Passion in Philanthropy Must Be Balanced With Hard Data

To the Editor:

H. Peter Karoff is correct that passion, intuition, and creativity are key to philanthropic effectiveness (“Passion — Not Strategy — Drives Successful Giving,” September 20).

The problem comes in his assumption that, somehow, there is a choice to be made between these qualities, on the one hand, and strategy, rigorous analysis, and measurement, on the other. Without analysis, how do we ensure that our passion is directed effectively? Without hard data, how do we judge whether our intuition was right? Without research, how do we develop the creative insights that will really make a difference?

The fact is, both passion and analytics, not to mention a sound strategy, are critically important. One of Mr. Karoff’s own examples, of Disney’s analysis of school-improvement efforts, which laid the groundwork for breakthrough creative ideas, illustrates nicely that the dichotomy he alludes to does not, in fact, exist.

Perhaps Mr. Karoff’s frustration derives from the fact that much of what currently passes for “results measurement” in the foundation world is not very helpful. But that should not lead us to turn away from measurement altogether. There are many useful ways in which foundations could measure their own effectiveness, not just on an individual grant basis but over all. By understanding how they are doing, relative to their potential and relative to others, foundations can then make the strategic and organizational changes that are required for improvement.

It’s tempting to dismiss the need for rigorous analysis, which, after all, takes time and effort and can yield uncomfortable results, by saying, “This work is about passion.” We should resist that temptation.

We should instead embrace a philanthropy that combines passionate commitment and dispassionate analysis to most effectively meet our collective aim: the betterment of society and improvement of lives.

Phil Buchanan
Executive Director
Center for Effective Philanthropy
Boston