Happy summer!
I received several responses to last issue of Notes. Many of you were grateful for the Benediction, originally written for graduates at Louisville Seminary. I trust that it will be used in many places in the months ahead – as should be the case for any good liturgical prayer!
Also, I had several notes from graduate school friends, now teaching in colleges and universities, who remarked that my “lessons learned as a college president” made it clear that I was truly getting into this presidency thing – I think those were compliments?!
Chicago friend and consultant, Kathleen Carpenter, responding to the same piece, asked, “Have you read The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership by Steven B. Sample ( University of Southern California president)? Most of the books on leadership, and I include this one, are not very good. But I thought of you when I was reading the chapter, "Being President Versus Doing President," which was interesting for the thought that "many men want to be president (of a college/university), but very few want to DO president." . . . I hope you are enjoying both. I think the point of this is applicable to a lot of jobs.” I have not read Sample, but am grateful for the insight and encouragement. I agree that the point seems relevant to all of us who aspire to lead.
Occasionally, I (or my colleagues) refer to items from previous issues of Notes. If you have not been a subscriber previously, and wish to review our conversations, past issues of Notes are available on-line at www.jgacounsel.com. The website version of Notes also includes helpful hyperlinks to sources for purchasing or subscribing to the various publications mentioned in Notes. I thank my friends at Johnson, Grossnickle & Associates for their many years of abiding support for our reflective practice.
REFLECT ON THIS
Maimonides and the ladder of giving
The richness of historical reflection and practice, especially as it pertains to philanthropy, is perhaps no better illustrated than in the work of Moses Maimonides, the 12 th century Jewish physician and philosopher, whose Guide of the Perplexed is one of a series of his treatises on God and human experience that remains relevant for our day. I first read Maimonides in graduate school and have returned to his reflections on giving time and again, especially when working with Bob Payton and his colleagues at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
In her recent Rambam’s Ladder: A Meditation on Generosity and Why It Is Necessary to Give (Workman Publishing, 2003), journalist and novelist Julie Salamon offers a sometimes moving account of her personal exploration of Maimonides (Rambam is an acronym for the first letters of Maimonides’ several names) and his teachings on philanthropy.
I recommend the book to you, though I agree with some reviewers that perhaps the best thing about the text is that it prompts you to want to know more about Maimonides – and that is a good thing…
To whet your appetite, here is a summary of Maimonides’ ladder of the eight levels of tzedakah, translated as “charity” or “equity.” I have adapted this version of the ladder from The Perfect Gift: The Philanthropic Imagination in Poetry and Prose (edited by Amy Kass).
“There are eight levels of tzedakah, one better than the next. A high level, of which none is higher, is where one takes the hand of an Israelite and gives him a gift or loan, or makes a partnership with him, or finds him employment, in order to strengthen him until he needs to ask help of no one.
Below this is one who gives tzedakah to the poor, not knowing to whom he gives, while the poor person does not know from whom he takes.
Below this, the giver knows to whom he gives and the poor person does not know from whom he takes.
Below this, the poor person knows from who he takes, and the giver does not know.
Below this, one puts into another’s hand before (the latter) asks.
Below this, one gives another after (the latter) asks.
Below this, one gives another less than is appropriate, in a pleasant manner.
Below this, one gives sorrowfully.”
Salamon labels the steps on the ladder: from responsibility at the top, to anonymity, corruption, boundaries, shame, solicitation, proportion, and reluctance on the bottom rung. The labels themselves are intriguing ways of thinking about our various philanthropic motivations and practices.
Teach me about philanthropy
Lin Tao, a graduate student at our college, is a Brazilian citizen who was born in China . Recently I found him sitting in my office lobby and asked if I could help him. He said that his management professor had suggested that he make an appointment to talk about a class project.
I was intrigued as he described the project. One of the college’s business faculty members is on the local Red Cross board of directors and wanted to find a way to participate in a Red Cross fundraising campaign that had just been launched. Coincidentally, I was chairing the campaign. The faculty member’s creative solution was to offer a final project assignment for his management class that challenged students to commit to drafting and executing a plan to raise $1,000 for the Red Cross campaign. What a great assignment!
Mr. Tao was in the class and wanted more information from me about the campaign. But this was no simple question about the campaign’s goals or timetable. Lin Tao wanted to know what this crazy thing Americans call philanthropy was all about. “Teach me about philanthropy,” he asked. “Why would anyone ask someone else to make a gift to support a cause like the Red Cross?” Why, indeed?
The next thirty minutes or so allowed me to share with Lin Tao the basic narrative about philanthropic practice in America . There were those ministers who traveled to London in the 1640s seeking support for Harvard. There were friendly visitors in 19 th century metropolitan areas. There were orphanages and hospitals and museums that opened in the mid-19 th century. The Rockefellers and Carnegies created foundations to give some of their wealth responsibly in the late 19th century. At the same time, Jane Addams opened a settlement house in Chicago . Fundraisers began to work professionally for YMCAs and universities in the early 20 th century. Today there are professional fundraisers and venture philanthropists and direct mail campaigns and internet giving. And on and on the story unfolds.
But Tao still had questions to be answered – why would someone make a gift to the Red Cross? His cultural and national backgrounds gave him little context for understanding the motivations we might have as Americans to share of our personal resources with individuals and organizations that meet social needs. My response to that question was my personal story of stewardship – my philanthropic autobiography.
Mr. Tao then asked me to come to his management class to discuss the Red Cross campaign and why future business leaders might want to participate. We explored how a business might be motivated by civic pride or neighborhood security, or by marketing decisions, or supporting the interests and causes of employees. For individuals, it may be guilt or altruism, social climbing or repaying a debt, paying back or investing in the future. Perhaps it is some mix of all those motivations, which is, of course, what makes American philanthropy so incredibly interesting and intriguing.
In the end, I guess I was a fairly good salesperson for the Red Cross. Four of the students agreed to develop and execute plans each to raise $1,000 for the campaign. One took it on as a family project and spent time with his children soliciting gifts in his company’s cafeteria. Another wrote a personal check and asked a few family and friends to join him in supporting the effort. Yet another student worked with a local business to raise funds at cash registers.
And Mr. Tao decided on the most pure form of philanthropy I know. He asked classmates and friends and strangers on the street to contribute to his fundraising effort. He learned to tell the story of the Red Cross – about disaster and fire relief, about shelter for the homeless, about support for our armed forces. And the gifts began to add up. The last time I checked, he had raised nearly half of the money and his professor had agreed to match gifts up to a certain amount (a timeworn fundraising trick!)
What is the moral of this story for 21 st century Americans so accustomed to all the forms of fundraising and philanthropy we experience in our daily lives? The point is, of course, that we should never take for granted what a remarkable set of institutions and social dynamics and personal stories the work of philanthropy entails. And, especially for those of us who have the privilege to be involved as professionals in philanthropy, we have an obligation to help others reflect on what it means to be philanthropic and why it is so important to our democracy.
Three simple strategies should guide our work:
- Know your own philanthropic autobiography and help others to know and tell theirs. “Why am I philanthropic?” is a question that can help others to reflect on their motivations – and that is where responsible philanthropy begins.
- Encourage philanthropic institutions for which you work or volunteer to become “missions” for the philanthropic spirit in America . Too often even the best fundraising efforts are characterized by a lack of reflection about why the work of philanthropy is at the core of our personal and social lives. For example, the Red Cross campaign I am chairing is organized very much along the lines of a model first developed by the YMCA in America – more than 100 years ago. That is worth knowing and talking about as our campaign both raises funds for the Red Cross and raises the consciousness of the public about the historic role of fundraising in our culture.
- Finally, take advantage of the growing movement in the United States to encourage civic reflection about philanthropy (and other important issues) in our democracy. Groups come together to read important texts and talk about what difference philanthropy has made and might make in strengthening our civic spirit and work. Of special note are the Project on Civic Reflection at Valparaiso University (http://www.valparaiso.edu/organization/pocr/) and the National Issues Forums (http://www.nifi.org/).
When I saw Lin Tao last week, I asked what he had learned from his initial foray into the world of fundraising. And he replied that he had learned the most important and meaningful lesson of his entire stay in the United States (with apologies to our good faculty members…): he had learned about the American spirit, about thanksgiving and generosity, about why we give. He looks forward to finding ways to share that lesson when he returns home to Brazil .
And I, too, learned a good lesson about the work of philanthropy. I learned how much we take for granted this remarkable individual and public dynamic of giving and receiving. I learned how meaningful it is to reflect on why we give and tell that story again and again to those who don’t understand. The lesson is important, not only to those from other cultures, but also for our fellow Americans whose philanthropic practices are too easily assumed and too rarely celebrated as the rare and distinctive aspect of our national character they truly are.
My thanks to Lin Tao for teaching me well!
PRACTICE THIS
Institutional codes
I have written often here of the good work that Independent Sector (IS) does to help all of us in the philanthropic sector in our reflection and practice related to social values and public accountability. Independent Sector’s Obedience to the Unenforceable was first issued in 1991 (as I was writing my dissertation on related issues!) and re-released in 2002. It is a thorough and insightful guide to the issues raised by the work we do – work that is grounded in public trust – and the need to be good and vigilant stewards of that trust.
Recently, IS has released its Statement of Values and Code of Ethics for Nonprofit and Philanthropic Organizations (see www.IndependentSector.org to download a PDF version), which offers both a guide on these important issues to the entire philanthropic sector, and also a template for individual nonprofit organizations to create their own such statements and guides. In the introduction to the statement, the authors “encourage all organizations to set aside time in your board meeting or at a retreat to discuss in detail all aspects of an ethical code—and be sure that new board members have the appropriate orientation to understand and embrace your code of ethics and practices.” No one else will create such codes for us—but someone (or some agency) may well enforce the tenets of the code if we do not ensure that our boards and staffs understand and practice the highest of ethical standards in their work.
IS suggests the following foundation of widely shared values for the philanthropic sector:
- Commitment to the public good
- Accountability to the public
- Commitment beyond the law
- Respect for the worth and dignity of individuals
- Inclusiveness and social justice
- Respect for pluralism and diversity
- Transparency, integrity and honesty
- Responsible stewardship of resources, and
- Commitment to excellence and to maintaining the public trust.
Based on these values, a code of ethics for nonprofit organizations includes statements on:
- Personal and professional integrity
- Organizational mission and governance
- Legal compliance
- Responsible stewardship of resources
- Openness and disclosure
- Program evaluation
- Inclusiveness and diversity
- Fundraising policies and practices
- (and as relevant) Grant making guidelines.
Make it a priority to urge your board and organizational leadership to use this resource to review your organization’s work on behalf of the public trust. We owe a deep debt of gratitude once again to Independent Sector for its leadership in encouraging ethical and accountable voluntary action for the public good.
A sense of humor
Recently an applicant for a position here at the college remarked that he was surprised to read that “a sense of humor” was a priority for a successful candidacy. He wondered what that meant – perhaps that was a sign that the fit wasn’t right! I have included ‘sense of humor’ in lists of required characteristics for job applicants for many years, mainly because my perspective is that organizations are messy and unpredictable places and that a lack of a sense of humor is a sure sign that someone may be uncomfortable with the dynamics of daily life that not always as clear and consistent as we might hope!
I was interested, in this context, to happen upon the work of The Humor Project, Inc. (www.humorproject.com), whose website includes a helpful essay entitled “Taking Humor Seriously” (by Joel Goodman), which is prefaced with a quote from John F. Kennedy: “There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension. So we must do what we can with the third.”
Goodman writes that humor is important in the workplace so that we might: Take our jobs seriously – and ourselves more lightly; be healthier; avoid stress and burnout; and build stronger relationships.
He also offers a few ‘how-tos’ related to humor: put it into the organization’s physical environment so that, by osmosis, it may become part of people’s awareness; use humor as a tool, not a weapon; make humor part of corporate culture; and help people to see work as fun.
I am more and more convinced that, unless we find what we do fun and can help others to do the same, we will never have healthy organizations or communities.
Elevator speeches
I have directed you before to the fine work done by our colleagues at Stamats, a consulting firm whose work on communications and branding strategies is well-known. A recent issue of the Stamats e-newsletter, QuickTakes (Vol. 7, No. 7, May 2004), has a nice piece on the so-called “elevator speech,” the series of paragraphs about your institution that can be repeated again and again as the story of your organization – and done so in the time it takes an elevator to travel between floors. Chance encounters on airplanes, at cocktail parties, at conferences, and on the street, become powerful opportunities to advance your mission when your “elevator speech” is clear and compelling. Do you have one that you can tell?
QuickTakes recommends an elevator speech developed by Centre College in Kentucky as an example to be emulated. Read the outline of the speech at http://www.centre.edu/web/elevatorspeech.
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS
Provocative wisdom
I recently happened upon one of the wisest and most provocative questions I could imagine for those of us who care about philanthropy. In an article about stewardship, published in the May 2004 The Lutheran magazine, David Smith recalls a sermon he heard as a young man that posed this question: “If everything you are and everything you hold is the Lord’s, then the question is not how much you give but: “How much do you keep?”
Think about how radical that question is…
Resources for your reflective practice
I had the good fortune earlier this spring to participate in a seminar at the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, part of the Hudson Institute in Washington , DC . Our session was a discussion of a paper by Columbia University professor Kenneth Prewitt on the role of foundations in a liberal democracy. A transcript of the conversation is now available on the center’s website (www.pcr.hudson.org), where you’ll also find links to other projects and papers sponsored by the Bradley Center .
My continuing work here in Rockford with a public engagement initiative on educating our children has introduced me to the work of Public Agenda (www.publicagenda.org), a fascinating organization founded in the 1970s by pollster Daniel Yankelovich and former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Dedicated to a variety of strategies for helping citizens to talk together about important issues, Public Agenda’s work resonates with many of the values and concerns raised in these Notes.
Thoreau on life and poetry
I have a new collection of poems written in English, edited by Yale professor Harold Bloom, whose strong opinions about his selections are sometimes as interesting as the poems themselves!
This brief verse by Henry David Thoreau captures some of the enigma of his life – and perhaps of the country of whose psyche he was emblematic.
“My life has been the poem I would have writ,
But I could not both live and utter it.”
Subscription information
Subscriptions to Notes are simple to establish. Send me an email at president@rockford.edu, ask to be added to the list, and the listserv will confirm that you have been subscribed to the list. Please feel free to forward your email versions of Notes to others—they then can subscribe by contacting me. The current and archive issues of Notes are available on-line at www.jgacounsel.com.
Topics for the next issue (August 2004)
Making lofty missions real – the strategy platform
- Getting unstuck!
- Tactics for changing minds
(c) Paul Pribbenow, 2004