Quite simply, criticism destroys relationships and effectiveness. Feedback builds, empowers, and validates people toward goal attainment.

Criticism, I have found, is a tool favored by individuals whose measurement of self-worth is established by measuring another’s abilities, contribution and efforts against their own. To increase (and decrease) their own perception of self, they attempt to manipulate the perception of others in an effort to change their own status. Humans, to my knowledge, have the franchise on this activity. Strangely, the activity flourishes even though there is no clear benefit in the long run and the end result is the loss of trust. When trust levels are high in an organization or relationship, the speed of achievement and delivery goes up, and costs go down. When trust is low in any relationship, the speed of successful accomplishment goes down, and costs go up.

In his book, “Anyway – The Paradoxical Commandments”, Kent M. Keith articulates ten principles. Published in the 60’s, the ten tenets continue to be quoted, circulated, taped to computer monitors, refrigerator doors, and even found on the wall of Mother Theresa’s children’s home in Calcutta.

Anyway, the Paradoxical Commandments speak for themselves:

1.   People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.

-Love them anyway.

2.   If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.

-Do good anyway.

3.   If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.

-Succeed anyway.

4.   The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.

-Do good anyway.

5.   Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.

-Be honest and frank anyway.

6.   The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down

        by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.

-Think BIG anyway.

7.   People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.

-Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

8.   What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.

-Build anyway.

9.   People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.

-Help people anyway.

10.  Give the world the best you have and you will get kicked in the teeth.

-Give the world the best you have anyway.

Amy Lee Elliot posted a terrific piece on Mashable: it’s a shopping list from Tim Ferriss.  Tim is the author of “The Four Hour Work Week.”  Thanks to Lisa Ostrikoff at BizBoxTV for posting the article.

Here’s the points.

It doesn’t matter how many people don’t get it. What matters is how many people do.

“It’s critical in social media, as in life, to have a clear objective and not to lose sight of that,” Ferriss says. He argues that if your objective is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people or to change the world in some small way (be it through a product or service), you only need to pick your first 1,000 fans — and carefully. “As long as you’re accomplishing your objectives, that 1,000 will lead to a cascading effect,” Ferriss explains. “The 10 million that don’t get it don’t matter.”

10% of people will find a way to take anything personally. Expect it.

“People are least productive in reactive mode,” Ferriss states, before explaining that if you are expecting resistance and attackers, you can choose your response in advance, as opposed to reacting inappropriately. This, Ferriss says, will only multiply the problem. “Online I see people committing ’social media suicide’ all the time by one of two ways. Firstly by responding to all criticism, meaning you’re never going to find time to complete important milestones of your own, and by responding to things that don’t warrant a response.” This, says Ferriss, lends more credibility by driving traffic.

“Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity.” (Colin Powell)

“If you treat everyone the same and respond to everyone by apologizing or agreeing, you’re not going to be recognizing the best performers, and you’re not going to be improving the worst performers,” Ferriss says. “That guarantees you’ll get more behavior you don’t want and less you do.” That doesn’t mean never respond, Ferriss goes on to say, but be “tactical and strategic” when you do.

If you are really effective at what you do, 95% of the things said about you will be negative.” (Scott Boras)

“This principle goes hand-in-hand with number two,” Ferriss says. “I actually keep this quote in my wallet because it is a reminder that the best people in almost any field are almost always the people who get the most criticism.” The bigger your impact, explains Ferriss (whose book is a New York Times, WSJ and BusinessWeek bestseller), and the larger the ambition and scale of your project, the more negativity you’ll encounter. Ferriss jokes he has haters “in about 35 languages.”

“If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” (Epictetus)

“Another way to phrase this is through a more recent quote from Elbert Hubbard,” Ferriss says. “‘To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.” Ferriss, who holds a Guinness World Record for the most consecutive tango spins, says he has learned to enjoy criticism over the years. Ferriss, using Roman philosophy to expand on his point, says: “Cato, who Seneca believed to be the perfect stoic, practiced this by wearing darker robes than was customary and by wearing no tunic. He expected to be ridiculed and he was, he did this to train himself to only be ashamed of those things that are truly worth being ashamed of. To do anything remotely interesting you need to train yourself to be effective at dealing with, responding to, even enjoying criticism… In fact, I would take the quote a step further and encourage people to actively pursue being thought foolish and stupid.”

“Living well is the best revenge.” (George Herbert)

“The best way to counter-attack a hater is to make it blatantly obvious that their attack has had no impact on you,” Ferriss advises. “That, and [show] how much fun you’re having!” Ferriss goes on to say that the best revenge is letting haters continue to live with their own resentment and anger, which most of the time has nothing to do with you in particular. “If a vessel contains acid and you pour some on an object, it’s still the vessel that sustains the most damage,” Ferriss says. “Don’t get angry, don’t get even — focus on living well and that will eat at them more than anything you can do.”

Keep calm and carry on.

The slogan “Keep Calm and Carry On” was originally produced by the British government during the Second World War as a propaganda message to comfort people in the face of Nazi invasion. Ferriss takes the message and applies it to today’s world. “Focus on impact, not approval. If you believe you can change the world, which I hope you do, do what you believe is right and expect resistance and expect attackers,” Ferriss concludes. “Keep calm and carry on!”

To quote Steve Case, Founder of America Online and Chairman of the Case foundation he states “we’ve learned to appreciate the non-profit arena’s inherent complexities and how hard they can be to navigate…that being effective requires unique expertise and that over the last few years not many non-profit leaders have managed to build and scale organizations that have significant, widespread impact. “ He further elaborates that “the non-profit sector has a tremendous opportunity to shape a better future for humanity – but only if people can transform their goodwill into genuine results.”

Imagine a world focused on high-impact giving, where non-profit organizations collaborate with business to harness market “Forces for Good” and leverage business people as resources for planning and operational excellence. I imagine executives and boards thinking beyond their own needs, collaborating with their competitors to share scarce investment dollars, and developing a network of active, engaged supporters who can transform the entire field. Imagine a cohort of non-profit leaders geared toward innovation, prepared to adapt their organizations to changes in the non-profit marketplace and be able to refresh their operating structures with regular waves of creativity.

Mr. Case summarizes that “to become a force for good – all that is required is the will to engage with whatever you can bring to the table.” Crutchfield and Grant, throughout their extensive research, found that during the last several decades a new cadre of entrepreneurial non-profits has created extraordinary levels of social impact. These pioneering “change makers” are the vanguard of a growing civic sector – a segment of the US economy valued at more than 1$ trillion.

In their two years spent studying these organizations, they uncovered their secrets to success, and what enabled them to have such high level of impact. They discovered that we need new frameworks for understanding what makes great non-profits great and new ways of thinking about creating social change (real impact). The best of these organizations – including the twelve profiled in ““Forces for Good”” are run by social entrepreneurs who are highly adaptive and innovative leaders who see new ways to solve old problems and who find points of leverage to create large-scale systemic change.

These non-profits are not merely content to plod along with incremental change or let conventional wisdom stand in their way of success. Merely building a great board or delivering adequate services or even running an efficient non-profit is no longer enough. It’s the end of charity, as we know it, and the beginning of high impact philanthropy.

What I found so remarkable, but not surprising, is that the twelve non-profits profiled in ““Forces for Good”” were national organizations in the United States and their annual budgets ranged from $13 Million to $1 Billion annually.

It should be noted that, regardless of whether we look at rejuvenating, resurrecting, sustaining, or otherwise increasing the impact of a local, regional, state, national or international non-profit organization, there is immense value to be found in ““Forces for Good””.

“Impact is of the greatest importance!”

—Mario Morino – Chairman, Venture Philanthropy Partners—

For non-profits, there’s a gamut of web apps and software available that is open-source (read…”free”) but in many cases “ya gets whats ya pays for”.  That said, there are a lot of tools that are freely available and all it takes to roll them out is a little experimentation.  A short list of pieces I use include WordPress, Blogger, StatCounter, Open Office and a handful of Google Apps.

Naturally, if you have questions, please let us know and we’ll happily help out.  In talking with the group yesterday, I dug up the following article from Allyson Kapin.  Even though it’s now a year old…still offers a good base of ideas and options available.

10 Things Every Nonprofit Should Know About Social Media

Last week I spoke on a couple of great panels at the Politics Online Conference about technology, social media and how Congress is trying to adapt to the ever-changing world wide web aka the “series of tubes” as former Senator Ted Stevens so hilariously described it. From grassroots advocacy staffers to Hill staffers and PR folks, the same questions arose during each panel session – what are the top social media tools to use to spread an organizations message and how does an organization effectively use online communications tools. All great questions! Let’s get down to my top 10 list of things every nonprofit should know about social media and online communications.

1. Google Analytics:

Google Analytics, a free and powerful website stats software, lets you dig into your website data so you can find out all sorts of useful info such as who your audience is and what keywords they are searching for to find your website. Katie Harbath of DCI who joined me on the panel “Every Question I Was too Embarrassed to Ask about Technology” said that this is one of the best resources of data when you begin to search for people to build your social media community. Agreed!

2. Enewsletters Still Work

Enewsletters are still a valuable form of communications for most organizations. During the panel “What Effect Will the New Administration’s Use of Tech Have on Congress?”, Rob Pierson, Online Communications Director for Congressman Mike Honda and soon to be New Media Director for the House Democratic Caucus, said that sending enewsletters to your online list is the best bang for your buck when you have limited time and resources. Enewsletters can easily generate a lot more clicks than social media outlets such as posting a video to YouTube. Furthermore, according to the latest benchmarks study by Convio, enewsletters are one of the most “cost-effective ways to build relationships with new constituents, increase engagement, and educate supporters about your organization’s mission.”

3. Twitter

Twitter, oh such a trendsetter these days between Oprah, Ashton Kutcher and CNN. The entire world seems to be fixated on Twitter and for good reason. Twitter is a great way to spread your message and brand your campaign, while building a community. As I have mentioned in prior posts, you need to be where your target audiences are. Consider it like an interactive 24-hour news cycle. It’s where people go to gather news, resources and discuss issues. But remember don’t treat it as a one way communication tool to just blast out your latest press releases and action alerts. The Twitter community likes to be engaged.

4. Facebook

As the fifth-most trafficked site in the United States, Facebook is a great social network for nonprofits to build a community and brand their campaigns. Nonprofits can start a Facebook Group, Cause Page to raise a bit of money, or Fan Page to post recent news, videos, photos, events, launch contests, and talk to your members via discussion boards.

5. Build Your Community

At the end of the day raising money, motivating people to take action and social networking is about building up your community – a base of friends. For example, you can search for “friends” that share similar interests to your organization’s mission through Summize.com on Twitter or on Facebook by clicking on your own interests and viewing the list of recommendations who come up in your search. Friend Feed is another option.

6. Engagement is Key

Ask your “members/friends” to share their opinions and have them post their responses online. Respond to their comments so they know someone is reading their posts. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) recently said that “Online tools help me stay connected and get feedback from the people I work for.”

7. Freshen Up Profiles

Update user profiles every couple of days with new stories, interesting facts, new videos, blog entries, photos, etc.

8. Transparency Counts Big Time

If you are tweeting or blogging on behalf of an organization sign your name at the end of the post so your community makes a connection to the different people blogging or tweeting. Don’t pretend you’re somebody else like the Executive Director. People can see right through it and will call you out on it which can be embarrassing. For example, when Joe Trippi is not able to be on Twitter, he asks his staff to tweet timely news on his behalf and sign their own name at the end of the tweet.

9. Make It Interesting

Don’t bore your community with wonky status updates or tweets. You are competing with thousands and thousands of messages. According to Ben Pershing, who writes for the Capitol Briefing blog of the Washington Post, reporters are always looking for good stories and hooks, so your blog should be filled with interesting and compelling news not boring press releases.

10. Integrate Social Media Across Your Communications

Times have changed. Remember when all you needed to do was send out a press release, follow up with your Rolodex of reporters or buy an ad in the New York Times? In today’s communications world, social media should be a part of your overall communications plans and strategies. Don’t ditch your traditional communications tools though – just expand your channels and use all the tools at your disposal. Social media is a good thing (not a chore) and gives you more ammunition to brand your organization, spread your message and cultivate supporters.

Chris Ryan proposes an interest tact in addressing the ongoing funding pressures inherent in non-profit organizations.  At the heart of what’s being proposed is the historical dependency of non-profit groups on commercial enterprises.  With increased pressure to shore up expenses on both sides of the relationship, one solution is providing non-profits the tools and legislation to create and employ for profit entities that in turn support the non-profit mandate. 

Simply, we couldn’t agree more.  Charities impact every facet of our lives and the current state of affairs dictates that business is unable to sustain itself and the levels of charitable contribution we’ve seen in the past.  For the non-profit to survive…the solution can be quite simple.  That said, “simple” rarely means “easy”.

The following is an article written by Chris Ryan Senior Editor for Newswire.net on March 18, 2010.  The article can be seen HERE.

The single most pressing problem facing every charitable enterprise in the United States is one that is inherently tied to the fundamental nature of non-profits: funding. Regardless of whether the enterprise is a non-religious charity or a church-sponsored structure, the difficulty remains the same. Funding levels are inevitably dependent upon the goodwill and graciousness of sponsors and other donors who underwrite the enterprise’s activities.

Of course, few people would claim that there is a crisis in charitable giving in the United States. After all, though total charitable giving in 2008 and 2009 saw a real decrease in inflation-adjusted dollars, the total amount of money given was still in excess of $300 billion in each year – hardly a number about which to complain. Still, with Federal and State budgets across the nation stretched thin through a combination of overspending and shortfalls in revenue – and with the nation’s economic condition balancing the tightrope between fragile recovery and double-dip recession, many non-profits are bracing themselves for even larger revenue shortfalls in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, any reduction in the revenues received by charities and churches will have an ever-increasing impact on the most vulnerable of society. As government budgets face burgeoning deficits and the very real threat of across-the board freezes or outright cuts in programs that serve the poor and disadvantaged, charities and churches will be needed more than ever to help meet these societal needs. The problem is that demand for these services is peaking at precisely the moment that the financial resources of most charitable enterprises are at their weakest point in decades.

The question that needs to be asked is a simple one:

Given that the demand for charitable services is most keenly felt during times of strong economic distress – such as the current recession, and that it is during such times of distress that these charitable entities often have the fewest resources with which to meet demand, should we not work to find a better way to provide funding to charities and churches to ensure that they have the opportunity to meet the needs of the people they service? In other words, should we not strive to find a means by which charities and churches are allowed to be self-empowering entities?

A Historic Problem

The principle difficulty in empowering charities is primarily derived from the history of such entities within the United States. In fact, the very term “non-profit” is perhaps illustrative of the underlying reason so many charitable enterprises struggle so mightily to make their goals. Derived from the Latin word “profectus”, the word profit literally means “to progress”. In like manner, the word “non-profit” means the opposite –not to progress. Indeed, the history of American charities makes clear that these entities were expected to do precisely that.

The earliest history of organized charitable activity in what would later become the United States occurred with the Puritans who settled in the Northeast. Though devoted to a strong work ethic derived from Biblical directives regarding man’s duty to work diligently, the Puritans nevertheless retained the Calvinist need to compartmentalize profit and charity. Keenly aware of the Bible’s warnings regarding the difficulty rich men would have in obtaining salvation, The Calvinist Puritans quickly developed an answer in the form of Puritan charity as a means to assuage capitalist guilt. This view of charity differed little from the Catholic sentiment that penance for sins should commonly take the form of charitable activity to help the less fortunate, save that the Catholic penance was a ritualized removal of guilt for sin, while charity in early America allowed those early businesspeople to compartmentalize any guilt they felt for gaining riches while those around them suffered from want.

Unfortunately, that distinct separation between the way the Puritans conducted their business and the way they conducted their charities remains with us to this day. Businesses were expected to accomplish their goals through savvy market decisions, an expansive mentality, and keen investment strategies. Charities were expected to accomplish their goals through what was, in essence, organized begging. Four hundred years later, little has changed.

Today’s Charities

The history of charitable entities in the United States has not served to impede the growth of such entities. In fact, there are currently more than 1.4 million recognized charitable enterprises in the country – or more than one charity for every three hundred people. Though some might find that number excessive, the truth is that the scope and reach of most of these enterprises is far more limited than the average citizen might think. Hamstrung by archaic rules that prevent the recruitment of top talent, adequate long-term investment strategies, and direct investment in for-profit enterprises, most non-profit companies are left scrambling for scarce resources to accomplish their mission, while simultaneously scrambling to retain their most talented employees.

The religiously inspired differences in the way for-profit and non-profit enterprises conduct their affairs would, on the surface, seem to have little validity in today’s marketplace. Where Christian society once recognized a divine command to set aside 10% of all earnings in the form of a tithe that was designed to aid churches in their mission to care for the poor and infirm, recent trends demonstrate that actual charitable giving falls far short of that mark. It is obvious that a ten trillion-dollar economy should see charitable giving of at least one trillion dollars each year – a number more than three times the actual amount of U.S. annual charitable giving.

Given the disconnect between the religious underpinnings of charitable contributions and the modern practice of giving, non-profit enterprises have become more reliant than ever upon government grants, corporate endowments, and hastily constructed fundraising efforts. The law’s prohibitions against profits have caused most non-profit entities to look no further than the next quarter in their financial planning. Indeed, most are called to task every twelve months to account for how the previous year’s monetary capacity has been managed.

How much more successful could these organizations be if they were allowed to take a more long-range view toward the capitalization of their mission? How many more people in need could they reach if they were given the freedom to take greater risks and reap greater rewards in their efforts to build capacity? In other words, are there not ways in which society at large would benefit from non-profits being allowed to pursue capital expansion through many of the same means which for-profit enterprises use to increase their profitability?

A Change In Direction

Any solution to non-profit capacity building will not flow from policy makers in Washington D.C., nor is it likely that the individual States will take up the cause any time soon. What is needed is a fundamental shift in the paradigm that there must always be an inseparable wall between business and charity. Though that wall once served a religious compartmentalization purpose four centuries ago – business is what you do to make money, while charity is what you give as penance for making money – the need for it no longer exists. Unfortunately, the illusion that non-profit poverty somehow equates to purity and greater ethics still persists in our culture, and more importantly, in our law.

One of the most obvious solutions would be to permit non-profits to more directly invest in the profitability of for-profit ventures. The limitations with respect to non-profit investment in capital ventures are at present so restrictive as to almost preclude this possibility. Yet it remains one of the most viable means by which non-profits could make sound investments in the marketplace, thereby building greater capacity to accomplish their mission and serve their constituents.

One obstruction to such investment can be found in the aversion to risk that many non-profits share. With limited funding – and outside skeptics who oppose any use of charitable funds for investment purposes – most charitable boards are understandably reluctant to take even the mildest of risks in the pursuit of capacity. Because non-profits have to acknowledge donor concerns about how money is allocated, the majority of charities suffer from chronic shortages of funding.

To change the status quo and enable non-profits to seek greater capacity through sound investments, one solution involves finding a way for these charitable institutions to bypass the concerns of their donors, and directly invest in the future profitability of various for-profit enterprises – unencumbered by the need to immediately spend every donor dollar they receive to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Of course, the question immediately arises: is such a strategy even possible?

Fortunately, it is. As restrictive as the laws are with respect to how non-profits may and may not invest in other firms, those restrictions provide opportunities as well. In fact, they provide the very means by which non-profits can directly benefit from the profitability of private companies undergoing public offerings – with relatively small risk to the charity or its donors.

The Solution

The accomplishment of these goals involves a straightforward strategy of allowing a non profit the ability of incubating a for profit enterprise. In return the for profit entity aligns itself with a charity (purpose drive corporation) by donating stock to the non profit which in turn utilizes its stakeholders base and tax bracket as an underwiritn vehicle for the corporation at hand.

The tas deduction of the non profit status acts as a mitigation tool of risk of the stakeholders while the charity becomes the ultimate beneficiary of gain and growth of the enterprise it incubates.

This solution takes advantage of an alignment of interests from the various parties involved. For the corporation itself, the process enables the raising of capital necessary to take the company public; for the non-profit, it provides a means for investment that does not involve funds that are otherwise needed for the missions operations of the charity; for the donors and investors involved, it allows them to promote and support their chosen charitable endeavor while retaining the opportunity to profit from their investment.

Today we need more than ever the alignment of our greatest financial minds in creating the next generation of financial instruments. Not for the purpose of using computer programs to arbitrage profit potential, but rather to create the new instruments which will once again create value for our country.