If one thing is clear to me about philanthropy, it’s that there is no single right model or approach that makes sense in every context. We at the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) have developed a working definition of philanthropic effectiveness that lays out some essential elements of what we believe necessary for success. But there needs to be room for a lot of flexibility because, even though there are some tenets of effectiveness that I’d argue apply in pretty much any circumstance, there are a range of ways to be effective in light of a donor or foundation’s specific goal or goals.

Effective philanthropy is nuanced. A focus on policy change might make sense in pursuit of one goal, but not so much another, for example. Or, take another example: While it’s usually the case that, to be effective, foundations and donors would be well served to take a bottom-up, empowering approach, supporting strategies and approaches that are devised by those in affected communities, in particular circumstances, somewhat more top-down and donor-driven strategies can sometimes be effective. Similarly, in many cases, people know exactly what they need, which is why direct giving to people in poverty can be so effective; but sometimes, expertise is crucial. You really don’t want my input on how to devise a vaccine, even if I will benefit from it, and you certainly don’t want to give me a grant to just come up with my own vaccine. That won’t end well, I promise you.

You get the point. There are no silver bullets when it comes to the practice of philanthropy. It’s complicated and goal- and context-dependent. It requires humility.

That’s why I find simplistic takes on philanthropy that suggest that there is one, new, superior way so unhelpful. Examples from the past 25 years include foundation-driven strategies rooted in “unique positioning” and “the four forms of value creation”;  “catalytic philanthropy” that rejects the “traditional philanthropy” that has “fallen far short of solving America’s most pressing problems” in favor of funders using more non-monetary resources to achieve change; “collective impact,” which argues that “large-scale social change requires broad cross-sector coordination;” and, now, in a just-released Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) cover story, there is “empowerment philanthropy,” which claims to be “a new approach to fostering political and economic self-determination by supporting people in finding their own solutions and ensuring an effective multiracial democracy.”

The tenets of these approaches are often in direct tension with each other. Yet all four were authored or co-authored by the very same person, Mark R. Kramer, and published, in the case of the latter three, in SSIR.

Look, people evolve and change their views, to be sure. That’s a good thing, of course. But that fact should lead to some humility about the way we express our latest take — and candor about our past perspectives (and errors).

Read the full article about looking for approaches to philanthropy by Phil Buchanan at The Center for Effective Philanthropy.