"Because power doesn’t ask for permission. It doesn’t wait for its turn. It rushes in, fills the vacuum, and rewrites the rules while everyone else is still workshopping their value statement." LOVE this.
This for me: "The only real path forward is surrender — not a symbolic handoff or another toolkit or initiative, but real structural surrender. Move money without steering it. Fund people, not just programs. Prioritize urgency over alignment. Let go of the need to script the outcome. Understand: the power to give doesn’t entitle you to shape the world in your image."
Surrender. I have been a long-time student of it, and often wished that everyone in the nonprofit sector would have the occasion to study it from the place of having no other choice. It's personal work, interpersonal work, before it can be institutional work. That is my experience, anyway.
My guiding principles in this space have evolved to this: "the conscious use of power can be medicine" and "all work gets done through relationships."
That's for writing this, Jason. Just subscribed, and eager to read more of your work.
This article appears to suggest that peivate sector philanthropy suffers from the same problems as public sector philanthropy, albeit made worse by lack of democratic control. Effectively we have here an argument for a widespread dose of socialism, a coming together of institutions to volunteer to pay more tax.
Although maybe that's going too far, but there is here for certain a watertight argument for ending the derision incessantly heaped on public services, for a more balanced and civilised discussion of where philanthropy should come from.
Very well done, Jason. This soft authoritarianism is often what we label as "the establishment" and feel as some force that has determine the rightness of its purpose and remains unresponsive to those who don't embrace its code. It emanates from some professional organizations and trade papers, as well. It what donors feel but don't know quite how to express.
Fully agree with this sentiment. I'm trying to do whatever small things I can to help empower nonprofits and break this cycle. That's why I founded my nonprofit, Better Giving: to champion the rights of nonprofits to organizational autonomy, financial self-sufficiency, and equal opportunity.
I’ve only worked for two nonprofits in my career and neither of them depended on foundation or grant funding, so I’m extremely naive to the structure of institutional philanthropy. I guess my question is what role can revenue diversification play here? If the power plant is broken, why not switch to an alternative form of energy?
I work for a nonprofit that only gets a small portion of our funding from foundations currently but gets most of our funding from other institutional donors (corporations mainly) and I am seeing the same pulling back of funds and "reevaluation of priorities". I think being an individual donor-dependent organization might be a slightly better hedge, given that it's less likely individuals will cave to societal or market pressures if they are passionate about something. However, that comes with its own challenges, including cultivating a much larger group of donors and the time and resources needed for that. Also foundations can make much larger gifts than corporations and individuals can in most cases.
This post really reminds me of Anand Giriharadas's book Winners Take All from a few years ago, it's sad to see how little things have changed.
"Because power doesn’t ask for permission. It doesn’t wait for its turn. It rushes in, fills the vacuum, and rewrites the rules while everyone else is still workshopping their value statement." LOVE this.
Grateful to find your work. You had my attention with "This isn’t a system designed for courage." Look forward to following your work.
Spot. On. I love how this manages to be emotional and urgent while also deeply informed, intelligent, and insightful. Yes.
This for me: "The only real path forward is surrender — not a symbolic handoff or another toolkit or initiative, but real structural surrender. Move money without steering it. Fund people, not just programs. Prioritize urgency over alignment. Let go of the need to script the outcome. Understand: the power to give doesn’t entitle you to shape the world in your image."
Surrender. I have been a long-time student of it, and often wished that everyone in the nonprofit sector would have the occasion to study it from the place of having no other choice. It's personal work, interpersonal work, before it can be institutional work. That is my experience, anyway.
My guiding principles in this space have evolved to this: "the conscious use of power can be medicine" and "all work gets done through relationships."
That's for writing this, Jason. Just subscribed, and eager to read more of your work.
Perhaps:
This article appears to suggest that peivate sector philanthropy suffers from the same problems as public sector philanthropy, albeit made worse by lack of democratic control. Effectively we have here an argument for a widespread dose of socialism, a coming together of institutions to volunteer to pay more tax.
Although maybe that's going too far, but there is here for certain a watertight argument for ending the derision incessantly heaped on public services, for a more balanced and civilised discussion of where philanthropy should come from.
Very well done, Jason. This soft authoritarianism is often what we label as "the establishment" and feel as some force that has determine the rightness of its purpose and remains unresponsive to those who don't embrace its code. It emanates from some professional organizations and trade papers, as well. It what donors feel but don't know quite how to express.
Fully agree with this sentiment. I'm trying to do whatever small things I can to help empower nonprofits and break this cycle. That's why I founded my nonprofit, Better Giving: to champion the rights of nonprofits to organizational autonomy, financial self-sufficiency, and equal opportunity.
I’ve only worked for two nonprofits in my career and neither of them depended on foundation or grant funding, so I’m extremely naive to the structure of institutional philanthropy. I guess my question is what role can revenue diversification play here? If the power plant is broken, why not switch to an alternative form of energy?
I work for a nonprofit that only gets a small portion of our funding from foundations currently but gets most of our funding from other institutional donors (corporations mainly) and I am seeing the same pulling back of funds and "reevaluation of priorities". I think being an individual donor-dependent organization might be a slightly better hedge, given that it's less likely individuals will cave to societal or market pressures if they are passionate about something. However, that comes with its own challenges, including cultivating a much larger group of donors and the time and resources needed for that. Also foundations can make much larger gifts than corporations and individuals can in most cases.
This post really reminds me of Anand Giriharadas's book Winners Take All from a few years ago, it's sad to see how little things have changed.
Don’t miss the 2nd installment in this series about the Nice Guys - I reference Winners Take All and several others
Sigh