Too much empathy?

Recently, I was talking with a friend who is a member of a giving circle with a high pricetag.  She was upset because all of her pre-voting conversations indicated that a particular organization, which she believed was hands down the best choice, was going to receive this year’s circle grant.  The organization had a solid leader, data-driven research to prove impact, a strong infrastructure with an equally strong financial plan, and a high-functioning board.  From her perspective, a shoe-in.  Needless to say, as you know where this is going, the group voted and another organization won, an organization that by all accounts from those outside this giving circle and knowledgeable of the local sector, was a surprising choice, as the organization was known to be in trouble, have questionable impact and was overall a much weaker choice.  How did that happen?

View image | gettyimages.com

For those unfamiliar with giving circles, they come in all shapes and sizes, from the national model of Impact 100 to the local group of friends who agree to donate a set amount of money which the collective uses  to award grants to nonprofits.  In most giving circles, the members themselves check out the eligible nonprofits, identified either through an application process or through the nomination of circle members,  make site visits, have conversations, etc. to make the selection of awardees.  They’re program officer and board of trustees all in one.  It is generally a highly personable and personalized form of grant making, which is part of its appeal.  (That and the fact that you can give a small amount, which pooled with the gifts of other members make a sizeable donation that no one member would likely to have been to make on her/his own.)

Contrast this with a recent email I received from one of my favorite organizations—Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.  The title of the email was “The keys to strong, honest relationships.”  I was hopeful, so I read on.  The email included a link to the Smarter Grantmaking Playbook, which helps GEO members (i.e., funders) build stronger, more honest relationships with their grantees.  I clicked on the link and was taken to a page entitled, “Strengthening Relationships with Grantees,” which contained yet eight other links, with the first labeled, “What is a stakeholder engagement?”  It was the fourth link, however, that really grabbed my attention:  “What is empathy and what are the benefits?”  More than a little put off—after all, should we really have to define and outline for grantmakers what empathy is and why it is of value in their line of business?  I clicked no further than the opening page, in which I found this statement, “…while philanthropy often originates out of compassion and concern for others, grantmakers sometimes forget to make empathy a core driver of our grantmaking.”

This statement will come as no surprise to most of us who fulfill the role of grantee.  I’m sure most, if not all, of us have experienced the grantmaker who lacks empathy, perhaps the result of the “businessfication” of philanthropy.  But should empathy be a core driver?  Empathy for the cause was the core driver that had the giving circle make what empathetic, rational people saw as a poor decision, sending people’s hard earned money in a wrong direction.  Too little empathy, though, can cause equally wrong funding decisions.  Empathy is unquestionably important and, to GEO’s overarching point, too frequently absent these days.  But just how much empathy is the right amount?