“Learned helplessness” (LH) may be more prevalent in the Social-Profit Sector than we know and it could explain some behaviors which might be counterproductive.  What is LH?  A situation in “which people or animals feel they are unable to positively influence their surroundings or personal situation.”  (John Bradberry) A diet of  continual bad news.

The prompting for this reflection was a recent Retreat that my colleagues and I facilitated; it was obvious, the next morning, that the members of this group seemed to feel powerless to alter the status quo.

Learned Helplessness was a discovery that was the result of an accident: in 1967, psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven Maier, detected helpless behavior in dogs who were shocked after hearing a tone.  Dogs subjected to the conditioning made no effort to overcome the shocks by moving to the other side of the “shuttle-box.”

According to the researchers, “Due to their previous experience, they [the dogs] had developed a cognitive expectation that nothing they did would prevent or eliminate the shocks.”  (Seligman & Maier, 1967).

After some reflection, we began to wonder: is this problem more pervasive than we realize?  Since we have detected some elements of “mild paralysis” in some organizations, we thought it — this idea of Learned Helplessness — was worth exploring and…writing about.

A quick warning: LH is not a diagnosis; it’s a tool to better understand behaviors and provide solutions that are respectful of situations that are growing increasingly more complex.

Since many social-profits (SP’s) are now suffering adversities that have little to do with their own actions (few of them, I imagine, shorted AIG’s stock or packaged mortgage-backed securities), is it possible that their people are engaging in a higher level of Learned Helplessness?  Possibly, is my answer.

If this is indeed true, it is easy to see why some organizations cling to old models and “turn inward”  (See Harwood: “How Programs Crowd Out Community”) as they try to “defend” themselves.

We believe we can change this situation.  Risk-taking and courage can replace fear and reluctance if we: 1) develop a new series of conversations, and; 2) encourage a new model of leadership.

This new conversation must come with a few simple ground rules: we’re not here to blame or defend…we’re here to imagine a new way as we see many of our old, hierarchical, “go-it-alone,” win/lose models breaking down.

The model of leadership we need?  My preference is on “Servant Leadership.”  It puts the constituents first, ahead of self-interest.  Sounds easy.  It’s not.

What if…we could encourage a dialogue that is deeper, more reflective and begins with probing questions that get at meaning?  Questions like:

• what change do I hope I can make?
• how much am I willing to bet on my future?
• what are my rewards for success?

These are questions that deliver personal or “authentic” power.  Perhaps, these questions can get tried out in the next Staff, Board meeting?

We can’t predict the future nor can we control it but we can co-create it.  As one wise philosopher tells us: “The future ain’t what it used to be.”  Yogi Berra (1925–  )

The Original

The New AT&T

In December of 2006, Cingular became a wholly owned unit of AT&T. It’s OK that you don’t remember; very few people do. (Yes, you can smell an object lesson coming?) I call it “The Cingular Dilemma” (TCD).

Cingular, prior to its acquisition, was the second largest wireless carrier in the world’s largest wireless market and….we don’t even think about it anymore. It was re-branded “The New AT&T.”

(Unless I’m way off base, I think we’re unlikely to see anything in the non-profit sector the likes of “The New Gates Foundation” or “The New Alzheimers Association.” )

Just this sort of phenomenon — The Cingular Dilemma — is, I believe, what keeps non-profit, and foundation, management teams up at night, tossing and turning. Why?

In these perilous and uncertain times, the plight of non-profits, and the entire sector, is an unknown. As demand for services continues to and funds continue to drop, non-profits look to the possibility of “mergers, collaborations, partnerships” as a way through, a tactic that could insure survival.

The Model: Buy Me Up, Scotty

The models which are often used are based on the for-profit M&A (Merger & Acquisition) design. While it’s well known, it’s worth stating that: there are no golden, let alone, brass parachutes for discarded management teams; there are no severance packages even when you fail or when you can’t come to terms with the Board on an outlandish pay package for yourself. And, of course, in the event you would like to “cash out,” there is no stock exchange on which to launch an Initial Public Offering. In fact, non-profits are required upon closure, by IRS statute, to distribute their assets to other non-profits.

If for-profits and non-profits are so different, why do we treat them the same on this subject of partnering? Why haven’t we created a new set of rules that would assure, let’s say, that Cingular’s name would still be around…in some form?

Clip from Points of Light Institute Website

My answer is that I think we’re stuck and scared. I see a shortage of imagination and a language that is lacking in subtlety. Even though we have models, like the Points of Light Institute (recenlty “merged” with HandsOn Network) that tell a different story, we’re stuck in an old model: “if I partner with you, I go away.”  Yes, there is a cultural theme here, too: cowboys ride alone.

Combine the cultural and creative reality with the landscape — 74% of our non-profits are under $500K in annual revenues; 61% are under $250K — and we can see that there isn’t a lot of perceived “wiggle room” to make anything earth-shattering happen.

This reality puts the subject of partnering in the non-profit sector in a relatively unsophisticated stage that makes any change complex, expensive, time-consuming and fear-producing.  (Here comes the pitch.) We in The Minerva Project are working to create tools and methodologies that would drive down the expense and increase the simplicity of evaluations and potential integrations.

Where do we go from here?  Some more talking wouldn’t hurt.  But, experimentation would be better.

Foundations have, traditionally, taken a “hands off” approach to the operation of their Grantees’ business.  Jacob Harold, Philanthropy Program Officer with the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, thinks it’s time for a change.   Click here to download Harold’s post “Foundations as Catalysts for Collaboration.”

Jacob Harold, Philanthropy Program Officer, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

Mr. Harold suggests that his view is, often, broader than that of the orgnaizations that he funds.  This fact, though, creates a tactical (not a moral) dilemma: is his “bird’s eye view” (from the perch of Funder) give him an unfair advantage in suggesting changes to the structure of its Non-Profit clients.  His case is supplemented by a small insight:

“…it often takes an outsider or a new party to help a whole be greater than the sum of its parts.”

He believes that the walk the Funder undertakes must be rubber-soled: NP’s are less than happy about someone telling them what to do.  Foundation Staff, like any good facilitator, he cautions “need to be honest, humble and focused on shared purpose.”

As funds for programs continue to shrink, Non-Profits  – both Boards and Staff — struggle to manage Mission-critical activities.   Most professionals in the field understand that the problems we’re facing are too big, the challenges too complex to try to solve through the work of a single organization.  As we search the landscape for new solutions to the problems of declining resources — people, money, planet, etc. — collaborations, partnerships, alliances all begin to make more sense.  

And, here is where the Funder can play a more siginficiant role than in the past: in some cases, Foundation staff can augment the staff of their NP clients by “sharing some of the financial, logistical and intellectual burdens of collaboration,” writes Harold.

Jim Plaisted, the Acting Executive Director for Actors Theatre For Children (ATFC), has been “back to the well” three times with The Minerva Project.  

Randy Zarn, Consultant AVP Emeritus, CSU DH

Each time, the services he has been provided have gotten a bit more sophisticated: he’s an example of an extremely satisfied client.  In the process, his organization has been transformed (see quote below).

Mary Radu of Pathmaker Coaching, Sonoma County, Ca., is the current “lead” on ATFC’s current projects. Jerry Green and Jed Coffin led the initial Board Retreat that was so instrumental in changing attitudes, thinking and actions.  

“If it weren’t for all of you ATFC would have already filed for dissolution.” — Jim Plaisted, Executive Director, Actors Theatre for Children

Tomorrow’s Aeronautical Museum (TAM) provides services to at-risk youth in Compton, Ca. (Los Angeles Area).  Compton’s High School graduation rate of 43% is being tackled by a variety of programs.  Randy Zarn, former AVP of Student Life with CSU Dominguez Hills, is part of the Team addressing management and funding challenges for TAM.

Kathy Hart, Ed.D. ClearVision Consulting

Myra Petgrave, a co-founder of TAM along with her “Celebrity Helicopters” husband Robin Petgrave, came to the Confab sponsored by CSU Dominguez Hills on January 19, 2011, to get services from the Consulting group of The Minerva Project.  Randy Zarn was quick to sign up; he could see the potential for societal change that TAM offered through its programs designed to boost the graduation rate in Compton (Los Angeles area), California.  

Kathy Hart, along with Partner Johanna Thomas of ClearVision Consulting in Oakland, Ca. provided  Roberta Tracy of BACS  with a useful template for how to address some short-term funding challenges in her program that is designed to help Seniors “Age in Place.”  Sometimes, it’s the small stuff that has the biggest impact.


Kudos to Kathy and Johanna for their generosity of spirit and time in helping Bay Area Community Services, a vital institution.  
Martin Jones Artisan Source LLC is not mentioned in this particular post but he has gotten high praise in the past.  Please don’t forget him!

It is sometimes said that “great followers make great leaders.”  It is also said that “great clients make great consultants.”  These stories could not be shared without the clients like Jim, Roberta and Myra.

As a critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that through associating, the coming together of people for mutual purpose, both in public and private, Americans are able to overcome selfish desires, thus making both a self-conscious and active political society and a vibrant civil society functioning independently from the state.

The good news: the title is “Advocate for the Advocates.”  Moskoff says this is not that far off: “In a way, we are playing the role of champion.  It’s more reciprocal than that, though: we’re helping ourselves in the process, too.”  

If you’d like to read it and form your own conclusions, go to Bohemian: Advocate for the Advocates.