[Printer Friendly Version]

News for March 2011

23 March 2011

Why Your Boss Is Wrong About You: Performance Reviews as an Example of Measuring the Wrong Numbers

I was having a conversation with a dear friend and colleague when the topic of performance reviews came up. Many nonprofits see themselves as mature and "businesslike" organizations when they conduct classic performance reviews to evaluate and reward staff. The unfortunate truth -- backed up by research, in fact -- is that they are pretty dreadful. In a short New York Times piece entitled Why Your Boss Is Wrong About You, Samuel A. Culbert of the University of California describes how performance reviews really work: They tell you very little about actual performance, but instead disguise and amplify destructive organizational relationship dynamics and then pump that into some of the most socially and emotionally destructive managerial outcomes. What are you using to help staff know how their doing? Or to help them tie their work into the larger outcomes of their teams, organizations, and movements? Here's hoping it's not just another way to play out the sad power dynamics that so often undermine both our morale and our missions. Posted: 3/23/11; 11:57:28 PM #

ABC's 'Secret Millionaire': Why It Sends the Wrong Message to Nonprofits

Our brains are story-resonance machines. We respond to narratives. We generate narratives. We reinforce them. And frankly, as contemporary American politics proves in such a compelling fashion that it can drive me to despair, our narratives and the sense of identity that goes along with them are more compelling than the truth. Now don't get me wrong. I am a committed advocate for the power of story. Indeed, I am so convinced of its power that I strongly advocate that we, as nonprofit leaders and observers, develop the critical capacities needed to not be taken in by our own narratives. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go. I read annual reports of funders, advocacy groups, service organizations and others that consist of heartwarming narratives lined up in support of fuzzy objectives paired with equally fuzzy outcomes. And when it comes to fundraising, things are no better. In unspoken conspiracy, fundraisers and donors alike focus on things that, as much of the literature advises, makes people "feel good". Every time we succumb to a feel good moment in lieu of the truth (which to be fair, can also feel quite good, just not as reliably), we erode our mental and organizational confidence and capacities for making good decisions, making wise investments, and making real change in the world. With some amusement, I find myself agreeing with an editorial from (of all places) Entertainment Weekly! In a short piece on ABC's 'Secret Millionaire' Christian Blauvelt points out clearly how the show fits into a narrative that, for the moment, may warm the heart, but in the long run, corrodes the mind. There is so much sickening promotion of the inherent goodness of wealth, the wisdom of the wealthy, the endless opportunity for the virtuous that we really don't need another one aimed at civil society's deepest insecurities. But here we are with precisely that. If you, like me, question the entire notion of the "redemptive power of wealth", then take a few minutes to read this. Posted: 3/23/11; 11:12:24 PM #

4 March 2011

Innonet's 2010 Report on the State of Evaluation in the US Nonprofit Sector

To date, one of the most important bits of research on data-driven decision making in civil society is Innonet's Report on the State of Evaluation 2010: Evaluation Practice and Capacity in the Nonprofit Sector (24 page PDF). All the research that I recommend (including the research I conduct) has its flaws. This one is no exception. Here are three: (1) The data are entirely survey-based. It would be nice to see some behavioral tests of the accuracy of such self-reporting. (2) Although strictly self-selected, the sample size is constructively large. But the report doesn't take full advantage of that. While they do break down large versus small organizations (very important) and some other cross tabulations, they don't do cluster or correlation analysis on the practices. (3) The specific practices they chose to survey are based on an underlying logic that feels a little "bolted on" to me. For example, they assert that "if evaluation were a staff person's sole pursuit, evaluation would be likely to be done. When it is one of any number of important, competing priorities, it would be likely to be overlooked more often." In the very same paragraph, they report that their own research contradicts that logic. "The good news is that in at least 85% of organizations some evaluation was completed in the past year, even though only 13% of organizations had at least one full-time employee dedicated to evaluation." The study is billed as the first of an annual process. I'm excited about the fact that, more than most organizations I know, Innonet practices what they preach. They will evaluate this report and the next one will be better. In the meantime, as a benchmark for placing your own organization in the context of the field or as an orientation for funders studying the organization environments they're supporting, this is a genuinely invaluable resource. Posted: 3/4/11; 8:44:09 AM #