Live blogging at Council on Foundations!
You heard it here first — the Philanthropy 2.0 party at the Council on Foundations will be the talk of the town come May 6! Kari, Eric, myself, and the rest of the Case gang are helping to host the first-ever “Philanthropy 2.0 and Next Generation Leaders Party” from the Summit. So far, it’s a smash — great food, great drinks, great music — and even better, terrific discussion about Web 2.0 technology’s role in philanthropy today.
The most valuable part has been getting feedback and insight from other practitioners in the field. For example, we talked to Patricia from the New York Community Foundation about what (and how) our generation is doing. She was frank in her response: “You have a lot of energy, but it’s often unfocused. I expect your generation will create a lot of change, and I think you’ll do great work — you’ve just got a ways to go still.”
Now, you’d think that since I’m a member of the Millennial clan, I might bristle at this statement. Far from it, actually. I think Patricia hit pretty close to the bone. We DO have tremendous energy and passion. We DO have the will to make the difference. An often missing piece, though, is the working knowledge of the philanthropic sector — something that you sometimes only can achieve after quality time spent in the field.
In my mind, this makes the argument for cross-generational partnerships that much stronger. We have a great opportunity to learn from and grow with people who have built a deep knowledge base of philanthropy’s strengths, shortcomings, and trends.
And it doesn’t just have to happen at events like the COF Summit. Look around the organization where you work, and the partners in your community. I’m willing to bet there are plenty of people just waiting to share what they know — and pick up some useful ideas from you as well!
So don’t be afraid to extend your hand, say hi, and start the dialogue. You just might hit the motherlode of leadership development and personal growth.
Comments
I appreciate Patricia’s sentiment but I take exception to the “unfocused” comment.
Further, by adding that we “have a ways to go still”, it seems she was trying to draw a distinction between this generation and others before ours. Considering that comparative statement along with the ‘unfocused’ comment, you could infer that she is implying some causation or correlation there. “They are unfocused (when compared to those before) and so, they have a way to go.”
Assuming what I’ve presented thus far is correct, I’ll see if I can explain why I think her perception is a bit off.
The world is a much bigger and smaller place than it was for generations past. Bigger because our generation has seen access to information grow exponentially in our lifetime due to 24/7 cable news, the internet and the socialization of the internet. Smaller for just that last reason: the ability to create and participate in a community outside your normal physical surroundings. All of that to say, there is a lot more information about many more causes and charities than at any point in human history.
At the same time, it’s quite likely (if not empirically true) that there have been fewer big ticket, ‘popular’ movements than seen in generations past. This may be feeding Patricia’s suspicions to a point, but I suspect that our generation has as much energy, drive and yes, focus, on philanthropy as in years past. It’s just that it’s more distributed.
Call it the NextGen Long Tail of Philanthropy.
Now, to be sure, I wish I had some data handy to help inform this post a bit more. Perhaps someone can lend a hand?
Best,
chrisF
Post new comment