Day dollars are higher. But that’s not new money. True innovation in social change funding comes from efforts to grow the 2% pie – giving as a share of America’s Gross Domestic Product has stayed at 2% for the last 40+ years. I’m not convinced that crowdfunding uncovers money that would not have otherwise ended up somewhere in the nonprofit sector.
How many new donors are being retained?
The point of crowdfunding is that it’s a one time deal. There is a message of urgency that encourages donors to give NOW. So the numbers on a specific Giving Day or with a crowdfunding campaign may be good, but is the funding sustainable? Are nonprofits or social change organizations actually growing their donor base? Are they able to go back to these investors later and encourage them to give again? And if the funding isn’t sustainable, is it really worth the effort it took to get it?
Is crowdfunding reinforcing the “Overhead Myth”?
The destructive idea that donors shouldn’t support nonprofit “overhead“, or administrative costs, is slowly dying, but crowdfunding might just be bringing it back to life. Nonprofit crowdfunding darling charity:water has been taken to task for reinforcing the idea that 100% of the dollars they raise go “directly to the field”. And crowdfunding projects are often specific and “sexy,” which means that the money is not being raised for boring things like the staffing, technology, and infrastructure that most organizations desperately need. Are we perpetuating the overhead myth by encouraging donors to give to specific projects, instead of to overall issues, organizations or teams?
What’s the return on investment?
A lot of time and effort can go into crowdfunding campaigns. If the benefits are shortlived, donors aren’t retained, and the majority of the funding is not new dollars, while the costs (staff and board time, technology investments) are high, then what is the true return on investment? I’m not arguing that it can’t be positive, but I would like to see more critical analysis about it, both at the aggregate and the individual organization levels.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I’d like us to dig a bit deeper to understand what the real effects of crowdfunding are so far and what it’s true promise is. If there is already research out there that can answer some of these questions, please let me know in the comments below.
Photo Credit: SeedingFactory.com
Bradach asked leaders and thinkers in the scale movement – like Risa Lavizzo-Mourey from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Billy Shore from Share Our Strength, Wendy Kopp from Teach for All, and Nancy Lublin from Do Something – to contribute their insights to the series. Bradach is doing this because he believes we have not yet figured out how to grow solutions to a point at which they are actually solving problems. As he wrote in his kick-off post to the series:
Over the past couple of decades, leaders have developed a growing catalog of programs and practices that have real evidence of effectiveness. And they’ve demonstrated the ability to successfully replicate these to multiple cities, states, even nations in some cases, reaching thousands or even millions of those in need. Despite all this progress, today even the most impressive programs and field-based practices rarely reach more than a tiny fraction of the population in need. So we find ourselves at a crossroads. We have seen a burst of program innovation over the past two decades; we now need an equivalent burst of innovation in strategies for scaling.
One of the places where scale has been an on-going topic of conversation is the annual Social Impact Exchange’s Conference on Scaling Impact. Now in its fifth year, this conference next month in New York City brings together “funders, advisors and leaders to share knowledge, learn about co-funding opportunities and develop a community to help scale top initiatives and build the field.” The conference is organized, in part, by the Growth Philanthropy Network, which “is creating a philanthropic capital marketplace that provides funding and management assistance to help exceptional nonprofits scale-up regionally and nationally.”
I’m excited to be attending this year’s conference and participating in a panel called “Business Models for Sustainability at Scale.” From my perspective, one of the biggest hurdles to scale is a financial one. Very few nonprofits have yet figured out how to create a sustainable financial model, let alone how to create one at scale. And this hurdle exists for many reasons, including: lack of sufficient capital in the sector, lack of sufficient management and financial acumen among nonprofit leaders, an unwillingness among funders to recognize the full costs of operation. So I’m excited to be part of this important conversation about how we can actually create financially sustainable scale.
It will be interesting to see how the conversations at the Scaling Impact conference – led by rockstars in the field like Antony Bugg-Levine from the Nonprofit Finance Fund; Tonya Allen from the Skillman Foundation; Heather McLeod Grant, author of Forces for Good; Paul Carttar from The Bridgespan Group; and Amy Celep from Community Wealth Partners – will relate to the perspectives of those writing in the “Transformative Scale” blog series. I wonder where there will be overlap and where there will be disagreement or even controversy. Scale is an incredibly difficult nut to crack. And as Bradach rightly states, no one has figured it out yet.
I will be posting to the blog during the conference about what I’m hearing and where there are common threads or separate camps.
I hope to see you there!
Image Credit: Social Impact Exchange
Americans are increasingly fascinated with the Millennial generation (those born between 1981 and 2000), largely because they are the biggest population cohort the U.S. has ever seen. Whatever they do is sure to have a big impact. I’ve been particularly interested in how they might affect how money flows to social change.
But now I wonder how they might impact the social change workforce.
There was a really interesting article recently about how Millennials are ditching traditional careers in favor of more creative, meaningful work:
A growing number of Americans are abandoning traditional jobs for work that is more hands-on and that they deem more meaningful. For some, it is out of necessity…many people, faced with diminishing corporate opportunities, have been forced into thinking like entrepreneurs. For many, it is a choice. Old-school artisanship—like craft brewing and shoemaking and the millinery arts—is on the rise. A nation of hobbyists and fine artists have brought energy and invention to (and made more than a few bucks on) websites like Etsy and Big Cartel. There’s a sprouting up of first-generation farmers. These days, it would not be odd to see a hedge-fund manager throw it all away to become a mushroom grower. Or a Google gearhead to take up textiles. Call it the New American Dream, where uncertainty is being spun into infinite possibilities, and a pathway to unexpected freedom and deep satisfaction feels like our birthright.
Their staggering unemployment, deepening distrust of corporate America, and civic-minded perspective (the most since the Greatest generation), have all combined to make the Millennial generation crave a creative, flexible and meaningful work life.
And that could be a boon to the nonprofit sector.
I wonder if over the next couple of decades, as Millennials take center stage in the workforce, we will witness people increasingly chucking the corporate ladder for something more meaningful and flexible.
Certainly many Millennials have already, and will continue to, flock to the emerging world of social entrepreneurship, which neatly combines their love of the entrepreneurial with their drive for social change, but not all Millennials can or will want to start their own thing. For the rest of them, I wonder if nonprofit organizations might attract their interest.
For so long nonprofits have struggled to attract and retain talent because of less competitive salaries and packages than their corporate counterparts. But perhaps those benefits are increasingly less appealing to the future workforce.
Now, what nonprofits have in spades – entrepreneurial approach, flexibility, social change – could actually become a competitive advantage. What if the nonprofits of the future become the sought after refuge of creative Millennials ready to make social change, not necessarily on their own, but as part of something bigger?
Definitely an interesting trend to watch.
Image Credit: onlinempadegrees.com
I recently finished the most amazing book. It wasn’t about nonprofit management, or social entrepreneurship, or leadership, or any of the other topics I usually write about here. But I think it is still quite relevant.
I read Wonder by R.J. Palacio at the repeated urging of my 9-year old son who read it voraciously over a couple of days and was desperate to discuss it. Wonder is a young adult novel about an amazing 5th grade boy named Auggie who was born with countless physical challenges but also a deep wisdom and uncanny ability to change the people around him for the better.
While the book is about Auggie’s more difficult than usual transition into the highly charged world of emerging adolescence, it is also, and more importantly, about what makes humans both incredibly imperfect and deeply beautiful.
The book takes place over Auggie’s 5th grade school year when he enters a private school that first struggles to accept him but later fully recognizes his gifts. Along the way we learn a lot about human nature, it’s depths of cruelty and divisiveness, but also it’s soaring ability to change and to love.
What moved me most about this book was the 5th grade graduation speech by the school principal, Mr. Tushman. In looking back over the last year of Auggie’s remarkable presence in his school, Mr. Tushman finds there the opportunity that we all have as humans to be “kinder than necessary.” He helps his audience, and all those who read Wonder, realize that as humans we hold in our hands – in every choice, in every action – the possibility for tremendous good:
In The Little White Bird [J.M. Barrie] writes, ‘Shall we make a new rule of life…always to try to be a little kinder than is necessary?’ Here Mr. Tushman looked up at the audience. “Kinder than is necessary,” he repeated. “What a marvelous line, isn’t it? Kinder than is necessary. Because it’s not enough to be kind. One should be kinder than needed…We carry with us, as human beings, not just the capacity to be kind but the very choice of kindness…Children, what I want to impart to you today is an understanding of the value of that simple thing called kindness…In the future you make for yourselves, anything is possible. If every single person in this room made it a rule that wherever you are, whenever you can, you will try to act a little kinder than is necessary…And if you do this, if you act just a little kinder than is necessary, someone else, somewhere, someday, may recognize in you, in every single one of you, the face of God.”
And it occurs to me that in the work of social change, we as social entrepreneurs are making a conscious choice to be kinder than is necessary. We are choosing to go against the status quo of growing poverty, crumbling educational and political institutions, climate change. We are choosing a different, harder, but better path.
So when the news of the day, or the many problems of the world get me down, I think back to Mr. Tushman’s speech. I think about the power that we all, as single individuals, have to make this world a kinder, better place. And I think of the many social change leaders across the country, across the world who are choosing every day to be kinder than is necessary. And that makes me smile.
- Download a free Financing
Not Fundraising e-book
when you sign up for email
updates from Social Velocity.
Sign Up Here
- Tired of begging your
board to raise money?
Learn how to
Build a Fundraising Board
in this month's
Social Velocity webinar.