An unseen lens: The relationship between philanthropists’ developmental meaning making and philanthropic activity

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21299
• Author: Jennifer A. Jones
• Date: 01 June 2018
• Published date: 01 June 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An unseen lens: The relationship between

philanthropists’developmental meaning making

and philanthropic activity

Jennifer A. Jones

Department of Family, Youth, and Community

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville,

Florida

Correspondence

Jennifer A. Jones, Department of Family, Youth,

and Community Sciences, University of Florida,

PO Box 110310, Gainesville, FL 32611.

Email: jenniferajones@ufl.edu

To solve complex problems such as poverty, nonprofit

leaders must think in increasingly complex ways.

Research on philanthropy has not yet explored the com-

plexity of philanthropists’thinking while making

philanthropy-related decisions. Developmental psychol-

ogy indicates that adults develop an increasingly complex

mental map over the course of a lifetime and that this

map emerges as a series of successive stages. This study

asked: How, if at all, does this mental map inform philan-

thropy? This four-phase mixed-methods multi-case study

(n= 11) used constructive developmental theory to

empirically assess philanthropists’developmental levels

and, then, compare identified levels with data about the

donor’s philanthropic activities such as donations and

board memberships. The contributions of the study are

twofold: (a) the findings suggest philanthropists’develop-

mental levels are related to their thinking processes about

charitable giving and the rationales they employ to make

decisions about their philanthropic activities (specifically,

how they form ideas about the problem and how they

engage in empathy), and (b) this study makes a methodo-

logical contribution by demonstrating a novel (and appar-

ently useful) approach to researching philanthropic

giving. Theoretical and practical implications are

discussed.

KEYWORDS

developmental theory, nonprofit management,

philanthropy

Received: 3 April 2017 Revised: 21 November 2017 Accepted: 30 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/nml.21299

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2018;28:491–509.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 491

1|INTRODUCTION

The nonprofit sector is an area of society where people attempt to address complex problems such

as poverty, racism, and environmental degradation. Large-scale and seemingly intractable problems

have been labeled “wicked problems”because there is no definitive formulation of the problem and

no obvious or immediately testable solution; viable solutions emerge through learning-while-doing,

and, in many cases, the doing involves the high-stakes work of influencing the lives of real human

beings (Rittle & Webber, 1973).

Addressing so-called wicked problems requires the nonprofit sector (including its funders) to

move away from short-term solutions toward long-term, systemic, and multifaceted approaches. To

rise to the challenge of systemic leadership, Senge, Hamilton, and Kania (2015) suggest leaders

need to develop a few core capacities: the ability to see how the leaders themselves might be part

of the problem, the ability to facilitate the emergence collective intelligence (rather than just pro-

mote on their own ideas), and a willingness to learn-while-doing. In short, to address complex prob-

lems nonprofit sector leaders must be able to think in increasingly complex ways and to reflect

critically on their approach to both the problem and the solution. While these capacities can be criti-

cal for an organization’s senior leaders to possess, it is also important that philanthropists—in par-

ticular, board members and major donors—have the capacity to understand and support more

complex initiatives.

Scholars and practitioners have examined variation in philanthropic behavior through many dif-

ferent lenses. Regarding philanthropy, Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) published a comprehensive

review of more than 500 articles on philanthropic giving from multiple academic disciplines. In the

course of their review, they identified eight mechanisms associated with philanthropic giving:

awareness of need, perceived costs and benefits of giving, altruism, solicitation, reputation, values,

efficacy, and psychological benefits to the giver. Similarly, board members also have myriad factors

influencing their behavior (Widmer, 1985), including enhancement of self-worth, learning through

community, helping the community, developing individual relationships, unique contributions to the

board, and self-healing (Inglis & Cleave, 2006). Not one of these influences on either giving or

board membership, however, focuses on the complexity with which philanthropists make sense of

(a) the problems the nonprofit sector attempts to address or (b) the solutions to those problems.

To understand the complexity with which philanthropists approach philanthropic missions and

giving decisions, it may be helpful to turn to developmental psychology and, in particular, construc-

tive developmental psychology. Constructive developmental theory suggests that, over time, individ-

uals construct increasingly complex mental maps. These mental maps emerge in predictable stages.

Presumably these developmental stages will influence how philanthropists approach and engage in

philanthropic activity, particularly philanthropic activity intended to impact complex problems. A

nonprofit leader who understands these mental maps and how they change over a lifetime, could, at

least theoretically, increase philanthropists’understanding of and engagement with an organization’s

mission. Specifically, understanding how stakeholders approached the organization’s work could

lead to deeper, more generative reflection upon the nature of the mission and, through the funding

of increasingly complex interventions, increased effectiveness of the organization’s strategic

activities.

Up to this point, however, neither constructive developmental theory nor the assessment tools

developmental psychologists have constructed to explore developmental theory empirically have

been employed to study philanthropic giving. The study that will be reported here, therefore, repre-

sents an initial foray into exploring the potential of a developmental perspective for understanding

philanthropic giving and, ultimately, for informing the work of fundraisers.

492 JONES