Giving Compass' Take:

• Stanford Social Innovation Review examines certain orthodoxies in philanthropy and sees which ones may have outlived their usefulness.

• Is holding onto the old ways of doing things holding us back? It's always a good idea to challenge our assumptions in order to advance the field of giving in smarter ways.

• Here's more about the power of non-traditional philanthropy.

Success stories about social change rarely start with large guns. But, as it turns out, there’s a lot that philanthropy can learn from looking at the history of artillery — the cannons that would get drawn to the edge of a battlefield, first by horses and later by large trucks, to shell the enemy from a distance.

The field of philanthropy has its share of orthodoxies. For example, the idea that grants are a foundation’s most important product, that funders shouldn’t take controversial positions, that philanthropy should support only proven approaches, that foundations should invest their assets to maximize financial returns. The list is nearly endless.

But as the world around philanthropy changes rapidly, it’s important to consciously examine the orthodoxies that guide practice and determine whether these old assumptions are still valid, and whether we ought to carry them forward or flip them on their heads — partially or completely.

Once funders identify their own orthodoxies, they can ask a cascading set of questions about each one:

  • Does the orthodoxy still make sense, or should we flip it, either partially or completely?
  • Are there others in philanthropy, other industries, or other places that are challenging the orthodoxy and doing things differently?
  • What would it look like if we flipped the orthodoxy? How would the work be different and what new solutions might emerge?

Read the full article about challenging philanthropy traditions by Gabriel Kasper and Jess Ausinheiler on Stanford Social Innovation Review.