Thanks today to Michael Gilbert for deploying some old-style social technology, the breakfast table, to discuss social change. Michael, visiting from the States, brought together in his London hotel a small group involved in nonprofit technology, social enterprise, fundraising and charitable organisations. Michael runs the Gilbert Center, which is a virtual organisation of him and colleagues doing consulting, research and project incubation. The focus is communication and innovation in nonprofits. It turned out that Michael is another early adopter and developer of social and nonprofit technology now taking a step back and looking afresh at the human and organisational issues fundamental to its successful use. Michael's application service provider, Social Ecology, has closed its doors (or servers).
Among those at the table was Michael Norton, founder and former director of the Directory of Social Change, now - among many other things - a trustee of Unltd and working with Changemakers. Unltd provides small grants and support to individuals who want to make a difference in their communities. My wife Ann Holmes and I recently ran a workshop with them on people-centred business planning - so we were on the same wavelength about the importance in social change of inspired and enthusiastic individuals: social entrepreneurs.
I had started off discussing with Michael how the gloss had gone off technology as an agent of social change... or maybe too much was expected back in the mid-1990s. 'The landscape is changing," we heard then "and you must change too. These tools will transform your business/organisation/life...(we'll sell you the complete system)". It hasn't worked out like that - yet anyway. Where were the levers for change today... or at least where was the firm ground to act as a fulcrum? (Americans love talking about 'leverage' but I'm never sure which bit is being levered up or down, which can cause confusion about who is changing what for whom).
Anyway, we agreed that large nonprofit organisations have as much difficulty innovating as any bureaucracy, often made more difficulty by governance issues - the need for trustees and staff to get along, point the same way, meet the needs of funders, regulators and so on. It is easy, in courting the funders, to lose sight of the poor, hungry, homeless, and otherwise disadvantaged beneficiaries for whom it is all being done, in theory. Was this the same problem as private company boards balancing the interests of customers and shareholders?
Monitoring and evaluation may not provide enough of a feedback loop. We heard the story of one (nameless of course) large foundation investing millions in educational provision, and then further millions in research which told them the initial investment had not achieved its purpose. By the time that reached the foundation board it looked a lot rosier.
No easy answers, but general agreement on the importance of individuals and networks. But could social entrepreneurs, supported by organisations like Unltd, Changemakers, Community Action Network, School for Social Entrepreneurs end up being as bureaucratic, grant-hungry as the rest. Hopefully not..."but don't look towards the greatest noise for the greatest action' said one of the breakfasters, declining to elaborate.
We agreed on the importance of bringing people together and communicating through a range of different methods... with which we paid for our breakfasts, and exchanged email addresses.
Comments