What we know as an organization-led realm is in an interesting state of flux.

This is a subject I have a professional interest in, and hope to dissect in great detail over the course of the Millennials Changing America Tour. I'll be blogging some of my findings here, and much of the concentration of my NetSquared coverage of the tour will focus on this shift.  

We spend much of our time trying to connect the nonprofit (and the nonprofit minded) with the technologies necessary for the advancement of institutional altruism. However, we spend relatively little time looking at how the technologies necessary for advancement are changing the landscape of the nonprofit realm.

Millennials activists, and the way they look at giving, are part of a changing paradigm with regard to how money and energy is being distributed to cause, ideals, and institutions. In her paper on social citizens and the millennial generation, written for the Case Foundation, Allison Fine writes:

In their professional lives, Millennials are wary of institutions, even when they run them. They crave genuine relations, and can instinctively sense when they aren’t there. How will this influence the current and future development of institutions?

In both my experience and the experiences of my immediate friend-group, the picture that Fine has painted of us is pretty accurate. In an ongoing search for genuine interaction and authenticity, it is often hard to connect with an institution on the same level we connect with our peers.

Further, she states:

Millennials value peer relationships over institutional loyalty. This has profound implications for activist organizations accustomed to support from their donors over long periods of time. Young people are unlikely to be lifelong donors to their local United Way or Sierra Club. They will engage enthusiastically in specific campaigns about which they feel passionate, but their institutional support is likely to vanish once that campaign ends.

Institutions are necessary to offer expertise, focus efforts, provide institutional memory for communities, and lead issues. But they will need to look, feel, and actually be quite different to successfully engage Millennials. That said, simply changing how they operate does not provide carte blanche for institutions to outlive their usefulness.

Fine nails a few more elements here. I certainly don't feel compelled to be a life-long donor to institutions like the United Way or the Sierra Club, and I am much, much more likely to give my time, money, and energy to a person over an institution or an ideal. There is not one institution that I trust more than an individual. I won't give to the Clinton Foundation because of its prestige, but I will give to a prestigious associate at The Clinton Foundation. More importantly, I will give to a prestigious associate representing a prestigious initiative.

As the millennial generation grows, and represents a larger pool of money and support for the issues we represent as organizations, are we making necessary concessions to appeal to their desires? Are we someone, or are we employing someone, that they can trust on an authentic, person-to-person level? Do we give the message of authenticity? Are we devising initiatives potential donors can relate to? Are we able to operate, or conceive of operating, in a time where the institution as we know it is an obsolete form? Where the values put into place by the proliferation of P2P and social networking software take full form in the anti-institutional setting?

While we have conversations about how the technology can benefit our missions, we must simultaneously have a conversation about how our missions are changing thanks to the technology. Are we ready?