Social Science by admin

Philanthropy

*PLEASE READ: 500 WORD PAPER USING THE NOTES I PROVIDED ONLY. QUESTION IS LISTED BELOW*

Some have argued that philanthropy can be improved with more focused efforts by donors. How can donors strike the right balance between giving with their head and giving with their heart? Describe some specific techniques for doing this? Your answer must have at least two citations and corresponding references one from the relevant course text, and one from an academic journal article published within the past 5 7 years.

The Philanthropy Reader by Michael Moody and Beth Breeze

  • Our new philanthropists are not driven by a desire for status (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 453)
  • They are new philanthropists because they dont fit the old mould of grant-giving foundations, responding to requests and applications. They are hands-on, pioneering and entrepreneurial, their resources dedicated to their own causes. They are new because they are still in the prime of life, with goals still to achieve, passions to satisfy, and the energy that is needed to start something new (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 453)
  • People should be judged, many of them feel, not only by how they made their money, but, as importantly, how they spend it. These individuals spend it well, on purposes and causes beyond themselves, and they enjoy doing so (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 454)
  • Although most expressive donors hope their gifts help others, it is important to realize that their focus in selecting the gifts recipient is largely based on expressing personal emotions rather than having an impact (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 477) 
  • One of the major reasons why philanthropy is failing is because of the imbalance in focus on what will make donors feel good to the detriment of what will do the most good – it is hard to characterize philanthropy as successful if donations are not directed primarily to help others as much as possible (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 478)
  • Another major reason for philanthropys failure to get close to its potential is the lack of critical analysis regarding how donors can make the most impact. There is very little willingness to explicitly acknowledge that some good causes are better than others. This results in a severe lack of constructive criticism for donors (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 478)
  • A reinvented world of philanthropy should not be about all head and no heart, but about doing a better job of focusing on what many peoples hearts want to do: help others (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 479)
  • As the philanthropy field matures, it needs a hybrid model that incorporates the best of the humanistic and the technocratic. These seemingly contrary forces are in fact interconnected in a dynamic yin and yang system (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 491) 
  • Both approaches are needed, and together unlock new potential. A more integrated philosophy also makes it more likely that philanthropy will move beyond its traditional boundaries in other ways, such as foraging new collaborations with government and business. (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 491)
  • They need to encourage others to appreciate the tensions between the technocratic (head) and humanistic (heart) modes, acknowledge the trade-offs, and respect and learn from each other (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 491)
  • They should also encourage educators to teach an eclectic and integrated range of philosophies and techniques. Seemingly paradoxical concepts – such as values-driven business planning, strategic intuition, and deliberate improvisation – should be promoted (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 491)
  • Questions to ask donors:
    • What are your values and beliefs
    • What is success and how can it be achieved
    • What are you accountable for 
    • What will it take to get the job done
    • How do you work with grantees
    • Are you getting better (Moody & Breeze, 2016, p. 498)

Putting their heart into it: executives who go above and beyond in their philanthropy efforts

  • Bryson Garbett needed a better understanding of homelessness in order for him to fully emerge himself as to why he is giving and why this means so much to him (Beers, 2017) 
  • He joined them, standing three-and-a-half hours before he received a mat, pillow, blanket and a spot on the floor. For three days and four nights he lived as if he were homeless, emerging from the experience with a first-hand perspective that has shaped his efforts with the Coalition. (Beers, 2017)
  • For these , it’s not just about donating money to a cause–it’s about personally investing time and effort in issues they care about. And as these executives lend their personal passion, they’re helping effect critical social and environmental change for the state. (Beers, 2017)

Beers, H. (2017, May). Putting their heart into it: executives who go above and beyond in their philanthropy efforts. Utah Business, 31(5), 86+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.proxylib.csueastbay.edu/apps/doc/A495829841/ITOF?u=csuh_main&sid=ITOF&xid=e6577891

Reciprocity belief and gratitude as moderators of the association between social status and charitable giving

  • Downstream and upstream reciprocity are distinct in that they are driven by different mechanisms. Research has widely demonstrated that downstream reciprocity is motivated by rewarding incentives (such as a gain in reputation or status), while upstream reciprocity occurs as a result of individuals’ positive emotional experience in the past (such as gratitude) (, ) (as cited in Liu & Hao, 2017) 
  • Downstream reciprocity – more with head 
  • Upstream reciprocity – more with heart 
  • However, for upstream reciprocity, cooperation is elicited by a brain region associated with emotional rewards (i.e., the anterior insula). 

In upstream reciprocity, when a person is given something of value by someone else, a positive sentiment of gratitude occurs for the recipient () (as cited in Liu & Hao, 2017)