 |
December 2007
It’s often simpler to fund a new idea or start a program or organization than invest to make what we already have in place better. We need to pay more attention to ensure that what is in place works well and be less taken by the strong desire to start new organizations and/or replicate emerging ones before they demonstrate the efficacy of their model and its social outcome and impact.
Today, amid a flurry of labels—social entrepreneurship, venture philanthropy, social venture, strategic philanthropy, social enterprise, social investing, high-engagement philanthropy, and more—there is a growing movement that will profoundly change how we view philanthropy, public policy, the nonprofit sector, and corporate social responsibility. This movement’s potential is highlighted by Joel Fleishman, one of the world’s most highly respected minds in philanthropy and the foundation world, in The Foundation: A Great American Secret; How Private Wealth Is Changing The World. In the book’s conclusion, Joel predicts three actions that will shape philanthropy in the 21st century:
• “America’s giving will increase greatly in this century.”
• “Philanthropy will continue the evolution and diversification we have seen form over the past century.”
• “Venture philanthropy and social entrepreneurship will gradually come to dominate philanthropy in this century.”
Innovation and entrepreneurship fervor may have peaked in the late 1990s as characterized by Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, when he described the “irrational exuberance” of the markets in December 1996. Yet, as our enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and the angel, venture and private equity investments that fueled it grew, a parallel movement advanced entrepreneurship and venture funding as a way to solve some of our most challenging societal problems—encompassing everything from climate change to hunger to early childhood development.
It is estimated that over 500,000 nonprofits were created from 1993 to 2003, a number which is, no doubt, even higher today. And, as we approach well over 1,000,000 nonprofits and over 75,000 foundations in America, this spotlight on innovation is skewing even more to the magnetism of new endeavors. A steady, diverse, and unpredictable stream of social and civic innovation is essential for a multitude of reasons, and we certainly should have vehicles, policies, and attitudes that nurture and cultivate it. Yet, we can’t forget that building organizations, managing them effectively, and helping them improve is vital as well. This concern is far more relevant to the nonprofit versus the private sector, for the former has few mechanisms or incentives to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The Wisdom of Case, Edison, and Witzel
How can we do more to help some of the established players who have been doing yeoman’s work for our communities and the nation at large, as well as those relative newcomers that built organizations that need to have larger impact? Even more provocative, how can we do more to help organizations with proven models get the talent they need to have far greater impact? How do we better fund operations? Create sources of growth capital? Attract top talent? Reward and cherish management and good execution?
Steve Case's favorite quote, according to his Facebook page, is Thomas Edison’s "Vision without execution is a hallucination." If you look at Steve’s career, you can easily see he’s used the quote as a guiding principle.
This quote brings back memories of an afternoon in the late 1970s. My business partner Bill Witzel and I were driving to LaGuardia airport in New York City. I had just given an all-day seminar on the management of technology to an audience of several dozen Fortune 500 businesses and was ecstatic since the session appeared to have gone really well. Bill punctured my euphoria in his own inimitable way: “You’re really something with all that strategy and visioning, but that won’t get us anywhere. Until you understand that it’s the day-to-day blocking and tackling of good execution, you won’t amount to a hill of beans!” Bill sent a message I’ve never forgotten: It’s execution, dummy!!
Now, after nearly 15 years in and around the nonprofit sector, with the last ten truly immersed in the areas of social entrepreneurship, venture philanthropy, and social enterprise, I find Bill’s lesson still relevant for me, nonprofit executives, their boards, and their funders.
Can we—donors, policy makers, foundation and agency heads, civic and business leaders, and nonprofit execs—come together more to demand solid execution from our public agencies, public schools, and nonprofits, and then back up our requirements with the support and reasonable resources necessary for success? Can we find new ways to encourage—and aggressively support—more of our nation’s remarkable 20- and 30-something talent to make a difference to through involvement with existing public, private, and nonprofit organizations that desperately need their energy and fresh minds? How can we tap the large “baby boomer” pool, now in their 50s and 60s, who are seeking greater life significance? Can we find better ways to channel and support their desire to bring experience, wisdom, and resources to public service, nonprofit, or socially focused enterprise? And, maybe most importantly, what can we do in a radically different way to find and develop the talent that resides within our communities who, given the opportunity and support, can provide critical ties back to the communities to be served and play a more consequential leadership role beyond their communities in the larger society? What can we do to help institutions change their ways to better recruit from these three rich talent pools and integrate them into their operations as leaders and change agents, while encouraging and benefiting from their knowledge, experience and diverse perspectives?
Striking a better balance between our desire to stimulate innovation and our need for effective execution may be one approach. And, inherent in that, comes the need for better compensation, improved support systems, and, most of all, an infrastructure/ecosystem that recognizes and rewards execution as much as innovation. Not an either/or scenario, the combination of innovation and execution is vital.
Without taking an iota of importance away from the value and potential of innovation (whether for social, public, or private advancements), how do we realign our thinking and capabilities to emphasize the impact of execution even more?
Fulfilling Innovation via Execution
Earlier this year, Dan Gilbert, owner of Quicken Loans, discussed his “Gilbertisms” of good management. One in particular, much like Edison’s view, drove home the importance of good execution: “Cherish innovation, but treasure execution”
I gave a speech in 1991 that urged individuals in our firm to do what they had to do to fulfill their life potential—even if it meant quitting! This talk was indeed about execution, but with regard to their own lives. It was quite an emotional appeal, not typically heard in a corporate setting. I wanted to push people to think about what they were doing with their lives, find the right course, and then do it well (execution of their life plan). Interestingly, each time I gave the speech, at least one individual resigned (although I never determined if it was my “inspiration” that motivated them or the speech was so bad I drove them out!). I believe some of the quotes I used speak to the significance of execution.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unregarded genius is almost a proverb. Educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”
- Calvin Coolidge
I wish I had a dollar for each person from the 1980s and 1990s who said, “I had the same idea to build the XYZ system.” And, under my breath I’d mutter, “Then, why didn’t you?” Ideas really are a dime a dozen. What counts are the leaders with the know-how, drive, and resourcefulness who not only turn ideas into reality, but then have the managerial judgment and prowess to institutionalize what they’ve created. Innovation and resourcefulness don’t necessarily have to lead to the creation of new entities but can help align or re-invent established institutions to be more effective.
For me, the essence of execution starts with the Peter Drucker quote: "Doing the right thing is more important than doing things right." Execution implies continuous improvement, which in turn, implies continuous innovation.
“Don’t bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”
- William Faulkner
Too many of us judge our organizations, our achievements, and even our lives in a comparative process to those around us. To a degree, this is natural. But, the real test is not simply to compare ourselves and our organizations to others, for all too often that is too easy a pseudonym for success. Instead, a staple of solid execution is to strive, assess, and achieve being better that what you were—raising the bar continuously.
Great leaders and true entrepreneurs get things done, regardless of impediments. We talk of the importance of purpose and being mission-driven, but if we accept the enormous importance of the work of nonprofits and that their service deals with the lives of people, why do we accept anything less than a “no excuses” view of execution and accountability?
No one disagrees that crisp execution is hard work, but the results are worth it. An opportunity to move forward to make the right things happen, despite barriers? Who can ask for more?
”The Right People on the Bus”
Suggestions to consider for bolstering a culture that treasures execution include:
Recruit and retain great people. Jim Collins, the noted author, said it best: “You have to get the right people on the bus.” Too many organizations are “enabled” by their supporters to continue mediocrity, take on incremental change, and not rock the boat when the times and circumstances call for nothing short of transformation. Let’s reward organizations that have the courage to get the right people with the right skills in the right spots for where the organization has to go, not where it has been. This premise applies to the leader, the board, senior management, and right on down through the ranks of the organization. As stakeholders, let’s give them clear direction and then hold them accountable for solid execution.
Direct and alter the flow of talent into existing organizations, those that desperately need managerial talent to stabilize, improve, and grow versus disproportionately encouraging this talent to start new programs or organizations. Focus great attention on vehicles that can change the talent flow into nonprofit, civic and public service sectors. The Civic Ventures Purpose Prize™ and the Partnership for Public Service are two good examples of initiatives that can help improve the flow of talent to nonprofit, civic, and public sectors. Companies can do more to offer mentorship programs for nonprofit leaders and internships in nonprofits for current and future employees. Businesses can also provide incentives for retirees and alums to go to work for nonprofits. Bridgestar has emerged to enhance the flow and effectiveness of passionate and highly skilled leaders into and within the nonprofit sector.
Encourage and support great social entrepreneurial engines like Ashoka, Echoing Green, and others to develop talent beyond the entrepreneurial stage into leaders with solid managerial skills and the understanding of what it takes to build great organizations after the formation and emerging growth phases. Best practices are a wonderful concept, but “best people” make the real difference.
Reward execution and high performance. Leaders and managers need to manage to results—and be recognized and rewarded for doing so. Board and funders need to be more demanding to see that results are achieved. And, for those already rebelling against this focus on results, just remember the results of which I speak are those that are making a lasting difference in the lives of others. The real results are those that manifest themselves in real changes to people’s lives and differences in our communities.
Conclusion
When the next Joel Fleishman writes his or her book on philanthropy in 2107, I hope s/he looks back on this era and sees not just a myriad of social innovation, but a balance of innovation, institution building, and infrastructure development that led to system change. Not just a philanthropy that inspired and fueled innovation and jarred an established world to see things differently, but one that stimulated and enabled bottoms-up change from within established communities and organizations, leading to lasting reform. And, a field that recognized that execution counts.
- Mario Morino
|
|
