The process of choosing finalists in my group was quite surprising and unexpected in my opinion. I’d have never thought that we could shave down 55 organizations to 6 with no argument whatsoever. Is it that the 6 organizations my group chose were obviously the best? No one stood up for any particular organization after we rejected it. Everyone seemed to accept the group mentality. When I first met with my group, I wasn’t about ready to eliminate my top pick from the list (not actually Kopernik) and was ready to argue for it. Once I showed my interest in this organization, everyone agreed without hesitation. It’s certainly worth discussing the possibility of group-think and how it could come into play. Is this group process any more beneficial than individual giving? Are we held at the mercy of public opinion and unable to express our individualism?
There were certain criteria that were mentioned more than a few times that don’t make too much sense. It feels as if they are applied because they're “obvious.” These particular criteria seem to give an immediate return on investment rather than a long-term investment in the future. As philanthropists, we really need to decide what the benefit and detriments of these criteria might be, but most of us used them to some extent without reflection. The first criterion, in my opinion, is illogical and counterproductive to the process: give to the organizations that need money to survive. It seems like a unwise use of money from the philanthropist’s viewpoint. The potential for that organization to fail is much greater than a stable one. This collection of snippets from several articles gives a decent summary of the argument (http://www.alliancetrends.org/nonprofits.cfm?id=56). If you donate the same amount of money to a successful organization, then it will be able to use that money to immediately take steps towards its goal and do so with little risk. In addition, organizations that have trouble getting funding are most likely unable to due to poor leadership or a disorganized, ineffective administration. Organizations that have no choice but to beg for money will never earn my trust.
The second criterion that I find a bit backwards in many cases is elimination based on what the grant will be used towards. Even if a grant doesn’t go towards directly furthering an organization’s goals, most donations bring them closer in some way, whether it’s known to us or not. For example, money given to administration allows for a stronger leadership and a more effective “business.” A largely uninformed group that eliminates an organization using this standard seems presumptuous. We’re basically deciding that we know what an organization’s needs are more than the organization itself. I’m sure that many nonprofits have a good idea where the money is most needed and most effective. Obviously, this argument doesn't apply in many cases, but this criterion should not be applied across the board. However, if we support an organization’s goals, then we need to decide whether it deserves our trust. If they haven't yet earned our trust, then it’s much better to see the organization’s past performance to judge if they'll make good use of the grant. It doesn't necessarily matter in what manner they use the money; it's much more important to extrapolate if their decision will have a positive impact based on the organization's previous track record.
I’m curious about anybody who may disagree with this. In what ways could these criteria be more beneficial than detrimental? Do you think using them would go more along the lines of emotional giving or logical giving? I definitely welcome and encourage any differing perspectives.
Mike, I think you have a really interesting argument about group mentality versus individual mentality. I noticed a similar trend in my group, but a different pattern.
ReplyDeleteIn my group, only half of us were able to meet face-to-face to discuss our finalists. The other half either emailed us with their top choices, or told us whatever we picked would be fine. Of the three of us that debated, I found us agreeing on most topics. When we chose our finalists, the majority had been on everyone's list. Yet when we all entered class yesterday and saw our final list, the other half of us were confused with our choices. I thought it was funny; if they'd chosen these organizations on their own, why did it suddenly change once they became real decisions?
I think when it comes to giving, we like to make our own choices. Even if we had made the initial choice, we like to be the ones to follow through with an idea. This makes all the difference in decisions like this. The three of us who saw face to face agreed quickly when everyone began suggesting organizations, because those ideas became choices. And we could choose to agree. Yet to anyone who hadn't had that face to face experience, there was no choice, just a decision. That means that even if it had been the best organization, they still would have felt it out of place.
I think the biggest part of charity is we like to think the choice is ours. This means that you'd get more satisfaction out of agreeing with a group on someone else's great idea, than seeing a great choice you didn't make. And while that is a weird phenomenon, I think it's helpful. It means that when push comes to shove, maybe we'll all agree on organizations, if it means we get to nod at someone else's suggestion and make it our own.
Rachel, your ideas are really insightful. I've never really thought about it in that way. I appreciate your analysis into the mindset of group decision-making. The idea of "selfish" philanthropy has always been thrown around, but perhaps this is our first encounter with it. Your group experience may be the perfect example of it.
DeleteA common human reaction to success is to claim that your part in the process made it possible to succeed. The opposite reaction is when the decision goes against our opinion, we believe that failure is likely. Sometimes we may even "hope" that it fails just to prove our opinion to be right. I don't think too many people felt that latter reaction during this initial process, but it is possible that it happens during the final decision. In terms of your group mates who were confused, it makes sense that they don't see your initial line of reasoning, so they can't know the conclusion you came to.
I may just be assuming that most people react in this way, and I may be wrong. I think we all feel this way to some extent. But how do we combat this? It's a really tough dilemma to circumvent emotional reactions to make logical decisions. Instead of agreeing because something sounds good and everyone else supports it, we have to take the perspective of someone who has the opposite opinion to see if our choice makes sense.
I'm not sure I agree with the beneficial part of group-think in this scenario. I think with any group you need to have the opposite sides represented no matter the issue that's being discussed. Once the group becomes one-sided, there's a much greater chance of losing critical thinking to come to a solid, informed consensus. If everyone agrees, there's much less impetus to come up with a logical and convincing argument. Opponents force us to think through every logical step we take.
Very thought-provoking response, Rachel. Thanks for your input!
Mike, thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the process was a lot different than I expected as well. Once you actually have to choose a few organizations to recommend as finalists, your thoughts and feelings are quite different than expected. It does feel weird to eliminate some organizations without giving them a second thought, as many of those organizations are very important at doing what they do. However, that is one of the difficulties associated with only having a limited number of recipients and a huge pool of applicants.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point in the second paragraph, and the likelihood of an organization failing should be taken in to consideration. It should not be eliminated though, but we must ask "Is this organization important to the community? And will a donation of money revitalize this organization and allow it to survive for many years?" If the answers to both of those questions is yes, I would argue that we should donate money to an organization that is fighting for survival. If, however, our money would simply be used up in a matter of weeks or months and the organization would be no better off, than I am inclined to agree with you and look elsewhere to donate.
Trust in an organization is a huge part of donating large sums of money. We have to trust that organization manages the money well and uses it towards a project or goal that is worthwhile. That is why it is important to research organizations thoroughly. The more that is known about an organization, the easier it will be to trust an organization. Online research, site visits, and reaching out to employees/volunteers are all great ways to learn more about an organization. I am sure that when we conduct our final vote, we will know a good deal about the finalists and will be able to know if we can trust them or not.
Hey, Alec. Thanks for you response. I do agree that it's necessary to see what need that a failing organization is trying to fill. What I didn't state in my post was that we, as philanthropists, should find the best organization that fulfills a community need. If there's an organization that has a great goal but is struggling, then we should find an alternative. The alternative doesn't need to be the same; we'd just want it to have compatible goals. If there exists no possible alternative, then we should decide if it's better to donate to a different cause or take the risk and donate to the failing nonprofit. In either case donating to a struggling nonprofit is never really the optimal choice, except possibly for the case in which you refuse to change the problem area you want you donations go towards.
DeleteMike, I agree with the majority of what you are saying. The biggest problem I had with this project was that it was basically assigned on Tuesday for presentations the next week. Giving us less than a week to read all proposals and evaluate each of their merit compared to all the rest. These core values that we established on Thursday allowed us to do so relatively easily, and with each member of the group looking for organizations that met these criteria, we were left with little debate or even discussion. If it was up to me I would have loved to examine each of the proposals carefully and explored websites and facebook pages. However, due to the time constraint this was not possible. Because of the way the project was structured I am sure that several great organizations that would have benefited from our funds were left out.
ReplyDeleteOn your criticisms of the specific criteria I would have to agree and disagree. Our money should go to well organized and able organizations, however some organizations are unable to secure funds through other means other than grants. This does not necessarily mean that they do not know how to use the money and will not be able to use the money wisely. Instead of looking for well funded organization perhaps we should be looking at organizations that make significant changes with the funds they have at hand. These are not the same.
Your next criticism on the criteria for what essentially is transparency. I personally would not have a problem if our funds went to help pay staff so that they could continue doing work for the community. I feel like many people in this class would not have a problem with that. However that does not weaken my desire to know exactly where the money would be going. Whether it be to create a whole new program or fund salaries, what I believe most of us want is simply and answer. There is nothing to fault in this desire.
Hi Mike. Thanks for a great blog post. I too was surprised by how easily we all agreed. I guess at this point, it was more of us agreeing that all of these causes deserved attention. Nothing suggested was a “bad cause” so how could we say no to each other’s suggestions? Also, we were aware that other groups would be making presentations so we did not yet feel that responsibility to make the most effective choice. I anticipate that will come soon when tougher decisions are made.
ReplyDeleteI see where you are coming from with these two worries about us not giving effectively. I have gone back and forth with similar thoughts especially when we were discussing effective philanthropy in class. While I cannot tell you which side of each debate I am on, because I still am not sure, I can offer you some rationale for wanting to choose a organization that need donations immediately.
I came across http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/03/how-to-become-a-superhero/ . I don’t agree with all of his points, but some definitely resonate. One idea he shares is that without the large bureaucracy, we know exactly where our donation is going and we know exactly how our donation will help, especially with needier organizations. This gives us a tangible result. Maybe it is not the most effective, but the feeling is powerful. In some ways, it is kind of like an identifiable victim, but on a larger level. For example, maybe Organization A has a large budget but can spend $1000 super efficiently with great results and little waste, but it doesn’t tell you exactly how it will spend it. It is too busy making the most of its money too update its donors and reach out. Of course, these organizations may be rated online and there will be some transparency through that but that is not very “personal.” But Organization B targets the same issue area and is smaller. You know they will their best to spend the money well, but maybe that will come at a cost. Maybe only $900 of that donation will go directly to that issue. But, you know exactly how that $900 will be spent and they’re willing to talk with you about it. That ability to talk to you may help a deeper connection form between you and the organization. In some ways I think it is harder to turn away from that second organization because of this attachment. He ends with “Let Bill Gates save the world. You can save a life.” I think this illustrates our selfish desire for tangible immediate results and maybe it is easier to get this from smaller and needier organizations.
I think it is also important to remember that even the big organizations make mistakes but I think transparency and actively improving from these mistakes make up for it. Even the best causes and organizations will make a mistake, but as you said trust is a key factor. We need to trust them to improve. Whether big or small, we need to find organizations we trust and believe in. Alec highlighted a key point for me, the more I know, the more I can trust. I think this relates to our desire to know exactly where our donation goes and the understanding of knowing how it is spent. One way small organizations may benefit from this is more time availability. If we call up a huge organization and request to make a site visit, they may just give a very general overview and try to move on to another donor or task. A smaller organization may be more likely to invest more of their time in trying to show you why they are different. Clearly this has downsides too and goes back to an efficiency issue, but it will definitely leave us with a different feeling. Now I left wondering, do our giving choices (efficient organizations versus needier organizations) relate the head versus heart debate? In other words, do we usually choose the needy ones for the “heart” fulfillment and efficient ones more for the “head?”
I was as surprised as you were about how seemingly easy it was to pick our finalists for our presentation this week. While we offered our opinion on our chosen organizations and may have opposed others choices, it was fairly easy to come up with our list of organizations. I think one of the reasons it was easier than expected is because most of, if not all of us got one or more of our organizations on our group’s list. However, I think if we had more people and less spots for finalists, there would have been more opposition. An example of that is our class decision. We have more people (four times as many as our groups) and less spots. I’m sure we will be voicing our opinions more strongly once we as 25 have to pick a handful of finalists from our current list of 16.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in your post how you didn’t believe that giving to an organization that needed money was a good idea. While I see where you are coming from, I disagree in some respect. While I don’t believe we should donate to an organization that is clearly failing where our money will make no difference, I think there are certain circumstances where we should. One example of this is Family Planning, which is one of our finalists. While they are not “failing” per se, they are in dire need of money in order to keep themselves afloat. They provide necessary services to the rural community but aren’t receiving funds because of their location close to the county line. I advocated to give some of our grant to Family Planning because we can be the ones to save their organization an it would be a long-term investment.
You also mentioned how you did not like how organizations were eliminated based on their request. I agree with you that the organizations know best about what they need more than we do. However, we had to narrow down 85 pages worth of applications to a mere 16 organizations. We were also very pressed for time being given only a week to complete this task. While I agree that we may not know as much as the organizations, we had to eliminate organizations based on something. I admit that when I saw the bingo machine request, I immediately went to the next application. If we had more time, I think that could have made more in depth decisions.