In this class we have debated theories on social chance and critiqued the corporate manifestations of many people's personal dreams. I think it is valuable to be exposed to all these examples so we can have technical tools to be leaders in this field. Additionally, though social entrepreneurship is an inherently emotional industry and for us to be good leaders it is helpful to understand how emotions can both exacerbate or ameliorate progress. As such I thought I would share some of the emotional growing pains I am going through to provide company for anyone going through the same, perspective for those who are not and as a form of personal catharsis. Hopefully it goes without further saying that this is not directed as a personal critique of anyone.
Sometimes I don't think I am cut out to be a social entrepreneur. I don't think I can handle my professional performance being so closely associated with my personal passions. I have come to expect a certain level of compensation that affords a means to satisfy personal happiness, opportunities for my future family, and lasting legacy of my existence on earth. In my case I have come to accept and rationalize that those things will likely require significant compensation. And in the name of sustainability if I can add more value than what I extract, then my propensity for the luxurious is justified. I don't feel that I should have to apologize or justify my behavior beyond this and would hold anyone else to the same standards and leave it up to them to determine how much they feel comfortable extracting given what they choose to put in.
I like to think of myself as a good person, who wants to do good things and hopefully inspires other people around him to do the same because they might enjoy life a little more. By no means am I perfect at this and one of the blessings of being in classes like this is that I am around so many people who believe this as well and have so many qualities that I would like to emulate better.
It is also for this reason that I get frustrated when the more I learn about the industry of social consciousness the more I feel like no matter what I do in life, how much money I helped raise or the causes I help it will never be enough in the eyes of some. Maybe these are my growing pains of being a "mainstream business person" entering into social sector. And, yes there are plenty more managers and execs in corporate america for whom the work I do will never be enough. However, in corporate america I was able to rationalize not meeting those expectations because I was focused on contributing to all these good things beyond monetary profits that more embodied my personality as a whole. Not just the part that could analytically maximize profits.
But in the field of social improvement I am trying to do a job where the success of my career is measured on how much good I do. So if someone were to critique that I wasn't doing enough, it feels like an attack on my core values. Ironically, I find myself wrought with emotions that I felt when first started working in corporate america trying to understand my place. Feelings of anger, inadequacy, depression, confusion and a general sense of feeling overwhelmed. Eventually, I learned to compartmentalize criticism from my emotions. Mostly through a series of great mentors who met my frustration with patience, empathy, and understanding as well as actual techniques to channel this emotion into effective, action oriented ideas that created value for the company. They didn't help change my personality or values, but they did help me to be more effective in expressing my passion in contsructive ways.
I think a lot of the angst I have felt learning about social enterprise is an anxiousness to find my place and actually feel like I can add value the way I used to according to corporate america. I guess I'm surprised at how personally I take it.
3 comments:
Adam - Thanks for being so open about your revelations about yourself in the course of this class. I'd like to share my feelings as well.
I feel frustrated after hearing Dan's story yesterday, when he showed us the criticism he faced in the press. Why do we/people focus on the things Dan (in our eyes) did "wrong" and fail to recognize the fact that he raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charities?
Does it matter that the people who participated in the runs were not poverty-stricken? Wasn't the point to get people (rich, poor, hungry, healthy) involved? And wasn't the point to get money to these non-profit organizations so they could put the nondiscretionary funds to good use? Why was his salary so shocking to us when he was able to generate incredible returns on small initial investments?
I hope Dan himself will try again to use his business savvy and entrepreneurial spirit to once again create social change.
And I hope we can learn from his experiences and not be discouraged by it.
Adam - I totally understand where you are coming from. 'Doing good' is such a subjective measure and the standard at which everyone evaluates 'being good' is different. When one person invests so much of their life in a particular idea, it's hard for others to realize how much investment that person has and for that person to not take those disagreements personally.
It's actually similar to our 'Managing Conflict' HROB reading for tomorrow. When people use subjective measures like 'doing good' to determine successful, everything is subjective, leading to highly personal conflicts.
I saw it with the agency I was at. Constituents would send inflammatory emails to us about one thing or another, and it was often difficult to handle. As you stated, I often felt like my core values were under attack by faceless individuals across the internet. Similar to you, I think what got me through those trying moments was realizing that according to my own personal definition of 'doing good and being good,' I felt like I was accomplishing something valuable and following my internal ethical code. I also found people who I trusted and looked up to that would be honest with me if I was pursuing a path that did not match my personal standard.
I think you are dead-on about finding the right people to channel your desire to do good. It's going to be that encouragement that will continue to drive you towards achieving your goals and making a positive impact.
It's definitely comforting to know that you and maybe others in the class share this view. Through our collective efforts, we will inspire each other to continue on this path despite potential criticism in the future.
To build on the points of Tiffany and Chris, I commend Adam for opening up this dialogue. My background is also from corporate America, not the social sector and I'm consistently surprised by the ways in which activists often respond to ethical brands or initiatives. On the one hand, I understand these individuals are simply trying to pursue greater impact and change. They don't have the same clout as typical shareholders who demand financial returns of companies, so they use this medium to inspire further social advancement.
Alternatively, why do we see activists berating the Whole Foods earnings call and not Kroger's? As we learned in class, the more a brand tries to communicate its social mission, the more it is under a microscope and needs to be honest and transparent about its operations. But the question stands that this is one example of a company obviously doing much more than its competitors to achieve the double or triple bottom line and it gets blasted in any less than perfect efforts.
Similarly, I know a few students in the class were surprised to hear Dan's salary being close to $500K. But compare this to a corporate CEO. He turned a $350K investment from Avon and returned over $100M for its foundation to donate for breast cancer. Other companies would die for such an ROI and pay enormous sums to its managers. Yet because Dan raised that money for breast cancer rather than wall street, he shouldn't be rewarded? If anything the fact that he is using his business skills for social good rather than remaining a corporate fundraiser should generate even greater financial reward. Change the thinking from a dollar not given to charity to opportunity cost of not attracting anyone as skilled to enter into this market (which is what we saw from the returns after Avon broke the relationship).
I know there is an altruistic feeling in all of us, but I keep coming back to the need to create the right incentives. Adam continues to pursue initiatives at Anderson that will leave a much more environmentally friendly campus and student body. Social leaders need to understand it is critical to the movement of ethical brands and social improvement to attract people like Adam and other potential human assets.
Post a Comment