The Politics of Charity: Minding Your Speaking Your Mind
Some of us are more candid than we probably ought to be. We put ourselves out there. But remember this as you read this blog and other business columns: things change.
Each charity has a special mission (or at least should) that may relate to other charities in the universe, but not exactly. There is no right or wrong way to do it. And expressing a thought in a column – such as 137 Words – does not equate to either a Sermon on the Mount or a whisper from Jiminy Cricket about that charity. It is merely an expression based on the writer’s own vantage point.
So when Covey, Collins, Porter, or even Harrison proclaim a truth, it’s not backpedaling to say that the “truth” is a reaction to what’s happening right now. And that things change.
Charity Leadership: Are “Family” and “Company” unconnected? Read on…
Family dynamic: parent(s), children, siblings. Extended to include: grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. Further extended to include: spouse(s), in-laws, in-laws’ spouses. May include lifelong friends and, sometimes, pets.
Company dynamic (charity): trustees, leaders, directors, managers, administrators, jobbers, customers, targeted beneficiaries. Extended to include: co-leaders, benefactors, additional management layers, corporate partners, colleagues. Further extended to include: advisors, non-targeted beneficiaries and, sometimes, the government.
Family is not company. Company is not family.
Each seeks a “home.” Neither seeks dysfunction. Few achieve functionality. Both are worthy.
Family members often yearn to be companies with direction: clear and evenhanded parents, rebellious and aspiring children who just need additional experience, collaborative siblings.
Company members often yearn to be families with humanity: caring but autocratic leaders, ambitious managers, iconoclastic jobbers, entitled customers, and grateful beneficiaries.
Is it best to treat families and companies as unconnected?
The Case for Individual Artist Support Begins with Measuring Hope
Painter sculptor carver glassblower metal-artist potter actor set-designer lighting-designer costume-designer sound-designer playwright director choreographer jazz-dancer ballet-dancer modern-dancer opera-singer jazz-singer classical-singer musical-comedy-singer performance-artist rock-singer rock-musician classical-musician poet novelist ballroom-dancer hip-hop-dancer hip-hop-singer beat-boxer aerialist cinematographer folk-dancer native-dancer folk-singer Latin-dancer swing-dancer belly-dancer tap-dancer clog-dancer sketch-artist screenwriter clown mime country-singer storyteller improviser busker magician juggler composer lyricist ethnically-specific-singer ethnically-specific-dancer ethnically-specific-visual-artist
Apologies to those I neglected.
Art breathes life into our lives. Art offers us the only thing on the planet that has the capacity to make us better – hope. Even existentialism compels us to rebel… and hope nonetheless.
Unfortunately, hope is not a measurable outcome.
We must find it within our best selves to find a system to fund individual artists separate and apart from arts organizations. Not instead of, but in addition to. We deserve to hope for better.
Negatively Commenting on the Title of a Post (What You’re Reading Now) is Akin to PETA Boycotting “To Kill a Mockingbird” Because, You Know, They’re Killing a Mockingbird.
Recently, a foundation advocate negatively commented on the title of a 137 Words blog post. On the title, not the post.
As Ben Franklin once said, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
Thank you for reading 137 Words and sharing it with your colleagues. We’re pretty amazed when 137 Words evokes derision, praise, or questions.
If you haven’t shared yet, please do – karma will be kind.
In 6 months, 137 Words has picked up about 6,000 readers. That exceeds all our expectations. We are truly grateful.
And to those like this advocate who only read the title and not the posting (what you’re reading now), I only wish bliss. Or, should I say, additional bliss.
Harsh? Maybe so. Because I am all too often a card-carrying member of the Right to Extreme Stupidity League.
The 7 Most Important Things Not to Do About Not Doing the 52 Most Important Things
I write this blog and read many others. I find that people responding to nifty list posts (6 Strategic Ways to Get the Best Board of Directors) are looking for shorthand answers to longhand questions. I understand the appeal; work is complex and speed is valued over thoughtfulness. But the awkward and obvious question is:
“Are there only 6 ways to get the best board? Or are these just the first 6 you thought of?”
Same goes with negative posts (How NOT to Have a Sucky Board of Directors). I’ve been guilty of this, usually after a recent bad experience. Sorry about that, because the obvious and awkward question is:
“There are a kerjillion ways to have a sucky board. Can’t you help me get a good one?”
I’ll try to be a better poster. And here are 137 ways how…
Kibitzing is the Road to Hell for Charitable Organizations: “You know what you SHOULD do…”
Kibitzing. Webster’s definition: “watching other people and making unwanted comments about what they are doing.”
Good intentions (egad). Some people pay for the privilege via their donation or board service. My mother believes it’s her birthright.
For arts charities, kibitzing mainly involves comments, programs, and activities that are unsupported by research or any evidence of success.
Instead: come with solutions rather than problems. Shortfalls are as unintentional as bad art. No one intends red ink or a lousy play with bad acting. But rather than more bake sales, auctions, galas, or (egad) a “give-a-million-dollars-or-we’ll-go-bankrupt-on-Tuesday” campaign; rather than creating a program committee (because anyone can pick plays) or a marketing committee (because anyone can market the arts), work with your ED toward real, verified solutions.
The road to hell is paved with kibitzers. The road to bankruptcy, too.
Charity Culture: If Doing the Right Thing Makes You an Endangered Species, Do It Anyway
Sadly, few people know “Profiles in Courage.” Ask around.
Among performing arts charities, some leaders shrewdly keep their positions because they fear appearing impolitic. They seek sustainability for themselves first, and then, secondarily, their organizations.
To them I implore:
- Pay performers wages, on the books, legal standard or better, for every hour they spend: rehearsals, performances, fittings, etc.
- If your charity isn’t making a substantial difference, merge or close. If it is, share your secrets.
- It’s about social progress, not black ink. Both are preferable, but you’ve failed if your best work is 30 years of balanced budgets.
- Take a stand. Don’t buy trouble, of course, but don’t become invisible to save your own skin.
- Theatres: plays aren’t written, they’re wrought. It’s about the production and the viewpoint, not the script and sets.
- Do something. Don’t be something.
This Just In: Artists Value Money Just Like You Do
I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune about actors receiving no payment for some performances. I’m not sure why it was written, except as acknowledgment that, well, actors receive no payment for some performances. Even for hit shows.
But why? “We can either pay you guys and not do a show — or not pay you and do a show,” said one producer in the article.
Here’s the thing: there are lots of performers. The competition forces them to undervalue themselves.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s ethical not to pay them. At least minimum wage. For rehearsal and performance time.
If that producer decides not to make money on a project, that’s his prerogative. But no pay to performers is abusive, unless he’s offering 40 acres and a mule after the run of the show.
Rethinking the Group Job Interview – Consensus? Abdication? Or Focus Group?
I’ve tortured people in the group interview process. I thought I was offering consensus. Buy-in. Group drive.
I was wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Oh, so wrong.
To everyone I’ve ever put through that, on either side of the table, I apologize. I’ll never do it again. Promise.
There are four decisions: autocratic (I say), consultative (I say with your input), democratic (we vote, losers weep), consensus (we vote and everyone backs the decision).
As practiced, the group interview might have evolved into a method for managers to abdicate responsibility in the name of consensus. While consensus is ideal, the group-think process can too often be dominated by a crank in the corner with issues, motives, and insecurities. And, possibly, an unknown agenda.
Group-think promises consensus but can preclude innovation.
And why would you ever choose to preclude innovation?
Disinterested Advocacy: When Issues Become Global, the Pool for Support Grows Exponentially
Women’s issues are not about women. Race issues are not about people of color.
And when Mars attacks Oklahoma, the issues will not be about Oklahoma.
I visited a domestic abuse nonprofit. They do great work, but are ghettoized by donors as a “women’s issue” charity. The executive director wondered how they might be able to globalize the cause (and increase revenues).
“Domestic abuse is a societal problem,” she complained. “And I worry that without some men providing disinterested advocacy, we’ll only attract women donors.”
But every time she interviewed qualified men for marketing or development positions (and they’d graduate to a final 10-on-1 group interview), the staff and board balked. “Just not a good fit,” they’d euphemize. And they’d recommend another qualified woman.
Is your charity’s issue exclusively yours? If not, how are you communicating that?
I died this morning.
I was an energetic, charismatic, visionary leader.
I worked at least 60 hours a week.
The office is by turns chaotic and paralyzed.
Some are crying.
Some are ecstatic.
Outside the charity, most don’t care.
Not their problem.
Trustees are panicking. Staff members are traumatized.
Some are taking charge, Alexander Haig-style.
Others are forming committees to decide what to decide.
Still others are composing resignations.
Reporter on line 1.
I knew every board and staff member.
And their families.
I knew every major donor.
I knew local foundation leaders.
Benefactors on line 2.
Beneficiaries on line 3.
I knew financials.
I knew history.
I had passwords.
Vendors on line 4.
I knew where everything was.
I shared that information.
But that was 5 years ago.
To employees who are no longer here.
Too bad there wasn’t a written succession policy.
Not my problem.
Hiring 102: Breaking the Code on Ageism (We’re on to You.)
You don’t have to be Alan Turing to break the HR “can’t-ask-how-old-you-are” code:
“How is your energy level?” = “Are you a geezer?”
…Correct response: “I run 26 marathons daily.”
“What were you doing before 2001?” = “What were you doing before I turned 10?”
…Correct response: “I’m 35 years old with 30 years’ experience.”
“When did you graduate college?” = “I’m checking my arithmetic to determine your age.”
…Correct response: “When I was 22.”
“How flexible are you?” = “Is your mind as ossified as a petrified fossil?”
…Correct response: “I’m currently holding the phone with my pinkie toe while simultaneously writing Iraq’s new constitution.”
Seriously, though, hiring managers: according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers 45–64 stayed twice as long as those 25–34 — so those under 40 are a much higher risk of leaving you high and dry.
So stop it.
Dream Job…and My Title Would Be Chief Dream Merchant
What I want:
An arts charity that makes my community better.
Value to the community:
Safety. Knowledge. Personal Power. Issue solutions.
Artistic Tools:
Provocation. Entertainment. Populism. Progressiveness. Mischief.
Other Tools:
Educational residencies in both art and topic.
Partners:
Every other charity, educational institution, or NGO with similar values.
Differentiation:
50-50 split on revenues with partners. Partners open their mailing lists to help themselves financially through ticket sales.
Quantifiable outcomes:
The measured outcomes of the partners. Quantity of classes, students, and schools participating.
Non-quantifiable outcomes:
Populist results defeat the arts’ elitist reputation. The needs of the charities are filled.
Initial budget:
Enough so that all artists receive at least $15/hour (in 2014 dollars) and no full-time hourly rate is more than 4x anyone else’s.
Impact:
Arts moves people to action. Thorny issues seen can never be unseen. Life is better.
A Version Aversion (or: Why It’s More Important That The Whole Thing Works And Not Just The Elements)
Saw a play recently. The story was appropriately troubling and deftly told. But great art is not about literary proficiency or good acting.
Often in any of the artistic ventures, we render our version of a piece, and are judged by some version of accolade. Our study becomes about acting excellence or mind-blowing special effect or the brilliant manipulation of color and light. And critics judge on those foundations. Even in a new work, we cling to “our version.”
Fans don’t care. Fans are, fittingly, binary. Either the art makes one transform or it doesn’t. When we seek outcomes that make it jarring to return to reality, we do well. If fans only enjoy the elements created to produce the art’s reality, then “our version of art” is to “great art” as “Matchbox Cars” are to “Lamborghinis.”
Stepping in Moral Quicksand: When a Horrible Person/Company Gives to Your Nonprofit
I was going to write about all the charities to which Donald Sterling donated.
I was going to ask if the standards of the organization should stand up against the horror of the donor.
After all, UCLA gave back $3 million of Sterling’s money.
Then I was going to ask about donations from companies that peddle “evil” – tobacco, liquor, oil, etc.
But then I thought about individual donors’ morals. Not just unethical oligarchs like Henry Ford, Rupert Murdoch, John D. MacArthur, or even Sterling. What about all the philanthropists whose fortunes were built on a million broken backs? Or a few? Or one? And I thought about my experiences with morally corrupt donors.
I’m sinking.
Help.
Verbal Tics and Jargon Reduce Your Ability to Communicate Effectively. What’s Your Fingernails-on-the-Chalkboard Verbal Tic?
So the word I overuse most lists “accordingly,” “consequently,” “ergo,” “hence,” “therefore,” and “thus” among its synonyms. I’m among many who have this unfortunate tic.
So we’ve used it to reframe questions to fit our answers. We’ve used it as a replacement for “uh,” “um,” “y’know,” or “well.” We’ve used it to preface an opinion for the purpose of making it sound as though we represent universal consensus.
So honestly, we’ve stopped knowing why we use it at all. Or that we use it at all.
So I discovered the tic by listening to Harry Shearer’s brilliant radio program, Le Show.
So I have other communication peeves having to do with the words “literally” and “notoriety,” the phrase “the exact opposite,” and the valley-girl end-of-statement uptick, now prevalent among both genders. But “glass houses” and all that.
Personality, Talent, Intellect, Experience, Spirit, Passion, and the Ability to Inspire. Good Qualities for You but Intimidating as Hell to Insecure Leaders
I have a friend (not me) who is a sensational grant writer. She’s brilliant (Ivy League educated), inspirational (magnetic personality), talented (great references), and people genuinely like her.
She’s also ethical, sensible, positive, quite attractive, and a snappy dresser.
And without a job.
Lately, when she meets with prospective employers, they are impressed by her prowess, references, and samples. Sadly, they don’t hire her. It’s plausible that insecure bosses-to-be fear she is more impressive than they are and look elsewhere.
Look, if you’re in greater Seattle and need a hell of a grant writer for a full-time gig, contact me and I’ll forward your info to her. But if you’re unstable enough just to want someone inferior to you (even if your grants are being denied) because “anyone can write a grant,” then you deserve your results.
Seen on a sweatshirt while walking around Green Lake: “Change is good. You go first.”
Innovation is annoying. Instigation is even worse. I ought to know. I’ve been accused of both.
But when companies are stagnant (or failing), staying put is not an option.
Innovators and instigators can be difficult. Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford are/were not particularly “easy” people. Nor were César Chávez or Copernicus. Nor were many women who broke through glass ceilings.
Too often when things aren’t working, managers paralyze themselves by thinking without forensic analysis. For them, all they believe they need to do is to keep doing what they’re doing.
“We tried change,” they’ll tell you. “It didn’t work. All we have to do is work harder.”
Forensic analysis matters. The great leaders know that and use it to their competitive advantage. They may also consider change agency to be annoying – but also rewarding.
Like licking honey off a thorn – Art, why we do it, who it’s for, and why it has power
Painters sing.
Actors play.
Writers choreograph.
Singers paint.
Dancers conduct.
Choreographers sculpt.
Sculptors act.
Musicians paint.
Directors sing.
Conductors write.
And in doing so, no issue, thought, or attitude can be unseen, unfelt, or unheard. It is not for the singing, the painting, etc., that art is produced. The glory of art is in its scope of power. To inspire peace or revolution. To cause great comfort or great discomfort. To provide joy or desolation.
As a populist, I believe that visual and performing arts serve great groups of people. I fear that many in power judge art as dangerous. Their battle plan continues to manipulate those same great groups of people into despising it, to consider it as foreign. As the other.
And I fear that they’ve won that battle. But not the war. Not yet.
“I Wanna!” The Fatal Game of Power About Nonprofit Arts. Ages infantile and up.
How to play:
Players select their tokens to start play. Each token designates their role in nonprofit art.
Marionette: Performing Artists/Designers
Blob of Clay: Writers/Composers/Visual Artists
Pawn: All technical/administrative/volunteer personnel (one token represents all)
Change Purse: Audience
Louis Vuitton Pocketbook: Donor/Funder
Fake Louis Vuitton Pocketbook: Development Director
Hammer: Trustee
Bent nail: Managing/Executive Director
Telescope looking up: Artistic Director/Curator
Microscope looking down: General Manager/CFO
Bloody leech: Critic/Journalist
Sorry: designated tokens for marketing/pr directors were deleted in the last budget cycle.
All players spin the Great Glass Wheel Of Art simultaneously in all directions and yell, “I Wanna!” The Wheel comes off its bearings; breaks into millions of pieces. Players move tokens anyplace in the room that feels most advantageous, regardless of the playing board or other players.
End of game:
Chaos. All players proclaim victory. None actually win.
You’re faking it. You know you are. So why would you hire someone who knows less than you do?
Deep in your soul, you understand that you have no idea what you’re doing. You’ve been faking it for years.
You have years of experience and an important-sounding title. But you know the truth.
Now that it’s time to hire someone to report to you, who do you want?
“Someone young I can mold,” said an ED acquaintance recently. What he meant was, “Someone who won’t outshine me in front of my board.” Idiot.
“Someone who has fought the fight,” said a board member I know. “Someone who can offer great perspective and can innovate intelligently.” Wise.
We are imperfect. We have weaknesses. So when you accept that you don’t know everything, the best thing you can do is hire to those weaknesses.
When you do, you’ll be a leader. Until then, you really are a fake.
The black ten goes on the red Jack, Jack
The worst thing you can say is “I’m too busy.”
There are reasons, remedies, and repercussions available here and here and here.
Therefore:
If someone you know calls, call them back. Don’t write. Call. Today.
If someone you know writes, write them back. Or call. Today.
If you have an appointment with someone, do not text them a “crazy busy” excuse in the hopes they’ll go away. Meet. You said you would. Passive aggressiveness is still aggression…and it’s repugnant.
Be fifteen minutes early. Honoring time is the ultimate respect.
Stop being afraid that people will catch you playing Solitaire. We know you’re playing Solitaire. Everyone’s playing Solitaire of a kind. We’re not actually speaking with other people, seeking ideas and help, or evolving curiosity.
If we only express things we already know, then how do we grow?
$14.50
On July 24, 2009, the national minimum wage was $7.25/hour.
A year has a capacity for 2,080 hours (40 hours x 52 weeks). 2,080 hours provides an annual gross income of $15,080 (if the employer pays for holidays, sick days, insurance, parking, etc.). Income tax lowers the figure down to $12,516.
The 2009 official poverty line for the US (family of four) was $22,050.
4½ years later, minimum wage is still $12,516/year.
If the minimum wage were doubled for businesses with 50+ employees, the gross annual minimum wage would be $30,160. After federal tax, those employees would take home $25,033. 2013’s official four-person-family poverty line is estimated to be $25,000.
Sounds about right. Unless the economy is built on maintaining a working poor. If that’s the case, we should reduce the minimum wage and build workhouses.
Neither artists nor nonprofit arts organizations are entitled, they just act that way sometimes
Every kid wins trophies.
There are two possible takeaways from this fact:
a) Trophies don’t mean much; or
b) Every kid deserves trophies.
Or both.
If a), then the result is that external recognition must be useless. Which means:
1) We reward mediocrity.
2) We foster cynicism to greatness.
If b), then the result is that external recognition must be unrelenting. Which means:
3) We reward everything.
4) We foster entitlement to greatness.
I have rarely seen folks as entitled as those in the performing arts today, at least here in Seattle, the epicenter of externally-based self-esteem. I’ve known dozens of actors who have insisted that they’re too talented to audition. Dozens more of nonprofit arts organizations feeling too holy to follow a mission.
Consider: Oscar Isaac had to audition for the role of Llewyn Davis. It wasn’t handed to him.
This. Happened.
Years ago, I dined with a board member/lawyer who’d given $100,000 of unrestricted funding for four consecutive years. Ninety miles from home. Nice restaurant. Just us two.
Asked for this year’s gift.
Silence.
Then, he said, “Now, why do you do all these plays for the n**g**s? They’re uneducated, unsophisticated, they don’t like us, and you’re just rubbing our noses in it?”
I wanted simultaneously to vomit, slug, and flee, none of which are socially acceptable responses.
Dad once said that using the bathroom is the most socially acceptable way to buy ten minutes. I bought ten minutes.
“It’s not my money. It’s not my money,” I chanted to myself for about ten minutes. “It’s for the company. It’s unrestricted. We can spend it any way we see fit.”
Came back.
What would you say and do?
