August 2009 Archives
By Aaron Hurst on
August 25, 2009 7:29 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (5)
An accomplished professional in his mid-30s called me recently. He wanted to get more engaged in the community and wanted my advice on how to best do that. He said he wanted to help an arts nonprofit go from start-up to adolescence or to help an aging arts group become relevant to new generations. He could be a great asset for the community.
What was unfortunate was that he hadn't seriously considered board service as the solution. Like many professionals in our generation, he had three myths in his head:
1) MYTH: You have to be able to give $10,000 to join a board.
You do need to be prepared to give, but many boards require board members to make smaller gifts in the $500 to $1,000 range and to then do some fundraising. Most mid-career professionals can easily swing this if they are employed.
2) MYTH: You need to have gray hair.
Most boards have too much gray hair and want more rising stars.
3) MYTH: You need to be involved in an organization for years before you get invited onto their board.
This is true for well-established organizations but many will recruit directly or only require 6 months of dating before getting married.
So, if you are an employed professional in your 30s or 40s, go get on a board. The nonprofit community needs you.
By Aaron Hurst on
August 21, 2009 6:56 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
An article in this summer's issue of the Harvard Business Review outlines the needs of Gen Y in the workplace. Their expectations can be met by integrating pro bono as a core part of the professional lives for this generation.
1. The majority want their work to offer them a range of new experiences and challenges. Pro bono service enables Gen Y professionals to diversify their experiences and challenges by serving a broader set of clients in ways that ask them to apply their talents in different environments.
2. 86% say it is important that their work makes a positive impact in the world.
Enough said. The reality is that most corporate employers can only pay lip service to the claim of meeting this need. Philanthropy and volunteerism doesn't meet this need because these initiatives at corporations are not utilizing professionals' "work" to make those differences. Pro bono is about doing work that makes a positive impact.
3. Working in teams is a top motivator.
Granted, not all pro bono is done in teams, but a lot of it is. Pro bono projects can often be done by teams of folks who have little experience working together. It helps to build new relationships.
Perhaps we should rename Gen Y, the Pro Bono Junkie (PBJ) Generation.
By Aaron Hurst on
August 11, 2009 6:12 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
I am a vegetarian and against the death penalty. We need to evolve beyond killing as a solution for food and punishment.
That said, the news this past week that China had executed a white collar criminal and has a history of doing so, wasn't upsetting for me. The barbarism of execution was temporarily overshadowed by a sense of justice. At least in one country, suits aren't above the law and the crimes they commit are taken seriously.
People who use the trust they are given as professionals to hurt society should be held accountable in this country. Instead, we treat business professionals like kids playing a board game. We isolate their actions to the game and create new rules.
Kill someone in "real" life and face the death penalty. Create a product for your employer that kills people and all you have to do is fork over some monopoly money (insurance money). Oops.
If we hold companies accountable solely to the function of creating profits, then it is logical that our stick is to take away that money.
The problem is that this little game is unjust. This is not part of our social contract. It represents a corruption of the contract, which has been hidden behind the red scare followed by our collective national wealth and status quo.
We don't need to start executing executives like the Chinese. What is needed instead is a redefining of companies' goals so that there are strong disincentives for betraying the public trust. Executives need to realize the ramifications of their companies' activities deal with real lives, and they are not just playing a board game.
By Aaron Hurst on
August 3, 2009 2:58 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
We all associate lobbying with corruption and corporations taking over the government. That is certainly part of the lobbying world, but when the media talks divisively about special interests, we need to remember that there are different types of interest groups out there ranging from large tobacco companies to the homeless and disabled.
Basically, any interest that is not shared by all Americans is special. These interests need a voice in DC.
Since we have vilified lobbying in the nonprofit sector as one of the main causes of bad legislation, it is hard to use the same word to describe the activity needed to counter balance and fight for better legislation.
Perhaps "lobbying" is the wrong frame. Does the activity boil down to roles of fighting or advocating? These imply a need to overcome, which, in turn, imply and adversarial role. Shouldn't lobbying be more about partnering to increase legislative effectiveness?
If so, shouldn't the label used when a nonprofit engages in such activities be more of a policy liaison role? Still, something about that doesn't seem strong enough to me. "Liaison" is too passive of language.
Any ideas on how we can better frame and label lobbying activities so that it seems more appropriate for the nonprofit sector?
