Comments on: Too Big to Fail: Large Jewish Organizations and the Imperative of Success http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/too-big-to-fail-large-jewish-organizations-and-the-imperative-of-success/ Connect. Educate. Innovate. Fri, 25 May 2012 15:45:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Not Too Small to Matter: Hybrid Organizations and the Future of Jewish Innovation | eJewish Philanthropy: The Jewish Philanthropy Blog http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/too-big-to-fail-large-jewish-organizations-and-the-imperative-of-success/comment-page-1/#comment-41497 Not Too Small to Matter: Hybrid Organizations and the Future of Jewish Innovation | eJewish Philanthropy: The Jewish Philanthropy Blog Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:19:00 +0000 http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/?p=2858#comment-41497 [...] as well. Whereas the last Jewish century has been, in part, built on a foundation laid by large community organizations that are too large to fail, the next Jewish century may very well be shaped by Jewish initiatives that may seem limited in [...] [...] as well. Whereas the last Jewish century has been, in part, built on a foundation laid by large community organizations that are too large to fail, the next Jewish century may very well be shaped by Jewish initiatives that may seem limited in [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Woocher http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/too-big-to-fail-large-jewish-organizations-and-the-imperative-of-success/comment-page-1/#comment-41478 Jonathan Woocher Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:04:32 +0000 http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/?p=2858#comment-41478 This strikes me as an instance of "eilu 'v'eilu." What I read in Seth's post is that federations and the Jewish polity for which, in Dan Elazar's terms, they serve as the "framing institutions" have performed some vital functions which may be important to maintain and renew, even in today's world. I think that's true. The capacity to aggregate resources and act in the name of the "community" (semi-fictive though it may be) to address major historic challenges is one we should not lightly dismiss as passe. Similarly, federations' ability to sustain a broad infra-structure of organizations and services that meet a wide range of needs, some glamorous, some less so, is one that the best of today's innovative start-ups may one day value. However, as Rick argues, it is by no means a given, that federations - at least as we have known them - represent the only way to carry these functions (and the values they embody) forward. The challenge federations face is to show that they are indeed still capable of doing what they once did in today's very different climate and culture. Like Seth, I'm prepared to give federations the benefit of the doubt, rather than simply write them off as hopelessly antiquated. But, I also want to remain open to new organizational forms that may emerge to do some of the things that federations have done, and perhaps others that they haven't. Some of these new forms may evolve from federations themselves as they embrace change and risk. Some may evolve from the innovation sector as it matures and addresses the challenges it will inevitably face in broadening engagement, building financial resources, coordinating efforts, and achieving sustainability. Perhaps the two will even find a meeting ground and co-create the next iteration of Jewish community. In the end, what I believe Seth, Rick, and I all agree on is that if federations are to be vital elements in the 21st century Jewish community it will be because they do not view their continued existence as a given, but rather the product of their successful transformation. This strikes me as an instance of “eilu ‘v’eilu.” What I read in Seth’s post is that federations and the Jewish polity for which, in Dan Elazar’s terms, they serve as the “framing institutions” have performed some vital functions which may be important to maintain and renew, even in today’s world. I think that’s true. The capacity to aggregate resources and act in the name of the “community” (semi-fictive though it may be) to address major historic challenges is one we should not lightly dismiss as passe. Similarly, federations’ ability to sustain a broad infra-structure of organizations and services that meet a wide range of needs, some glamorous, some less so, is one that the best of today’s innovative start-ups may one day value. However, as Rick argues, it is by no means a given, that federations – at least as we have known them – represent the only way to carry these functions (and the values they embody) forward. The challenge federations face is to show that they are indeed still capable of doing what they once did in today’s very different climate and culture. Like Seth, I’m prepared to give federations the benefit of the doubt, rather than simply write them off as hopelessly antiquated. But, I also want to remain open to new organizational forms that may emerge to do some of the things that federations have done, and perhaps others that they haven’t. Some of these new forms may evolve from federations themselves as they embrace change and risk. Some may evolve from the innovation sector as it matures and addresses the challenges it will inevitably face in broadening engagement, building financial resources, coordinating efforts, and achieving sustainability. Perhaps the two will even find a meeting ground and co-create the next iteration of Jewish community. In the end, what I believe Seth, Rick, and I all agree on is that if federations are to be vital elements in the 21st century Jewish community it will be because they do not view their continued existence as a given, but rather the product of their successful transformation.

]]> By: Richard Marker http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/too-big-to-fail-large-jewish-organizations-and-the-imperative-of-success/comment-page-1/#comment-41419 Richard Marker Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:09:06 +0000 http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/?p=2858#comment-41419 Seth, As usual you write a thoughtful piece which challenges your readers and the organizations you support. I agree with the latter part of your post more than the first part. I don't think the issue is the size of the organization which matters but the role it plays in the life of a community. If one looks at Jewish history, one sees a constant reshuffling of what is central and what is niche. Niche doesn't mean small - it means that it plays a defined [often indispensable] role in the life of a community, but not necessarily the central one. I don't know what the Federation system will look like 10 or 20 years from now but my guess is that it will be an indispensable node in the complex of Jewish life, but not necessarily the central institution. After all, the federation system only became the central address after 1967 [for all sorts of reasons]. Before then, no one assumed or treated it as THE central planning address or funding address. Or take the example of B'nai B'rith: There was a time when B'nai B'rith was the largest organization in Jewish life, considered by politicians the central address of world Jewry. That organization continues to this day, and does fine work, but no one considers it the central address. After emancipation in Europe, governments helped build central synagogues and recognized central spokesgroups - most of those institutions still exist today but few play the same dominant or unchallenged role. And these examples are just suggestive of many, many more. It is not historically or inherently obvious that the only way to provide for a thriving Jewish community in the 21st century is through sustaining the large organizations of the last 1/3 of the 20th. Maybe so, but probably not. There are so many changes that to assume that the status quo ante should define the future is a problematic proposition. I don't diminish that we are undergoing and observing changes in Jewish organizational life which are wrenching, and that any change has costs and losses. But if it turns out that the Jewish world chooses to vote with its feet and dollars and we find that smaller, targeted responses to the variety of Jewish needs and interests define this century, I am not convinced that our community cannot or will not thrive. The large organizations may re-invent themselves, they may decide to spin off some operations, they may decide that targeted subsidiaries will be more effective, government support may obviate the need for certain services... who knows? But to assume that 'thrival' depends on their survival is an interesting leap which only time will prove or disprove. Seth, As usual you write a thoughtful piece which challenges your readers and the organizations you support. I agree with the latter part of your post more than the first part. I don’t think the issue is the size of the organization which matters but the role it plays in the life of a community. If one looks at Jewish history, one sees a constant reshuffling of what is central and what is niche. Niche doesn’t mean small – it means that it plays a defined [often indispensable] role in the life of a community, but not necessarily the central one.

I don’t know what the Federation system will look like 10 or 20 years from now but my guess is that it will be an indispensable node in the complex of Jewish life, but not necessarily the central institution. After all, the federation system only became the central address after 1967 [for all sorts of reasons]. Before then, no one assumed or treated it as THE central planning address or funding address. Or take the example of B’nai B’rith: There was a time when B’nai B’rith was the largest organization in Jewish life, considered by politicians the central address of world Jewry. That organization continues to this day, and does fine work, but no one considers it the central address. After emancipation in Europe, governments helped build central synagogues and recognized central spokesgroups – most of those institutions still exist today but few play the same dominant or unchallenged role. And these examples are just suggestive of many, many more.

It is not historically or inherently obvious that the only way to provide for a thriving Jewish community in the 21st century is through sustaining the large organizations of the last 1/3 of the 20th. Maybe so, but probably not. There are so many changes that to assume that the status quo ante should define the future is a problematic proposition. I don’t diminish that we are undergoing and observing changes in Jewish organizational life which are wrenching, and that any change has costs and losses. But if it turns out that the Jewish world chooses to vote with its feet and dollars and we find that smaller, targeted responses to the variety of Jewish needs and interests define this century, I am not convinced that our community cannot or will not thrive. The large organizations may re-invent themselves, they may decide to spin off some operations, they may decide that targeted subsidiaries will be more effective, government support may obviate the need for certain services… who knows? But to assume that ‘thrival’ depends on their survival is an interesting leap which only time will prove or disprove.

]]>