Social Innovations
Catalytic Philanthropy Forces Collaboration in Leadership
The SSIR’s webinar, ‘Catalytic Philanthropy: A New Approach in Uncertain Times’ really got me thinking a lot about leadership in the social sector. A catalytic philanthropist, as described by Mark Kramer in his article Catalytic Philanthropy is an individual who takes responsible for achieving actionable results, mobilizing a campaign for change, uses all available tools and creates actionable knowledge. Kramer argued that there was a need for philanthropists... (continue reading this blog post)
The SSIR’s webinar, ‘Catalytic Philanthropy: A New Approach in Uncertain Times’ really got me thinking a lot about leadership in the social sector.
A catalytic philanthropist, as described by Mark Kramer in his article Catalytic Philanthropy is an individual who takes responsible for achieving actionable results, mobilizing a campaign for change, uses all available tools and creates actionable knowledge. Kramer argued that there was a need for philanthropists to take on a more catalytic role. In other words, according to Kramer, philanthropists need to take a more active role in their philanthropy work. This is a great model but does it work for everybody? Perhaps there is still a role for other forms of philanthropy alongside catalytic philanthropists rather than one or the other.
We have an incredible paradigm of level five leadership given to us by Jim Collins in his book, “From Good to Great” which involves a leader humbly bringing out the best in his/her subordinates. This is a fantastic model for leadership that I believe more and more people are considering as a viable alternative for guiding an organization. I have been considering whether or not there is a tension between Kramer’s model of a catalytic philanthropist and a humble and empowering leader.
The webinar discussed how traditionally the effective leader is the ‘lone ranging maverick’ who is so convinced of his/her own views that he/she will not let anything or anybody stand in his/her way. In traditional businesses, these individuals are often successful. However I wonder to what extent it is possible for successful leaders to have firm convictions and yet at the same time humbly empower others.
Another issue that was brought up in the Webinar was collaboration. Again the problem of ego in leadership arises. It always seems bizarre to me to think of “ego” in the world of social entrepreneurship as it seems so contradictory to the ideals for the well-being of humanity that is at the core of the work. Even just the practical considerations of fundraising and competing with like-minded organizations seems to create collaboration problems.
It seems that there are two distinct types of people coming into social entrepreneurship. There are those people that have a deep passion and concern for certain issues in the world that they desperately want to address but don’t necessarily have the methodology to know how to. Then there are the business people who have a clear methodology and also have a conscience and desire to apply their knowledge to something worthwhile. However this latter group of individuals may sometimes work with much haste without a thorough consideration of all of the social implications.
Both types of people wanting to get involved with public service could benefit a lot from collaboration and learning from the other. The first group could do with a bit more strategic thinking and the latter group with a bit more reflection. But the question is: in what forum does this conversation take place? Are their languages so different that finding common ground proves to be a major challenge?
Jenna Nicholas is an undergraduate student at Stanford University. She is on the coordinating team of the Business Association’s Stanford Entrepreneurial Students (BASES) Social Entrepreneurship competition and an editorial intern for the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Jenna is also an active member of the Bahai Faith which is the inspiration for much of what she does.
Simply putting boxes and lines down on paper doesn’t guarantee that your organization will make better decisions.
Long-term investment in organic agriculture will provide above-market returns, environmental impact, and—in the developing world—enormous social impact.
Q&A with KoAnn Skrzyniarz of Sustainable Brands.
Critics of Obamacare have taken away attention from important aspects of the act such as its focus on keeping people healthy.
The misalignment between the expansive goal of “health” and a cramped
Entrepreneurs are setting up shop in the nation's urban food deserts.
A riveting memoir by Egyptian revolutionary—and Google marketing executive—Wael Ghonim.
COMMENTS
BY Mazarine
ON May 4, 2010 03:27 PM
Dear Jenna,
One thing that we resist looking at in the nonprofit world and in the
philanthropy world is that nonprofit staff and boards have very little
motivation to improve their models and methods because they are paid
poorly or not at all no matter how good of a job they do. So they are
demotivated by the system itself.
To help solve this, I propose:
Let people make mistakes. Make as many mistakes as possible. This will
help innovation.
Raise nonprofit wages to $40,000 for the lowest paid person and make
sure the highest in command is not paid more than 10x what the lowest
paid person makes. That way, people wouldn’t be worried about survival
as much, and could really start to look at ways to do things better.
End unpaid internships and make the nonprofit pay at least $500 a
month to interns.
Let board members become investors in the organization, with some
sense of when they are getting their investment back. This will make
board members aware that their involvement could bring some monetary
benefit for them as well.
BY Jenna Nicholas
ON May 13, 2010 12:50 AM
I completely agree.
I think for this reason the model of social entrepreneurship with a social return on investment can often be more sustainable than traditional non-profits.