Trending Tweets of the week

Thanks to all you tweeters out there. You help us spread the NPQ word and we’re grateful for your engagement. Rick Cohen’s piece on Wikileak’s donors leaving and it’s implications on the nonprofit sector ignited some intriguing tweets along with NPQ‘s timely article on protesters in Egypt supporting Occupy Oakland. Thanks to our community for surfacing and circulating what interests you! And if you don’t already, follow us on Twitter at @npquarterly.

 

  NPQ’s READER Contributor of the week

NPQ loves it when one of its articles attracts commentary that further illuminates and sometimes challenges authors’ points. “Innovation and Impact: Less Talk, More Do,” by Cynthia Gibson, has this week   continued to attract readers and well-informed comments that have built quite a resource list of readings, among other things. Below are just two of the many interesting comments you will find on the article.

Nick Deychakiwsky 2011-11-05 22:39

I think we’re in a means vs. end catch-22 here. For many, both impact and innovation are an end when they really are means. Innovation for what? needs to be asked more often. There’s the admonition “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” that should not be forgotten. On the other hand, true innovation is most often not “the great totally original eureka IDEA!” but recombinations of (often small) things (approaches, patterns, models, resources, materials, ideas, etc.) into new and different configurations. In that sense, I don’t begrudge the people putting old wine into new bottles as much and will give them the benefit of the doubt – perhaps they’re trying to remix things so that the result is just a little bit different, fresher, and more useful (i.e. innovative) for the rest of us. Maybe it boils down to just re-articulation, but sometimes new language is helpful too.

Speaking of new language, can we find another word to use rather than IMPACT? Here’s what the online etymological dictionary has to say: “impact (v.) c.1600, “press closely into something,” from L. impactus, pp. of impingere “to push into, dash against, thrust at” (see impinge). Originally sense preserved in impacted teeth (1876). Sense of “strike forcefully against something” first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of “have a forceful effect on” is from 1935. Related: Impacting. impact (n.) 81, “collision,” from impact (v.). Figurative sense of “forceful impression” is from 1817 (Coleridge).

Although the word rings true for me as I hope to catch some snippets of college and pro football this weekend, I realize that it means something else in our philanthrojargon and goes more along the lines of the figurative sense that came to the fore in the early 20th century. Nevertheless, there is its subliminal implication – we are going to hit someone with something, or more mildly, force something on them. Which implies a top-down, outside-in, expert-driven technocratic approach to our interventions (another lousy word which implies we’re doing “for” and not “with”). Did using the term “impact” also come from our hard-hitting short-term-results-driven business world? How about effect, or influence, or import, or significance? Although none of these seems quite right to describe that which we are hoping to achieve. Any ideas? I don’t know, I’m not a linguist, but I am tired of feeling bruised by impact. Hope people don’t gang up on me for raising what might be a silly point (would that be collective impact?

And speaking of words, “measure” is another one I’m getting tired of. Check out an article by Steven Meyer called Community Philanthropy: Strategies for Impacting Vulnerable Populations on www.effectivecommunities.com. Although the title of the article isn’t the greatest if you’ve just read my previous paragraph, there’s an internal headline which is just great – Noticing Progress Instead of Measuring Impact. I like that.

Ellen Remmer 2011-11-07 06:49

Cindy’s willingness to say “the Emperor may be running around nude” is a breath of fresh air. We fall in love with some pretty stupid language and then think we’re actually doing it.

That said, I think C Christiensen’s work on innovation is helpful – distinguishing “sustaining innovations” from “disruptive” ones, the former being tweaks/improvements to an existing model and the latter being something really different, usually alot cheaper to do and good enough to shake things up. All in search of doing it better, which is a good thing, but let’s be honest about what’s really new… I mean innovative

 

 

 NOW IT’S YOUR TURN! GIVE IT TO US.

Got a Tip for Us? We Need Your Voice Here

Did we miss something this week? What do you want to see us cover next week? Be our eyes and ears on the ground. Don’t hold back. Let us have it. And we’ll put it right here. Just let us know if you want it to be confidential.