Should he be afraid?

In the wake of the Boston marathon bombings, a lot of people asked how anyone can bring children into today’s world; a world where such atrocities are possible.

The most interesting thing about this line of questioning is that it assumes 2 things. First, that today’s world is somehow worse than the world of yesteryear; scarier, more dangerous. Second, that we deserve some guarantee of a good world to feel comfortable bringing kids into it.

Neither of these assumptions is fair. First – as any student of history can attest, the quality/safety/scariness of the world doesn’t change much as time goes by. There have always been wars, disasters, risks, suffering and pain. We may be more aware of these problems now thanks to the internet and TV, but fundamentally; bad things aren’t new.

Second, where did we get the idea that we’re entitled to a world where all children are safe and sound at all times, protected even from news of bad things? This has never been the case.

And yet – we have kids anyway. And as a mother-to-be, this makes perfect sense to me.

Making the world a better place is part of the reason for living – it’s our purpose as human beings. I plan to teach my child this. I don’t plan to pretend that bad things will never happen. I don’t plan to shelter my child from news of bad things happening.

When bad things do happen (as they surely will), I hope to tell my child that it means we must work to be the best people we can. This need for help is why we must work to become good at helping.

What would be the point of life if there were no opportunity to do worthwhile things? There is no light without darkness. There is no good without bad.

Bringing children into the world and bringing them up aspiring to be forces for good strikes me as extremely worthwhile in a world where bad things will happen.

• Share

Not maliciously, or even deliberately, but it’s happening, because it’s hard to tell someone the truth if; a) we don’t think they want to hear it, and b) they have some sort of power over us.

Say it ain’t so!

This dynamic is rampant between charities and supporters. The charities want to maintain good relationships; plus keep the donations and other support flowing. So they’re very leery of telling us anything that might rub us the wrong way, even important information that would help everyone do more good.

This piece from the Center for Effective Philanthropy shows that even Jimmy Carter isn’t immune. As the CEP asks: “If A Former President Can’t Give Funder Feedback, Then Who Can?”

Charities’ reluctance to be honest with donors is no reflection on the donors as people. It’s more about how difficult it can be to bring up difficult topics, and our society’s long-standing habit of treating charitable givers as above reproach: as if giving entitles you to thanks and praise only – never criticism. This is how things work – for now, at least.

This hit home for me when I tried to invite some corporate giving people to an event I’m co-hosting. One of the goals of the event is to encourage self-reflection; help each participant examine their work with new perspective and insight.

This was a tough concept for the corporate giving folks. They asked me if I wanted them to speak at the event. They seemed to think they would be doing me a favour by showing up. They were not excited by the idea of workshopping their own work.

They’re clearly conditioned to see themselves as the experts, as the sources of all funding, wisdom and power. They’re not used to being treated as equal partners in a process that includes a diversity of players, or asked to examine their own work with a critical eye.

This doesn’t mean they’re bad people; any more than charity workers are bad for sugar-coating supporter communications. It just means they’re locked into this old structure of benefactor and supplicant – playing out traditional roles.

So what can we do? For givers, the first step is to simply be aware of this dynamic; to know that the charities we support will tend towards painting a rosy picture of how things are going. Then, we can put some thought into asking more probing, more difficult questions to draw out the other side of the truth and get a fuller picture.

• Share

Follow your heart, but bring your head with you!

Someone recently remarked to me that she’s not really comfortable with the term “do gooder”. Bravo, I say – neither am I!

That’s why I use the term in a tongue-in-cheek way. By itself, it brings to mind an image of a well intentioned, energetic, misguided meddler; someone who is always bustling about doing what they think is best with little regard for the consequences.

And yet – I find that a lot of people focus on that part of my business name, asking things like “what does it take to be a do gooder?”, and “how can we inspire more people to be do gooders?”. Some even start referring to themselves as do gooders, as if it’s a point of pride.

Hold on, back up! “Do gooderism” by itself is not something we need more of in our world. We have plenty of people attempting to do good things. What we need is more people succeeding.

That’s where the all-important “savvy” part comes in. “Savvy” means thinking critically about what we’re doing, understanding the consequences of our actions, and constantly adjusting our tactics to get better at actually getting good done.

It means discipline, flexibility, and rigour on the part of the do gooder. It means being prepared to fail, to learn, and to press on with the lessons we’ve earned. It means having an awareness of what happens after we’ve raised the money, put up the posters, volunteered for the afternoon, etc.

“Savvy” is what keeps us from spinning our wheels in endless feel-good, make-work projects that don’t accomplish anything. “Savvy” is what ups our chances of effectiveness. It, basically, is the goal we are all working towards.

So please – don’t forget about the “savvy”. Anyone can be a do gooder. It takes smarts and commitment to be a Savvy Do Gooder.

• Share

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

“Why” is the abolute most important thing to ask in these situations, for one simple reason:

Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it.

Whoever perpetrated the Boston attack(s) did it for a reason. It probably wasn’t a good reason, but regardless – if we don’t know what it was, how can we neutralize it? How can we solve a problem without knowing what caused it?

Understanding why something happened is not the same as condoning it. It’s not the same as sympathizing with it. We can understand the motives and preconditions of an event without agreeing with them.

Maybe the bomber(s) have mental health issues. Maybe they’re U.S. citizens driven to desperation by extreme economic circumstances. Maybe they’re the product of an international terrorist organization that teaches that the U.S. is the Great Satan and must be punished. The possibilities are endless. But each one requires a very different approach to prevention/fixing.

Without knowing what led to this tragic event, how can we possibly prevent it happening again? Simply finding and punishing the perpetrators (as Phil recommends) does nothing to address what made them do it and, in some cases, may even fuel the fires of whatever that is by making them martyrs to their cause.

Heck, yes, ask “why?”. First, foremost, and always. It’s a crucial part of making things better.

 Here’s Phil’s video – the section on the Boston Marathon starts at about 05:45:

• Share

Whatever the reason, a lot of people are moving towards doing and having less, while  increasing the quality of what they do choose to have in their lives. The Slow Movement is a great example of this shift.

What does this mean for us do gooders? We often feel the pressure to do more and more – the invitations to get involved with this project or that movement never let up. Knowing how much need there is in the world (and how much opportunity to make things better) it can be hard to say ‘no’.

So many do gooders find themselves caught up in the frenzy of fast: spread thin; sometimes burning out; often doing a large quantity of low-quality work; often unaware of what the impact of our scattered efforts even is.

Slow but steady…onwards and upwards.

But why not apply the slow philosophy to do gooding? Wouldn’t it be better to do less, but do it better? Wouldn’t it be more rewarding to do so little that we can actually follow through and know what happens as a result? Wouldn’t it increase our chances of getting better at it? Wouldn’t it safeguard our sanity and the level of passion we’re able to sustain for the work we do choose to do?

It’s not easy – the shift is not complete. The pressure is still there to slip into the cult of ‘more, faster’. The invitations and solicitations won’t stop coming. But the change is happening, and it’s a good one. Why not choose to be a part of it?

• Share

 Except… there are elements of it that I agree with only conditionally; they make sense only under certain assumptions. As we listen to Dan’s words, here are some things I think we have to keep in mind:

Dan says: charity should spend more on marketing and advertising.

I agree, IF: the money is not spent on the same old fundraising tactics we’re all sick of already. There’s a new trend in marketing and advertising. It’s smarter, more sophisticated, more respectful, and more effective. It depends less on mass bombardment and more on targeted messaging. It’s interactive with and responsive to the people it’s trying to reach. It seeks to match the item being advertised with people who genuinely need or want it. It doesn’t rely on cheap emotional manipulation. Only on the condition that investing more money in charitable marketing and advertising will lead to this more advanced, less annoying, more productive form of charity campaigning, am I all for it.

Dan says: more money going to charity is a good thing.

I agree, IF: There is a parallel increase in focus on making charities accountable for the results they produce with that mony. A charitable sector that can demonstrate that it’s making a real difference in the issues we care about is a charitable sector I don’t mind giving more money to. But that means that just getting more cash into its hands isn’t enough. We have to start asking more hard questions, being more aware of what’s happening with the issues. Right now, there’s very little attention paid to that conversation. That desperately needs to change before I’ll feel comfortable giving one penny more to charity.

I suspect that Mr. Pallotta knows all of this. Of course, he has to keep his messaging clean and simple, and he’s chosen to focus on the elements he feels are most crucial. But for us, the audience, this context is important if we are to avoid the idea that he’s simply advocating for a richer sector with permission to bombard us even more than they do now.

• Share

For some, it’s a heavily charged term. The first picture that springs to mind when I hear it is that of a militant, closed-minded fanatic; completely out of touch with the mainstream, wrapped up in his or her own activities; doing more to alienate people than to create change.

I know this is a wildly unfair description. I know that many people who consider themselves activists are nothing like this stereotypical depiction.

In a positive light, ‘activism’ could be defined as any activity that bucks the status quo to promote change. You could be an activist by running a socially responsible business, by promoting unusual ideas in almost any field, by fostering discussion and debate about controversial issues. In short, ‘activist’ could be considered almost synonymous with ‘do gooder’.

And yet, I suspect that in most peoples’ minds, it’s not.

For me, the faintly disatasteful association persists. I witnessed a lot of pointless activity under the banner of ‘activism’ in my university days in our nation’s capital. There was almost always some sort of demonstration going on in front of the Parliament buildings, and no one paid them any attention. I saw many flyers for protest marches that read more like ads for keggers than for serious efforts at change.

I’ve heard that there are even areas (such as environmentalism) where serious changemakers actively avoid being labelled ‘activists’, because it decreases their chances of being taken seriously. Apparently, it also counts against them in efforts to collaborate with government and industry: fields where the term “environmental activist” is anathema.

If this visceral negative reaction to the concept of ‘activism’ is fairly common, then is it possible that it’s time to retire the term?

If, however, the word still has value in our do-gooding, what can (or should) we do about this stigma surrounding it?

• Share

Sometimes, the stuff we need is just there for the taking

Our elected representatives do have quite a bit of power. In many cases, only they can change the underlying systems that create or prevent social problems like hunger, poverty, and illness. Although not always exciting, their work is important.

It’s my impression, though, that lawmakers don’t hear from us much. When you feel the urge to do something about an issue, does it occur to you to pick up the phone or fire up the computer and let your elected representatives know where you stand on it?

It’s not usually the first move that comes to my mind. On the rare occasion when I have done it, it’s been a good experience. For example, when I found out about the scarcity of midwives in my province, I asked what could be done. The midwives I was talking to asked me to write my MLA advocating for government to take the profession more seriously. So I did.

And I heard right back from her. It seems she’d been pushing this issue for years, and asked if she could table my letter in the legislature to demonstrate to her colleagues that people care about it.

Wow! It took me 10 minutes to write that letter. Why is this path to good not one we go down more often? Why would we rather give to charities than get involved with our government to which we already give quite a lot of money, and which has huge power to impact most of the same issues charities are working on?

In a world where so few of us are choosing that option, being the squeaky wheel who speaks up vastly increases your chances of getting some of that powerful governmental grease.

• Share

Across the country, legislators are working hard to adjust the tax structures and reporting rules that charities live by. Across the world, legal acrobatics are being performed to create new designations for things that both do business and do good.

All this is done with one goal: to do more good by increasing the productivity and/or efficiency and/or toolbox of organizations that are labelled “for good”. But there’s a piece missing; a colossal assumption underlying all this: How do we know whether these organizations actually do any good?

None of the work I’ve mentioned above involves any of that accountability, as far as I can tell. We ‘help’ them improve on blind faith that, by virtue of being labeled “charity”, “nonprofit”, or “social enterprise”, they’re doing worthwhile things, and doing them well.

As this excellent short piece from Seth Godin points out, it’s easy to get lost in a discussion of tools to such an extent that the tools become the point. We can lose sight of what we’re actually trying to get done.

If all this work succeeds, we might end up with the lowest-cost, most perfectly administered, most perfectly legislated and taxed organizations possible. But no one will know whether they’re actually accomplishing anything, let alone anything that’s truly needed.

What good is running if you’re on the wrong road?

If all this work were taking place alongside an equally energetic and well-publicized movement for examining results, that would be one thing. But it’s not.

In the absence of this conversation, all the tool-building work isn’t much good. Worse, it’s a distraction. It grabs the attention, and makes itself the focus of the conversation about improvement. Let’s put it back in it proper place: buried deep inside a broader discussion about what really works.

• Share

To put it bluntly, we tend to get a lot of white people participating in our work. People of colour do not show up, volunteer, register, etc., nearly as much.

If this is a trend, what’s it about? Do people of colour care less about making a difference? Are they selfish, or lazy? That’s pretty obviously a ridiculous notion.

Is it that we organizers are often white people, and probably grew up with others who share our cultural traditions, religions, language, etc.; who still dominate our networks today? Could be – birds of a feather and all that.

But within the ‘white people’ group there are a range of backgrounds, from first-generation British to second-generation Polish, to multi-generational North American mutt (like me), so I’m not sure that makes sense, either.

I have a third theory: Is it possible that people of colour are simply less likely to identify themselves as do-gooders? That they’re doing as much good as anyone, but rather than call it “making a difference” or “giving back”, they just see it as part of their regular lives?

Last year while working on the Edmonton Do Gooder Project, I spoke to a Latino man I consider a social entrepreneur (about profiling him as a do-gooder). He stared at me like I was a nut. He kept explaining that he was simply providing a product and a service. He saw himself as a businessman, nothing more.

Does it matter what we call our good works?

Could it be that people of colour tend to see their do-gooding as a natural part of being businesspeople, church members, family members, parents, etc., and are therefore not drawn to our ‘difference-making’, ‘giving-back’ language and activity?

Could it be that white people’s attraction to framing good works this way is tied to some sort of white man’s burden/saviour complex psychology that people of other races don’t have?

If not, what’s this phenomenon all about, do you think? If so, what does this say about how our society works?

• Share