This morning I woke up to the experience of reading a thoughtful and mixed Amazon review of my book Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind, which you can find here. Since someone who has researched Amazon reviews and how they can help or harm a book’s prospects told me that nothing except a five-star review actually helps, my first reaction was to be disappointed by this three-star review. But as I read it a second time, I was actually very pleased with it. (My equanimity was probably helped by having had so many 5-star reviews to date; thanks to everyone for posting those.)
The reviewer, someone named Liz Robinson whom I don’t believe I know, began with some praise for all the useful lessons, compelling stories, and my willingness to be self-critical. Then she pivoted to comment on some aspects of the book the seemed missing or off base. Her commentary reminded me of a review I wrote about Due Diligence, David Roodman’s excellent book on microfinance that I just re-read, and his generous and thoughtful public response to it (including things that he still disagreed with me on).
Let me briefly address Ms. Robinson’s critical comments. First, regarding issues that I did not weigh in on: In general, I limited myself in this book (and my other writings) to things that I had experiences with or strongly held views on. However, on a few issues related to race and equity, she would have liked for me to at least acknowledge certain issues, even if I did not opine on them at length. Fair enough. I might attempt to do that in a future edition.
In particular, she mentions my view that compensation for executive level positions in nonprofits (especially in medium to large size ones) should be negotiated and should take into account the needs of the executive in addition to the “market rate” for the position. Her criticism is based on an interpretation of my point to mean that executives should not negotiate hard for their full worth. In fact, I think that people with greater financial needs based on children’s educational costs, their spouse’s work (or lack thereof), historical inequities, and other factors should argue for compensation based on their full market value, if not more. Those needs are legitimate factors in the negotiation.
On the other hand, for someone like me whose wife earned an “adult” salary, who grew up in an white upper middle class American household, and who does not have children (much less children with college tuition to pay), I believe it is legitimate to factor those into an executive level compensation package. In my case, I did so by not insisting on my full market value and by giving my blessing to occasionally having other senior staff with greater needs be more highly paid than I was as the CEO. Perhaps some additional nuance about my views would have improved the book and addressed her concerns.
I don’t believe these need-based factors are relevant for compensation for lower level positions in nonprofits. Executive salaries are usually in excess of what a person needs to live on a month-to-month basis. How much more they should receive beyond their basic needs (with appropriate adjustments for cost of living in expensive urban environments) should be decided upon in a negotiation where their needs are factored in. For entry-level or mid-level positions, the market rate and the experience of the applicant should be the main (and probably only) drivers of the agreed-upon compensation package.
Ms. Robinson also wished I would have addressed or at least acknowledged the advantages I had as a white male from a rich country in my fundraising successes. While I did mention my privilege briefly at the very end of the book, I agree that additional emphasis on this issue would have been appropriate. (I should also mention that the first edition of the book was completed before the overdue racial justice awakening of 2020.)
Being a white male from the United States certainly worked to my advantage professionally in many ways. It probably also worked to my disadvantage on occasion. Without a doubt, my background has been (and continues to be) a big net plus overall, a clear unearned privilege that I enjoy. That said, it is widely acknowledged that women make the most successful fundraisers. I think some of my effectiveness in raising money came from gradually drawing from some of the feminine qualities that make women so much better. The realities experienced by people of color as fundraisers and nonprofit leaders is not something I feel qualified to comment on, but I have found articles on this subject in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and elsewhere edifying and I encourage others to explore them as I have.
As I noted above, I did take up the issue of my privilege briefly at the very end of my book. Drawing on a comment my doctor made about my good health when he said it was due to “good habits, good genes, and good luck,” I expressed the view that my professional accomplishments were due to a combination of good habits, unearned privilege, and dumb luck. I then told the reader that my book was about the one of those three factors that people have control over – their habits and more generally, their actions.
Ms. Robinson was fair in saying that the book she wanted me to write is different from the one I actually felt qualified and motivated to write (and that made it past my editor’s cuts). She was also correct that at least acknowledging some of these issues more than I did would have made the book more complete.
Thanks for this feedback and I hope to get more from readers around the world in the months ahead.