Attracting, engaging, and retaining the right talent is key to successful nonprofit management. In this audio lecture from the Stanford Social Innovation Review’s Nonprofit Management Institute, Omidyar Network partner Sal Giambanco discusses how a nonprofit can build a strong team to reach its organization’s core objectives. He shares specific approaches to building a talent pipeline and maximizing productivity to enrich a nonprofit’s management strategy.
Human capital is the most valuable asset in the social sector. Developing an effective human capital strategy enables nonprofits to grow, scale, and achieve greater impact. In this audio lecture from the Stanford Social Innovation Review’s Nonprofit Management Institute, Omidyar Network partner Sal Giambanco discusses how nonprofits can create a recruiting framework and demonstrate organizational value to employees. He explains how to attract and engage an excellent team. By sharing examples from his years of coaching nonprofit executives from around the world, he explores questions such as: How do you attract the right talent to your organization? How do you enable them to be successful? How do you build a talent pipeline to engage future leaders? In this lecture, Gimabanco discusses techniques a nonprofit can use to execute a successful human capital strategy.
Sal Giambanco leads the human capital and operations functions of Omidyar Network where he works to develop and scale its talent and portfolio organizations. From 2000-2009, he served as the vice president of human resources for PayPal and eBay Inc. Prior to joining PayPal, Giambanco worked for KPMG as the national recruiting manager for information, communications, high-tech, and entertainment consulting practices. During this time, he also led KPMG’s collegiate and MBA recruiting programs. Giambanco began his career working in the public sector in a variety of roles, primarily in education and hospital ministries. He holds an MA in philosophy from Fordham University, a Masters of Divinity from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, and an AB in economics and political science from Columbia University. Currently, he is a lecturer for the University of San Francisco School of Managment Silicon Valley Immersion Program.
Taproot is a nonprofit that engages millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through its award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. In this audio interview, founder Aaron Hurst speaks with Stanford Center for Social Innovation correspondent Ashkon Jafari about how the organization started and how it creates its cross-sector collaboration. He discusses how nonprofits can qualify for grants, and offers his vision for the organization.
Aaron Hurst is founder and president of the Taproot Foundation. He is also a creative force behind the conception of the national A Billion + Change initiative and the service enterprise model. Widely known for his thought leadership in civic engagement, nonprofit management and corporate social responsibility, Hurst is both an Ashoka and Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation fellow. An entrepreneur since he was 16, he began his career as a social innovator at the University of Michigan, where he designed and led an educational program for local correctional facilities, and subsequently became the first student to receive the Michigan Campus Compact Award. Upon graduating, he worked in inner-city education in Chicago before landing in Silicon Valley as an early employee at two venture-backed social venture companies.
Cross-sector collaborations are increasingly being seen as a means to foster innovation and solve entrenched social problems. In this audio lecture, Andrew Wolk, CEO of Root Cause, argues that the time has come for what he calls social impact markets. They would focus on single issues within specific geographic areas, and foster ties among government institutions, nonprofits, and businesses.
Annually, more than a trillion dollars are spent on millions of American nonprofit and government institutions. And 15 nonprofits are started each day. But there is still not significant progress on social issues in the United States. In this audio lecture, sponsored by the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Andrew Wolk, CEO of Root Cause, argues that the time has come for a social impact market -- one that fosters innovation and collaboration across the governmental, business, and nonprofit sectors to maximize scarce resources and spread solutions. Wolk believes this cross-sector approach presents our best chance to solve long-term educational, healthcare, environmental, and other problems.
Andrew Wolk is the founder and CEO of Root Cause, a nonprofit research and consulting firm dedicated to mobilizing the government, nonprofit, and business sectors to work together to bring 21st-century solutions to longstanding social problems. He has consulted to dozens of organizations on social innovation and creating social impact, including ITNAmerica, the Louisiana Office of Social Entrepreneurship, Nike, State Street Foundation, and the Young People's Project. Wolk is a senior lecturer in social entrepreneurship at MIT.
- Root Cause
- Root Cause Social Impact Research
- Nonprofit Management Institute Resources
- Social Innovation Fund
- MIT Entrepreneurship Center
Jeremy Sokulsky is working with government land managers, environmental regulators and private conservation investors to restore Lake Tahoe clarity.
Michael DeLapa is heavily involved in environmental, land use, and energy issues. He has launched several non-profits in the Bay Area as well as the California Fisheries Fund.
Collectivist, group-oriented teams do better work.
To develop proposals for effective environmental policy, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) runs scenarios past lawyers, economists, scientists, and policy wonks, often multiple times. Each specialist’s input informs the next, until the team comes up with an idea that seems both economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. “No one person could do that,” says Lisa Moore, scientist at EDF, and that’s why she likes her job: “I just want to be part of a good team.” But Moore can be reluctant to rely on people, a mistrust she says is “kind of a strange characteristic to have as a through-and-through team player.”
New research suggests that this mistrust is not strange at all. In fact, it can boost team performance, says Erich Dierdorff, an assistant professor in the department of management at DePaul University. Dierdorff wanted to see whether more collectivist, group-oriented teams in fact do better work. His answer is a resounding yes.
Psychological collectivism has many facets, from how much people like or prioritize teamwork to how comfortable they are with relinquishing control. Dierdorff and colleagues showed that these facets have different effects on team performance at different times. As groups of three to six students in a capstone business course competed at running simulated companies, Dierdorff assessed each member’s collectivist tendencies and compared them to the team’s performance at the beginning and end of a several-week stint in the widget business.
A new study finds that nonprofits are not becoming more commercialized.
You may welcome the efficiency that market forces increasingly bring to the nonprofit sector. Or you may fear that growing commercialization threatens the sector’s integrity. Either way, you’re probably wrong. Amid impassioned debate over the implications of nonprofits’ commercial turn, a fresh look at the data shows that perhaps there actually isn’t one. The evidence “is kind of like a Rorschach blot—you can see in it what you want, but there’s no clear trend,” says Curtis Child, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Indiana University. “Nonprofits just aren’t, as a whole, becoming more commercialized.”
Child returned to the same data others cite when they make the case that nonprofits are relying more and more heavily on earned income over donations or grants. One incriminating indicator, “unrelated business income,” is the money a museum makes from selling Empire State Building snow globes (which presumably don’t bring fine art to the people) but not from reprints of Vincent van Gogh paintings (which do). Although unrelated business income did increase by more than 250 percent in the nonprofit sector between 1991 and 1997, so did total revenue; snow globe peddling as a proportion of aggregate total revenue has remained steady since the early 1990s at about one half of 1 percent.
The pay gap is narrowing between men and women in the workplace as is the percent of time men and women spend on family duties, but workplace policies have not caught up with these new realities, Professor Myra Strober says in an essay in U.S. Banker.
The past 40 years have seen extraordinary changes in our workplaces and families. Women have entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers and improved their earnings relative to men. At the same time, men have begun to share women's traditional family roles, and men and women have both increased the time they spend with children. Also, as life expectancy has increased and women are employed outside of the home, it has become necessary for both women and men to balance employment with time to care for their elderly parents.
Our workplace policies have not caught up with these new realities. We still behave as though it is the primary job of men to be breadwinners, and the primary job of women to be homemakers and caretakers of children and the elderly. Companies and other organizations that want to continue to attract and retain superior talent-men as well as women-need to develop policies that allow their employees to be successful both at home and at work.
The first phase of the workplace revolution focused on women, and it is still unfinished. But a new development is that talented men have also become stakeholders in this revolution. I know-I have taught a course on work and family for many years and my students used to be all women. Now about 40 percent are men, and like their female classmates, they want to work for organizations that allow them to make use of their intellectual and managerial skills but still leave them time and energy to be successful husbands and fathers.
In 1970, less than half of adult women were in the labor force. Today that figure is almost 60 percent. For mothers of children under 18, it is even higher, 71 percent. And for women with a college education, it is 80 percent.
London-based organization Social Finance believes that providing job training and other social services to short-term prisoners will make them less likely to commit crimes—and cost taxpayers—in the future.
What should you expect if you’re a young Englishman on the wrong side of the law? Chances are, you’ll get a short jail sentence—but not much else. Prisoners serving less than a year typically receive little in the way of job training or other social services. When their term’s up, they tend to commit crimes at a high rate, with 60 percent back in the pen within a year. Once they become career criminals, “then taxpayers make a huge investment in them,” says Emily Bolton, associate director of the Londonbased organization Social Finance. “If only some of that money could have been used earlier, society could expect significant cost savings.”
Turning those imagined future savings into a financial asset is the goal of a new type of bond that Social Finance has spent three years developing. Social Impact Bonds raise investment capital for promising social programs, such as an anti-recidivism initiative for young offenders. If the intervention actually cuts reoffending rates, investors will be paid a share of that savings by the U.K. Ministry of Justice.
The idea of paying investors for future savings may sound simple, but working out the details has been a complex process, says Toby Eccles, founder and development director of Social Finance. “For government and investors, this is such a new way of thinking,” he says. “We had to convince government to sign up for a contract where they were paying purely on the achievement of social outcome.” Read more...
You must be a subscriber to read this SSIR article in its entirety.
Subscribe at SSIReview.org
Bringing innovation to hard-to-change institutions.
In 2000, many colleges and universities began to digitize the slide libraries each had built for teaching art history. At the time, I was the financial and administrative officer at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Knowing of the Mellon Foundation’s long-standing interest in the arts and education, these academic institutions flooded us with funding requests. The foundation was interested in helping, but it faced the prospect of writing separate and significant checks to hundreds of institutions so that each could digitize hundreds of thousands of slides (with a lot of overlap), catalog those images, ask lawyers to evaluate the intellectual property issues, and have local programmers build a repository.
We decided instead to create a new organization that could work both with content owners (museums, artists, and photographers) and educational users to solve the problem collectively—in an efficient and straightforward way. The shared collection would be far more extensive than any one institution could create, and although we would charge access fees, each institution would spend far less than it would by creating its own solution. Mellon created and provided start-up funding for ARTstor, and a few colleagues and I left the world of philanthropy to run the new organization.
We learned quickly that it isn’t easy to bring change, even what seems like exceedingly rational change, to nonprofit institutions. Read more...