2010 ushered in do-goodism 2.0. The opportunities to check-in, check-out, or slack-out “for good” have never been greater. Voluntourism is on the rise, as people want to see and feel more of their vacation destination than a five-star resort may offer. But there are downsides, as I recently discovered at a cocktail party fundraiser.
The otherwise delightful woman to whom I was speaking was explaining how she and her husband had recently traveled to Cambodia with their kids in order to give the teenagers an understanding of poverty and their responsibility to help others less fortunate than themselves. I was interested.
When planning the trip, she explained, her kids had immediately dismissed Habitat for Humanity and other “traditional” groups because they wanted an authentic, personal experience. Prior to the trip, they’d gone online and researched places they could go and things they could do. They’d found a small village that was building a library and some houses and that needed materials and books. “Perfect,” she thought. Emails were exchanged, arrangements were made.
But, she then went on to explain, the trip had all but been ruined by the fact that when they arrived the locals took the books and materials they’d brought and proceeded to build the structures themselves. Her kids, who had planned what they wanted to do and how they would direct the building process, were sidelined by locals who took over and did all the work themselves. Her kids were invited to participate, but they weren’t allowed to lead “their” projects. The goal of the trip, she complained, had been for her kids to feel how they could make a difference and this experience hadn’t provided that at all. “Overall, it left a bad taste in their mouths for future volunteer work,” she concluded.
It was then that I yelled, “It’s not about you!”
In my head.
Aloud, I asked her politely, “Whose volunteer experience is this anyway?”
Nick Kristoff’s recent New York Times piece on Do It Yourself Aid raised similar feelings. While it is great to get out and feel like “I’ve made a difference,” shouldn’t the emphasis in that sentence be on “made a difference” and not “I?” When the primary purpose of volunteerism or aid work becomes our own experience of self-fulfillment, we’ve crossed a line. And unfortunately, sometimes the term social entrepreneur with its emphasis on one person, is synonymous with a “me” orientation that is antithetical to strategies that have been effective in creating lasting social change. Similarly, some social enterprises may be praised for taking a bold approach that makes perfect sense to donors, but which might not be highly prioritized by those receiving. Recent criticisms of TOMS Shoes and other “buy one, give one” programs raise important issues. If TOMS Shoes are being sourced and made locally, then that is sustainable change. If they are shipped in, then it’s mostly plain vanilla charity with excellent marketing. Almost by definition, these donor- or giver-centered approaches can leave out indigenous/local groups that are working to help themselves, but keep getting left out of others “solutions.”
So that begs the question, how much should one’s own need for achievement, media, or notoriety influence decisions about giving? Volunteering? When, as funders, do our demands for metrics and causality shift from necessary rigor and become instead attempts to assign egotistical ownership? When is our desire to develop a strategy that is “unlike other foundations” truly innovative, and when is it merely chest thumping?
For foundations, I think strategic philanthropy, as outlined by many of CEPs studies and reports, gives a great framework for allowing impact — not ego — to drive action. And personally? Well I love feeling that I’m making a difference, whether it is buying green products or volunteering or contributing to organizations I love. By doing these things I create a sense of community, connection, and empathy that benefits me as well as those on the other end of that support. The act of giving is mutually beneficial. But at the end of the day, it’s not only about me. Giving, volunteering, and the work done to support nonprofits becomes transformative when the goal is something much larger than just one person’s pride or fame or even self-actualization.
Do you have strategies for keeping your ego in check?
Crystal Hayling is Former President and CEO of the Blue Shield of California Foundation and a member of the CEP Board of Directors.
That is a very pertinent post, Crystal, though I hope that the attitude of the person you are describing is exreme. However I think there definitely is a trend for “educators” (parents, teachers and also government) to promote volunteering experiences for youth for personal growth. The German government is actually running a large program where young people can visit projects in “developing countries” for three to 15 months. All costs are covered by the government and many partner organisations of private and governmental donors in the South have to deal with these young people and keep them occupied. This is the ego-trip institutionalised!
Crystal, your article is very important for anyone who is considering volunteering.
Sometimes as the giver we feel like we should control the end results. I have found that few people have the innate ability to let go of such feelings. For most people it’s a learned process.
We of course have similar challenges in the nonprofit community. I once was faced with a strategic decision where I had two choices. One that would create a lot of buzz and social capital for our organization and the other which would create important change but wasn’t the least bit “sexy.” I went to one of our board members and asked for advice. I half thought that he would prefer the strategy that had the great PR opportunity, but he didn’t hesitate and told me to go with the one that did the most good.
I remember rely on his advice even today when I am working for cause related groups and that helps me stay on course on not let my decisions be cluttered with other competing interests.
Thanks again for this thought provoking article,
Reed
Great piece. Re: strategies for keeping egos in check, those methods will swim against the monstrous do-gooder 2.0 tide. I think often about how to publicize the alternative, which is sustainable development (and one way certainly is to find a snazzier term than “sustainable development”). But I think that diaspora communities in the industrialized countries have to vocalize, within Western media, what does/doesn’t work in their home countries. I can’t think of another force that, if organized, has the moral authority to rival the NYT’s (Nick Kristof) or celebs and influence public opinion re: sustainable humanitarianism. Of course, what I’m talking about also takes years of educating diaspora about philanthropy and the development but, it’s happening.
This post reminded me of how we as humans often get in the way of our idealized notions of service and more often than not impact. I needed to go back to Psych 101 to refresh my thinking on a little Freud. Here is what I found at the University of Purude:
For Freud, the ego is “the representative of the outer world to the id.”In other words, the ego represents and enforces the reality-principle whereas the id is concerned only with the pleasure-principle. Whereas the ego is oriented towards perceptions in the real world, the id is oriented towards internal instincts; whereas the ego is associated with reason and sanity, the id belongs to the passions. The ego, however, is never able fully to distinguish itself from the id, of which the ego is, in fact, a part, which is why in his pictorial representation of the mind Freud does not provide a hard separation between the ego and the id.
So it seems it is not so much our ego but our id we need to check and the balance between the two.
Terrific post Crystal, thanks for sharing your insights and personal experience. Great advice that should be shared widely.
Thanks for the enlightening post. I think what we are seeing is an increase in awareness of the issues being faced by people around the world, partially through factors such as the rise of the “aid celebrities”. Whilst most people genuinely have good intentions, there is often a feeling of hopelessness because the enormity of the problem is so large. It’s difficult to come up with concrete ways to help, particularly when it involves some sort of self sacrifice. This is why we see so many people willing to donate their own worthless junk, as opposed to money. Unfortunately, when it comes to volunteering, this is often just a method to assuage our own feelings of guilt and hopelessness. Hence the reasons for doing the good deed are wrong right from the start.
In terms of strategies to keep the ego in check, the one that I think is most useful is simply asking the question: “Who is benefiting the most from my action – the person I am trying to help, or myself?” I am heartened to read Reed’s post above where the less sexy option was taken. More often than not, this option is probably the best way to go. Which bring us back to the glamorisation of philanthropy that is associated with aid celebrities, and the misgivings that the public can have as a result.
Thanks again for this.
I think one idea is to associate making a true difference with that ‘good feeling’ early on. The kids in your story should consider that they helped empower a village to lift themselves up, and that is part of the impact they helped make. It may not have felt as ‘fun’ as doing the hands on work themselves, but the idea is to do what is needed most – so helping them see that fulfilling a true need can feel the best might be a good start!
Thanks all.
I do believe that this is a tight-rope on which I’m balancing all the time. The case I cited was extreme, but there are many less clear examples. What about donor visits? What if an exploitive visit results in great PR for the NPO and raises the profile of the issue, as you mention Weh Yeoh? Reed, loved your example as one where you made the tough call. Carla your point about sustainable development seems right on. With the focus on the making a difference, as Amber suggests.
Crystal
Quite pertinent post and observations. As a Social Entrepreneur myself it is always relevant to be aware and reminded of the space between “me and my goodmindedness” and the relevance of the gift in the giving; a gift which must at all times remain in movement in order to remain alive and to help create the change we all want to see and be. This gift of volunteerism or do-good-aim in any form must at first be conceived to be channelled though rather than “done by or done because of me.”
So in the example of the teens in your post, a broader and more conscious perspective which the mother may have helped the teens achieve could be found wig a quick read/reference to Lewis hyde’s “The Gift”. In it, he refers to indigenous cultures more than any other who have maintained a historic understanding and lineage connection between the natural and man-made world of gift-giving. Philosophically speaking, do-good-ism 2.0 could do with taking a page from the natural world; the true gift which enhances, leaves the hand of the giver with no intention to return in anyway whatsoever. Its contribution grows in effect and enhancement as it moves through the hands of many, never to return to its origin but ensured to create deep and lasting impact as it grows outward. As love expands so should giving. To “simply” experience a puffed-up ego-filled return to the original source of giving, is to in fact constrict and restrict the original intention and undoubtedly evitable impact of the “gift.”
Good perspective for volunteers to consider and a great attitude that is not a “me” attitude is commendable. Good advice from a volunteer perspective. However from the recipient of the volunteer services, the organization, not necessarily the people benefiting from the organization, the organization, if a donor/volunteer -centered organization, needs to appreciate and steward the volunteers and donors and this means meeting them where the volunteers are. Having said that, a volunteer’s “me” attitude cannot be so one-sided that it disrupts the organization. A good balance is required.
Pingback: It’s not about you! | Every Tongue
This post so clearly describes problems I have seen too often. Unfortunately I have even encountered it in the medical global health community – aren’t we supposed to know better? Apparently not.
I wonder if the increase in popularity of medical ‘humanitarian’ missions undertaken by medical students will result in a decrease in ‘ego-driven’ action as we expose these enthusiastic young professionals to ‘the right way’. Of course, that requires that we recognize / implement / encourage ‘the right way’, but it is an opportunity not to be missed.
Well said, Yolanda. I like the phrase “…the space between me and my good-mindedness.” Very evocative. And Ken, you raise an excellent point: some level of meeting people where they are is essential for NGOs. I guess I am hopefully calling out the need to strike the right balance. Mark, maybe you are right–some good coaching/modeling and a bit of volunteer self-awareness and people can make a difference without making themselves the main event.
Pingback: Genourous to Whom?
Pingback: Links | Clare Herbert
Pingback: Thinking critically: why our motivations matter | Justice for all
Pingback: the universe sings an endless song for the imagination. « boliviawater