Delusional Altruism. Kris Putnam-Walkerly
a new task.
Does this ever happen to you or your colleagues? You postpone a project of strategic importance because you are “too busy” right now. You decide you can't address the root causes of a problem because you don't have enough funds, so instead you fund projects to address the symptoms. You decide not to fund something because you don't know enough about the issue. You choose not to ask community members to inform your funding strategy because you don't feel equipped to address the issues they might raise.
Here's the thing: You might be busy, lacking information, and ill equipped. You might not have enough funds to adequately address the root cause. Great! Now we know where you stand.
But, then again, so what? Your current capacity, knowledge, ability, and funds shouldn't limit the transformational change you can create. You can increase your capacity, gain new knowledge, equip yourself, and leverage additional dollars. It might not be easy. It might take time. And you will probably experience a few bumps and scrapes along the way. That's just fine.
Believing You Don't Deserve Something
Too often, philanthropists feel they don't deserve to [fill in the blank], such as invest in themselves, retain an executive coach, fund a needs assessment, attend a conference, improve their technology, hire top talent, spend time learning with other philanthropists, share their accomplishments publicly, learn how they can advocate for policy change, or fund an evaluation.
Why? Because they have a misguided belief that all their money should go to help others.
This is especially pervasive in family philanthropy, among those who have inherited wealth, and among entrepreneurs who have earned their own wealth. But it's true for most any philanthropist.
Mind you, they might simultaneously be spending $15,000 to graphically design, print, and mail hard copies of their annual report; budgeting $30,000 for new marble kitchen countertops for their third vacation home; spending $100,000 annually to mist the plants at corporate headquarters; or forking over half a million dollars annually on fuel for their private jets.
But when it comes to charitable giving, scarcity rules the roost!
This belief might appear noble. In reality, it is delusional. In order to have the greatest philanthropic impact, you need to be the greatest philanthropist you can be. This involves understanding yourself, understanding the issues and communities you want to help, and investing time and resources to build your philanthropic muscle and know-how.
To help others, you first need to help yourself.
Believing You Are Too Small to Make a Difference
Not every philanthropist is a billionaire. You might be giving away thousands of dollars each year, not hundreds of millions. But a small funder should not limit its aspirations. Even donors with limited means can operate with an abundance mind-set. The world is rife with examples of small funders that created big impact. In fact, Exponent Philanthropy, a U.S.-based network of foundations with few or no staff, philanthropic families, and individual donors, regularly showcases members who achieve “outsized impact” compared to their size.
Too often, however, funders of all sizes believe they are too small to make a difference.
One philanthropy leader had this kind of poverty mind-set when it came to achieving her strategic goals. Her organization organized high-net-worth members to donate to progressive causes. They set specific goals of tripling the number of donor members and dramatically influencing how those donors allocated their funding.
However, she didn't know her baseline. She had no idea how much money her members were already donating to progressive causes. Nor did she know how much influence her organization currently had on her members' giving priorities.
She had a vision for her organization's desired future state, but no idea about its current state. Therefore, it was impossible to create a plan to move forward. When I suggested she conduct research to understand their current baseline, she balked. “No, we're just a small nonprofit. We really can't afford it,” she insisted. Instead, she asked her staff—who were already working overtime and lacked research expertise—to figure it out on their own.
In other words, she was unwilling to make an investment in something of strategic importance to the organization, because she felt her organization was “just a small nonprofit.”
Remember, her membership organization is comprised of high-net-worth donors who saw the value in this organization's work. They paid to be members! The wealth was sitting right there. But she wasn't willing to ask any of them to support this project. I'm sure one of her members would have been delighted to fund a research project that would help more philanthropists donate to progressive causes. But her scarcity mentality held her back and stifled her organization's philanthropic impact.
Lack of Investment
Now that we've discussed the guises a scarcity mentality takes in your mind, let's look at how it shows up in philanthropists' lack of investment.
Lack of Investment in Your Own Talent
Too often funders refuse to invest in the human capital of philanthropy. They think they're saving money, but they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Philanthropy is comprised of people. Donors are people. Family offices are run by people. Foundations are nonprofit organizations staffed by people. When we need legal, financial, and coaching help, we retain people. And the people we want to help are, well, people!
Given philanthropy's people-centeredness, the lack of investment in people is stunning.
What do I mean by investing in people? I mean investing in you. You—the person reading this book. And the people who help you with your giving. This could be your board of directors, your employees, your boss, your kids, or your spouse. I'm referring to bringing on the best talent to help you start, design, grow, manage, assess, and scale your philanthropy to achieve maximum impact. I also mean providing them with the resources and support they need to be their best selves and contribute their talents. After all, you want to change the world.
Sadly, this often does not happen. Most well-intentioned philanthropists don't invest in themselves.
Let me share a few examples.
One former professional football player started a nonprofit foundation to give back to his community. He created football camps and tutoring programs to offer low-income kids an opportunity to learn a sport, gain teamwork skills, have positive role models, and increase their educational opportunities. Although he made significant financial contributions, he knew he needed to raise additional funds to scale and sustain these programs.
Like most people, he lacked fundraising experience. He didn't know the best way to raise money. He and his wife tried, but their efforts didn't result in large contributions. Yet he refused to hire a fundraising consultant or grant writer. Why? It would cost money! You can guess what happened. He was able to maintain terrific camps and tutoring for a small number of kids, but he couldn't realize his vision of helping greater numbers.
In Africa, a multifamily office hired a talented nonprofit leader to serve as its first director of philanthropy. His job was to help the families become more philanthropic. The thing was, though, that while he had excellent leadership skills, he didn't have much knowledge about philanthropy. The family office leadership knew that from the outset, but they just assumed he'd figure it out. They refused to provide him with any professional development or coaching to boost her knowledge and expertise. Without any specialized information and support, the new leader quickly became overwhelmed.
A new health foundation was created following the purchase of a nonprofit hospital by a for-profit hospital. Overnight, the hospital board of directors became the foundation board of directors. The board