As I prepare for tonight's official kick-off to
SoCap11, I'm struck by where the economy sits today, compared to where it sat at the start of the very first SoCap four years ago -- SoCap08. Needless to say, based on the economy, it doesn't feel as if we've come that far.
And yet, as I watch the disparate elements of this social capital movement come to grips with the fact that it is (in fact) a movement, I also find myself reflecting on how the movement has progressed. And I'm reminded of my comment to
Kevin Jones back when he was first contemplating SoCap when I mentioned to Kevin the one notable quote I've ever made (and reported
here in the New York Times), that this was a movement that didn't know it was a movement.
Being the proverbial problem solver that he is, Kevin asked the obvious question: "What's it going to take for this movement to recognize itself as a movement?"
My answer was simple: "A Rosetta Stone."
Let me explain.
The Underlying Problem
At the core, our organizational structures have disintegrated the concepts of "strength and mind" on the one hand, from "heart and soul" on the other. For example, our companies tend to have incredible strength from generating sustainable capital and great wisdom around the the use of resources, but often lack the compassion necessary in order to have a sustainably positive impact on the environment and, sometimes, even on people. By contrast, non-profits tend to have great heart and soul, but often lack wisdom in the smart, leveraged, use of capital.
As I've
noted previously, a reintegration of these elements -- head and strength, and heart and soul -- into one organizational structure is desperately needed.
And I say "reintegration" purposefully, because these two pursuits haven’t always
been separated. For example, the traditional small town business model would
have required every businessman to comport to certain standards of “doing good” within the town, because
customers and owners were also neighbors. The bad action of a local business
owner would quickly become known in this local environment, with consequences
for their business. As a result, local business owners were typically pillars
of their communities. But with the desire to scale operations, ownership
divorced from management divorced from local geographic interactions permitted
the pursuit of profit, unfettered from concepts of citizenship and
neighborliness.
So what’s the answer?
Shall we pass more laws and
regulations? (I think you can probably tell that I don’t believe that will get
us very far.)
Personally, I believe we need a
change in our thinking. I believe we need to value integrity -- wholeness and completeness -- in our
organizations.
I believe we need a movement. But this movement will need to learn a new language to talk across traditional boundary lines with others who use unfamiliar lexicons.
The New and Growing
Movement: Connecting Head and Strength with Heart and Soul
Thankfully, that movement already exists
today and is quickly reaching a tipping point. It may not yet be recognized as
a movement and probably doesn’t even recognize itself as a movement. But it’s a
movement nonetheless, built with ingredients of great passion, wisdom, wealth
and the heart and idealism of a new generation. Yet, the full societal impact
of this movement will not be felt unless the four groups who make up this
movement are able to discover the Rosetta Stone necessary to translate the
common ground among them, rather than listening to the politics, the corrupted
civil discourse and the divisive messages of the media that seek to keep them
separated.
Best of all, this movement has
integrity – a wholeness and completeness that makes it strong and purposeful,
passionate and driven by compassion, and filled with the wisdom of years. In
particular, a part of this movement carries great wisdom, part of it has incredible
strength, part of this movement holds a flaming passion and part includes the
integrating soul of a social justice movement that stands to hold it all
together.
The Wisdom of The Baby Boomers
The baby boom generation
represents a large demographic in the United States (and other Allied
countries) with a conflicted image of itself. Fundamentally, baby boomers began
as an incredibly idealistic generation raised in the post-World War II era
where anything was possible. More than any prior generation, they became better
educated, owned bigger homes, earned more and enjoyed greater disposable
income. These factors created great economic prowess and, in many respects,
emboldened the generation from a young age with a sense of the “possible.”
Cultural manifestations of this
optimism of possibility are most obvious, in the turmoil of the Vietnam War,
and a sense the generation had of revolutionary thought derived from the
sixties and seventies, with a focus on the rights of workers and civil rights,
a rallying cry for peace not war, and love not hate, and a deep abiding passion
for preserving the environment and a healthier way of living. Power in numbers,
and economically, produced optimism and idealism among those in the boomer
generation that they would change the world.
At the same time, their size and
economic power also defined the generation in another powerful way – as
consumers. Baby Boomers made an impact on the world simply through their sheer
numbers. Prior to the end of World War II, the average growth in the birth rate
in the United States for the 20 prior years was one percent. That growth rate
doubled beginning in 1946 resulting in nearly 80 million babies between 1946
and 1964. When you contrast that 80 million number with the 50 million between
1925 and 1945 – the Silent Generation – and 48 million between 1965 and 1980 –
Generation X – it is easily understood why the size of this generation created
a new way of thinking demographically.
Almost from the beginning, marketers
recognized the sheer number of babies as an economic boom, as they began
dissecting baby boomers and advertisers began marketing to them. And so too,
baby boomers became what society expected of them culturally – consumers. Nearly
every trend of the past 50 years can be traced to the baby boomers. Looking
simply at car sales as a proxy for these trends, the 1980’s rise of the Honda
Civic, 1990’s rise of the Honda Accord, the late ‘90’s surge of SUV sales, and
the late ‘00’s surge of Prius sales, can all be tied to the demographics of the
baby boomers and their preferences and their disposable income at those
moments.
Today, boomers are beginning to
retire and their idealism and consumerism are suddenly beginning to reveal a
dissonance. In record numbers, boomers are awakening to the idea that they’ve
changed the world by their presence, but sometimes in profoundly negative ways.
They are also recognizing that they have not saved (but rather spent at record
rates) and are ill-equipped for their retirement. Finally, they realize that
they will be living longer than their parents, providing the opportunity to
continue to earn more (and perhaps save more), but also to redeem their
consumptive legacy.
Along the way, this generation
has learned a great deal. With the wisdom of the ages comes a sense that
perhaps they still have something to learn and with their humility, comes a
sense that perhaps they can help in keeping flames alive. Through their
consumptive behavior, they’ve learned something about the soul-less place of
“more” and they’ve begun the search for “enough.”
From idealism to consumption to
wisdom, the boomers have learned a great deal and now, have something to teach,
a desire to learn, and a quest for a redemption of their legacy through their
“sunset” years.
The Heart of The Justice Generation
Those aged 15
to 30 are often referred to as Millennials because they were born in the last decades
of the last millennium. I prefer the term given to them by Gary Haugen, founder
of International Justice Mission, who struck a nerve with this generation
around his passion to see an end to human trafficking. He refers to this age
group as the Justice Generation.
Why justice?
I have my
theories. As I’ve traveled and spoken at universities and college campuses, and
as the father of two daughters in this age group, I’ve come to believe that this
generation has tired of compassion. They are suffering from “compassion
fatigue” at a much earlier age than prior generations. They want to see
something done about the world’s biggest problems, but they don’t simply want
the world’s problems marketed to them for donations. They want to participate
in change and they are willing to walk the talk.
Several factors
have conspired to draw this generation towards justice.
First, they
are connected. As a generation that began with the birth of the personal computer,
this is the most connected generation in the history of mankind. Unlike every
generation before, they don’t know life without a computer and, as a result,
don’t know life with limitations on connection. Because of the internet, this
generation is just as likely to have “friends” on Facebook who live in Africa,
as those who go to their own school or work in their city.
Second, they
are cynical. In strong part because of their connectedness, this generation has
a keen sense of the world. And to them, things generally are not going well.
They see large governmental debt as limiting the options of their future. They
are demoralized by the potential impact of global warming. Even the defining
event of their young lives – September 11th – is understood
differently than by other generations. Whereas older generations see 9/11 as a
result of the rise of global terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism, the Justice Generation often sees the events of that day as part of a larger pattern of
events resulting from the great disparities of wealth and poverty in the world.
Perhaps more importantly, this assessment comes with a strong belief that the
incredibly crushing problems of the world, are largely a result of the way things
have been done in the past. As a result, the Justice Generation is extremely cynical
about old methods for “solving” these problems.
But they are
not content being connected and cynical. In numbers far greater than any time
since the 1970’s, the Justice Generation sees themselves as the solution. They
are committed to being a part of the healing force for the planet and its
people. For this reason, they have flocked to “social entrepreneurship” clubs
on college campuses and in business schools, they are applying to “Teach for
America” in record numbers, and they are creatively seeking methods for using
social media, crowd-sourcing, crowd-funding, and collective consciousness to
help change the direction of things.
For them,
compassion simply is not enough. Even more accurately, perhaps, compassion
without action seems like a cruel undertaking in self-indulgent compassion
tourism. And so, the Justice Generation provides the passionate heart of the
movement.
The Strength of The Technologists
During the 1980’s and 1990’s, something incredible and unusual happened that changed the face of the United States forever. For lack of a better term, we’ll call it the technology boom, but really, it was the mass utilization of the microchip in consumer products. Back as early as 1965, Gordon E. Moore, the co-founder of Intel, noted (in what is now known as Moore’s Law) that the number of components in integrated circuits had doubled every year since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 until 1965 and he predicted that the trend would continue “for at least ten years.” He was right in his prediction of the trend’s continuation, but far short in how long it would persist. At the time of his prediction, the best circuits had approximately 4,000 transistors on them. By 1980, the number of transistors on a circuit approached 100,000 – still hardly enough to do clunky word-processing. But by 1990, the number had exploded above 1,000,000 transistors on a circuit and the personal computer had been born, with a world of possibilities, including connectivity through a world wide web. Today, the cost of a microchip has dropped to a price that is about the same as one printed character on this page (assuming this were a printed page).
Those coming of age in the 1990’s found a whole new world of business ideas, spurred by venture capital financings and a revolution driven by technology. In many cases, these included young entrepreneurs who sought to change the world – people like
Pierre Omidyar and
Jeff Skoll, to name two – and who were driven in their pursuits with that single-minded goal: to change the world. Along the way, each of these individuals (and many more) became monstrously wealthy. In fact, by some accounts, the wealth created in this 30-50 year old crowd by the technology boom reshaped the age distribution of wealth in the United States which, before the 1990’s produced a relatively straight line of wealth accumulation by age, until approximately age 63. In the 1990’s however, a bubble arose in the 30 to 50 year old age bracket.
So, what happens when amazing wealth amasses in a group of people 20 to 30 years earlier than ever before in history? Well, some actions might be predictable – private jets and jet-setting. But here is where the story becomes interesting.
In growing numbers, this young group of billionaires still wants to change the world!
And unlike prior generations, they don’t see traditional philanthropy as a model to accomplish their goals. Instead, putting muscle and brainpower behind ideas like venture philanthropy, impact investing and blended value, these billionaires have begun to change the face of philanthropy, change the face of entrepreneurship, and change the face of integrated thinking.
The rich technologist has provided strength to the movement.
The Integrating Soul of People of Faith
Nicholas D. Kristof recently noted in a New York Times
op-ed that, “[i]n these polarized times, few words conjure as much distaste in
liberal circles as ‘evangelical Christian.’” (Of course, we could add to the
list other terms describing people of other faiths that are similarly greeted
with distaste or disdain in other circles.) The problem, of course, as noted by
Kristof in his piece on “evangelicals,” is a tendency to define a large group
of people of faith, by the outrageous actions and words of a small group,
rather than by the quiet, but patiently persistent actions of the mass of people
adhering to a belief.
And so too,
I’ve noted a movement towards social justice among people of faith, that is
reigniting something more than simply a missionary zeal, but represents a deep
desire to be a part of the healing force in the world. And I’m not alone.
Jeffrey Sachs, author of the
Millennium Development Goals, has noted that if we are to create a sustainable
world, we need to listen to the wisdom of people of faith. In a
lecture at
Stanford University in 2010, Sachs recalled that all the world’s major
religions speak of “loving our neighbors as ourselves.” Of course, in ancient
times, our neighbor was that person who lived next door. But in ancient times,
the social mores were clear – not only could one’s gain not come at the expense
of others in the community, but to be a part of the community, it was the
obligation of the individual and each family to support the others in the
community.
Today, our sense of community has expanded.
Today, our neighbor can be the person living in Sub-Saharan Africa, just as
easily as the person living in the next state, the next city or even the next
community. The geographic boundary lines of community are disappearing. So too,
the faith teachings are being updated, with concepts of social justice. But Sachs
argues that if we are really to attain sustainable development, we must also seek
to break down the temporal limitations of these teachings, by remembering that
the most important thing to each of us is our children, and their children, and
so too for our neighbor. With this, he posits – a global community focused on
the health of their planet for their progeny – we stand a chance at sustainable
development.
Many who write on the topic of
social entrepreneurship avoid thinking about people of faith as part of the audience.
But I think we do so at our peril, for several reasons.
First, nowhere in the world is
there such a rich collection of thinking and writing on topics of “What is
good, and how do we know?” or “service” or “sacrificial giving” all of which
are elements of living out the life of a social entrepreneur. If we are to
build companies that “do good,” then we should be able to define what we mean
by “good” and be clear about the evil that can be done under the auspices of
good intentions. Similarly, if we are to truly seek entrepreneurial solutions
for those living at the bottom of the economic pyramid, then cross-cultural
servanthood, cross-cultural empathy, empathetic design, and service will be
critical elements for success.
Second, people of faith are not
playing for the short term like Wall Street analysts. Just as we hear over and
over that the stock market and traditional corporate models are bad because of
“short-termism,” I seldom hear anyone talking about what they mean by
“long-term impact” and how we know when we have arrived. As the head of my law firm’s sustainability practice, I find myself speaking often on the topic. In
those talks, I’ve taken to adding the following question at the end of my
presentations: “When was the last time you asked your employees how sustainable
their lives felt?” You’d be amazed at the number of sustainability professionals
who greet that question with a deep blank stare of “OMG!”
And I think that’s because we often
get so caught up in some “short term” goal – even good goals like the sustainability
of the planet, for example – that we forget that the real goal of social
entrepreneurship is to help people flourish. I often find in my work with social
entrepreneurs that they pursue their goal (cook stoves that reduce carbon
emissions, infant warmers for the developing world that will reduce infant
mortality, or certifications of products that are BPA-free, slave-free, etc.), but
at the expense of their flourishing and the flourishing of their cohorts. Here
too, the traditions of faith, of spiritual living, and of teachings around
“being still,” “listening to the still quiet voice” and pursuing spiritual
disciplines, offer the wisdom of the ages for social entrepreneurs.
What practices of spiritual
discipline would a social entrepreneur employ if they knew that it might help
with the flourishing of the people involved in the enterprise? How would time
allocation change? Would there be a greater emphasis on community building
within the organization, and with those stakeholders outside the organization,
so that people had a sense of belonging? In each of these areas, the various
faith streams offer teaching and practices dating back centuries and forward
into the contemporary.
Finally, people of faith offer one
other monumental aid to the social entrepreneurship movement that would
otherwise be missing – integration. Each of the other parts of this movement
(the head, the heart and the strength) is defined by generational boundary
lines, similar to participants in many prior movements. Not so people of faith.
They transcend the boundaries of age, reflecting the intergenerational
community that we long to see, but seldom find, particularly in something as
fickle as a movement.
For this reason, I refer to people
of faith as the “soul” of the movement or the source of “integrity,” not in the
moral sense of the word, but in the design sense, where something has integrity
if it is whole and complete. Integrity is the closest secular word I’ve found
to the Jewish concept of “shalom,” the Christian idea of the “kingdom,” the
Buddhist concept of “nirvana.” The idea behind all three concepts rests in the
view that we were made to be complete and whole.
Most people I know hardly think of
themselves this way. I know I don't. And yet, somewhere in the ancient
teachings, we find this human instinct, this “Godly teaching” (call it what you
want), that we were made to be better than we are – something grand. And this
DNA of integrity is something I’ve found in every person I’ve ever met, whether
it’s the prideful, powerful, “often wrong, but never in doubt” CEO or venture
capitalist, or its the woman who begs outside the churches in Lalibela,
Ethiopia. Each one, when you push past the fear, the pride, the shame (or
whatever else is hanging them up), is beautiful beyond belief and desperately
wants someone to recognize them for that.
We have entire professions built
around helping individuals to be whole and complete.
And yet, when it comes to our
organizational structures, we have dis-integrated these ideals, and developed 75
years worth of binary, dis-integrated thinking. So much so, that some faiths
totally ignore business and businesspeople as providing any benefit (or worse,
teach that the fruits of business are all bad or evil). Some even go so far as
teaching (implicitly, if not explicitly) that the only organizations that can do good are non-profits. In both places, the need for integral thinking is paramount.
It’s often easy to see what makes
someone different from us, and harder to see the commonality. I firmly believe
that the other elements of this movement – the head, the heart and the strength
– have more in common with this “soul” part of the movement than they realize,
and much to benefit from developing that understanding better. Of course, a
better understanding will require a stronger sense of purpose, a stronger sense
of deliberateness, and a large dose of humility on all sides that each is a
teacher and a student, with something to offer and much to learn.
Ultimately, they will need to learn new ways of talking and listening and understanding each other.
Perhaps after four years of SoCap we are beginning to develop the Rosetta Stone?
*Todd is a partner at the law firm of Jones Day, where he founded their Silicon Valley Office and runs their Renewable Energy and Sustainability Practice. The views expressed in this column are solely Todd’s personal views, not the views of Jones Day or its clients, and the information provided as to his affiliation with Jones Day is solely for purposes of identification and may not and should not be construed to imply endorsement or even support by Jones Day of the views expressed herein.
© R. Todd Johnson, 2011. Business for Good.SM is a service mark of R. Todd Johnson. The thoughts, ideas and words expressed in this column are the property of R. Todd Johnson and may not be otherwise used or reprinted without express permission from Todd.
