|
|
Notes for
the by Paul Pribbenow, Ph.D. |
|
|
Philanthropy is a journey. Let JGA be your guide.
Johnson, Grossnickle and Associates Inc.
|
Volume
Four, Number One (October 2002) ****** "What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how." (W. Wordsworth, from "The Prelude") NOTES FROM READERS >>What you think<< This begins the fourth year of my Notes – a simple idea that responded to a need among the diverse folks for whom reflection and practice too often were separated. I’m grateful for the many readers who join us every other month for these jottings and notations on issues of philanthropic leadership and management. Here’s to another great year. The past year certainly has been eventful for all of us. Thanks to all of you who sent along your notes of congratulations and condolences these past couple of months. I was inaugurated as the 16th president of Rockford College on October 4, 2002. My entire family was here for the day, the first time we were together since mom’s funeral. It was a moving day for all of us – and an important day for this wonderful college. I was honored that friend and teacher, Martin E. Marty, was here to offer his wise words to a new president. If you are interested in what I had to say, my inaugural address is posted on the Rockford College website (www.rockford.edu). Entitled “Joining a College: A Labor of Love,” the address lifts up many themes you have read in these Notes over the past few years. >>Organizational vice and virtues<< Not many of you yet seem to have wrapped your minds around my challenge to consider the vices and virtues of organizations. Dallas-based subscriber and consultant Carole Rylander gave it some good thought and among her various offerings these highlights rang especially true: VICESPridePride is demonstrated by organizations that choose: · To base their activities on their own passion and perspectives, without the benefit of a strategic plan or regard for aligning their mission to market needs. A “we know everything we need to know” perspective. · Not to collaborate with other organizations to provide enhanced or expanded products and services. LustOrganizations that demonstrate “lust” propose to benefit needy client populations, but in fact exist to provide shallow, “do-gooder” gratification for trustees and volunteers. Such organizations provide ample opportunities for trustees and volunteers to “feel good” about their service and/or socializing in lieu of dedicating resources and time for in-depth exploration of clients’ needs. GluttonyOrganizations with “scarcity” mentality, where there is never enough money, time, staff, or volunteers to address the need demonstrate a perverse gluttony. The focus of a gluttonous organization is always on what is not possessed or not available, as if the organization would immediately expend all resources it secures, and more. Such an organization does not consider how to most efficiently and effectively use resources that are available and plan for growth. SlothInflexible, stagnant organizations that cling to the “status quo” demonstrate sloth. Examples include organizations: · with leadership who are eagerly anticipating retirement, · that will not take action to remove employees/staff or board members who are creating significant dysfunction. EnvyOrganizations that demonstrate envy focus primarily on the competitive aspect of their external relationships rather than identifying and enhancing their core competencies and partnering with other organizations. AngerOrganizations that so fervently adhere to and “preach” their message and mission that they perceive those not aligned with them as enemies. This anger prevents the organization from objectively viewing their “opposition” and strategizing about how to incrementally move their opposition to another perspective. VIRTUESPrudenceMost organizations understand the importance of demonstrating fiduciary responsibility, especially related to generating profits and/or balancing budgets. However, organizations that go beyond such basic activities to create and use cash flow projections and build cash reserves demonstrate prudence. JusticeAn organization that is intentional about how it involves those it serves or benefits and/or those at its lowest levels of authority in decision-making. FortitudeAn organization that does not expect short-term, instant solutions to complex problems, but is willing to work persistently toward long-term solutions. Thanks, Carole. I still would like to hear from others on this important topic. >>Philanthropic texts<< My other lingering query for all of you asked for texts that you have found particularly meaningful in helping us to understand philanthropy. Fred Bleeke, president of the Lutheran Foundation of St. Louis, writes: “My recommendation is Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Dickens wrote in the preface his purpose for writing the novel, "... to awaken some loving and forbearing thoughts, never out of season in a Christian land." A Lord Jeffrey wrote the author a couple of years later stating, "You may be sure you have done more good, and not only fastened more kindly feelings, but prompted more positive acts of benevolence, by this little publication, than can be traced to all the pulpits and confessionals since Christmas, 1842." Friend and erstwhile consulting partner, Don Johnson, suggests: “Education of a College President, by James R. Killian, Jr. Out of print, I'm sure, and of limited appeal (maybe even to you, despite the fact you have it!) However, Jim's reflections offer the clearest expression I've seen of the power of honest partnerships between organizational leaders and philanthropists and the transforming institutional and societal impact (in this case M.I.T.) they can have.” 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 and Associates for their abiding support for our reflective practice. ****** REFLECT ON THIS >>A meditation on mixed motivations and leadership<< A well-meaning friend of Rockford College recently said to me, “You are doing a great job as president, but you’ve made two mistakes – potentially damaging mistakes.” She then went on to suggest that my listening to and taking the advice of two different individuals had jeopardized my presidency. Her conclusion that these individuals “were trying to accomplish their personal agendas” in their advice to me was accompanied by her observation that, otherwise, our college had always operated like a family. Now, I won’t take the time to analyze just what sort of family this college had become, but it is instructive to consider what personal agendas versus other sorts of agendas might mean for successful leadership of an institution. The Roman Catholic theologian and political philosopher, John Courtney Murray, once argued that democracy is about negotiating the “intersection of conspiracies.” I’ve always loved that phrase because it seems so true of all common efforts. Though we might wish – and even believe – that successful organizations have all participants pulling in the same direction, the truth is that our various agendas – be they personal or corporate – reflect a variety of motivations, sometimes mixed and conflicting motivations, that need to be negotiated. Organizational life is about negotiating those various conspiracies. I learned pretty much all I need to know about mixed motivations by working as a professional fundraiser for the past 20 years. Early on, like many young fundraisers, I was sure that donors to our university shared my commitment to its mission and cause. I came down firmly on the side of altruism as the primary motivator for charitable giving. Imagine my surprise, then, when I received that first phone call complaining about the fact that they were not seated with the president at the donor recognition event. Or the conversation with a reunion volunteer about competing for top billing in the annual fund. Later, while working at an art museum, I learned about social-climbing and corporate greed and gifts with strings attached. And even later there were those conversations with major donors about gifts that would come (or not come) depending on how liberal (or conservative) the president of our college turned out to be. The messiness of mixed motivations (good, bad or indifferent) – whether in philanthropy or program development or strategic planning or the stewardship of physical assets – is the reality we must face as we negotiate our lives together. The intersection of conspiracies – some obvious, some clothed in the most lovely of garments, others deeply enmeshed in organizational culture – is the reality that organizational leaders must address as they seek to accomplish common objectives. As leaders, how shall we proceed? First, we must learn to recognize and accept the reality of mixed motivations. This is difficult for many of us. We are not comfortable with the messiness of organizational life. We want to think the best of those who appear to care about our institution. The truth is, however, that a good dose of chastened realism is the best perspective from which to diagnose personal and organizational conspiracies. Second, we must not accept the reality of mixed motivations as the determining factor in pushing an organization forward. Realistic, yes - deterministic, never. Though the conspiracies may be myriad, we must believe that those conspiracies can be reshaped, channeled, transformed, refined – whatever is demanded of the circumstances – in pursuit of common purposes. If we accept the reality of mixed motivations as the final word, then we are destined to be shaped not by common vision, but by the raw power politics of agenda one-upmanship. Finally, we must resolve to lead with a firm sense of personal and organizational integrity. This requires our imagination, courage and wisdom, but it is critical that we reflect, decide, and act based on integrity – that wonderful, grounded sense of the right fit of values and practices in our personal and corporate lives. Mixed motivations – agendas of all sorts – conspiracies even – these certainly will abound in the messy worlds we inhabit. Our duties as leaders are to hold fast to common purposes, hold others accountable to the expectations and standards set by those common purposes, and demand integrity of both individuals and the organization in pursuit of those purposes. Easier said than done, I suppose, but I find that my day-to-day leadership of this college is more and more about demanding integrity in the face of mixed motivations and agendas. >>On the road of democracy<< Rockford College has the tradition of an opening academic convocation for faculty, staff and students, at which the president delivers an address. My theme was “The Discipline of Democracy: Negotiating our Lives Together.” I began with the provocative story I first told a year ago in my Notes about Michael Ignatieff and his students at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who, on September 11, 2001, were confronted in the classroom with their diverse perspectives on the “truths” of our lives together. Ignatieff’s comment was that only the “discipline of learning” could enable us to deal with the painful and tension-filled issues of our common lives. Such discipline, I contend, is also the stuff of a healthy democracy. I chose to organize my convocation remarks by considering three ways in which democracy is like a road and asking what the discipline of democracy demands of us as we travel that road together: “The first characteristic of the road we’ve set out upon is summarized in Jane Addams’ Democracy and Social Ethics, where she contends that “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.” What a beautiful passage – and what an abiding challenge to our continuing fascination with the individualism that Robert Bellah and his associates described in their Habits of the Heart. As Addams and Bellah both show us – writing nearly 80 years apart, our democracy is grounded in a conception of human nature that celebrates the appropriate balance between individual responsibility and common purpose. When the balance is lost, we are left impoverished – and our social poverty during the past 100 years has left too many of our fellow citizens behind when it comes to opportunity, justice, health care, education, and so forth – the basic goods of a healthy body politic. The thronged and common road, on which each of us travels, is the byway of democracy. Understanding that common way is the first step in accepting the discipline of democracy. The second characteristic of the road we share – and the second aspect of the discipline of democracy – is illustrated by the familiar story of the Good Samaritan found in Luke’s gospel. A man is on the road to Jericho, when he is stripped, beaten and robbed by thieves, leaving him half dead. In turn, a priest and then a Levite come upon the man – and not only do they both pass him by, they cross over to the other side of the road as they do so. And then comes the Samaritan, a foreigner, who upon seeing the man, has compassion, binds his wounds, gives him a drink, takes him to an inn, and pays for his stay. Now, I think that most of us would say that the “good” thing was done by the Samaritan and there are lots of reasons why that is so. But I am just as interested in the broader issue this story raises about our responsibility to each other when we are in need – and the fact that in a democracy, we do have a choice, but we must take responsibility both for whatever choice we make. We might choose not to respond to the need we see around us – that is our right, we might say, and we may have very good reasons for choosing not to help, but passing to the other side of the road, not being accountable for what we do and do not do, is an abrogation of our role as a citizen on the road of democracy. The discipline of democracy requires that we struggle with, talk about, take responsibility for our decisions about how we spend our time, how we give our money, how we participate in the civic and political sphere – you don’t have to respond to every philanthropic appeal, but you do need to be reflective and accountable for what you do and do not give… This is a critical and complex issue about what it means to be a citizen of a democracy – and I would say, of a college. A healthy democracy cannot be constructed on a system of entitlements; it must be grounded in our sense of being accountable for the individual choices we make in pursuit of the commonweal… The final characteristic of the road of democracy is made clear not by some distinguished text from Jane Addams or the Bible, but by a very practical little pamphlet, distributed by the local Secretary of State’s office, entitled “Rules of the Road.” But my point is simple: democracy, like driving, requires rules for us to get along. Those rules are not necessarily meant to be rigid, cast in stone forever commandments (rules can change and we can help them change!), but they are meant to create a framework of predictability and order that allows each of us to know what to expect, what to do…When I come to a stop sign, I know that the rules require me to come to a full stop, to watch for pedestrians, to let other cars go according to some set pattern – the same must be true of life in a democracy…what are the rules we must live by? A friend recently suggested that Robert’s Rules of Order might be the most radical tool we have for effecting change in our organizations and our democracy! The discipline of democracy requires that we both understand the rules of the road and see in those rules not the basis for some rigid, authoritarian, predetermined outcome, but the context in which we find ways to live together, to build a good society, to pursue good lives as citizens… The discipline of democracy – recognizing the common and thronged road on which we travel, taking responsibility for the decisions and acts and choices we make as we travel that road, and knowing the rules, the etiquette of the road – is the discipline we seek to make a part of our lives here at Rockford College (and the other communities we inhabit) day in and day out.” ****** PRACTICE THIS >>Organizational intelligence<< For many years, I have taught students in my nonprofit management courses that organizations need to learn how to think and reflect. I believe that the various ways we think about planning are actually ways of thinking as an organization that need to be a more integrated and abiding aspect of our work. For example, four common types of organizational plans include:
Simply substitute the word ‘thinking’ for the word ‘planning’ in each category and what we begin to see emerge are ways of organizing institutional thinking as core aspects of our work together. For example, how might we organize a ‘strategic thinking’ process that is charged with constantly considering the links between organizational mission and vision, the external environment in which we operate, and the state of our internal resources at any given moment in time? Or how might we organize cross-departmental teams and charge them with finding and implementing cost-savings initiatives on an ongoing basis? A recent article in the Harvard Management Update (August 2002), entitled “How to Build Organizational IQ,” suggests five key strategies: (1) Find ways to build external information awareness – how does your organization capture and quickly distill key information about customers, competitors, and market opportunities? (2) Implement ways to streamline internal knowledge dissemination – how does your organization communicate: from the top down, bottom up, and between functions? (3) Construct effective decision architecture – how do we ensure that decisions are made by the appropriate functions and at the appropriate levels? (4) Seek to increase organizational focus – how do we ensure that we are focused on the most important activities, those necessary to accomplish our strategic objectives? (5) Learn from information-age business networks – how do we stay ahead of the curve, find and implement good practices (perhaps even ‘best’ practices), continue to work better and smarter, if we don’t keep our eyes on the networks that have evolved around us? Insularity will be our undoing… >>The business of nonprofits<< I’m thinking a great deal these days (more than I sometimes care to!) about the business aspects of leading and managing a college. I was, therefore, struck by a column in the October 2002 issue of Fast Company that described the good work of Suzanne Muchin, who heads the Chicago-based nonprofit, Civitas. Civitas (Latin for ‘community’) was originally founded to give grants to students of law, medicine, and social work who were focusing on abused and neglected children. In recent years, Civitas has changed its focus and now creates front-end products (like videos and other informational sources) that are distributed to parents and are marketed through partnerships with various companies like Johnson & Johnson. Muchin describes how a year-and-a-half ago, while sitting in a board meeting audit review, she had this epiphany about the work of Civitas. She realized that Civitas was allowing its corporate partners to set the terms of their relationships. The corporations enhanced their bottom lines, and Civitas, which was providing the real service and product in the relationship, was left with little but good feelings about its work. Muchin recognized that there might be ways to structure these relationships so that Civitas set the business terms. She redesigned the production and distribution systems so that they serve the Civitas mission and then began to negotiate with corporate partners not simply on philanthropic terms, but as a genuine option for a good business relationship. It is a fascinating story about social capital and the changing environment for nonprofits, and I commend the article to you all. From my perspective, there are lessons in the Civitas model for all of us who lead nonprofits. When you negotiate with vendors, service-providers, and partners in your charitable work, do you approach those deliberations with a sense of your leveraging power, what you might expect of the relationship based on your needs (and not simply their terms), and what is best for your people and programs? If not, then we may be losing opportunities to save money, to expect more of our partners, to set and expect certain performance objectives, and to develop relationships that truly serve our missions. More on this important set of issues in future Notes. I would value your perspectives on the business of nonprofit management. ****** PAY ATTENTION TO THIS >>Inauguration poetry<< First-year Rockford College student, Mary M. Martin, penned the following lines and read them for me at a poetry reading we organized as part of the inaugural festivities here at the college. I am proud of her and grateful for her good words. October Day SaluteThe duty of a student can be summed up in a sentence; To benefit the race of man with thoughtful independence;
To keep the dark of ignorance from clouding up our vision To stand the watch with vigilance and learn from each decision.
We look to you to represent, dear president and tutors, A lifetime worth of study spent from inkwells to computers.
A life which does not disregard the benefit of living, But credits poets, clowns, and bards the lessons they are giving.
Our courses and our campus smack of liberal arts forum, But do not for a moment lack tradition or decorum.
October day has come again and those who gather here, From those who dare to lift a pen to those who lend an ear,
Are welcome now to be a part of this inauguration. Our president, with open heart, is welcomed to his station. >>Subscription information<< Subscriptions to Notes are simple to establish. Send me an email at paul_pribbenow@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. >>Topics for the next issue (December 2002)<<
(c) Paul Pribbenow, 2002 |
|
