Every once in awhile David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, gets it really right. His piece earlier this month, The Moral Bucket List, is a sharp departure from his usual political and social commentary. He went (shockingly) a bit spiritual. And the result is profound.
Brooks describes a type of enlightened person who has made a conscious choice to shun the materialistic rat race which often defines our country. This person has chosen to make a significant contribution to the world beyond them. As he puts it: “People on the road to inner light do not find their vocations by asking, what do I want from life? They ask, what is life asking of me? How can I match my intrinsic talent with one of the world’s deep needs?”
As Brooks describes it, instead of being self-promotional, these people are humble; instead of hiding their weaknesses, they embrace them; instead of following individual will they recognize their dependence on others in the journey; instead of living a life of self-centeredness, they find a deep passion and love that takes them outside themselves; instead of pursuing a career that brings them money and prestige, they find their calling to contribute to the larger world.
Brooks’ piece is reminiscent of Steven Pressfield’s seminal book from 2002, The War of Art in which he argues that every single person was put on earth to contribute in a specific and significant way, but only those who can overcome Resistance and put in the effort will find that unique calling.
As Pressfield puts it:
Most of us have two lives. The life we live, and the unlived life within us. Between the two stands Resistance…Resistance is the most toxic force on the planet. It is the root of more unhappiness than poverty, disease, and erectile dysfunction. To yield to Resistance deforms our spirit. It stunts us and makes us less than we are and were born to be…Resistance prevents us from achieving the life God intended when He endowed each of us with our own unique genius…A writer writes with his genius; an artist paints with hers; everyone who creates operates from this sacramental center. It is our soul’s seat, the vessel that holds our being-in-potential, our star’s beacon and Polaris.
Although Pressfield’s book is focused on artists, it is really about all of us. He believes (and I concur) that every single one of us has something unique and very important to contribute to the larger world. It could be a work of literature, a portfolio of photographs, a game-changing idea. The human race does not possess just a handful of geniuses, people like Hemingway and Georgia O’Keefe, rather every human possesses genius within him. Sometimes that genius is artistic, sometimes it’s political, sometimes it’s entrepreneurial, or it may be something completely different. It is up to each of us to figure out what our genius is and put in the tireless effort (Hemingway forced himself to write every single day) to unearth and disseminate our genius.
Brooks would seem to agree. He describes a similar force to Resistance, and he sees the enlightened person as having the desire and ability to fight Resistance in order to find something better:
Their lives often follow a pattern of defeat, recognition, redemption. They have moments of pain and suffering. But they turn those moments into occasions of radical self-understanding — by keeping a journal or making art. As Paul Tillich put it, suffering introduces you to yourself and reminds you that you are not the person you thought you were. The people on this road see the moments of suffering as pieces of a larger narrative. They are not really living for happiness, as it is conventionally defined. They see life as a moral drama and feel fulfilled only when they are enmeshed in a struggle on behalf of some ideal.
For both Brooks and Pressfield, the real work is to fight against mediocrity — career success, money, status, and other self-centered, meaningless pursuits that take you away from your greater calling. The real goal is to figure out why you beat all the odds to end up here and to discover what you are meant to contribute to the greater good — a painting, a novel, or perhaps a solution to a social problem.
When it seems the world is falling in around us, that the social problems we face only continue to mount, that greed, self-interest, and corruption surround us, we must remember that we all have choices. We can choose to wake up from the meaningless slumber and find our true genius. We can choose to create something much bigger than ourselves. And in so doing we may just find for ourselves (and show others) a better way to live.
Photo Credit: Ryan Schultz
What a great month March was. Just as the weather started to turn to Spring (I hope it did where you are too), there was a whole host of great reading to digest. From analysis of the new breed of philanthropists, to controversy about contest grantmaking, to mission investing progress, to tips and guides on nonprofit finance, leadership and financial advocacy, there was lots to read.
Below are my picks of the 10 most interesting reads in the world of social change in March, but as always, please add to the list in the comments.
You can also see the 10 Great Reads lists from previous months here.
- Call me biased, but I think the biggest social change news in March was the launch of the Performance Imperative, a detailed definition of a high-performance nonprofit, by the Leap Ambassadors (of which I am one). Many reviewed the new tool, including Phil Buchanan from the Center for Effective Philanthropy who wrote that nonprofit performance is a “moral imperative.” And if you want to learn more, there is a webinar drilling down on the PI later this month.
- Who says online debate never results in change? There was a big discussion on the Chronicle of Philanthropy‘s site this month over the Council on Foundation’s plans to hold a “Shark Tank”-like contest for nonprofits. Many felt this contest would be a step backward, forcing nonprofits to perform for money, so the Council scrapped the contest and created instead a panel discussing the positives and negatives of contest-style grantmaking.
- F.B. Heron Foundation CEO, Clara Miller (formerly of the Nonprofit Finance Fund) is a true nonprofit finance visionary, and this month the Foundation passed the halfway mark on their goal of putting ALL of their capital toward mission. And writing in The Guardian, Tim Smedley would seem to agree with their goal when he makes the case for mission investing.
- Chris Gates (from the Sunlight Foundation) and Matt Leighninger (from the Deliberative Democracy Consortium) wrote a fascinating letter to the editors of the Chronicle of Philanthropy taking issue with Diana Aviv’s comments on recent Independent Sector research about technology and nonprofit institutions. Gates and Leighninger argue that there is great opportunity in technology if nonprofits embrace it effectively, as they put it, “It is true that the rise of the Internet is forcing institutions like governments, foundations, nonprofits, and professional associations to rethink how they operate. They have to adapt to the needs and goals of 21st-century citizens or perish. But ultimately, people want the same things they always have: to belong to a community, to have a voice, and to make an impact…if institutions can provide those things in this interconnected time, they will thrive.”
- American educators and education funders have focused in recent years on science and math to create a more effective and competitive American education. But Fareed Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post, thinks that’s a big mistake, “As we work with computers (which is really the future of all work), the most valuable skills will be the ones that are uniquely human, that computers cannot quite figure out — yet. And for those jobs, and that life, you could not do better than to follow your passion, engage with a breadth of material in both science and the humanities, and perhaps above all, study the human condition.” Amen!
- The fourth installment of Tom Watson’s on-going series about the changing face of American philanthropy focuses on the class of new, entrepreneurial philanthropists, those young, tech wealthy donors who are pushing for data-based social change. And Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry takes it even further arguing that “effective altruism,” what he calls this data-centered approach to philanthropy, is only one potential method of investing in social change, not the only or best approach. As he puts it, “making the world a better place is an inherently speculative behavior — if we knew how to do it we’d have already done it. Therefore the most prudent collective thing to do is to try a very wide swath of different approaches rather than a single one.” And as one of these new philanthropists, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s investment in Newark public schools continues to come under fire.
- The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy put out a fantastic report on the need for more philanthropic investment in nonprofit leadership development. This should be required reading for every philanthropic and nonprofit leader in the country.
- The National Council of Nonprofits developed a guide for nonprofit leaders to advocate for their funding rights, particularly around indirect rates, with government funders.
- And there were lots of great tips and tools this month for becoming an effective financial leader. The Nonprofit Finance Fund released a list of tips to help “keep business and finance an integral part of decision-making.” And Kate Barr offered 6 Takeaways from the Nonprofits Assistance Fund’s annual Nonprofit Finance and Sustainability Conference.
- Finally, Jocelyn Wyatt from IDEA.org argues that general funding for nonprofits is the “future of innovation”. Yes please!
Photo Credit: BibBornem
We talked about:
- How broken fundraising is
- A more effective financing approach
- Nonprofit fear of money
- The passion of nonprofit leaders
- The need to articulate a nonprofit’s message
- Capacity capital
- Social entrepreneurship
- Nonprofit boards
- And much, much more…
I really enjoyed the conversation and hope you will too.
You can listen to the podcast below, or click here to listen to it on the Panvisio site.
Photo Credit: Makingster
February was a pretty cold month around the country, but on the positive side that made it a great month to stay inside and read. I really struggled to cull the list of great reads to 10 this month because there was so much thought-provoking stuff out there. But below is my valiant effort.
From Afghan women, to political engagement, to nonprofit burnout and capacity building, to economic development and net neutrality, there was lots to read and think about.
Here is my view of the 10 best reads in the world of social change in February. But as always, add to the list in the comments. And if you want my unedited list of picks, follow me on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Google+.
You can see past 10 Great Reads lists here.
- February saw the end of Andrew Sullivan’s long-time blog, The Dish. But before he left, he wrote this beautiful piece about how quickly the state-by-state legalization of gay marriage happened, and more broadly, how social change happens: “[The legalization of gay marriage] is a sign and a proof that the deepest darkness can be turned to light. And that reason and love and argument and the truth will win … in the end.”
- In a fascinating interview, NPR Morning Edition host Renee Montagne talks with Afghanistan’s First Lady, Rula Ghani about her role as the first politically active first lady and the plight of Afghan women.
- Writing in the Washingtonian, Andrew Beaujon describes how 2015 may be the “Year of Quality” in political reporting since Politico and Gawker, among others, are moving their measure of success from number of clicks to quality of reader engagement. Let’s hope this is part of a larger trend away from click-bait and toward thoughtful political journalism.
- And speaking of better informed politics, the Knight Foundation joins with other democracy funders to issue a $3 million challenge to identify ideas that can “better inform voters and increase civic participation before, during, and after elections.” Entries to the challenge will be accepted until March 19th.
- An anonymous former nonprofit staffer writing in The Guardian (which, by the way, launched an interesting new blog focused on the nonprofit sector called Nonprofit Chronicles in February) describes why she suffered burnout and why the nonprofit sector needs more support: “Burnout [doesn’t] just occur in a vacuum. My experiences were intensified by the increasing frustration of carrying out support work in the context of austerity measures.” Amen!
- But perhaps help is on the way. Beth Kanter reviews two new reports (one from the Foundation Center and one from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) about funder efforts to build the capacity of the nonprofit sector. And Paul Shoemaker from Seattle Social Venture Partners makes the case for funders making 100% of their funding unrestricted.
- February saw a decisive victory in the effort to preserve an open Internet (“Net Neutrality”) when the FCC ruled that “America’s broadband networks must be fast, free, and open.” Lucy Bernholz breaks down what the ruling means for digital civil society.
- Aaron Hurst writes a compelling piece about how investing in businesses that create jobs is not true social change: “If we want to see more Americans gainfully employed—not in jobs, but with living-wage careers—we need to invest more in the nonprofit sector and in government programs. While these investments don’t create the short-term gains that business leaders have been trained to seek, they are what will matter at the end of the day. They will create the supply of talent needed for our economy and society to thrive.”
- Nonprofit With Balls blogger Vu Le argues that nonprofits should drop “accountability” as an organizational value and instead embrace values “Where people act not out of fear of punishment but out of a drive to build a strong and just community.”
- Finally, the Philantopic blog offers 5 Ways to Improve Your Digital Strategy for Older Donors.
Photo Credit: Lois Le Meur
I’m really excited to announce today’s launch of the Performance Imperative. The Performance Imperative is a detailed definition, created by a community of nonprofit thought leaders, of a high-performance nonprofit. The hope is with a clear definition of high-performance we can strengthen nonprofit efforts to achieve social change.
As we all know, we are living in a time of growing wealth inequality, crumbling institutions, political divides, and the list of social challenges goes on. The burden of finding solutions to these challenges increasingly falls to the nonprofit sector. So “good work” is no longer enough. We need to understand — through rigor and evidence — which solutions are working and which are not.
The Performance Imperative was created by the Leap Ambassadors Community, a network of 70+ nonprofit thought leaders and practitioners of which I am a member. The group emerged from the 2013 After the Leap conference, which brought nonprofit, philanthropic and government leaders together to create a higher-performing nonprofit sector. The group is determined to lead the fundamental, and critical, shift towards a more effective nonprofit sector.
The Performance Imperative defines nonprofit high performance as “the ability to deliver—over a prolonged period of time—meaningful, measurable, and financially sustainable results for the people or causes the nonprofit is in existence to serve.”
The Performance Imperative further describes seven organizational pillars that lead to high performance:
- Courageous, adaptive executive and board leadership
- Disciplined, people-focused management
- Well-designed and well-implemented programs and strategies
- Financial health and sustainability
- A culture that values learning
- Internal monitoring for continuous improvement
- External evaluation for mission effectiveness.
Each one of these 7 pillars is fully explained in the Performance Imperative.
Over the next several months I will write a blog series that digs into each of these 7 pillars to understand what each one means for a nonprofit organization and to examine case studies of how other nonprofit leaders have approached the pillars. And next week on the blog I’ll interview one of the founders of this movement toward high performance.
Although the Performance Imperative is targeted toward $3M+ nonprofits, it can also be a benchmark upon which any social change nonprofit can measure itself. Nonprofit boards and staffs can use the Performance Imperative as a north star to guide their journey toward higher performance.
The critical necessity of a high performing nonprofit sector is clear. We no longer have the luxury of benevolent good works that sit aside the business of our country. Now is the time to find solutions that really work and develop the leadership and sustainability to spread them far and wide.
As Mario Morino, founder of the Leap Ambassador Community has said, “If we don’t figure out how to build high performing nonprofits, nothing else matters. This is the last mile. Our nation depends on it.”
In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Josh Silver, Director of Represent.US, an organization building a movement to pass tough anti-corruption laws in cities and states across America. His local approach to political and social change is a fascinating model. Josh is a veteran election and media reform executive and served as the campaign manager for the successful 1998 Arizona Clean Elections ballot initiative campaign. He is also the co-founder and former CEO of Free Press, a leading media and technology reform advocacy organization. He also served as the Director of Development for the cultural arm of the Smithsonian Institution.
If you want to read past interviews in the Social Velocity interview series go here.
Nell: With Represent.Us you take a city-by-city or state-by-state approach to political reform, instead of a nationwide approach. Why do you think a local approach holds more promise?
Josh: It’s all about momentum. Every poll available has shown that Americans of all political affiliations — conservatives, progressives, and independents alike — support tough, new anti-corruption laws. But, as with so many other issues, these wildly popular reforms are going nowhere fast in today’s Washington.
If we want to break the gridlock at the national level, we need to be pragmatic about where we focus our efforts. Rather than throw ourselves at a brick wall in Congress, we’re taking this fight to the thousands of cities and 27 states where we can use the ballot initiative process to bypass compromised local legislatures and put tough, new anti-corruption laws directly to a public vote.
Focusing on city and state initiatives is both good policy and good politics. In policy terms, many state and local anti-corruption laws are even more out of date than federal law and in significant need of reform. We can and should do everything in our power to make the exchange of money and favors for political influence illegal at every level of government.
In political terms, using a local ballot initiative strategy will allow us to start racking up wins immediately, showing an understandably cynical public that change is possible and building momentum for national reform. While self-interested politicians might be reluctant to change the system that got them elected, the public will overwhelmingly vote for a local Anti-Corruption Act if given the opportunity.
Advocates of marriage equality and marijuana legalization have seen huge success with the same strategy. 20 years ago, both issues faced seemingly insurmountable odds in Washington. By picking smart targets at the state and local level, they’ve managed to redraw the political map and set their campaigns on the path to national victory.
We’re running the same playbook, and it’s already working. On November 4, 2014, Tallahassee, Florida passed the first municipal Anti-Corruption Act in the United States by a two to one margin. Now, campaigns for new Anti-Corruption Acts are already in the works for twelve cities and two states in 2015 and 2016.
Nell: As you mentioned, your approach is part of a larger state-by-state reform trend, with movements like the state-by-state legalization of gay marriage and of marijuana. Why does the state-by-state approach work now and will we ever go back to federal level reform?
Josh: The state-by-state approach works because it allows Americans to take matters into their own hands when politicians refuse to act. Instead of worrying about local politicians carving out loopholes for themselves and their parties, the People can craft their own comprehensive reform plan, gather the signatures necessary to place it on the ballot, and put their local Anti-Corruption Act directly to a public vote. Given the popularity of the reforms we’re talking about, these local Acts are very likely to pass, building the movement from the ground up and creating a domino effect which will spread from state to state and eventually Washington, DC.
Passing a statewide ballot initiative can fundamentally change a state’s political culture. It sends a clear message to every elected official in the state, including that state’s federal delegation. Every time we pass a statewide anti-corruption act, it makes it possible for federal candidates in that state to run for Congress and win without the backing of big money special interests. So, every state we win means more members of Congress who support comprehensive nationwide reform. Once we’ve attained a critical mass of support in the states, federal level reform is inevitable.
Nell: A big part of what you do involves creating coalitions of strange bedfellows, for example Tea Party loyalists and progressives. How do you circumvent our current environment of the dismissive or openly hostile discourse between opposing viewpoints and get people to find some common ground and work together?
Josh: Americans self-identify as roughly one-third Conservative, one-third Progressive and one-third Independent. Maintaining a fiercely cross-partisan campaign is critical to our long-term success — winning national reform is impossible with only one-third of the country behind you.
We’ve found that the people fighting at the grassroots are sick of the gridlock in Washington, and much more willing to work across partisan lines than their members of Congress. While our supporters might not agree on everything, they’re united behind the fundamental belief that government — no matter how large or how small — must put the needs of the People first. Public policy decisions should be made based on merit, not lobbyists and campaign contributions. Our supporters are willing to put their partisan differences aside and work together to make that happen.
The effort behind the Tallahassee Anti-Corruption Act is a perfect example of this principle in action. It was spearheaded by the chair of the Florida Tea Party Network, the former president of the Florida League of Women Voters, the chairman of Florida Common Cause, and a leader of Integrity Florida, an independent state ethics watchdog. This politically diverse coalition played an enormous role in the Tallahassee victory. As the editorial board of the Tallahassee Democrat, the local paper of record, put it: “When you have representatives of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Integrity Florida and the state Tea Party Network all aligned against you, it might be time to reassess your position.”
Nell: You just won your first victory by passing an anti-corruption code in the city of Tallahassee, FL. Let’s be idealistic for a second. What if you are able to log victories like Tallahassee’s in cities and states across the country. Is there a critical number of places before the movement becomes truly national? And then do you look at federal reforms? Or is the end goal every city and every state?
Josh: There is no “magic number” — Each state-level win makes national reform more likely. Every statewide victory means more Congressional delegations from states with an Anti-Corruption Act, and more public pressure on politicians to get on the right side of this issue or risk losing their seats.
While winning a federal Anti-Corruption Act is a major goal, bringing reform to every city and state is just as important. This movement is bigger than any one law — it’s about fundamentally changing the political culture of the United States. It’s about demonstrating that Americans will not tolerate laws putting self-interest before the public good, and ensuring a government committed to serving the People at every level.
It’s not a question of idealism. This movement is real, and has no plans of slowing down. We’re planning to bring local Anti-Corruption acts to 12 cities and 2 states in 2015 and 2016. We are already working with local law firms, political strategists and grassroots activists to make it happen.
If you’d like to be part of it, visit represent.us to learn more and join the campaign.
Recent studies of nonprofit donors have found that the majority aren’t interested in impact. But what if that current reality isn’t also future reality but rather an opportunity? What if just as Apple created a market for smartphones where one didn’t exist, we could create a market for social change funding where one currently doesn’t exist?
As I mentioned in my 10 Great Reads list for January, data wonk Caroline Fiennes reviewed recent studies on donor behavior and found that donors don’t increase their donations when shown nonprofit performance data. And Caroline is not alone, others have also argued that donors just don’t care about performance.
This could be depressing because if donors aren’t interested in the effectiveness of a nonprofit they won’t shift their money to the nonprofits more effective at creating social change. In other words, we have no hope of solving social problems if we can’t channel money to those entities that are actually solving those problems.
Apple is probably the most obvious example of a market maker, creating consumer demand where there was none. They have continually created innovative products for swooning consumers who previously had no idea they needed those products. Before creating the first iPhone prototype in 2006 Steve Jobs didn’t survey consumers to ask if they wanted their phone to surf the web, send emails, and take pictures. A majority of consumers would probably have said no. Rather, Apple saw a need that consumers didn’t yet know they had (what marketers call a “latent need”) and built a huge consumer base from scratch.
They were market makers, as Fred Vogelstein described in the New York Times Magazine:
Apple’s innovations have set off an entire rethinking of how humans interact with machines. It’s not simply that we use our fingers now instead of a mouse. Smartphones, in particular, have become extensions of our brains…Its technology is changing the way we learn in school, the way doctors treat patients, the way we travel and explore. Entertainment and media are accessed and experienced in entirely new ways.
Jobs and his team created a completely different marketplace, set of cultural norms, and way of interacting with the world around us.
In the world of social change we need a completely different marketplace, set of cultural norms, and way of channeling money. So we need to create the market.
We need to show funders that the current flow of money to social change efforts is not sufficient or efficient. If we truly want solutions to our social challenges, we must create an effective financial market for those solutions.
I believe that funders can be inspired to change their behavior. They have a latent desire to see their dollars actually achieve something. They have been so used to the lowest common denominator of giving based solely on reciprocity or emotion, but that can change.
As Harvard Business Review blogger Umair Haque explains, Apple’s success comes from their ability to rise above the common denominator and create something people love and truly (though they may not yet know it) want:
Most companies…don’t care about what they make. They merely care about what they sell. And so they…offer the people they call consumers the lowest common denominator designed by focus-group led committees at the everyday low price in malls full of stores full of shelves full of…other lowest common denominators designed by committee at the everyday low price. Nobody ever loved anybody who was merely trying to sell them something. Especially not the lowest common denominator. People love people—and organizations—that make their lives better. Even when those things are as simple as phones.
The data and the focus groups may say that donors don’t want impact. Yet. So its up to us to create the market. It is up to us to get donors to love the impact that makes clients’ lives, donors’ lives, and ultimately our communities better. It’s up to us to create demand for funding real social change.
Photo Credit: Matthew Yohe
January was a busy month. From more trends and predictions for the new year, to new ways of thinking about scale, to nonprofit performance measures and whether donors really care about them, to a return to farming, and a new giving app, there was lots to read in the world of social change.
You can see past months’ 10 Great Social Innovation Reads lists here.
- Since it was the first month of a new year, there were several prediction posts for the nonprofit sector. Rich Cohen’s predictions are very thoughtful, including declining slacktivism, an IRS crisis, continuing financial collapse of local governments and much more. The National Council of Nonprofits pulled together their list of 2015 trends facing the sector. And Kivi Leroux Miller created this nice infographic summarizing her 2015 Nonprofit Communications Trends Report.
- Because a “social capital chasm” exists in the nonprofit sector it may not be possible for nonprofits to truly achieve organizational scale says Alice Gugelev and Andrew Stern writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. They urge social change leaders to look at scaling impact instead of organization. As they put it, “It’s time for nonprofit leaders to ask a more fundamental question than ‘How do you scale up?’ Instead, we urge them to consider…’What’s your endgame?'”
- Writing on the Center for Effective Philanthropy blog, Phil Buchanan reminds us that it is not enough to move beyond overhead as a way to evaluate nonprofits: “What we need to focus on, of course, is not just de-emphasizing overhead ratios as a performance metric. We also need improvements in approaches to performance measurement. The reality is that donors often gravitate to overhead ratios when they can’t get their hands around anything else.”
- But nonprofit evaluation wonk Caroline Fiennes might disagree. She takes a look at recent studies on how information about a nonprofit’s performance affects donor giving behavior. She rather depressingly finds that performance data doesn’t improve donations. In her review of three recent studies, Caroline finds “Donors appeared to use evidence of effectiveness as they would a hygiene factor: they seemed to expect all charities to have four-star ratings, and reduced donations when they were disappointed – but never increased them because they were never positively surprised.”
- With elections behind him, President Obama’s January State of the Union address laid out his plans for his last two years in office. But he didn’t once mention the nonprofit sector even though the sector is key to the success of those plans, as Rick Cohen points out.
- The new app, Charity Match that was developed by Intuit and the Gates Foundation, prompts people to make charitable donations based on their spending habits while they do their online banking.
- While the family farm was once a thing of the past some Millennials are returning to farming, wanting “to find a way to live high-quality, sustainable lives, and help others do the same.”
- The Nonprofit Tech for Good blog offers 15 Must-Know Fundraising and Social Media Stats.
- As is their tradition, every year Bill and Melinda Gates release an annual letter about their philanthropy. And every year social change thinkers tear it apart. This year Chris Blattman from The Monkey Cage takes issue with the Gates’ assumption “that a few new technologies can make unprecedented and fundamental changes in poverty in 15 years.”
- And finally, Michel Bachmann and Roshan Paul caution social changemakers to slow down and go deep in order to avoid burning out altogether. “The social entrepreneurship sector in many parts of the world is rife with accelerators…These organizations play an important role—there are good reasons for their existence. However, in this era where everything is accelerating, we’d like to put our hands up for the importance of deceleration. As the poet Tess Gallagher said: ‘You can’t go deep until you slow down.'” Amen!
Photo Credit: Jonathan Cohen
- 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.