(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

Here's an interesting thing some folks could do with this kind of legislation proliferating...

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

I came across this website and I wanted to remember it (I suppose there's always del.icio.us for that kind of thing, but I thought I'd blog it). It just strikes me as representing a group that's got it together. The website seems well thought out and very usable. Unfortunately, that's kind of rare among associations, don't you think?

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

Here's an article from Business Week talking about the number of charities in the U.S. Having worked for one such "charity," I think the author is right. More means that the nation is richer, more means market forces will drown the inept nonprofits and discourage "nonprofit empire building." I love working for associations, but when I was involved in the charity scene, I definitely was confronted with a lot of sketchy motives and a distinct lack of outcome-orientation.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

Here's a press release to this effect. This would be a good advocacy effort for lots of folks, eh?

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

This is a good read that puts lobbying reform in an association-centric context. Exerpt

Today, it's easy for trade associations and major lobbying firms to conceive and fund so-called "grassroots" issue campaigns that bear no mark of their sponsors or betray their Beltway origins. This form of public advocacy has acquired the unflattering appellation of "astroturf" campaigning.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman want more disclosure and more transparency. They believe that voters are persuaded more easily by arguments that appear to come from "real" citizen-based groups. And that the grassroots lobbying laws are easily abused to allow lobbyists to manipulate both donors and the public.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

I mentioned the new study of "transformation design" in an earlier post. Briefly, it's using design principles to rework organizations. I think it's a great way to think about it, and anyone who cares about optimizing anything ought to have the topic resonate with them. Thanks to Chris, who emailed me that the UK Design Council's full paper has been uploaded to their website (it was previously only an excerpt).

More than 30 years ago, Charles Eames, the American multidisciplinary designer, was asked, ‘What are the boundaries of design?’. He replied, ‘What are the boundaries of problems?’.

This point is as relevant today as it was in 1972, but the way we view problems has changed significantly since then.

Traditionally problems were seen as complicaed challenges that could be solved through breaking them down into smaller and smaller chunks – like fixing a car.

RED believes that the most important modern problems are complex rather than complicated. Complex problems are messier and more ambiguous in nature; they are more connected to other problems; more likely to react in unpredictable non-linear ways; and more likely to produce unintended consequences. [...]

Traditionally, organisations have been designed for a complicated rather than a complex world. Hierarchical and silo structures are perfectly designed to break problems down into more manageable fragments. They are not, however, so effective handling high levels of complexity. For this reason, many of our most long standing institutions are now struggling to adapt to a more complex world.

As they say, read the whole thing! My thoughts are that of course this has to be a) workable and b) totally useful - the paradigm shift that we're needing to make at this point societally. I'm surprised, but not terribly so, by pushback from designers. I think the argument that something's designer is the ultimate authority in its form is highly overstated. Designers design loads of things that continue to be improved upon, transformed, etc. Not to mention the fact that if you look at what happens to an architect's work, say, at a zoning meeting, that argument kind of flies out the window, doesn't it?

Anyway, I think that design is a great way of looking at the problems of organizations, and the problems organizations are called upon to solve. The people aspect is precisely what calls for design. After all, you can build a house as a piece of art but there's a small market for that. Mostly, you build a house to function as a house, and the better the architect understands the way people work, the better he'll be able to do that.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

Here's an article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune that talks about how to do some investigative work before giving to nonprofits. There's so much of this kind of accounting that goes on, it's hard to tell whether the folks are just clueless (often) or deceptive. This kind of info is helpful to both donors and organizations, if people will take the time and do the research. Why don't people do the research? I think people are maxed out on the time they can give to this kind of stuff.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

From Ron at VanDamme Associates. It looks like a really good articulation. Would be useful in work with committees or boards.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

So, I've begun to be active in an affiliate group of my university's alumni association. Their handbook is a good one, and here's the list on recruiting volunteers that I found to be quite well put.

Do not assume that people are too busy. Sometimes busy people like to be busy.

Be a friend and make sure they are welcomed.

Do not belittle the job.

Do not make it sound too easy.

Give the job a name, define a timeframe, provide guidance and relay expectations.

Do not add to the responsibilities during the job.

Make sure the task is achievable and the goal is obtainable.

Speak the language of the person you are trying to recruit. Ask yourself, what do we do that would be of interest to them?

If you are not personally committed, assign someone else to do the recruitment.

Always recruit volunteers on the basis of the service to clients, not to the needs of the [organization]. People work for people, not things.

Tell people what they will do, how long they are expected to do it, and who will benefit.

Remember that you are trying to remove people's reasons to say NO, not force them into volunteering.

Never use guilt when trying to recruit.

Be honest and upfront with people when recruiting. Do not minimize the work or time required.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

This came into my email today, it looks like a good set of links to lots of matters nonprofit-related.

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

From Chris at Social Customer Manifesto. I don't have time to break it all down, but it's pretty relevant to what we do in associations. The conference wiki is, of course, a great idea. I actually proposed one last week for our upcoming conference, and the idea went over pretty well. We'll see if it happens...

(originally published on Nick's Book Blog)

The Bridgespan Group, a consultancy for nonprofits, has identified a leadership deficit in the nonprofit sector. My take on the problem's cause? (I know, no one asked.) Likely there aren't leaders because lots of talented people in the sector who show potential are deemed threatening and/or uppity by petty leadership--and their efforts at success are sabotaged. I'm sorry if this sounds snarky, but I believe it could be easily documented. So that's why has to stop, IMHO. This applies to trade and professional associations every bit as much as the more fluffy cause-oriented groups.