When I hear guilt-ridden "digital plantation owners" divert their interest to philanthropic missions saying that they want to "give back" I ask myself, "Why did they steal in the first place?!"
To "give back" implies that something was previously "taken".
In my coaching work, I have lost count of the number of times people tell me that they want to "give back" and when I have a strong enough relationship of trust I ask them "How about giving first?"
The recent series of "The Secret Millionaire" on Channel 4, Wednesdays 9pm, is one of the most inspiring programmes I have seen since The Apprentice....in this programme, millionaires go "under cover" to the poorest regions in Britain, living as members of the impoverished communities, in order to identify worthy recipients of their donations.
Time after time...what I have noticed is that the generous-spirited but financially unsuccessful people in this series were all GIVING FIRST...the 'under-cover' millionaires pretending to be poor were all, without exception, astounded by the generosity of their poor acquaintances willing to share with them, the little they had.There is a world of difference between the attitude of "give and take" and "give and receive"...the millionaires seemed to express an attitude of "giving & taking" whereas the recipients of their donations were "giving and receiving".
Which businesses come to mind for you that are built on the model of "giving first" and "giving & receiving"? Ecademy is one.
How about your own business? Are you going to give back? or "are you giving first"?
1 comment:
I wonder if a couple of issues aren’t being conflated here or perhaps I’m missing something. Presumably the reference to “digital plantation owners” is a dig at Bill Gates, amongst others. You can say what you like about Gates (many people do) but to equate him to a slave owner does seem a little extreme. Does his success at exploiting a legal, capitalist system automatically mean he has stolen something? Does his desire to “give something back” automatically mean he has a guilty conscience? Does it lessen the importance of his donation or the good it can do? I think not.
The millionaires you refer to in “Secret Millionaire” presumably did the same thing as Gates (albeit with less success or to less of a degree) but where is your condemnation of them? From what I’ve seen of this programme there are a couple of things that should be borne in mind: firstly, it’s a television programme and its purpose is to entertain, not to tell the truth. Secondly, these millionaires are tourists – they can leave whenever they like, so in no way do they share the experience of being poor. Thirdly, and more worryingly, it seems to resurrect the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor, which I thought we’d left behind several hundred years ago.
Your posts are always thought-provoking and this one is no different but I feel the distinction you make between giving first or giving back is a false one – what matters is that the person is giving.
Post a Comment