Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High

July 30, 2010

Earlier this week, I attended a conference for the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers.  The Forum is a network of associations from across the country, so I was glad to connect in-person with our colleagues. 

The conference planning committee did an excellent job providing relevant content.  For me, our most interesting plenary session was on Crucial Conversations, delivered by Ron McMillan from VitalSmarts. The stage was set for this session as we talked about how the field of philanthropy is changing.  Transitions like these often require staff and members of regional associations to engage in difficult conversations about future directions and the role associations play in supporting grantmakers on their journeys.

McMillan and his team call these discussions “crucial conversations” (which also happens to be the title of their best-selling book). Crucial conversations are those that have high stakes and opposing opinions, and that trigger strong emotions.  They are crucial because decisions about our future are often on the line.  In other words, these are conversations that matter.

Unfortunately, when it matters most, we often do our worst.  Others judge us by the way we handle these conversations.  While crucial conversations make up only about 10% of the conversations we have, they are the conversations that people remember us by.

When the stakes are high and there are disagreements on what to do and our emotions are coursing powerfully through us, people tend toward two reactions:

  • We go silent and cave in without effectively communicating our point of view, or
  • We go violent (sometimes physically, but most often vocally) and let our emotions get the better of us, so that the content of the discussion becomes clouded by the outburst.

There are consequences to both of these reactions.  When we “go silent” and shut down, the problem that we are trying to solve only gets worse, because we fail to be honest and open about our thoughts on the matter.  When this happens, organizations get stuck in old ways and old ideas.  When we ”go violent,” other people react by getting defensive, or worse, getting even.  Problems don’t get solved because the conversations are so volatile that we lose sight of what we were arguing about in the first place.  

Master communicators neither “go silent” or “go violent”.  They remain calm.  They ask probing questions.  They encourage dialogue, or the free flow of meaning.  And they make it safe for others to join them in crucial conversations by creating mutual purpose (“You know that I care about your goals”) and mutual respect (“You know that I care about you”).

Crucial conversations are hard, but they happen every day in foundations and nonprofits.  Think about the conversations that take place in your organization: When do crucial conversations come up?  How are they handled?  What can you do to make your organization a safe place for these kinds of conversations?  Please comment on this post with your tips and tools for how you engage in crucial conversations.

-Stephanie Jacobs, MCF director of member services

4 Comments | communication, leadership | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Stephanie Jacobs

Rural Development: Philanthropy’s Secret to Success

July 27, 2010

At Philanthropy Potluck we love featuring the outstanding work of our MCF members.  Here’s a recent West Central Blogger post written by Kim Embretson, West Central Initiative vice president of development.

How do you create success in rural communities? A small group of foundation leaders from all over the nation have been tackling this question. They have discovered that when you combine the features of economic development, community development and philanthropy you unlock the secret to success.

Often rural community leaders struggle alone trying to build the systems that will make their community successful. Eight years ago, four community foundations all working with rural economic development were brought together as part of an Aspen Institute learning community. They discovered a common thread of activities that influenced the success of rural communities. They decided to work together to help rural communities all over the nation.

West Central Initiative, The Nebraska Community Foundation, The Humboldt Area Foundation in California, The East Tennessee Foundation, The Black Belt Community Foundation, The Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group, The Center for Rural Strategies, and North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center have formed the Rural Development Philanthropy Collaboration steering committee. They have been able to compare years of experience working with successful rural communities to collect the most effective actions that lead to success.

The Rural Development Philanthropy is no longer a secret. Now the core documents are available for anyone interested in the success of their rural community at http://www.wcif.org/?page=Publications#RDP.  Learn how your rural community or region can benefit from combining economic development, community development and philanthropy.

Grant support from the Ford Foundation, California Endowment, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the community foundations on the steering committee has helped underwrite the cost of meetings and materials to date.

Visit West Central Blogger for more regional community foundation news.

2 Comments | Greater Minnesota, collaboration, community foundations, philanthropy blogs | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by MCF Webmaster

What I Wish I Knew . . . with Dave Ellis

July 21, 2010

It is a pleasure to listen to Dave Ellis, Community Impact Manager at the Greater Twin Cities United Way, talk about how he got started in the field.  In this last video in MCF’s “What I Wish I Knew . . .” series, Dave questions whether he got started in the field or if the field started in him.  In his long career of working in corrections for the state, Dave had the reputation of being able to make lemonade out of lemons, but he most enjoyed finding funding for innovative programs.  He knew that some day, he wanted to be able to “write that check.”  As Dave’s long and winding path in the philanthropic sector demonstrates, he says that you need to trust and believe where you are headed, and then just run with it.

Dave says the greatest lesson he learned is that “a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy.”  Everything has a system and it takes time to change.  But Dave also believes there is nothing that can’t be fixed.  He encourages funders to be willing to take a chance.  Dave thinks that he wasn’t bold enough when he started out, and hopes that new people in the field are more willing to take risks.

Dave doesn’t think that people should think outside of the box.  He says, “Don’t believe in boxes”.  He feels the sector constrains itself in silos.  But, people don’t live in silos, and Dave sees now how the issues that funders are trying to solve are all interconnected.  That means that funders not only need to see the big picture, but also that new people in the field need to rely on their connections to their colleagues to be successful in this work.  Dave says to listen to “your head, your heart, and your gut.  Those things will get you through this.”  Thanks, Dave!

View the video of Dave Ellis on Vimeo.

View other videos in MCF’s “What I Wish I Knew . . .” series:

  • Ellis Bullock
  • Claire Chang
  • Jeneen Hartley Sago
  • Joan Cleary
  • Patrick Troska
  • Trista Harris
  • Becky Erdahl
  • Martha Field

    • MCF would like to thank these members again for sharing their stories and advice.  If you have an idea for another video series featuring MCF members, please contact Stephanie Jacobs at sjacobs@mcf.org.

    -Stephanie Jacobs, MCF director of member services

    Leave a Comment » | community foundations, leadership | Tagged: , , | Permalink
    Posted by Stephanie Jacobs

    Capacity, Culture, Commitment and Comfort: Finding Public Policy Strategies That Fit Your Foundation

    July 20, 2010

    How much change can a foundation catalyze by simply – albeit generously – writing checks? Not as much as it could if it also engaged in public policy activities. In fact, public policy work should be viewed as an essential part of a foundation’s efforts, say several members of the Minnesota Council on Foundations.

    In our Summer issue of Giving Forum, “Public Policy and Philanthropy: Many Roads Lead to the Same Destination – Change,” John Larsen, trustee and administrator of the John Larsen Foundation, says, “Ultimately, the work of our foundation is about creating real, systemic change, and that can only happen when we start talking to government. Whether you’re a small family foundation like us, or a very large foundation, we all need shifts in public policy in order to achieve really significant lasting social change.”

    The challenge is that working to achieve shifts in public policy is often equated with lobbying. And the thought of walking up the steps of the Capitol or testifying before a legislative committee is more than many funders can fathom.

    Lobbying, however, is not the sole avenue to influencing public decision making and advocating for causes. Although it is the most recognized public policy engagement tactic, it is only one of 18 distinct policy strategies that Julia Coffman outlines in “A User’s Guide to Advocacy Evaluation Planning,” published by the Harvard Family Research Project.

    A “Framework of Public Policy Activities,” which we include in Giving Forum, also includes using electronic outreach and social media, coalition and network building, grassroots organizing, briefings and presentations, polling, pilot projects, research investigating issues and identifying solutions and policymaker education, among others – all of which can impact public decision making, which ultimately shapes policy development, approval and implementation.

    A foundation can engage anywhere along the continuum, pursuing those activities that fit its capacity, culture, commitment and comfort levels. A public policy activity that feels right for one foundation may not fit another.

    Many foundations choose a combination of strategies, leveraging their resources to: raise awareness of where the public stands on particular issues; bring together divergent points of view to first converse then collaborate; empower community members to advocate on their own behalf by providing technical assistance; increase the capacity of nonprofits to mobilize others; identify messages that resonate with policymakers and the public; determine what would happen if the status quo was allowed to prevail; aggregate what is known already about an issue and put that to work to further discussion; or identify possible solutions and best practices.

    These MCF members have each chosen distinct strategies to impact public decision making that fit their capacity, culture, commitment and comfort level. Read more about their work in our just-published Giving Forum:

    Lead article:

    Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation: An outgrowth of its grantmaking and programmatic activities, community dialogues and business loan work, SMIF’s public policy activities, including building coalition and networks and partnering with the media to draw attention to the issues and how public policy could impact the success the foundation seeks.

    The Minneapolis Foundation: As part of the School Readiness Funders Coalition, a group of funders with diverse strengths and abilities in advocacy work, The Minneapolis Foundation brings to the group its ability to lobby and testify at legislative hearings to advocate for the coalitions “Agenda to Achieve Learning Readiness by 2020.”

    John Larsen Foundation: When awarding grants supporting work toward LGBT equality, the foundation  considers if educating policymakers is an end goal of the nonprofit’s work and if the organization has a research plan and a track record of communicating those findings to policymakers.

    Indian Land Tenure Foundation: Striving to ensure that lands within the original boundaries of reservations is acquired, owned and managed by Indians, the foundation views education about land issues a priority, as well as identification then pursuit of strategies for achieving legal reform.

    Women’s Foundation of Minnesota: The explosion of social media has created a new landscape for the foundation to leverage its expertise to educate, engage and broaden its reach to shift attitudes, behaviors and institutions that limit equality for women and girls.

    Voices of Philanthropy articles:

    Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Identifying partners best qualified to successfully implement strategies and measuring what’s important to guide future initiatives drive the foundation’s advocacy work.

    Initiative Foundation: Based on the belief that local people are the key to strengthening communities, the foundation increases civic engagement by providing training, technical assistance, resource referral and grants to help citizen-based teams develop and carry out strategic plans.

    While these efforts are diverse, the common thread amongst them is the recognition by these foundations that strategically developing goals to influence public decision making and intentionally engaging in public policy activities and advocacy work can move systems change forward.

    - Chris Murakami Noonan, MCF communications associate

    1 Comment | Greater Minnesota, children, collaboration, communication, community foundations, conference, diversity, economy, education, family foundations, giving forum, government, leadership, nonprofits, private foundations, public policy, social justice, youth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
    Posted by Chris Noonan

    Admitting Mistakes, Finding Solutions: The Gates Foundation’s Grantee Perceptions Report

    July 19, 2010

    Bill and Melinda Gates and their philanthropic partner Warren Buffet have been in the news a lot lately following the announcement of their ambitious $600 billion giving pledge, an open challenge to the nation’s billionaires to commit to giving away half of their fortunes to charity.

    However, there’s been other recent news regarding The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that you may not have heard. As I read today in this post on the Philanthrocapitalism blog, a recent Center for Effective Philanthropy Grantee Perceptions Report found that the foundation is facing communications challenges with its grantees.

    The report is based on a survey of 1,544 of Gates’ grantees. On the positive side of the ledger, it found that the foundation is perceived by grantees as having a profound positive impact on work in the grantees’ fields, particularly in the areas of knowledge building, public policy and creating effective practices.

    However, the assessment of the Gates Foundation’s communications was not so rosey. Grantee partners reported that the organization’s goals and strategies are unclear, and that similarly they felt that the foundation had a poor understanding of their goals and strategies. Respondents also noted confusion about the foundation’s decision-making and grantmaking processes and expressed frustration over program officer turnover.

    As you may know, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a member of MCF. So you may be wondering why we would report on one of our members performing poorly at, well, anything. The truth is, although the report found that the Gates Foundation has a need for improvement, its transparency about those challenges is admirable and should serve as a model for those grantmakers that value transparency and accountability in their work, both key tenets of MCF’s own Principles for Minnesota Grantmakers.

    The Gates Foundation has been very open about its involvement in the assessment process and the results, posting the findings here on its website, along with the audio from a number of grantee community calls. The foundation also has been clear that it will be addressing these shortcomings by reevaluating its communications and creating new strategies for enhancing cohesion and clarity between program managers and executives at the foundation and its grantee partners.

    That’s why I salute the Gates Foundation for being upfront about the challenges that it faces. It’s through this process that the organization will be able to enhance its relationships with grantees, and ultimately the impact of its grant giving.

    As physicist Tom Hirshfield once wrote, “If you hit every time, the target is either too big or too near.” Philanthropy is a bold endeavor with high stakes. By learning from our collective mistakes through accountable and transparent practices, we can capitalize not only on success, but failure too, and ameliorate the world-changing work that we all share, while at the same time affirming the public trust.

    - Cary Lenore Walski, MCF web communications associate

    1 Comment | family foundations, philanthropy blogs, principles for grantmakers | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
    Posted by MCF Webmaster

    Must We Give to the Poor? Guess Not. But Should We?

    July 16, 2010

    It’s official.  The wealthy are not obligated to help the poor.

    That was the conclusion from this year’s ”Great American Think-Off,” the amateur philosophy debate held annually in New York Mills, Minnesota.

    When I wrote about this contest back in March, my attitude was, “Duh, of course the well-to-do should share with those less fortunate.”  But the winning debater — through personal story-telling and clever emphasis on the word “obligation” — was able to convince the audience (the final judges) that, indeed, we should not be required to share our wealth.  After all, if you are forced to share, then it’s really about taking, not giving, and wouldn’t you be abdicating your individual moral responsibility to share?  (You can read winner David Eckel’s essay at www.think-off.org.)

    The outcome of the debate is a good reminder to us all that philanthropy in the U.S. is voluntary.  But it also brings to mind the heated discussions in the field today about the extent to which government should mandate giving toward certain groups or causes.

    Well, no matter your point of view on those issues, we can probably all agree that more philanthropy is better.  And we should join forces to actively promote more voluntary philanthropy.  Today’s opinion piece by John Verant in the Star Tribune really reinforces why it’s more important than ever for the well-to-do to give, and to give generously.  Verant writes:

    The past 30 years have witnessed the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of America. When Ronald Reagan came to power, the richest 1 percent of Americans held 20 percent of the total wealth. When he left office, that figure was 36 percent. Today it is 43. The distribution of income has similarly skewed. Since 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans had their share of all income increase 2 1/2 times. And the top 0.1 percent had their share of our national earnings increase an amazing six times.

    This summer we heard that Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett challenged American billionaires to give at least half of their net worth to charity.  They apparently recognize their individual moral responsibility to care for their fellow men and women.  Let’s hope their wealthy friends — who are not obligated to give to the poor — do, too.

    – Wendy Wehr, MCF v.p.  of communications and information services

    2 Comments | individual giving, promotion of philanthropy, social justice | Tagged: , | Permalink
    Posted by MCF Webmaster

    « Previous Entries