A very timely post as I have been working with several large groups in China on this very issue.

For me, I give because I am good at it, and knowing that I have the capacity to help organizations help others is a passion that I work hard to pass on.

.. and any quick wins (or quasi-celebratory moments) are quickly tempered by the fact that I know how much more work still needs to be done.

r
http://www.collectiveresponsibility.org

However, there is one way in which I have provided a significant “gift” to society, and that is by forgoing perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earning potential with my intention to work either in or closely aligned with the nonprofit sector for my entire career. Having recently spent two years in business school, with its inviting recruiting tracks into investment banking, strategy consulting, and leadership development programs at CPG mega-conglomerates and insurance companies, I’ve had occasion to reflect a lot on why this might be.

To be sure, there’s a strong moral dimension to my decision: having experienced firsthand how much of a difference in a person’s life the thwarting of free markets can have, I’m eager to play my own role in advancing such work. But there’s something else, too, something perhaps not altogether selfless. And that is that working on behalf of changing the world is interesting. When I think about some my classmates who are heading off to earn six-figure salaries at The Hartford or Pepsi or UBS, in all honesty, a part of me feels sorry for them. Sorry that they don’t have anything else to live for besides the paycheck and the parties. It may cost me a pretty penny, but at least I can be confident that whatever else happens, I’ll always know that my work, the thing that I spend most of each day of most of each week of most of each year doing, is intimately aligned with who I am as a person and what I want to achieve with my life.

I certainly agree that there is a place in the human service continuum for programs such as soup kitchens. However, some of her examples reflect the tired old model of enabling and dependency, potentially doing more harm than good, that much of the sector has yet to grapple with.

Some programs will never provide outcomes but appropriately focus on outputs. However it is still quite appropriate to define the “giving” as investing in a social benefit – to feed the hungry. Nonetheless, the soup kitchen that links a client to other services that could help them beyond immediate nourishment have the potential to provide outcomes – where meaningful and lasting change may occur in people’s lives. Is that not better than the “three hots and a cot” approach?

Finally, if it is elitist to make a judgement as to egotistical and status driven giving, I stand by that elitism with pride!

Those that make extra meals and GIVE them to the homeless folks in the park or those who GIVE by working at the soup kitchen that doesn’t measure outcomes aren’t motivated by ego. Likewise, those who GIVE a dollar to a panhandler or GIVE a memorial gift or who GIVE to their church or place of spiritual sustenance without looking at outcomes aren’t superficial or shallow. There are many ways to GIVE that simply cannot and will not be replaced by the word “investing.”

I also think it’s misguided and could be easily be misinterpreted as sector “elitism” to say that some motivations are less “valid” than others. Some “givers” are motivated by investing, and others may not be. That doesn’t make their giving or their desire to give any less “valid.” That kind of message of “philanthropic” class-ism is precisely why the social investment movement has such a difficult time getting its message across positively. When visible leaders in philanthropy spend time criticizing segments of donors or segments of nonprofits instead of guiding, teaching and mentoring them, it feels petty and negative, and will eventually sour the very community and services that we are trying to improve.

Not what I’m doing to lift this sector up, that’s for sure.

You guys really believe that most philanthropists/donors/funders “spend so much time” on social benefit questions? I think there is far more focus on “personal benefit” or the counting of activities than there is on considering meaningful social benefit for the vast majority of funders (etc.) out there. My advice to Solomon and Bronfman is to beware of assuming that what you consider important is the norm!

Moving on the core issue of “giving”, I hope some day that the very term gives
(no pun intended) way to “investing”. Along the lines of what Dr. Hunter describes in his recent article: “The End of Charity”, charitable giving has associated with it the idea of uncritical and emotionally based decisions on supporting a nonprofit, rather than seeking out objective data that shows evidence of meaningful change. So when Solomon and Bronfman describe all the motivations for giving as “perfectly valid” and that understanding WHY you give will likely cause you to be more invested in your gift, I suggest that the reasons are not at all equal. Ego and self-worth motivations are not as “valid” as desiring to enhance and improve the lives of others. Social status motivations are not as valid as seeking social value. Furthermore, awareness of ones ego and social status concerns are not likely to deepen ones commitment to anything other than oneself
(unless the person finally becomes aware of how shallow and superficial they are!).

As the authors note, it is certainly true that these motivations can lead to “drastically different “approaches to “doing philanthropy”, but some are drastically more valuable and significant than others. Nonetheless, if an egotistical and status conscious donor (etc.) ends up consistently and substantially supporting high performing nonprofits, even though I think their reason for doing it stinks, more power to them!

I especially like the holistic approach that the authors are advocating – at Philanthropedia, we similarly think about philanthropy as a system that includes not just nonprofits and the value that they create, but also experts and donors. To put it differently, developing a capability to better understand and serve donors should be (and for many great organizations is) an essential part of any nonprofit’s key activities.

Glad to see there is such interest in this post and very timely. The Metro NY Philanthropic Advisors Network is delighted to be hosting Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon to discuss this very topic in more depth on Monday, November 16th at 12:00-2:00PM.

If you are in the area, or anyone interested in attending, you can find out more and register on the group website at http://www.nypan.org

Look forward to an interesting discussion!
Richard Krasney, NYPAN Co-Founder

A while back (3 years ago!), I blogged my own list – FYI here it is. I don’t think it’s changed much.

Reasons I give:

a. Someone I know asked me to give

b. I felt emotionally moved by someone’s story

c. I want to feel I’m not powerless in the face of need and can help (this is especially true during disasters)

d. I want to feel I’m changing someone’s life

e. I feel a sense of closeness to a community or group

f. I need a tax deduction

g. I want to memorialize someone (who is struggling or died of a disease, for example)

h. I was raised to give to charity – it’s tradition in my family

i. I want to be “hip” and supporting this charity (ie, wearing a yellow wrist band) is in style

j. It makes me feel connected to other people and builds my social network

k. I want to have a good image for myself/my company

l. I want to leave a legacy that perpetuates me, my ideals or my cause

m. I feel fortunate (or guilty) and want to give something back to others

n. I give for religious reasons – God wants me to share my affluence

o. I want to be seen as a leader/role model