Interviewee: Donald J. Keller
Interviewer: Edith C. Bjornson
Session 1, Part 2
October 29, 2003
New York, New York
Q: …John and Carolyn came in, and I think they were just an amazingly perfect community-building entity.
[Interruption]
Q: Leadership. I want to talk to you about leadership, both leadership of the Chaplaincy, but also in your considerable business experience, you would have seen, I would think, some instances where leadership is leadership for the good, and where leadership is falling short. So here you walk into this small important but nascent organization. How were you looking at leadership?
Keller: Well, the focus at that point in time was to make sure that there was some orderly succession for John and Carolyn. Not that they were going to leave the Chaplaincy totally, but that they had other things that they were interested in, and at some point in time, obviously, they would have to be replaced. And it did not appear that there was anybody in the organization that would want to or really could assume those responsibilities.
So it was kind of a dual focus when I came in, which was to, at John and Carolyn’s suggestion, to be sure that there was a succession plan within the organization, and then also to, which went right along with that, to map out the future of this organization. What was it going to be? What was it going to become? Was it always going to be like it was? Was it going to stay the same size as it was? Was it going to grow? If it grew, how was it going to grow? Were there parts of it which were more important than other parts? And that all got, hopefully, got incorporated into this strategic plan, this long-range plan.
Q: Were you already training chaplains then, or just hiring and placing?
Keller: Yes, we were training chaplains. I thought of the organization then as three-pronged, and the most important one being, in my mind—and I probably wasn’t exactly right—was the actual in-hospital work and service of the chaplains. But secondly, there was a need to train these chaplains, and so, I mean, you could almost look at it as a co-equal need. And there were the CPE [Clinical Pastoral Education] units being taught at that point in time.
And then there was kind of a third area, which was, can we develop any research that will say, “Yes, this work that we do really does work. It really is effective, it really helps”? And so there was kind of, I’ll call it a nascent urge to see if we could become a research organization, too. And those were the three. Those were the three, as I recall, the three arms of the Chaplaincy.
Q: So when you consider the bedside, what did that consist of at that point?
Keller: Well, I think it was very much like today. I mean, I don’t think that that’s changed dramatically. I don’t think it’s changed that much. It actually oversimplified, you take a person of faith who is then trained in, for lack of a better word, the psychology of helping people who are either ill or deathly ill or depressed or who just need a lift, you know. And, I mean, there are some wonderful religious, spiritual people who I think would probably say, “I can’t do that. I don’t have the training to help somebody who’s terribly ill.” So the CPE units that taught these skills were really, I think, really a second major contribution of the Chaplaincy. I don’t think that—I mean, it raised the level of efficacy in working with people who are ill.
Q: I can imagine that just getting that part organized had to have been difficult, and you must have hired some chaplains. You weren’t training them all, were you?
Keller: Yes, I think they were hiring chaplains, but the mission of the Chaplaincy was to train people, if not for their own selves, for other people. People were trained here and moved on to work in Cleveland, or to work in Chicago, or to work someplace else. I don’t know where some of the stalwarts who were part of the Chaplaincy, like George Handzo, were trained. I don’t know if they were trained here or trained someplace else.
Q: In George’s case, they were not. Do you remember Sister Elaine [Goodell]?
Keller: Oh, I sure do.
Q: You know, she’s still here.
Keller: Is she?
Q: Absolutely.
Keller: Marvelous person.
Q: She is, without doubt.
So you are chairman, and developing some sort of strategy for the future is what you clearly understand you need to do, so how do you go about doing that?
Keller: Well, we had a board member who had had some training in planning. We were talking about it the other day, Edee, I think his name is Bob Langley.
Q: Longley [phonetic].
Keller: Longley. Bob Longley. And Bob had been, I believe, with the Morgan Bank.
Q: Right. He ran their foundation.
Keller: Right. And we hired him as a consultant, and he and I worked together to kind of put the structure of this plan together.
Q: You mentioned earlier that you had some background in strategic planning. Tell me about that.
Keller: Well, I think I said that every large organization needs to define where it’s going to be in the future. You can’t just live day to day. And so there are kind of two or three principal tasks. You have to set some objectives, what kind of business you want to be. Do you want to be—I’ll use a simple example. If you’re in the coffee business, do you just want to be in the coffee business, or do you want to be in the tea business, in the bottled water business, and in the soda business? And if you want to be in all four of those businesses, you’re going to do different things than if you just staying the coffee business. So you need to define what the shape of your business is going to be. That’s kind of one piece.
And then you need to set some objectives, how big you want to be, how much you want to grow, what’s practical. And then kind of the third piece is you need to put the programs in place that are going to get you from where you are to where you need to be.
And the Chaplaincy is, I don’t think, much different than that. It needed to be sure that it was doing—that the role that it was playing, which was focused on in-hospital bedside care, training chaplains to do that, and on a smaller piece, on the research that would demonstrate the efficacy of the whole thing, is that what it wanted to be into the future?
And then the second thing is the growth aspect. Did it want to stay the size it was? Could it survive if it stayed the size that it was? Did it need to get bigger? Did it need to get more participation with more institutions? If it did that, how is it going to fund it? So we tried to address those issues along with the issue of management succession.
And the plan that came out was really relatively simple. It was not complex. It probably was effective for not terribly long, for a couple of years or something like that. Then new management came in, that management clearly had to have its vision of what it wanted the Chaplaincy to be executed. But I think we were able to kind of shape the mission of the Chaplaincy and to define how it would get there, and I think that was helpful.
Q: The mission of the Chaplaincy really still does follow exactly those same three elements that you identified now, many years ago, more than twenty.
Keller: And that was there when I arrived, so clearly those were enduring goals and principles. They’ve stayed.
Q: Do you feel that they are as important to the future of the Chaplaincy from now forward as they have been up till now? The importance of a trained chaplain at the bedside, the importance of training those chaplains in that skill which makes them present in disaster, and the need to establish by good scientific research that it does make a difference to approach people in this way?
Keller: Well, I think that’s the essence of it. I can’t think that anything else would be as important as the actual help to the patients and the training of the people so that they are able to give that help. And then to back that up, if you can, with something that says, you know, people really do better when they are treated spiritually as well as physically. So, yes, I think that’s exactly where we should be.
Q: Do you think that going forward, with all of the changes in healthcare and in our societal circumstances, that there is a place for the Chaplaincy going forward?
Keller: Well, I think so. A lot of the changes in healthcare today, of course, are technologically driven and educationally driven. The skills that are available today and the technologies that are available today weren’t available maybe even two years ago or five years ago, certainly not ten or twenty years ago. But I don’t think that has anything really very much to do with the nourishment of the spiritual side of a person.
And then all the other changes that are economically driven, all of the Medicare kinds of issues, or prescription drug issues, or the government funding of these things, which are enormously complex and very difficult problems to solve, I don’t think that has anything to do with, as John would say, treating the whole person. So, yes, I think this role will continue.
Q: Okay. So, now, here you are, you’re on the board, and you’re going to execute a strategic plan, and you have a consultant who is a confrere, and can work with you on it. How did you organize to do this? Did you involve staff, did you break up into small groups, did you identify areas in which you needed to explore? How did you do it?
Keller: Well, I think that was one of the principal roles of Bob Longley, which is that he interviewed all of the existing staff from the Chaplaincy about what they thought the Chaplaincy should be. And he also interviewed the hospitals, and I think probably both the medical side of the hospitals and the social—quote—“social work” side of the hospital, as to what their needs were and what did they see as the role of the Chaplaincy. He may also have talked to supporters, to contributors. I don’t recall.
But out of that came an affirmation, I think, of the role of the Chaplaincy, and so in some ways it was the process of putting this down on a piece of paper and making sure that everybody was reading the same page and going in the same direction.
And, of course, the leadership that John and Carolyn provided, the inspiration, I think the clear vision that they had as to what this organization should be, was terribly important. You talked about leadership a few minutes ago. Leadership is really having a vision of what you want to do and then being able to help people, inspire people, to do it, and to get groups of people to work together, to work towards the same goals. And John and Carolyn were not only able to do that, I think they were loved by the people. They still are loved by the people who are part of the Chaplaincy.
And I would say the same thing today about Walter, who’s been—I mean, this Chaplaincy today is very much what it is because of Walter and his influence and his ability to really think big about what it ought to be and what it ought to do, and to then execute against it, raise the money, build the programs, hire the people. He’s made a remarkable contribution.
Q: So when you were thinking, back then, about how to choose leadership that would succeed John and Carolyn, what do you remember about the conversation? What can you tell us about the way you were thinking, what sort of leader?
Keller: Well, I don’t recall any specific criteria, except that we thought that the person should have, if not a religious background, it should at least be a lay person who believed in the need of treating the whole person, the spirit as well as the spirituality of the person, as well as the physical aspects. So it would not have done to bring somebody in—clearly it would not have done to bring somebody in who didn’t have those beliefs. But beyond that, I don’t think—we didn’t say, well, “He should have three years of experience in this,” or, “She should have four years of experience in that.” And we interviewed not many candidates; I think only three. And that led to the hiring of Walter.
Q: It’s interesting to me, and I wish you’d speak about this. One doesn’t like to think of an organization with a mission that this one has as a business, and yet it has assets, and it has needs, and it has cash flow, and it needs endowment, it needs all those business things which require a certain set of skills, as well as it is a school.
Keller: Right.
Q: It is an academy. So how were you thinking about getting the combination of such skills? I mean, John had a business degree and was a business man in a very serious way, in spite of his ministry. So how were you thinking about that, and how do you think we should be thinking about that going forward?
Keller: I’m not sure that I know how we were thinking about it as a board. You deal with those issues by being sure, by trying to be certain, that the right people are in place; the right people to lead the academy portion of the Chaplaincy; the right people to raise the money to fund the Chaplaincy; the right people to make sure that we are very careful with other people’s money, that it is well accounted for, that it is well spent. And so all of those things fell pretty much under the auspices of John and Carolyn when they ran the Chaplaincy; they chose the people who were to manage the different sectors. And then Walter, when he came in and became chief executive, he chose the people. And the board had an oversight role in that regard, but it did not—it was not the hands-on manager.
Q: Talk to me a little bit about the role of the board. Not-for-profit boards often have a rather poor reputation for actually being careful and following in the spirit of stewardship, following as carefully as they should what management is doing. What was your view of the board and your assessment of its sort of style?
Keller: Well, I thought it was a very collegial kind of a board. I mean, everybody liked everybody else, everybody got along. Unlike some other situations I’ve been involved in, they really wanted to help each other and to help this place succeed.
But I think, probably like most philanthropic organizations, it was less hands-on in terms of the day-to-day operation of the Chaplaincy than business boards, who I think get a little deeper, a little more deeply into the businesses they are responsible for.
But there were board members, for example, who were very essential to certain kinds of fundraising because of the contacts that they had, because of the people that they knew. There were board members who, again because of contacts, could recommend other board members who would become involved and take the Chaplaincy to the next step. And there were those who were friends of, or knew people who would be suitable to be honored by the Chaplaincy at the dinner, which came long later. There was not a dinner when I was chairman. Oh, yes, there was a dinner. That’s right. There was a dinner, because I had to run it for a couple of years.
Q: Was that when it was at the U.N.?
Keller: No, it was not. It was, I think, the first years that we went to the Pierre, and I remember being absolutely amazed at looking out at that room and seeing that it was full. Every chair was filled, every table had every chair it could hold, and it was a rousing success.
Q: You must have felt very good about that.
Keller: Well, I did, I did.
Q: Did you find—for example, you speak about all the different skills and associations that were knit on the board. As chairman, did you feel that you got the kind of help and support you needed?
Keller: Yes, yes, yes.
Q: Because there was a lot going on.
Keller: There was, there was. And, you know, this is a part-time obligation. You don’t do this for a living, or you don’t do this ten or twelve hours a day, so you very much need other people who can commit their time and who can help. I thought it was an effective board.
Q: I think it has a reputation for having been, and I think that seems to sustain. I mean, it seems to be true even now, that the board is very involved, uncommonly involved, for a not-for-profit.
Keller: Yes, yes.
Q: So, do you remember meeting Walter?
Keller: Oh, yes.
Q: Tell me about that.
Keller: Well, we had arranged some interviews, I think they were at the University Club, I’m not sure. I remember a lot of wainscoting and dark wood. And I think we kind of went through the typical process of talking about a person’s background, what had they done, and it’s a little bit different, but how successful had they been at what they had done. And it became clear that Walter had been very successful, but was looking for a change, was looking for something else to do.
I’m not sure who he talked to—I think he could tell us—but somebody said to him, “You know, you’ve said you want to move on and do something different. There’s this organization down in New York,” because I think he was up at Connecticut, he was at either Fairfield College or someplace like that, and, “There’s this organization down in New York called the Hospital Chaplaincy, which is looking for a director. You, Walter, have had a long-term interest in health, you’ve had a long-term interest in—obviously your life is devoted to spirituality, and maybe this would be a good marriage.”
And I think whoever that was that talked with him had really captured Walter’s interest and had sold him that this would be something that he could make an enormous contribution to, and that he would enjoy, because I remember, I don’t think we sold very hard, and he joined the organization.
Q: Did you have reservations about his association with the Jesuit—
Keller: Well, I—the answer is yes. They weren’t personal reservations. I wanted to be sure that the staff of the Chaplaincy and the organizations that we served felt comfortable with somebody coming from a specific religion in a community that was representing many, many religions. And I wanted to be sure that we didn’t become a single religious entity and that the diversity that was there would continue, and that that diversity would accept somebody, a Jesuit, as their leader.
And I don’t know exactly how we did that. I think we talked to people about, “How would you feel about this?” And I think overwhelmingly the reaction came back, “That’s fine,” and so we moved forward.
Q: I think that’s such an issue. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying a stumbling block; I think it’s such an issue. For example, we have recently hired a new development director who is also a minister, and we’ve had considerable conversation about, you know, is everybody in the place going to be a minister of something, or do we need to be careful that there are enough lay people both on staff and on the board. How would you think about that?
Keller: Well, my quick reaction is that it probably is a good thing to be aware of, not to be concerned about, really, but to be aware of, and to try to get a balance between lay people and people whose professional careers are as a religious person. I think it would be good to have a balance, and certainly we need to have a balance between various faith groups, I think, if we can, that that’s always helpful. I mean, the Chaplaincy in later years has moved to recognize that by establishing—and I’m not going to get the name right, Edee, but the—
Q: The Jewish Institute.
Keller: The Jewish Institute, which is unusual in an organization that is multifaith, but I gather it’s working.
Q: It certainly seems to be in the sense that it recognizes that there are certain systemic concerns and background among the three divisions of Judaism, which, at least at this stage in their development, seems to preclude their interest in working outside the Jewish community. In fact, they laugh and say, you know, the institute, with its three approaches to the Jewish faith, is—
Keller: Multifaith. [Laughter]
Q: —multifaith already, which I think is sort of interesting.
I’m concerned about the business skills that an organization like this requires, and I think particularly it is a piece of growth in the sense of, how big do you want to be, how big can you be, and still be true to the mission. What are your own thoughts about the size of the Chaplaincy, the reach of the Chaplaincy? And then I’ll ask the other part separately.
Keller: Well, at one point in time, there was consideration of whether or not this organization should operate outside of the New York metropolitan area, and if it were to try to do that, how would it grow? How would that happen? How could you accomplish that? How could you attract member institutions outside of the metropolitan area? And I recall a lot of concern about being too big, becoming impersonal, becoming overburdened with administrative tasks, and kind of losing the personal aspects of the Chaplaincy.
Now, it has grown enormously in terms of the number of member institutions and its budget and what it is doing. I don’t have an answer as to how big it should be, or if it could be successfully replicated, let’s say, in Philadelphia, or Boston, which are not too far away. I don’t know.
Typically, organizations begin to falter, whether they’re business organizations or whatever, when they lose their focus, when they try to become too many things. Lots of the problems that we see today are because people—in the business world—are because people thought that they could put together a conglomeration of things and run anything and make it work. And we’re finding that they’re unbundling those things that they put together; the new management is undoing what the old management did.
So I would be careful, just personally. And I’m only speaking as a principle, I don’t have specific knowledge, but as a principle I’d be careful about trying to go too far and do too much, and perhaps lose my focus.
Q: Can you imagine a business case, a support case, that is different from the hospitals paying for the Chaplaincy, either the chaplains who are placed in the hospitals or the kind of model that we’ve worked under where the Chaplaincy is managing the quality of the chaplaincy service in the hospital as a sort of contract basis? Are there ways of thinking about other financial models, do you think?
Keller: There may be, but I think that it’s important that the hospitals and the caregiving institutions make a financial commitment to the Chaplaincy, because if they do make a financial commitment, they are much more likely to support it in other ways. And if you put your money into something, you take an interest in it and generally are supportive. So I think their participation from a financial standpoint is very important. And I can’t think of a way to fund this organization without their help, without their involvement.
Q: Do you remember—was his name David Skinner? Do you remember him?
Keller: Yes, I do.
Q: You know, that was one of the very early institutions, and he was a champion. John and Carolyn went out to Chicago before he actually came, when he was going to head NewYork-Cornell, and he was a huge supporter of the Chaplaincy. Now that organization has decided that they can run their chaplaincy services on their own and are attempting to do that. Do you have a point of view about a hospital attempting just to sort of take it over and not acknowledging or feeling that the HealthCare Chaplaincy brings them something they can’t do on their own?
Keller: Well, I think it’s—again, this is just off the top of my head—I think it’s very difficult to succeed in a business that you’ve never really been in, and I would much rather have somebody whose life is devoted to that particular skill and calling do it for me than to try to do it myself. I would certainly feel that way.
Q: That’s interesting. One of the hospital administrators is quoted as having said, “What do I know about managing a priest?” which I thought was—
Keller: Probably not very much.
Q: Probably not.
Okay, so shall we go to a new tape? Because we’ve got lots of stuff still to talk about. And I will tell you what I want to talk about specifically.
