ramsarya said:
Dear Raj:
Bhai, bare dina main dikhya. Kit jaa rhya tha?
The approach you suggest (setting up of a cash cow and then the rest) is workable but I think you will need a really really dedicated team approach. I think it is better to set up the non-profit first as it builds the character of the team and you will find out who is standing with you till the end. You can always find people to run a cash cow but it is harder to find the right people for the charitable work. Once the people have faith in what you are trying to accomplish, they will be with you by and large. This way you have set up the agenda the right way and have built the right team. Just the promises are not enough. We Indians, specially back home, will never say no to anything, will promise what you want to hear. I do not think it is a character flaw but lot of awkward situaions can arise, once the promised work is not done and you took them at their word and relied on it.
If you set up the money making institution first, then your team will be used to the good life and the perks and you yourself might be so tired (mentally and physically) that the idea of setting up the charitable institution might take a back seat. Now imagine the people running the first charitable institution, knowing fully well that the "for profit" institution is a must for the survival of the first institution and thus they will have much more at stake and keen to run the 2nd properly.
Hersh Kumar from Houston is doing what you are thinking and has set up a "for profit" school in Gurgaon. Him and his wife have 3-4 Montessory schools in Houston area and are doing very well financially. He has promised me that once his first school in India is up and running and starts making money, he will help other charitable institutions or start some. I certainly hope that it turns out to be true.
So, let us wait 5 to 10 years and watch both types of programs and hope that both are successful and are of benefit to the community.
Key bataoon Arya Chacha! Ya gareebi panda koni chodd-tee. Panda
choodan ke chakar mein, I moved to a new more visible, business
oriented position within my company. I decided to try the "Stick your
neck out. Not guts, no glory approach", and now I am facing the
consequences. Bottom line: The goolam gets to do more for less.
You are definitely on target about the importance of having the
right team. I suppose that is universally true no matter what
endeavor we undertake. And it really is damn hard to find
the right people. We see these issues every day in the corporate
world. And what is even more agonising than finding the right
people, is management's all too common inability to recognise them
and keep them happy. Many times organisations adopt the
"keep everyone happy" approach, which we all know translates into
that story where the donkey got to sit on the owner's head.
I guess you are right in some ways regarding the need to find
the right people for the charitable work *first*. However, my
take on this is a bit different. Perhaps this is because I
keep thinking in terms of the large corporate world, where
people come and go. People's circumstances change, their
motivations and goals change, even their risk-reward equations
change. In such an environment one just has to learn to live
with this perpetual change, and give up the idea of a team that
will stick around forever.
Hence, I differ with your views here as to the best way
to go: (cash cow -> charity) or (charity -> cash cow). Of course,
the end goal is the same: set up an organisation that can funnel
resources to social work efforts. Also, the (charity -> cash cow)
approach might seem to be painfully slow to get to where one
wants to go. And then it pretty much banks on a few chosen
people sticking around.
But, Arya Chacha, you've been there and done that. You speak
from experience. And there is plenty of practicality in your
approach too. Taking on smaller more readily controlled
projects and one's that aren't all that "juicy" allow us the opportunity
to size up a team. To figure out the "kaun kitne paani mein" before
betting the house on these pople. So I agree that this approach too has
its advantages.
Hence, in that regard I agree with you.
[ See how ambiguous I can be! Ha ha! Haan bhi err na bhi.
Kitni jaldi palta maar liya.
]
I suppose What would be interesting to learn about is how
philanthropists establish charitable organisations that outlast
them, yet continue to run on the vision that had been set by the
founder/benefactor. In the western world, I assume such setups
have tight legal safeguards to ensure that execution is performed
on the lines setup by the benefactor.
But, of course, all that is in context of very legalised and
organised setups which probably don't apply to the Indian
context.
I do agree with you regarding our Indian's reluctance to clearly
say "No". It is so very true. I just haven't been able to ever
come to terms with that aspect of Desi character, and I find
it immensely frustrating. I on the other hand find myself leaning
a bit too much on the "pessimistic" side: I say "Yes" only when I
can clearly do something, otherwise I lean towards the "No", or a
"Yes" with all the ifs and buts attached.
What happens then is that people think I am unwilling to
help, or any other negative connotations that a clear "No"
or conditional "Yes" carries.
It was interesting to learn about Hersh Kumar and his
efforts. We definitely wish him the best.
Also it was great to learn about Col. Jagmohan joining
your team. I think he'll be a great asset to your efforts
and I wish him the best as well.
