Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Activity vs Action
As we work to create change we face any number of difficult choices and barriers. One of the most common is the dilemma of activity vs. action. If you're really honest with yourself is your work generating more activity, more tasks or are you working to take action that creates impact?
Learn more about the difference between activity and action -- download a free copy of Rich's essay Make Hope Real -
Will You Risk The Money?
What if the more attention we paid to issues of equity and race, the more supporters and funders of "community causes" dried up? That's the question I posed at two events last week. For me, the issue is whether we are prepared to lose precious support by seeking to see and hear all people in our communities, or will we take the path of least resistance and follow the money?
First, some important context: The ease with which we can actively turn away from those we don't wish to see or hear makes it increasingly difficult to address issues of equity and race. For instance, we can pick and choose our own news on the Internet, screening out unwanted or undesirable stories. Meanwhile, many of us have retreated into close-knit circles of families and friends, essentially turning away from public life and those who are not like us. According to The Big Sort, a new book by Bill Bishop and Robert G. Cushing, more of us are moving into increasingly homogeneous areas. And many people report feeling "fatigued" by pictures and news from one tragic disaster and horrific war after another.
Against this backdrop I found myself face-to-face with these concerns last week. First, in a small conference room over delivered pizza, I met with a handful of incredible school and community change-agents in Baltimore. We talked about their efforts to re-engage parents, neighborhood leaders, businesspeople, and others in support of community-based schools. These change agents believe their current efforts give them a real chance to move beyond lip service in seeking to achieve their goals; but they know that if they are successful, they might just upend the ill-fated status quo in the city and the web of relationships that support it.
Traveling just a handful of blocks to the imposing Baltimore Convention Center, which for me was like entering a parallel universe, I moderated a discussion in a gigantic ballroom filled with nearly 2,000 attendees at the United Way of America Community Leadership Conference. The topic: "Advancing the Common Good."
At the conference, Brian Gallagher, the visionary head of United Way of America, unveiled their new campaign and tagline: LIVE UNITED. It's a terrific approach (a topic I'll leave for another day). But my point is this: to "live united" means seeing and hearing one another; it means that the poor, minorities, people living in particular neighborhoods, would not be pushed aside and be made invisible; that the voices of such people would be heard and heeded; that people's concerns would be on the public agenda and actively addressed. If we were to live in a community united, people would not be seen as victims or wards of the state, somehow incapable of managing their own lives - but as individuals with crucial knowledge and passion and agency.
In both sessions I asked, if funders and donors supporting groups like local United Ways, community foundations, public broadcasting, local education and community groups would continue their support as we aggressively sought to live united - that is, as we worked to see and hear everyone in communities. More to the point will funders and supporters see their discomfort increase as they confront issues and situations that are not easily solved, that are not amendable to simply to giving hand-outs, that require genuine change - even change in relationships and power? Will they balk and backtrack when they realize that to have true impact may mean shifting funding from their "favorite" groups to others whom they do not know and may have dismissed in the past?
If we are serious about seeing and hearing all people - if we wish to act on issues of equity and race - then we must be prepared for some funders and supporters to say, "No, thank you." We must be ready to see some of our money and support pulled. We must know that our very operations must become more ruthlessly focused, and that we may lose support in some quarters before we can marshal new support in others.
Of course, none of this is easy, it is riddled with uncertainty and ambiguity. There are no guarantees that new money and support will follow, even as we pursue a path we know will make our communities stronger and healthier. And we know that in tackling issues of equity and race, progress can be slow, and supporters can become impatient.
But there is a silver lining here. My good friend Paul Light, a thought-leader on high-performing non-profits, says his research shows that Americans will support groups that do good work and produce real impact. To produce impact means that we must turn toward to our communities to understand and work with them; and we must develop new pathways for making progress. When we do, I believe, we will find new supporters and donors - individuals who know we can do better in our society and who themselves yearn to have an impact. But that may require us to let go of the money now in our own grasp to reap the potential benefits of a clear-headed decision.
To explore other key questions facing those working in public life, read Rich's latest essay: Make Hope Real. You can download a free copy from our website. -
What do you want, really?
It's a simple enough question, isn't it? What do you want when it comes to your work in public life? I feel rather stupid asking this question because its answer often seems so damn obvious. All that's required is a basic, straightforward response. And yet, truth be told, I find so many of us struggle with what we want, and even more with whether we are really getting to where we want to be. Something is in our way, but what?
Most people I know seeking to bring about change in public life are working mighty hard, for relatively modest pay, and over long hours. Let's face it: there are easier ways to make a living. But you and I and many others do not consider this work simply to be a "career." It is a calling; we have an urge within us to do good, to right wrongs, to repair breaches, to give voice to the weakest among us.
But today I am not writing about the reasons that get us out of bed every morning, but rather what stands in the way of our fulfillment. In talking with people, I often find that at the heart of this matter is some combination of three different barriers that I describe below, and which I ask you to consider for yourself.
Option #1: I find that many of us are running so fast simply to get through our daily task list, that we may not be pointed in the right direction to create change. We focus too much on the success of our own organization, the implementation of a rigid strategic plan, or meeting metrics someone else has set to evaluate our effectiveness. It's all more than enough to lose sight of why you got into this work in the first place. It's not that our hearts aren't in the right place; instead, it is that we are not properly oriented to the very communities we seek to improve. We don't truly understand and work with people's concerns; we do not deeply know how to create the conditions for change; we are not in synch with the kind of change people seek.
Of course, each of us believes that we are oriented outward toward our communities. But the reality is that many of us operate apart from the very communities we wish to improve and strengthen. While we may talk about "community" from time to time, we are focused like a laser on our own programs and goals. This isn't easy to admit, but for many of us, it is true.
Option #2: I find that many of us turn to a collection of processes and approaches we have been told will offer us insights and answers to the most vexing challenges. Indeed, this second option is rooted in the adoption of strategic planning, branding, best practices, competitive analyses, evidence-based decision-making, customer service, and other techniques that promise us a good outcome. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these or other similar approaches. The problem arises when we become lost in them - naming and renaming strategies, moving organizational boxes around, cranking through more and more data, and yet never seeing the essence of the public challenges we face and their effects on people's lives; or seeing communities as living, organic systems to be engaged not controlled; or facing up to the fact that the real dilemma may be the absence of public will, not the adoption of more jargon.
I know these techniques can be useful; I use them myself. But I also hear people tell me that instead of their group or organization having real conversations, or engaging deeply (and even honestly) in their work, they go through more exercises. My concern is that we can get lost, even hide behind, these methods, and lose our sense of mission and what matters most.
Option #3: I find that many of us are blocked by conditions beyond us: negative and divisive politics, economic changes, the physical development of communities, other people's lack of will and discipline. It is true that these and other maladies exist in our communities and organizations. And they can be powerful forces. Go to many communities and you will see how these forces have disrupted people's lives and undermined their futures.
I do not debate the validity of these points. But what I do ask is this: must we remain victims of these maladies; must we accept them as they are; must we lie down before them and give in? If the answer is no, then what are we doing?
There may be other barriers and other factors but take a good hard look at what sits beneath each of them. What makes it difficult to move beyond them? Perhaps at the core is that we that we can become stymied by fear - the fear to engage with those who may be different from ourselves; the fear of being critiqued by others; the fear of coming up short or being proven wrong; the fear of being unsuccessful and losing hope or faith; the fear of rejection.
In my experience, people typically do not mention "fear" right off the bat; it often takes a bit of a conversation for such feelings to be uncovered, or at least articulated. But fear is insidious. It has a way of grabbing hold of us and distorting our best dreams, of slowing us down, of knocking us off course.
So, what about it: what do you want, really?
Download a free copy of Rich's latest essay: Make Hope Real
-
Not All Hope Is Created Equal
My fear all along has been that "hope" would become a casualty of this campaign - that its very meaning and currency would be diminished through overuse and sloganeering. Now, on the day of the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic Primaries, I wanted to return to this topic to make an urgent case for a particular meaning of hope in politics and public life. For not all hope is created equal.
Tonight the pundits and spin-meisters will talk about hope as if it is on trial. Some will say that if Hillary Clinton wins it is proof that talking about hope is a reflection of a naive view of politics. If Barack Obama wins, there will be those who will declare that the audacity of hope remains a brilliant strategy. But no matter what results emerge from tonight, I believe we must see hope differently if we wish to make it real. We must distinguish between authentic and false hope. Here are some basic tenets to guide us:
Hope is an orientation, not a platform - let's be clear: hope is not a platform; there are no "policies" that the "hope camp" can claim. Instead, hope is about offering people a new perspective on moving forward, helping them to discover opportunities that are not obvious, or which are latent within us. A distinguishing feature of hope is whether one seeks to build things up, or tear them down; and whether one's efforts are an attempt to address reality, or serve merely as window dressing or half-hearted ploys to placate and persuade.
Hope is neither about "being nice" nor "going negative"- to make hope real, we must pursue a different option, one that calls for a tough-minded, dogged approach in which we are ready to openly juxtapose our own views with those of others. There must be a willingness to step forward and strongly argue points of substance, to disagree, even to be critical, but with respect and without name calling. It means not backing down from a fight, but rather placing a stake in the ground to assert one's position. Favoring hope demands that we speak out with clarity and conviction.
Hope is not naive - some belittle those who promote hope by saying that it is soft or squishy, and that there is little room in politics and public life for such silliness. But they're wrong. Hope is an essential human emotion people need if they are to believe that change is possible; hope enables people to step forward and risk failure; hope allows people to come face-to-face with others, especially those who may seem different from themselves. Through hope, people are able to believe that tomorrow can be different from today, even when the odds seem stacked against them. What is naive is the belief that politics and public life can flourish without hope.
Hope must reside in your house, not simply The White House - as I travel to communities across the nation, it is clear to me that many of the issues and challenges people talk about can only be solved in their local communities. Thus, while messages of hope can and should come from the White House, hope must reside first and foremost in each of our own homes. For hope to be real, it must live within and among us, and in our neighborhoods and communities.
Hope must be grown, not only promised - yes, there is something remarkable about the "promise" of hope - the sense of possibility that can arise from a well-crafted speech or sermon. Those who say otherwise are merely playing games or have not encountered hope themselves. But, over time, hope emerges and is sustained because it rests on something real; it is a manifestation of that which is promised. Thus, to make hope real requires moving beyond exhortations, conversations, speeches, to the creation of pockets of change that demonstrate to people what is possible.
When "hope" comes under fire many people feel compelled to either defend it at all costs or simply to say that it's a nifty campaign slogan and not much more. I fear both stands; each neglects the sense of purpose and intentionality required to bring about authentic hope. Each fails to account for the choices we must make in daily life. Each misses a fundamental truth about hope:
The pursuit of authentic hope is a function of what we say and do over time.
The role of hope in this presidential campaign is certainly important, but we must each keep these ideas front and center in the work we do. For only then can hope be real.
Download a free copy of Rich's latest essay - Make Hope Real and begin your pursuit of authentic hope today.