By Peter Brach
Reflecting on my adolescence, I recall being struck by the pronounced communication gap between students and teachers, and even more significantly, between us and our parents. These seemingly invisible walls were seldom recognized or broached, leaving me to wonder how much could have been gained if we had encountered each other with mutual respect and deep listening rather than retreating behind barriers of threats, distancing, and punitive consequences.
Over the last several years, I have been in a somewhat unique position as a funder with an inside perspective on those working in philanthropy support organizations (PSOs). I have repeatedly witnessed their potential while being aware of their reluctance to ask for things that could have moved them appreciably forward. It reminded me of the communication blocks I experienced as a younger person. We haven’t yet engaged in the kind of open conversations needed to allow us to move from a transactional frame to a mutually supportive one.
What is striking to me about members and the PSOs that serve them is that both are very well intended. Most funders I’ve met want to make a meaningful difference in the world. And the PSOs I’ve come to know are deeply committed to helping those they serve. Yet some PSOs are reluctant to discuss the important topic of social impact infrastructure building because it will likely be perceived as a conflict of interest.
During a recent conference, a fellow attendee told me that she would not like to be “hit up for money” by the hosting organization. I was completely sympathetic with her stance but took the opportunity to explain the dynamics in play that impede the growth of an organization we both valued — a transactional model that hinders its capacity to express its needs. She understood the dilemma from both sides.
What I see too often is great potential opportunities not utilized. There are organizations serving the very wealthy that could not only bring in much more wealth but help these new members interact with their peers and learn how to spend their money more equitably and effectively. Numerous organizations are well leveraged to conduct national campaigns to potentially reach millions of people in the general public, thereby improving their capacities to give effectively, engage in social impact investing, use their lifetime of experience as high-level volunteers, and considerably more.
A trend I’ve observed is that trust can be severely compromised once an organization solicits funding from its members. It triggers an unspoken reaction such as, “Aha, they don’t truly care about me; they just want my money.” And while the motivations and reactions from both sides are understandable, there is no room to move forward. I suspect that honest, mindful dialogue, free of the fear of backlash, could be quite valuable.
There is much to learn from those who’ve spent their careers bridging communication divides. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, for example, in partnership with the Whitman Institute — pioneers of Trust-based Philanthropy — have done outstanding work on enhancing dialogues between funders and grantees. The Trust-based Philanthropy Project writes that, “Open, honest, and transparent communication supports relationships rooted in trust and mutual accountability. When funders model vulnerability and power-consciousness, it signals to grantees that they can show up more fully.”
In his book, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, Marshall Rosenberg writes, “Honesty is a very important part of the process of nonviolent communication. What I mean by ‘honesty’ is not just to say things that we believe to be true, but to express ourselves in a way that makes us vulnerable, to reveal what’s alive in us, right here, right now.” However, I have often found that simply finding the best way to deliver the message can dramatically reduce tension. Taking time to tap into our inner ingenuity and wisdom may achieve more than presuming that speaking the truth has to be difficult.
I hope my reflections serve as food for thought, sparking intrigue from readers that could lead to fruitful outcomes. I am excited. I am hopeful. I see a potential to build bridges of communication, bridges that could significantly enhance appreciation and funding for organizations that provide the critical infrastructure needed to lead us from what Otto Scharmer, senior lecturer at MIT, refers to as going from ego-system to eco-system as we evolve toward Society 4.0.