Empathy and Philanthropy

A video that I just watched reminded me about something that I already know. I know that, when I experience empathy, I become equipped to do my life’s most important work. Likewise, empathy allows nonprofits to perform their most important work and to achieve maximal results.

I reflected on empathy after watching a talk posted at Chris Davenport’s blog, Movie Mondays. (Nowadays, we “watch” talks.) “Shifting the Focus from Fundraising to Philanthropy” was delivered by Andrea McManus, president of the Development Group, a Calgary-based philanthropic consulting firm, and former chair of the Association of Fundraising Professionals’ International Board of Directors. In her short video, McManus said a lot.

McManus distinguished philanthropy from development and fundraising. Philanthropy, in her view, is bigger and of greater ultimate import. Philanthropy is what nonprofits most need to focus on, even as they go about the necessary business of structuring their development program and asking for donations.

McManus defines development as the organizational apparatus intended to bring in funding. It consists of the various systems through which resources are obtained. It sets up strategies. Fundraising takes place when an organization acts on those strategies, when it executes its development program. Nonprofits do fundraising in order to carry out their basic functions; as such, it functions as a kind of engine within philanthropy.

Philanthropy, for McManus, is more inclusive—extending beyond donors, beyond volunteers, beyond organizations. It is the broad context within which all of these parties find inspiration, take action, and achieve results. Philanthropy is “how they invest their time and resources into making their world [and] their community a better place.”

McManus finds it unsurprising that many board members, volunteers, and staff members resist development work. This resistance occurs, McManus believes, because development work is generally presented as “fundraising” rather than as a part of “philanthropy.” When organizations emphasize fundraising, they restrict their enterprise to its internal, strategic components. Seeking and cultivating donors becomes seen as sordid and manipulative rather than idealistic and virtuous. This, in turn, burdens those who would attract donations. It causes them to see themselves as hucksters.

By focusing on fundraising, McManus contends, we cannot help but take a “tin-cup” approach. “It becomes about getting the next gift. It becomes about numbers and measurement.” It is about me and what you can do for me.

If an organization instead focuses its staff, board members, and volunteers on its philanthropic mission, then all will more eagerly take on the work of raising revenue. This is because all parties will recognize their connection to a larger effort occurring outside as well as inside the organization. Their power to achieve important, worthy goals will become apparent to them. As people who “contribut[e] their time and resources to the organization,” they are optimally positioned to “understand why other people would want to do that” same thing.

As McManus presents it, philanthropy is a broad, vital context in which humanity enriches itself. Within that context, all who participate look together to effectuate outcomes. They share goals. They pursue their goals as part of a team, whereas people focused merely on fundraising carry out their work in isolation.

***************************************************

Conceiving of our work as philanthropy seems well worth the effort. Why would we not want to feel wonderful about what we do? If, as the dictionary suggests, philanthropy signifies a love for humanity, an “altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement,” then to emphasize philanthropy is to place every aspect of organizational work in its most beneficent light. Those who ask for gifts out of philanthropic conviction will know that their work is magnanimous work. They will likely become more enthused about their task, and their enthusiasm could hardly but rub off on staff, board, and would-be donors. All parties would benefit.

Effective philanthropy, as I see it, depends on empathy. Philanthropic work “feels good” and succeeds when its performers are guided by a deep sense of empathy with all fellow contributors to their enterprise. Organizations need to cultivate empathy in their staff and board members to ensure that development be seen and executed as an honorable, indispensable part of the philanthropic endeavor. Staff and board members must come to empathize with would-be donors—to regard them as fellow philanthropists wishing to improve the human condition.

It is easy for an organization to see the field of potential donors as sources “out there,” ripe for the seduction and the taking. It is easy to see potential donors as objects to be manipulated into parting with their precious resources. But it is equally feasible—and infinitely more beneficial—for resource seekers to see potential donors as partners—or even, in a way, as extensions of themselves. To be sure, fundraisers must think strategically, coming up with a plan and executing it. But this merely marks fundraising as a specialty within the larger philanthropic endeavor. It does not make fundraising rude or invasive.

The nonprofit’s essential nature consists in its service to humanity. Staff work and board membership, at their core, are of a piece alongside donating and volunteer work. Service to humanity is their common ultimate purpose, and, in this, all contributors are stationed as valuable parts of the larger endeavor. Those who would serve can do so only by recognizing themselves together as one. And such recognition rests on feeling empathy—even toward those whose roles differ markedly from one’s own.

The idealistic nature of volunteering and giving thrives on human empathy, whereas it chokes on manipulation. Improving the human condition requires cultivating empathy between those with great capital and those without, even between those who would defend capitalism and those who would contest it. Empathy is necessary. Without it, human beings—too often egotistical and territorial—cannot collaborate selflessly on behalf of community, society, or humanity.

Empathy must extend beyond philanthropic collaborators. It must extend to all stakeholders, as all play meaningful roles within any philanthropic enterprise. Even the public at large plays a role by supporting or critiquing the enterprise, and/or by receiving benefits indirectly. The spirit of service is the spirit of empathy. No one who sees herself as separate from others can serve as a conduit for the spirit that moves us to service. Barricaded, she cannot act with a full heart and so cannot act with full effectiveness.

To focus on philanthropy, as McManus urges, an organization needs always to bear in mind its vision and mission. More than that, it needs to see its vision and mission as particular articulations of universal spiritual and ethical values. It cannot allow itself to get bogged down in operations and strategy, however unavoidable those concerns might be. Ideally, particular staff and board positions would be dedicated to keeping spiritual and ethical truths front and center. Devotion, service, and love of fellows provide the necessary context in which all nonprofit work takes place. When this fades from sight, the enterprise becomes imperiled.