Culture of Philanthropy is All in Your Mind

Much is said about all the conditions beyond you that if changed could improve your organization’s culture of philanthropy. Much less is said about the conditions within you. I believe that conscious awareness precedes a mindset shift, which influences the change in language, which fosters personal and intentional behavioral practices, which precede the kind of results to which you aspire.

Think for a moment about your own situation. How are you using the term? What is the commonly accepted connotation for a culture of philanthropy in your shop/your organization? In my experience, it’s often thought to mean that many/most/all members of our organization have a role to play in philanthropy; some suggest that “front line” staff have a “discovery” and “relationship building” role that they willingly embrace; others point to evidence of being “donor-centered” in their work.

These things are not wrong. Those subscribing to these views are often unaware of the dichotomy between these espoused “best practices” and what lies beneath them that is either feeding complete alignment and authenticity…or contributing to sustained misalignment and disconnection.

At times I find myself in organizations espousing these views and yet I see their programs and practices with these widely-used names:

  • pipelinethe flow of prospects through stages of engagement and giving that signals readiness (worthiness?) for personal attention/cultivation
  • hit lista list of donor prospects
  • moves meetingsa time for staff to discussion how we make “moves” that prepare a prospect for solicitation
  • the askthat crescendo moment when a prospect is invited to make a gift
  • contact-to-close ratioa metric tracking the number of prospect contacts required to secure a gift from a given donor

Even this short list of examples should suffice to illustrate that, unintentionally, the language being used suggests a mindset of a mechanical process where we are acting upon—rather than with—someone we say we value. Whether intentional or not, the emphasis seems clearly on the money rather than on the relationship and the shared imagination that fuels the sense of partnership.

So here’s my question: how can you be surprised by lacking an optimal organizational culture of philanthropy if the language used with your closest professional colleagues conveys a shared mindset of mechanical manipulation and focus on what you can “get” “from” people?

Am I playing word games with you? Who would believe for a moment that a true professional would consciously adopt such a position of mechanical manipulation?! Those having that reaction may want to pause to consider that you may have absorbed common language along the way—with which many of your contemporaries are familiar and using daily—where you have a common vocabulary, a shorthand for what you know you truly mean when using these terms. This language has been co-created and widely socialized in the professional ranks…but oh…be careful! Language is a signal of many unconsciously, deeply socialized, concepts and is directly connected to your mindset about the work—and about your partners in the work.

Your mindset about your work and your partners deserves some attention; some deeper exploration. You may need to challenge some long-held assumptions about your views. You may be conveying through your language the very antithesis to the culture you most want to incubate. If we see ourselves as contributing to the social construction of our own reality, then we ought to be paying careful attention to the intention signaled by our language. Berger and Luckmann note that,

“Society, identity and reality are subjectively crystallized in the process of internalization….[L]anguage constitutes both the most important content and the most important instrument of socialization.”[i]

Changing organizational culture is difficult work, requiring clear intention, and a socialization of new ideas and language supported by experience and immersion over time.

“Yeah, right…who’s got time for that!” OK, but wait. If that’s your objection, are you really saying that you want to see a wholesale shift in your culture toward a wide embrace of the “love of humankind” (aka, philanthropy), but you’d like it done this quarter, with no budget impact, and triggered by having simply pointed out the great benefits all will realize having accomplished the shift?! Get real; it’s not going to happen and years from now you’ll be bemoaning the absence of a conducive culture of philanthropy.

So what can you do?

  1. Check your own level of awareness – if you sense there’s a disconnect, don’t feel guilty and certainly don’t shrink from it. Instead, celebrate this new opening. You’re already ahead of the curve;
  2. Depict the connection of language to results – alone or with your colleagues make a wall chart that does some non-judgmental inventorying of the conventional/familiar approach to fundraising (your current approach??).
    1. What we value
    2. What we track/monitor/report
    3. The language we generally use
  3. Unpack each to illuminate what they demonstrate – for example, for the things you noted about what we value, ask yourselves what that demonstrates about your mindset and the assumptions you’re making. Be honest and judgment free. You’re not trying to “catch” somebody in rogue behavior; you’re trying to create a learning moment when group awareness is heightened. Do this for all three levels noted above. Once identifying the underlying mindset and assumptions, identify the behavioral patterns that are produced from those mindsets and assumptions. Then describe the results you witness from those behavioral patterns.
  4. Rinse and repeat…through a new lens – now do the same inventory. This time explore the three levels and their applications through the lens of your deepest authenticity, your most appreciative, and most highly relational way of being—as if you were completing the chart with your best donors and prospects in the room with you.
  5. Note the differences between the two charts – one is not implicitly “better” than the other. Each of us has to start wherever we are. Without making judgments, see what you (and your colleagues) discern from these two charts. The new lens can help you begin to shift the language you use daily. It may affect what you decide to track and monitor—like all those qualifiable, relational dimensions that are expressions of shared values. Consider how to introduce this new thinking to your larger team. Have it shape your new staff orientations/onboarding. How will you introduce it to your board in an experiential way that won’t shame or blame but also will help them consider how they may have inadvertently contributed to maintaining the barriers to the culture you most want to see. This is a learning moment.
  6. Translate and share your learnings – as a result of this awareness opening exercise, how might you translate this learning to organizational members for whom philanthropy is just a peculiar word they know little about yet generally want to be as supportive of your efforts as they can? Who are your early adopters and how might they help you spot the best alignment that may already exist in the organization—high point moments of implicit understanding and behavior that you can track, fan, and amplify? This should take you well beyond the feature story on the web page or in the next newsletter.

If you desire a better culture of philanthropy than the one you’re experiencing today, look within yourself first. The keys to the shift are there. Remember, conscious awareness precedes a mindset shift, which influences the change in language, which fosters personal and intentional behavioral practices, which precede the kind of results to which you aspire.

###

[i] Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Anchor Books, p. 133.

Advertisements

MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IS AN INTRINSIC REWARD

Your partners, donors, and investors (…and employees, board members, referral sources, family members…you name it) want the same thing from you—meaningful engagement. Meaningful (intentional) engagement is a reciprocal deposit in a sustainable, life-giving exchange based on values. When it’s present we feel nourished; when absent we feel starved.

Arguably, few things are as important as our relationships. I’ve long been fascinated observing how people seem to be in relationship—to self, others, work, and world. Patterns of behavior seem pretty clear to me. Individuals who seem grounded, affirmative, humble, and curious often seem the most consciously aware and confident. It often appears that they have the strongest and most reciprocal relationships, regardless of context. Alternatively, individuals who are gripped by ego, convinced of their center-of-the-universe status, emboldened by their own expertise, and bent on giving you the answer seem to have far fewer genuine relationships. A more likely reality is that most of us are somewhere in between these poles.

Because of my work in organizational change, I remain fascinated by leaders who exhibit strong alignment between good intention and their own daily attention. Leadership—like life—is a practice. Our growth, maturity, and effectiveness follows a similar pattern, yet fewer progress through all stages of this evolution. Whether reading from the ancient wisdom traditions, or studying human psychology, or exploring barriers to change, I find that we’re all somewhere along a progression that influences our thoughts, language, actions, and expectations. The progression stages of this evolution are:

  1. Being unconsciously unaware – not knowing what we don’t know and, therefore, unlikely or unable to do much about it. As a result, we tend to “bump into” some hard realities—usually the relationship kind—because we are prone toward control, manipulation, short-term “fixes” to get more of what we think we want. Language, however we may dress it up and “say the right things” is often not an outgrowth of a nourishing and conducive mindset. As a result, the language rings false in our listeners’ ears (and often in our own). Our “talk-to-do” ratio is way out of balance, as is our focus on I, me, and mine.
  2. Being consciously unaware – knowing what we don’t know and, therefore, feeling a bit disturbed toward some action to rectify the feeling of disturbance…through (experiential) learning. While this can be a liberating phase, it’s usually fraught with doubt and uncertainty, along with some predictable failures. We try on new language as we try to give voice to thoughts stemming from an evolving mindset. So focused on what we’re learning (and still want to learn), we’re often not being effective listeners. It’s like we’re trying to demonstrate mastery of some newly felt truth; our attention is on the technical aspects of the new learning more so than on the nuanced, organic nature of the new learning if we could just trust it to evolve, to let it come.
  3. Being consciously aware – evolving to this level of conscious awareness usually signals more success, growing confidence, and trust in your inner alignment of good intention and close attention. More aware of all there is to learn, you sharpen your ability and capacity to listen, trust, and invite. You are coming to explore the possibility that each of us has something to teach and something to learn. The idea of separateness is starting to dissolve. You are witnessing your adoption of a longer point of view. You’re beginning to hold more loosely the drive for milestones (achievement) and more tightly the drive for meaning (purpose, sustainable impact, equity). Failures and shortcomings still arise but you are no longer surprised by them (at least for long), nor do you deny them or explain them away. You lift them up so that you may learn from each, recognizing them as the gift they are. You begin to feel more at ease, more “in the flow.”
  4. Being unconsciously aware – describes that point of your evolution when what you “do” is eclipsed by how and who you “are.” You’re no longer consciously aligning intention and attention. It’s happening organically as a result of your practice. You find yourself generously supported by many around you, each of whom feels nourished in your company. A dimension of joy becomes more prominent…and profound…for you in your life/work. Meaning matters. Questions matter. Relationships matter. Your practice matters. Everything you need is here, right now.

“Wow….where’d that come from, Gary?!?…I thought you were talking about relating to partners, donors, and investors—that part of my work as a leader that occupies a huge percentage of my time.” In fact I am. My point is that one’s ability to relate effectively to others—to ENGAGE others in the vitality of your work and purpose—is equal to the level of one’s conscious awareness. In my view, this has less to do with skill building and more to do with discernment and contemplation/reflection—the very things leaders seem to treat as luxuries and indulgences for which there is little time or external appreciation. Locked in that frame, leaders stay trapped in a cycle of unfulfilling tension and trade-off, often suffering strain on their physical, mental, and spiritual health.

So, let’s go back to the title: Meaningful engagement is an intrinsic reward. Regardless of the context, we want much the same things from our relationships. We want to be invited to matter to others and we want others to know that they matter to us. It is intrinsic—baked in to our being. Simply said, right. But what would close observation of your thoughts, language, actions, and expectations say about what matters most to you? Being more outwardly effective in a leadership role necessitates that you are more inwardly attentive to growing our own conscious awareness. In so doing, EVERY relationship will benefit…especially the one with yourself.

What’s possible at the union of self and service, the place where your deep gladness meets the world’s deep need?

“How can I raise more money for my organization when we’re so big and we make gifts/grants in the community?”

This was the question that prompted a former client—a large hospital system foundation executive team—to invite me to help them answer that question. With apparent variations by sub-sector, it’s a common question among fundraising professionals. Why? What’s at work among so many professionals where these barriers serve to shrink possibility and constrict action and lift?

The story of this former client has many parallels. But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, the story….

Clearly, as I interviewed a few staff by phone and then arrived for an on-site staff retreat, this question had been bothering the team for quite some time. They explained that, while feeling well supported by administration and board, they operated daily under a felt pressure to raise more money. In their eyes, the context they were facing was narrowing the likelihood for success rather than expanding it. Staff, veteran fundraisers and newcomers alike, were feeling a pinch.

What to do? They asked, “How can we get organizational leaders to see that by being the largest employer in the area, by making grants to sponsor, underwrite, and support other community organizations, and by routinely seeing media headlines about the high cost of health care…foundation staff are running into stiff headwinds when trying to ask people to support the projects and people of the hospital system.”

“What if we take a few minutes to see if we can verbalize our assumptions beneath this question,” I suggested. Fine. OK. Whatever, their eyes said to me. “You work for a big, high profile nonprofit organization whose work potentially affects everyone and you’re asked to raise money on the organization’s behalf and gift or grant money on their behalf out in the community. Why is this a problem for you in your work as a fundraiser?” The responses came quickly:

  • “The hospital system’s big size is problematic.”
  • “Health care costs are high.”
  • “We (the hospital system) don’t/can’t demonstrate need.”

Undeterred, I pressed on. “So, why is that a problem for you?” Responses were:

  • “We think and act small (we’re modest).”
  • “The foundation isn’t as well-known as the hospital.”
  • “We’re part of an historical wave of need-driven fundraising in this state.”

“OK, why is that a problem for you in your work?” Their responses were:

  • “It’s (the message) about us.”
  • “Need is the principle driver of giving.”

Asking for their patience, I persisted again. “Why is that a problem?” Their responses—sometimes quite emphatically delivered—were:

  • “The priority is the money. It’s all about the money.”
  • “We’re fundraisers; therefore, it’s all about the money.”

Despite the shared exasperation in the room, I asked one final time: “Why is this a problem? What’s going on inside you that leads to this feeling like a problem?” Here the responses came more slowly and with less surety and far less intensity:

  • “We want our jobs to be easier and/or more rewarding.”
  • “I’m just plain uncomfortable with money conversations. I know ‘they’ won’t give if I don’t ask. I have to couch the ask in such a way that’s less objectionable.”

Don’t you feel tired just reading that conversation? In the room that day, I sure felt that way and I sensed the staff team did as well. I could see it in their faces and body language. It’s like we had stripped away the layers of psychic self-protection to expose a core vulnerability. Now what? My intent, then as now, is to highlight a required process of introspection, challenging false assumptions, and letting go of those that are in the way. Where we sit determines what we see. Our mindset, mental model, and prevailing assumptions govern the causal (operating) structures we put in place, which produce our repetitive patterns of behavior, which leads to daily occurrences and events. Those things that we initially identified as insurmountable barriers to our success have their roots in our internal constructs.

Working with the staff that day, we exposed these previously unspoken assumptions to new light; new scrutiny. Here’s what we came up with together:

 

Old Assumption

New View

“I’m just plain uncomfortable with money conversations. I know ‘they’ won’t give if I don’t ask. I have to couch the ask in such a way that’s less objectionable. We want our jobs to be easier and/or more rewarding.”

I operate from a deep belief that people not only want to give to something outside themselves—bigger than themselves—they LIKE to give. Therefore, my job is to uncover their joy and inner gladness. To serve it. To celebrate the intersections with my organization’s direction and to honor it when it leads a person in another direction. In that way, little of my work is about money. It’s about what Frederick Buechner defined as vocation: when one’s inner gladness meets the world’s great need. Freed by this viewpoint, the size of my organization, the headlines it evokes, and the profile of our community collaborations is far less important than the inner journey of a donor. To help illuminate that self-selected path with a donor is a reward beyond most. Pride and confidence results.

“We (the hospital system) don’t/can’t demonstrate need.”

We’re responsible for meeting our own organizational needs. Therefore, operating profitably is a necessity and a signal of effectiveness and strong leadership. We turn outward to meet the real needs of community. Unchanged for over [100] years – the [hospital system] mission is unrelenting in its focus on [the poor and vulnerable]. We invest in community as guided by that same mission. We invite you to do likewise. Pride and confidence results.

“The hospital system’s big size is problematic. You act like a big corporate donor.”

Despite our big size, we can’t and won’t act alone. The social determinants of health are too pervasive and pernicious to be addressed alone. We choose to act in partnership with other community players, some of whom need and deserve our support for their efforts. Our big size is good. The hospital system has the infrastructure, knowledge, and connection to act with and in community to produce better health outcomes. Pride and confidence results.

“Health care costs are high.”

Agreed. Yet, health care reform is pulling hospital systems toward more “upstream” focus, rather than treating illness as presented in patients; and 2) the rising acceptance of hospital systems playing the role of “anchor institutions.” Best practice systems – like Kaiser Permanente – continue to demonstrate that leveraging our multiple assets as a total health organization contribute to community and economic vitality. The more fully we play these seven anchor institution roles, the more likely we will be to make lasting improvements in community well-being. Going “upstream” is a major step in the direction of creating leverage for lasting change that corrals high cost. Pride and confidence results.

“We think and act small (we’re modest).”

The profile of the foundation is largely immaterial. The profile of the hospital system is what matters if that profile can serve the biggest dreams and imagined possibilities of a donor. Pride and confidence results.

“We’re part of an historical wave of need-driven fundraising in this state.”

I will no longer be bound by how others have repeated manipulative messages of immediate organizational needs, lifting organizational vulnerability like it’s an asset. I will respect myself, my colleagues, my organizational scorekeepers, and donors with the truth. If in so doing, we appear to walk an independent path; so be it. We believe what every donor wants is to:

  • Be understood – “Know me, care for me, ease my way”
  • Interact with transparency in a real, reciprocal relationship
  • Be part of something important; something bigger than myself
  • Know that my gift is connected to some impact of the greater good

Pride and confidence results.

I am proud of Suzanne, Cynthia, and their whole team for their collective courage to illuminate what was in their blind spots. They started out chiefly concerned about what they thought were widely shared opinions by others. The team concluded that those opinions were largely projections of their own fears, magnified and codified as a story they had been telling themselves for a long time. So long, in fact, that they had come to believe the story was not only true but overwhelming. It was in the way of their success.

However, they came to see that the story was of their own construction…or at least their own passive, unchallenged acceptance as “just the way things are.” They had come to morph that storyline into one of their own heroic stance in the face of great odds—succeeding despite great odds.

Once able to step back with new perspective—seeing with new eyes—the team came to see that the primary blockage was their own internal frame. They had to challenge their views that people really didn’t want to give and wouldn’t give significant gifts joyfully and gratefully—in search of deeper meaning and lasting impact. They had to challenge their views that their success was largely the product of spending 95% of their time in prospect research, strategizing, secondary staging and all manner of “set design,” believing that their very limited (“one shot”??) time with the “prospective donor” had to be “just right” if they were going to succeed in “persuading” the person effectively enough to “get” the gift.

The beauty of the lesson embedded in this true story is that NOTHING in the external environment changed, but ONE BIG THING in the individual staff members’ internal framing and mindset changed. Each staff person was now being invited to practice shifting from pursuing their work from a position of overcoming barriers and manipulating (albeit kindly and with good heart) “prospective donors” to do something they instinctively didn’t want to do…to a position of prioritizing and savoring every possible moment with community philanthropy partners as an opportunity to discern that person’s greatest aspiration, wildest hope, deepest gratitude and exploring in the most transparent way how to work toward serving that intention together, all the while being unapologetic for the time required to build and nurture this trusting relationship.

Is a mindset shift like this as simple as waving a wand, peeling back faulty assumptions and gaining some new insight that unlocks potential? No. Neither this staff team nor I are that naïve. I believe that any new stated intention requires attention…and practice. This staff has the benefit of an employment context where everyone undergoes a personality profiling exercise (in their case, Personalysis), wherein each person gets a peek at how they are wired to think and respond. Knowing that inherent construct and now enlightened by new insight, the next phase is intentional practice. I also suggested this team routinely meet to share their individual insights about their journey to make the shift. In that way, not only do they teach and reinforce one another, they each practice their introspection in a transparent way with colleagues.

Best of all, this new shared commitment to this type of exchange is rebuilding team culture—reshaping their shared story of their heroic battle to one of joyful coaching of self-motivated partners. Collectively, they are rebuilding a healthy, energizing, appreciative culture at the union of self and service, the place where their deep gladness meets the world’s deep need.

While this story is obviously hospital system philanthropy-oriented, the parallels to other sectors are significant. What self-limiting prevailing assumptions are holding you and your program back from its optimal success? What’s possible when your deep humility meets your authentic desire to serve a donor, helping her uncover her most important dreams and motivations? What’s your highest and best imagination about a lasting solution to an issue that both your organization and your donor co-design?

These are conversations that matter. Getting to them involves the courage to be vulnerable, to challenge long-held ideas of what’s true. To let go of false assumptions.

Ask yourself, “What conversation do I most need to have? How could the clarity from that conversation open new possibilities—for me and for those I care about? What will I do about that now?”

Please call me when you’re ready to shape your conversation; when you’re willing to step beyond technique; when you’re ready to create or rebuild a team culture of authenticity, deep relationship, trust, transparency, joy…and love. That’s a conversation I’ll lean into with my whole being.

Warmly,

Gary

Whether Conscious of It or Not, What Does My Organization Need Most of Me?

Leadership is the hard seat to occupy in an organization. Like any living organism or system, organizations are self-organizing and self-perpetuating. The leaders’ role is less to steer or control but more to navigate and inspire, determining what conversations to be part of and how to engage in those conversations in ways that afford the opportunity to model the mindsets you want others to adopt. Mostly it’s about positioning oneself to be able to spot moments of authenticity and personal courage, as I believe that most people perform their work with the desire to do well and do the right thing. However, these golden moments of right being often go unnoticed. Those moments are not diminished by lack of fanfare and recognition, yet they are like lone fireflies in the sky—bright, interesting, yet fleeting. When recognized (with equal authenticity and personal courage) these singular moments are more often repeated and begin to attract similar action (and attitudes) from others. At those times the collective light is brighter. The resulting collective action—acting in community—is now felt by more people.

Every one of us in organizations will at some point have difficulty seeing beyond our own view. We seemingly get trapped on a repetitive treadmill of functional competence. While performance can run high for a time, I’ll argue that it’s not sustainable and it’s hollow—divided in Parker Palmer language. Stopping to imagine your organization exhibiting wise action in community produces the question of what your organization needs most of you, whether leaders recognize it or not?

It’s tough to express and demonstrate wise action regardless of your leadership position (e.g., leadership of a unit, a division, or an entire enterprise). Can you mandate organizational right being?  Can an “enlightened” leader demand her executive team adopt her mindset, achieve her motivation, and pursue her intentional practice toward right being? Seems unlikely. There will be arguments for differences and diversity of views being the source of creativity. Yet, I’m not talking about thinking the same; I’m talking about alignment of intention and attention. I’m suggesting this is more about a way of being in relation to oneself, to one another, to the work, and to the world.

What if repeated attempts to introduce right thinking to others falls flat or has only partial success because some adopt it while others block it? Do you fire the non-adopters? At what point is it counter-productive (for the organization, for the individual, and for you as leader) to continue allowing a non-adopter to distract and diminish the collective efforts of the team? The seemingly easy path is to remove those who don’t adopt. However, that action may only mask what the leader herself needs to recognize and learn about herself—say nothing of the legal and ethical ramifications of firing someone for “not being a seeker.” Guiding us toward finding true self, Palmer invites us to consider, “we must withdraw the negative projections we make on people and situations—projections that serve mainly to mask our fears about ourselves—and acknowledge and embrace our own liabilities and limits.”1

Implicitly, what your organization needs of you is to free yourself—and by demonstration, your colleagues—from organizational conceit and being so myopically mission focused that you lose sight of the whole system. Your organization needs you to model the balance of essential ingredients that the whole organization must adopt: open minds, open hearts, open will and resolve.2 More than technical prowess, this balance is key to fostering the conditions in which the “right team” can grow.

Look at the bottom of the U in the drawing. Only through the discipline to get and stay “open” will you, your teams, and your organizational colleagues uncover a shared perception and a common will to act with wise action in community.

march blog

What if the leader’s time and energy were on growing the wisdom of her team more so than pursuing the technical things (e.g., contracts, big deals, and all manner of “means to a desired end”)? Too often this technical dance devolves into a downward spiral of manipulation—unconsciously and without malice, but nevertheless every bit as limiting. The response from some will be: yes, growing the wisdom of my team is ideal but my board demands that I hit certain metrics, my compensation is tied to an achievement ladder, etc. Are these two pursuits contradictory? Can one pursue short term position-specific requirements and do so filled with loving kindness and deep intention? I believe you can and I believe that the most enlightened organizations require this balance.


1 Palmer, Let Your Life Speak, p. 29.

2 These ingredients, and the graphic that follows [drawn here by Ken Hubbell] is from C. Otto Scharmer, Theory U: Leading From the Future As It Emerges, (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2009).

What Disruption or Disturbance Will I Walk Into?

What I love about this question is that it assumes that surprise, disruption, and disturbance are in my future. While off-putting and destabilizing to some, I am growing to welcome the curve balls as a way of staying alert, energized, and agile. Let me be clear. This is not some blanket chest thumping, “bring it on!” declaration. It does not require me to embrace every disturbance. Rather, it’s a conscious mindset shift to recognize what I can control, what I can influence, and what I must accept. It is a posture for pursuing and accepting those disruptions that may align with my purpose. Finally, the question does not presume that one remains in the disruption and disturbance once entering it. Cashman coaches us to walk into the fear and through it. Therefore, those disruptions that I choose to walk into are themselves learning journeys. Propelled by a sense of right being, confident in an openness to wise action, and welcoming concerted action, each disruption can become a personal and community catalyst for change and good.

Health System Foundation in the Vanguard

Like every other community hospital/system in the U.S., HealthEast Care System is grappling with the mindset (and operational) shift triggered by the Affordable Care Act. Payment mechanisms are leading hospitals to engage with their communities in different ways. Their foundations are similarly facing sweeping changes. Working with a current client, HealthEast Foundation (St. Paul, MN), I am witnessing a courageous group of leaders trying to personally navigate these changes to gain clarity AND trying to inspire others to adopt a whole new perspective: that is, acting WITH a community and not ON a community.

Kathryn Correia, the system CEO, challenged the entire system to lean into a newly adopted vision of “optimal health and well-being for our patients, our communities, and ourselves.” Foundation Executive Director, John Swanholm, was the first to grab hold of this challenge, using the Foundation’s planning process as a vehicle for rethinking the role of the health system foundation and its value to donors and to community. John’s team spearheaded a comprehensive approach to arrive at a clear systems view of health and well-being in the East Metro service area. He guided the team through several exercises over six months:

  1. Charted the behavior over time (last 30 years) of key indicators of community well-being and philanthropy
  2. Used a vision deployment matrix to clarify the scope of changes embedded in the adopted vision
  3. Articulated a clear and compelling “theory of change” for the health system/foundation vision
  4. Used a scenario thinking process with system and community leaders to reimagine the future, resulting in 4 viable scenarios of the East Metro in 2030
  5. Charted the imagined behavior over time of key indicators per each of the 4 scenarios
  6. Inventoried and mapped the existing East Metro well-being community assets, using social network analysis 7. Developed a 36-month Foundation plan around 3 core strategies, while redeploying his professional staff and reconceptualizing the role and focus of his board.

No small undertaking, to be sure! The early challenges were largely around people at every level being locked in to outdated mental models of how a hospital and its foundation worked. Based on the Foundation’s leadership, which by the way was hand-in-hand with the system CEO, we are now seeing an organization considering what is right being and wise action. Prior behavior was rewarded (implicitly and explicitly) by being the best responder to the presented situation (medical issue/illness) and building brand around awareness of that posture. Foundations were uber-promoters of that position. While laudable on the surface, this position left the health system disconnected from the community. Despite its huge set of assets and resources, the overall health and well-being of the community was not impacted. In reality, small groups of citizens, individual churches, and small agencies were trying their hand at solving some small (and often big) social problem. Now at HealthEast, the health care system AND its foundation (which they now refer to as HE/F, reflecting the growing integration of what was previously separate entities), have a powerful role of convener and catalyst. Correia and Swanholm recognize that they must view their work through a long lens and they will succeed only if they foster sufficient trust equity that others believe the health system is not acting out of a marketing agenda but out of a true, authentic desire to be part of a bigger solution–not dictating the solution or imposing the “program” on the community. This is a much harder path to take, requires a long term perspective, and great leadership grit–all of which HE/F possesses.

Kudos to John Swanholm for employing social network analysis to better understand how to enter the community well-being dialogue in a targeted and value-added way. Social network analysis is the social science methodology of applying statistical analysis to the distances between members of a network or a set of networks. This science has been in use since the early 1950’s, particularly in the fields of disease management, crime prevention, and counter-terrorism.

We apply the statistical practice of social network analysis to help nonprofit organizations understand and leverage the inherent strengths in their relationships networks. This approach uses nodes to represent individuals and organizations, the lines between the nodes represent their connections to each other. It also measures the connectedness between nodes within the network as a whole, using a set of algorithms that identify opinion leaders and connected clusters. By visually representing this analysis, we can better understand the connectedness between nodes in a network and understand which individuals or organizations within a network have the greatest influence within that network.

The objective of using social network analysis for HealthEast Foundation is to better understand the various formal and informal networks that support health and well-being in St. Paul. By understanding how these networks function—and the key players within these networks—the Foundation (and, by extension, HealthEast Care System) are now better equipped to connect externally and accomplish its objectives within the community. HE/F now has a tool that can be used to support strategy development and relationship building and will enable HealthEast/Foundation leaders to effectively engage the community in the most efficient manner.

The whole conversation about health care, well-being, and philanthropy is changing at HealthEast. That’s pretty cool.

GHC Conversation 2012 Scenarios

Scenario D: THINK LOCAL, ACT GLOBAL

In this scenario, we worked to envision a strong, robust future where there will be deep, systemic, long-term responses to pressing social issues amidst where tight limits, siloed, and traditional approaches to philanthropy continue to dominate. The following graphic (produced by Ken Hubbell) and narrative description begin to tell a story of our images of possibility in this scenario.

By the year 2030, a growing movement of non-traditional, individual, community-based efforts offers efficient and effective responses to our current challenges. The previous two decades have been turbulent. European debt and Asian markets and competition have contributed to continued economic volatility. While major wars have been averted, several natural catastrophes have also stunted stable economic growth. Emerging industrial countries have not adopted strong environmental regulations, improving quality of life at the expense of the environment.  U.S. politics remain paralyzed by polarization, except in immigration and health care policy, where pragmatic approaches have prevailed, including mass amnesty for illegal aliens in the US. Aging Baby Boomers have largely retired, driving increased demand for health care and other services. There are more women in the workplace.

In the U.S., education reform has been driven by local and state government, aided by business in its need for an educated workforce.  Education is increasingly segmented, with multiple alternatives to public education including home schooling, online education, charter schools, and combinations of these.  Large corporations have set up their own systems, starting with preschool, to develop a workforce that will meet their need for skilled workers. Students remaining in public education systems face increasing challenges and have fewer resources. This has increased the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

The response to turbulence has been a new kind of local initiative—“tribalism” in the best sense—not narrow, self-interested defensiveness, but a positive mobilization of local talents informed by international sources of knowledge, with technology as the fulcrum.  Tribalism has become the source of the most creative, long-term solutions, a way to drive responses to social challenges. It is embodied by local, sustainable food economies; local policies and technologies reducing demand on nonrenewable energy sources; and multiple creative avenues for access to education, finance and best practices serving local needs.

Pressing social and economic needs are met by emerging localized and personalized strategies made possible by technology and new models of social benefit organizations.  Optimism and hope in philanthropy stem from an increasing number of very wealthy people signing onto Warren Buffett’s pledge. Multi-billionaires are increasingly coming together to solve huge challenges using such informal, “off the grid” means as giving circles, personal (rather than institutional) philanthropy, or advised funds at community foundations and financial services companies. Individual philanthropists, not institutions, are the drivers of change. Nonprofit organizations are conduits, rather than sources of knowledge and drivers of what to do and how to do it.

Even people with modest resources feel empowered, because technology gives them access to networks of like-minded people who can pool their resources to create impact. The Millennial generation is following in the footsteps of the Baby Boomers with philanthropy marked by advocacy and active involvement.  While some use traditional structures to carry out their own philanthropic purposes, the prevailing sense is distrust in institutions, including government, corporations, and large nonprofits that have remained siloed and slow to change.