Author’s note: I wrote this summary for our board following the Council on Foundation’s Annual Conference up in Denver (April 25 – 27, 2010). Truth be known, the session on Social Media (talked about below) encouraged us to start this very blog. I thought it might be a good idea to include this summary as a part of the blog posts. It’s a bit long as far as posts go, but, oh well. Enjoy.
Chip Heath, co-author (along with his brother Dan) of the book Switch—How to Change Things When Change is Hard, gave a talk that included a lot of information concerning basic psychological and sociological principles. He referred to our emotional side as “a big elephant,” our rational side as “the rider of the elephant,” and a plan of action as “the path that the rider and elephant walk along.” Chip mentioned that this model is not new. Plato said that there is a rational charioteer who has to rein in an unruly horse. Freud said that we have an unruly id that must be reined in by our egos. Freud went a step further and said that if the ego was not up to the task of reigning in an unruly id, society, in the form of a superego, would step in and bring order.
Chip said that it really doesn’t matter which model you use as long as you consider all three elements—a big emotional elephant, a much smaller rider, and some form of clear path—when looking to bring about any form of change, whether in family, business, society, the non-profit world, politics, etc. Chip told us that the elephant is all about the short-term, instant gratification really. However, the elephant provides motivation. The rider is about long-term planning. Chip said that resistance to change can be traced back to an imbalance within the system that holds elephant, rider, and path. As an example, when a group engages in too much analysis, it may indicate that there’s either no motivation (elephant) or no clear path. An outpouring of emotion (elephant) may indicate that there’s no rider and/or no path. Chip told us that for change to take place, elephant, rider, and path must work together. Unfortunately, groups often get caught up in dealing with a lot of what Chip called “TBU”—true but useless. TBU is usually at the heart of situations where elephant, rider, and path do not form a coherent whole. The rest of this report will be brief so as to not bring undo amounts of TBU into the picture. For more on Switch, see the Heath brother’s web site.
• A workshop on Foundation Effectiveness suggested that the executive director should work to create a common context that the entire board can embrace. This agrees with Chip’s model above.
• During an Emerging Practitioners workshop, the presenter said that increasingly the third sector—the non-profit sector—would be called upon to take up the “rider” position and illuminate clear paths toward social change. This agrees with the work that Jeremy Rifkin presents in his 2000 book Age of Access.
• According to the information presented during a workshop entitled Philanthropic Leadership for Education or Anything Else, on average, only 70% of US kids graduate high school, of those only half are ready for college work, and as a result, only 35% complete a four-year college degree. The numbers are much worse in poor states (like New Mexico). The presenters effectively told us that the US public school system is like a big elephant that likes the way things are and does not want to look at change. The presenters called for national educational standards and better early childhood education programs. They mentioned that the Gates Foundation has put more than 100 million dollars over the last five years into early childhood education in Washington state.
• I went to a workshop given by Annie Leonard. Annie was the chief animator behind the web sensation The Story of Stuff. If you haven’t seen this video, it’s a must see. Annie told us that millions have seen the video and generally agree with its message: start consuming less stuff. But she admitted that although there’s been a strong emotional reaction to the video (e.g., an elephant reaction), consumption levels have not dropped off. Annie told us that even though consumption levels remain steady, happiness levels are declining. Simply, beyond the necessities, buying more stuff does not make you happy. One audience member suggested that decreasing consumption would stall an already teetering economy. It was clear that when it comes to stuff, elephant, rider, and path are not aligned. Annie did tell us that there was one line in the video that many disagreed with: “The government needs to take care of us.” She did admit that this shifted responsibility away from “ego” (using Freud’s model) and over to superego.
• The next workshop I went to was entitled Globalization and Educational Challenges. Right out of the starting gate the presenters simply stated: “In today’s high tech economy, a high school diploma is worthless.” The presenters told us that technology and automation has eliminated the types of manufacturing jobs that kids with a high school education, in years past, could go to once they left school. This agrees with the message that Rifkin presents in his 1995 book End of Work. They went on to say that the current generation may be the first in US history to be less educated than the previous. They mentioned that the top-performing countries, like Finland and Poland, are about the same size as many states in the US. They suggested that states should start modeling their school programs after the programs in countries like Finland and Poland. In essence, the presenters suggested that countries like Finland, Poland, Canada, and Australia, are now establishing the next path for education. The US needs to get its elephant and rider team on this path.
• I next attended a workshop on Social Justice. The main message delivered at this workshop was, “We need more generalists, more public intellectuals.” The presenters said that the days of “ATM philanthropy”—just asking foundations for a check and little else—are over. The presenters told us that increasingly executive directors of foundations will be called upon to articulate their vision of and path toward social change. The presenters told us that philanthropy has become so enmeshed (and enamored) with metrics and measurement (e.g., pure rider) that they have lost sight of such things as what is morally right and wrong. The presenters suggested that a moral vision has the potential to motivate both “rider and elephant” (using Heath’s model). I’d be remiss if I did not mention that the field of psychology has also become smitten with measurement and making everything “evidence based.” The presenters quoted Einstein who said that “not everything that can be counted, counts.” A lot that can be counted is so much TBU—true but useless.
• Al Gore spoke next. Gore’s talk was definitely the highlight of the conference. Gore started out with this recently released and rather sobering statistic: 75% of young adults (18 to 25 years old) are not fit to serve in the military because of one or more factors: obesity or poor health, no high school diploma, or a criminal record. That’s a “show stopper” statistic, one that was repeated many times during the conference. Gore told us that such technological developments as the printing press allowed information to become democratized: moving from being controlled and accessed by an elite few, to being easily created by and disseminated among many individuals. Sadly, Gore suggested that information is once again being controlled by a select group of elites. Gore said that we are returning to the days of feudalism. As an example, Gore mentioned that the Prime Minister of Italy controls 88% of the media in that country. Gore mentioned recently uncovered emails sent by banking executives that state in effect: “If there is money to be made in running the US economy over a ledge, then that’s what we will do.” This agrees with the message Naomi Klein delivers in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine—The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Of course Gore talked about the environment. Gore said that there are myriad crises surrounding us: economic, housing, environmental, education, news information, etc. He asked us to find the moral courage to find solutions to these problems. He said that we need innovations to get us back on the right path (sounding like Heath). He said that what is needed is political will. Gore ended by essentially asking, “How is it that there can be so many crises all around us and so little public outcry?” He quipped (half seriously though): “Is everyone watching Dancing With the Stars?”
• From a staunch liberal too a staunch conservative, next up was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen. Mullen started his talk by repeating the aforementioned statistic that 75% of young adults are not fit to serve in the military. Mullen said that this is a matter of national security. Mullen also talked about deployment patterns. He mentioned that a child who was age 10 when his or her mother and/or father first deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan, in all likelihood has not spent an appreciable amount of time with his/her parents over the last eight years as this child now (hopefully) enters college. Sounding like a Bowlbian, Mullen said that this is going to have a devastating effect on bonding patterns. (This agrees with a 1993 article by Julia Vormbrock entitled Attachment Theory As Applied to Wartime and Job-Related Marital Separation.) Mullen also said that PTSD was another factor that could make bonding difficult. He told us that many returning vets do not ask for help because their ability to relate to others is so compromised. At this point the person sitting next to me whispered, “That’s the main message in the movie Hurt Locker.” Mullen ended by saying that deployment patterns, PTSD, and an unfit young population are going to be pressing social problems, especially for the military. Mullen admitted that we simply do not have the social service programs in place to handle these pressing needs. I was taken aback that both liberal and conservative voices were saying the same thing: we are in a heap of trouble.
• The next workshop I went to was entitled Post-recession Workforce Innovations. The presenters started off by saying that we are in the middle of a jobless recovery. They continued by saying that the current skill shortage will only get worse as baby boomers continue to retire. The presenters said that there is a job crisis (like we need yet another one) because of too few new jobs, technological advance and automation (as mentioned above), and increased credential levels (e.g., most new jobs require professional credentials and/or degrees). This crisis is much worse than past labor market crises because today the duration of unemployment is much longer (often exhausting unemployment benefits), youth are deciding to delay their entry into the job market, and investment in skills training is down. The presenters said that the greatest job growth will come from the effort to make buildings green. The presenters said that 40% of greenhouse gases come from buildings. The presenters said that some growth will come from “right sizing cities,” that is to say, actually tearing down some parts of a city that are no longer being used. The presenters said that workers need to be willing to move to those cities that adopt green building programs and policies. A member of the audience asked, “But this works against those of us who are in favor of place-based philanthropy.” The presenters did admit that movement toward cities with green programs might make things worse for cities that are already in trouble, like Detroit.
• The next workshop was entitled Communicating the Value of Your Foundation. The presenters handed us a card with six bullet points. Here they are:
1) Talk about your strategic giving. Distinguish philanthropy from charity.
2) Show your partnership potential. Tell a story about your work with others.
3) Use your best ambassadors, especially trustees. Equip them and use their networks.
4) Move from paper to personal. Face-to-face conversations are often your best bet.
5) Communicate together with other foundations. It will multiply your messages.
6) No need to start from scratch. Improve your existing communication vehicles before creating new ones.
• I next went to a workshop entitled Taking Your Foundation Online with Social Media. The presenters said that the main forms of social media that foundations are using are Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. The presenters said that using social media moves your foundation from one-way communication (e.g., from the foundation only) to a two-way exchange of information. They said that even though a foundation may not be using social media, others are blogging or tweeting about the activities of the foundation, so why not tap into that conversation. Audience members expressed concern that social media technologies are rather impersonal and should not take the place of face-to-face communications (see item four in the list just above). The presenters agreed that social media technologies should not replace other forms of communication, but should be added to them. The presenters did admit that use of social media technologies does make it difficult to control information. They suggested starting out slow and putting a social media policy in place. They said that it makes sense to show tweet and blog messages to others within the foundation for comment before publishing them to the web.
• As the conference started to wind down, I attended a talk by education expert Geoffrey Canada. I’m going to use “Geoffrey” here because using his last name could create confusion. Geoffrey works in Harlem and has been successful in turning around one of its central schools. Geoffrey also mentioned the “75% of kids not fit for the military” statistic. He told us that we are witnessing a national disaster that’s being played out in slow motion. Geoffrey said that, in the world of education, he has regularly run into the following “elephant” attitude: “You can change anything you want as long as you change nothing.” Geoffrey simply stated: “If education were technology, then we are using a rotary telephone.” At the school he runs in Harlem, Geoffrey has fired under-performing teachers and extended the school year to eleven months—both things he was told would upset the status quo. Geoffrey simply stated: “If a teacher doesn’t work well with kids, he or she should be asked to find other employment.” Geoffrey repeated the message that technology is rapidly eliminating the jobs that the uneducated could go to. Geoffrey said that most educators spend their time “pulling kids out of a river” so-to-speak (a metaphor our Foundation often uses as well), and little to no time going up river to see who’s throwing kids in the river in the first place. Here are some of the reasons kids are in the river: 1) women who are single moms are in crisis, 2) global pressures, 3) technology eliminating jobs, 4) teacher burnout rates, and 5) kids with so many other needs like dental, medical, nourishment, etc. Geoffrey gave us the “bottom line” by stating: “Our country is being destroyed in front of our eyes” (which agrees with Gore’s message from above). Geoffrey told us that there are not enough adults around to tell kids what to do, to direct them, to guide them, to act as role models and mentors (e.g., riders who are able to point toward appropriate paths). Geoffrey ended with this “show stopper” statement: “A focus on race these days is covering over a problem that is there for all kids, not just for African American or Hispanic kids.”
• The final session I went to was entitled Creating an Opportunity Society. I had to leave this session early. Let me provide you with a few bullet points taken from the Powerpoint slides:
1) There is growing income inequality, especially at the very top
2) The middle class is treading water and only because most families now have two earners
3) There is less mobility in the US today than there is in some other advanced countries
4) The public expresses mixed feelings over public assistance
5) Willingness to provide assistance depends on perceived reasons for low income: meritocracy, class-based system, or fortune cookie (lottery) society
6) The rules for success in the US are: complete high school, work full time, and wait until age 21 and marry before children
The presenters made a very “elephant, rider, path” type statement: “80% of African Americans believe that America is the land of opportunity, but they still can’t, in reality, get to that opportunity.” The panel said that increasing opportunity and decreasing poverty are very partisan issues. Liberals feel that both can be brought about through increased levels of government programs and services. In contrast, conservatives feel that both can be brought about through a focus on moral development, shared responsibility, and business development. The panel agreed that people must be willing to move to find opportunity (echoing the message above). The panel also agreed that public policy will probably not be effective with respect to a problem like restoring family. The panel told us that foundations will have more influence in areas like restoring family, religious, and moral values. The panel agreed that issues like access to healthcare are complicated. The republicans on the panel got the last word when they effectively stated: “When you frame a problem using a comprehensive systems approach, what you end up with is a ‘one size fits all’solution that everyone must wear. The current pushback you are seeing with respect to Obama’s plan has to do with the fact that many simply don’t like the fit.”
I hope the above summary is of some help. I should point out that COF staffers blogged about the conference as it was happening. You may wish to visit the COF web site to read their blog posts, especially blogs about those concurrent sessions I was not able to attend.
