Blog

https://you.leadnow.ca/petitions/ensure-fair-travel-advisories-for-the-middle-east

I just found out that there has been a change to the Canadian travel advisories for Egypt! It has been upgraded from “Avoid non-essential travel” to “Exercise a high degree of caution,” with a couple of exceptions for certain regions.
https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/egypt

For a variety of reasons, (many of which I am unclear about), I was unable to get traction on this petition, compared, for example, to another public petition that I also have active right now. However, myself and others have had a variety of conversations with various decision-makers around this issue over the years. I take absolutely no credit for this change. However, I am very grateful to all of the decision-makers that have found the time to chat with me (and others), over the last several years – for their time, openness to discussing this topic and for the change that they have now implemented.

The petition will stay live for at least a bit longer. If I see that there is some traction there, that would be great, and would help to demonstrate public support on this important issue.

Great article on power and gender dynamics – which go far beyond the US case studies the author examines.

This quote really succinctly summarizes some key pieces of the male-dominated status quo, in my opinion.

According to this script, power is meritocratic; those who earn it do so individually through their own hard work. Power has a particular look and a particular sound: tall and deep-voiced. Power is all-encompassing: a partner and children are the backdrop for a life centered on the pursuit of greatness; family indicates that the powerful person is grounded enough to be trusted, but the family is fundamentally a body that benefits from the powerful person, not a body that benefits him and fundamentally enables his success. (Bold mine).

And here is an alternate option:

From these women, the message is clear: Their strength comes from collaborative, generational efforts to move toward the good. The promise of America is not the possibility of individuals going at it alone and achieving in a high-profile way as a result, and the purpose of politics is not personal empowerment. The gift of power requires the responsibility of appreciating who came before you and how you might do your part to push forward. Powerful men have always considered their individual legacies. These powerful women seem more interested in their role in improving an evolving and complex ecosystem. (Bold mine).

Women shouldn’t adapt to the existing lie; men in the political realm should be more honest.  (Bold mine).

Thoughts?

When Honest Women Replace ‘Self-Made’ Men https://nyti.ms/2H5HQLW

Trump’s economy is great for billionaires, not for working people

And, I would suggest, this is not a problem that is limited to the US. Massive income and wealth gaps are destructive in so many ways. Stronger systems are needed, as mentioned – free post-secondary education and so many others – along with so many other changes.

So, here are a few questions that come to mind around questions of income inequality:

• At what point will it be seen as socially undesirable to be a CEO, for example, who makes massive sums of money when entry level staff are struggling to make ends meet?
• Why, in some circles, is it seen as desirable to be ultra-wealthy, find tax loopholes etc?
• On a more basic level, (this is the simple living Menno coming out in me), do we really fully challenge ourselves to not be tempted by a house/car/income that is bigger than we actually need? Do we nudge ourselves to see simple living and equality as a positive goal to embrace?
• How would our houses and lifestyles be viewed by the newcomer families that we support?
• Do we support political systems, parties and policies that truly support equality for everybody, including equality and justice for the environment?

There’s lots more that I could add, but I’ll leave it here for now. 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/16/trump-economy-billionaires-working-people?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WordPress

Immediate fossil fuel phaseout could arrest climate change – study

This is a further reminder that critical changes are both necessary, and capable of having significant influence on the future stability and sustainability of the planet. This is a matter of choice – and it’s a choice that needs to be made now, not in a generation or two. 🙂

The study found that if all fossil fuel infrastructure – power plants, factories, vehicles, ships and planes – from now on are replaced by zero-carbon alternatives at the end of their useful lives, there is a 64% chance of staying under 1.5C.

Naturally, in order to increase that 64% to something higher, infrastructure must be replaced before it would be otherwise. In addition, other steps must be taken, starting immediately – smaller houses, more solar panels and wind turbines, removing gas vehicles from the roads as quickly as possible and other steps as well.

The work also assumes a rapid end to beef and dairy consumption, which is responsible for significant global emissions.

This means a significant, and immediate move towards a heavily plant-based diet for everybody. It means no longer viewing meat and dairy-based meals as the default for school cafeterias, restaurants, church potlucks and other places where people gather. It means making the switch even if you really like cheese and burgers and yogurt, or if meat is what you grew up eating. All of those may be true, but we are in a crisis, and drastic times call for drastic measures, and the time for change is now. 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/immediate-fossil-fuel-phaseout-could-arrest-climate-change-study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WordPress

Totally agree! 🙂

As a tangent, I will add that I find there is inconsistency around grant proposal language (inputs, outputs, outcomes, indicators etc). Feels to me that there is a lot that could be done to make that process more clear, and, by extension, more helpful – both for the donor (get more useful info) and for the partner (opens up space for more useful conversation and communication).

There are other areas where this is applicable as well, but I’ll leave it here for now. 🙂

Thoughts?

NOTE: For some reason, the link seems to be showing up either not at all, or twice. Hopefully it works when I publish. If not, I’ll try to correct it. 🙂

This was published last summer, but I just came across it today. I have experienced many of the pieces identified below – from founders and others. So, one piece that I would add is that the basic premise (openness to others’ expertise etc) is critical – but not limited to NGOs that are still being run by the founder. It can happen in that case, but it can also happen in other organizations.

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/apr/12/founder-syndrome-personality-crippling-charity 

Doing a bit more digging, I came across a few articles referencing a recent NGO study in India, which suggests a heavy over-reliance on founder-CEOs, even 10-20 years or more after the organization was founded. It also indicates weak interest in building leadership capacity among non-CEO staff, both within the organization and among donors.

https://www.livemint.com/Industry/UdIacbXtoqojHsrQq4lcZM/NGOs-lack-leaders-to-succeed-current-management-study.html

“Ingrid Srinath, director, Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy, Ashoka University, attributes this mindset to Indian CSOs being “personality driven with the CEO/founder as the key element when it comes to raising money and setting agenda. This is a handicap when it comes to building sustainable organizations. In the event of discontinuity of service by the leader, the impact is often severe and it takes years to recoup.” (Bold mine).

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ngo_leadership_development_in_india_from_pioneer_founders_to_homegrown_lead

“As the trailblazers who built India’s nonprofit sector begin to step aside, a new study shows that NGOs face a significant gap in next-generation leadership. There are barriers to bridging this gap and building blocks to surmount them, but progress depends on founders and funders viewing leadership development as mission critical.” (Bold mine)

Although this study was based in India, these are certainly not region-specific challenges. Thoughts?

https://www2.fundsforngos.org/featured/why-do-donors-hate-me/

“Why Do Donors Hate Me?”

OK – so this isn’t me personally asking the question. That’s the title of the article, so that’s where I’m starting from here. I see a lot here that I have observed in many organizations, and I think that it’s an important discussion to have.

I will highlight just a couple here.

1. You have low capacity to fundraise. 

“If you don’t know the basic techniques of fundraising like proper donor research, engaging and networking, and developing high-quality proposals, you will not succeed.”

I would add here that mechanisms around data collection, donor relationships, communication, volunteer recruitment/utilization/retention and others all have been low in various organizations that I have seen recently. Fundraising is not just writing a proposal – it’s having systems in place to show donors what you are doing, seeking feedback, regular communication and other things.

2. You are not putting in the hard work.

Fundraising is not rocket science, but it does require constant effort. You may be tempted to take the easy way out or focus more on other things. There are no shortcuts in fundraising and you will have to allocate significant time and effort to it to get a grant. You can also not outsource the hard work to someone else/

I think that this is a critical piece. Shortcuts (eg “please fund us because we are a nice organization doing good work and we are nice people”) has left great organizations falling seriously short of what I think that they are capable of in terms of fundraising capacity.  Somewhat unfortunately, because this works some of the time, organizations seem to be discouraged from doing the hard work to improve their systems, which perpetuates the problems, leaving them with a bit of funding, and weak systems.

How can a small organization be encouraged to make changes, if taking shortcuts works some of the time, and they don’t realize what they are missing out on by not changing systems and structures?

Thoughts?

Glad to see a bit more coverage on this issue on CBC. It’s an important discussion, and particularly timely, I think, with winter and the holidays coming up. 

Food production is responsible for up to a third of greenhouse gas emissions around the world. A recent blog post from the World Resources Institute, a global sustainability think-tank, warns that agriculture alone could raise the Earth’s average temperature more than 1.5 C above that in pre-industrial times if we don’t change our eating habits. (Bold mine)

So, here are a few of my additional thoughts.

• The article points out that these are options that “do not involve going vegan.” I appreciate that they are looking for additional options – however, going plant-based (either partly or completely) is a really important part of the discussion. Let’s see this as “more options in addition…” instead of and either-or discussion. 
• Protein (See quote below): Only thing I would add is that, in my experience, most people who eat plant-based are doing just fine for protein, even though it wasn’t noted in this study.
• Agree that those of us in cold-winter climates do not need to be eating green salads in winter.  Potatoes and other winter veggies make great soup!

Veeramani’s research found that people eating all non-vegan diets in the study — including vegetarians — were consuming 150 per cent to 250 per cent of the recommended level of protein, and 60 to 80 per cent of it was dairy, eggs, fish and meat. (Bold mine)

That’s been backed up by other studies. According to the World Resources Institute, the average person in more than 90 per cent of the world was eating more protein than they needed in 2009, and the proportion of animal-based protein in people’s diets has been growing dramatically.

This is a problem, because animal-based proteins consume more resources and generate more greenhouse gases than beans, nuts and other plant-based proteins. Producing beef uses 20 times the land and generates 20 times the emissions as producing beans, per gram of protein, the World Resources Institute reports. (Bold mine)

Here is one of the legumes that is common in our household (which I started using when I was first in the Middle East). 10 grams of protein per 1/4 cup dried. 18 grams of protein per 250 mls/1 cup cooked.

http://www.phoeniciagroup.com/en/Prod.aspx?ProdSubCatid=11&ProductID=161 

Happy sustainable eating! Thoughts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news
Starting from the agreed premise of the high cost of fake news, this BBC article takes an interesting approach to meeting and interviewing fact checkers and others involved in trying to keep news truthful and fact based.
Well worth reading. 🙂

Following up on my earlier post about some organizational struggles I have observed, here are some more thoughts. Unwillingness to talk about failure is definitely something that I have observed in a number of organizations, and it is a key piece that I think needs to change.  None of us are perfect, and no project is perfect either. How can we all genuinely learn, improve and create better projects if there is not open conversation about what worked and what didn’t work?
I’m hoping for lots of great conversations about all of the varied aspects of NGO program development – the good, bad and everything in the middle – as a path towards greater success for everyone. 🙂
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/smarter-living/talking-about-failure-is-crucial-for-growth-heres-how-to-do-it-right.html