Giving Compass' Take:

• Disruption, or the act of trying to implement newer, bigger solutions instead of fixing existing problems, is not always the most effective way to bring about sustainable change. 

• What questions should we ask ourselves when considering a disruption model? Do you see forms of disruption happening in your local community? Is it helping or harming?

• While it may not be the best solution every time, there are ways that disruption can work to improve systems. 

Social problems — at least the big ones that really need and can benefit from philanthropy — are difficult, complex things. Progress is slow, in my experience, not from lack of imagination or willingness to take chances or to invest enough money, but because the problems are just plain hard.

I want to add to your account a point about “disruption” — another favorite trope of quick-fix philanthropy. Sometimes, moreover, it surely is necessary to disrupt a system in order to improve it. But just as often improvement involves strengthening a system or making the system larger or better. Kneejerk assertions about “disruption” are just a distraction (or worse) from clearheaded thinking about doing philanthropy effectively.

The desirability of pursuing a strategy of disruption depends entirely on what will replace the disrupted system, and acting to unsettle something without any sense of what will follow is just plain irresponsible.

We should be encouraging philanthropists to be thoughtful about how they can build or improve systems, not implying that such an attitude reflects timidity or that courageous philanthropists start by smashing something.

Read the full article about disruption in philanthropy by Larry Kramer at BRIGHT Magazine.