Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Foundations Theory of Philanthropy - What It Is What It Provid
A Foundations Theory of Philanthropy - What It Is What It Provid
A Foundations Theory of Philanthropy - What It Is What It Provid
Volume 7 | Issue 4
Article 4
12-2015
Nathaniel Foote
TruePoint
James Radner
University of Toronto
This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Foundation Review by
an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.
doi: 10.9707/1944-5660.1263
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
R E S U LT S
THE
Key Points
This article argues that philanthropic endeavors
should be undergirded by a theory of philanthropy.
Articulating a theory of philanthropy is a way for
a foundation to make explicit what is often only
implicit, thereby enabling internal and external
actors to pose and resolve significant questions,
understand and play important roles more fully
and effectively, and improve performance by
enhancing alignment across complex systems.
A theory of philanthropy articulates how and why
a foundation will use its resources to achieve its
mission and vision. The theory-of-philanthropy
approach is designed to help foundations align
their strategies, governance, operating and
accountability procedures, and grantmaking profile
and policies with their resources and mission.
Some 30 elements that can feed into a comprehensive theory of philanthropy represent a customizable
tool for exploring the issues foundations face. A
foundation can use the tool to gather data and
perspectives about specific aspects of its heritage
and approach; what is learned in addressing the
elements can then be synthesized into a succinct
and coherent theory of philanthropy.
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
Synthetic thinking is required to explain system behavior. Because the effects of the behavior of the
parts of a system are interdependent, it can be shown
that if each part taken separately is made to perform
as efficiently as possible, the system as a whole will
not function as effectively as possible. For example,
if we select from all the automobiles available the
best carburetor, the best distributor, and so on for
each part required for an automobile, and then try
to assemble them, we will not even obtain an automobile, let alone the best one, because the parts will
not fit together. The performance of a system is not
the sum of the independent effects of its parts; it is
the product of their interactions. Therefore, effective management of a system requires managing the
interactions of its parts, not the actions of its parts
taken separately (Gharajedaghi & Ackoff, 1985, pp.
23-4).
THE
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
different from its parts. Systems theorists Gharajedaghi and Ackoff (1985), in an article that has
become a classic, were quite insistent that a system as a whole cannot be understood by analysis
of separate parts; they argued that "the essential
properties of a system are lost when it is taken
apart; for example, a disassembled automobile
does not transport and a disassembled person
does not live" (p. 23). Furthermore, the function
and meaning of the parts are lost when separated
from the whole. Instead of taking things apart,
they insist that a systems approach requires
"synthetic thinking:"
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
10
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
THE
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
11
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
Theory of Change
1. Focus
2. Specificity
3. Basis
4. Evaluation
questions
5. Utility
12
Theory of Philanthropy
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
Theory of Philanthropy
Foundation Approach to
Funding and Programming
Consistent With the Theory
of Philanthropy (either as
the overall approach or as
one part of its portfolio)
Implications
for Theory of Change
Responsive grantmaking.
Partnering foundation or
program approach.
Hybrid foundations.
THE
13
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
14
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
Some foundations already have explicit, upto-date statements covering most elements of
a theory of philanthropy, so they just need to
be pulled together into a coherent whole. Other
foundations have less written down, or may need
to update important components. How much
work is involved in articulating a coherent theory
of philanthropy depends on what the foundation
already has in place.
The process can be facilitated internally or
externally, and by anyone with facilitation
expertise and experience. It's a matter of taking
the time to systematically go through each of the
elements and examining their interconnections.
The two case examples in this issue of The
Foundation Review illustrate facilitation options.
Theory of Philanthropy in Relation to a
Foundations Strategy
THE
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
15
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
16
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
Use the Theory of Philanthropy Tool as a guide. (See Appendix online at http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/tfr/vol7/iss4/4.)
2.
Begin by being organizationally and behaviorally descriptive: analyze current practices, not ideals.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Look for what distinguishes the foundation, makes it unique, and elaborates its niche.
7.
Test out articulating the opposite of a dimension: if taking risks emerges as a foundation
focus, for example, what would not taking risks actually look like?
8.
Dont wordsmith entries into the elements; that comes in the synthesis.
9.
Expect ebb and flow of enthusiasm, but see the process through to the end.
10. Include a plan for implementation, follow-up, and evaluation of the theory of
philanthropy to learn how it informs the foundation's work.
THE
17
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
1. Are we walking the talk? Are we implementing the vision, rhetoric, and desired processes
articulated in our theory of philanthropy?
2. What are the results for this element in the
theory of philanthropy?
3. How do these results align and interact with
results of other theory-of-philanthropy elements?
18
THE
Theory of Philanthropy
THE
https://www.magnetmail.net/events/display_static_
webpage.cfm?uid=SSIR&eid=12087&pid=53655
Forti, M. (2012, May). Six theory of change pitfalls to
avoid. Stanford Social Innovation Review, http://ssir.org/
articles/entry/six_theory_of_change_pitfalls_to_avoid
FSG. (2011). Gaining perspective: Lessons learned from one
foundations exploratory decade. Washington: Author.
Available online at http://www.nwaf.org/content/
uploads/2014/12/GainingPerspective_Full_1-10.pdf
Gharajedaghi, J., & Ackoff, R. L. (1985). Toward systemic
education of systems scientists. Systems Research 2(1),
21-27.
Greenwald, A. G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as
a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(2),
99-108.
International Network on Strategic Philanthropy.
(2005, June). Rethinking philanthropic effectiveness. Alliance. Available online at www.issuelab.org/requester/
grantcraft/id/15640
Klugman, B. (2011). Is the policy win all? A framework for
effective social-justice advocacy. Foundation Review, 2(3),
94-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-10-00017
Kramer, M. (2009, Fall). Catalytic philanthropy. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 30-35.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., & Ahlstrand, B. (2005). Strategy
safari: The complete guide through the wilds of strategic
management. New York: Free Press.
Patrizi, P. & Patton, M.Q. (Eds.) (2010). Evaluating Strategy,
New Directions for Evaluation, Number 128.
Patrizi, P., & Thompson, E. (2010). Beyond the veneer of
strategic philanthropy. Foundation Review, 2(3), 52-60.
Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.4087/
FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-10-00022
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying
complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New
York: Guildford Press.
Putnam, K. (2010). What is strategic philanthropy? Available
online at http://eps654-11.wikispaces.com/file/view/
StrategicPhilanthropy.pdf
Reeves, M., Haanaes, K., & Sinha, J. (2015). Your strategy
needs a strategy: How to choose and execute the right approach. Boston: HBR Press.
Reich, R. (2010). Toward a political theory of philanthropy.
In P. Illingworth, T. Pogge, & L. Wenar (Eds.), Giving
well: The ethics of philanthropy (pp. 177-195). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shoemaker, P. (2015). Reconstructing philanthropy from
19
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY
the outside in. Stanford Social Innovation Review (February 3). http://ssir.org/articles/entry/reconstructing_
philanthropy_from_the_outsidein
Stannard-Stockton, S. (2011, March 29). The three core
approaches to effective philanthropy [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/
the_three_core_approaches_to_effective_philanthropy
Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory:
Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive
community initiatives for children and families. In J. P.
Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss
(Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives,
vol. 1: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Washington: Aspen Institute.
Michael Quinn Patton, Ph.D., is an independent organizational development and evaluation consultant based
in Minnesota who consults extensively with philanthropic
foundations locally, nationally, and internationally. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to him
at 740 Mississippi River Blvd S., Apt 21E, Saint Paul, MN
55116, email: mqpatton@prodigy.net.
Nathaniel Foote, J.D., M.B.A., is managing director of
TruePoint, a founding board member of the Center for
Higher Ambition Leadership, and a senior fellow at the
Harvard University Center on the Developing Child.
James Radner, M.Phil., is assistant professor at the
School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of
Toronto; senior fellow at the Center on the Developing Child
at Harvard University; executive director and co-founder of
the Boreal Institute for Civil Society; and senior fellow at the
Munk Centre for International Studies.
20
THE