Some books are just incredibly thought-provoking. I was recently referred to The Language of Conscience by two good friends whom I highly respect. So I ordered it and have been reading it (it is one of those books you do not finish in a couple of hours). And I am intrigued. I am not sure I fully understand all of the concepts — and I think I agree with most of the premises. But I am still thinking about it. The author, Tieman “Skipper” Dippel, Jr., sounds like a fascinating man. So I thought I’d share a bit — possibly to whet your appetite as well. Here are some quotes from the book:

“Conscience is good for society and civilization whether it is taught or whether it is instinctive. . . It is important to look at conscience as if it were a muscle or a nerve. The more you exercise it and the more you sensitize it, the more effective it is going to be.”

Tielman uses the term, “enlightened conservatism”, but do not think that he is talking about political conservatism — otherwise your assumptions and associations will lead you astray. “Enlightened conservatism, as a concept, is well described as trying create an environment in which ethical actions of character can best be performed. . . the character of choice of conscience and concern for others prevails over-self-interest.”

He goes on to contrast decisions made through convenience versus decisions made through conscience. “(D)isciples of conscience look to the future and their children to build a greater society. The disciples of convenience look more to their gains at the present. . . Leaders of convenience often have to step on teh people below them and pull down the people above them. Their weapons are personal attacks, distraction, and the negative emotions. Leaders of conscience use constructive leadership to help others move forward positively. . . Their weapons have to be integrity of purpose and devotion to common goals.”

“In order to achieve the common good, the world’s people must reach the point of saying, ‘What do I think about that?’ rather than just ‘How do I feel about that?’ . . It is in reasoning together in toleration and in appreciation of common values and common moral codes that one can seek the common good by looking beyond personal self-interest and past historical prejudices.”

Note that the book is actually a compilation of papers written and lectures given from the 1970s to early part of the twenty-first century. Tielman shows an amazing foresight on a number of issues:

“I do not see the future as being dominated so much by clashes of great ideologies such as capitalism vs. communism, as by more subtle but extremely potent influences on the culture that determines civilization’s direction. The new subtle concept is victimization and victimhood. It argues that society owes more than basic rights and that government should grow in order to fill those rights.”

“The right question is not whether you want big government or small government. The right question is what should be the role of government as the expression of the combined will of the people in regard not just to the protection of individual rights and dignity, but to the granting of economic benefits on the concept of victimization vs. individual responsibility.

“Character is the acceptance of individual responsibility. . . You cannot build character and courage by taking away initiative and independence, and you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.”

He then quotes Theodore Roosevelt: “The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.” Wow. And that was state over 100 years ago.

He later comments on the Internet. “One of the Internet’s great benefits is that it will make information readily available to an enormous quantity of people on an individual basis. But, it is a double-edged sword since one benefit and detriment of the Internet is that it will provide information easily available to an enormous quantity of people on an immediate basis. With quick availability to information, people will feel less of a need to read books and to think about the concepts that help them remember those individual parcels of date and weave them together. Without the knowledge that is gained from in-depth thought, it is difficult to gain the wisdom of how to use the ever-increasing amounts of data.”

“it will likely occur in an information age that will have two parts — an age of knowledge that expands rapidly with the dissemination of information. And than an age of wisdom necessary to process the excess of information where trust and experience are very valued and character re-emerges. . . Wisdom requires a perspective, a very basic position from which to make judgments. It is at this point that leadership becomes particularly critical in providing guidance and direction. Leadership defines culture and thereby defines civilization, and whether those leaders are directed by conscience or merely by their own convenience will determine the direction that civilization will take. . . The contrast of the Renaissance and the Dark Ages shows that leadership can move culture both ways.”

There is much more thought-provoking (to me) content — and incredible foresight on issues regarding China, the movement of politics in the U.S., and the increasing role of non-profit organizations in our culture. I would highly recommend this book to others who are trying to make sense of the macro-economic, cultural and political confusion which seems to exist.

[A final side-note: This book has been translated into Chinese and reportedly is one of the few Western books used as a text in Chinese universities.]

There is an increasing emphasis on the inter-relatedness between the process of making money (whether through active business activities or through investments) and also having a positive impact on one’s community (either at the local, national or global level). The focus, along with developing opportunities, applies to individuals and families, small businesses, corporations, and family foundations.

Let me share with you some recent developments from a variety of social arenas, and also resources available, if you are interested in finding out more.

At the corporate and business level. This past week Indra Nooyi, the CEO of PepsiCo, shared her thoughts about the need for corporations to redefine what true profit is. She suggested that a company’s “real profit” is revenue, less costs of goods sold, less the costs to society. Ms. Nooyi stated, “companies can do well, long term, only if the socieities in which they operate also do well.”

Additionally, others like Dov Seidman [author of How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in Life)], propose that companies who behave ethically will also eventually outperform their competitors financially. For an introduction to his thoughts, see the February 8, 2010 article in Forbes entitled “Why Doing Good is Good for Business.”

At the individual and family level. Given the disappointment with the banking industry, their struggles with ethical behavior and seeming lack of interest in anything except pure financial return, individual investors are looking for alternatives. Recently, I was exposed to the concept of community development banks — whose mission is to not only provide a financial return for their investors but also to invest in their communities. They do this at multiple levels — providing small business loans to help businesses grow, being involved in microfinance lending for start-up entrepreneurs, investing in community projects such as Boys & Girls clubs, providing education and training for small business owners, giving loans for education, investing in the local educational systems; the list goes on. An excellent example and leader in this area is Southern Bancorp, who is having a dramatic impact in the Mississippi delta areas in Arkansas and Mississippi. [Note: you don’t have to live in the area to bank there. For example, we are moving our personal money market account from a national financial institution to Southern Bancorp — where we will earn market-rate (or better) interest while Southern will use the money in community development projects.]

From the family foundation and philanthropic perspective. For decades, family foundations and private foundations have emphasized aligning their financial investments with their values. This led to the development of “socially responsible investing” — not investing in companies whose business was not consistent with the family’s or institution’s values (for example, who made products related to military weapons, whose processes seriously damaged the environment, or were related to alcohol, tobacco or gambling).

Further developments have included mission-related and program-related investments — where the foundations proactively invest in companies who are aligned with the foundation’s mission (e.g. companies who are creating technologies applicable for developing countries, or companies developing charter schools). For an excellent introduction, see the publication “Mission Related Investing” published by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

A third wave has been the focus on social entrepreneurs — helping individuals who are both entrepreneurial (in the business sense) but who are also impacting their communities at the social level — through job creation, education and training, creating products using local renewable resources. I have had the prvilege of working with Charly and Lisa Kleissner and their family over the past nine years, as their family coach. Charly and Lisa have become leaders in the area of social entrepreneurship — and I have gotten to see, hear and learn from them in their work in this area. Go to www.socialimpact.com for great resources and to gain an understanding of social entrepreneurs. [I can’t give a sufficient introduction here — it is too big of a topic.]

Finally, a new area of “doing good” while making money is the arena of “Impact Investing”. Historically, foundations viewed socially-responsible investments in their investment portfolio, as an area where they would be willing to earn less (say 2% versus 5%) on their investments. However, there is a new movement among philanthropic investors who are demonstrating that socially-responsible investments (e.g. in long-term sustainable timber production) that not only have a positive social return but also can meet or exceed the financial returns compared to their investment allocation benchmarks.

Again, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, along with Lisa and Charly Kleissner, Raul Pomares and others, have produced a thorough introduction to the topic, entitled, “Solutions for Impact Investors“. Also, the Kleissner’s foundation website provides a great introduction to the topic. Go to www.klfelicitasfoundation.org and hit the button regarding their investment strategy.

I know I have thrown a lot of information and topics out there in this entry — but they are all inter-related and I wanted to give people starting points for investigating, exploring and learning about the new resources that are becoming available. (It feels sort of like doing the abridged version of all Shakespeare’s works in 30 minutes.)

Hopefully, I will be able to “circle back” and give a more in depth discussion of some of the areas. In the meantime, enjoy exploring!