From a "Scarcity Mindset to...Abundance"?

An earlier version of this brief essay was written but not yet published before the announcement by the MacArthur foundation, et al, of a new Abundance initiative to support the African American community. Their announcement was welcome indeed since targeted funding is needed to redress our long history of systemic inequity. Even though this essay raises an issue with the term “abundance,” as you will see, I am in no way taking issue with that initiative or its underlying intent.

Now, back to our essay.

For a long time, I was guilty of workaholism. It was not uncommon for me to get to my office [remember those?] before 6 am and not leave before 7 or 730 pm.?In those days, I was in the not-for-profit sector and the workload in my overlapping executive positions was heavy. You wouldn’t be surprised that there were limited support systems. Yet on more than one occasion, successful folks in the for-profit sector would say such things as “you work in the nonprofit sector, why are you working so hard?”?Or “You are a smart guy; why are you in a non-profit”?

These comments always struck me as strange, reflecting a distorted bias – veering from insulting to an intended but backhanded compliment. My motive for working in the sector, of course, was not to see how much money I could accumulate [more about that below], but integrity, pride, and commitment demanded that I do the highest quality job. Why should the legal structure which employed me have anything to do with those professional standards? And I daresay that the overwhelming majority of those with whom I worked or who reported to me shared those values.

The derivative implication of these biases is the assumption that working in this sector doesn’t deserve a competitive salary, benefits, or respect.?After all, the argument goes, if you work for a charity, you should expect to be surrendering to a lesser lifestyle.?[I will trust that any reader does not need a history or legal lesson to know that there is nothing that says that a nonprofit requires vows of poverty, nor does any responsible funder assume that.]

But if the mentality toward those who work in the sector has gradually, if all too slowly, improved, the attitude toward the sector has moved at a more glacial pace. Too many funders feel that, except for prestigious universities and museums, nonprofits should be expected to “make do.”?This seems especially true for agencies and organizations that serve the most needy and at-risk populations. In American society, there still exists the assumption that if you are poor, homeless, unemployed, or ill, you should bear the blame. Why “reward” agencies that serve them with the perks that a for-profit sector provides for its workers??

For quite a while this attitude has been decried as “the Scarcity Mindset.”?And for good reason. In response, many who decry the pejorative nature of underfunding and under respecting the NFP/NGO sectors have called for a realignment of the underlying assumption. If the opposite of scarcity is abundance, let’s have an “abundance mindset.” Let’s reframe and reposition so that those who are providing services to the most at-risk populations have the resources, the training, the support, and, yes, respect for the difficult and indispensable work they do.

I fully believe and profoundly affirm that far too much of American society’s needs have been met on the backs of nonprofit workers in systems that undercapitalize that sector. [In prior posts, I have written about ways in which training, salaries, and retention can be addressed.]??Why, then, does the term “abundance” not feel right?

To get at this, I began to think about an analogous dichotomy:?Is “wealth” the opposite of “poverty.”? Should it be?

In much of the world, including in the USA, there is an obscene disparity between those of great wealth and the lower and working classes. There is simply no justification for such concentrations of resources at the same time that so many are seeing their own standard of living dropping, often precipitously. We have an immoral tax code that reinforces that disparity and an unconscionable unwillingness to acknowledge societal responsibility for basic human needs such as health care, housing, sustenance, parental care, education, retirement. In such a system, let’s be clear: poverty is rarely a moral failing but mostly a systemic failure.

Eradication of poverty should be more than a desideratum. For any of us, it should be a clarion clear mandate. But eradication of poverty does not require that all must become wealthy. It does mean that all human beings should have the right to have a life of dignity, without want, with necessary care and support.

The history of charity and the intent of much modern philanthropy has been to be palliative in the face of these elements of lack and suffering. Those of us in our field know that our resources, however great they may seem, are never sufficient to eradicate hunger and want. If we are serious about eradicating the manifestations of poverty, we must be committed to changing government policies. And government policies are only able to be implemented when we view that taxes are not a burden but a normal cost of responsible citizenship.

Now, it is true that “wealth” can be a subjective term. But in the context of eradicating poverty, it surely implies worldly goods. And I wonder aloud if we really feel that our goal is for all to be wealthy. I daresay, if we eradicate hunger, inaccessibility of medical care, homelessness, illiteracy of all sorts, for all, we will have accomplished a valid societal goal. I don’t begrudge wealth, per se[RM1] ?. I do begrudge wealth built on the backs of those who don’t have enough.

In this context, then, perhaps the real apposite of “poverty” is a life of dignity.

Let’s return, then, to our first situation:?A “scarcity mindset” vs. an “abundance mindset.”?As in the above paragraphs, I question whether our real goal is abundance. If those who work in the non-profit sector are properly and adequately paid, receive appropriate benefits, have access to continuing training, and are respected for the work on which all of us rely, that should not be perceived as abundance but normal.?There is nothing wrong with abundance, but I want the base line and expectation to be solid. Abundance seems to imply more than we need. I want to make sure that all in this sector receive what they should have a right to expect.

Just as our goal is to eradicate poverty by guaranteeing lives of dignity to all, so we should eliminate the scarcity mindset by eradicating the assumption that working for a nonprofit should be accompanied by a degraded, less than professional lifestyle.

I am not opposed to abundance or wealth. But those terms are too amorphous and aspirational. I don’t want the needs of those who are poor or those who work with them to be relegated to aspiration.?Rather let’s work to achieve what should be achievable with public will and societal commitment: lives of dignity for all – with all that should entail.

Also posted as #439 on the WisePhilanthropy.Institute website.

?[RM1]