Barack Obama recently spoke at Wesleyan about the two paths: "the path to earn money and buy suits and cars and the other enticements of our "money culture," and the path to be of service to others, and he urged the graduates to follow the path of service."
Dan Pallotta has some interesting commentary on his blog, www.danpallotta.com, about the speech. It falls in line with what he talked about in class and in his upcoming book. This particular blog is dated 5/26/08.
I agree that the path of service and the path of earning money must not always be mutually exclusive, but he seems to miss the point again that intent and understanding all of the vested stakeholders are fundamental parts of this equation as well.
I'd be curious to see what he defines as 'good money.' I feel like many large scale and successful non-profits and foundations pay good money to their leadership team. Could his argument be more centered around a discussion of motivating factors for different groups of individuals? Are all individuals motivated by the same drivers? I'm not sure I buy the fact that people who are primarily incentivized by money would be drawn to the non-profit sector or if they would be effective in the space. Money as a driver is not the same as effectiveness or intent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment