The famous cartoon showing a New Yorkers view of the world looking west, was replicated with Palo Alto/Stanford’s view of the world looking East. Both demonstrated the parochial view of the world where nepotism, tribalism and egotism prevail. It would be an interesting social experiment if Google brought in 50 random people from 50 different locations, first in the United States and then the world. The fifty would be asked to participate for 30 or 45 days being educated about Google, and in turn, make whatever observations they wished. The orginators of the five best ideas for philanthropy would be invited to oversee and lead/facilitate the next fifty. To use a botany/biology metaphor, monocultures die, diverse ecosystems thrive.
Do right, be just.
Thank you for this thorough overview of Google’s philanthropy and DotOrg initiatives. While there appears to have been a bit of ‘over-reaching’ in the early stages, there seems to have also been an appropriate revision to their philanthropic approach along the way.
I think it is important to maintain a positive tone when talking about any commercial enterprise that has formally dedicated corporate resources to philanthropy and social service. Although we believe it is everyone’s responsibility to ‘give back’, the reality is that a company’s core responsibility is to produce products that add value to customers and produce a return to shareholders. Dedicated philanthropy initiatives are still rare in the for-profit world, so I believe we should maintain positive recognition of any organization focusing resources toward social programs.
When we use phrases such as, “they’ve donated only $1.3 million”, or “this raises questions about the company’s commitment”, and then state that their efforts “may smack of hubris or narrow vision”, I believe that we fall into a trap of presuming that they have a principal obligation to invest in social-sector work. There is certainly the hope that companies understand the value of supporting the greater community, but it is not their core obligation to do so.
The responsibility is ours, as leaders in the social sector, to work with organizations like Google… and come prepared. Understand their goals and capabilities, then lay out a proposal that gets them excited about providing support. By setting aside time and resources, they have shown that they are a powerful potential partner. Now it’s our job to help turn that potential into a force of positive social change.
The premise of this piece is that a massive (and massively innovative) corporation has failed to achieve *nearly* the amount of impact on the philanthropic side as has been promised. This is not a unique problem to Google. I suspect a review of corporate philanthropic promises—especially in the last few difficult years—would turn up many a company that had overpromised and underdelivered. Nor is it to call into question the motives or capabilities of the Google.org leadership. Any serious observer of social change philanthropy will acknowledge the incredible difficulty and unpredictability of this undertaking. Nor is it, to go one step further, an indictment of the boldness of vision of Google’s founders and early leaders. Entrepreneurs must make bold claims to raise resources and attract talent to their enterprise.
However, the hybrid vision of public company and private philanthropy that Google.org summoned at its inception calls for at least this much public scrutiny. The tension between tight-lipped corporate focus and a more transparent approach is a real and difficult one, as this piece points out. I haven’t seen any other such careful account of the evolving strategy and leadership of Google.org. Well done, SSIR.
Thanks to Susie Boss, who articulates well a key challenge all corporate funders face: namely, identifying the approach with the best potential for achieving positive change for our communities.
For-profit organizations have an obligation to customers, employees and shareholders to remain viable as a commercial entity. Even the most philanthropic of corporate cultures needs to find ways to serve the community while managing the business responsibly, and it can be a difficult balancing act. While Ms. Boss’s concerns about the narrow focus on tools and potential for missed opportunities to support low-tech solutions are legitimate, I would argue that Google is just one of many funders, and its renewed, clarified focus will likely yield positive results in the long run. Certainly if every funder took the same approach as DotOrg, there would be serious gaps in the overall fabric of corporate/community/government partnerships attempting to address serious social issues. But by focusing on what it does best, and marshaling its talented, innovative staff to develop solutions, Google will be doing its part to improve our world in the way it is most likely to meaningfully contribute. Funders are not able to be all things to all people (or issues), and positive change and sustainable impacts are less likely to happen when a company pursues activities that are not a fit with its competencies and culture.
Google’s highly anticipated efforts at philanthropy are off to a rocky start. “Do no evil” certainly suggests that there are some guardrails on the road to the future, but it doesn’t suggest which road to take. Perhaps that’s the problem: What road should philanthropy take? Google is not alone in bumping into a wall trying to answer this question. At the risk of bumping my own nose into that same wall, here are some reflections on what Google might do:
Start small and local; Repeat often:
Searching for the giant magic bullet of philanthropy—a solution to poverty, violence, or racism—is a search for a modern equivalent of the Holy Grail. Yet many have personally observed individuals and small groups making a profound, meaningful difference. Sometimes the methods those people employ can be copied and replicated. Sometimes we have to admit that the people, these special individuals, were in some way a localized equivalent to a magic bullet. The solutions may begin with nascent ideas and concepts already in existence. They may just need more fuel.
Focus on the people in nonprofits.
Nonprofits are notoriously understaffed, under supported, and under leveraged. Passion, or a willingness to accept a below-market wage, are too often drivers in hiring decisions. Too often, the best skills really do end up in the corporate world. Focusing on a few groups and demonstrating what employees with the right resources can accomplish could raise the bar for the entire sector. How will we really know if a particular model of service or problem solving really could work if it never gets a fair chance to succeed?
Start with promising local solutions.
Give hardworking groups the chance to test out their work. Make sure they are staffed adequately and that those staff have the skill sets, continuing education, and expert support to leverage their time to make an impact. There are lots of big ideas out there. But solutions often start small, get worked out and refined. At the core of many of the solutions of today’s problems is trust. Trust is quickly lost and slowly constructed. Relationships between individuals are the building blocks of community trust.
Invest in evaluation.
Adequate funding also means money and skills to evaluate impact. It is rare to be able to look back and determine what really worked (and perhaps even more importantly, what did NOT work). Too much work in the nonprofit world is pursued based on anecdotal experience. Yet almost no one is willing to pay the cost of actually measuring impact or helping figure out what the most useful metrics or indicators of success might look like.
Temporarily abandon the quest for BIG:
“How will this scale?” is a driving question in any business plan conversation. There are some excellent examples of scale: the Boys & Girls Clubs have a menu of programs from which local groups can choose to create a place for kids in local communities that reflects community needs. While united by a national network of education, staff, and background, they are close enough to each community to fit in and have a profound, positive impact.
But if Google is truly searching for impact, perhaps a focus on scale might the equivalent of a temporary detour. The solutions are out there. We just need to find them. That’s what searching is all about.
Finally, if the massage is performed with a skin west fighting essential oil containing a mixture that includes black pepper among
other ingredients. Try to fit in as much cardiovascular exercise as you can.
It cannot be said that Cavislim’s claim to reduce body fat and increase circulation baths, showers and hydro massage treatment is performed. You can lose Skin West by drinking more water. This procedure contours thebody without going under the knife. Observe how ballet dancers do their usual exercises and you should keep it short and not shower too hot but lukewarm.
COMMENTS
BY pat shea
ON August 21, 2010 11:42 AM
The famous cartoon showing a New Yorkers view of the world looking west, was replicated with Palo Alto/Stanford’s view of the world looking East. Both demonstrated the parochial view of the world where nepotism, tribalism and egotism prevail. It would be an interesting social experiment if Google brought in 50 random people from 50 different locations, first in the United States and then the world. The fifty would be asked to participate for 30 or 45 days being educated about Google, and in turn, make whatever observations they wished. The orginators of the five best ideas for philanthropy would be invited to oversee and lead/facilitate the next fifty. To use a botany/biology metaphor, monocultures die, diverse ecosystems thrive.
Do right, be just.
BY Mark Knowlden
ON August 28, 2010 10:51 AM
Thank you for this thorough overview of Google’s philanthropy and DotOrg initiatives. While there appears to have been a bit of ‘over-reaching’ in the early stages, there seems to have also been an appropriate revision to their philanthropic approach along the way.
I think it is important to maintain a positive tone when talking about any commercial enterprise that has formally dedicated corporate resources to philanthropy and social service. Although we believe it is everyone’s responsibility to ‘give back’, the reality is that a company’s core responsibility is to produce products that add value to customers and produce a return to shareholders. Dedicated philanthropy initiatives are still rare in the for-profit world, so I believe we should maintain positive recognition of any organization focusing resources toward social programs.
When we use phrases such as, “they’ve donated only $1.3 million”, or “this raises questions about the company’s commitment”, and then state that their efforts “may smack of hubris or narrow vision”, I believe that we fall into a trap of presuming that they have a principal obligation to invest in social-sector work. There is certainly the hope that companies understand the value of supporting the greater community, but it is not their core obligation to do so.
The responsibility is ours, as leaders in the social sector, to work with organizations like Google… and come prepared. Understand their goals and capabilities, then lay out a proposal that gets them excited about providing support. By setting aside time and resources, they have shown that they are a powerful potential partner. Now it’s our job to help turn that potential into a force of positive social change.
BY Karsten Barde
ON August 30, 2010 04:00 PM
The premise of this piece is that a massive (and massively innovative) corporation has failed to achieve *nearly* the amount of impact on the philanthropic side as has been promised. This is not a unique problem to Google. I suspect a review of corporate philanthropic promises—especially in the last few difficult years—would turn up many a company that had overpromised and underdelivered. Nor is it to call into question the motives or capabilities of the Google.org leadership. Any serious observer of social change philanthropy will acknowledge the incredible difficulty and unpredictability of this undertaking. Nor is it, to go one step further, an indictment of the boldness of vision of Google’s founders and early leaders. Entrepreneurs must make bold claims to raise resources and attract talent to their enterprise.
However, the hybrid vision of public company and private philanthropy that Google.org summoned at its inception calls for at least this much public scrutiny. The tension between tight-lipped corporate focus and a more transparent approach is a real and difficult one, as this piece points out. I haven’t seen any other such careful account of the evolving strategy and leadership of Google.org. Well done, SSIR.
(Has there been any response from Google?)
BY Travelers
ON September 10, 2010 07:04 AM
Thanks to Susie Boss, who articulates well a key challenge all corporate funders face: namely, identifying the approach with the best potential for achieving positive change for our communities.
For-profit organizations have an obligation to customers, employees and shareholders to remain viable as a commercial entity. Even the most philanthropic of corporate cultures needs to find ways to serve the community while managing the business responsibly, and it can be a difficult balancing act. While Ms. Boss’s concerns about the narrow focus on tools and potential for missed opportunities to support low-tech solutions are legitimate, I would argue that Google is just one of many funders, and its renewed, clarified focus will likely yield positive results in the long run. Certainly if every funder took the same approach as DotOrg, there would be serious gaps in the overall fabric of corporate/community/government partnerships attempting to address serious social issues. But by focusing on what it does best, and marshaling its talented, innovative staff to develop solutions, Google will be doing its part to improve our world in the way it is most likely to meaningfully contribute. Funders are not able to be all things to all people (or issues), and positive change and sustainable impacts are less likely to happen when a company pursues activities that are not a fit with its competencies and culture.
Marlene Ibsen
BY KEVIN JOHNSON
ON February 3, 2011 04:07 PM
Google’s highly anticipated efforts at philanthropy are off to a rocky start. “Do no evil” certainly suggests that there are some guardrails on the road to the future, but it doesn’t suggest which road to take. Perhaps that’s the problem: What road should philanthropy take? Google is not alone in bumping into a wall trying to answer this question. At the risk of bumping my own nose into that same wall, here are some reflections on what Google might do:
Start small and local; Repeat often:
Searching for the giant magic bullet of philanthropy—a solution to poverty, violence, or racism—is a search for a modern equivalent of the Holy Grail. Yet many have personally observed individuals and small groups making a profound, meaningful difference. Sometimes the methods those people employ can be copied and replicated. Sometimes we have to admit that the people, these special individuals, were in some way a localized equivalent to a magic bullet. The solutions may begin with nascent ideas and concepts already in existence. They may just need more fuel.
Focus on the people in nonprofits.
Nonprofits are notoriously understaffed, under supported, and under leveraged. Passion, or a willingness to accept a below-market wage, are too often drivers in hiring decisions. Too often, the best skills really do end up in the corporate world. Focusing on a few groups and demonstrating what employees with the right resources can accomplish could raise the bar for the entire sector. How will we really know if a particular model of service or problem solving really could work if it never gets a fair chance to succeed?
Start with promising local solutions.
Give hardworking groups the chance to test out their work. Make sure they are staffed adequately and that those staff have the skill sets, continuing education, and expert support to leverage their time to make an impact. There are lots of big ideas out there. But solutions often start small, get worked out and refined. At the core of many of the solutions of today’s problems is trust. Trust is quickly lost and slowly constructed. Relationships between individuals are the building blocks of community trust.
Invest in evaluation.
Adequate funding also means money and skills to evaluate impact. It is rare to be able to look back and determine what really worked (and perhaps even more importantly, what did NOT work). Too much work in the nonprofit world is pursued based on anecdotal experience. Yet almost no one is willing to pay the cost of actually measuring impact or helping figure out what the most useful metrics or indicators of success might look like.
Temporarily abandon the quest for BIG:
“How will this scale?” is a driving question in any business plan conversation. There are some excellent examples of scale: the Boys & Girls Clubs have a menu of programs from which local groups can choose to create a place for kids in local communities that reflects community needs. While united by a national network of education, staff, and background, they are close enough to each community to fit in and have a profound, positive impact.
But if Google is truly searching for impact, perhaps a focus on scale might the equivalent of a temporary detour. The solutions are out there. We just need to find them. That’s what searching is all about.
Kevin Johnson
Retriever Development Counsel, LLC
http://retrieverdevelopment.com/growsocial/
http://retrieverdevelopment.com/growsocial/
BY cellulite gel
ON May 29, 2013 03:35 AM
Finally, if the massage is performed with a skin west fighting essential oil containing a mixture that includes black pepper among
other ingredients. Try to fit in as much cardiovascular exercise as you can.
It cannot be said that Cavislim’s claim to reduce body fat and increase circulation baths, showers and hydro massage treatment is performed. You can lose Skin West by drinking more water. This procedure contours thebody without going under the knife. Observe how ballet dancers do their usual exercises and you should keep it short and not shower too hot but lukewarm.