Comments on: The Guilt of the Social Investor http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8636 Sean Stannard-Stockton Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:52:19 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8636 Bill, Seven Faces is a great book. I understand that new research is currently being conducted that is designed to build on and update Seven Faces (which was published in 1994. A lot has changed since then and it will be interesting to see if the new research captures the motivations of people like Martin. Bill, Seven Faces is a great book. I understand that new research is currently being conducted that is designed to build on and update Seven Faces (which was published in 1994. A lot has changed since then and it will be interesting to see if the new research captures the motivations of people like Martin.

]]> By: Bill Huddleston http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8635 Bill Huddleston Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:40:34 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8635 Sean, There are many motivations for charitable giving, and one of the best books that identified the most important ones is “The Seven Faces of Philanthropy” by Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru File. While it focuses on major gift donors I have found the framework to be valuable at all levels, including at the annual fund and workplace giving arenas. The book gets my prize for “best summation of a book by just reading the chapter titles, and here they are: Part I – Profiling the Seven Faces of Philanthropy 1. The Communitarian – Doing Good Makes Sense 2. The Devout—Doing Good is God’s Will 3. The Investor—Doing Good is Good Business 4. The Socialite—Doing Good is Fun 5. The Altruist—Doing Good Feels Right 6. The Repayer – Doing Good in Return 7. The Dynast – Doing Good is a Family Tradition The only one I would add is that there is a special motivation when a neighbor or friend (or their child) makes a face to face soliciation, whether it is to support the local high school band or the local animal shelter. Too much of the current fund raising literature presumes that there is only one motivation for giving, and that is simply not true. In my opinion, Martin did not betray his social investing ideals, nor was it a heroic parental act, he was simply being a good dad. Regards, Bill Huddleston www.cfcfundraising.com BillHuddleston@verizon.net Sean,

There are many motivations for charitable giving, and one of the best books that identified the most important ones is “The Seven Faces of Philanthropy” by Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru File. While it focuses on major gift donors I have found the framework to be valuable at all levels, including at the annual fund and workplace giving arenas.

The book gets my prize for “best summation of a book by just reading the chapter titles, and here they are:

Part I – Profiling the Seven Faces of Philanthropy
1. The Communitarian – Doing Good Makes Sense
2. The Devout—Doing Good is God’s Will
3. The Investor—Doing Good is Good Business
4. The Socialite—Doing Good is Fun
5. The Altruist—Doing Good Feels Right
6. The Repayer – Doing Good in Return
7. The Dynast – Doing Good is a Family Tradition

The only one I would add is that there is a special motivation when a neighbor or friend (or their child) makes a face to face soliciation, whether it is to support the local high school band or the local animal shelter.

Too much of the current fund raising literature presumes that there is only one motivation for giving, and that is simply not true. In my opinion, Martin did not betray his social investing ideals, nor was it a heroic parental act, he was simply being a good dad.

Regards,

Bill Huddleston
http://www.cfcfundraising.com
BillHuddleston@verizon.net

]]> By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8634 Sean Stannard-Stockton Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:07:56 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8634 Dan, Maya and Chip, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think Dan is right that behavioral economics gives us some clues as to how to harness rather than change the "irrational" behavior that characterizes most human action. Maya, I think the social return on investment concept that drives "new" philanthropy does change the equation so that the donor "gets something" for the donation and therefore guilt isn't the driving force. Put differently, guilt is relived by the act of giving, while "new" philanthropy's payoff is from impact. Chip, I took Martin to task, but I think his post was fantastic. Surfacing these kinds of emotions and working to understand them is critical to the development of our field. Dan, Maya and Chip,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think Dan is right that behavioral economics gives us some clues as to how to harness rather than change the “irrational” behavior that characterizes most human action.

Maya, I think the social return on investment concept that drives “new” philanthropy does change the equation so that the donor “gets something” for the donation and therefore guilt isn’t the driving force. Put differently, guilt is relived by the act of giving, while “new” philanthropy’s payoff is from impact.

Chip, I took Martin to task, but I think his post was fantastic. Surfacing these kinds of emotions and working to understand them is critical to the development of our field.

]]> By: Chip McComb http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8633 Chip McComb Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:02:39 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8633 Wow! Thanks for bringing up such a weighty issue. As a father and an employee at a Global not-for-profit, I feel the weight of the same situation acutely. I commend Martin for seeking to adhere to his ideals, and honor as a blogger and philanthropist, however, I agree with Dan's comment. Martin's philanthropic giving wasn't purely philanthropic, the dynamics of the situation changed when his daughter fell in love with one of those stinky 4 legged beasts. Therefore his gift to the donkey was in reality a gift to his daughter, even thought Martin could see the bigger picture and his daughter could not. The challenging issue that I would like to address is the need for us to instill upon our children and the next generation, that giving should not be and cannot be consumerist in nature. (Did Martin's daughter feel like she donated to the donkey's or did she feel like she "adopted" a donkey) I fear that as micro giving, and mobile giving becomes more and more prevalent the attitude of those that give, could shift dangerously to think that all giving should be as easy and as pleasing as buying a coke or a big mac, and when it's not easy or pleasing, it is therefore not worth their time or expense. What a dangerous trap! But then again confronting this attitude is the job of parents, not of philanthropists. Wow! Thanks for bringing up such a weighty issue. As a father and an employee at a Global not-for-profit, I feel the weight of the same situation acutely.

I commend Martin for seeking to adhere to his ideals, and honor as a blogger and philanthropist, however, I agree with Dan’s comment. Martin’s philanthropic giving wasn’t purely philanthropic, the dynamics of the situation changed when his daughter fell in love with one of those stinky 4 legged beasts. Therefore his gift to the donkey was in reality a gift to his daughter, even thought Martin could see the bigger picture and his daughter could not.

The challenging issue that I would like to address is the need for us to instill upon our children and the next generation, that giving should not be and cannot be consumerist in nature. (Did Martin’s daughter feel like she donated to the donkey’s or did she feel like she “adopted” a donkey) I fear that as micro giving, and mobile giving becomes more and more prevalent the attitude of those that give, could shift dangerously to think that all giving should be as easy and as pleasing as buying a coke or a big mac, and when it’s not easy or pleasing, it is therefore not worth their time or expense. What a dangerous trap!

But then again confronting this attitude is the job of parents, not of philanthropists.

]]> By: Simone Rones http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8632 Simone Rones Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:02:33 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8632 Assuming that Mr. Brookes must view his donation to the donkey sanctuary as a charitable gift and not as an entertainment/travel expense, he might want to consider making a distinction between 1) feeling guilty for supporting the donkey sanctuary because it is an extremely well-funded group given its existing capacity and 2) feeling guilty for supporting the donkey sanctuary because it helps animals and does not help with what he mentions as the higher-priority issue of domestic violence. I can understand feeling guilty for the first reason (personally, I do tend to feel some guilt when I donate to an organization in which my marginal donation does not have a measurable impact), whereas I do not think he should feel guilty for the second reason, because the two issues (animal sanctuaries and domestic violence) do in fact overlap. The donkey sanctuary is clearly teaching children the importance of kindness to animals, and although I am not aware of a longitudinal study measuring the impact of this lesson, I do know that there is a growing body of research that shows a strong correlation between *cruelty* to animals and domestic violence (see e.g., http://www.vachss.com/help_text/animal_dv.html). Therefore, it is possible that by promulgating kindness instead of cruelty, the donkey sanctuary may actually be helping prevent domestic violence in the future. This should assuage at least some of Mr. Brookes' guilt over making the donation. Assuming that Mr. Brookes must view his donation to the donkey sanctuary as a charitable gift and not as an entertainment/travel expense, he might want to consider making a distinction between 1) feeling guilty for supporting the donkey sanctuary because it is an extremely well-funded group given its existing capacity and 2) feeling guilty for supporting the donkey sanctuary because it helps animals and does not help with what he mentions as the higher-priority issue of domestic violence. I can understand feeling guilty for the first reason (personally, I do tend to feel some guilt when I donate to an organization in which my marginal donation does not have a measurable impact), whereas I do not think he should feel guilty for the second reason, because the two issues (animal sanctuaries and domestic violence) do in fact overlap. The donkey sanctuary is clearly teaching children the importance of kindness to animals, and although I am not aware of a longitudinal study measuring the impact of this lesson, I do know that there is a growing body of research that shows a strong correlation between *cruelty* to animals and domestic violence (see e.g., http://www.vachss.com/help_text/animal_dv.html). Therefore, it is possible that by promulgating kindness instead of cruelty, the donkey sanctuary may actually be helping prevent domestic violence in the future. This should assuage at least some of Mr. Brookes’ guilt over making the donation.

]]> By: Maya Norton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8631 Maya Norton Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:12:05 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8631 Thanks, Sean and Martin, for this interesting conversation and letting us be a part of it. I do wonder about the shifting role of guilt-giving in new versus old philanthropy. By that I mean, defining "new philanthropy" as more donors giving smaller amounts, often online, with greater interest in hands-on guidance for how their gifts are used, with less willingness to pay overhead or fund the infrastructure of supporting organizations. (Some of that is an extension of the standard definition, but I'm allowing for leeway in my use of the term.) New philanthropy is strategic, global, and ambitious. It strives to make practical, tangible differences and its agents are less willing to pay for what they consider "extras." In this way, the traditional role between the philanthropist and the foundation that oversees the programming is transformed into a relationship that has much more of a producer-consumer mentality. There is less guilt because if the new philanthropist does not like the "product," s/he does not purchase it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. All the best, ~ Maya The New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy Thanks, Sean and Martin, for this interesting conversation and letting us be a part of it.

I do wonder about the shifting role of guilt-giving in new versus old philanthropy. By that I mean, defining “new philanthropy” as more donors giving smaller amounts, often online, with greater interest in hands-on guidance for how their gifts are used, with less willingness to pay overhead or fund the infrastructure of supporting organizations. (Some of that is an extension of the standard definition, but I’m allowing for leeway in my use of the term.) New philanthropy is strategic, global, and ambitious. It strives to make practical, tangible differences and its agents are less willing to pay for what they consider “extras.”

In this way, the traditional role between the philanthropist and the foundation that oversees the programming is transformed into a relationship that has much more of a producer-consumer mentality. There is less guilt because if the new philanthropist does not like the “product,” s/he does not purchase it.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

All the best,

~ Maya

The New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy

]]> By: Dan Elitzer http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor/comment-page-1#comment-8630 Dan Elitzer Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:09:50 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2010/03/the-guilt-of-the-social-investor#comment-8630 Rather than look at Martin's gift as a betrayal of his social investment ideals, I think it is more productive to see it as a positive act of consumption and parenting. Instead of viewing his donation to the donkey sanctuary as replacing a more effective act of philanthropy, look at it as replacing the purchase of a toy or movie or other consumer product or service unconnected to charity. Certainly the joy he and his daughter received from his donation to the animal sanctuary was more "meaningful" than an equivalent amount of joy from some non-philanthropic activity. Sean, I agree that the logical conclusion of Martin's line of thinking would be that "we should all feel bad that we spend a penny on anything discretionary." Inequality and injustice would cease to exist if we all felt compelled by the same moral compass that directs Martin. Unfortunately, we don't all feel that way, and it is unproductive for people like Martin to spend too much time self-flagellating over such matters. Denying ourselves all "unnecessary" comforts does not lead to a mental state in which we are suited to effect good works on a larger scale. Granted, we all need to find the right balance for ourselves between absolute hedonism and strict abstention, but wasting too much time ruminating on the subject just prevents us from moving on with the important work we have to do. To Sean's larger questions about the role of guilt in the nonprofit sector and the obligation to right inefficiencies vs. giving with our emotions, I saw we need to be aware of the role of guilt and other emotions (both rational and irrational) and better understand how they affect giving. Network for Good and Sea Change Strategies recently put out a fantastic (and free) ebook by Katya Andresen, Alia McKee, and Mark Rovner, which uses learnings from the discipline of behavioral economics to help explain why people so often make irrational decisions, especially when it comes to charity. The title is Homer Simpson for Nonprofits, and you can download it here: http://web.networkforgood.org/201002ebook. It offers actionable steps for nonprofits to better align their communications and fundraising strategies with the way people actually make decisions, not the way we think they SHOULD make decisions. One of the principals discussed in the book is the relative strength of social norms over market norms. If we deny the role emotions play in philanthropy, we step away from effectiveness, not towards it. Rather than beat ourselves up when we give "inefficiently," let's strive to direct that energy to better understanding what led us to make that irrational choice and how we can better help our rationally preferred causes take advantage of the factors that drove us to give to our emotionally preferred cause. Rather than look at Martin’s gift as a betrayal of his social investment ideals, I think it is more productive to see it as a positive act of consumption and parenting. Instead of viewing his donation to the donkey sanctuary as replacing a more effective act of philanthropy, look at it as replacing the purchase of a toy or movie or other consumer product or service unconnected to charity. Certainly the joy he and his daughter received from his donation to the animal sanctuary was more “meaningful” than an equivalent amount of joy from some non-philanthropic activity.

Sean, I agree that the logical conclusion of Martin’s line of thinking would be that “we should all feel bad that we spend a penny on anything discretionary.” Inequality and injustice would cease to exist if we all felt compelled by the same moral compass that directs Martin. Unfortunately, we don’t all feel that way, and it is unproductive for people like Martin to spend too much time self-flagellating over such matters. Denying ourselves all “unnecessary” comforts does not lead to a mental state in which we are suited to effect good works on a larger scale. Granted, we all need to find the right balance for ourselves between absolute hedonism and strict abstention, but wasting too much time ruminating on the subject just prevents us from moving on with the important work we have to do.

To Sean’s larger questions about the role of guilt in the nonprofit sector and the obligation to right inefficiencies vs. giving with our emotions, I saw we need to be aware of the role of guilt and other emotions (both rational and irrational) and better understand how they affect giving. Network for Good and Sea Change Strategies recently put out a fantastic (and free) ebook by Katya Andresen, Alia McKee, and Mark Rovner, which uses learnings from the discipline of behavioral economics to help explain why people so often make irrational decisions, especially when it comes to charity. The title is Homer Simpson for Nonprofits, and you can download it here: http://web.networkforgood.org/201002ebook. It offers actionable steps for nonprofits to better align their communications and fundraising strategies with the way people actually make decisions, not the way we think they SHOULD make decisions. One of the principals discussed in the book is the relative strength of social norms over market norms. If we deny the role emotions play in philanthropy, we step away from effectiveness, not towards it. Rather than beat ourselves up when we give “inefficiently,” let’s strive to direct that energy to better understanding what led us to make that irrational choice and how we can better help our rationally preferred causes take advantage of the factors that drove us to give to our emotionally preferred cause.

]]>