24 Reasons Why a Philanthropic Leader Should Not Blog

Good Reasons not to Blog Philanthropy as an Insider

1. You are exposed to the unreasoning and ill-informed criticism of the great unwashed
2. You become the target of class hatred and asinine charges of elitism by people you would never meet socially
3. Frustrated mid-level foundation staffers, grouchy professors, and other dead-enders project their own psychological problems on you and you have to deal with them; we are not therapists
4. You get caught up in senseless controversies
5. Every thing you do or say is second guessed, sometimes by people who see straight through us, for heaven's sake
6. You get people commenting in masks and poking fun at our dignity
7. Some comments are obscene, rude or even threatening
8. You waste endless time talking to nobodies
9. We are not staffed to hire a blogger
10. Our ghost writers are already busy on other projects
11. We already have a PR team
12. Our marketing helps us control the message and the brand; blogging puts it all up for grabs
13. Better to spend time with persons of substance in every sense of that term
14. The public are like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and fertilize them with manure
15. Not all messages are for all ears
16. Why should we put our best ideas on the net so other nonprofits can steal them?
17. So putting our research on the net helps the world; that is not our job; we are here to help our organization
18. Following all these conversations distracts us from our mission and will drive up the overhead; we should put all our efforts into our programs
19. Losers blog because they have time on their hands; winners have better things to do
20. Did you see that dustup over Givewell? Who in their right mind would want to get mixed up in a mess like that?
21. A lot of crazy people on the net; better to stick with nice people off line like us
22. Why share the knowledge or the power with those who have not paid dues?
23. We are already doing a great job
24. I can't type; I have an assistant who does that for me.

Blogger Rebuttal

From the blogger side, what reasons would you give as to why someone of importance in philanthropy or the the nonprofit sector should waste time and energy talking to the likes of us online?

Comments

[Josh Millard]

Heh.

[Gerry]

If you do it well, and you manage the pitfalls, you will have the most valuable thing a leader can have, an active, engaged and supportive constituency.

[Michelle Moon]

Heh. Well posted.

I'll have to give it more thought, but even I have to admit that "wasting time and energy talking to the likes of us online" is a serious question. I can't afford the time to talk so deeply every day or every month. The backlog of things I am delayed on because of taking part is sitting here waiting for me to put in some extra evening/weekend hours this week in order to get 'em done. In the work I do, we're used to waiting for conferences to give us the opportunity to get theoretical in conversation with peers. Once we hit that desk again, internal priorities resume their throat-hold.

Why don't internal priorities value blogging? Well, I don't know. First, you'd have to believe there's an audience. At my institution, I suspect if we had a blog, it would sit there pretty sleepily just about all the time. I wish we had an audience that wanted to converse about us enough to need a moderated online discussion. As it is I comb the net every so often for mentions of us on Flickr, TripAdvisor, Yelp, and the like, and we don't get noticed nearly as often as I'd like. So the blog is probably just not our highest priority. People have to have a reason to want to talk.

[I. Gates]

Dearest blogging dude,

Please note that

1. most of those are reasons why an organization that believes in transparency SHOULD blog, and

2. there is no reason you have to spend any time running about the Internet, arguing with everyone who criticizes you. Rather, you can take the criticism for what it is, and go back to work.

Thank you for your interesting list.

[Scintilla]

Cheap date? (Some of us are pretty cute!)

[Philippe Bradley]

In the coming age of transparency tyranny, one in which Generation Y has been brought up with the expectation that it has information at its very fingertips (a HUGE change compared to the previous generation, which is acquainted with the Push model of media - where you watch what has been selected for you, you read what happens to be in the paper, and for your own research, all you have is your own contacts and the local library),

an organisation - ANY organisation - that doesn't engage its audience (no matter what sector) and open up its inner workings to some degree is going to find it is swimming upstream against a very strong current of public expectation. The discomfort of losing all support, trust, and attention it currently enjoys, will be FAR greater than the bruised ego of a nasty blog comment here or there!

It seems silly, given the huge force soon to demand - nay, expect - this kind of engagement, to mention the benefit of doing so, but for completeness sake, we should also consider the potential utility of conversations with your donors and wider community! But for that, Lucy and Beth are better advocates, and the hesitant director would be best off heading over to their online realms to explore.

[phil]

Philippe, thank you for this. Your account of "Transparency Tyranny" is very compelling. We clearly can expect a collision, then, between Gen Y's expectations and established norms in philanthropy, or business, and government for that matter. I agree that open source and transparency are separate issues. Maybe open source has more about creating a commons, where we co-create the knowledge or intellectual property and even co-own it. Whereas transparency can be an aspect of corporations, nonprofits, and governmental agencies that we don't create, co-create, or co-own.

Your calling it "tryanny" is interesting too. There is a ferocity to this demand that may sometimes conflict with diplomacy, tact, discretion, and the needs all orgs have for internal privacy, confidentiality, and closed door proceedings.

You moved this discussion to higher level, thank you.

[Josh Millard]

Really well put, Philippe. I mentioned inevitability in my comment on the 'Open Source' post, and this is pretty much what I'm talking about.

If the big cats in philanthropy right now are the 50-70 set who aren't really comfortable with the net, the big cats thirty years from now are going to be the 20-40 folks in that Gen Y (and X, however you want to partition) crew that is living and breathing the new pull-media, networked way of dealing with information and organizations.

So it's a question of how painful that changing of the guard will be; and the folks who want to see it be less painful really need to find satisfactory answers to this dilemma and find a way to help the old guard get comfortable with the vanguard.

[Gerry]

I agree with Phil that the use of the word tyranny is very telling. As a citizen, I do not want the desires of the mob to rule here. I do want transparency, deep and wide transparency in our Civil Authorities and processes. I will also fiercely defend a private space in my life. Not that I am always guarded and suspicious, but I am aware of what is public and save private thoughts for private space.

[phil]

The role of the crowd online is also a subject we might discuss. When is the wisdom of crowds facilitated by transparency? And when is the feeding frenzy of a mob fed by the taste of blood? Might a reasonable person conclude that it is best to feed the online mob enough meat-like substance to keep it happily chewing, but to double and triple guard anything that might provoke a mob feeding frenzy? The problem is, in part, I think, that while the law courts have rules about what cases they hear, what is admissible as evidence, and every accused gets a defense attorney, the same is not true when we as a crowd appoint ourselves as detectives, accusers, and judges. In an online feeding frenzy, the rules of evidence are murky, no defender is appointed, and there is no guarantee that crowd has focused their ardor on the prime offenders, or the biggest offenses, rather than just venting themselves on the handiest target of opportunity to satisfy their righteousness and taste for blood.

To whom is an online mob, posse, community, tribe, or association, accountable when it goes on a rampage seeking justice, whether a given target is guilty or innocent? What responsibility do members of such a group have for excesses committed by others in their group? What responsibilities do moderators have under such circumstances? And what liabilities, moral and legal, do the site owners have who host a community engaged in crowd sourced justice operations? These questions too, come to mind, as we think, say, about the French Revolution, and the People's Tribunals, and how in the end, the leaders devoured one another, until a King had been deposed only to be replaced by an Emperor.

Full Disclosure: I can recall once being the ringleader of such a posse; the site was Sean's at Tactical Philanthropy. The target of opportunity was William Schambra. The stakes were pretty low. Some of the jokes at his expense were funny. But in retrospect, I regret my role in the whole episode. I will be seeing him next week and will tell him so again face to face, as I have via email. But then again, my shtick is that of a Morals Tutor, so maybe I am just saying this to make other people feel bad.

[herecomesnobody]

You certainly can't blame me. I'm not here.

[Marcel]

Wow, this is good stuff here.

My immediate thoughts: "tyranny," "citizen," and "mob" are loaded and complicated terms.

Why? Because the values attached to these terms are powerful and obvious, but their how they're applied is slippery and constantly shifting.

No one likes tyranny. Everyone would like to think of him/herself as a citizen. No one wants to be considered part of a mob.

But who gets to decide what you are? Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. Some people get more say in deciding for themselves, some less. In some situations (and places, and jobs, and websites) you're one thing, in others you're another.

Subject position, I think, has always been crucial to what people say and how they're heard. And it's always been fluid--to a certain extent--but also predetermined by others. And again, some people have always had more control over their self-presentation than others.

From the point of view of the trendspotters--ie, the marketers--the tyrant in "tyranny transparency" is the customer. (The donor? There are, I'm sure, differences between "donor" and "customer," but what are they?) And what the customer says, goes. And the marketer buckles under the tyranny.

But as you're dealing with that, there are also a lot of people who think you're the tyrant.

What do you say to them?

[Marcel]

Also: that list is hysterically funny and a perfect provocation. My sincere compliments.

[phil]

Provocation? Who, Sir? Me, Sir? Without the humor, the seriousness would be deadly. Serio Ludere, serious play.

[Gerry]

But as you're dealing with that, there are also a lot of people who think you're the tyrant.

A lot of people are wrong. You can try to tell them that, but you see how that works.

[phil]

I am the tyrant? Well, I call it moderation.

[Sir Hizzle Chizzle Nobizzle]

Logic of the slumbernet:

Interrogator: Did you take a bath?

Suspect: Why, is one missing?

[phil]

Hizzle - from the Dalai Lama:

Hear, see, love.
Those who are not heard do not feel seen. Those who do not feel seen will not fee loved.

Does that ever hit home with me. I did think about that these last few days, wanting to be heard and seen, then at least accepted, and trying and sometimes failing to hear and see others. The Dalai Lama was right. I hope his monks survive the Chinese.

[Marcel]

But as you're dealing with that, there are also a lot of people who think you're the tyrant.

A lot of people are wrong. You can try to tell them that, but you see how that works.

Imagine this exchange as a dialogue between an overworked, underpaid development asssitant (1st speaker) and Holden Karnofsky (2nd speaker).

Imagine this exchange as a dialogue between you and a telemarketer who's interrupted your dinner. Between you and the bank officer who's in charge of you mortgage.

No switch the roles around. Now think of other situations where this converastion could occur.

[Marcel]

(Gerry, Phil, et al--

Please tell me if I'm stepping on any actual toes. I'm trying to play along, and I hope everybody else is as well. I'm enjoying this.)

(Also: apologies for typos, but I think they're obvious.)

[phil]

Marcel,

Hardly, you are more than welcome. This is like dancing with a new partner. We are learning your steps too. Are you saying that I have been over-bearing or tyrannical? I am not upset that might cross your mind, but I am genuinely interested in what might have provoked that thought? Closing the dead comment thread? Moderating comments? Anything in particular? I really do want to run an open space, and a forgiving space, where even rudeness is tolerated up to a point - but where we always steer back towards insights and comraderie. In other words, a fun and stimulating place to think and talk about giving.

[Marcel]

Are you saying that I have been over-bearing or tyrannical?

No no no no no no no...and I'm sorry you thought that. (Though re-reading, I certainly understand.)

Gosh, this really is like learning to dance with a new partner--so much depends on rhythm and trust.

The "you" in my statement was not you, Phil Cubeta, moderator of this blog. Or you, Gerry...or anyone in the philanthropic community.

It was a "you" that includes me...and everyone else who has a presence on the web.

I was trying to make some sort of statement about the constantly shifting, always situational nature of authority online (and sometimes off). I was trying to make the point that it's always possible, despite your (again the abstract, general "your") best intentions, that someone will see you as as tyrant. And I was wondering what it might look like if that person's case isn't be dismissed out of hand. Even if that case is "wrong," it has power.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I hope what I've said here helps, but I'm going to think about ways to express myself better.

All best,
Marcel

[Marcel]

And, just for fun, a bit of background from (sorry) Wikipedia:

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme. The word "tyrant" then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power in a polis to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership in a crisis. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners. It is true that they had no legal right to rule, but the people preferred them over kings or the aristocracy.

[JJ Commoner]

I am the tyrant? Well, I call it moderation.

Any tyrant worth her or his salt WOULD say that. It''s a very moderate position from their perspective, after all.

[JJ Commoner]

If the big cats in philanthropy right now are the 50-70 set who aren't really comfortable with the net, the big cats thirty years from now are going to be the 20-40 folks in that Gen Y (and X, however you want to partition) crew that is living and breathing the new pull-media, networked way of dealing with information and organizations.

from hierarchy to high-wirearchy ?

;-)

[Gerry]

No Marcel, I think you read me perfectly. It was meant to be ironically self-referencial and you picked right up on that. I'm aware that the mask I project is a little bit arrogant, and I am making fun of myself.

Likewise:

I am the tyrant? Well, I call it moderation.

Any tyrant worth her or his salt WOULD say that. It''s a very moderate position from their perspective, after all.

JJ, also a long time friend of WB and GiftHub, is pointing to a conversation that has come up here from time to time about "the moderate voice", which corresponds to the the voice of authority, the judge whether fair or the representative of a tyranical system, as well as the voice that liberals use when they are so easily manipulated by the Roves of this world. Satire is an antidote to this too. The right-wing talk machine can deal easily with all those reasonable liberals, but cannot appear in the same venue with the likes of Stephen Colbert. He has them down to a tee, and if you didn't know he was making fun of them, you might think he would be Bill O'Reilly's best pal. Beware when a satirist compliments you or mimics your position.

By hanging around here for a long time, I still might not be able to write satire, but I'm starting to know what it is and be able to deconstruct it and know what is going on. Those who argue that this is subterfuge and we should have signposts should note that the real world has no such signposts for Fools and Knaves, so the ability to read these situations isn't just useful in understanding the tricksters you find around this blog but also in avoiding and dealing with real fools and knaves that you might encounter.

[Gerry]

I also want to clear up a misconception I have seen in some posts that Phil and I are philanthropic insiders. Phil can speak for himself, but I think he would consider himself "an outsider standing close to the fence", or to use another trope, "a servant in a red monkey-jacket serving at the party". I only know what I know from watching and listening to Phil. As Phil has noted elsewhere, both of us had been members of Omidyar.net before it closed. I was more active than Phil in the conversations, and he was and is very well respected by almost everyone.

[JJ Commoner]

Phil is the real deal .. an Oxford educated servant who keeps his red monkey-jacket well laundered and who can speak with a posh accent

[Sean Stannard-Stockton]

Your list is compelling Phil. I have a hard time arguing the other side. I loved Philippe's comments and think he is exactly correct. Except Philippe's comments are about demographic shifts and therefore are an argument for why philanthropic leaders will need to blog... someday. But why should they blog today? I would suggest that 1) philanthropic leaders who are happy with the status quo and their role in it, and who expect to live a public life for less than 10 years probably shouldn't blog. I don't see how it benefits them much. But 2) leaders who want to see change, want to increase their influence or expect to be a player in public life for more than 10 years HAVE to blog (or have another active online presence).

JFK's understanding of television helped him beat Nixon. I think we're on the verge of the internet being a true game changer in politics in a similar way. If you want to be an influential leader during the next couple of decades or you want to change the status quo now, I think you have to have an active online presence... Even though all the risks that Phil's list point out are true. Risks always accompany opportunity.

[Gerry]

Too well educated by half, one might say.

[Michelle]

I'm not entirely sure why it's blogging, in particular, that's the focus of discussion, especially because it's now considered a little bit old-hat, Web 1.5. What is it about the format that makes it so essential to tranparency and its tyrant? Is it actually blogging you want to see - personal, real-time updates and editorials, followed (if you're lucky) by people who read, comment, and sometimes stick around to converse?

Or is it even more sophisticated than that - rich content online, robust interactions that are not top-down, Blogger to Reading Public, but thoroughly networked in all directions? User-generated content, photos, tags, versioning? 'Friending' and group-forming, and with whom, for what reasons? Streaming video and audio, presented at the risk of not only theft but remixing, mashing up, parody, and manipulation? Simulated environments (there are several museums, including the Louvre, with a presence in Second Life?) Compared with some of these movements, blogs are old-fashioned and represent only a small step in communications from the glossy reports and embossed-paper PR packets of a traditional foundation development department. Why should it be blogging that we aim to do, or is that shorthand for more complicated online interactivity? Do you see a role for that? Will that role be essential to the purpose?

Who will have the judgement to handle this sort of Web 2.0 and 3.0 interaction - who will be able to resist the impulse to Twitter every little piece of insider knowledge they've just picked up about a donor's secret motivation (she doesn't want her husband to know she just gave to a pro-choice advocacy group. He works in the organization and doesn't want his colleageus to know that he is the Anonymous Private Donor who funded the Toys for Tots program, lest they feel uncomfortable with the family wealth he tries to minimize)? Will the Gen Y folks who have documented their adolescence on LiveJournal know the difference between significance and irrelevance, self and institution, agreement and silence? Will they be capable of making the judicious omission? Will transparency like that really really make people more honest, or simply much more masterful at creating the same old illusions, only with fine-grained, sharp-edged detail?

[Gerry]

Its not about blogging or other forms of web-presence, that is really too low level for this discussion. Blogging has some particular advantages in that it is designed to be open, stickiness is not really a virtue of blogging, being able to connect across boundaries is, but it has drawbacks as well. On the other hand the design details do matter, and contribute to or frustrate certain dynamics. You just can say much about it in a few blog comments.

[JJ Commoner]

Why should it be blogging that we aim to do, or is that shorthand for more complicated online interactivity? Do you see a role for that? Will that role be essential to the purpose?

And in a context that probably takes a "larger" conversation to establish, I respectfully disagree, Gerry, with "too low level".

Blogging has grown and has staying power exactly because it mirrors what people do in real life sometimes, which is talk pretty naturally .. and there's aprismatic aspect to it, when you don't know who or what may come next. That in turn allows / enables many different persepctives to be seen and gathered, if one is paying attention and can hold snippets together in the context of reading what comes next and also keep the context of original issue in mind.

I think we will find many interesting sociological treatises develop after we have another 5 or 10 years of "blogging" and blogging-like derivatives" (ie twitter) under our belts.

We analyze out of habit too quickly, especially new 'sociological" conditions and developments. Look at the recent conversations here, for example ... in the context of how long has it been now, that Phil has been blogging and instantiating and hosting conversations ?

Lots left to experiment with, and learn, and put to constructive use .. IMO

[Gerry]

We don't disagree, JJ. I was trying to say that the term (blogging) isn't meant exclusively, and it has some unique properties as well. It is much too early to tell, although as someone with almost 25 years of some form of on-line conversation I have some ideas about what works and what doesn't.

[Michelle]

It might be better, then, not to frame the discussion as 'to blog or not to blog.' The questions you're asking are bigger, and the technologies available are more abundant. Seeing the aims of 'transparency' would help me. What is it, exactly, that the transparency advocates want to see? Detailed financials, obviously. Program service impact, obviously. Do they want rationales for decision making? Do they want to know who the proponents/dissenters in any decision were? Do they want complete master plans and strategic plans? Do they want to vote or somehow weigh in on these decisions? What are the goals?

Blogging is a wide step away from natural discussion, though, as a form of communication. It resembles more a faciliated discussion with a leader and with turn-taking parameters. One person (usually) introduces the topic, sometimes conducting a brief lecture. Others then talk, one at a time, at some length. They are never interrupted. They are linear. Blog owners have the ultimate power to accept or reject submissions, if they choose to exercise it, so they can silence speakers if they wish to.

'Blogging' in and of itself is too simplistic a goal - blogging != transparency. As many a corporation has found out, you can BS on a blog and with your commenters just as effectively as you could in old media. There's no reason foundations shouldn't do it as part of their PR program; I don't have much faith that it makes a difference to their degree of openness.

[Michelle]

Gerry: many of us have also been online in one way or another since the eighties and have used it for a variety of types of communication. That's why I'm interested in asking what forms you do think would work for charities, what wouldn't, and why or why not, especially when emerging (and growing) media technologies are moving away from formats like blogging.

[Gerry]

We have all participated in some experiments too. I'm a little unclear on how much blogging you have done. Blogging really is more multi-faceted that you seem to think. It does not consist of isolated blogs.

I'm actually entertaining the model presented bye HandMeOn As usual it took me a little while to warm up to it, but now I find it very inviting.

The key issue is that organizations will need to reach out beyond their boundaries to grow and survive. We know why just giving lip-service to issues like transparency will not cut it, but we don't know what all the key principles are either. No doubt you and I have had different experiences and reach different conclusions about what is important and what is not.

I'm hesitant to begin to define the boundaries of the problem because as JJ suggests, it is in a much larger context.

[JJ Commoner]

How things work, what is used in making decisions that the ordinary people don't get to see or understand (other than in fictional movies and edited articles and agenda-driven white papers, what people other than the decision-makers actually think, want, need, see, feel, surfacing those things and (beginning) to find and have ways to make those things felt other than through "market research" and focus groups .. and so on.

A more vibrant form of democratic principle brought o a wider range of human activities in purportedly democratic (rather than plutocratic) societies ?

Etc. ?

[JJ Commoner]

That last comment by me was supposed to be addressed to this:

Seeing the aims of 'transparency' would help me. What is it, exactly, that the transparency advocates want to see?

[phil]

Michelle,

You are right, absolutely. I did use blogging as a shorthand for on line identity formation in community with others through many to many communication. Clearly, that interactive, "wirearchy" as Jon Husband calls it, is what is at issue. Metafilter, Omidyar.net, Razoo, Change.org, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, on and on. And my using blogs as the example does show I am blog-o-centric. But I think all of the points in the post above would apply if the question had been, "Should a Nonprofit Leader Join Metafilter and Post under Her Real Name"? Right? Are you not yourself taking a risk in doing so? A career risk? And does managing that risk for yourself not inflect your writing? Are you "out" on line about the particularly org you work for? And do you need their permission? Do you have permission? Does your on line presence come up in your preformance review? Are you blogging as a human being, citizen, or an employee?

I was suggesting that for high profile nonprofit leaders the issues above become "a can of worms." They might blog or join Metafilter as Executive Director of XYZ, but in the heat of conversation they might find themselves taking positions at variance with their org's position, or (as Candidia Cruikshanks, my boss, reminds me from time to time) making remarks that draw their organization into into disrepute.

Holden messed up for himself, but he also messed up for Givewell. Givewell may regret Holden joining Metafilter. Givewell may now prohibit him from taking part in such open fora? Isn't one moral that EDs had better not get online and run their mouths without supervision? Either reliably self censor or stay offline? And staying fully self-censored and "on message" is difficult in the heat of conversation and tends to draw derision for people online.

Michelle, you are a voice of reason. I can imagine your posts being read by your boss and it helping not hurting you. But that is a facts and circumstances thing. The safest course for a prominent insider is to stay offline, stay scripted, and stay on message through the usual one way channels, where all the (ghostwritten) speeches get run past both PR and Legal.

[Michelle]

Well, I have six blogs registered on Blogger and two on Wordpress as myself, and participate on four different community blogs, the oldest established in 1998. I don't have much time for blogging anymore, so most of my own blogs are inactive these days, except for one that serves as central website for one of my volunteer efforts and on which I post news and links of interest. I grew up the daughter of an electronics engineer and was messaging, gaming, and writing simple programs from the late seventies. In high school my creative writing group used electronic collaboration models to create content with long-distance correspondents. I learned Unix in college so I could use the dedicated mainframe terminals to email, message, ftp, play MUDs and other multi-user games, and talk on BBSs. When the web arrived, I eBayed, blogged, chatted, IM'd, IRCed, Flickrd, Wikied, Twittered, Facebooked, MySpaced, hosted, and Googled right along. So I think I am also fairly familiar with the potentials of varying technologies - I'm not a digital native, exactly, but I immigrated at such a young age that I can understand some of what that perspective means, and yet I can remember how hard it was to answer questions in the old days, when you had to write them down as your research agenda for a trip to the library, and when you heard a song you liked just once with no ID, the hunt for its artist and title information could take years. Today, I'm watching like a hawk to see what use museums will make of new technologies, and moving beyond blogs will be very important, now that just reading and commenting seems boring to many younger people who are seeking to extend their lives online.

The key issue is that organizations will need to reach out beyond their boundaries to grow and survive. We know why just giving lip-service to issues like transparency will not cut it, but we don't know what all the key principles are either

That's the important question. I embrace the premise that nonprofits' use of communications technologies needs to evolve; it's way, way behind right now. I also embrace the premise that nonprofits will need to be more open about their internals in the new climate of information demand.

What I'm not sure about is that the public has grasped that technology alone cannot make that happen. The values have to evolve, too. The role for faith, trust, and judgement will not go away simply because content is on the web.

Let's take a totally hypothetical organization called ShareGood. They publish their research and evaluations online. They make their board meetings available as audio. They have a blog, which they use to converse with readers. They have bios and real names which are verifiable externally. Looks wonderfully transparent.

Except that just as old technologies were manipulated, new ones can be too. If I don't verify data presented online, it may as well be made up. Having a meeting on audio is all well and good, but how do I know it's the real meeting, not a portion of a meeting or a sham meeting set up for PR purposes? When a scandal hits ShareGood and meeting audio is posted, will I believe that I'm hearing the entire conversation among principals in the decision-making and understand how they've arrived at their course of action, or will I hear a show that the principals have all agreed upon? When I click the bios, will I be linked to a real identity, or could there be people who are not at all real themselves but who nevertheless seem real because they have profiles on Facebook, mentions on blogs, and so on? Do I believe that the blog is really being written by the person whose name is the userid, or might it be a PR person or ghostwriter? Do I believe the commenters are real people, full of excitement for and insight about the mission, or are they plants? When I look at the Flickr page and see photos of program participants looking happy and delighted, will I assume they are real? Could they be models chosen for a photo shoot, as the people in my brochures are?

This is the thing. There's nothing about the digital world that offers superior transparency to the non-digital world. What matters is that the viewer of online content feels real trust and faith in the origanization itself. That all the pieces fall into place. That the talk is being walked. That there are no off notes or whiffs of suspicion about the endeavors. The technology question is really the secondary question - how do we present our values? - while the primary question is: what values do we live?

[Gerry]

Well said Michelle. You and I emigrated around the same time, and you probably have been even more active in terms of digital communication than I. I've had my head in the technology itself the whole time.

You are absolutely right about it being about more than the technology. The technology just intensifies the issues that are from someplace else.

One point that I will make again. The play and banter is part of what makes it hard to fake. You are always trying to connect through and beyond the masks, and so the connections can be deep even without clear identity markers.

[phil]

Michelle, you are good on tech, but don't seem to respond with interest to questions around issues like organizational charts, job descriptions, corporate policy, corporate governance, legal liability, employuee supervision, corporate messaging, branding, etc. When you get down to a person's online presence you have to ask is not only are they "real," but real in which capacity? As citizen, bowling league coordinator, vestry committee chair, or Executive Director? In what capacity do you write at MetaFilter? Are you in the things you wrote about Holden representing your museum? Does your museum have any say in how Michelle Moon presents herself? Do they have a stake? Do they worry that things you do online may come back to bite them? Maybe not. But the more prominent you are, if you were, for example, the ED, they would have a stake and they might be very uncomfortable with you, as their ED, presenting you unedited opinions on line. That is the kind of thing that leads to masquerade, not to hide anything, but to reveal what would otherwise have to be hidden behind the professional role or mask, within an increasingly corporatized, measured and managed, world.

If the Bishop were not gay, his life would be so much simpler. If he is going to visit a gay chat site, exposed to Google, would you have him do so under his real name? If the Press Secretary, as human being, does not agree with the president, should he write about his own views under his own name on-line? Only a Fool would do so. Could he adopt a psued, etc? Yes, at his own risk.

The concept of an open space for citizenship separate from the market, government, and from corporate roles is as revolutionary for us today as it was in France circa 1750, when the butcher, baker, and cadlestick maker began to call one another, Citizen. Just as revoluntionary, just as subversive, and just as dangerous because the old world has not yet died and the new has not yet been born.

In that era, the early 1700s, one of the most popular events was a cross class maquerade ball that was called The World Turned Upside Down, in which people met in masks from all over Paris, rich and poor, noble and base. By the time the masks came off, so did crowns and heads. Masquerade is both co-optation of and preparation for a renovation of rules, roles, relations, communities, power structures, and identities. To insist on today's real world identities is to stabilize, Michelle, the very world that makes some of your plain spoken friends at Metafilter spit and rage in impotent fury. Unless they can learn to play lightly outside the prison house of the Free market, and the roles assigned to them in it, they will always be in Wealth Bondage, though they may never understand the parable.

Stavros the Wonderchicken does get it, but then that is why he is the Wonderchicken, a role model for many, including me.

[Antoine Möeller]

The play and banter is part of what makes it hard to fake.

Wonderful, Gerry.

Consider: Fox Red Eye (home page) | Red Eye Vids on Youtube

[Michelle]

Are you not yourself taking a risk in doing so? A career risk? And does managing that risk for yourself not inflect your writing? Are you "out" on line about the particularly org you work for? And do you need their permission? Do you have permission? Does your on line presence come up in your preformance review? Are you blogging as a human being, citizen, or an employee?

Great questions. I'm pretty much myself online, warts and all. There could be repercussions one day, I suppose. I don't usually name any of my employers and am often intentionally vague, but if someone wanted to sleuth out the details of my life, they certainly could. I've thought a lot about how NOT private the internet is, and as I've started to achieve more standing in my career, I've been more aware of the public nature of the things I say. But most often, I just don't really talk about work online. I get enough work at work on most days.

Somewhere around 2000, on one of those blogs-of-friends, someone mentioned by name a disparaging story of a college-mate of ours who wasn't in on the blogposting list. Unfriendly things were said in response in a bit of a pile-on. Of course, that person eventually searched on their name, found the discussion, and friendships ended over it. We had forgotten that anyone but 'us' was reading. It was an early and noteworthy lesson that the internet is part of the public sphere. You never know who might be listening.

Recognizing that, we're all faced with a choice. Do I pretend that my online identity is utterly untraceable, and act as though my words can never be found or read by my employer, friends, parents, spouses, children? That's just plain unrealistic. So do I recognize that if I'm active online, it's going to intersect with my real life at certain points? I used to work hard keeping my online usernames unconnected to my real name, and even used lots of different usernames at different sites. But as the relationships and projects evolved and got more substantive, it got hard for me to track the details, to try to figure out who knew me as whom, who had my real name and email, and so on. I had an imagined privacy, but at a real cost.

It also became clear that I would have a lot to gain by being myself online. Finding colleagues. Meeting correspondents in real life. Sharing music or writing and having it connect to my real-life efforts. Campaigning. Planning events. Making friends. When it became clear that representing myself as myself would improve rather than detract from my life, I started living what I think of as a more integrated life. Online activities connect to real ones. Online friendships connect to real-life ones. Projects criss-cross back and forth between cyberspace and real space. I think real identity rewards more than it punishes.

Does it cause self-censorship? Probably a little, but that's all right. I don't have much desire to go ghosting around the internet, living fantasies under cover. I understand that there are internet users - people who arrived here after a search for 'bondage' come to mind - who might not want all of their activities connected to their real identities, and that's understandable. In cases where deep privacy is wanted or needed, it's wise to put identifying information at several removes (and there exist many technologies for that. Though again, it cannot be said strongly enough that servers across the land know where you go). There are certainly cases where people living in oppressive societies have compelling, life-and-limb reasons to protect their real-life identities. There are cases where someone like Wonkette loses access to her sources of information when she gets outed. There are uses for anonymity, but most of them are not commonly necessary and sometimes they're downright inappropriate. As far as my career goes, I haven't yet encountered compelling reason why I shouldn't post things I have to say online.

Part of adulthood is learning to tame the impulses of the id, and if I have to do that online, it's not the worst thing on earth. I've also come to terms with the fact that I'm just the kind of person who will say what I strongly feel, if I think it's important and true, despite repercussions. I'm sure there have been people who haven't liked working with me. Others have, though, because they know I'm not blowing smoke.

I think the world is going to need to change in ways that show understanding of the many aspects of a person's life. Long ago I was told of driving "Nobody has the right of way. It has to be given." In our new world, I think a similar concept applies: "Nobody has privacy. It has to be given." If I said something online that pertained to my job and somehow seriously compromised the ability of the organization to meet the mission and maintain trust, I would expect repercussion. If I say on a social message board "I had a crappy day at work, and my boss was so damn annoying," I would consider it out of line for him to call me on the carpet about that, and even rather suspect that he would be interested in reading my off-hours ramblings. This will be an evolving area of interaction: can I judge someone in one context on speech they made in another? Can I judge an employee by his Amazon wishlist, or only on his work performance? Can I fire him based on his Flickr slideshow of himself kicking puppies, or does he have to kick puppies on company time, on the company dime, before it becomes my business? I lean toward the latter.

It may be that as I continue to work in the field, I'll start to feel that I have to be more circumspect. But I also wonder whether I'll ever accept any profesional roles which I feel would significantly suppress my speech and freedom to live authentically. I waited tables for a long time, and I have a knack for it. The money's good and it's an honest living. It's important to me to speak freely.

[Michelle]

I composed that and walked away for a while, so missed reading Phil's post before writing that last comment. I would have given a better response had I read it first. Sorry. Great comment, Phil, and also points well taken. I have some training in folklore and definitely understand the role for masks and misrule - it just took me forever to understand what you were trying to do with it in this space.

The concept of an open space for citizenship separate from the market, government, and from corporate roles is as revolutionary for us today as it was in France circa 1750

Exactly what I tried to say with very little success in the "right of way" post above. With regard to an ED role and the public trust: Often, when a board is interviewing an ED, much effort is spent on determining whether the 'feel' is right. The board members responsible for hiring go to lunches and suppers, cocktail parties, and teas with the applicants. They play golf or tennis, they visit the site together. There has to be a match between organization and leadership character, some shared values, some mutual understanding. That's what the golf time is all about. In the world we're coming into, there'll be more Googling as well. The result will be either that those responsible for protecting the organization through hiring will find their hopes for the character of their chosen applicant dashed or confirmed. There are some organizations who would find outspokenness a comfortable quality in a leader. Others would recoil. Either way, if the match is wrong online, it likely would be wrong in real life, as well. Institutional cultures differ.

One day, perhaps, as leader of a major national nonprofit, I might return to this blog and post under a pseudonym, making accusations, hinting at scandalous affairs on the board, making allegations. I may rail and point fingers, I may mask and charade. And I may get away with it.

But when I do that, I will need to understand that Phil can see my IP address.

[Michelle]

questions around issues like organizational charts, job descriptions, corporate policy, corporate governance, legal liability, employuee supervision...

Is it any wonder that the most talented people in my field today work as independent consultants?

[phil]

Wow, what a fine and helpful and generous answer, Michelle. Your experiences and evolving approach to self-presentation tracks with mine. Your points are very well taken about present and future. Your being a consultant who travels light sorts well with your demeanor. My post above is about the bighshots who can never slough off the role of ED, or Spokesperson, or Mayor. They are in role 24/7. Does the two way and many to many "wirearchy" of the net make sense for them? Well, they do have to be darn careful never to let the mask slip. As Oscar Wilde said, "Sincerity is the hardest act to keep up." We are all as Erving Goffman said, performing our authentic self. Anyone who says otherwise is naive. Rousseau's savages may have been authentic and without a civilized veneer, but anyone on an org chart who has a lot of resonsibility is wearing a professional mask. Ever see The Balcony by Gean Genet? It riffs on that by staging the roles of General, Mayor, Priest, etc. as prostitutes and clients in a Parisian Bordello under the Nazi Occupation.

Yes, you now see the deal here. In the future role tension will be adjudicated as you suggest up front in the hiring process as online identity is opened for discussion - assuming that is allowed under evolving employement law. I cannot ask in hiring about age, sexual preference, or marital status. Can I Google and take what I learn into consideration? What is permissible for potential employers to take into account when reading old Facebook pages?

Privacy is granted by Candidia. I can buy that. Good point. We have whatever privacy she says we have. Right. That is what she says too. All adds up to Authenticity. She told me that. Her way or the high way. As you say we can wait on table or pick meals from the dumpster.

For those with responsibility to represent the organization well at all times, it is not just about being safe themselves, of staying out of trouble, it is about keeping the play, the brand, the whole symbolic structure of the org going, and trimming away any bits of self that might conflict with that. Such is authenticity, dedication, and commitment. My sense, though, is that its hard to keep it up online. The stray bits show, and the smart readers pull and nudge until out comes the positions the person holds at variance with the policy of their org, and then things fall apart. Safer to stay inside the firewall and have all communications vetted and approved by The Higher Ups or Chief Communications Officer.

Case in point: Why don't the brilliant minds at Hudson Institute, such as William Schambra blog? I suspect it is because "message discipline" is hard to maintain online in the heat of conversation. His mind is just too active. He might blurt out something at variance with the talking points from HQ. (In joke: He is my friend and I needle him about this in the hopes he will blog, because he would be so good at it, if the leash given is more than a foot or two.)

[phil]

Sean, interested to see that you tend to agree that bigshots should not blog, at least not late at night after a beer. If they use it to get the organization's message out, as with a newsletter, fine, but should not have comment on? Should not get caught up in conversations that might lead down Socratic alley to some Diogenes like Dumpster? Stay in role, and stay safely within the one ways media. "I have 2 minutes if you have questions, otherwise, thank you all very much for listening to my canned speech written by my ghostwriter on the talking points from our PR firm."

[Michelle]

If only I were an independent consultant. I'm not. I report to the President and oversee 50some staff, directly and indirectly. Yes, I understand about the professional masks; of course, my employees might Google me. I hope they have more interesting things than that to do.

I wouldn't trust Candidia too far either. And I don't know much about her - but isn't she sensitive to things that are just not done? Does she casually allude to the director's affair over dinner with his board chair? With a little smirk? Does she understand that showing an off ear for social conventions and the extension of privacy may lose you invitations to all the best parties? We shouldn't have to tell her how to behave. If she can't feel the cold emanating from the shoulders, there's no helping her.

Representing the organization well at all times: What is "well?" Is there no way to consider an organization "well represented" when its smart, experienced, hardworking ED speaks his own mind? No, there's no protection for academic freedom for most of us. But whence comes the assumption that the institutional identity must and will always overpower the individual identity? It's not true in practice - think of the many mavericks. In the business and media worlds, the helicopter and horse hobbies, the vanity publications, the gauche houses and excesses and odd habits and questionable relationships with assistants are comfortably tolerated -- as long as the shareholders are happy, or the successes are obvious.

[Michelle]

If only I were an independent consultant. I'm not. I report to the President and oversee 50some staff, directly and indirectly. Yes, I understand about the professional masks; of course, my employees might Google me. I hope they have more interesting things than that to do.

I wouldn't trust Candidia too far either. And I don't know much about her - but isn't she sensitive to things that are just not done? Does she casually allude to the director's affair over dinner with his board chair? With a little smirk? Does she understand that showing an off ear for social conventions and the extension of privacy may lose you invitations to all the best parties? We shouldn't have to tell her how to behave. If she can't feel the cold emanating from the shoulders of her peers, how can we help her fit in?

Representing the organization well at all times: What is "well?" Is there no way to consider an organization "well represented" when its smart, experienced, hardworking ED speaks his own mind? No, there's no protection for academic freedom for most of us. But whence comes the assumption that the institutional identity must and will always overpower the individual identity? Must individual and institution completely merge? It's not universal in practice - I can think of prominent mavericks. In the business and media worlds, the helicopter and horse hobbies, the vanity publications, the gauche houses and excesses and odd habits and questionable relationships with assistants are comfortably tolerated -- as long as the shareholders are happy, or the successes are obvious.

I come bearing what was once thought of as the GenX gift to the world: the attempt to insist on a complete humanity, the resistance to offering the self wholly to a corporate identity (in an era in which the exchange will not be mutual. Job security? Pension? Comittment to promote from within?) Time off work to go bowling.

[MIchelle]

I give up! I can't seem to get the comment to post properly...must be some blip. Sorry.

[Antoine Möeller]

Typepad tech guys might be futzing with it as you were posting, Michelle.

There's a problem with comment permalinks directing to the top of the post instead of to the comment when the comments have grown numerous enough to create pagination.

Just guessing, but it's possible.

[phil]

Gerry, I took the liberty of deleting your speculation about a real world identity. Thought you might not mind. In the world we are discussing small things can matter a lot.

[phil]

Yes, Michelle, it did post. I will delete the duplicate. You are bringing to the surface the issues of career responsibility, career choice, and existential choice. How a person balances that can be tricky. How one dramatizes the systems within which such choices must be made is what? Art? Sociology? Personal confession? Heart felt essay? Fable? Parable? Satire? I find satirical whimsy works best all around - for me. But then again we are talking here in this post about Nonprofit Leaders. We can hardly expect them to send themselves up, now can we? We do require that they be earnest. That is important. Lest we all begin to lose faith in the reality of the entire Pageant.

[Gerry]

I understand. I'm sure you know it was all in fun. Just wanted to point out an possible example for the incredulous. I doubt he would, but it is almost a sure bet that some junior colleagues from the same tank are doing something like that.

[Gerry]

Actually, Antione, it is the bug you mention, but not that they are working on it. It confuses the posters. I saw it first on the "lessons learned" post when he turned it on. It is a common bug, you would think they would test for it. Omidyar.net introduced exactly the same bug when they first paged comments.

[phil]

Gerry, long ago didn't you point to an article on the concept of "Slack," as in cutting slack but also slacker? How much slack do we allow Leaders in the fit between self and role, when the self exceeds the role in ways that are interesting and good, but no consonant with "the direction of the Board"?

Conservative monied Board? Activist ED and Staff? Doesn't the ED or other leader have to step as if on eggs? And isn't that hard online? I can point to blogs written by EDs or consultants that are clearly in the "official voice." When I know the person, I may write them and say, "Gee that does not sound like you at all, you are much more interesting and irreverent than that official screed. What gives?" And they will say, "You understand, this is for public consumption." That is what authenticity so often means. Where then and how does one negotiate or authentically represent what is for private consumption, the stuff that is not officially authentic if you know what I mean? That "not for official use" stuff must be cast off from the official role as extraneous matter and ends up where? Well, in the Dumpster. As Jesus said in a similar context, "Bring me the stone the builders rejected for that is the keystone."

[phil]

Gerry, what is the bug?

[Gerry]

Just what Antione said. Permalinks to comments that are not on the first page still take you to the first page, which doesn't have the anchor that is targeted and you get left on the top of the first page. It happens when you post to because it takes you to the permalink of the new post. I saw it clicking recent post links. That's the one I sent you email about.

[Gerry]

I never found the one I really wanted. It was called "A Rant on Slack", and I found it on NetNews in the mid-eighties. It was attributed to Dr. Bob Dobbs of The Church of the Subgenius. It treated slack as a fundamental substance or force in the universe that has certain counter-intuitive properties. One way to think of it is the space between being ok and disaster. The more you have, the easier it is to get more as you need it, but if you run low. I'm not doing it justice. Google might be more helpful than I am.

[phil]

A certain quality of slack as between the role and the person.

[JJ Commoner]

questions around issues like organizational charts, job descriptions, corporate policy, corporate governance, legal liability, employuee supervision...

Is it any wonder that the most talented people in my field today work as independent consultants?

It's not only your field .. it's most fields. And there's a reason for that.

See ... job descriptions, performance management schemes, awkward and often irrelevant incentive bonus schemes, ill-thought-out or many too many corporate policies and so on and so on.

[Antoine Möeller]

Fuck. Inflect. That's it. Jesus.

What a word.

[herecomesnobody]

The Id gets a bad rap. I mean the Id can rap good, and with the proper Promoter can achieve prominence, but too often the Id has trouble with the Cop, and the Cop has a rap sheet he reads in Jack Webb monotone. The Cop can't nail the Id, so he leans on the Promoter. The Promoter don't like controversy, so he high tails it, and all that's left is the Id and the Cop, all in a tussle, spinning round each other - and who's in the middle? Nobody.

[JJ Commoner]

From Michelle's long-ago now comment upthread ...

Will the Gen Y folks who have documented their adolescence on LiveJournal know the difference between significance and irrelevance, self and institution, agreement and silence? Will they be capable of making the judicious omission?

Not until they're older, as a generalization.

Some, like Holden, are luckier than most, as they get to find out that life holds messy wicked challenges larger than their energy, enthusiasm, smarts and self-esteem. Again as a geeneralization, the awarenss of those challenges start to kick in around 35 or 40 (and yes, I am talking about middle-class or higher, educated, privileged GenY'ers. those who grow up in neighbourhoods like Baltimore's west side featured in The Wire and are runners for the crack dealers when they are 9 figure THAT out a lot earlier).

Will transparency like that really really make people more honest, or simply much more masterful at creating the same old illusions, only with fine-grained, sharp-edged detail?

Yes and yes.

Damn, I love this blog .. as I have said here several times over he years, the best grad school seminar I have ever attended, and it's free. Plus, I keep learning more all the time.

[Gerry]

You said it JJ. That makes it hard to take all the kids coming around and whining, "I don't understand, use plain language so I can understand." No that things have calmed down, only the few people who actually valued what they found here keep coming back. It's an effective immune system. The only thing I might do differently next time is to lock the barn before the horses are gone.

A comment lock-down for moderation isn't that drastic of a step to take. If you take it when things start to get hot (pre-emptively), you might avoid the worst aspects of a dust up. It gives you a chance to give a moderating response before it spins out of control, and just slowing things down cools things off as well.

[phil]

Herecomesnobody, I posted an amplification of your id, ego, superego thing.

[Jason]

I think non-profit leaders should blog. It is a great way to connect with your donors and allow them to decide how much or how little they want to know about the life of the organization. Check out my post:
http://www.asmallchange.net/?p=28

[phil]

What percentage of time and energy should an ED spend in online conversations with losers and hotheads on the internet? Is it a core function? Would a nonprofit want to make blogging skills, or web 2.0 skills, a job requirement for an ED?

[Maureen Ward Doyle]

"Part of adulthood is learning to tame the impulses of the id, and if I have to do that online, it's not the worst thing on earth. I've also come to terms with the fact that I'm just the kind of person who will say what I strongly feel, if I think it's important and true, despite repercussions. I'm sure there have been people who haven't liked working with me. Others have, though, because they know I'm not blowing smoke."

MIchelle, I agree with you completely. From my brief experience on MetaTalk, this comment would get more than a few snarky responses. Have you publicly stated this point of view there? If so, how was it received?

[phil]

Michelle,

Taming the id in a crowd setting is the topic that haunts this conversation. Holden got his id tamed for him. Do you think Matt Haughey and the Mods have tamed the ids over at MeFi, or can we expect more of the same Dionysian frenzy in the future?

[Josh Millard]

She has, actually, and not been snarked at. This is a pretty good comment from her responding after your account closure, Maureen.

I don't mean to be unkind, but that you're predicting snark at the mere expression of such an idea underscores the fact that you did not become really at all familiar with the site in your short time there. That's fine, and I'm hardly going to insist that you should've hung around, but until you can separate your perception of Metatalk from your personal experiences there, I don't think your predictions are going to be very good, any more than I'd be likely to guess at how a conversation over here is going to proceed.

Do you think Matt Haughey and the Mods have tamed the ids over at MeFi, or can we expect more of the same Dionysian frenzy in the future?

Obviously, I cannot answer for Michelle, and I'm interested to here what she has to say. But there's been no particular attempt by Matt or Jessamyn or I to tame anyone's id; we're not in that business. If someone is going to learn to tame their own by virtue of their experiences on the site, I think that's great, and I have seen it happen to any number of regulars over the years. But that's up to them, not up to the site.

[Gerry]

That's fine, and I'm hardly going to insist that you should've hung around, but until you can separate your perception of Metatalk from your personal experiences there,

Fair enough, and I did not even create an account as Phil did. On the other hand, a number of MeFites did the same thing in coming to this space. Some came over and stuck, at least for a while.

That's one thing we know from experience in on-line spaces. You can't judge the space by what you find in the middle of a dust-up like this one. The question is will the people you want to attract be put off by it, will it still be an attractive community.

A more important question for me is how these rifts are healed. Does the healing draw in others and remain open, or does the community lock ranks and close down?

[Antoine Möeller]

The Boy Scout scans the map and the horizon, pauses, scratches his head, scans them again and finally lifts his head and says: "According to the map, we're on that peak".

Tonight it traveled from the Northeast to the Southwest to the Northwest, to my friend with the musical laugh.

[Antoine Möeller]

And I love her - she is truly off the map.

[Josh Millard]

You can't judge the space by what you find in the middle of a dust-up like this one. The question is will the people you want to attract be put off by it, will it still be an attractive community.

It's a big question, and there's a lot of questions built into it.

Who are the people that community x wants to attract? How does that community think about itself; about its attractiveness; about how its actual attractiveness compares to its ideal?

I can answer some of that, from my perspective at least, for Metafilter, and to a lesser (and more speculative) degree for a number of other sites and communities of which I've been varyingly a member or an observer. I'd be curious to see what some of you folks think regarding Gifthub, too.

However, I'm not sure it was intended as a poll so much as prompt for more general discussion, so I'll hold off on writing a book here.

In general, I think a big part of those answers falls to whether or not a community has a mission, a goal, an agenda; and if so, how that agenda is pursued and who drives the pursuit and how heavily they enforce it.

[Gerry]

Thanks Josh. Do you also see how this question underlies some of Phil's comments about driving away the sort of voices who might justifiably say "who needs this" to the whole on-line community thing? How in underlies the lead post of these comments?

[Maureen Ward Doyle]

Thank you JJ for the link to Michelle's comment. I follow her argument but reject her framing of the situation.

I signed off at MetaTalk, because it is a totalizing system. I posed my question to Michelle here, rather than on MetaTalk, because I wanted to broaden the conversation beyond a rationalizing defense of MetaTalk and explore the difficulties inherent to speaking in public (whether the conversation is on- or off-line).

What do I mean by MetaTalk being a "totalizing system"? It's precisely the logic you find in the linked discussion, which I recap in the following narrative:

A newcomer (a"welcomed guest") to MetaTalk takes a look around, notices a few things about the conversational dynamics and decides to point them out, because this is the only forum for meta-discussion on MeFi. In particular, she explains why she finds the meanness gratuitous and how she feels the habitual meanness impedes open discussion.

Many people who are successful in this space (the "insiders"), including some who lament that users don't exercise more self-restraint, argue that permitting meanness is necessary for open discussion (ironically, all the while simultaneously condemning certain modes of discourse, such as allegory and satire).

The "newcomer" (as labeled by the "insiders" ) is advised to check out other MeFi spaces that are less "rough and tumble" in order to get to know the larger community before coming back to MetaTalk and expressing an opinion. The "Newcomer" is informed that through exposure over time the culture will grow on her. She is also told that there's a steep learning curve and given instructions on how to post effectively (i.e. in a way that minimizes exposure to "snarky" attacks).

She takes away from this interaction that the bottom line requirement for participating in MetTalk -- the only space for a meta-discussion of this "open" forum -- is adjustment.

The "newcomer" (who now fully assumes the label and role of "outsider") refuses to accept the bottom line prerequisite of adjustment and tries to further explain her point of view. The reaction of the group is unchanged, except for becoming more forceful and "snarky": "Adjust, stick around and critique our mode of discussion (but we won't listen) or walk".

"Insiders" now rechristen "newcomer" as "newbie". "Newbie" who has already decided against adjustment (she's opposed on moral grounds) is now confronted with a difficult choice between limited and unappealing options: 1) play the game 2) play a different game 2) not play at all.

If she decides to stick around and plays, she has some further choices to make:

1) She can unleash the id and join 'em.
2) She can keep the id on a short leash and not talk about the elephant in the room (the fact that it's not okay to have a meta-discussion about the way people talk in this "open" forum).
3) She can keep the id on a short leash and continue to try to explain herself.

The "newbie" decides against all 3 options because:
1) She finds it dehumanizing and unconstructive, not to mention imprudent, to "go native".
2) She isn't willing to ignore the elephant, because she doesn't accept the argument that id-unleashing is a pre-requiste to earnest expression and doesn't want to implicitly condone that argument by participating.
3) She has tried playing a different game and failed. In a system that has no play (no opportunity for reframing the situation or altering the nature of interactions) there is no point to trying to play at all. The only logical -- and sane -- alternative, is to go away.

So she decides to leave, even though she knows that the "insiders" will label her departure as another "newbie's flame out", disregard her critique, circle the wagons, invent a story to rationalize the outcomes, declare victory and resume business as usual at the self-coronated quintessential open forum.

The message is loud and clear on MetaTalk : No make-ie the rules, no play-ie the game.

I for one have no interest in participating in a totalizing system and recognize that participation in such a system merely serves to keep it alive.

[phil]

Josh,

This may be a conversation for you, Matt and I offline.

[Josh Millard]

Absolutely, Gerry.

Phil asked, in the post:

"what reasons would you give as to why someone of importance in philanthropy or the the nonprofit sector should waste time and energy talking to the likes of us online?"

And I think that's part of why Michelle got specific about what she does and doesn't call blogging -- it's not just to hairsplit the taxonomy but to point out that there's a functional difference between two questions:

1. "Why would philanthropy honchos want to blog?"

2. "Why would philanthropy honchos want to join a community website?"

I think compelling answers for (1) are more numerous and more solid than for (2). I, personally, find community websites fascinating, but I go there for pleasure and general conversation. If I was very busy with other things, would I still think it was valuable? If I were a high-profile known entity, would that improve or worsen my experiences? If I wasn't comfortable with net community mores, or at least with ones that differed considerably from my personal preferences, would I want to bother with the adjustment?

Building, from the ground up, a comfortable blog space vs. a comfortable larger-scale community website targeted at pulling in these folks? The former's easier than the latter, because a smaller group is going to be tighter, have less noise, have fewer surprises.

The bigger a site gets, the more momentum it develops, so there's a big challenge of building a significant (in terms of number-of-active-participants) community that remained attractive to the more conservative, more strapped-for-time, less net savvy folks we're talking about. You have to figure out what the site's supposed to be, and find the people who will want to make it be that way by virtue of the sort of participation they'll naturally enjoy; you'll have to find enough of them to keep things sufficiently busy and interesting with the knowledge that on any given day only a fraction of them will show up.

That's a heck of a job.

But that's more the idea of building a community from the ground up. Another way to read Phil's question is to say, okay, with things more or less as they are right now, why should a philanthropy honcho spend time online talking to Gifthub, or Metafilter, or whomever? What's going to draw them in? What's going to keep them around after their first exposure?

And the answer might be "not a lot" for a many of these folks. I don't know them, I can only work off the general descriptions of conservativism that folks here have provided.

I think the affirmative answers, the folks who would first show up and secondly stay, all comes down to personal character -- there isn't a compelling silver-bullet "this will hook 'em" answer for this stuff at the moment. People will come to and stay at Gifthub because they enjoy the way Phil approaches his posts and the way the conversations within develop. People will come to and stay at Metafilter for similar reasons, with different flavors of post and conversation respectively.

In other words, Just Because. It's matchmaking, without something new built or some sea change in the gestalt attitudes of our proposed newbie honchos. A proportion of them will, in the near future, have a reason to stop by; a proportion of them will have the disposition to like what they find; the (rather slim, by the sounds of it) overlap will be the whole of the success stories, with the rest leaving it at either "never heard of it" or "not my thing" or "what a bunch of savages, losers, peons".

[Josh Millard]

Phil: which one?

[Josh Millard]

(Perhaps another way to look at this question: what reasons would give as to why your mother would want to waste time and energy talking to us? More a question about making a space comfortable and compelling to the conservative newcomer than about time-value questions, but as far as community cultural at least I think a lot of the answers would overlap.)

[phil]

Josh,

The interesting thing to me is that this site has 2700 subscribers and maybe 10 regular commenters, and may 10-15 kindred blogs that link back and forth with us. I get emails from all kinds of people, some of recognizable names from the philanthropic sector. People stop me at philanthropy meetings and say, "Hey you are the guy at Gifthub, aren't you? I thought I recognized you." But they do not feel comfortable putting themselves online in a comment, a post, or anything. They subscribe, some do read the stuff, and they "lurk."

The world on line is more rough and tumble than they are comfortable with, and they don't want random things they say googled ever after, or subjected to being taken out of context in some painful way.

As a result the conversation of giving online is weighted towards the newer people, the younger people, the ones on the margins, and the ones who really don't much know what is going on. Lucy Bernholz, Tom Watson, and Albert Ruesga are three good exceptions. Sean is a newcomer to the scene but gaining credibility via blogging and becoming thereby more of an authority. Paul Shoemaker, the guy who started the Social Venture Partner movement finally has a blog, just in the last few months. Michelle Moon is a fine presence online and I am sure has clout in her museum world.

By and large, though, the people who matter most are only online via static web pages created via a webmaster. My friend Tracy Gary is a case is point. H. Peter Karoff, founder of the Philanthropic Initiative, has a blog for his new book, The World We Want, but I maintain it for him as a favor.; i.e, I post about him. Jay Hughes, the guru of gurus in family wealth counseling has a static site, along with influential books, but no interactive presence. The best voice on public policy around philanthropy from a conservative perspective is Bill Schambra at Hudson. He writes tons of stuff and convenes endless panels, but does not blog, though I have volunteered often to be his blog mentor. So it goes.

The top down world of philanthropy, the insider world of philanthropy, has not yet proven that it wants to "out there" in the flat, noisy, boisterous and sometimes obnoxious and abusive world of the net. I hope that changes. A blog with comments off is an option, but that is sterile. A closed conversation site by invitation only is an option. Carefully written posts that are essentially online publication of stuff that might go in a good newsletter is an option (see Philanthromedia as a well done example.) Right now the best conversations are in invitation only listservs.

Thank you, Josh, for taking an interest in this. Your views on what could be done and how are of great interest to me, since you have deep experience with online community building.

[Gerry]

I think Phil is referring to Maureen's comment.

I would view it as a failure of social networking communities that they are not equal or better than blogs in a number of dimensions. I have some ideas why that it. Blogs are networked entities in their nature, but community sites have a very asymmetric orientation of inside vs. outside. "Totalizing" might be a good word for that too.

[Josh Millard]

The interesting thing to me is that this site has 2700 subscribers and maybe 10 regular commenters

Exactly! That's pretty close to what is, I think, a pretty fair thumbnail model of on-line participation: 1000 subscribers, 100 people who've ever commented, 10 people who are regular commentors/contributors.

So part of the challenge in asking "why should these folks blog/mingle" is examining whether there's even a proportional shortage: if ten percent of the folks we're talking about have, here or there, dropped a comment into a entry from a blog they read/subscribe to/lurk at, and if one percent of them actually becomes a regular voice or co-author or starts their own blog, that's not even that far behind -- it's just the harsh justice of the participation curve.

If the philanthropy community is small, and these folks are a subset, the idea of getting a significant number of them more involved online may be not just a matter of catching up but jumping into the vanguard, the land of outliers. Not that that would be a bad thing -- and not that applying a loose model to a small sample size is particularly strong analysis on my part -- but in that general context things start to look like they're a bit harder still.

Anyhow, I've probably overtalked my portion on this at this point. It's an interesting topic, and I'm curious to see where and how the conversational rubber will hit the implementation road in the future.

[JJ Commoner]

a failure of social networking communities that they are not equal or better than blogs in a number of dimensions

Well, by and large social networking platforms have been created / built in order to "capture" communities so that advertisers could target conversations and communities, in the hope that "user-generated content" (which is where more and more of the action is as we all work out this "meaning, purpose and action" thing - as opposed to traiditonal media) could be monetized.

Blogging, on the other hand, came out of seemingly nowhere and by and large has been pretty allergic / resistant to advertising (notwithstanding the ubiquitous sidebar box of Google ads). There are exceptions, of course, and each time something new comes along people try it out, but there's a remarkable amount of people saying "I'll just go back to basic blogging".

There's a lot to be said for adding the asynchronous rhythm and give-and-take of blog posts, comments and connections that develop, combined with links to networks of content and interconnected interested people, to the process of learning, deepening and widening the bases of dissent and consensus.

[phil]

Thanks, Josh, glad to hear the percentages I cited are in line with norms. The interesting thing, I think, is the profile of lurkers versus the profile of commenters. The commenters tend to be what we affectionately call "dumpster dwellers," very talented people who are not certainly philanthropists, more like talented people and concerned citizens. The people I know from the insider world of philanthropy may drop me a note and say, "I saw this on your blog, I will be passing through Dallas next week, can we get together to discuss?" Or, I might go to a convention and have insider people stop me in the hall and discuss something from the blog. So, they are engaged by the writing, but stay off the net. That is the important thing I am trying to say, the more important the person is a "player" in the world of money or giving, the less likely they seem to be to venture online. This is quite different from, say, the tech world, academic world, or the world of journalism. The Dave Winer's of philanthropy do not blog, for the most part, with the exceptions above.

Culture clash, I think. Wirearchy verus hierarchy, but also insiders verus outsiders, closed versus open.

Openness and transparency would change the world how? Who would be the winners and who might be the losers? For some flattening the power structures might not be desirable. Those who like the status quo of hiearchy and closed space of power may not be eager to go online and see their world challenged and dissolved.

[JJ Commoner]

Culture clash, I think. Wirearchy verus hierarchy, but also insiders verus outsiders, closed versus open.

The point I keep coming back to, after close to a decade of thinking about these issues and watching things unfold, is that it needn't be either / or in many cases.

Though I do think that (increasingly) in interconnected environments the dynamics of what we have in the past called a meritocracy come into play .. needed knowledge and skills meet purpose and other skill and knowledge sets, roles are negotiated, remuneration and recompense decided amongst knowledge-and-purpose peers.

Having been someone very ambitious as a younger man, I understand the strong allure of status and power (I almost had some once upon a time) but I do not think that such power and status alone are sufficient for initiating leverage, decision-making, and being effective in leadership roles for the growing-more-complex issues we face in organizations and our societies today.

We have seen the face of unfettered power that ignores any contrarian input .. it does not take us to a better place or provide more effective governance.

The interesting possibility that is still latent in interconnected environments is that we can identify and use hierarchy as a temporary tool when it is needed or when it is effective, given the challenge(s) and the situation, and use decentralized, outside-edge-in or bottom-up decentralization when it is likely to be more useful and / or effective.

Though it by now banal to say this, it is not either / or but rather both / and ... but people have to be open to experimentation and willing to suspend deeply-held beliefs about the ways things work (or are supposed to). And that challenge is , I believe, very hard for most who have status and power. Not impossible, but hard .. and in the realm of leadership development, I believe that the majority of stories of legendary leaders who operated in a pre-networked world would still tend to be about those leaders who were willing to listen and let go into the alternative power(s) of outside-in or bottom-up when it seemed like that approach might be the most effective.

[phil]

Bravo, JJ. That is a masterful and gracious lesson. I hope you are soon speaking on these topics inside/outside the corporate firewalls, and to nonprofit leaders too. How do we mix hierarchy, and webs successfully? That is the challenge, case by case, org by org, network by network.

I am thinking these days about the wisdom carried by the Hellenic tradition that saw moral discourse as "medicine." They said that knowledge of the pharmacopia was not enough. The doctor is expected to cure case by case. How do we cure a given dysfunction or suboptimal organization? How do we bring it to greater vitality and health?

Some flat networks could use a little more moderation, a little more hierarchy, to rein in the madness of crowds, or to filter insight from insult and nonsense. Others could use a little more crowd sourced vitality. You do need a balance, and achieving it is a case by case, all facts and circumstances, kind of thing. Sounds like a role for a consultant with your background, JJ.

[Gerry]

JJ, you probably don't have my current email (the old one is "current" just not usable right now). Phil can get my yours or vice versa.

[robert guinto]

Listening takes time and commitment. Those individuals whom wish to be Philanthropic Leaders need to provide direction. A nonprofit organization has to decide if it is responding to the marketplace to deliver a product or is a service. To successfully meet the expected objectives of the customer, the customer has to have a level of outcomes they can measure from the organizations interaction with them.

Recently, I have been having many conversations about individual service plans, individual educational plans, meeting community needs, and interpreting what individuals meant by their statements. The common statement was “the person will not be able to understand the questions being asked?”

So I question each of us to think beyond the organization. What do individuals know and understand of the organization? What do the individuals expect of an organization in interacting with the organization?

Volunteering, corporate giving, philanthropic endeavors and sales is about branding. The more that a leaders message is not accessible, the less impact of their message. Provide the message in a clear concise manner ongoing manner. Use it as often as you can and do not use it with different meanings.

[robert guinto]

Listening takes time and commitment. Those individuals whom wish to be Philanthropic Leaders need to provide direction. A nonprofit organization has to decide if it is responding to the marketplace to deliver a product or is a service. To successfully meet the expected objectives of the customer, the customer has to have a level of outcomes they can measure from the organizations interaction with them.

Recently, I have been having many conversations about individual service plans, individual educational plans, meeting community needs, and interpreting what individuals meant by their statements. The common statement was “the person will not be able to understand the questions being asked?”

So I question each of us to think beyond the organization. What do individuals know and understand of the organization? What do the individuals expect of an organization in interacting with the organization?

Volunteering, corporate giving, philanthropic endeavors and sales is about branding. The more that a leaders message is not accessible, the less impact of their message. Provide the message in a clear concise manner ongoing manner. Use it as often as you can and do not use it with different meanings.

[phil]

Just being accessible sends a good message. Listening sends a good message. Taking others seriously enough to respond does too.