Responsive Fundraising

For those following along on Substack as we get to know the moralists in our space who are giving the pragmatists a run for their money, Michael Hartmann is largely addressing the same phenomenon when he refers to “philanthropic progressive managerialism.” Hartmann explains that “the Ford Foundation and other big foundations share a worldview that assumes everything can and should be managed.” He emphasizes that this includes everything. Those who hold this worldview not only believe that a better world is possible but also see themselves as the chosen ones—the elect—who will impose their order on the rest of the world. In this sense, their perspective is not all that different from that of a Presbyterian minister. Don’t miss this: what Hartmann is describing isn’t just the moralist approach; it’s the intersection of the moralist and pragmatist worldviews—a managerialism that combines the moralist’s insistence on the right and wrong ways and whys of giving with the pragmatist’s relentless pursuit of data to optimize and manipulate donor behavior. Together, they expose the absurdity of contemporary fundraising practice. This absurdity is not simply the expectation that a donor would align with one of these flawed ways of thinking but that some of us would expect them to adhere to both at the same time.

Jonathan Larson, best known for writing the musical Rent, famously said, “The opposite of war is not peace, it’s creation.” This idea was central to my argument in The War for Fundraising Talent: our professional community must end the bidding war for a shrinking pool of talent and instead focus on identifying, training, and coaching a new generation of high-capacity fundraisers. Like many professions, fundraising has an abundance of resources for building knowledge—books, periodicals, conferences, and seminars all help enhance technical expertise. Higher education has also made strides, with more students graduating each year familiar with the field. For example, every spring, I teach a nonprofit management course at the college. However, high-performing fundraisers cannot be created in the classroom alone. One of the greatest barriers to achieving our goals is the lack of in-the-field experience. Fundraising efforts often maintain arms-length relationships with the majority of donors, while a small group of major donors subsidize operations with their largest contributions. When aspiring fundraisers ask me how to prepare for a successful career, my advice is always the same: get into the field, build meaningful relationships, and set higher expectations that work both ways. In January, our free monthly webinar will focus on deliberate practice—also known as the science of expertise—one of the three consulting disciplines we rely on at Responsive Fundraising. Joining me will be one of our clients, who has been utilizing deliberate practice for nearly a decade—first as a major gifts officer and now as a chief advancement officer leading a large team. If you’d like to join us on Thursday, January 23rd, at 11 AM EST, we’d be delighted to have you. Sign up below!

For quite some time now, I’ve been making sense of the two worldviews that dominate contemporary fundraising: the moralist and the pragmatist. Moralists treat giving like a pseudo-tax—an obligation to fix systemic failures. Pragmatists see it as a market exchange, an opportunity to sell the warm glow of changing the world. While this might sound abstract, nothing brings these worldviews into sharper relief than anonymous giving or the allure of data. In the dark, moralists lose their ability to assess whether the gift “measures up.” Pragmatists lose their ability to predict and optimize donor behavior. What we quickly discover is that neither can tolerate losing control—they just pursue it in different ways. Here’s what’s dangerous: The more moralists try to regulate the gift and pragmatists attempt to commodify it, the more it resists. The gift retreats, slips underground, and disappears from view. And when the gift disappears, society is left with nothing but the market and the state to rely on. Today’s Substack is all about getting to know the pragmatists and moralists among us—and how both are masters of creating a simulacrum of the gift. Link in the comments. Enjoy, if you dare!

Publications like Axios need to be more selective about who they enlist to comment on philanthropy. Felix Salmon, Axios’ chief financial correspondent and writer of Axios Markets, focuses on “all the ways money drives the world.” The challenge is that Salmon sees the world as having only two drivers: the market and the state. Salmon’s perspective on philanthropy is confined within what Karl Polanyi referred to as the “double movement.” He views the world solely through the dominant modes of exchange: government and marketplace—consumer self-interest versus collective interest. In Salmon’s framework, there are only two camps: the moralist who trusts the tax and the pragmatist who trusts the commodity. Neither camp trusts the voluntary, transformative power of the gift. Given this binary view, Salmon sees philanthropy’s role as redistribution, yet he claims it increasingly aligns with the self-interests of the nation’s wealthiest individuals. While this may initially seem like a reasonable critique—one that anyone left of center might readily champion—it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Salmon conflates the voluntary act of giving with the coercive act of taxation. Redistribution is, and always has been, the obligation of the state—not the voluntary giver. Salmon also asserts that only market-minded, self-interested philanthropists are uniquely guilty of “cakeism”—giving money away while receiving something of significant value in return. Yet those aligned with the state have always been, and always will be, guilty of the same sin. What both market and state ultimately desire is control; they simply achieve it through different means. At its core, the gift is about recognizing the needs of the other, as understood by the giver, and surrendering control. It transcends both the regulatory reach of the state and the manipulative tendencies of the market. While criticisms of Musk, Zuckerberg, and Gates are easy ammunition for clicks, Salmon’s inability to grasp the essence of the gift underscores the limitations of his perspective.

Dylan Matthews over at Vox says the problem with U.S. charity is that it’s not effective enough. His piece is a response to Emma Goldberg’s NYT article, which questions whether philanthropy should always strive to be optimized—challenging the Effective Altruism mantra of getting the “most bang for your buck.” Around and around we go. Here’s the thing: philanthropy as we know it is a product of modernity and capitalism. The rules of the game aren’t going to change all that much—unless we abandon the system we have, and when we do, philanthropy as we know it will go with it. These debates almost always devolve into systems of shoulds: philanthropy should be more impactful, transparent, strategic, virtuous. But all of this misses a key truth: philanthropy, at its core, hinges on the gift—an enduring, mysterious, inherently unpredictable mode of exchange that resists systems and structure. No matter how hard the moralist tries to force the gift to follow their rules, to fit it into their system of shoulds, it won’t. It’s a fool’s errand.

The Canadian postal strike and its impact on year-end fundraising is a reminder of several things. To start, we need to abandon our machine mindset. As Sidney Dekker points out, many of us navigate the world as if Descartes were on retainer, putting too much faith in data and technology and expecting everything to work like a well-oiled machine. Disruptions like the postal strike remind us that no amount of techno-optimism can shield us from the uncertainties inherent in complex systems. Next, while understanding complex systems can be challenging, it’s not as difficult as it might seem. All complex systems reveal similar patterns if we take the time to observe them. As Seth Godin emphasizes in his recent book on strategy, too many of us are taught to focus on tactics, which blinds us to the deeper ways systems function. Godin also reminds us that not everyone has a vested interest in helping us see the system as clearly as they do. Much like the lessons from the Olive Cooke tragedy and the Give Local America meltdown, the Canadian postal strike reminds us of the risks of over-reliance on direct mail. In collaboration with profit-driven companies, our organizations have unwittingly created a textbook example of a robust-yet-fragile system—one that is reliable under normal conditions but prone to collapse under pressure. This essay is the first in a series examining the legacy of direct mail fundraising. After half a century of its outsized influence—and with most only disingenuously questioning whether it’s dead—I’m happy to offer a more critical take. Enjoy, if you so dare!

Today, we’re talking about the Quarterly Sync—a simple yet powerful ritual that can be a game-changer for fundraising teams. More than just another meeting, the Quarterly Sync provides a dedicated space for teams to reflect, forecast, and reinforce a shared understanding of effective fundraising practices. As I share in this week’s Substack, I’ve learned a lot from observing how these quarterly sessions succeed—and sometimes fall short. The Memphis client I describe was one of those extraordinary learning experiences I could write an entire book about. Unlike routine check-ins or annual retreats, the Quarterly Sync bridges the gap between day-to-day operations and big-picture strategy. It helps teams identify patterns, refine their focus, and ensure their efforts are aligned across all three lanes. Whether you’re a small shop or a larger team, the Quarterly Sync creates the clarity and cohesion needed to thrive. By prioritizing belief work, in-field skill development, and collective learning, this ritual fosters alignment, mutual accountability, and a shared understanding of what truly drives effective fundraising. If the Quarterly Sync resonates with you and you’d like to learn more about Responsive’s use of deliberate practice to enhance fundraising capacity, register for our free webinar in January. You’ll find the registration link at the end of today’s article on Substack. This webinar won’t be a dog-and-pony show—just a thought-provoking conversation about how deliberate practice and rituals like the Quarterly Sync can dramatically transform your team’s approach to fundraising.

This week, I want to share two capacity-building strategies that have proven especially effective for our clients: the platform strategy and the quarterly review. These approaches strengthen leadership, align organizations, and position nonprofits for success in an increasingly complex world. The platform strategy, in particular, externalizes the senior leader’s role, empowers internal teams, and helps boards focus on the forest instead of the trees. For many leaders and boards, a platform strategy isn’t first nature. Leaders often focus on operations, and boards mirror that focus, staying stuck in the weeds of day-to-day issues. A platform strategy changes this dynamic, elevating the senior leader to engage donors and influencers while creating space for internal leaders to grow and enabling boards to think more strategically. As the current generation of leaders retires and younger leaders face increasing demands, capacity-building strategies like those we’re discussing this week will become essential. They equip leaders with tools to navigate complexity, articulate bold visions, and foster collaboration with other game-changing endeavors. Along with asking difficult questions that help us rethink contemporary fundraising practices, we want to introduce nonprofit leaders and their boards to practical strategies that we have experimented with, refined, and proven effective in the field. If you’d like the benefit of both, be sure to subscribe to The Butterfly Effect. Be sure to find the link in the comments.

Earlier this year, I explored Big Philanthropy’s relentless search for the holy grail—an elusive “one best way” to fix all that ails philanthropy. But this isn’t an epic quest; it’s an existential crisis. And as we might expect from those in the midst of such a crisis, rules abound—they’re multiplying and evolving into factions. As George Orwell observed, orthodoxy thrives on unquestioned acceptance. In Big Philanthropy, it’s easy to spot: the incessant use of should and must as moral punctuation marks. Yet this “Should Doctrine” promises clarity while delivering division, risking the support many organizations cannot afford to lose. What I’ve come to understand is that the proliferation of rules serves a purpose. Trafficking in white papers, podcasts, and keynotes, our sector’s symbolic capitalists—consultants, academics, and foundation leaders—excel at disguising ideologies as best practices. Their talk of prescriptive rules curries favor with those who feel helpless and out of control. To read more about the Should Doctrine, check out this morning’s article in The Butterfly Effect.

Last year, GivingTuesday raised about the same dollars as the year before—but participation was down 10%. That’s a big deal for a movement built on getting as many people involved as possible. With the annual event just around the corner, I’m sure the team at GivingTuesday is crossing their fingers that local organizers do their part to turn this trend around and breathe a new level of participatory energy into the movement. To make that happen, mindsets have to change. GivingTuesday wasn’t meant to be a “consume and comply” campaign notorious for a flood of email appeals insisting that everyone “Give Now.” Instead, it was built on “new power” values—engagement, creativity, and #participation. Translation: fewer emails, no more stamps, and instead—how do we relinquish control and get out of the way to create a more meaningful, #participatory experience? For #GivingTuesday to thrive, local organizers can’t fall into the trap of being “cheerleaders” who mean well but miss the mark or “co-opters” who duct-tape #newpower values onto their cheap, arms-length fundraising practices. Turning things around starts with making sense of the original intent and ensuring that what’s happening on the ground aligns with truly participatory values. If you’re missing The Butterfly Effect—our weekly Substack of timely, thought-provoking takes on contemporary fundraising practices—be sure to subscribe today! #responsivefundraising #givenowland