Do the Word

Catalytic philanthropy.

Sean Stannard Stockton is intrigued by it, terming it Shock and Awe Philanthropy.

Commenters on Mark Kramer’s article introducing the discipline are mixed in their reviews of it.

And me? I’m absolutely delighted by it. Of course since Catalytic Philanthropy is a secular philosophy, its goals, presuppositions, and methods are distinctly different from Transformational Giving. But still, I can’t help but woot in agreement as Kramer contends:

For most donors, philanthropy is about deciding which nonprofits to support and how much money to give them. These donors effectively delegate to nonprofits all responsibility for devising and implementing solutions to social problems. Despite the sincere dedication and best efforts of those who work in the nonprofit sector, there is little reason to assume that they have the ability to solve society’s large-scale problems.

Now in TG, the focus is not on solving social problems but rather on comprehensively reflecting the character of God to a world in need, but still, my gosh, it’s wonderful to have someone else hankering articulately and systematically for a reformulation of the relationship between nonprofit and the individuals they solicit.

Kramer’s article opens with a powerful picture of what in Transformational Giving we would call a champion–someone who owns the cause comprehensively in their sphere of influence:

Thomas Siebel does philanthropy differently from other donors. As the founder of the software company Siebel Systems Inc., he is one of a handful of philanthropists who have the resources to devote substantial time and money to charity. His approach and the results he has achieved, however, dramatically distinguish him from most of his peers.

In 2005, while spending time on his Montana ranch, Siebel became concerned about the rampant local use of methamphetamine, or “meth.” Meth is a highly addictive and physically destructive drug, and it is a particularly acute problem in rural America. In 2005, Montana had the fifth worst level of meth abuse among all U.S. states. Half of its inmates were imprisoned for meth-related crimes. The direct cost to the state was estimated at nearly $300 million per year, and the cost in human lives and suffering was far greater.

Rather than writing a check to a local nonprofit, Siebel took the time to find out why people become addicted to meth. After learning that first-time users were typically teenagers who were unaware of meth’s risks, Siebel created the Meth Project to change teenage perceptions about the drug. He brought together experts and hired a major San Francisco advertising agency to develop a hard-hitting campaign that would reach 80 percent of Montana teens with at least three ads every week.

You’ll want to read the rest of Kramer’s article to find out the impact that Siebel is having. Make sure to scroll down through the comments, where you’ll find appreciative nonprofit leaders lauding Kramer with such praise as “The arrogance and condescension in this article is disgraceful.” Old ways die hard and ugly, and often the only beautiful thing to nonprofits about so-called “donors” is their money.

Still, we wish Mark well. Good to see many of the principles we champion also gaining a foothold in the mind and practice of our secular counterparts. What’s more, were I feeling smarmier than I am today I would note that this development is especially exciting for we Christian nonprofits, who are, sadly, known less for putting into practice the courage of the Bible’s convictions about what we ought to be doing and known more for copying whatever’s working in secular fundraising. My advice: If you’re going to copy secular practices, give Catalytic Philanthropy a try.

Take three minutes right now to stop whatever you’re doing (oh, wait–you’re reading this blog; well, wait a second and then take three minutes) and watch this video.

It’s flat out brilliant.

In three minutes, Derek Sivers shows How To Start A Movement, and the lessons are supremely applicable to Transformational Giving.

Among Sivers’ insights:

• The most important person in the growth of a movement is not the leader; instead, it’s the first follower. New followers emulate that follower, not the leader.
• This is why it’s crucial for the leader to embrace the first few followers as equals. This ensures that the movement is really about the movement, not the leader.
• Movements must be public, which means that the relationship between follower and follower is at least as key as the relationship between the leader and each follower.

First followership, notes Sivers, is an underestimated form of leadership. In TG parlance, we’d say that movements are spread by Owner-level champions, not by the founder-coach.

Interesting that shortly after I posted a general affirming review of Kathy LeMay’s The Generosity Plan, especially with regard to its democratization of philanthropy, I would run across a generally demeaning review of Kathy LeMay’s The Generosity Plan, a review that presupposes that philanthropy of course refers to folks with money and primarily has to do with their money rather than their morals.

In a post entitled Do the Wealthy Really Need Generosity Coaches?, Robert Frank not only answers in the negative but makes sport of the very idea:

Three years ago, the world was inundated with philanthropy advisers.

Their job: help the rich give away their money.

Then the recession caused a drop not just in philanthropy but also in the business of philanthropic advice. After all, the rich didn’t need to pay as many people to help give away their money if they had less money to give.

Now some philanthropy advisers are rebranding themselves as “generosity coaches,” making the whole business seem more a matter of good morals than big money.

But  Frank should know and acknowledge that income and generosity have always been inversely proportional in this country. As we’re fond of noting on this blog, the most generous people in the US by percentage of income are those with incomes below $30,000 a year. As income rises beyond that, the percentage given to charity inexorably declines.

Therefore, Kathy LeMay recognizes the need to help people–perhaps especially the wealthy, who understand this bit of good morals less well than their far more impoverished counterparts–learn to give generously.

And that’s the thought behind Transformational Giving principle #9: Giving is learned, not latent.

Without coaching and accountability, all of us–wealthy or no–tend towards stinginess and self-centeredness. Now, Frank will get no argument from me that some “generosity coaching” hardly counts as coaching at all. So let’s be very precise when we talk about what a coach can–and should–help a champion accomplish.

To that end, check out my previous post that outlines the role from a Christian perspective:

TG  9 says that giving is not the process but is the result of the process. Giving–fundraising–is just not a big enough word to describe the process. The process is sanctification–growing in Christian maturity in relation to the cause.

Generosity is one of the fruits of that process. So if generosity is a fruit of the process, won’t it just happen automatically if we work on everything else?

Answer: No.

Reason:

Sanctification is a Holy Spirit process. We can’t make it happen; however, there are a couple of things that we can do and that as Christian leaders we are called to do in support of and collaboration with the Holy Spirit:

• We can help the individual we’re coaching search the Scriptures in order to understand what God has in mind for all Christians (and thus for them) in relation to the cause–the general will of God, or ‘What God has in mind for all Christians in relation to this cause’.
• We can serve as a platform or gymnasium in which the individual carries out that general will of God in relation to the cause. We can mentor the person in relation to the cause, encouraging them to imitate us as we carry out our calling related to the cause.
• We can serve as mutual accountability partners in (1) helping each other know and carry out God’s general will for us in relation to the cause; and (2) discerning what God has for us specifically in relation to the cause–our ‘calling’.

Ergo, we all need generosity coaches, not just the wealthy but certainly including them.

Last I checked, the Bible accorded that role to Christian leaders even more than to financial specialists (seeing that it is about more than money, as Frank rightly notes). But these days I suspect that Christian leaders need generosity coaching at least as much as the wealthy, so I am delighted simply to see help rising up from any quarter…including Kathy LeMay’s.