Tuesday, May 5, 2015
As we are winding down the semester we have learned so much about Philanthropy and Civil Society. My last blog post was about how difficult gridlock can be in a class that is all about decision making. This poses a threat to the effectiveness of our classes decision making on the overall donation process. Looking back at all of my groups/group presentations I feel that we didn't have much gridlock overall. While we were recently presenting we all seemed to agree on a majority of the 3 organizations we proposed. I find this extremely interesting because a majority of us (including myself) illustrated doubts on how effective our decision making would be (due to differences in ideology).
1. Do you as a class believe it went fairly smooth and efficiently (so far)?
2. If so, why do you think we hurdled a majority of the gridlock?
One of the most critical attributes we can use is the technique of active listening. In other words, listening to the person until they are finished speaking. Do not interrupt, and ask questions in a polite manner. I noticed a majority of the class using this which is why I think we hurdled most of the gridlock. I also think we all genuinely believe that these last 3-4 organizations would be great non-profits to chose as finalists. In a way, we chose great finalists so no matter what... the money is going to a great foundation.
Please comment and tell me what you think!
Best,
Pat LaBuff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Pat,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post. When I pictured this class before the semester began, this is not at all what I was expecting (not in a bad way). I think its great that we were able to over come these hurdles and come to a pretty general consensus, even though there are some people who are disappointment that Rescue Mission didn't make the cut. Though, to be honest, I think some more debate would have really helped this class. Personally, I saw great merit in Rescue Mission and would have really liked to support their cause, I also find it interesting the Kopernic was not debated at all toward the very end. If anything, my disappointment (this isn't the right word but I can't think of anything else) of our funding Kopernic is completely over shadowed by the happiness I receive from knowing that we will be funding both STAT and Mom's House.
I honestly find it interesting that we had more debate over the use charity vs. philanthropy and giving from the head vs. the heart. This course has definitely allowed me to understand how a philanthropy or giving circle might act.
I think by being open with our opinions and open to new ideas we were able to overcome any contention that might have arisen otherwise. This was truly a great experience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our class had surprisingly little gridlock overall. I know that some people were disappointed with the decision that was made today, but it could have been worse. When I heard about it from former students, they made it seem like the majority of the class would consist of heated debate. I'm curious if the level of contention varies that much from one semester to the next or if it's simply what people remember most about the course after it's over. I think that I will remember the debates but I will also remember things like the Tweet of the Week.
ReplyDeleteI thought our brief conversation about head vs. heart at the end of class today was really interesting because like Hannah O. said, we actually spent a lot of time talking about it, but I didn't fully understand how it would affect our decision making process until recently. I believe that Lindsey said that it's easier to fight against logical arguments than emotional ones, and that's partly why STAT got funding instead of the Rescue Mission. I think that STAT was originally brought into the running as a finalist because its mission stood out to people on a strongly emotional level. Like Dr. Campbell said, students seem to love horses. It's hard to make an argument against an organization that uses horses to help disabled children without being judged on some level. When Nik expressed his concern that STAT only helps a small number of people and that their efforts might not really be able to make much of a difference in the community, it really struck me that practically the entire class reacted. It was as if it was some kind of shocking comment to make when really it was a perfectly understandable concern. I know it had crossed my mind before, but I didn't want to say it. I didn't argue against STAT as much as I wanted to because I didn't want to be judged. I think this unspoken respect for an inherently sentimental cause actually prevented gridlock from forming around STAT.
I think we should have talked about this more, but I'm still very happy with our grant decision. I've really enjoyed this process and I'm really excited for our award ceremony.