A real debate is neededon McKinsey study

To the Editor:

Responding to my opinion piece (“McKinsey Study Shows Stunning Lapse in Logic,” May 29) as well as The Chronicle’s coverage of their Harvard Business Review article, Bill Bradley and his McKinsey co-authors continue their harmful disservice to the nonprofit sector (“McKinsey’s $100-Billion Prediction Strikes a Nerve,” June 12). They would have the reader believe that to criticize their article is to argue against increased charitable efficiency and effectiveness, as if their call to improvement is unique, previously unconsidered and unaddressed by nonprofit groups. That certainly is not the case.

It is important in any constructive dialogue that all parties approach it with a readiness to truly hear what others have to say and with a willingness to acknowledge that one’s own thinking and communication may genuinely be lacking. By this test, the McKinsey authors vitiate their proclaimed interest in this very necessary conversation while they blame their critics for resisting it.

Some — but certainly not all — of my criticism of the McKinsey authors comes from the fact that they assert in their letter to The Chronicle that prevailing fiscal dynamics “invariably reshape some of what government does” and that the best option available to nonprofit leaders is to “invest in the managerial talent” necessary to help organizations deal with the “challenges” precipitated as government turns away from responsibility for social problems. They fail to acknowledge and respond to criticism that they cast nonprofit groups as powerless service providers lacking any legitimate or necessary claim to an active voice in public-policy processes.

Without acknowledging such political struggles, the McKinsey authors try to focus attention on charities’ inefficiencies as the place to look for answers to our dilemmas.

Although they seem to know people who say “we should not question” the way charities function, I have never met a leader who would argue that there is no possibility of greater efficiency and effectiveness in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector, and that certainly is not something I suggest.

To argue with Bill Bradley and his coauthors is not to say that what they propose is unneeded and without merit. It is to say, however, that the messianic quality in McKinsey’s pursuit of its agenda denigrates nonprofit officials struggling to do better, to do more, and both damages and disheartens a charitable sector clearly committed to, and already working on, improvements in its efficiency and effectiveness.

Mark Rosenman
Distinguished Public Service Professor
Union Institute & University
Washington