Good non-profits are successful communicators who engage their base and get them to respond – but, at what cost?

Plenty of research has shown that people in the U.S. are increasingly polarized. States are becoming more red and blue, and less purple. Congressional districts as well, both because people are moving to areas where the majority is like them; and then, of course, there is gerrymandering.

Algorithms that show us what they think we are interested in manipulate our social media feeds and lead us to information that confirms our existing beliefs. Other research makes clear that we all are plagued by an inherent confirmation bias. We have to be very intentional to engage ideas that don’t reinforce what we already believe.

If you are writing a blog post or a publication – not a limited circulation/peer reviewed kind of piece – it will be measured by views and “likes.” And if we are talking about fundraising, it is all about how much money you bring in. You may have standards – not taking money from tainted sources – but you are still judged by how much you raise. So, you will write something that strikes a nerve and makes your base respond.

You write for an external audience that already agrees with you. You engage your audience by connecting at the heart, telling stories and making clear the worst-case scenario. And, you are rewarded with more “likes” and more dollars.

As nonprofits get more successful at communications, do we feed polarization as well? I haven’t seen research on this, but I would like to.

The system we all operate in isn’t set up to fight polarization. It is set up to reward those who successfully engage their base. When someone not inclined to our position stumbles across something we’ve written, it is not likely to be nuanced or appeal to how they think about a problem.

I’m tired of the dysfunction that polarization has brought to Washington and to advocacy. Twelve step programs say that you start fixing a problem by recognizing that you have it. In this case, recognizing that even as non-profits working for social justice we can be both successful communicators and feeding the polarization. I think that the next step might be changing how we measure success.

I distinctly remember the first time I wondered if I had become the “foreign policy elite.” It bothered me.

In the political backlash that led to the Tea Party and the election of President Trump one hears distain for Washington experts. Have I become part of the problem, part of that elite?

At WOLA, our internal mascot was a skunk. It was often our role to be “skunks at the garden party” – close enough to policymakers to be invited in, but carrying a challenging message, something that made them uncomfortable. We embraced this positioning.

When last I posted, I mentioned that the “professionalization” of advocacy – good salaries and the provision of benefits – had allowed those entering the field to build a career. A result of this longevity was that NGO advocates, like me, became true experts in our fields. This is a good thing, because for an outsider to be invited to the garden party you need to be expert.

Having people outside of government who understand how it works – or doesn’t – is good for democracy. It means that people in the NGO sector can help hold government accountable and build solutions to problems. This is especially important in fields where normal people don’t have the time to search out and digest supposedly public information.

I often joke that in DC you get points for sticking around. You have value because you accumulate that rare thing – historic memory. DC is a transitory place. People come and go with election cycles. Many congressional staffers are young and have plenty of hubris, having landed influential jobs, but few points of reference. People in the non-governmental sector, don’t serve two or four year terms and can play an important role in educating people who make policy and the journalists who inform it.

In this environment someone who knows what happened yesterday is valuable. But becoming an expert requires hard work as well. I spent years learning about US military programs with Latin America. I did research, submitted official requests for information, and built relationships with congressional committee staff, people in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Southern Command and journalists. I stepped into a field where NGO experts did not exist and I became one.

There was one elusive Senate staffer that I got to know well. I was told that she had a work rule. Because of the overwhelming nature of her job, she could get the information she needed from 10 people or 100 people. Not able to manage 100 she chose 10. I was one of them. Being an expert gave me real influence.

So I’m wondering what the yin is to this part of the professionalization yang?  Is there something constructive that I should take from the reaction against experts?

One frustration that I have felt is that I spend too much time talking with the same people. Washington briefings are designed to bring experts into a room so they can debate to each other. There is often live streaming, but these briefings are seldom designed to inform a broad audience. And, we use a lot of jargon that excludes from the conversation people who might want to participate. I think that experts talking with other experts can become isolated from a broader audience and seem, if not be, elitist and condescending.

While we must have experts in and outside of government, both sectors need to remember that they serve the broader public and that public is outside of the expert bubble. In particular, we NGO experts need to be sure that we don’t get lost in our own influence. We need to remember why we became skunks – to make government understand a problem from an outside perspective.

Consider this — Have we limited the space for idealist youngsters to enter non-profit advocacy?

I’m a professional human rights/social justice advocate and I’ve been one since the early 1980s. My generation created a career path for the professional non-profit advocate. While I’m proud of what we have achieved, I’ve been wondering if we inadvertently contributed to some of today’s political problems or at least our lack of ability to solve them. This first series of blogs will focus on today’s environment and the possible downsides of “professionalization.”

When I started out there was no such thing as a professional advocate. Human rights and other social change organizations were staffed by volunteers or people paid next to nothing. Those who started WOLA in the mid-70’s were seconded by churches, started as volunteers or received tiny stipends.

A decade later, when I began, things were not much different. As people matured and had families they couldn’t afford to stick around. They went to graduate school or moved on to other sectors. Non-profit advocates were expected to get “real” jobs.

My generation changed that. We made long-term work in advocacy a possibility. The term used to describe that process was “professionalization.” Those of us who ran these organizations learned management and our offices became well run. We established policies for advancement and benefits, like health insurance and retirement contributions. The work became sustainable. It was possible to stay in the non-profit sector because you could afford have a family and maybe even buy a house.

We also became experts in our fields and gained the respect of those in government, academia and the media.

These are good things. People should have retirement plans and maternity leave. I’m proud of the sustainability, fairness and professionalization that we brought to the sector.

But, every yin has its yang. As we became experts and good managers, and less activist volunteers, I’m wondering if we didn’t lose some things along the way.

I think we need to ask ourselves some questions.

Does the current professionalized environment reduce space for idealistic young problem solvers?

Because the field I entered was not highly professionalized, there was a place for someone like me, with energy and commitment, but not much skill. When I started working on Latin America and immigration issues I wasn’t “qualified.” I didn’t even speak Spanish (although I did make myself learn shortly thereafter).

I became who I am today because there was a place for an eager idealist from Wisconsin with no qualifications.

Today, internships in Washington are a competitive business, even the unpaid ones. WOLA has a rotation of interns – about 20 of them a year – and these are highly coveted positions. If you aren’t bi-lingual, you need not apply. Most applicants have some kind of cross-cultural experience already under their belts. I often joked that if I had started in the current environment, I wouldn’t have qualified to be my own intern.

That’s kind of sad. By requiring so much expertise of interns are we not limiting who can enter the field? The next time you hire an intern, take another look at that enthusiastic kid who isn’t too qualified.

Next installment – Experts talking to Experts