Last time, in Making Group Decisions – Six Options, we talked about the six decision-making options: spontaneous agreement, one person decides, compromise, multi-voting, majority voting, and consensus building.

We know that the facilitator, group leader, or the group needs to choose the most appropriate method before each decision-making session. Each of these options, of course, has its pros and cons.

This month, we will dig more deeply into understanding what consensus is, when to use it (or not) and what are some of the key points we need to remember about consensus. This post wraps up with identifying effective decision-making behaviors.

Consensus Pros and Cons
Consensus building involves everyone clearly understanding the situation or problem to be decided, analyzing all of the relevant facts together, and then jointly developing solutions that represent the whole group’s best thinking about the optimal decision. It’s characterized by a lot of listening, healthy debate and testing of options. Consensus generates a decision about which everyone says, “I can live with it.”

• PROS of consensus building are that it’s a collaborative effort that unites the group. It demands high involvement. It’s systematic, objective, and fact-driven. It builds buy-in and high commitment to the outcome.

• CONS are that it’s time-consuming and produces low-quality decisions if done without proper data collection or if members have poor interpersonal skills.

Consensus can be used when decisions will impact the entire group; when buy-in and ideas from all members are essential; when the importance of the decision being made is worth the time it will take to complete the consensus process properly.

Understanding Consensus Building
The crucial importance of consensus simply cannot be overstated and must be fully understood by all facilitators. In fact, facilitation and consensus are based on the same set of core values and beliefs. Facilitators are constantly building consensus with everything they do. The following are all examples of consensus activities:
• Summarizing a complex set of ideas to the satisfaction of group members;
• Getting everyone’s input into a clear goal and objectives for the group’s activities;
• Gaining buy-in from all members as to the purpose of the session;
• Linking people’s ideas together so they feel they’re saying the same thing;
• Making notes on a flip chart in such a way that at the end of the discussion each member sees where and how they’ve contributed and is satisfied with what has been recorded; and
• Discussing and agreeing on which decision mode to use in a formal decision-making process.
Because all facilitation activities must strive to be collaborative, participative, synergistic and unifying, all facilitation activities are essentially consensus building in nature.

Hallmarks of the Consensus Process
Regardless of whether consensus is being used formally to reach a decision on a specific issue, or informally as an ongoing facilitation technique, you know the group is working consensually if:
• there are lots of ideas being shared;
• people’s feelings are openly explored;
• everyone is heard;
• there is active listening and paraphrasing to clarify ideas, and ideas are built on by other members;
• no one is trying to push a pre-determined solution; instead there’s an open and objective quest for new options;
• the final solution is based on sound information;
• when the final solution is reached, people feel satisfied that they were part of the decision; and
• everyone feels so consulted and involved that even though the final solution isn’t the one they would have chosen working on their own, they can readily “live with it.”

There are many situations in which the decisions being made are of such magnitude that consensus needs to be designated as the only acceptable method of decision-making. In these cases, the group agrees to keep discussing until everyone indicates that he or she can live with the outcome. Defaulting to voting for sensitive decisions allows dissenters to absolve themselves of responsibility for important group outcomes. If the whole-hearted commitment of all members is important to a particular decision, facilitators need to use the strategies for overcoming resistance. This involves openly asking resistors:
• What stops you from supporting this idea? What are your specific objections?
• What changes, amendments, or additions would make this an idea you could live with?

One of the major contributions of any facilitator is in helping a group overcome the temptation to “pressure” dissenters into agreement. By openly accepting and discussing differences, facilitators help members reach decisions that have been objectively explored and tested.

You shouldn’t end a consensus exercise by asking “Is everyone happy?” nor even “Does everyone agree?” At the end of even a great consensus process, people have usually made concessions and are likely not getting everything they “wanted.”

Consensus isn’t designed to make people happy or leave them in 100 percent agreement. Its goal is to create an outcome that represents the best feasible course of action given the circumstances.

Last month, while acknowledging that decision-making is rarely easy, we discussed ‘Things to Watch for in Decision-making.’ One of the things to watch for, of course, is behavior.

Effective Decision-making Behaviors
To make any decision process work, group members need to behave themselves in specific ways. These behaviors can be suggested to the group or generated as norms in advance of any decision-making session.

Helpful and Hindering Behaviors

We also use these ideas in groups as well as training, like STRENGTHENING YOUR FACILITATION SKILLS, LEVEL 1.

Material adapted from: Strengthening Your Facilitation Skills, Level 1. Jane Haskell, Louise Franck Cyr and Gabe McPhail. Orono, ME: UMaine Extension, 2007.

Jane Haskell is an Extension Professor with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and a Featured Blogger.

Last month, I began discussing the need to bring greater focus to assessing service-learning outcomes, centered on the Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne article Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choice and Pedagogical Goals. This is a great piece to consider to not only assess whether you are encouraging personal responsibility, civic participation, or reflective citizenship in your youth-based service and service-learning projects, but to also find evidence that supports the idea that both civic action and justice-oriented thought are needed to create meaningful service experiences for youth.

In both this month and next, I’m going to extend the discussion a little further and focus on a framework for understanding how to design and assess quality thought and action in a service-learning project. The most effective tool I’ve found to assist with this is the Rigor/Relevance Framework, created by the International Center for Leadership in Education.

The Rigor/Relevance Framework was developed as a tool for educators to drive instruction that challenges youth to think in increasingly complex ways and to apply knowledge through experiences that have meaning and worth in their lives. Referring back to the Westheimer and Kahne article, it aligns with the idea that as youth service facilitators, adults should be designing and assessing projects to increase the levels at which youth think (justice-oriented thought) as well as engaging them in hands-on learning experiences (civic action) to encourage effective citizens.

The tool is very simple to use, whether you want to design activities that strive to encourage these outcomes or assess how effectively you are reaching them. For today’s post, I’ll focus on the first continuum of the Framework and how you can begin looking more strategically at your thought and reflection project outcomes.

This piece, the Knowledge Taxonomy (the vertical axis when looking at the tool), uses increasingly complex levels of thinking to illustrate the processes we all go through while learning to be critical and creative thinkers. For example, you need to comprehend the effects of pollution on our ecosystem, a low level of critical thinking, before you can evaluate the effect garbage dumps have on developing countries, a high level of critical thinking. It is an ever-developing cycle in each one of us that begins each time we explore a new idea or concept.

Those working with youth in service can use this continuum to assess the level of thought that is being required to work on the community issue at hand. It may sound obvious, but the higher the level of thinking youth are asked to use in their service activities, the more engaged they are in the project outcomes. Key to the service or service-learning project success is striving to engage youth in the levels which apply critical thinking on the high end of the continuum:

Analysis: Youth are able to break things down and examine elements, relationships, and how things are organized. In service, examples of analysis are youth breaking down the pros and cons of recycling versus throwing all trash out together, what functions the three branches of government serve to make a law, or what benefits a senior citizen home sees when they include pets at their residence.

Synthesis: Where youth are able to think creatively by developing new ideas or processes based on the relationships they see, or taking existing ideas or processes and organizing them in a new way. In service, examples of synthesis are creating recommendations for a school recycling plan, conceiving a plan to challenge a school or town law, or formulating an idea to use music and drama to increase activity for senior citizens in a home.

Evaluation: Where youth can make educated judgments and decisions. In service, examples of evaluation include prioritizing what recycling materials should be collected in the school, deciding from many plans which idea to bring to the town board, or deciding the best activities to conduct with Alzheimer’s patients in a senior citizen home.

When youth think critically, as Westheimer and Kahne show in last month’s article, they are able to create relationships and feel personal connection to the community issue at hand. They have great potential to become justice-oriented citizens and understand the structural issues facing our communities and world.

However, as the authors also offer, an orientation toward thoughtful justice-oriented citizenship is not enough to inspire an engaged citizenry. Action is needed to help put these thoughts into motion and give youth concrete opportunities to create community change. Next month, we’ll examine the second part of the Rigor/Relevance Framework to look at the use of the Application Model and explore the importance of tying thought and action together.

Laura Rog is the Director of Training and Technical Assistance with generationOn and a featured blogger.

This past weekend I facilitated a workshop on Keeping Your Board above Board for a small nonprofit organization based in New Mexico. Part of our discussion centered on the need to have crisis plans in place before disaster hits. With the Komen/Planned Parenthood “situation” still very much on people’s minds, the discussion soon became what NPOs can learn from this highly charged incident. Here’s my take on what we can learn.

• Our socially-networked world means that our words or actions can become “the shot heard around the world,” potentially rattling the foundation of even the strongest nonprofit monolith. There’s no doubt that Komen leadership underestimated the effect of de-funding Planned Parenthood. Social Media sites were on fire within hours of the story hitting the airwaves. Politico reported that Twitter users sent more than 1.3 million Tweets referencing Planned Parenthood and Komen. Facebook postings calling for action also reached extreme highs. The Komen Foundation’s delayed response—coming 24 hours after the story broke—created a communication tsunami that threatened to wash away the Foundation’s relatively positive public image. Listening and contributing non-defensively to the conversation early in a crisis situation is far more effective than shutting down while you “assess the situation.”

• Remember who your key stakeholders are and stay aligned with your core mission. For many years, the Komen Foundation has been the face and voice for breast cancer. In fact, their reputation stretched beyond breast cancer awareness to include related women’s health issues. This reputation hinged on the Foundation’s unbiased and supposedly nonpolitical stance. The unexpected decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood smelled of politics and alienated many of the organization’s most passionate supporters.

• Bad smells get worse if left to fester. Too much water passed under the bridge before Komen sent out a rescue boat. While Planned Parenthood’s Executive Director Cecile Richards was making the rounds of mainstream media shows, Komen’s CEO Brinker was nowhere to be seen. When she finally appeared on the Andrea Mitchell show, Brinker came off as poorly prepared and defensive. Although reversing their stance on Planned Parenthood funding was cheered by many, Komen was left with a black eye not likely to fade soon.

• Quite often a single situation or controversy gives way to intense scrutiny of all an organization’s activities. Not long after the initial story about Komen broke, “new” allegations of Komen’s chumminess with corporate sponsors surfaced. Suddenly, being pink wasn’t as clean as it used to be. Pictures of pink Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets and carcinogen-laced pink perfume bottles surfaced, supposedly shedding light on Komen’s questionable sponsorship of not-so-healthy products. Next came copies of Komen’s 990 forms showing hefty salaries for staff and consultants. Freshly hired Senior VP of Public Policy at the Komen Foundation was “outed” as a pro-life crusader who opposed Planned Parenthood, again creating a meteor storm of criticism.

When all is said and done, I see three critical lessons for NPOs to take away:

1. Social Media has changed the communication landscape and created a dire need for nonprofits to have a social media strategy—especially around key stakeholder engagement—before the proverbial xxxx hits the fan.

2. Don’t lose sight of who you are and who you represent. A good reputation is hard to build and relatively easy to lose.

3. With all the hype about Social Media, it’s easy to forget that underlying all the messages of support and/or criticism are very real human feelings. Dealing with emotions requires passion. Causes like breast cancer awareness are fueled by people who believe in the greater good—anything less is seen as politics as usual.

Daniel Martinage, CAE is an executive coach and consultant specializing in nonprofits and associations. The former executive director of the International Coach Federation Dan also serves on the Selection Committee for The Washington Post Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management. His website is www.associationcoach.com.

Sparked.com is an amazing resource for organizations to access a pool of ready volunteers for assistance on a wide range of needs. But Sparked.com and micro-volunteering in general is a little different than most organizations are used to. If this is the first you’ve heard of Sparked.com or micro-volunteering, check out my previous post, Adventures in Episodic Volunteering.

Knowing how to get the most from your virtual volunteers is important. Surprisingly, it is not that different than when you are working with your traditional volunteers in person. The basic recipe for success is the same only the format requires some added consideration.

To help you get the most out of using Sparked.com, I thought about my own volunteering experience and what suggestions I thought make for better results.

1. Ask for What Your Really Need. A lot of challenges are requests for one-time assistance on something that is probably an ongoing need for the organization. Similarly, many challenges ask for help with a manual process that might actually take less effort for a volunteer to create an automated process that you can use forever. So don’t be shy and ask for what you really need when writing your challenges.

2. Blue Sky Is OK. Because you will never get what you don’t ask for, consider going a bit further by adding what you would really want. Sort of like saying “what we really need is ______, but ideally we really want to be able to _____.” As an example, you may want to update your volunteer sign-up form which could actually be made into an online form eliminating your paperwork altogether.

3. Include Some Context. Volunteers can do a much better job for you when you include the problem that you are trying to solve or the ultimate goal you have in mind. This provides the volunteer with the broader context behind the specific request. So a Challenge asking for feedback on your website should include some background on why you have a web site. Because form follows function, it is important to know if your site is mostly for communications to supporters, to facilitate donations, or maybe as a recruitment tool for participants.

4. Clarify Challenges. When you see your initial responses coming in a little off-target or you are not getting Answers, go ahead and add a comment to clarify things or amend the Challenge summary to clear up any confusion. People who have already responded will be emailed there has been an update and can add to their answers.

5. Break Up Big Requests. Sparked is based on micro-volunteering, so the more you can do to make the Challenge a manageable request the easier it is for volunteers to respond. So if you want more blog traffic, you may want to break it up into smaller items like having a blog review done, finding other bloggers that you can collaborate with, improving Google search results, and so on.

6. Be Engaged. There is nothing like good old fashioned feedback from the Challenge Author to motivate the volunteers into answering. When I see challenges where the Author is responding to Answers, I am much more likely to join in the Challenge. Another good reason to be engaged is that often times Answers have questions in them or offer to do more if the Author wants the extra effort.

7. Brace Yourself. You may get more from a Challenge than you asked for, which isn’t a bad thing. That’s because volunteers often pick up on underlying issues that are contributing to the problem presented in the Challenge. Sometimes this happens when and organization has too many ideas going on, making it hard to tell just exactly what their mission is, which can show up as low readership of blogs, under-performing online giving, or other areas.

8. Come Back for More. Challenges often produce lots of feedback and ideas, which can be overwhelming and far more than you have time for. So come back to Sparked.com with new Challenges asking volunteers to help you get the work done. Whether is to make some phone calls on your behalf or to make changes to your website, you can find many hands on Sparked to help make it small work.

If I were to add a bonus tip, it would be of course to work with the team at Sparked.com on making your challenges as productive for you as possible while also finding ways for it to be rewarding for the volunteers. Of course that begins with a catching title to draw in volunteers.

For those of you that have already used Sparked.com you probably have a lot of great suggestions yourself. It would be wonderful if you would add them here in the comments to help with this discussion.

Jerry Bishop is a guest blogger and an independent IT consultant specializing in CIO services, IT strategy, and turning around underperforming IT departments. Jerry also publishes his own blog, The Higher Ed CIO, and writes for several CIO and technology forums on IT strategy, Internet trends, and social media. Jerry lives in western Wisconsin on an old farm where he spends his free time restoring native prairies and selling fruits and berries he grows at the local farmers market. He is also an avid micro-volunteer and closet crowdsourcing junky and admits to drinking too much coffee.

Workshop participants often expect any presentation on volunteer management to start with recruitment. When I present workshops on the model of The Charismatic Organization, those participants begin to understand that, as Susan Ellis puts it, “Recruitment is the third step.” Once you have your internal structure in place and have developed compelling communications, you are finally ready to take your story to the community. The second of the three factors that create a strong external network for your volunteer program is active outreach. Armed with clear expectations of what volunteers can do and a commitment from the organization, you are finally ready!

While it is still early in the winter to consider spring plantings, I think the metaphor is apt for volunteer recruitment. You can use a broadcast method, scattering the seeds across the landscape, by putting a notice in the newspaper or posting on websites. If your goal is to reach a broad audience, then this method will probably yield results. These activities create a group of volunteers who are willing to run a road race or clean up a beach. These volunteers don’t need much training, and whoever shows up is fine.

Another method is to plant a group of seeds together all at once. They are ‘starting’ with you in a sheltered environment. They may staff a table at a community event or make phone calls. But not all will survive. Like thinning seedlings, you will thank some of the volunteers and send them on their way. You may identify others as possible long-term volunteers. These you transplant and give more room to grow. You fertilize them by providing training that they can apply to bigger or more long-term projects.

Some come to you as bedding plants, ready to be set in place to become valuable fixtures in your organization. These volunteers have already had some training and experience. They only need to be oriented to your organization, its values and its programs.

Other volunteers come to you as potted plants ready to find a new home in your garden of volunteer projects. These volunteers just need to be repotted in your own soil. They still need guidance about your expectations, but they are ready to bloom when you give them the right soil.

Like any good gardener, a manager of volunteers shops in many places for the types of volunteers that make up the volunteer program. If you want a group for a one-time event, check out schools, faith-based youth groups, scout and youth programs. They make good collaborators and are often looking for projects in the community. If you need experienced volunteers to make regular commitments, select retirees through their retirement communities, senior centers, agencies on aging, senior college programs. If you want skilled volunteers with specific skills, consider businesses with experience to share.

The goal of ‘active outreach’ is to target your recruitment efforts at the population that is most likely to have the skills, interests, and time that correspond to your program needs.

Finally, at the risk of metaphor overkill, remember that plants that arrive in unexpected places, from unexplained sources, and bloom along side those you deliberately planted are called—in the language of gardening—volunteers!

Anne B. Schink is a volunteer management consultant and the author of the Nonprofit Readiness Toolkit.

Everywhere I turn these days, assessing service-learning seems to be on everyone’s agenda. Whether it’s linking the methodology to common core standards or developing a way to measure the social and emotional growth of youth involved in service, being strategic about project outcomes is central to strengthening the experience youth receive through participation in service.

As someone who has both engaged in service and service-learning with PreK-12 youth, and facilitated educators in workshops and service-learning programs, I’ve found two resources particularly helpful to advance my thinking on how to help gauge where youth are in the process and – most importantly – what we can strive towards to optimize their experiences. The first resource delves into ways we can assess the type of citizen we aim to encourage in our service projects, and I’ll discuss it in this post. Next month, I’ll revisit this topic with a second resource to discuss how to design and measure programs that encourage both civic thought and action within youth service.

This month’s resource is an interesting study conducted by Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne. If you have a spare moment, I strongly recommend checking out Westheimer and Kahne’s body of work, which ranges from studies on the creation of contemporary civic engagement to examinations on how we can disrupt the reproduction of social biases that can occur during service projects.

Their article, Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choice and Pedagogical Goals, highlights a study conducted on schools engaged in teaching democratic citizenship. Through this study, they were able to identify three types of citizens engaging in civic aims:

Personally Responsible Citizens engage by using their personal actions to benefit the collective society. They contribute to campaigns (such as bringing in a coat for a clothing drive), believe in and follow societal laws, and step in to assist when a need is seen (such as after natural disasters).

Participatory Citizens engage through sustained action in the community. They will be the members to volunteer on a regular basis, organize longer-term service and service-learning projects to get things done, and actively learn about institutional frameworks (such as government or nonprofit structures) to take leadership positions in the community.

Justice-Oriented Citizens engage through deep examination of societal conditions and the need to create systemic change. The focus is on action through critical thought, so these types of citizens focus on understanding how and why conditions exist as they are and develop ways to end problems at their root cause.

Looking at youth engaged in service through this lens brings up an interesting series of questions to help an adult focus on designing and measuring student outcomes: What kinds of citizens do your service activities create? What kinds of citizens do you want to help create? What can you include in your service activities to help youth become one of these types of citizen?

This categorization alone is incredibly helpful to assess your own service initiatives with youth and inform your practice, and Westheimer and Kahne take their analysis a step further to examine the outcomes seen in schools emphasizing one of the three types of citizens. Their study found that personally responsible citizens, while addressing important needs in the community, did not often translate into in-depth learning or a deep commitment to democratic aims. The real engagement in civic practices occurred with service programs that encouraged youth to learn and explore aims as both participatory and justice-oriented citizens.

Does this sound like anything we know? According to the study authors, the precursor to developing democratic behaviors occurs where action (participation) meets thoughtful reflection (justice-orientation) to produce outcomes that benefit genuine community need. I’m hoping you are saying to yourself at home, “Well, of course! Those are the components of quality service-learning.”

So, we’ve now covered one resource to help you assess the type of youth citizen you are encouraging in your service and service-learning programs. Next month we’ll examine a second resource – The International Center for Leadership in Education’s Rigor/Relevance Framework – to give you structure to design and assess service activities that encourage both meaningful participation (relevance) and justice-oriented thought (rigor).

Laura Rog is the Director of Training and Technical Assistance with generationOn and a featured blogger.

My name is Jerry Bishop and I am modern day volunteer who uses the Internet and social media as the vehicle for my volunteerism. Some call what I do crowdsourcing while others refer to it as micro-volunteering. Either way the idea is the same.

Non-profits who need things done (seekers) post their needs as open challenges on web sites like Sparked.com where a crowd of volunteers (solvers) respond and work on the challenges. Because the challenges work best when they are focused, solvers can micro-volunteer on a challenge at almost any time of day without committing large amounts of time. The challenges can be for anything like strategy, logo design, tag lines, fundraising, web sites, social media, or research.

I began micro-volunteering in 2010 as part of researching ways to use crowdsourcing in my role as a college CIO and to write about it on my blog The Higher Ed CIO. My plan was to immerse myself in the world of crowdsourcing and micro-volunteering for 3 months to learn as much as I could about the growing phenomenon. But I was quickly hooked on the model and now 13 months later still make time to volunteer.

What makes this form of volunteering such a good fit for me is a couple of things. I can help on the causes I care about even though they are not local to my home. Because I have lived all over the country it’s a lot of fun to be able to help out organizations from areas where I used to live. Like when I saw a challenge from KidCare America in Lincoln, Maine I thought it would be fun to try and help. Since I lived in Kittery for almost 5 years the challenge was a little more fun as I recalled my trips to that part of the Maine.

Micro-volunteering also offers me a chance to work on things I otherwise would not be able to living in western Wisconsin. One minute I can be working to help support gorilla health conservation and the next I can be finding resources to address literacy in El Salvador, fundraising for community music programs in Oakland, supporting environmental rights in Papua New Guinea, or finding book donations for a library in Ohio hit by budget cuts.

Although I still do traditional volunteer work, I find that I get much more enjoyment from micro-volunteering for a couple of reasons. First, it seems less like scheduled work than cleaning dog kennels every Saturday morning. Second, I can contribute to more of the causes I care about even though I live in rural Wisconsin. Finally, I can choose from a diverse variety of projects to work that allow me to use all of my skills even when I only have 30 minutes.

I love micro-volunteering and see why more and more non-profits are turning to it as a way to supplement traditional channels for volunteers. For organizations struggling to find specific skills or just need more hands to make small work of a project micro-volunteering might be the way to go. So I will keep an eye out for more challenges from Maine to see if I can help.

Jerry Bishop is an independent IT consultant specializing in CIO services, IT strategy, and turning around underperforming IT departments. Jerry also publishes his own blog, The Higher Ed CIO, and writes for several CIO and technology forums on IT strategy, Internet trends, and social media. Jerry lives in western Wisconsin on an old farm where he spends his free time restoring native prairies and selling fruits and berries he grows at the local farmers market. He is also an avid micro-volunteer and closet crowdsourcing junky and admits to drinking too much coffee.

My post this month is short on words and long on links. Posted below are the 10 most popular social media posts from Nonprofit Tech 2.o, a blog created and is managed by Heather Mansfield (http://nonprofitorgs.wordpress.com/about/).

Another great free resource can be found at Nonprofit Marketing Guide:
http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/resources/#.

Social Media is all about user-generated content. Quite often the richest part of information posted in open forums on the Internet is the comments and reviews from others, so be sure to scroll down after each of these postings to read what other nonprofit users have to say.

2012 promises to be another big year for Social Media. No doubt one of the biggest trends continuing into 2012 will be the growth in mobile applications and mobile sites. If you want to stay relevant and ahead of the curve, make sure one of your New Year Resolutions addresses how your organization will integrate social media into your overall play book. Happy New Year!

Ten Top Social Media Posts in 2011

1. Social Media for Social Good: A How-To Guide for Nonprofits
2. 33 Fun, Useful, and Totally Random Resources for Nonprofits
3. 10 Common Mistakes Made by Nonprofits on Social Media
4. HOW TO: Create Custom iFrame Tabs on Your Nonprofit’s Facebook Page
5. 10 Recent Upgrades to Facebook Your Nonprofit Needs to Know About
6. 22 Ways Nonprofits Can Use QR Codes for Fundraising and Awareness Campaigns
7. 11 Nonprofit Websites Designed for the Social Web
8. Google+ Best Practices for Nonprofits
9. Social Media for Social Good: A How-To Webinar for Nonprofits
10. 11 Qualities of an Effective Social Media Manager

Daniel Martinage, CAE is an executive coach and consultant specializing in nonprofits and associations. The former executive director of the International Coach Federation Dan also serves on the Selection Committee for The Washington Post Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management. His website is www.associationcoach.com.