I recently joined FHI as a Strategy & Analysis Officer and I’m still trying to figure out what my job is.  Ok, that’s not quite true; I’m still trying to figure out what it means to be an “officer”.  I don’t wear a uniform and I don’t get to carry a firearm…

But title aside (and firearm or not), I am enjoying myself.  Here’s what a typical day might look like for me:

7:45 AM – 8:20 AM  I commute from DC to Ballston via foot and the Orange Line metro.  On the way I tend to review collected content like Twitter feeds and respond to emails on the trusty iPhone.  Depending on how I feel, I’ll listen to Social Innovation Conversations, HBR or TED podcasts, or zone out to music.

8:20 AM – 9:00 AM  When I get in, I take a bit of time to get organized for the day.  I get coffee, respond to emails, review to-dos and plan my work.  I’ll dig a little deeper on anything interesting from Twitter and RSS feeds that is related to work, particularly with respect to Rwanda, Zambia or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  My group, Business Planning and Strategy (BPS), builds the capacity of FHI’s country offices to think strategically about the development and sustainability of their portfolios.  I will be supporting our Rwanda and Zambia offices in this effort (and will be traveling to Rwanda in January to facilitate a business plan workshop!).  BPS also leads the organization’s relationship management system and I will be on the CDC relationship team, helping FHI to be more effective partners with CDC and developing nation governments for work in global health.

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM  Meeting number one.  This might be a call with a country office to discuss a draft business plan they have developed with support from BPS.  The business plan describes the country office’s vision for their role in support of that country’s public health and development strategy and describes a plan for fulfilling that role.  We do calls with the field in the morning so they are not too late in the day for country staff in Africa and Asia.

10:00 AM – 12:00 PM  Unless the day is particularly heavy on meetings, I have a decent amount of time to work on one or another of my projects.  In a good two-hour chunk like this I might do some work related to my support of FHI’s strategic planning process.  This might include planning for how to facilitate the discussions, synthesizing input, and helping to draft the Strategic Plan.  We’ll soon be rolling the Plan out, and I have been developing the related presentations and key messaging, as well as tools to help managers work with their staff to connect their work to the new strategic directions.

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM  I try to bring my lunch, but about half of the time—ok, most of the time—I end up picking something up from near the office, especially when there’s a lot going on and grocery shopping and cooking get bumped from my priority list.  This is dangerous because I am a sucker for a Chipotle burrito or a Potbelly sandwich—not the healthiest of meals.  I eat at my desk and do some work or respond to personal emails and take care of miscellaneous to-dos.  Occasionally, I’ll attend a brown bag presentation by FHI staff to better understand the programmatic work we do.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM  I try to get some solid work in before having to go to war against the food coma.  Another project I might put some time into is the design of work processes for the use of a client relationship management software system.  The system has the potential to help FHI capture, store, organize, and ultimately make better decisions with relationship information; but in the end, information management is about people, not technology.  I’ll have to help us determine what information we need, which people need to be involved and how, and how information becomes knowledge used to make decisions—and then, secondarily, how the IT system can help.

2:00 PM – 2:15 PM  All-out war: coffee run for caffeine infusion and some fresh air.

2:15 PM – 4:00 PM  This slot might hold some last minute preparations and an afternoon meeting.  I am a member of a working group charged with developing, implementing, and managing a system for measuring and monitoring FHI’s strategic performance.  Last year, I helped to define a set of indicators for executive management to review in order to inform strategic decisions, and I led the development and implementation of a dashboard tool and supporting processes.  This meeting might be a videoconference with a few working group members from my office in Arlington and executives at headquarters in North Carolina.  We are currently revising our Strategic Dashboard based on the recent refresh of strategic priorities.

4:00 PM – 5:00 PM  With another block of time free of meetings, I might work on one of my other projects, like the development of an internal white paper that provides guidance for how FHI can engage in public-private partnerships, particularly in-country.  This involves research, brainstorming, interviews, deep thinking, and, of course, writing.

5:00 PM  My evenings see a mix of activities.  I actually find that I work most productively between 6ish and 8ish, so when it’s busy, I can be found in the office.  On those days, after a chat in Spanish with the woman who keeps our floor tidy (me falta practica), I might even swim some laps on the way home if I’m feeling ambitious.  If it’s not so busy, I’ll try to catch friends at a happy hour or make it home to cook.

My activities vary widely depending on the day, but I’m fortunate that they align so well with what I was looking for in my career transition.  In fact, I just pulled out the Inspire Fellows application essay I submitted 18 months ago (!) and I’m astonished by how well my experience has aligned with my goals.  The essay began like this:

I’m happy to say that I have found what I was looking for in my sector switch: I’m applying my passion to strengthen an organization working for social value, rather than private wealth.

For me, the most intriguing mergers and acquisitions news of the week is not related to Blackstone’s rumored $1bn real estate deal, nor the rumors of an acquisition of Adobe by Microsoft, nor even a successful defense by Casey’s General Stores, a former client, to end a long hostile acquisition battle with Alimentation Couche-Tard, another former client (as you can see, the industries I covered in my last job were the sexy ones—convenience stores and grocery stores).  Rather, what caught my eye was the announcement that the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) has been acquired by Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS).

Perhaps it’s just bias on my part, but I liked the idea that SSIR was a part of Stanford’s Center for Social Innovation, which in turn is part of the Graduate School of Business.  I liked that it was a publication of a progressive business school program which understands the need for a pan-sectoral approach to addressing the big challenges of the future (kudos to GSB for being bold with an emphasis on social innovation and leap-frogging the more-limited corporate social responsibility path).  I admit a bit of skepticism about the scope of “philanthropy and civil society” as it relates to developing solutions to the problems on which SSIR is focused.  The mission of PACS is “to engage students, faculty and practitioners in scholarship and dialogue that examines ways in which philanthropic institutions, nonprofit organizations and other key elements of civil society work to address public interests…”  Is this a good fit for SSIR?  In contrast, SSIR’s press release description includes the note that

I like that I see all three sectors—business, government, and civil society—in this language as compared to that of PACS.

Article on social intrapreneurship in business, Fall 2010 issue of SSIR.

I suppose that adopting SSIR in what the press release calls a “strategic acquisition” could alter the scope of PACS.  Rob Reich, faculty co-director of PACS, could be implying this in his posting of the release.  At the same time, PACS cofounder and Advisory Board chairman Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen maintains a philanthropy-centric tone in her press release quote:

Or perhaps the nature of the business is such that the department in which the journal sits doesn’t actually have a significant impact on its content and approach—who knows? Still yet, maybe SSIR’s approach will change, and maybe it’s a good thing. Publishing Director Regina Starr Ridley calls the acquisition a “natural fit”. I’m sure the various parties involved have differing perspectives, as always. I’ll be watching for an article from SSIR on what the acquisition means to the editorial staff in the next issue, and for SSIR readers to discuss changes, if and as the journal evolves as a result of its new home.

Update 10/14/2010:  Thanks to Shana Sachs of PACS for participating in the conversation and offering the PACS perspective in the comments to this post! SSIR also just sent a newsletter including a note about last week's Nonprofit Management Institute conference and an announcement made there on SSIR's new home: "The Institute also featured a joint announcement  by Kim Nyegaard Meredith, executive director of the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS) and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, founder/chairman of PACS. Meredith and Arrillaga-Andreessen announced that Stanford Social Innovation Review had become part of PACS, moving from the Graduate School of Business where SSIR was launched and had operated since 2003. With SSIR , noted Meredith, PACS creates a global center offering knowledge, innovative ideas, and accessible best practices for the public, business, and social sectors. SSIR will continue to focus on cross-sector solutions to global problems, publishing the quarterly print magazine and website as well as offering webinars and high-level conferences, such as the Nonprofit Management Institute."


Update 12/7/2010: I came across an article from August which announced the plans to move SSIR. It explains some of the rationale that was lacking in the communication surrounding the transaction.

In relending my repaid Kiva loans today I had to marvel again at the organization’s commitment to transparency and responsible stewardship.  In my view, these qualities form a large part of what it means to be a leader these days, and few social profit organizations exhibit them consistently.  Two things I came across today reminded me of Kiva’s leadership.

In browsing my lending options, I came upon a field partner profile of an MFI in Nicaragua which is apparently having some delinquency issues.  The delinquency rate for the Kiva loans issued by CEPRODEL is currently a high 51.52% and its risk rating is a low two-out-of-five stars.  Kiva has done an excellent job of explaining why this is, from its initial downgrade of CEPRODEL’s risk rating in June after an on-site assessment, through the impact of the “No Pago” (“I Won’t Pay”) movement in Nicaragua, through deteriorating economic conditions and Kiva’s collaborative effort with CEPRODEL to refund some of the loans.  This rigorous commitment to transparency and good stewardship is refreshing.

I also happened to come across a post on the Kiva Fellows blog which gives a peek into what all this microfinance stuff actually looks like on the ground.  In this post, Jenny Jin, a member of the 11^th class of Kiva Fellows, shares a video clip she recorded during her time with the MFI KADET in Western Kenya.  The video shows a KADET employee explaining the Kiva model to prospective borrowers.  I have worked in the international development sector (albeit from here in DC) for over a year now, and this sort of raw, personal glimpse of the “front lines” is, again, refreshing amidst the typical glossy reports containing their disproportionate share heavily edited success stories.

Now, it’s not that Kiva has not run into trouble with respect to transparency in the past.  I remember the controversy almost exactly a year ago when David Roodman of the Center for Global Development called Kiva out on the fact that its explanation of the lending model was less-than-forthcoming.  But Kiva’s co-founder, Matt Flannery, replied quickly, honestly, and publicly, responding to concerns and committing to change.  I liked Roodman’s admiration of the “grace, humility, and quiet confidence” that Flannery exhibited.  He’s right when he says that “the world would be a much better place if all charities, all organizations for that matter, were as open and responsive to criticism as Kiva has been.”  As I recall the grace and constructiveness of the Roodman-Kiva exchange, I again can’t help but note how—and I apologize in advance—refreshing it is in comparison to the irritatingly juvenile spats that Bill Easterly and his Aid Watch blog are currently waging with the development community on the topic of transparency (if you feel like switching gears from Roodman’s NPR to the Bill O’Reilly that Easterly’s blog is in comparison, view highlights of the quarrel here, here, here and here).

So, reminded of my appreciation for Kiva’s outstanding character, I re-lent my repaid capital (proud to say it brought my lending team’s totals to 67 loans for a total value of $2,075).  This time I decided to try lending to a soap manufacturing operation in Senegal, a clothing sales entrepreneur in Iraq, and both agriculture and secretarial services businesses in Rwanda, a country that my work will more intimately involve this year.  I had just enough Kiva credit for the loans, a donation to Kiva for operating costs and a Kiva gift certificate for a friend.

Today’s post on the Idealist.org blog got me thinking.  Groupon, the group buying service which has blazed to the forefront of metropolitan consumer life in just two years, is piloting an initiative to use the Groupon model and platform for social good.  Revolutionary idea, right?  Well, apparently it’s recycled material, which is what makes the situation interesting.

The Groupon model is in fact fascinating.  It provides consumers with truly unbeatable deals (today’s deal in DC: $15 for $30 worth of food at an Ethiopian restaurant—one of DC’s cuisine specialties, by the way), but only if enough people sign up to participate (400 people, in this case; at this moment, with 2 minutes, 26 seconds left, 2,097 people have signed up).  If there is any model which approximates a catalyst creating value out of thin air, this is it.  It’s a win for the consumer and a win for the restaurant, Meskerem, brought about simply by organizing people.

And as Nathaniel Whittemore has pointed out, the model is a win for Groupon’s owners as well.  In April, the company closed a financing round valuing it at $1.35 billion.  Not bad for a two-year-old.  It is apparently now scooping up Groupon clones that are popping up in other countries.

So the model is powerful—that’s great for Groupon’s pilot G-Team fundraising and community organizing initiative, right?  It is, but note that the Groupon model itself has been repurposed from its original incarnation as The Point—a group action platform for, you guessed it, fundraising and community organizing.  The G-Team initiative is actually a return to Groupon’s roots.

So what’s the point?  It remains to be seen whether the G-Team initiative will indeed see the sort of success in social action that Groupon has had as a consumer service, but the initiative itself makes an interesting statement.  The Groupon platform has been chosen in order to reach scale that its non-commercial predecessor could not achieve, though the service is the same.  Admittedly, that’s an assumption about the motives behind the decision, but it’s not an unlikely story.  It follows, then, that in the perennial debate over commercial markets and what is required for large-scale impact, the story of Groupon may become one example of a commercial model being necessary to reach scale.  Let’s keep an eye on the Chicago pilot and see how the story unfolds.

I’ve been delinquent in reading a number of articles I have flagged over the last couple of months and I just got through one batch of them.  Here’s a quick roundup of the best of the bunch.

How Will You Measure Your Life?
(Don’t reserve your best business thinking for your career)

Renowned management author Clayton Christensen gave a great commencement address to Harvard Business School’s Class of 2010, which the Harvard Business Review later published in print (to which a good buddy Matt then pointed me).  He reflects on the importance of having purpose in life, and presents very thoughtful perspectives on living life as deliberately in pursuit of this purpose as one would deliberately apply management disciplines to business.  This resonated with both Matt and me, as we both just spent the last year in a fellowship program helping us switch careers from the business world to the social sector.  This article was free for a time, but under the HBR model is now gated (although a bit of deft Googling might get you to some blogs which might have been a little liberal with respect to copyrights…nudge nudge).

Author and design professor Bruce Nussbaum raises important questions about the accelerating movement in humanitarian design, or the employment of design principles to address social problems, made increasingly popular these days by organizations like IDEO and Project H.  While these organizations are doing amazing things and their intention is undeniably praiseworthy, Nussbaum encourages us to take a moment to reflect.  “Is the new humanitarian design coming out of the U.S. and Europe being perceived through post-colonial eyes as colonialism? Are the American and European designers presuming too much in their attempt to do good?”

Save the best for last, they say.  In this case, save yourself a decent chunk of time and mental resources as well.  This article, published in the summer issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, is one of the meatiest I’ve seen on the nebulous issue of measuring social value.  It isn’t a technical piece, but is a solid discussion of the challenges, implications and paths forward in this area.  More thoughts on this in a later post, after I’ve had some time to digest.

It’s short notice, but I’ve got a ticket for the free-but-nevertheless-sold-out TEDxDupont Circle event in DC tomorrow, September 20^th, and I can’t make it.  First person to email takes it!

As you may know, TEDx events are independently organized events (under license from TED), and have contributed to TED’s evolution from an exclusive conference to a platform.  TEDxDupont Circle is one of 80 satellite events associated with TEDxChange, which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is hosting to continue the conversation around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in advance of the UN’s MDG summit this week.  TEDxDupont Circle will show the live webcast of the TEDxChange event in New York, but also host discussion with the DC community on-site.  See below for the agenda.

The ticket is a PDF which I will email to you.  It’s actually got my name on it, but I doubt that will be a problem.

Here’s an overview of the event from the email they just sent me:

We’re thrilled with the tremendous response to our invitation to join AED and Forum One to view Melinda Gates and friends during the live webcast this Monday, September 20, 2010.

We encourage you to arrive early! We will be screening the event in two theaters to accommodate a large crowd. Food, coffee, and other beverages will be served before and after the event. 

We look forward to your energy and enthusiasm during our audience-focused discussion after the webcast, with guests Carol Lancaster, Geeta Rao Gupta, Steve Mosely, and moderator, Lawrence MacDonald.  We’ll consider the ideas and questions presented on the MDGs in New York, and focus on what it means for our Washington, D.C. development community.

View TEDxDupont Circle for event information.

We look forward to seeing you then!

When:
September 20, 2010

Time:
10:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Location:
AED Globe Theater
1927 Florida Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20009

Our Event Schedule:
10:00 a.m. – Doors Open
10:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. – Welcome remarks
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. – Live streaming presentation from New York, featuring Melinda Gates, Graça Machel, Hans Rosling, Mechai Viravaidya, and music of Bajah + The Dry Eye Crew.
12:30 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. – Moderated, lively audience-centered discussion led by Lawrence MacDonald of the Center for Global Development, with participation by: Steve Moseley, AED President; Carol Lancaster, Dean of Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; Geeta Rao Gupta, former president of the International Center for Research on Women
1:15 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. – Networking / Pursuing ideas / Light lunch

On September 20, 2010, more than 150 of the world’s leading thinkers and doers will come together in New York for TEDxChange. Convened by Melinda French Gates on the 10th anniversary of the Millennium Development Goals, this event will explore what the future holds for health and development around the world. What changes have taken place in the last decade? And what more needs be done to ensure the health and well-being of future generations?

Hosted by TED curator Chris Anderson, a global audience will be participating on September 20 as TEDx communities around the world, including TEDxDupont Circle, will be hosting events around the live webcast. To learn more, visit TEDxChange.org.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TEDlike experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x=independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.

Learn more about this innovative TEDxChange event: http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/446

Twitter: #TEDxChange

This independent TEDx event is operated under license from TED.