In my last blog post, I compared the American philanthropic culture to a “remarkably rich soil from which many wonderful things have grown." I voiced my concern about fairly widespread “hard sell” fund raising tactics that deplete the soil, that exploit the obligation that many Americans feel to “give back” by asking for “more, more, more” without feeling an equally insistent institutional obligation to actually do more. If too many institutions put more energy into raising money than they do in planning the most economic or efficient use of the funds raised, our philanthropic soil will become ever more depleted and more and more of what we call philanthropy will look increasing like quid pro quo deals.
Conversely, if we ask how we can best replenish the soil that has served so many so well for so long, my answer would be to think very carefully about the promises we make to donors, then to do as we promised. In too many cases, the promises are overly broad and overtly self-serving. Even institutions that do a good job of accounting for the dollars they raise often fall short in defining the explicit qualitative gains that have been achieved, particularly the difference they have made in the day-to-day lives of those that they exist to serve. No, I’m not saying that philanthropy-seeking organizations should not make promises; I’m saying that should make very specific, practical, well-thought-out promises and do all they can to deliver on them. I’m saying those promises should be less about creating more distinguished institutions and more about helping others. And, finally, those promises should be made only after institutions listen to their constituents and find where there is collective will to achieve a greater societal good.
The next best way for institutions to replenish our philanthropic soil is to commit themselves not only to creating a culture of gratitude but a culture of commitment. If we accept a gift, we accept a partner. A true partner is one with whom we keep faith even if he or she is not present. That involves everything from making sure the language of fund raising is not unduly depersonalizing (e.g. “targets” or “suspects” to be “nailed” or “hit on”) to ensuring that we never expend private funds for purposes that we would prove embarrassing or awkward if donors were in front of us demanding an explanation, and from requiring the institutional recipients of private funds to carefully document their use to creating systems that allow us to preserve “donor intent” over time. Too idealistic? Well, I’d say that idealism is one of the richest ingredients in our philanthropic soil so, if we’re going to draw on it and prosper from it, we’d better make sure to put enough of it back.
If we are authentic in abiding by our ideals, assiduous in the pursuit of our mission and scrupulous in the management of our resources, we can call our donors to a selfless philanthropic standard. But, if we let gaps grow between our word and deed, or allow ourselves to feel entitled to the automatic support of others, or become too transactional in our fund-raising approaches, or make philanthropy too much about what we want, we cannot feign surprise when donors ask, “Then what’s in it for me?”
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
A Cultural Shift?
A friend and colleague wrote last week to share her concerns and invite my reaction. She reported “seeing an alarming trend” in the attitudes manifested by “pipeline” prospects, age 40-50. There is, she says, “so much quid pro quo among this next generation of donors.” Increasingly she is asked by these prospects if she can get their son or daughter, or even a neighbor, admitted or get better football tickets or even secure an introduction to another prominent alumnus for business purposes. “This worries me,” she says, “and makes me think a lot about the messages we will need to deliver to hopefully capture this crew at some tipping point in the future. You think a lot about the history and power of philanthropy and how it has changed and shaped our nation in so many fabulous ways. Do you think we are nearing a change in the fundamental concept that has made us great?”
It’s a huge and terribly important question. I don’t know if we are nearing a fundamental cultural shift in our outlook on and practice of philanthropy but I have worried about, and written and spoken about it for some time. I have pointed out that Americans have engaged in an unprecedented and unparalleled voluntary transfer of wealth over more than two centuries. I have characterized it as “the American Philanthropic Revolution” and argued that the good done by it has greatly advanced the ideals borne of the American Revolution and mitigated the prospects of violent social upheavals. In addition, I have explained that the origins of this remarkable philanthropic spirit can be traced back to our earliest roots, to the creation of communal constructs designed to yield civic and social improvements, and that we operated as “we the people” long before that phrase was coined in the preamble of the Constitution. And, when visitors from foreign universities came to me seeking to understand and export American fund-raising techniques, I took pains to point out we owed our success much more to the culture than the tactics of fund-raising. In my seminars and conferences, I say that I and other highly-experienced practitioners could take everything we have learned over decades to another country and not enjoy anything close to the success that we enjoy in this one. So, I have asked myself over the years and now ask openly at the outset of my seminars, why is it that so much of our training focuses on the application of technique and so little on achieving a deeper understanding of the culture that allows it to work.
To me the American philanthropic culture is a like a remarkably rich soil from which many wonderful things have grown, and will continue to if we don’t take more from it than we give back. Widespread fund raising practices that employ hard-sell, short-term, sometimes exploitative tactics slowly leeches our philanthropic soil of the nutrient of good will. Incessant fund raising in pursuit of “more, more, more” robs the soil of the nutrient of trust if those asking do not have a well-thought-out plan to actually do more as efficiently and effectively as possible. And so it goes. Everything selfish and short-term that we do, everything that is inefficient and ill-conceived, depletes the soil that has given us so much. To my friend’s question, I have to ask, “To what extent has the growth of technique-oriented fund raising operations created a jaded consumer?” What if that quid-pro-quo prospect pushes back and says, “If you’ve turned philanthropy into an entitled, incessant clamor for what you want, why shouldn’t I clamor for what I want?” or “If I can’t really see the difference my dollars make (unless I give you millions), why shouldn’t I try to get something out it?” or “How can you fault me for linking my giving to better football seats when your athletic department predicates its fund raising on it?”
If we see Americans becoming more selfish, short-term or demanding in the way they give, we should not only ask if the culture is changing but if we have contributed to change. Change begins with us, the practitioners of philanthropy.
In my next blog post, I will speak to the ways that we can replenish the American philanthropic soil. In the meantime, I invite your comments? Am I being too hard on us? Are we seeing a cultural shift toward more quid pro quo giving and away from selfless philanthropy and, if so, what can we do about it?
It’s a huge and terribly important question. I don’t know if we are nearing a fundamental cultural shift in our outlook on and practice of philanthropy but I have worried about, and written and spoken about it for some time. I have pointed out that Americans have engaged in an unprecedented and unparalleled voluntary transfer of wealth over more than two centuries. I have characterized it as “the American Philanthropic Revolution” and argued that the good done by it has greatly advanced the ideals borne of the American Revolution and mitigated the prospects of violent social upheavals. In addition, I have explained that the origins of this remarkable philanthropic spirit can be traced back to our earliest roots, to the creation of communal constructs designed to yield civic and social improvements, and that we operated as “we the people” long before that phrase was coined in the preamble of the Constitution. And, when visitors from foreign universities came to me seeking to understand and export American fund-raising techniques, I took pains to point out we owed our success much more to the culture than the tactics of fund-raising. In my seminars and conferences, I say that I and other highly-experienced practitioners could take everything we have learned over decades to another country and not enjoy anything close to the success that we enjoy in this one. So, I have asked myself over the years and now ask openly at the outset of my seminars, why is it that so much of our training focuses on the application of technique and so little on achieving a deeper understanding of the culture that allows it to work.
To me the American philanthropic culture is a like a remarkably rich soil from which many wonderful things have grown, and will continue to if we don’t take more from it than we give back. Widespread fund raising practices that employ hard-sell, short-term, sometimes exploitative tactics slowly leeches our philanthropic soil of the nutrient of good will. Incessant fund raising in pursuit of “more, more, more” robs the soil of the nutrient of trust if those asking do not have a well-thought-out plan to actually do more as efficiently and effectively as possible. And so it goes. Everything selfish and short-term that we do, everything that is inefficient and ill-conceived, depletes the soil that has given us so much. To my friend’s question, I have to ask, “To what extent has the growth of technique-oriented fund raising operations created a jaded consumer?” What if that quid-pro-quo prospect pushes back and says, “If you’ve turned philanthropy into an entitled, incessant clamor for what you want, why shouldn’t I clamor for what I want?” or “If I can’t really see the difference my dollars make (unless I give you millions), why shouldn’t I try to get something out it?” or “How can you fault me for linking my giving to better football seats when your athletic department predicates its fund raising on it?”
If we see Americans becoming more selfish, short-term or demanding in the way they give, we should not only ask if the culture is changing but if we have contributed to change. Change begins with us, the practitioners of philanthropy.
In my next blog post, I will speak to the ways that we can replenish the American philanthropic soil. In the meantime, I invite your comments? Am I being too hard on us? Are we seeing a cultural shift toward more quid pro quo giving and away from selfless philanthropy and, if so, what can we do about it?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Reflections From the Field
I had a number of interactions with donors last week which seemed to provide larger lessons about the changing nature of philanthropy.
The first was with a young donor who had pledged a million dollars earlier in the year. The night before I was to meet with him, I read my research brief and was struck once again by how generous a gift it was from one so young. Then I began to wonder, "Is he the youngest person ever to have given a gift of this size to Georgetown?" I sent an e-mail note to my research director asking her to check and, sure enough, he was. That important distinction had not been noted at any previous point. When I sat down to the dinner the next day with that donor, I was able to share the news in the form of a toast. Yes, we have been fortunate enough to receive million dollar gifts from a good number of donors but his gift was unique. Putting it in the perspective of our 220-year history helped him understand just how truly remarkable it was and, therefore, why it was particularly valued. It's important to look for those kinds of distinctions and, if at all possible, celebrate something unique about every major gift, not just lump all of them into one category or giving society. Looking for distinctions within categories -- whether it is the first to give to an important new initiative , the youngest to give at a particular level, giving in proportion to one's means, or giving in someone else's name -- is an important element of effective stewardship and good donor relations.
The second was with a prospect who had become intrigued by a phrase in our President's vision statement --"to produce leaders who make a disproportionate difference in the world." This donor thought that goal was quite important and was considering a million dollar pledge in support of it but he wanted to know how we proposed to identify those potential leaders. He believed that those who would make a disproportionate difference in the world were likely to have overcome
disproportionate adversity or taken on a disproportionate challenge early in life. If we simply looked for the same old criteria -- very good grades, high board scores and evidence of leadership -- we might miss some very unusual talents or late bloomers, he argued. This prospect was seizing on a key element of our vision statement and challenging us to challenge our own assumptions about how we might get there. Being able to say where an institution is going and why is essential to building philanthropic support but, increasingly, we must be prepared to show how we propose to achieve our goals and to consider innovative means of getting there. Every element of a vision must be backed up with a set of specifics to show how that goal is to be reached, and we must be willing to incorporate different ideas from different donors on the best way of achieving it.
The third was a prospect who liked the idea we had put to him, that of underwriting a distinguished speaker series in one of our schools, but he questioned if we really needed the endowment we were asking for. He wanted to see how we came to that number, including how much the school had spent on distinguished speakers in the past two years (including travel, lodging, security, etc.). He suggested we should carefully calculate those annual costs and then ask for an endowment gift that was twenty times that amount not just pull a nice round endowment number out of the air. When I asked the development officer in that school for the supporting budgetary material, he confessed that the proposal was more "concept-based" than "budget-based." My advice to him and to all of us is that all future proposals, especially when we are seeking commitments, must be budget-based.
Our everyday interactions with donors provide any number of insights into where the world is going and how philanthropic patterns are changing. If we listen, respect and adjust, we'll keep up and maybe even stay ahead.
The first was with a young donor who had pledged a million dollars earlier in the year. The night before I was to meet with him, I read my research brief and was struck once again by how generous a gift it was from one so young. Then I began to wonder, "Is he the youngest person ever to have given a gift of this size to Georgetown?" I sent an e-mail note to my research director asking her to check and, sure enough, he was. That important distinction had not been noted at any previous point. When I sat down to the dinner the next day with that donor, I was able to share the news in the form of a toast. Yes, we have been fortunate enough to receive million dollar gifts from a good number of donors but his gift was unique. Putting it in the perspective of our 220-year history helped him understand just how truly remarkable it was and, therefore, why it was particularly valued. It's important to look for those kinds of distinctions and, if at all possible, celebrate something unique about every major gift, not just lump all of them into one category or giving society. Looking for distinctions within categories -- whether it is the first to give to an important new initiative , the youngest to give at a particular level, giving in proportion to one's means, or giving in someone else's name -- is an important element of effective stewardship and good donor relations.
The second was with a prospect who had become intrigued by a phrase in our President's vision statement --"to produce leaders who make a disproportionate difference in the world." This donor thought that goal was quite important and was considering a million dollar pledge in support of it but he wanted to know how we proposed to identify those potential leaders. He believed that those who would make a disproportionate difference in the world were likely to have overcome
disproportionate adversity or taken on a disproportionate challenge early in life. If we simply looked for the same old criteria -- very good grades, high board scores and evidence of leadership -- we might miss some very unusual talents or late bloomers, he argued. This prospect was seizing on a key element of our vision statement and challenging us to challenge our own assumptions about how we might get there. Being able to say where an institution is going and why is essential to building philanthropic support but, increasingly, we must be prepared to show how we propose to achieve our goals and to consider innovative means of getting there. Every element of a vision must be backed up with a set of specifics to show how that goal is to be reached, and we must be willing to incorporate different ideas from different donors on the best way of achieving it.
The third was a prospect who liked the idea we had put to him, that of underwriting a distinguished speaker series in one of our schools, but he questioned if we really needed the endowment we were asking for. He wanted to see how we came to that number, including how much the school had spent on distinguished speakers in the past two years (including travel, lodging, security, etc.). He suggested we should carefully calculate those annual costs and then ask for an endowment gift that was twenty times that amount not just pull a nice round endowment number out of the air. When I asked the development officer in that school for the supporting budgetary material, he confessed that the proposal was more "concept-based" than "budget-based." My advice to him and to all of us is that all future proposals, especially when we are seeking commitments, must be budget-based.
Our everyday interactions with donors provide any number of insights into where the world is going and how philanthropic patterns are changing. If we listen, respect and adjust, we'll keep up and maybe even stay ahead.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Appropriate To The Times
The ways in which organizations pursue their philanthropic goals may vary but all must develop fund-raising strategies appropriate to the times. And, in these times, when donors are living with less and worrying more about their financial futures, it essential for these organizations to address their fund-raising aspirations in the context of cost-containment. To prove this point, let’s take a closer look at the dilemma of educational institutions.
When the economy suffered a dramatic contraction, virtually every school, college and university realized there would be a corresponding demand for new levels of financial aid. Urgent appeals were issued and poignant cases were made to help donors understand that more and more families were struggling to pay for their children’s education. Yet, those appeals were often made to prospects whose net worth had precipitously contracted. Above and beyond the obvious problem of asking for more from people who had less to give was the issue of whether additional money would make any real difference if tuition was not capped. After all, if schools continue to increase their costs, the need for financial aid will rise in direct proportion. The only way for new financial aid dollars to make a significant difference is to keep costs from increasing.
Tuition payments have become an ever larger portion of the average family income and, in the case of many prominent schools, now exceed that benchmark. So, without cost containment, what becomes of ever larger amounts given in the name of financial aid? If the answer is, “Well, it will keep us from falling even farther behind and slow the rate at which we price ourselves out of more and more markets,” few will be motivated to give. The only satisfactory answer is, “We will contain costs at the same time we seek greater financial aid support to ensure access to students from a greater socio-economic range.” There’s a greater goal to be reached, a difference to be made, therefore, a reason to give.
Philanthropy, as interpreted through the American cultural lens, is about making something better, about helping worthwhile organizations and causes to go from good to great, not from survival to mediocrity or to prevent them from lapsing from greatness into something less. We don’t make large investments in organizations that are struggling, whose expenses are out of control, or in decline. So, the best case that can be made for an organization that finds itself with fewer resources or greater expenses is that it will contract strategically to maintain focused excellence. And this is exactly what we see universities like Princeton, Cornell and Duke doing.
When so many business have had to make strategic cuts in hopes of emerging stronger and so many families have had to reorder their priorities or give up on some dreams, it makes little sense for philanthropy-seeking organizations to claim they need more without first showing they have done all they could to reduce their overhead and focus their resources on doing the fewest, most essential tasks as well as they possibly can.
When the economy suffered a dramatic contraction, virtually every school, college and university realized there would be a corresponding demand for new levels of financial aid. Urgent appeals were issued and poignant cases were made to help donors understand that more and more families were struggling to pay for their children’s education. Yet, those appeals were often made to prospects whose net worth had precipitously contracted. Above and beyond the obvious problem of asking for more from people who had less to give was the issue of whether additional money would make any real difference if tuition was not capped. After all, if schools continue to increase their costs, the need for financial aid will rise in direct proportion. The only way for new financial aid dollars to make a significant difference is to keep costs from increasing.
Tuition payments have become an ever larger portion of the average family income and, in the case of many prominent schools, now exceed that benchmark. So, without cost containment, what becomes of ever larger amounts given in the name of financial aid? If the answer is, “Well, it will keep us from falling even farther behind and slow the rate at which we price ourselves out of more and more markets,” few will be motivated to give. The only satisfactory answer is, “We will contain costs at the same time we seek greater financial aid support to ensure access to students from a greater socio-economic range.” There’s a greater goal to be reached, a difference to be made, therefore, a reason to give.
Philanthropy, as interpreted through the American cultural lens, is about making something better, about helping worthwhile organizations and causes to go from good to great, not from survival to mediocrity or to prevent them from lapsing from greatness into something less. We don’t make large investments in organizations that are struggling, whose expenses are out of control, or in decline. So, the best case that can be made for an organization that finds itself with fewer resources or greater expenses is that it will contract strategically to maintain focused excellence. And this is exactly what we see universities like Princeton, Cornell and Duke doing.
When so many business have had to make strategic cuts in hopes of emerging stronger and so many families have had to reorder their priorities or give up on some dreams, it makes little sense for philanthropy-seeking organizations to claim they need more without first showing they have done all they could to reduce their overhead and focus their resources on doing the fewest, most essential tasks as well as they possibly can.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Latest on Student Discovery
As many of you know, one of the innovations of which I am most proud is the Student Discovery Initiative at Georgetown. It is featured in the most recent issue of CASE Currents and has been covered in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
To date:
Over 6,000 alumni in 42 states and 17 countries have been interviewed
20 percent of those alumni made their largest gift ever after the interview was conducted
Giving by those interviewed rose 43 percent in the year after the visit
The interviews yielded 1,000 new career mentors, 500 new alumni-admissions interviewers and 200 Regional Club and Class Committee volunteers
570 new major gift prospects, 63% of whom have a capacity in excess of $100,000, were identified.
Oh, and did I mentioned that before these alumni were interviewed, they received a letter from the President reassuring them that they would not be asked for money? All of the results above came from the asking of opinions, and nothing else. Here’s the rest of the story.
The idea was a classic case of necessity being the mother of invention. I was new to Georgetown and found myself with 25 open positions, most of them in the upper echelons of my operation. For every person who had left, dozens if not hundreds of alumni and donor connections had been broken. Frustrations were piling up and I was trying to figure out how I could let our alumni know that we cared about them and were racing to repair the breaks in communications. I knew it would take more than a year to fill all the open positions so I began thinking about other assets that might be available to me. Then, while someone was reciting impressive statistics about Georgetown, it hit me. I was sitting on a huge resource – one of the most selectively admitted student bodies in the country. Over 18,000 applied, 1600 were admitted. Once a degree was conferred on these students, they were highly sought after by employers in the public and private sectors. I began to wonder how many of them might work for me before they graduated and how I might best use their abilities. Since information is so important to a new leader, it occurred to me that the best thing I could ask students to do was to help me gain more insight into how our former students would like to reconnect with their alma mater.
I learned that only 4,000 out of our 150,000 living alumni had ever had face-to-face contact with a representative of their alma mater and then began to imagine what might happen if we were to hire 100 students and ask them to interview 10,000 alumni over three years. What if we could more than double our interaction with alumni in a few short years? What might we learn about their interests and passions? And, if better armed with those insights, how much more effective might we be in designing our communications and outreach?
And how much would I need to spend? I wasn't exactly rolling in the dough. I thought, “What if we asked students to interview alumni in their hometowns when they returned for Christmas, Easter or summer break?” Since they were already going home, I wouldn’t have to pay transportation only for their time. I did the calculations and concluded I could offer students the handsome sum of $50 for each interview conducted. Such a deal, eh? The question then became, “Would anyone take me up on the offer?
They did indeed. Of course they did. They were (and are) very smart. They saw the value of getting in front of successful alumni and the opportunity to represent the University in a pioneering effort was far more than the $50 dollars we were offering. Some of my colleagues at Georgetown and at other universities warned me that I was taking too much of a risk, that I was asking students to take on responsibility beyond their years and that some would disappoint us by their poor judgment or inappropriate behavior. But none did. There have been no such incidents, not one. The students were carefully selected and put through rigorous training, both in the art of the interview and in steeping themselves in University facts and figures.
Our market research showed that many alumni craved a closer connection to their alma mater but felt the University had only one interest in them – as donors. Further, some of those who had met with development officers felt that they were in the presence of “hired guns,” there for the sole purpose of extracting commitments but were not well-versed on the latest developments or higher aspirations of the University. We knew it would be important to send a far different signal through our students.
When the first group of student discoverers began their work, they found not all of our alumni were willing to meet with them and those that were often met them with initial skepticism. However, after the alumni realized that there was no hidden agenda, they were touched by the fact that the University had deployed someone for the sole purpose of learning more about them. The alumni took to the students immediately, often asking if they could drive them to the next appointment or take them to lunch. Then I began to receive letters from those who had been interviewed. They said, in so many words, “You couldn’t have sent a more impressive representative to meet with me.” It was working. Human bonds were being strengthened when current and former students met. The students said more about the University and its future than any brochure, speech, video, or event ever could.
In Matthew Lambert, I was fortunate to find the right leader to implement my idea. He, in turn, surrounded himself with other strong leaders, including very talented students. One student, Tim Foley, conducted over 500 interviews over one summer. We hired him immediately after graduation. He worked for us for two years and now is in law school.
As I have said on other occasions, the program has been “a win” on every conceivable level. The program has brought forward wonderful students who helped bring many accomplished alumni back into the fold. The process of discovery proved an invaluable educational experience for our students and helped develop their personal and professional skills. As a result, they grew even closer to Georgetown. I expect many, in not most, will be our alumni leaders of the future.
Philanthropy is not produced by fund-raising. It is rooted in the common interests and mutual benefits of a well-developed community. If we are to achieve philanthropy’s highest and best purposes, we must attend to the constant building of the web of human relationships and the defining of the causes that unites us. Our students did more than interview or discover; they furthered the growth of a community, strengthened the sense of common cause, and helped us all better imagine how we might work together to achieve something greater. We continue to learn from their experience.
To date:
Over 6,000 alumni in 42 states and 17 countries have been interviewed
20 percent of those alumni made their largest gift ever after the interview was conducted
Giving by those interviewed rose 43 percent in the year after the visit
The interviews yielded 1,000 new career mentors, 500 new alumni-admissions interviewers and 200 Regional Club and Class Committee volunteers
570 new major gift prospects, 63% of whom have a capacity in excess of $100,000, were identified.
Oh, and did I mentioned that before these alumni were interviewed, they received a letter from the President reassuring them that they would not be asked for money? All of the results above came from the asking of opinions, and nothing else. Here’s the rest of the story.
The idea was a classic case of necessity being the mother of invention. I was new to Georgetown and found myself with 25 open positions, most of them in the upper echelons of my operation. For every person who had left, dozens if not hundreds of alumni and donor connections had been broken. Frustrations were piling up and I was trying to figure out how I could let our alumni know that we cared about them and were racing to repair the breaks in communications. I knew it would take more than a year to fill all the open positions so I began thinking about other assets that might be available to me. Then, while someone was reciting impressive statistics about Georgetown, it hit me. I was sitting on a huge resource – one of the most selectively admitted student bodies in the country. Over 18,000 applied, 1600 were admitted. Once a degree was conferred on these students, they were highly sought after by employers in the public and private sectors. I began to wonder how many of them might work for me before they graduated and how I might best use their abilities. Since information is so important to a new leader, it occurred to me that the best thing I could ask students to do was to help me gain more insight into how our former students would like to reconnect with their alma mater.
I learned that only 4,000 out of our 150,000 living alumni had ever had face-to-face contact with a representative of their alma mater and then began to imagine what might happen if we were to hire 100 students and ask them to interview 10,000 alumni over three years. What if we could more than double our interaction with alumni in a few short years? What might we learn about their interests and passions? And, if better armed with those insights, how much more effective might we be in designing our communications and outreach?
And how much would I need to spend? I wasn't exactly rolling in the dough. I thought, “What if we asked students to interview alumni in their hometowns when they returned for Christmas, Easter or summer break?” Since they were already going home, I wouldn’t have to pay transportation only for their time. I did the calculations and concluded I could offer students the handsome sum of $50 for each interview conducted. Such a deal, eh? The question then became, “Would anyone take me up on the offer?
They did indeed. Of course they did. They were (and are) very smart. They saw the value of getting in front of successful alumni and the opportunity to represent the University in a pioneering effort was far more than the $50 dollars we were offering. Some of my colleagues at Georgetown and at other universities warned me that I was taking too much of a risk, that I was asking students to take on responsibility beyond their years and that some would disappoint us by their poor judgment or inappropriate behavior. But none did. There have been no such incidents, not one. The students were carefully selected and put through rigorous training, both in the art of the interview and in steeping themselves in University facts and figures.
Our market research showed that many alumni craved a closer connection to their alma mater but felt the University had only one interest in them – as donors. Further, some of those who had met with development officers felt that they were in the presence of “hired guns,” there for the sole purpose of extracting commitments but were not well-versed on the latest developments or higher aspirations of the University. We knew it would be important to send a far different signal through our students.
When the first group of student discoverers began their work, they found not all of our alumni were willing to meet with them and those that were often met them with initial skepticism. However, after the alumni realized that there was no hidden agenda, they were touched by the fact that the University had deployed someone for the sole purpose of learning more about them. The alumni took to the students immediately, often asking if they could drive them to the next appointment or take them to lunch. Then I began to receive letters from those who had been interviewed. They said, in so many words, “You couldn’t have sent a more impressive representative to meet with me.” It was working. Human bonds were being strengthened when current and former students met. The students said more about the University and its future than any brochure, speech, video, or event ever could.
In Matthew Lambert, I was fortunate to find the right leader to implement my idea. He, in turn, surrounded himself with other strong leaders, including very talented students. One student, Tim Foley, conducted over 500 interviews over one summer. We hired him immediately after graduation. He worked for us for two years and now is in law school.
As I have said on other occasions, the program has been “a win” on every conceivable level. The program has brought forward wonderful students who helped bring many accomplished alumni back into the fold. The process of discovery proved an invaluable educational experience for our students and helped develop their personal and professional skills. As a result, they grew even closer to Georgetown. I expect many, in not most, will be our alumni leaders of the future.
Philanthropy is not produced by fund-raising. It is rooted in the common interests and mutual benefits of a well-developed community. If we are to achieve philanthropy’s highest and best purposes, we must attend to the constant building of the web of human relationships and the defining of the causes that unites us. Our students did more than interview or discover; they furthered the growth of a community, strengthened the sense of common cause, and helped us all better imagine how we might work together to achieve something greater. We continue to learn from their experience.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Vetting of a Vision
Last week, we vetted a draft of our campaign vision with our Board of Directors. The exercise was invaluable -- which is not to say that it led to a complete validation of the vision we advanced or produced anything close to perfect clarity on where we should go.
One board member said the statement did not fully capture the spirit of humanism that pervades the University culture. Another said it did not accurately depict the friendliness of the campus, a place, as he saw it, where others look you in the eye, shake your hand with conviction and smile with genuine warmth. Yet another said it did not capture the Catholic identity that had been so well-stated in an earlier articulation of mission, vision and values. Still another seized on the section that alluded to the Beatitudes and said that it should move from the second to the first page and be used to further elucidate the intellectual and spiritual foundations on which Georgetown stands. One trustee reminded the others that the statement was meant to be inspirational not descriptive, a notion the moderator seconded, saying the statement was meant to be a "locker room" talk not a game plan. One director opined that the statement didn't capture the happiness of the student experience while others focused their efforts on the need to clarify certain word choices and phrases.
So, with such a range of opinions expressed, why did I consider the exercise successful? First of all, the Directors were engaged. Their reactions were thoughtful and heartfelt. They cared about where the University was going and how it described its animating passions and guiding forces. Second, we learned a great deal about what was most important to those that spoke up which will allow us to find the campaign project or initiative that is closest to their hearts or most consonant with their hopes. Third, they learned more about each other which will help them bond and better understand one another which can only make future deliberations more considerate and productive. Finally, all could better understand the challenge of melding multifarious views into a more cohesive case for support and a greater spirit of common cause. And that task, the one of melding many into one, is a challenge that requires deliberate resolve and patient persistence, one that will never satisfy any single individual, most especially the writer of such statements, but one that will produce a greater sense of community.
Ralph Ellison said, "American is woven of many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain. Our fate is to become one, and yet many." Our founders, foreseeing that fate, adopted as a motto for a new democracy, "e pluribus unum (from many, one) ." And the early leaders of Georgetown made their motto "Utraque Unum, (from two into one), which comes from the epistle to the Ephesians, but the University's website notes, "As is the way in universities, the two words have taken on a variety of meanings from other contexts; the accommodation of learning and faith; the gathering of the sciences and the arts; and most moving of all, the joining of the blue and gray after the Civil War. It is hard not to think that the original choice of this text looked also to the fit of the old faith into the new Republic, the dream of Archbishop Carroll (Georgetown's founder)."
It's nothing new, this challenge of vetting a vision, of listening to many different stakeholders and trying to incorporate as many ideas and aspirations as possible without losing the "oneness" that makes the parts cohere, that creates a whole greater, deeper and stronger than the sum of the parts.
The formulation and reformulation of vision, with all it entails -- from its first articulation from a formative thinker, through the process of incorporation and accommodation, of creating a bigger tent without breaking the main mast -- is the real challenge of every great leader and the real mission of every lasting enterprise and institution.
One board member said the statement did not fully capture the spirit of humanism that pervades the University culture. Another said it did not accurately depict the friendliness of the campus, a place, as he saw it, where others look you in the eye, shake your hand with conviction and smile with genuine warmth. Yet another said it did not capture the Catholic identity that had been so well-stated in an earlier articulation of mission, vision and values. Still another seized on the section that alluded to the Beatitudes and said that it should move from the second to the first page and be used to further elucidate the intellectual and spiritual foundations on which Georgetown stands. One trustee reminded the others that the statement was meant to be inspirational not descriptive, a notion the moderator seconded, saying the statement was meant to be a "locker room" talk not a game plan. One director opined that the statement didn't capture the happiness of the student experience while others focused their efforts on the need to clarify certain word choices and phrases.
So, with such a range of opinions expressed, why did I consider the exercise successful? First of all, the Directors were engaged. Their reactions were thoughtful and heartfelt. They cared about where the University was going and how it described its animating passions and guiding forces. Second, we learned a great deal about what was most important to those that spoke up which will allow us to find the campaign project or initiative that is closest to their hearts or most consonant with their hopes. Third, they learned more about each other which will help them bond and better understand one another which can only make future deliberations more considerate and productive. Finally, all could better understand the challenge of melding multifarious views into a more cohesive case for support and a greater spirit of common cause. And that task, the one of melding many into one, is a challenge that requires deliberate resolve and patient persistence, one that will never satisfy any single individual, most especially the writer of such statements, but one that will produce a greater sense of community.
Ralph Ellison said, "American is woven of many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain. Our fate is to become one, and yet many." Our founders, foreseeing that fate, adopted as a motto for a new democracy, "e pluribus unum (from many, one) ." And the early leaders of Georgetown made their motto "Utraque Unum, (from two into one), which comes from the epistle to the Ephesians, but the University's website notes, "As is the way in universities, the two words have taken on a variety of meanings from other contexts; the accommodation of learning and faith; the gathering of the sciences and the arts; and most moving of all, the joining of the blue and gray after the Civil War. It is hard not to think that the original choice of this text looked also to the fit of the old faith into the new Republic, the dream of Archbishop Carroll (Georgetown's founder)."
It's nothing new, this challenge of vetting a vision, of listening to many different stakeholders and trying to incorporate as many ideas and aspirations as possible without losing the "oneness" that makes the parts cohere, that creates a whole greater, deeper and stronger than the sum of the parts.
The formulation and reformulation of vision, with all it entails -- from its first articulation from a formative thinker, through the process of incorporation and accommodation, of creating a bigger tent without breaking the main mast -- is the real challenge of every great leader and the real mission of every lasting enterprise and institution.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Campaign Vision (Part II)
Okay, here's a second draft of the campaign vision statement that I shared with you last week. The latest version is a more direct explanation of the campaign and a bit less of a soul search. It is more didactic and less Socratic, and has a more accessible, logical structure. I have been going back and forth between the two version to see if anything truly significant has been lost. It's a hard call. Perhaps I will have a better perspective after the document has been vetted with various constituencies, which is very important to achieve buy-in and to make sure that we are ready to implement what we promise. I wonder if it still is enough of a call to greatness, if it reaches deep enough into our soul and holds us to a holds us to a high enough standard to inspire the greatest possible support.
Anyway, here it is for your review.
What We Ask of Ourselves
A Vision for 2020 and Beyond
Four questions bring our aspirations for Georgetown University’s $1.5 billion campaign into focus: Why Georgetown? Why now? What can we accomplish? What will it take?
Why Georgetown?
“All of us (at Georgetown) enjoy a privilege that is very rare in our world – a beautiful world – but a world marked by injustice…a world in desperate need of your dreams. What you do with this privilege matters. We are not alone. We have each other. We also have women and men who need us – who are looking to us – to respond to the challenges that define our world today. In the words of former Jesuit Superior General Pedro Arrupe, we must accept the responsibility of being women and men for others: Women and men who accept responsibility not only for their own personal development…but for the collective development of the human family.” — President John J. DeGioia
With these words, President John J. DeGioia welcomes the freshman class to Georgetown University each fall. In so doing, he does more than orient these students to a campus; he defines what is unique about Georgetown as an institution dedicated to service. He points to Georgetown’s greatest resource: its people — students and faculty, alumni and friends, women and men for others.
To be of Georgetown begins not with what we ask for ourselves but what we ask of ourselves, about how we will use the gifts we have been given to serve others. As it becomes increasingly clear that we live in one environment, one economy and one society, and that weakness in one part, if left unattended, is a threat to the whole, what do we ask of ourselves?
Our campaign, the most ambitious in the university’s history, will provide Georgetown with the resources it requires to meet this challenge in 2020 and beyond. Its greatest priority will be an unprecedented investment in tomorrow’s leaders through scholarships. It will strengthen Georgetown’s position as a convergence point in the creation and dissemination of knowledge through strategic investments in faculty excellence, transformational initiatives and the creation of a model microcosm of what the university seeks to accomplish in the world.
Georgetown is not a just a university that inspires its community members to give their time and treasure to — in order to realize limited campus objectives — but a university that inspires its community members to give through to advance its traditions and create a better world. They see the spirit in which Georgetown builds knowledge and leadership to address the most difficult issues of the 21st century. They identify with the sense of commitment and service that pervades Georgetown’s community, and the determination with which the university seeks to build upon its purpose, place, moment and unique strengths to make the most enduring contribution to the human family.
Why Now?
“There is nothing quite like this moment.”— President John J. DeGioia
These questions take on a greater urgency as a shaken nation and a world searches for the bedrock on which to build a better future. We have seen so many seemingly tall houses wash away because they were built on the sands of expediency, falsity, foolishness, fear and intolerance. We look to the institutions that remain, particularly those that have thrived over centuries, and ask which of these can still be believed in and trusted to live up to their principles and deliver on their promise. Georgetown University is such an institution.
With the most competitively selected students in university history and deeply rooted in one of the world’s most influential cities, Georgetown now stands poised and prepared to make a far greater contribution to the world than ever before.
As a university that has reached the highest levels of achievement with modest resources compared with many of its peers among top-ranked universities, Georgetown offers an efficiency of purpose and performance that is perfectly suited to these times. As supporters have come to understand how Georgetown has efficiently converted their gifts into significant and lasting gains, they have increased their investment in the university. In fact, in the past year, in the face of the most challenging economic climate in the past 75 years, Georgetown supporters gave in record numbers and record amounts.
This inspirational support could not come at a more opportune moment. In a troubled economy, more families struggle to afford a first-rate education for their children. The university’s historic commitment to need-blind admissions and meet-full-need financial aid has made the university what it is today by making Georgetown a viable choice for all of the best students and not merely those who can afford it. No priority is more important to the university’s academic competitiveness. To sustain this historic commitment, we must expand scholarship funding.
Gifts to the campaign will have both immediate and long-range impact. Scholarship support will help prepare new generations of leaders who will go on to make a disproportionate difference.
Support for the curriculum will hone the skills and shape the consciences of those who will, in remarkably large numbers, go on to care for the sick, create law, shape public policy, influence foreign affairs, spur economic growth, foster innovation, create, teach, or build richer, more diverse communities.
New commitments to research will generate knowledge that leads to more efficient government, sophisticated and humane health care, environmental sustainability, enlightened jurisprudence, interreligious understanding and conflict resolution.
Endowments for capital improvement will create model environments for leadership development, character formation, citizenship, multi-cultural understanding, and artistic or athletic development.
What Can We Accomplish?
Through these investments, five central accomplishments can be attained. We seek to:
1. Make Georgetown the destination of choice for the world’s most accomplished and altruistic young people.
2. Design a complete, comprehensive campus life experience that ensures the most competitively selected students in Georgetown’s history develop their talents and deepen their conscience so that they can become “difference-makers” in whatever field they choose.
3. Attract and maintain faculty members who nurture and guide the talent of the remarkable young people entrusted to their care by the far-reaching relevance of the knowledge they produce, and the passion and proficiency with which they share that knowledge in the classroom and beyond.
4. Create a microcosm of a meritocratic world on our campuses: a world that places equal emphasis on the capacity of one’s intellect and the content of one’s character, a world that respects the dignity of each individual and demands adherence to the highest standards of ethical and intellectual conduct, a communicative, interconnected world that allows difference-makers and problem solvers to interact and innovate, and a world whose form allows its members to function at the height of their abilities.
5. Launch a series of initiatives from our positions of greatest strength to address the challenges that define our age, including those in globalism, conflict resolution, systems medicine, international development, global leadership development, environmental sustainability and transnational law.
What Will It Take?
So that it might better serve in these ways and for these purposes, Georgetown University seeks to secure $1.5 billion for the following uses: $500 million for scholarships to equip 1,789 of the most competitively selected students in the university’s history, $400 million toward faculty excellence, $300 million for transformational initiatives and $300 million toward creating a model microcosm.
Georgetown undertakes this ambitious challenge to ensure that its doors are open to the best students, to strengthen its faculty excellence and student experience worldwide, to ensure that graduates are prepared for the challenges that define our world, to create knowledge, to improve the human condition and to foster opportunity. In the words of President DeGioia, we must accept the responsibility of being women and men for others.
Anyway, here it is for your review.
What We Ask of Ourselves
A Vision for 2020 and Beyond
Four questions bring our aspirations for Georgetown University’s $1.5 billion campaign into focus: Why Georgetown? Why now? What can we accomplish? What will it take?
Why Georgetown?
“All of us (at Georgetown) enjoy a privilege that is very rare in our world – a beautiful world – but a world marked by injustice…a world in desperate need of your dreams. What you do with this privilege matters. We are not alone. We have each other. We also have women and men who need us – who are looking to us – to respond to the challenges that define our world today. In the words of former Jesuit Superior General Pedro Arrupe, we must accept the responsibility of being women and men for others: Women and men who accept responsibility not only for their own personal development…but for the collective development of the human family.” — President John J. DeGioia
With these words, President John J. DeGioia welcomes the freshman class to Georgetown University each fall. In so doing, he does more than orient these students to a campus; he defines what is unique about Georgetown as an institution dedicated to service. He points to Georgetown’s greatest resource: its people — students and faculty, alumni and friends, women and men for others.
To be of Georgetown begins not with what we ask for ourselves but what we ask of ourselves, about how we will use the gifts we have been given to serve others. As it becomes increasingly clear that we live in one environment, one economy and one society, and that weakness in one part, if left unattended, is a threat to the whole, what do we ask of ourselves?
Our campaign, the most ambitious in the university’s history, will provide Georgetown with the resources it requires to meet this challenge in 2020 and beyond. Its greatest priority will be an unprecedented investment in tomorrow’s leaders through scholarships. It will strengthen Georgetown’s position as a convergence point in the creation and dissemination of knowledge through strategic investments in faculty excellence, transformational initiatives and the creation of a model microcosm of what the university seeks to accomplish in the world.
Georgetown is not a just a university that inspires its community members to give their time and treasure to — in order to realize limited campus objectives — but a university that inspires its community members to give through to advance its traditions and create a better world. They see the spirit in which Georgetown builds knowledge and leadership to address the most difficult issues of the 21st century. They identify with the sense of commitment and service that pervades Georgetown’s community, and the determination with which the university seeks to build upon its purpose, place, moment and unique strengths to make the most enduring contribution to the human family.
Why Now?
“There is nothing quite like this moment.”— President John J. DeGioia
These questions take on a greater urgency as a shaken nation and a world searches for the bedrock on which to build a better future. We have seen so many seemingly tall houses wash away because they were built on the sands of expediency, falsity, foolishness, fear and intolerance. We look to the institutions that remain, particularly those that have thrived over centuries, and ask which of these can still be believed in and trusted to live up to their principles and deliver on their promise. Georgetown University is such an institution.
With the most competitively selected students in university history and deeply rooted in one of the world’s most influential cities, Georgetown now stands poised and prepared to make a far greater contribution to the world than ever before.
As a university that has reached the highest levels of achievement with modest resources compared with many of its peers among top-ranked universities, Georgetown offers an efficiency of purpose and performance that is perfectly suited to these times. As supporters have come to understand how Georgetown has efficiently converted their gifts into significant and lasting gains, they have increased their investment in the university. In fact, in the past year, in the face of the most challenging economic climate in the past 75 years, Georgetown supporters gave in record numbers and record amounts.
This inspirational support could not come at a more opportune moment. In a troubled economy, more families struggle to afford a first-rate education for their children. The university’s historic commitment to need-blind admissions and meet-full-need financial aid has made the university what it is today by making Georgetown a viable choice for all of the best students and not merely those who can afford it. No priority is more important to the university’s academic competitiveness. To sustain this historic commitment, we must expand scholarship funding.
Gifts to the campaign will have both immediate and long-range impact. Scholarship support will help prepare new generations of leaders who will go on to make a disproportionate difference.
Support for the curriculum will hone the skills and shape the consciences of those who will, in remarkably large numbers, go on to care for the sick, create law, shape public policy, influence foreign affairs, spur economic growth, foster innovation, create, teach, or build richer, more diverse communities.
New commitments to research will generate knowledge that leads to more efficient government, sophisticated and humane health care, environmental sustainability, enlightened jurisprudence, interreligious understanding and conflict resolution.
Endowments for capital improvement will create model environments for leadership development, character formation, citizenship, multi-cultural understanding, and artistic or athletic development.
What Can We Accomplish?
Through these investments, five central accomplishments can be attained. We seek to:
1. Make Georgetown the destination of choice for the world’s most accomplished and altruistic young people.
2. Design a complete, comprehensive campus life experience that ensures the most competitively selected students in Georgetown’s history develop their talents and deepen their conscience so that they can become “difference-makers” in whatever field they choose.
3. Attract and maintain faculty members who nurture and guide the talent of the remarkable young people entrusted to their care by the far-reaching relevance of the knowledge they produce, and the passion and proficiency with which they share that knowledge in the classroom and beyond.
4. Create a microcosm of a meritocratic world on our campuses: a world that places equal emphasis on the capacity of one’s intellect and the content of one’s character, a world that respects the dignity of each individual and demands adherence to the highest standards of ethical and intellectual conduct, a communicative, interconnected world that allows difference-makers and problem solvers to interact and innovate, and a world whose form allows its members to function at the height of their abilities.
5. Launch a series of initiatives from our positions of greatest strength to address the challenges that define our age, including those in globalism, conflict resolution, systems medicine, international development, global leadership development, environmental sustainability and transnational law.
What Will It Take?
So that it might better serve in these ways and for these purposes, Georgetown University seeks to secure $1.5 billion for the following uses: $500 million for scholarships to equip 1,789 of the most competitively selected students in the university’s history, $400 million toward faculty excellence, $300 million for transformational initiatives and $300 million toward creating a model microcosm.
Georgetown undertakes this ambitious challenge to ensure that its doors are open to the best students, to strengthen its faculty excellence and student experience worldwide, to ensure that graduates are prepared for the challenges that define our world, to create knowledge, to improve the human condition and to foster opportunity. In the words of President DeGioia, we must accept the responsibility of being women and men for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
