Discussion on:

Techie seeks non-profit job: How to be a big, misunderstood fish in a small pond

Thanks for the informative article, but why the drive-by on trackballs? My Logitech trackball, available right now at your local Fry's, and all of its ancestors, have kept my arm at the computer for 10 years or more, pain free.

Why accuse the trackball mouse?

The Logitech hardware is pretty robust, but the drivers are deadly. Best solution is to plug in the hardware and assign the standard Windows Mouse driver.

The author forgot to mention it wasn't just a trackball, it was a serial-connected trackball with the rollers (that need to be cleaned about once per week to work right) instead of the optics.

sorry to hear that... hehe... Once you use an optical mouse Im not sure how anyone could go back to a track ball. I used to get so annoyed with them catching on the littlest grains of anything and not wanting to respond quickly. I only want to move and click one time. Not move, move, move, hold real still and CLICK! Doh! The ball moved when I clicked the button... move move move CLICK! Got it!

Geeze... how can you tolerate it?

When I worked at a non-profit I supported users on old PCs using everything from Windows 2.0 (with a browser to run quasi-modern office productivity apps through Citrix session), servers running Netware 3.X, Windows NT 4, Windows 2K, and a lot of other old stuff.

The challlenge is how to keep pulling value out of the old. When OS and hardware proved unable to support mail client software we switched to a webmail interface. VNC allowed me to remotely take control of PC scattered across about 20 sites over a distance of hundreds of miles. Regardless of what anyone may say, it takes a lot of skill to keep a dozen OS's with their different apps running.

The next challenge is to keep the trust and confidence up among a lot of people who may not have a great sense of technology. Good IT staff at a non-profit really have to know their stuff, and be able help users feel valued.

I am working in a non-profit on education in Bali, Indonesia, and we definitely don't have any trackball mice laying around...
On the other hand, we do cut cost by using Linux based server for most of our operation. And yes, the priority is definitely on the mandate of the foundation

I understood that capitilism was the way to solve many of the resourcing issues in our modern times. So why is it that the most vulnerable have to rely on charities? Are charaties a modern idea? I would happily pay more in taxes to garuntee the vulnerable areas of society have a regular accountable serviced income, and utilise competitive technology and resources. The world governments should collect funds, and responsilbe for objective, political, competitive, proactive and accountable mobilisation of the private sector.

We all value those working to do good, to break the cycle of poverty, and do not understand why they should be payed nothing. If you were in a vulnerable position, maybe a starving kid in Africa as a result of a corrrupt government policy for buying weapons, in our day and age, would you be a charity case, or would you be someone supported by a preemtive global system? I am not impressed that the government, us, have convienently offloaded this problem, or mute this point as political. Everyone should give, not just the kind hearted. Its not right for you to feel good about giving, often when its far too late, its better you feel sore that you have to give, but see proud countries capable of supporting themselves.

In some cases might there be a small incredibly powerful group representing a charity, accountable to whom.. and whos power is representative of advertising poverty.. Is it a way of avoiding tax? Is it a way of selling inferior products? Truly charaties were a step forward, but surely we are at a new age? Proactive, not reactive, not manipulated by our hearts by terrible pictures.

And remind me of the hypocracy of handing out charity with one hand, from economies devestatied by third world debt, to us. It would seem sometimes it is convienent to have charaties. A horrible thought, maybe if it were starving 'white' kids, we would be less tolerant of our current strategy.

I agree soooo much !

You echo thoughts I have had about this for ages now and have stated it more succinctly than I could have.

"I would happily pay more in taxes to garuntee the vulnerable areas of society have a regular serviced income, and utilise some of the best technology and resources available."

Then why not give that extra money you're willing to pay directly to the charities that already provide those services? Why get the government involved?

I don't have 'some of the best technology and resources available'; I'm darned if I want to pay more taxes to provide them to someone else, and certainly not to provide them a regular income.

There's already a source for a regular income; it's called 'work'. THAT'S the point of capitalism: you get what you earn.

Sorry folks, tired of talking politics. On the subject, I VOLUNTEER as administrator for an non-profit NPR radio station (admin practice for the real world some day). We have a mission, we have no money, and thank God we have no trackball mice. Some of our desktops are painfully slow, some we have replace with good desktops that were donated. We need a new server, upgraded MS Office (the staff doesn't like open-office), and policies designed to protect users against themselves and the rest of the world" (Thanks Toni). I can't keep up with support tickets (Huh? You mean a phone call saying "this doesn't work like it used to") cuz I'm a volunteer with a life. It's pretty much like Toni described, without the salary! Merry Christmas!

Your exactly right. There's a big difference. There's a difference in helping someone who is physically disabled, or severely mentally challenged receiving a hand-up (not to be confused with a hand-out). For those who just "need", I really question it.

As far as regular income goes, it is called work, and there is nothing keeping a person from working for someone else or for themselves to earn. It's moral to earn.

Risking my message being deleted, and taking full advantage of the holiday season, I would like to inject some Christian perspective.

There are some who point to the teachings of Jesus as proof of his "socialist" proclivities. However, Jesus never advocated that government was the entity that should be responsible for providing for the needy. Instead, he said that we as individuals are responsible. And, until recent history, charities operating on individual contributions did provide for the DESERVING needy, and government did not intervene.

However, modern government has taken charity out of our hands, denying us the grace that comes from being a willing giver. Instead, government takes money from us in the form of taxation and gives it to people whom it wishes, whether we support such "charity" "on our behalf" or not. Having less income through taxation, we can afford to give less, and we resent the income that is taken from us to support those whom government, and not ourselves, believes are more deserving.

I do not want government to force me through taxation to support those who choose not to help themselves.

I applaud those of you who work for a nonprofit, and especially those who volunteer their time.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

The problem with leaving all of this support to charities is distribution. Having grown up in a rural area, I've seen folks stranded 'cause they can't afford car repairs, there is no public transit, and there is no Salvation Army, or church, or other charity within walking distance. Government has a reach most other agencies do not. Folks where I grew up had telephones and electricity because of government mandates, not through the good graces of the utilities!

for some food for thought.

I live in the desert where there weren't no government either; and we built our own power companies, banks(credit unions), and communication companies; all owned by the pubic ourselves. We also took care of our own with non-profit Christan charities, and did just fine without the gubba-mint!

People have forgotten how to pick themselves up by their own boot straps, apparently!

In my experience there are far more churches than government offices. You think the government is good at distribution? How about asking Katrina or Gulf oil spill victims about that. Government is always slow to respond. People helping people is preferrable to big-government-programs helping people. As someone who has worked for non-profits in one form or another for almost 30 years I can tell you that government has its place, but its not in a service industry.

I agree with you TNT!!

@sissy sue: Bravo!

Does anyone become a better person filling out a tax return and letting the government handle all the messy details?

And to those who think the government should do all the heavy lifting in this matter:

How are things going in Greece and Ireland? And how is the clean up proceeding following the student protests over the tuition hikes for higher education in the UK? (i.e. being told to grow up and carry your own weight).

Another perpsective is that countries are their own entities, and we have limited capacity to meddle in their affairs. The government tries to be proactive on our behalf. However charaties are the reactive blanket that reflects this independance. Dealing with fall-out and disasters.

My concern is that I read an article about a study that showed charaties, even the large, show little accountability of long term benefit of those they are helping. Not all, infact a few did show a good accountable difference, such as the Red-Cross. However this may simply be a result that they have to deal with consequence, and not the underlying cause.

I guess its just put the money in the pot, and hope for the best? It just seems so hollow...

is the lazy man's way to give, as they supposedly watch charities to makes sure they follow standards and practices for efficiency.

Trouble is - detractors point out, who is watching the United Way? Oh Well! Ya gotta give somewhere! Maybe Consumer Reports rates charities?

But these guys do:

Charity Navigator

American Institute of Philanthropy

Charity Guide

You can also check at your local Better Business Bureau.

I'll use that!!

Excellently described and the first 3 parts also describe my experiences with for profit enterprises.
Always miles behind, but the company cars unquestionably had to be the latest and most expensive models. They could never bring themselves to upgrade to even the level of the most basic home hobbyist.
Happy to run my own business; no "company policy" to comply with.

I have worked in dot com and I have worked in a non-profit that had obscene amounts of money. Bringing the corporate I.T. mindset doesn't always mean that it is good. Neither does bringing the "dot com" mentality. It just means that some one is trying to bring in the politics and incompetent planning that can plague I.T. departments to a different group of people who some times don't know any better.
Large non-profits with millionaire large ego CEO's have to deal with the fact that their ego won't allow them to acknowledge that they don't know squat about computers and as such don't have realistic expectations about how much time it takes to implement complex new systems. They depend on their marketing people who couldn't get jobs in the corporate world who always promise more than can be delivered.
The CTO ends up being a brown noser who will blame his screw ups on his subordinates and they take the heat.
Managing expectations and project management skills are critical and having broad technical knowledge is important but beware the politics. Think of that odious show "The Office".

What a painfull, "crank-out an article before I go on holiday vacation", fluff piece this article is. Among the fallacies printed are "communication skills are far more essential in a non-profit", and working for non-profits is "akin to stepping back in time 20 years." When did communications skills become less essential in private business? Non-profits may have been slow adopters of IT twenty years ago, but everybody was initially hesitant to adopt cutting-edge tech. That has significantly changed to where many non-profits lead the way in tech adoption.

I have worked more than half my 20+ year IT career for non-profit organizations. In that time I have seen private sector companies less willing to invest in IT training and infrastructure improvements, as well as, private companies more concerned with the quarterly profits than long-term strategic sustainability and competitiveness.

Not every non-profit is dependent upon year-to-year grant funding and are often more knowledgable about IT industry trends sand opportunities than their private sector counterparts. It often comes down to simple business leadership.

State and local government IT operations are often among the worst of enterprises in terms of making important IT investments to increase productivity and professional services to their customers: taxpayers.

Lastly, non-profits are often leading the way in use of social media to connect with both their clients and the general public. Non-profits understand their essential role in serving the nation's many unmet needs that the private sector deems unprofitable.

However, I just have to comment on your statement "When did communications skills become less essential in private business?"

You are absolutely right, of course. Communication skills are as vital in private business as in non-profits. However, I, like you, have worked on both sides of this fence, and I have to say that, by and large, I have seen far worse communication skills in private business than in non-profits. Perhaps this is because non-profits usually have a mission that reaches out to a variety of audiences. Private businesses have their audiences as well, but communicating well with some of these audiences is often not considered essential to "the bottom line."

In our personal lives and in our careers, we know the major disasters that can occur when there is lack of effective communication.

Wise businesspeople know the value of communication, and they just don't give lip service to it.

In 30 years working in the high-tech arena with exception for military work. I have seen the best leadership in the military and the one non-profit I worked for.

I only worked for one profit based company that had a lick of sense; and I've lost count of the number of other companies. Communications skills were more valuable in the non-profit and the military. Of course the military IS a non-profit!

are helpful only when someone is potentially listening

I think in the private sector, in tech companies, IT people are allowed to focus on development or operations to the exclusion of other things, because IT is part of the profit-making machine.

In non-profits, the role of IT is secondary to providing services to clients or customers (whatever they're called). The communication become important in "selling" new IT ideas to management.

In tech companies and consultancies, yes, IT can be (and usually is) part of the profit-making machine.

Outside tech companies, IT is not a profit maker, IT is a profit enabler. Too many people either lose site of that, or never knew it in the first place.

CIO's should keep a huge stack of carbon paper, winch-powered calculators, winch-powered copy machines etc. in a corner of their offices, and put a sign "In case of acute lack of IT department" on it.

Big parts of non-tech-company IT seems to this outsider to be savings-enabling too... it's just that that money was saved a long time ago, and nobody remembers the alternative.

With the carbon paper, one of these , or maybe even one of there . And one of these.

They might get the idea then...

that IBM... we had one of those at home when I was a kid. I used it too, until computer printouts became nice-looking enough. With the little paper cards with the typo-be-gone substance...

While I clean my reed stylus, that I might respond to you two ancients.

your seniority is showing

Sorry, that was bad, I should have written "señority"

They actually had the first typewriter you show at one of the nonprofits where I worked. The type levers? (I can't even remember what they're called) kept getting jammed.

The Selectric III used a type ball, not individual keys. It may have been a SmithCorona. They had several models that looked quite similar to the Selectric, but still used the individual keys. IIRC, they were also prone to jamming when the return springs got weak.

And such, are beyond me.

When I left the military, I tried to buy the upright, black Underwood I had been banging away on those four years.

The Yeoman told me, "Forget it." Too much paperwork and highs to hurdle.

I bought one at an antique store, years later, just to decorate my study.

What I got me here now -- what a marvel! -- beats the hell out of all that reed/clay stuff.

Companies, like ours still use official typewriters for one-off mailing labels. I enjoy hearing its clatter.

of them in the service, that had the ball pop off so hard, it flung to the ceiling and left a crater in it!

Probably as the result of improper seating on the print head. It always made for good laffs and conversation that-a-way. =D

Next came the daisy wheel and memory writers!

Aboard an Amphibious Force Command ship (AGC), that was not secured for rough seas that time in the '60s. I turned just in time to see this $800 marvel slide off, fall, and smash itself into pieces on the steel deck.

Geez, there's some awfully harsh criticism here. Surely the author suggests situations that exist (I am working through some of the contexts she presents), not trying to paint all nonprofits with one brush...give her a break. Take a look at the census/profile of US nonprofits and you will see that those of you with the luxury of financial and technology resources are not the norm.

There is a significant difference between "non-profit" and "not for profit"-- I work for the later. "Non/Not for Prof" status doesn't equate to caring for the needy and destitute, although thanks to those that do. It does mean that our focus is not governed by lemming-like investor behavior, and we can truly have a "mission statement" with some teeth. Smart management and on-going dialog between tech and users keeps our group an active player in company decisions.

Nonprofit is not hyphenated. I have spent over 20 years working for nonprofits and I have been rewarded with working with some of the brightest and most motivated people I have ever met. Money is not always the best reward.