|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
NOTES FROM THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER by Paul Pribbenow, Ph.D. |
|
Volume Four, Number 6 (August 2003) –W. Wordsworth, from "The Prelude" NOTES FROM READERS There were many personal notes of empathy after my report in the June issue about our commencement dust-up here at Rockford College. Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful words – and for your friendship. Things have settled down, though occasionally there are opportunities to revisit the issues raised by the commencement and aftermath. We have organized a series of dialogues here on campus for the next year, hoping to engage the issues of responsibility, public discourse, and the role of colleges in a democracy. I’ll report along the way. A
couple of comments of general significance concerning the commencement.
Dwight Burlingame remarks that he is “reminded of the
importance of the strength of spiritual guidance during such times and
the great historical writers that have helped us interpret meaning in
our own lives.” Friends
and former colleagues Ted Grossnickle and Kris Kindelsperger (who asked
that I turn Notes into a “book on tape” format!) disagreed with my
statement that the commencement provided “evidence that the
state of public discourse in our society is impoverished.” They
say instead, “As amateur history buffs, we were hard pressed to recall
a period in American history when the consideration of controversial
public issues wasn’t difficult. The impression that somehow what
happened at Rockford would not have happened in a different era seems
wrong to us. In fact, with cable TV and the internet there are, in
fact, many more ways in which public discourse can occur, not less.”
Good history lessons from all three. Tom Boyle was
intrigued by the gift economy meditation in my June Notes.
He says the passage “struck a chord with (my) thinking this
time on scarcity and abundance, that “giving is the core of human
activity” and that we need to view giftedness (and gifts) through the
lens of abundance. I would extend your argument to cover
leadership as well. Our culture defines leadership so narrowly
that there is (it seems) a scarcity of competent people to lead.
If one can get an organization to free up its thinking a bit and
recognize the leadership gifts in all of its members, and release those
gifts, enormous creativity and energy are the result. A little
chaos as well, to be sure, but the juices do flow. It is one
of the reasons I left the academic world for my current role.” And
finally, Gene Scanlan, on the same gift economy essay, says “I tend to
be one who believes that philanthropy (both good and bad) always
involves an exchange….The Council on Foundations published a book
(possibly still available online) called Cultures of Caring, and
in the book Mindy Berry, a colleague of mine, spoke of the American
Indian notion of philanthropy as being an exchange of honor between the
donor and the recipient. After interviewing hundreds of donors over the
years for feasibility studies, etc., I still believe that there is an
exchange that always occurs. That which is received by the donor can be
very tangible (a named building) or, in the other extreme, very
intangible (feelings of helping others, serving a cause, helping to
fulfill a mission). In most cases that I've seen it is the donor that
feels he or she has received the greater “gift”, even if it is not
in the form of what we all call recognition. There are two “i's” in
the word giving - I who give and I who receive - this means there is a
transaction or exchange. But in the best philanthropy it is a higher
order transaction that is focused on human values 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 online 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 abiding support for our reflective practice. REFLECT ON THIS Defining philanthropy in America The abiding question for the nonprofit sector in America seems to be definitional and historical, i.e., who are we and who determines who we are and how we are judged for our efforts? I came to the work of the nonprofit sector through my academic studies in social ethics. I was intrigued and continue to be so, by the ways in which the nonprofit sector enables our society to live out its moral aspirations and values – for good or ill. It is certainly messy business, as is all moral work, and it does not lend itself to easy labeling or analysis. Witness a series of articles in recent months – from various perspectives – raising questions about the sector, its definition and role, and how it might be more effective. The initial source of the recent conversation was an article in Harvard Business Review by former Senator Bill Bradley, Paul Jansen, and Les Silverman entitled “The Nonprofit Sector’s $100 Billion Opportunity” (May 2003). The article’s provocative claim was essentially this: By reducing funding costs, distributing holdings faster, reducing program service costs, trimming administrative costs, and improving the sector’s effectiveness, more than $100 billion in savings could be reaped and redirected to the important mission-based work of the nonprofits. Who could argue with that result? Well, let me tell you that the responses were fast and furious, and most argued in some form or another what Eugene Tempel, director of the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, said well in The Nonprofit Times (August 1, 2003). His gist: Yes, efficiency is all well and good, and the sector should work to get more streamlined, business-like, and accountable, but the one-size-fits-all analysis of Bradley and colleagues “largely ignores the fact that the nonprofit sector is, and should be, more than a streamlined provider of services. (They) fail to acknowledge one of the primary tensions inherent in the nonprofit sector – the need to balance pluralism and efficiency. . . . The diversity of ideas and the rich texture of our culture owe much to donors and nonprofits that span the spectrum of perspectives, purposes, sizes and actions.” This is fascinating stuff and messy all around. It calls for a historical perspective, it seems to me, one that reminds us that the role of philanthropic activity and organizations in our country has evolved through several eras and stages that can continue to teach us all about the nature of common purpose and democracy. I send you back to the work of the late Robert Bremner (American Philanthropy, University of Chicago, 1987), and I also commend a recent essay by K. Timothy Weidmann in the Marts and Lundy Counsel (Summer 2003, www.martsandlundy.com) entitled “Hail to Philanthropy! Reflections on Philanthropy and American Culture.” Weidmann’s good essay reminds us that Americans have, during the past 200 years, essentially invented the term ‘philanthropy’. By invented, he means that we have socially constructed the meaning of the word to meet the needs of a society with particular values and aspirations. The Greek source of philanthropy, meaning “to love humankind,” became a shell of sorts for an evolving set of individual and institutional responses to our national circumstances. Weidmann traces some of the history of philanthropy in America and then points to Lilya Wagner’s helpful summary of the three primary forms of philanthropy in our society today (from her book, Careers in Fund Raising, Wiley and Sons, 2001):
Weidmann’s point is not to disparage (or overlook) the remarkable work that small gifts and volunteerism make possible in support of lots of worthy causes. Rather, he reminds us that the evolving agenda of philanthropy includes all of these various forms of philanthropy – and in that way, philanthropy and the culture it has engendered in America are genuine partners in the work of democracy. I am thinking and writing a good bit these days about just that issue – how philanthropy and democracy are linked – and though I don’t have any final conclusions, I certainly have found how rich and wonderful and messy it all is. And for that reason, efforts (even by distinguished scholars and public servants) to prescribe overarching recommendations to make the work of the philanthropic sector more efficient and effective will strike many as naïve, if not wrong-headed. History is a wonderful tonic for our 21st century aspirations. A commonplace on strangers I have collected various books and sayings over the years on strangers and offer this commonplace of provocative and insightful words from my teachers. “Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes . . . .and prays toward this house, then hear in heaven your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you….that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built.” (Hebrew scriptures, 1 Kings 8:41-43) “As they came near the village to which they were going, (the stranger) walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him . . .” (Christian scriptures, Luke 24: 28-31) “In a civilized society (a man) stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few friends.” (Adam Smith) “Our needs are made of words: they come to us in speech, and they can die for lack of expression. Without a public language to help us find our words, our needs will dry up in silence. It is words only, the common meanings they bear, which give me the right to speak in the name of the strangers at my door . . . Without the light of language, we risk becoming strangers to our better selves . . .” (Michael Ignatieff) “. . . the public is all those people, those strangers, who share his territory . . . engaging his intellect, his imagination, his emotions. The public is the human world of which he is a part and on which he is dependent, a world which brings color and texture to his life, energizes and educates him, enlarges and enlivens his human experience . . . . Despite the fact that we are strangers to one another—and will stay strangers for the most part—we occupy a common space, share common resources, have common opportunities, and must somehow learn to live together.” (Parker Palmer) “In the sustained absence of a healthy and vigorous informal public life, the citizenry may quite literally forget how to create one. A facilitating public etiquette consisting of rituals necessary to the meeting, greeting, and enjoyment of strangers is not much in evidence in the United States.” (Ray Oldenburg) “Amy Vanderbilt’s New Complete Book of Etiquette (1962) contains not a single reference to proper behavior in the world of strangers.” (Lyn Lofland) “People must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other. This is a lesson nobody learns by being told. It is learned from the experience of having other people without ties of kinships or close friendship or formal responsibility take a modicum of public responsibility for you.” (Jane Jacobs) “We are learning that a standard of social ethics is not attained by traveling a sequestered byway, but by mixing on the thronged and common road where all must turn out for one another, and at least see the size of one another’s burdens.” (Jane Addams) If you don’t know the kind of person I am and I don’t know the kind of person you are a pattern that others made may prevail in the world and following the wrong god home we may miss our star. (William Stafford) A people sometimes will step back from war; elect an honest man; decide they care enough, that they can’t leave some stranger poor. Some men become what they were born for. (Sheenagh Pugh) “When hope includes care for others, the self enlarges, grows generous. The spirit increases.” (Martin Marty) Practicing abundance I spend a good bit of my time seeking to understand and practice the work of abundance in my life. As I share this work with others, though, I often find that I am unable to translate for them what I find so compelling about abundance as a way of life. My usual source for inspiration – the story of the “Feeding of the 5000,” found in Mark’s gospel (6: 30-44) – often connotes for those who know it some sort of supernatural moment when the bread and fish are multiplied. I’ve long believed that the miracle in that story is in Jesus’ insightful regrouping of the crowd, denying the disciples’ efforts to send the people away or to pool their own funds to feed the crowd, and recognizing that when the situation is impersonal or lacks a certain trust level, people will hide what they have instead of offering it for general use. When he divides the crowd of 5,000 into groups of 50 and 100, there are occasions for personalizing and trust building that lead people to share what they have with others – and there is more than enough to go around, as the story goes. It is a miracle – it may even be divine – but it’s a very real and concrete way of living that we can seek to emulate. I have been interested lately in other ways that abundance is understood and practiced in our world today. Three recent ideas seem to me helpful as we seek to live abundantly in a world defined by scarcity. The commonsHis recent article in The Nonprofit Quarterly (Summer 2003) reminded me of the good work of Roger Lohmann, whose 1992 book The Commons: New Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (Jossey-Bass) was well received and influential. Lohmann argues for the concept of “the commons,” a set of ideas and practices that “offers a powerful way to explain the unique mission and role of nonprofit activity.” Commons theory suggests five characteristics or attributes for the commons:
There is much to explore here – I recommend Lohmann’s book or Garrett Hardin’s classic essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Science 162, 1968), if you would like to know more – but I think the most valuable aspect of Lohmann’s work is the notion that the commons is a way of looking at the world that is the foundation for abundance. “The actual experience of mutuality is one that no single individual or organization can create. Commons occur only when people do things together that none of them could do alone.” The first step is imagining that working together is the only way. CollaborationThe Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University has recently published a fine essay by Luana Nissan and Dwight Burlingame entitled “Collaboration Among Institutions: Strategies for Nonprofit Management Education Programs” (2003). Though the essay has a specific focus for its exploration of collaboration, the general themes it raises are relevant to all human efforts to work together to achieve abundant results. Nissan and Burlingame summarize several areas of activity and focus that comprise collaboration, and they point to obstacles and opportunities in pursuing collaborations.
For another fine source on collaboration, see Michael Winer and Karen Ray’s Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining and Enjoying the Journey (Amherst Wilder Foundation, 1994). See also James Austin’s article, “Strategic Alliances, in the Summer 2003 issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review. It isn’t easy, but it’s the only way! CommunicationTed Grossnickle, writing in a recent issue of Common Work: Occasional Notes on Issues and Trends in Philanthropy (August 2003), suggests that effective communication is a key to successful leadership in philanthropy. I would suggest that the points he makes apply as well to the work of abundance. Good leaders, he says, “innately understand what they must do with certain information to do their jobs effectively. They know intuitively what must be shared with the group and what must be selectively shared – and with whom. Most importantly, they screw up their courage a notch or two and go sit down and talk with someone when the time and situation calls for it.” This “lost art” of communication does not come easily to those of us who seek to live abundantly. The role of communication in building trust must not be taken for granted and Grossnickle suggests several concrete questions we might use as guides to knowing that we are setting a foundation for the work of abundance:
Helpful insights in the daily and difficult work of living abundantly in a world where scarcity too often dominates our common perspective, our willingness to collaborate, and our abilities to communicate. The charge(s) we lead and stories we tell Danos answers, “Progress cannot happen without a good narrative…I learned how powerful the well-communicated idea can be as a tool to inform new directions and inspire new energy. Leadership is an unbelievably hard communications job. You must have a firm grasp of your competitive environment, encapsulate the spirit of an organization, package it in strategic statements, and then emphasize those statements repeatedly, so that the message becomes part of the conversation.” I have learned a good bit about the importance of good narratives from Bob Sevier, who consults and writes about colleges and universities. He draws together various sources to posit this list of effective leadership traits – each of which helps us to focus on telling stories more persuasively:
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS Resources for your reflective practice I’ve recently received Garrison Keillor’s Good Poems (Viking, 2002), a compilation of the hundreds of poems he has included on his public radio-based “The Writer’s Almanac.” I was referred to an interesting web source, Alternet.org, which has a slant of sorts but includes some otherwise not available material. I was particularly pleased to read a piece by Bill Moyers (June 10, 2003) entitled “Acceptance of America’s Future,” which includes a reference to the good work of Jane Addams. I have a brief essay entitled “Looking for Jane” that will appear in the September 2003 issue of Case Currents, the national magazine for those of us involved in advancing higher education. It recounts our efforts here at Rockford to find our mentor and identity in our history. Please see www.case.org later this month if you are interested. Truth New Rockford colleague, Stephanie Quinn, has recently reminded me of Emily Dickinson’s wonderful poem about truth – and of its implications for our leadership of the college. It is especially relevant given our earlier discussion of communication and abundance. Here is Dickinson with her familiar verse: “Tell all the Truth but tell it slant— Success in circuit lies Too bright for our infirm Delight The Truth’s superb surprise As Lightning to the Children eased With explanation kind The Truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind—“ It seems to me that every influential person in my life has known and practiced this lesson well. May you know the superb surprise of truth.
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 you will receive a confirmation from the mail server at Wabash College that you are on 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. · High engagement philanthropy · Legitimacy issues for leaders (c) Paul Pribbenow, 2003 |