Rachel West, BBA 2018
Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Philanthropy and the Public Good. While seemingly different titles and different structures, both have helped equip me with tools that have helped me channel my idealism into a pragmatic, effective manner. I just really love when my classes overlap.
In my Negotiation and Conflict Resolution course, our teacher posed the argument that there does not have to be a winner and a loser in a negotiation, rather, there is a possibility that both partners can win if they engage in a collaborative and effective manner. Through collaboration, there is an opportunity to “expand the pie.” In other words, through creativity and a willingness to serve one another’s interests, often the size of the “reward” can become greater for each party without the other having to suffer a loss. I saw this unfold in my Philanthropy and the Public Good Last Friday.
My class is set up with a $50,000 sum, with $10,000 going to each of four groups to allocate as they wish. However, each group has an opportunity to campaign for a final $10,000 at the end of the semester for the organization of their choice.
One would think that this would result in four different pitches for the “grand prize.” However, three groups realized that they were all passionate about the same organization, and prioritized the final $10,000 to be allocated in the same way.
My group prioritized another organization. Oops.
Fortunately for America (and unfortunately for us when it comes to narrowing it down), there are countless organizations who do a lot of “good.” There is no objective way to rank one act of service greater than another, as it is possible to make an argument for the good in just about every cause. Some see more value in art, some see more value in education, and some see more value in health. Different people prioritizing different needs doesn’t mean one person is right and the other is wrong, but it makes it very difficult to make a decision in which everyone is satisfied. This is where things began looking bleak for my group.
Since all of the other groups rallied together around the same cause, my group was concerned that our cause would not be considered for the additional grant due to our small tribe of people. Since it is difficult to rank the “good done” by one organization over another, we were worried that the decision for the allocation of the grant would be based upon sheer numbers. Luckily, there were people that began thinking outside of the box.
There is an option for the class to receive an additional $10,000 at the end of the semester if the President of Baylor attends the grant giving ceremony. Traditionally, the class would vote to allocate the remaining money. However, there was an opportunity for both groups to “win.”
Rather than the other groups securing the grant for their desired organization and our group walking away with nothing, Dr. Hogue proposed a third option: we all collaborate and everyone wins. If our class all voted to grant the initial $10,000 to the majority group’s chosen organization, the additional $10,000 at the end of the year could be allocated to my group’s chosen organization. More importantly, everyone could effectively channel their desire to see change in Waco through funding causes we believed in, without having to sacrifice our priorities in what we think would lead to the empowerment of a community.
$20,000 pie tastes so much sweeter than $10,000 pie.