The Intellectual Crisis in Philanthropy

Ealy, Lenore T.

doi:10.1007/s12115-013-9741-2

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this framework, “nonprofit relationship patterns” encompasses common concerns and questions about foundation strategy frequently debated in the literature: the desirability of instrumental effectiveness (“instrumental relationships”) (Frumkin ; Hwang and Powell ; Moore ; Salamon ; Williams and Taylor ), the role of trust in funder–grantee relationships (Dubnick and Frederickson ; Mellewigt, Madhok, and Weibel ; Van Slyke 2007), and the tension between foundation values and democratic values (“common, collective agenda”) (Boehmke, Gailmard, and Patty ; Datta ; Ealy ; James ; McCormick ). Similarly, “orientation to social value creation” captures variations in grantmaking practices, such as the types of grants that foundations choose to award.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Identity and Philanthropic Institutions

Scherer

2017

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a framework for viewing the behavior of philanthropic institutions through the lens of organizational identity via semi‐structured interviews with twenty‐seven grantmakers representing seventeen foundations, along with content analyses of these foundations’ public documents. This empirical investigation revealed three identity profiles: agenda setter, supporter, and community builder, which capture distinct patterns in foundation strategy, operational structure, and grantmaking practices. For theory, these findings provide an alternative to the conventional view of foundation behavior along an active to passive continuum to one that suggests a role for organizational identity. For practitioners (grantmakers and grantseekers), this perspective demonstrates that there are multiple pathways through which foundations create social value, not just one definition of “best practices.” Understanding these different perspectives on social value creation can help grantmakers identify internal inconsistencies in their strategies and operations and can help grantseekers identify foundations most likely to fund their work. The article concludes with suggestions for further research to explore the extent to which this framework can advance understanding of institutional philanthropy as the field moves to challenge traditional boundaries between nonprofit foundations and private social change initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Identity and Philanthropic Institutions

Scherer

2017

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And giving derived from in-group orientation is not precluded by individualism (see, by way of comparison, Pan and Houser 2019 ). Munger (2015) and Ealy (2014) , invoking Polanyi ([1946] 2013 ), argue that the core of charitable giving is allowing individuals to form their own associations, leveraging their knowledge, connections, and talents. Thus, while collectivist social norms encourage certain types of prosocial behavior through their effect on in-group solidarity, such as voluntary contributions to local public goods ( Tsai 2007 ), including community projects enabled by norms favoring contributions of in-kind labor ( Murtazashvili 2016 ), we expect individualistic social rules to increase charity overall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%