FLiP Meets: Leslie Lenkowsky

Over the past few months, I have been thrilled to have had the opportunity to talk with Professor Lenkowsky a number of times. FLiP asked Professor Lenkowsky to answer a few of our more burning questions about his experiences in philanthropy, which he did (as you can read below) in fine style. For more information, please take a look also at the previous post, which has a short summary of Indiana's University's academic programs. 

Leslie Lenkowsky
Professor, Public Affairs and Philanthropic Studies
Director of Graduate Programs for the Center on Philanthropy

Prior to rejoining the faculty of Indiana University in January 2004, Leslie Lenkowsky served as the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service. He was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate in October 2001. Prior to joining the Indiana University faculty in 1997, Prof. Lenkowsky had served for seven years as president of Hudson Institute.

A graduate of Franklin and Marshall College, Prof. Lenkowsky received his doctorate from Harvard University. His writing has appeared in such publications as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, The Public Interest, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and the Indianapolis Business Journal, and he has spoken frequently to educational and philanthropic groups throughout the United States. He has received honorary degrees from Franklin and Marshall College, John Carroll University, and Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. He is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration.

Future Leaders in Philanthropy: How did you get involved in philanthropy?  What has been one of your most meaningful work experiences related to philanthropy?

Leslie Lenkowsky: Serendipitously.  In the mid-1970s, with my doctorate just a thesis away, I took a job in state government.  It seemed like a good idea at the time, but did not turn out that way.  Through mutual friends, the head of a foundation in New York City who was looking for a program director contacted me and I was eventually rescued from the backwater that was typical of most state capitals at the time.  I knew next to nothing about foundations or philanthropy then.  But the foundation head took a chance on me and it worked out well, I guess.  At the very least, it shaped the rest of my career.

That episode also defined what I regard as most meaningful in my work experiences.  Ultimately, philanthropy is a people-business, whether one is raising funds, giving money away, assisting the needy, or as I do now, teaching young professionals.  I receive the greatest satisfaction when my efforts contribute to helping a person succeed – as the author of an important book, the leader or staff member of an organization doing good work, a public servant, or in other ways.

One example on my mind as I write this was the support I was able to provide, through the foundation for which I worked, for a fairly obscure professor who had written an impressive article on human rights issues that I had read.  The support enabled her to establish a center and build on the themes she laid out in her article.  She was eventually appointed by President Reagan as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where she became a forceful advocate of American interests and a symbol of hope for oppressed people everywhere.  That was Jeane Kirkpatrick, who recently passed away. I could list many others.

FLiP: In the past year it has become increasingly evident that the traditional definitions of philanthropy are changing, from Google’s for-profit philanthropy to Mohammad Yunus’s social business enterprise.  Where have you seen these changing definitions in your own work, and how do you see philanthropy developing over the next 10-20 years? 

LL: When I first entered philanthropy in the 1970s, its leaders were taking great pains to distinguish it from business and to claim government as its natural ally.  This was, essentially, the theme of a major report for the U.S. Treasury, from a commission chaired by John Filer, then head of Aetna.  Those of us who argued this view was mistaken, that philanthropy was an expression of the private sector and should keep its distance from government, and moreover, that grantmakers should pay more attention to improving the health of the economy (and on the international front, the well-being of free societies), were very much a minority and pigeon-holed as “conservatives,” if not worse.

Today, not only are new philanthropists and social innovators looking much more favorably on the private sector and for-profit activities, but so too are young people throughout the world.  The reason seems simple to me:  if you are really interested in changing society, there’s no more powerful instrument for doing so than free people operating within free institutions.  And finding new ways of strengthening those institutions and using them to address the major problems vexing our world is the challenge they see for philanthropy in the future.  In any case, we’ve learned enough about government to recognize that it is susceptible to lots of problems of its own and should be kept at arms-length.

To be sure, there are lots of difficulties with this new way of thinking of philanthropy, not only to avoid some of the problems that accompany private activities (we’re not angels), but also to ensure that social and commercial purposes really do work together.  But it’s also the case, in my view, that too many leaders in philanthropy are still antipathetic toward the private sector, that commercialism remains a bad word in many parts of the nonprofit sector, and that even among the newest, largest philanthropists, the older model of a public-philanthropic partnership is still strong.  Relatively few philanthropists, for example, embrace ideas for school reform, such as vouchers or charter schools, even in an experimental way; most persist in trying to work with and through inadequate public school systems.  Perhaps generational change will alter this mind-set, but that’s a slow process.  So, if philanthropy is going to develop in the next 10-20 years, it needs to put to rest some of the blinders it put on 20-30 years ago.

FLiP: Do you have any advice for young professionals in fundraising and philanthropy who are thinking about graduate school?  What are some of the various options?

LL: There are now lots of options for graduate school in fundraising, nonprofit management, philanthropy, and social entrepreneurship.  However, most teach the tools and techniques which are important for professionals to have, but not sufficient.  Young professionals also need to develop an appreciation of the role of philanthropy in American society and elsewhere, understand its historical and philosophical roots, and be able to think in a disciplined way about how nonprofit organizations work, one which does not confuse good intentions with good outcomes  They also ought to gain real-world experience of a rigorous sort, not the usual kind of apprenticeship, but one which is focused on real (and challenging) problems, where there is a price for failure.  Finally, they need to avoid the know-it-all arrogance that accompanies the worst kind of professional development.  It’s important that young people who aspire to leadership roles in philanthropy first learn how to become good followers and collaborators with people from more modest backgrounds.  Needless to say, I think our programs at Indiana University meet these criteria, though I am sure others do as well.

In addition to graduate programs, there are now a host of opportunities for “service,” including great programs such as Teach for America and other AmeriCorps grantees.  (The Gates Foundation website has a good list of these).  The best not only provide opportunities to help others, but also often confer the greatest benefits on those who are doing the helping.  And young people should not overlook the faith-based and international groups that are doing good work, often in very difficult circumstances.  Not least important, one of the best things about philanthropy in the United States is that anyone can do it. Young people who have what they think is a good idea for a new program or organization should look for some assistance and try it.  They might fail, but they will learn from their experience.

For a young professional, this kind of experience, combined with a solid graduate education, would be excellent preparation for a career in philanthropy.

FLiP: Can you talk a bit about the Center on Philanthropy’s partner schools abroad?  How do international trends in philanthropy mirror those in the U.S., and in which ways do they remain unique?

LL: From its founding 20 years ago, the Center on Philanthropy has had a strong international outlook.  (Our first director, Bob Payton, served as an ambassador in Africa).   And since then, throughout the world, we have seen growing interest in philanthropy.  Much of this has come about as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union, of course.  But also as the democratic revolution has spread, countries are recognizing the importance of a healthy civic sector for self-government.  And as the economies in countries such as China and India have developed, their populations are looking more toward philanthropy to improve the quality of their lives, as well as provide the kinds of services that governments aren’t offering.  The U.S. remains unique in the extent to which its religious traditions shape its philanthropic ones and the degree of freedom the nonprofit sector has.  But the virtues of giving and volunteering are increasingly understood and accepted in parts of the world with very different cultural and political systems.

At the Center on Philanthropy, we are continuing our international work.  We sponsor a variety of programs aimed at teaching fundraising and nonprofit management in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Australia and elsewhere.  We are also establishing a new program aimed at “teaching the teachers” of philanthropy in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.  We have joint research projects in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.  And we have an exchange program that enables our master’s degree students to spend a semester taking courses on philanthropy at the University of Bologna in Italy.  We hope to add more of these in the future, including in Cairo and Kenya.  Not least of all, to earn a graduate degree at IU, every student has to take a course on philanthropy in a comparative or cross-cultural perspective, one version of which I teach. 

I have no doubt that important as philanthropy will continue to be in the United States, its value will be even greater in other parts of the world and it will be important for American professionals, as well as those from other countries, to understand it.  As an old professor once taught me, the person who knows just one country knows no country.