My Gut Reaction to Intuition in Philanthropy

On March 10th, 2011, I had the pleasure of listening in to a teleconference entitled The Art of Intuitive Grantmaking in Family Giving. The teleconference was hosted by the National Center for Family Philanthropy. Foundant Technologies sponsored the program (which is a shameless plug for the software developer who publishes the grants software that we use—Grant Lifecycle Manger or GLM). The presenters were as follows:

PRESENTERS:

• Kathleen Odne, Executive Director, Dean & Margaret Lesher Foundation
• Chet Tchozewski, President Emeritus, Global Greengrants Fund

I should start by pointing out that I heard Chet speak at the 2008 Association of Small Foundation’s Annual Conference held in Denver, Colorado (September 18-20). At the ASF conference, Chet (along with his co-presenter, Gabriel Works) spoke on the following topic: The Secret of Effective Grants: The Power of Intuition. So, the recent presentation was a bit of a review for me, but it never hurts to hear subject material presented twice. I should also point out that the 2008 presentation generated a bit of heated discussion on the ASF discussion board. Here’s an unedited sample submitted to the ASF discussion board by someone obviously not too fond of intuition in philanthropy:

Having gone to a meeting here in Denver where a guy came out under the auspices of ASF and gave a speech on INTUITIVE GIVING. I never heard so much “CRAP” in my life. I asked him where he bought his OUIJI BOARD. Told him he was out of his mind. Why not call it “shot in the dark giving.” As far as I am concerned there are a lot of nut cakes around doing stupid things.

Is intuition in philanthropy a load of excrement? Are people who believe in using intuition to in part guide their grantmaking efforts “nut cakes?” Lets take a quick look at the recent presentation and then you decide. As always, let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment (registration required).

Chet started by pointing out that measuring and metrics are the big push now in philanthropy. The same is true in psychology where the big push is toward making all service delivery programs evidenced-based. But Chet was quick to alert us to the fact that many aspects of a complex adaptive system are not measurable. Most social systems are comprised of complex adaptive systems. As Chet put it …

In philanthropy, we tend to believe that we measure what we value. But instead, we often value only what we can measure.

At this point, Chet gave us the following famous Einstein quote (which, rumor has it, Einstein put on a plaque and hung it on his Princeton office wall):

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

Sounding very much like a naturalistic systems theorist, Chet reminded us that much of philanthropy takes place within complex systems. He continued (and I’m paraphrasing), “Complex systems give rise to emergence; emergent learning would be an example here.” Chet intimated that it is difficult to measure emergence and emergent properties. So, it may not be that intuition is a load of excrement;  the offending agent may be the worldview that holds it—naturalistic systems theory. Suffice it to say that Bowlb’s theory has been attacked because it too espouses a naturalistic systems theory worldview. Simply put (as Bowlby regularly pointed out in his work), people do not like to have their worldview shaken or otherwise challenged (as evidenced by the above irate post to the ASF discussion board).

Kathleen took over and mentioned the video My Brilliant Brain. She told us that the video is about the making of a genius. Kathleen simply stated, “Intuition is a learned skill. You can learn to trust your experience. Subjective judgement requires intuition and science does not help here.”

Chet jumped back in and gave us a list of characteristics that describe intuition:

• Rapid
• Adaptive
• Subtle
• Experiential
• Resourceful
• Inexpensive
• Sensitive
• Insightful
• Perceptive to semiconscious & unconscious

However, Chet mentioned that intuition is not without certain risks. Intuition can be:

• Uncertain
• Inexact
• Unprovable
• Unexplainable
• Unteachable?
• Conducive to generalization & stereotypes
• Self-validating
• Sometimes wrong

Chet said that intuition is uncomfortable for those who have a strong desire to feel like they concretely understand a situation or a problem. “Many program officers,” Chet told us, “spend a lot of time rationalizing intuitive decisions so that they are palatable to rational thinkers.” Here’s Chet’s presentation slide on when to use intuition:

• To decide what to do when you don’t know what to do
• When you have incomplete information
• When the consequences of being wrong are less than not acting while waiting for complete information
• When quick decisions are required
• In highly complex situations
• In rapidly changing circumstances
• In confusing, ambiguous or vague situations
• When confronting uncertain risk
• In the absence of scientific proof
• When cheap, simple solutions are preferred

Chet did tell us that there are times when intuition should take a back seat to so-called left brain rational frames:

• In most financial decisions
• When putting together a business plan
• When unambiguous “proof” exists
• When strictly rational choices are clear
• When strictly rational decisions are cheap
• When strictly rational decisions are quick

Kathleen jumped back in and gave us this second quote by Einstein:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Kathleen talked about an interesting study that apparently was conducted by The Center for High Impact Philanthropy,  School of Social Policy & Practice,  the University of Pennsylvania. The study is entitled I’m Not Rockefeller. The researchers interviewed 33 high net worth philanthropists (HNWPs). Here’s what these high net worth philanthropists told researchers:

• HNWPs do not want their giving activities to feel like work
• Peers are the most trusted source of information
• HNWPs are not accessing nor are they aware of many potential informational resources
• HNWPs are ambivalent and/or confused about impact information and the utility of evaluation

Kathleen effectively told us that raw data is often of little use. Raw data still needs to be sold, it needs to be framed and put into a persuasive right brain form. Organizations need to build connections between raw data and funders. “With so much data out there now,” Kathleen reminds us, “the ability of intuition to generalize and to find patterns is very important.” Kathleen then told us about a study that was conducted jointly by the Bank of America and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. This study also surveyed high net worth philanthropists. The researchers wanted to know what motivated high net worth philanthropists. The researchers arrived at 15 different dimensions of motivation. Here’s a sampling:

• Moved at how a gift can make a difference
• Give back to the community
• Political and/or philosophical beliefs
• Religious beliefs
• Set example for young people

Out of the 15 dimensions that motivate high net worth philanthropists only one is easily measured.

Kathleen then talked about using intuition as a part of the grantmaking porceess. Here are the bullet points that Kathleen gave us. Notice the focus on intangibles such as good will and reputation:

• Leadership
• Organizational Familiarity/History
• Political/Philosophical Beliefs
• Donor Legacy
• Stature and Reputational Considerations
• Looking For or Conveying a Seal of Approval
• Family Dynamics

Kathleen told us that it is important to meet face-to-face with people because during a face-to-face encounter one can gather both explicit information (such as data or statistics) as well as implicit information (such as body language, honesty, or trustworthiness). Cognitive scientists will tell us that up to 80% of communication is non-verbal in nature. Kathleen gave us this “bottom line”: “We are putting our trust and expectations into people, not data.”

Sounding a bit like cognitive linguist (turned political commentator) George Lakoff, Kathleen reminded us that we use political and/or philosophical beliefs to filter incoming information. She said that it is hard to step outside of our information filters. However, she was quick to add, “Try to put aside your native filter and get information from people who you disagree with or who use different filters.” Lakoff in his latter work suggests that progressives use what he calls a Nurturant Parent Cognitive Model. In contrast, conservatives use a Strict Father Cognitive Model. Lakoff further suggests that progressives tend to be comfortable with complex systems and systemic causation. In contrast, conservatives tend to be comfortable with linear systems and direct causation. Ergo, intuition tends to be framed by a progressive, Nurturant Parent frame. And Lakoff does allow that it is possible to engage in what he calls biconceptualism—an ability to use the Nurturant model in one situation and the Strict model in another. As an example, an individual could be socially nurturant and fiscally strict (comedian Jay Leno often describes himself in this way). My guess is that many high net worth philanthropists are biconceptuals—socially nurturant and fiscally strict. As another example, I would suggest that the person who posted the above irate comment to the ASF discussion board is what Lakoff calls a through-going model user—in this case, a through-going strict model user. In cases of through-going model use, any aspects of a challenging model (like intuition for the irate poster above) will be summarily filtered out. It was John Bowlby who suggested that secure attachment (if all else goes well) leads to open and flexible Inner Working Cognitive Models. I hate to say it but it is intuition that will tell you whether a person uses models flexibly, or uses models inflexibly in through-going ways. Pop quiz: would you say that the above irate poster used models flexibly?

At this point Kathleen gave us a table on the contrast between left brain functions and right brain functions. Allow me to replicate that table here:

Right Brain vs. Left Brain

Interactive Whiteboards by PolyVision

Both presenters finished up by saying that right brain functions in general and intuition in specific are topics that are not looked at enough in philanthropy. I would agree. Consider the following characteristics of attachment theory in general and secure attachment in specific:

• Lakoff suggests that Bowlby’s theory is framed by and expresses the Nurturant Parent model
• Bowlby used systems theory to in large part frame his theory of attachment
• Attachment theory is concerned with the interaction of complex systems
• Attachment theory is concerned with wholes and holism
• Secure attachment (if all goes well) leads to open and flexible Inner Working Cognitive Models
• Secure attachment (if all goes well) leads to the development of such things as (liberal forms of) empathy and intuition
• Attachment theory is concerned with such systems concepts as emergence (mentioned above) and equifinality (e.g., many paths to the same endpoint).

As a final observation, intuition is overlooked in philanthropy in the same way attachment theory is overlooked in psychology. In both cases, it’s not that intuition and attachment are threatening; it’s the worldview that holds both—progressivism. So, again, I would suggest that it is not intuition that so upsets the irate poster from above, it’s the worldview that holds intuition that is so threatening—a naturalistic systems worldview.