Clark B. Montgomery Fast Company Article May, 1999

DO-GOODERS NEED NOT APPLY Dahle, C. (1999, June). Fast Company, 25, p. 50-52

Summary

Do-Gooders Need Not Apply is an article written about the philosophy and effectiveness of Bill Leeson, a co-founder of one of Great Britains most successful charities. In spite of the implications projected by the articles title, Leeson is not insensitive to the plight of the worlds needy people. To the contrary, the former film maker is not only committed to helping the less fortunate, he has been very successful in getting that accomplished.

What sets Leesons style apart from most charities is his no-nonsense and pragmatic approach to both fund raising and operations management. His drive appears to be more task oriented than ideological. Leeson isnt interested in just talking about or showing token interest in charitable work, he wants something done about it. Hence the title Do-Gooders Need Not Apply. Within the article, Leeson makes the strong implication that many in charity work, (the Do-Gooders) talk a good talk and walk a good walk, but actually accomplish very little. With that single minded purpose and a wealth of business acumen, media contacts, and a dedication to public awareness (education?), Leesons story is one of success.

Reflection

Considering myself to be a highly pragmatic and task oriented individual, the article made a great deal of sense to me. My approach to Extension work actually parallels Leesons message to a great degree. Extensions mission is similar to Leesons as regards helping people improve the quality of their lives. A further similarity involves how we both accomplish that feat. Leeson is hung up on the concept of public awareness; Extensions rhetoric is education - to me theyre both the same. Additionally, I think Ive seen many examples of peers talking the talk with seemingly little results for their efforts. I suspect that has more to do with individual, as opposed to personality, shortcomings. Where I disagree with the article (and I suspect does Leeson) is that labeling individuals with more empathetic personalities (do-gooders) as ineffective is ridiculous. All endeavors require a meld of personalities and styles to be truly successful. Certainly thats true in education, both of the instructor and the student. A serious limitation in education results from forcing instruction and students to fit the mold. Unfortunately, thats a situation thats all too common in schools, government, and workplace. Thats also too bad. Discussion

In discussion with family and friends, I find little disagreement with my thinking. Surprisingly, most were quick to agree with the idea that public education (K-12) was limiting the experience of many students through a somewhat strict adherence to traditional teaching methods. If this is such a relatively simple premise to grasp, why do we continue on the same path? # # # #

-- Anonymous, May 15, 1999

Answers

Thanks for your comments on this article. Nice job relating it to your work with Extension.

What do you think needs to be done in public education to get away from traditional teachning methods? What would you suggest?

-- Anonymous, May 20, 1999