The Realist Idealist

Making good things (actually) happen is hard.

On any large scale, trying to make the world a bit better place is messy and complicated and almost always full of the same back-room shenanigans chronicled throughout the political, business, and tech sectors, but with one not-so-small difference: everyone involved acts like it’s not, and almost no one talks about it.

Working in the social sector (including nonprofits and ever-more corporations and social entrepreneurs), is all too often like working in China or a culture in which everyone knows something unspoken is underlying the proceedings, but no one is allowed to discuss it.

A lot of my friends wonder what exactly it is that I do for a living, or what “directing partnerships” at an issue and geographical neutral organization means. And while I typically respond with something to the effect of, “it’s complicated” what I really mean is I “try (and mostly fail) to understand the personalities, politics, and general ridiculousness that all too often defines the nonprofit, public service, and socially responsible business sectors, then try (and again mostly fail) to help do something with what’s there.”

To be sure, in 5 years of trying I haven’t figured it out… nor, I’m quite certain, has anyone else. There are, however, a couple lessons.

In an arena where concepts such as collaboration and partnership are paramount ideals, they are far too rarely translated into something tangible. Good intention is seldom transitioned to effective and responsible action – though meetings and words towards that end are dominant and pervasive.

One of the most appropriate (and often troublesome) examples in the social sector is the “world” of volunteering and the infrastructure promoting and supporting it. There may be no more basic idea than volunteering when it comes to the business of doing good in a community, but working where I do (and where I have), I can say definitively that volunteerism is anything but simple or straightforward.

In the last year alone I’ve been in at least a dozen meetings on the international, national, regional, and local community levels involving the online aggregation and connecting of volunteer opportunities with those interested. On that front there are at least 5 players – one of whose unfortunate business model currently restricts the collaboration and integration of others to create one central volunteer marketplace (which would obviously benefit everyone). I’ve discussed domestic and international efforts from Capitol Hill to the White House to the local watering hole, and there are so many organizations (literally hundreds) being convened through multiple channels that it’s hard to keep them straight, or to get much of anything actually done. There are, of course, positive efforts led by groups such as The Brookings Institute and Be The Change, though even there, the nature of the beast is idea sharing (and hot air blowing) until one group “just does” – to which other organizations all too often respond by claiming their toes have been stepped on and wondering why there wasn’t more collaboration.

I’ve watched support networks and associations merge (Points of Light and Hands On), dissolve (AVA), sprout up (COVAA), compete, and seen others (foundations and CNCS) throw spaghetti at the wall trying to figure out what sticks. These aren’t necessarily bad things, they’re just not at all simple. The individual actors all know each other, most have been around for a decade or they often each have at least two or three of the intertwined organizations on their resume. The money (both foundation and corporate), PR, and leadership usually follows old friends and alliances. Sound like anything else?

The system is rife with occurrences like our President’s (equally inept and poorly spoken) brother Neil – a man whose only connection to volunteer centers is his father’s admirable work – becoming chairman of a large national volunteer network, and walking into meetings calling for an overtake of larger networks to be followed by nationwide rebranding. (which I was in the room to witness.)

It’s unbearably frustrating to watch at times.

Essentially: Without traditional market forces, without checks and balances, without shareholders, but with personalities as big and narcissistic as business or politics, and with somewhere between $600Bn - $1Tr worth of assets, the do-gooder sector is all too often a veritable maze of complications, fits and starts, and good intentions held perpetually in potentiality.

Rest assured there are also extraordinary successes of intentions becoming real action out there - just look at Ashoka’s 1800 fellows around the world - and it is unbelievably important that those efforts continue. That said, for the rapidly growing number of companies, nonprofits, and individuals new to this world and seeking to more socially engaged or responsible, my point is this:

You can absolutely overcome the challenges, and you can pilot the waters when they are twisted and murky, but the business of doing good and creating positive community impact cannot be taken for granted. Simply trying doesn’t guarantee success …and if you’re not careful, good intentions with bad information can be a recipe for disaster.

Those who are successfully navigating the social sector on international and local levels and from corporate to nonprofit – those who are truly making good things happen – all demonstrate an authenticity, savvy, and understanding amidst the politics. And that simply takes time and effort to achieve.

The rock stars who understand this – folks like Brian Gallagher of United Way, Kathy Cloninger of Girl Scouts of America, Irv Katz of the National Assembly, or the teams behind Salesforce Foundation and Google for Nonprofits who have sought to meet other organizations where they are, partner, and deliver – are the ones to emulate.

Follow their lead.

Not Neil Bush.