Moral Dimensions - True Wind and Apparent Wind in Philanthropy

Moral Dimensions - True Wind and Apparent Wind in Philanthropy is a risky title for a talk in any room, but especially so in a room full of sailors. It is risky because every time you build a case on a metaphor, and that is what I am going to do, it is a little like the problem that if the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. That said, I love metaphors so please bear with me.   

The title is risky because the term “moral dimensions” is politically and ideologically charged and, outside of church and temple, not in everyday use – and certainly not at a yacht club forum lunch. It is also risky because the difference between true wind and apparent wind, while on one level very simple, continues to mystify many people who have been sailing for years. Lastly, the title is risky because philanthropy – a very big word indeed – means different things to different people.

So let’s begin with some definitions. And all you sailors please listen closely to see if I get this part right.

Apparent wind is the actual flow of air upon a sail. It is the wind as it appears to a sailor on a moving vessel. It differs in speed and direction from True wind that is experienced by a stationary observer.

Steve Colgate – a noted sailor and writer – states that Apparent wind is the combination of two winds: the one derived from the boat as it moves through the water and the wind produced by nature – the true wind.

Colgate gives the example of standing in a convertible. It is a calm day, so there is no wind. As the convertible starts forward, you begin to feel a breeze on your face that increases as the speed of the car increases. That is the apparent wind. Now imagine the car is heading due north, and a breeze picks up out of the east - this nature-produced wind is what we call true wind. You do not feel two different winds on your face from different directions - one on the right side of your face, and one on the front of your face. What you do feel is a resultant wind coming from an angle forward of the true wind. What you feel is the Apparent wind.

Sailors need to calculate apparent wind in order to determine the best point of sail, especially in racing. Modern instrumentation, transducer, anemometer, and wind vane, help make these calculations but in practice they are very complex.

The bottom line is you can’t get there in a sailboat - there being anywhere – relying only on True wind.

Before I get into more trouble with those whose navigation skills are way beyond mine, here is my case right up front – True wind in philanthropy is based on the simple moral presumption of doing good, but the reality is you really can’t get there – you cannot accomplish your noble goals, without factoring in all kinds of complicated influences that hit you right in the face.  Some of these influences are within us – some influences lie shrouded in fog on the course we have chosen to take - some are a direct result of how we give, the very process and attitude we choose, and some represent push-back from the communities and recipients of our philanthropy.

The apparent wind of philanthropy is a combination of our good intentions and the unexpected/unintended consequences of our actions. It is what we experience. You cannot separate the two. Unlike sailing, we do not have instrumentation to help us stay the course. We are dependent on our moral compass, and our common sense.  Sometimes, that moral compass gets lost. And sometimes we check our common sense at the door.

Everyone has a moral compass whether we call it that or not. UCSB’s Michael Gazzaniga has done research that proves our brain has an “interpreter” with a moral dimension – an instinctive sense of right and wrong – and that we are essentially wired to know the difference.

The Katherine Harvey Fellows Program, sponsored by the Santa Barbara Foundation, is made up of 15 young leaders who experience a terrific 18-month immersion in philanthropy and community issues. The Fellows are developing a written moral compass for their own journey, their own actions – a fascinating process for all of us to do.

Society is hugely divided on what constitutes right moral action on a whole range of issues, and we as poor mortals, are conflicted as well. What is a true moral position or action to me may not be at all true to you.  The questions of “whose morality” looms large.

There is great debate as to whether there are universal moral truths. The philosopher Kant believed that moral action becomes “true” only if it can be universalized beyond what you or I think.

All moral considerations begin with our obligation to others, and moral struggles typically demand that we resist favoring ourselves to the exclusion of others. That is especially relevant to a donor with strong views of how things should be done.

Moral compass is based on moral imagination - the best definition of which I have seen comes from Robert Wright, in his book The Evolution of God – “moral imagination is the capacity to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes.” And empathy on that level is exactly what defines philanthropy. 

In sailing, there is no value differential between True wind and that generated by the forward movement of a vessel – they just are what they are, while in philanthropy moral judgments and opinions are all over the place. 

The True wind of philanthropy lies in civic virtue, in deeply-held convictions.  The word philanthropy is based on the Greek word philo, the root meaning of which is a strong affinity for love – to be philanthropic is to express that love through your means – money – and your self – time.

In practice, that is what we do when we make a gift to help someone in need, or support the work of theatre and the arts, or enable kids to learn how to sail who would otherwise not have that great fun and joy.

Charity is the basis for philanthropy. Charity comes out of our heart. It is the emotional response to the needs of the community and world in which we live, and it is a central aspect of the spiritual journey in every major religion. American philanthropy, as distinct from charity, has always been a combination of the heart and mind in the search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them.

The central tension - between philanthropy’s True wind and Apparent wind - is that philanthropy is private action in public space. It starts with what is most personal, and most private - our values and passions – and moves to a transaction, of money or time, that is enacted in public. This combination of a public and private persona is distinctly American. The opening lines to Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass express it perfectly –

One’s-self I sing, a single separate person,

Yet utter the word Democratic, the word En-Masse.

That ‘separate person’ is the American citizen-actor we so yearn to be – confident, independent, entrepreneurial – a Californian in all respects - probably a sailor too - and yet deeply concerned and committed to  community. When that kind of person turns to philanthropy, the resulting disruption is very dynamic.

Let me ask this question, because it bears on all these themes - why do you think some people are generous, and some with the same capacity or even more, are not?

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the most important motivations for charitable giving by high-net-worth households were meeting critical needs and giving back to society, both of which certainly have true moral dimensions, and social reciprocity, which is quite different – i.e., if you support my cause I will support yours. A recent article in The Economist cites a study that found that donors “do good because it makes them look good to those whose opinions they care about,” i.e., “image motivation.”

None of this is a surprise. The reality is that many successful fundraising efforts are based as much on ego gratification and recognition as on programmatic impact. Motivation is never entirely pure, but that is the human condition.

Today’s donors are more intentional, have more focus, and demand measurable results. Donors want to not only feel good about their philanthropy, they want proof they have made a difference.

They are cautions, however, about high-impact strategic philanthropy. One concern is that donors can be too controlling. There is also a concern that overreliance on data and measurable results makes donors less likely to take actions that are hard to measure, and thus, more risk adverse.

When we get caught up in too much process, it is easy to lose sight of the moral questions - Who to serve and who not to serve?  How to stand up and be counted when it is important to do so? When relevance becomes a servant to rigor, we lose our way.

This new kind of engaged donor can find themselves at the center of lots of disruptive headwinds. Yesterday’s Sunday New York Times had a big article about the troubles at the Aspen Music Festival, where activist donor-board members have clashed with the Artistic Director and the musicians – very painful for all concerned and terrible press for a distinguished organization.

When we get caught up in those kinds of things, and anyone who has been on enough nonprofit boards has had variations of that kind of experience, we easily forget the noble reasons we are on those boards.

In the 80’s I was president of the board of the Massachusetts Association of Mental Health. It was during the period of deinstitutionalization, the closing of the big hospitals, and the beginning of the community mental health system – a time of great upheaval. At one of those endless board meetings - late, late at night - the board was having a huge, loud, argument. All of sudden one of the members – the Dean of the School of Social Work at Simmons College – pounded on the table – ‘Hold it” she said, “this is not good for our mental health!   It kind of brought us back to why were in the board room to begin with –

One of my friends loves to say – “no good deed goes unpunished.” And he has lots of examples.

A very wealthy man in Madison, Wisconsin, saw the need for a new arts center, optioned what he felt was a perfect downtown location, and immediately hit a storm of objections ranging from scale of the project, traffic, design, and resistance from other arts organizations. After a year or more of bitter wrangling - the donor was quoted in the press as saying “I’m going to give $100 million to Madison for a new arts center whether it wants it or not!”

A little bit of hubris? Sure, but what happened in Madison - and by the way the arts center was finally built and is a huge success - happens all the time in every community including here in Santa Barbara.

You are an advocate for more low-income housing, or supportive housing for the homeless, or a day care center for children, or a youth center to help combat gang violence - all perfectly well-intentioned and needed projects which no one argues against, except for NIMBY – not my back yard. It is always a moment of truth for a donor – do you stand up and be counted when powerful headwinds make it very tough to do so?          

There are also broader societal tensions. A wise observer of philanthropy, Frank Karel, who worked for both the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, expressed it this way – “philanthropy does not rest easily on the bosom of the American society.”

It was true when John D. Rockefeller wanted to establish the first foundation in America, and was met by fierce resistance from a skeptical congress who did not trust this robber baron’s motivation. It is part of the American love/hate relationship with wealth that has only intensified with the troubling growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Last month, Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet issued a challenge to billionaires in particular, and the wealthy in general, to give away at least half of their wealth. If all those on the Forbes 400 did so, it would amount to $700 billion – as a point of reference Americans last year gave $300 billion to charity. As someone who has spent 20+ years working to promote philanthropy, this high-profile push for more giving is very exciting. You can go to the Giving Pledge website (www.givingpledge.org)  and see statements from forty billionaires who have ‘taken the pledge’ – and I am pleased to say that some of TPI’s clients are among them. Yet the reactions in the field and in the press have been mixed.

From a practical perspective, there is a concern that the nonprofit delivery system doesn’t have the capacity to handle that kind of increase. There is a bigger concern that concentrations of philanthropic dollars in the hands of a small number of individuals, no matter how smart or how well motivated, will overly influence the social agenda – a kind of ‘big box’ philanthropy without transparency and public input. That concern is fueled by the larger question of exactly what the American society gets in return for the tax advantages that the charitable sector enjoys? Specifically, the $50 billion in charitable income tax deductions is $50 billion less the government has at a time when federal deficits are at an all-time high. There have already been reversals in many parts of the country on the real estate tax exemption for nonprofit organizations – something that is just assumed.

There is more of that kind of pressure on philanthropy to come, including a sorting out of what role philanthropy should play, what role government should play, and what role the market economy could play in the resolution of social dilemmas

All of this ups the ante for philanthropy to avoid what are called moral hazards - the term economists use for decisions/actions with good intentions but that go off course and hit the rocks. In my view, the biggest moral hazard for philanthropy is when it breaks the golden rule “to do no harm.”

The Rockefeller Foundation in the 70’s funded a large-scale DDT effort in Africa to fight malaria. The result was devastating environmentally. One unintended consequence was the elimination of cats, and other natural enemies of rats, whose numbers dramatically increased. It took years to reverse those problems.

John D. Rockefeller set the standard for wise philanthropy in many ways, and intuitively understood this concept.  One great story was when Dr. Bill & Dr. Bob, the founders of AA - Alcoholics Anonymous – came to see the then richest man in America to ask for support for their fledgling organization. Mr. Rockefeller listened to them, and a week later invited the two men back – they were very, very, hopeful. But what Mr. Rockefeller had decided was to not make a grant. AA, then and now, was based on peer to peer support and spiritually based self realization.  That is its essence and he wisely understood that turning into a typical, nonprofit, professionally staffed, organization would destroy it.  He was proven right and his non-gift was the greatest gift he could have given.

I have a good friend, and TPI client, who has a favorite saying – “the best way to kill a good idea is to try to improve it” - a soft kind of criticism of too much over-analysis, of too much donor intrusion in the operations of nonprofit organizations.

Sometimes, the wind can get pretty rough at sea, and the same is true in philanthropy.

The Annie B. Casey Foundation, a national foundation that is based in Baltimore, is remarkable in a number of ways. It has focused on persistent poverty and poor families for many years – what one of my colleagues calls “the wicked issues.” Very tough problems indeed. Their early efforts to mount programs in cities across the country were abject failures. The foundation was perceived as arrogant, not having done local homework, and promoting programs that were counter-productive. Perhaps even more remarkable, the foundation admitted its failure, wrote it up, published the lessons learned, and re-launched their national work with families and children that has become a model for the rest of the field.

Failure is almost never discussed by foundations. Two years ago I had the opportunity to speak to the Gates Foundation staff, and gave a talk entitled Catechism for a Great Foundation. The Q & A period was led by Patty Stonsifer, then Gates Foundation President. She had one question – how do you deal with failure? Almost all of their major programs, on global disease prevention, on public school reform, had run into unexpected roadblocks. Here is the largest private foundation in the world, with access to the smartest experts in the world, coming up short in its ambitious and noble efforts. That social change is incremental at best is a lesson every donor learns, but I was impressed with the humility, self-awareness, and openness of the discussion – something that is not normative in the field, and needs to be.

In The World We Want[i] book published in 2006, these were the underlining questions: Where does the moral – or, if you prefer, “ethical” – conscience of the community lie, if not with us?  What does philanthropy wish to be, and what could it be if the moral dimension were more clearly in focus?  Where is philanthropy’s voice on the “wicked issues” – social justice, systemic poverty, and others? 

According to the Ford Foundation only 13% of philanthropy in the US goes to poverty or social justice issues, and the percentages are even less globally. The impact of the recession globally is huge - one out of seven people on the earth suffer from pervasive hunger, an increase in the past year of 100 million people!    

 Here are a few ideas of how to navigate philanthropy’s Apparent wind and be a great donor.

• Integrity of the philanthropic process begins when we become a listener, a learner, or a learning organization, about others who are different, about the issues, about what works and what doesn’t. Great donors learn how to listen deeply to the community.

• Great donors believe that integrity of purpose for any social action is based on one simple condition - “If it isn’t good for the community, and only good for the donor, it isn’t worth doing.”[ii]  Anyone who doesn’t understand that runs the risk of having a chair thrown at them someday. Sometimes that chair is literal, sometimes it is mud on your face, and sometimes it is because you have broken the rule “to do no harm.” 

• Leadership matters; it matters across cultures, it matters across time, and it matters greatly. Virtually all lasting significant social change comes from leaders working in intersecting networks of influence. Great donors work hard at identifying and supporting leadership.[iii] 

• Great donors focus on more than problem solving and investment return, and make the time – as hard as that is - for reflection and scenario planning on the long-term reality of what will take in most cases decades to accomplish.

• Great donors, irrespective of size, resist their core bureaucracy, remain nimble, and bring energy into a room, as opposed to taking it out.

• Great donors do more than ask the tough questions, they want - they really want - honest answers; even if those answers counter and disturb/disrupt the very assumptions the donor holds.

• And lastly, the heart and soul of great philanthropy flows from our values and passions. The work calls for growing our souls while we seek to transform society.”[iv] 

I believe those dictums are true, and also this one - “The only real transformation is the transformation of the human heart.”[v]         

The practical visionaries in The World We Want got it right. Here is what they said:

• Acknowledge that people know what they need. Help individuals find their own power and take control of their own destiny.

• Seek out the assets that every community has, build on them and celebrate. Make heroes of those who do this work.

• Find the alignment between self-interest and the common good. When there is none, push back and stand firm.

• Break out of the box. Use all available resources and innovation from every sector – business, citizen, government, nonprofit – to get the work done.

• Do whatever it takes – disruption, confrontation, jujitsu, logic, data, advocacy, and traveling the parallel tracks. The tactics and strategies are endless.

• Abandon comfort. Raise the bar. Put your whole self in, and hold the moral conscience of your community dear.

• Open it up: open yourself up. Provide building blocks for others to make their own dreams come true.

• To truly love, you must touch[vi]

All of these put together make up the point of view of the ethical and moral relationship we seek.

Let me end with these wise words from the Tao.

The Tao of Leadership:

Go to the people

Live among them

Learn from them

Start with what they know

Build on what they have

But for the best leaders

When there task is accomplished

Their work is done

The people will all remark

We have done it ourselves. 

Peter Karoff is the founder of The Philanthropic Initiative, Inc. 

[i] The World We Want – New Dimensions in Philanthropy and Social Change, by Peter Karoff, AltaMira Press 2006

[ii] Ibid - Alan Broadbent, Chapter 4, The Listening Post: Reflection and Radical Change

[iii] See Randall Collins’ “Global Theory of Intellectual  Change” and James Hunter’s work “To Change the World  

[iv] Ibid – from a conversation with Shirley Strong in Chapter 11, Building Beloved Community: Spirit and Activism 

[v] Ibid – Chapter 4 – The Listening Post: Reflection and Radical Change 

[vi] Ibid