The following is a conversation between Kris Putnam-Walkerly, author of Delusional Altruism: Why Philanthropists Fail to Achieve Change and What They Can Do to Transform Giving, and Denver Frederick, the Host of The Business of Giving.

Kris Putnam-Walkerly, Author of Delusional Altruism

Denver: Many of the assumptions and norms we have relied on have been challenged significantly over the past year. Philanthropy and the way giving is done is no exception. As new practices are being established, I thought it would be important to hear from an expert in the field who can tell us what’s emerging and how philanthropy is likely to change in the years ahead. She is Kris Putnam-Walkerly, the author of Delusional Altruism: Why Philanthropists Fail to Achieve Change and What They Can Do to Transform Giving. 

Welcome to The Business of Giving, Kris!

Kris: Thank you, Denver. It’s great to be here. 

Denver: Delusional Altruism, such an interesting phrase. What is it? 

Kris: It really means that in my experience, I’ve been advising funders, philanthropists, corporate donors for over 20 years, and I came to realize that while they were genuine in their altruism, they really wanted to create change, make a difference, change the world, they were often getting in their own way. They were doing this by clinging on to misguided beliefs and practices that were actually holding them back and preventing them from having the impact that they wanted.  And often, they didn’t realize this was happening. 

I wrote Delusional Altruism to really help funders to recognize when delusional altruism is manifesting itself in their work, and then what they can do differently to be more transformational in their giving. 

We’re all philanthropists… it’s really about caring for humanity and caring for mankind, and thinking about the many ways that we all give, if it’s giving financial resources or giving of our time, our talents, even opening doors for people or making connections, bringing our full selves to give in a way that helps others.

Denver: You’ve also said that in our own way, we are all philanthropists. Explain. 

Kris: Exactly. We’re all philanthropists. It’s a term that I think feels very highfalutin to many, and it represents the billionaires of the world. But really, it’s really about caring for humanity and caring for mankind, and thinking about the many ways that we all give — if it’s giving financial resources or giving of our time, our talents, even opening doors for people or making connections– bringing our full selves to give in a way that helps others. I would imagine all of your listeners would fall into that category of being a philanthropist. 

Denver: You discuss questions that high-performance philanthropists ask themselves regularly. Let’s run through it, just a couple. Starting with “Why.” 

Kris: Yes. 

Denver: Why do philanthropists need to ask “Why”?

Kris: Right. Well, I think it’s really interesting. Questions are very powerful, and I think that when you start with the wrong questions, it can lead you down the wrong path.  But if you start with the right questions, it can really be transformational. And so, in the book, I have a whole chapter that’s on 12 questions I think all funders should be asking, and the first one is: Why? 

And “why” is really to understand your purpose as a philanthropist. Like why do I exist as a funder? Why am I giving? And what is your purpose? So that you really have clarity in what it is you’re trying to accomplish. And secondarily, I think that Why question is really important because it forces you to question assumptions. 

And in philanthropy, there’s no shortage of bright, shiny objects coming our way, of new ideas — if it’s crowdfunding, or the ice bucket challenge, or whatever it might be. And these are all generally good things, but just because you learn about something at a philanthropy conference, or you read about it in a newspaper, doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing for you to do. 

And I think more funders should be starting by asking, just kind of questioning “why?” Not to be obnoxious or contrarian, but just to make sure that whatever is being presented to them or they’re considering is the right fit, again, given their purpose and the why of their philanthropy. 

Delusional Altruism is wanting to do the right thing, but getting in your own way. And one of the ways that happens I think is that they look to others for all the answers.

Denver: I like a couple of these questions because a lot of it has to do with establishing a baseline. And often, when you’re thinking of philanthropy, you’re thinking of trying to find a solution, and you run to the end. But another baseline question that you pose is: What do I already know? Talk about that. 

Kris: Yes. So, again, in my experience advising funders, many funders… again, delusional altruism is wanting to do the right thing, but getting in your own way. And one of the ways that happens I think is that they look to others for all the answers. And this happens by starting on a learning tour, or conducting an environmental scan, or doing an in-depth needs assessment, or like trying to interview 25,000 experts to understand something. And look, I’m not against data; that’s really important and data-informed decisions are really important. But I think funders end up wasting a lot of time and a lot of resources inadvertently because they don’t first ask: What do we already know? 

So let me just give you an example. I was talking with a philanthropy association — so this is like a regional association of funders — and they were conducting strategic planning. They were going to start with this six-month learning tour where they were going to come up with all these town hall meetings and talk to their members and potential members, and do all these interviews and focus groups, and it was going to go on and on. It was going to consume most of the staff’s time for six months. 

And I told them really “That’s being delusional, and you’re wasting a lot of time” because they’re a great association. They’re talented, smart staff that are always talking to their members, always learning. They do annual conferences where they learn and connect with their members. They have a fabulous board of directors that represents the whole geographic footprint. 

If they just first started with “What do we already know?” And by that, I mean convene the board for a couple of hours, convene the staff for a couple of hours, and really think about: What do we already know about what’s happening in our region? About what the trends are or what our members’ needs are? Where should we be helping them move? If they just did that and documented it — literally, maybe a day? — they would have so much more insight into what’s needed, how they could best help their members, and how that could inform their strategic plan. 

Now, they’re clearly not going to know everything, but if you start by asking “What do we already know?” then you get clarity on literally what you already know about the situation. And only then should you go after the “What don’t we know?” Then go after the very specific kinds of information and insights that you don’t already have information on, and that’ll save you a lot of time and money.

Denver: And we’ll talk about that a little bit later because essentially, at the core of this is time. You’re spending an awful lot of time. Last one I’ll bring up is “joy.”  Does this bring me joy? Now, what does that uncover, Kris? 

Kris: Well, I really believe that funders, donors should receive more than they give. And that might surprise you — receive more than you give. I don’t mean at all receive more money than you give, or receive more like notoriety or fame or PR or whatever. I just mean the act of giving, you should receive so much joy, and meaning, and enthusiasm in the change that you’re creating, the ways that you’re helping people, even though giving can be very hard.

Certainly, the trifecta of crises that we’ve experienced in this past year with the pandemic and — well, maybe more than trifecta — economic impact of the pandemic; the insurrection at the Capitol; police brutality and the reckoning around racial justice. There’s a lot happening. And/or there’s natural disasters, wildfires, et cetera, happening. Giving and response to these can be very painful because you have experienced them yourself or because you’re witnessing the pain in others. 

So I’m not saying that it’s always fun, but I do believe that giving should bring a donor joy because it should be meaningful to them; they should have confidence that they’re making a difference in helping others; and really, if you want to sustain and encourage giving and philanthropy among donors over time, then I think helping them find ways where giving meets their needs, their interests, their talents, and allows them to contribute in ways that are meaningful to them, I think is super important. 

Denver: I would agree with you. I always find when I engage in something, I ask myself whether it’s giving me energy. And it usually is the telltale sign that I’m doing the right thing because I can lie in my brain to myself really quite well, but my body doesn’t lie. My body tells me that this is either sapping me, or whether this is giving me energy. And I think if you’re a donor, and you’re not getting joy, that’s a good time to check in and say: Is there a different way I need to look at this or what I’m doing? Because it should be giving you joy. 

Kris: Absolutely. And there’s an exercise I have in the book that I think is a really fun and practical one to do, which I refer to as the love-hate-delegate exercise. And what you do is just get out a piece of paper or pull out your laptop and just make notes of, make a list of everything that you do. So if you’re a philanthropist, maybe make a list of everything that you do revolving around your giving. If you are a professional staff of a foundation or you’re a donor, whatever it is… 

If it makes sense to group them into categories, do that, and then have three columns to the right of that. One is: I love this. It brings me joy. It gives me energy. The second is: I like it, but I could easily delegate it to somebody else. And the third is: I hate it, and it sucks the life out of me. And then just make check marks for every activity that you do. And be honest with yourself, not what you feel you should be doing, but how you feel about it. 

And then look at all the things that you hate or that suck the life out of you, and stop doing them. Either stop doing them, assign it to somebody else to do it, hire somebody, or delegate it to somebody else. And even the things that you could do but you could easily delegate, try to delegate those. And then circle all the things that bring you joy and figure out how to structure your time, your job description, whatever it might be, on only those things that bring you joy. 

Denver: And I also think it’s almost an ethical decision for leaders if they’re doing things that they could delegate means that they’re not really using their time to foster the mission as far as they should. Sometimes you do things that you can delegate because you’re competent at them and they make you feel accomplished, but they’re not necessarily the best for the organization. 

So when you sit down with a donor for the first time, Kris, do you have a go-to question you’ll ask them?

Kris: I do. And it is: If you could accomplish only one thing this year, but it was going to be your legacy at this organization, what would it be? 

Denver: Good one!

Kris: It is a good one because it really gets to: we all have a thousand priorities, but if you could only do one thing, but it was going to be your legacy, that really gets to the heart of: Well, what is that one thing? What is that most important thing? And it’s funny, I asked myself that question.

Denver: Just right behind you, the answer. 

Kris: Yes! And my book is the answer. I asked myself — I’ll never forget. I was driving, and I actually asked myself this question, and the book popped into my head. And I thought, “Well, that’s it,” because it’s a legacy. It’s sharing my best advice to funders based on 20 years of experience. So no matter what happens, the book will continue to exist. 

Shift your mindset from rather than the unknown being paralyzing, let it be freeing something’s going to change, and plan for that so you can recalibrate your strategy as you go, and then you always have a clear guidepost guiding you.

Denver: You came up with a good answer, and it’s a great book. What I like about that, too, it’s one and not three. Too many people ask three, and three is like asking 33. It’s got to be one because three is pretty easy, but one — wow. I got to really make a choice here. 

Well, some of the natural tendencies that philanthropists have, those bad habits, they can be exaggerated during a time like this. What mistakes do philanthropists make during a crisis? And what should they be doing instead? 

Kris: That’s a great question. I think the number one mistake that funders make during a crisis is they take a wait-and-see approach to their work. And we saw this happen. 

We saw, I think, funders divided into a couple of different categories at the beginning of the pandemic. One is they launched into hyper mode of giving money away quickly, and getting money out the door, and reducing expectations, and eliminating hoops and hurdles for non-profits, which is great. 

But a lot of funders took a wait-and-see approach thinking, “Let’s just kind of wait and see for this whole thing to shake out, and then we’ll decide what to do.” The reality is: you just can’t sit on the sidelines during a crisis, and what I think funders need to be doing differently is refreshing their strategy. 

So I really believe that all of us — if you’re a business, you’re a foundation, you’re an individual philanthropist — we need to have clarity on our strategy because a strategy is a decision-making framework that allows you to decide what your top priorities are and how best to allocate your time and resources, and how to keep out the stuff that’s going to distract you. 

I believe that this pandemic has shown us the futility of spending a year to create a five-year strategic plan. By the time you create your plan, the world will have changed multiple times. So really, think about rapidly developing your strategy or refreshing your strategy. No strategic plan that existed pre-pandemic could possibly remain intact today, and something has to change. 

 And so really pulling out that strategic plan and reviewing it to say: What are we trying to accomplish in the next year? Where are we today, given the changing conditions? What are the three or four things most important for us to focus on to get us from where we are today to where we want to be in 12 months — not five years, in 12 months? Who’s going to be accountable for those things, and how do we get moving on that tomorrow? And I think part of this is dramatically increasing your speed and kind of recalibrating your timeline. So this can be done in like a day. It doesn’t have to be a four-month process or, God forbid, a 12-month process. 

And part of it is shifting your mindset, too. I think rather than allowing the unknown future to be paralyzing, let it be freeing because the future is always uncertain. The future is no more uncertain today than it was last year or last decade. And there is no new normal coming around the corner because there never has been a normal. Disruption, volatility– That’s always the status quo. 

And so I really think that you have to kind of shift your mindset from rather than the unknown being paralyzing, let it be freeing. And go ahead and clarify what you’re trying to accomplish, knowing that you’re going to have to change things along the way; knowing that there’s going to be another crisis around the corner or something’s going to happen, maybe internally, in your organization. Three key staff are going to go on maternity leave at the same time. Something’s going to change, and plan for that so you can recalibrate your strategy as you go, and then you always have a clear guidepost guiding you. 

But I really think too few funders took that approach. Too many of them, yes, they might’ve changed practices, but they didn’t necessarily reflect on their strategy. And the downside of that I think is, again, you end up being very busy, but not necessarily busy on the right stuff. 

Denver: Now, it’s true that you have to have that long-term view of where you want to go. But all the people that I’ve talked to have said they have really shortened their time horizons. So they’re regularly checking back, particularly as it relates to the revenues, because they’re just so fragile right now. Whereas they used to review them periodically, they’re becoming much more of a regular occurrence.

One thing you just said that I wanted to pick up on was increasing speed because we have seen just how fast some of these institutions can really go when they have to during a pandemic. But absent a crisis, what are some of the ways that organizations can pick up their speed and thereby increase their impact?

Kris: I think there’s three ways I’ll suggest. One is what I just said: Get clarity on your strategy quickly because once you do that, you’re going to pick up speed because you or your team — if that’s like your spouse or your team of 300 employees — will be focused on what’s most important, so their time will be best allocated to what’s most important. 

And in fact, I actually wrote a guide that might be of interest to your listeners if they want to download it, that really outlines eight steps to kind of rapidly clarifying and implementing your strategy, and it’s called “Eight Things Every Philanthropist Can Do to Change the World Even When the World Keeps Changing.” It’s a free download if you go to It’s a super practical, quick read, and it gives you useful tips, I think, to really kind of plan ahead, regardless of the future being so uncertain. Again, So that’s one, it’s getting clarity on your strategy. 

The second I think is really looking at yourself, looking at your own time, you as a person before you as an organization, and try to get more time back in your day, literally. And I outline, I think, nine suggestions for how people can do this in the book — because I have a whole chapter on increasing your speed — but my favorite is how you spend like the first hour of your day. So too many people literally across the globe, wake up, grab their phone, and begin scrolling through it. Like they’re still lying in bed. They’re flipping through email. They’re checking their WhatsApp. They’re looking at the news. Statistically, like half of us turn on our phone within the first few minutes of waking up in the day. 

And the problem with this is you immediately hand over your agenda for the day to somebody else, whoever happened to email you last night, or the editors of CNN or wherever you get your news. And so, your mind immediately goes to “Oh God, I forgot to blah-blah-blah. I still have to do that. I guess I have to do that first thing in the morning.” Or like “The world’s coming to an end, I guess I should stay in bed.” And it distracts you at the beginning of your day. And really at the beginning of your day, what you should be doing is either what’s most important, or another suggestion is focus on something creative, like spend the first hour of your day doing something that gives you energy, tackles a project, allows you to brainstorm, or whatever creative means to you. So that’s another tip. 

And then the third is—

Denver: Let me ask you this. Have you been successful in that? Was that a change that you had to make in your own life in terms of keeping that phone away? 

Kris: It is a change that I had to make, yes. 

Denver: Was it hard?

Kris: And I struggle with it. I still sometimes grab it and I’m like, “Oh, I can’t do this. Put it down.” But yes, it is a struggle, and I’ve been pretty successful at it. As well as I think even when you sit down at your desk for the very first time of the day, or your couch or wherever you’re working from, again, try not to check your email first thing in the morning because it’s somebody else’s agenda popping into your life.

Denver: You’re absolutely right. It’s almost a mindset. You start in a passive stance… so you’re responding to information as opposed to creating it and being in a proactive stance, and that probably can carry through the entire day. You’re just responding. Because we all do this. We get to the end of the day. We had in mind what we wanted to achieve. And although we worked like a dog all day, we got to maybe one of the six things, and that’s if it’s a good day. 

Kris: Right. I have 11-year-old twins, and so when we were all remote learning, I would joke that if I got one thing accomplished in the day, I thought that was a big deal. I was really excited and proud of myself. 

And I even think about the first hour of your workday: How do you simply either identify what your priorities are for the day and tackle one of them? I think about if I had an hour, what’s one thing I can accomplish that’s really important if I set everything else aside? And I do that, and then I feel great because I’ve already gotten one thing done, and it’s eight in the morning or something. So that’s—

Denver: I know exactly how you feel. And also, when I try to do that, when I’m successful, I do something that I don’t have to do that day because I know I’m going to get around to the immediate urgent things. It’s those projects, which are actually more important, that I keep on putting off. So when you sort of front-load them in the day, you do have a great feeling of satisfaction, and that’s when you begin to see the power of compounding. Because if you do that for a while, you get nothing done in an hour. But when you put together 14 hours, you’re like, “Whoa, this is turning into something,” and it’s a great way to act. 

What’s your take on “big money” in philanthropy? These outside contributions by donors that can have a tremendous impact on a field, but with pretty little accountability. What’s your take on that? 

Kris: I think philanthropy as a whole has pretty little accountability, really, regardless of how much you’re giving. 

Denver: I would concur.

Kris: It’s pretty much an accountability-free industry. There’s very little legal or tax or any kind of expectations in this country, at least, which is why I think philanthropy should be taking risks more often because it can. I think philanthropy can really play that R&D role of trying new things and testing ideas, and if it fails, that’s okay. Let’s learn from it and share that and improve. That’s a really important role that funders can play.

But the big money, who I look to, my sort of avatar at the moment, is MacKenzie Scott. 

Denver: She’s everybody’s at the moment. She’s great. 

Kris: Because I think the things, and I wrote about this in Forbes — she gave away $1.7 billion in July of 2020, and then recently $3 billion or $ 4 billion. 

Denver: Yes. $4.2 billion or something like that. Yes. Amazing amount of money.

Kris: Yes. She has given away like… she’s making so much money, like her money is making so much money so quickly that she has to give away $4 billion a year or something just to keep up with it. But she’s doing things in interesting ways. 

One is she’s not requiring non-profits that I can see to have to apply, so it’s easy for the nonprofit. The money is being given as general operating support, so that’s super helpful, I think, because that’s the Holy Grail of donations, that nonprofits can do what they want. And she’s doing that intentionally because as she’s written, she really believes that it’s the organizations on the ground, especially those led by people who are experiencing the problems that they’re trying to help… organizations led by people of color, organizations led by women or LGBT communities, that really know how to navigate, know how to respond, and know how to reach and help those communities. 

She’s also doing it with a clear equity focus, which I think is really important. And from at least the first round, was doing it without a lot of bureaucracy. There’s not this massive organization behind her. She didn’t start out by creating this three-year elaborate initiative with all these theories of change and whatnot. So, I think she really is having a powerful impact and helping organizations in meaningful ways, and I really applaud her efforts. 

What you want to look for as a donor in your wealth advisor is you don’t want a “yes person.” You don’t want a “yes man,” who says, “Absolutely! We’re on it.” You actually want someone that questions you and just makes sure that you have clarity on what you’re trying to accomplish and can have that conversation with you.

Denver: Me as well. And that unrestricted support, too, it gets back to what you were talking a moment ago. No better way to allow an organization to move fast than by giving them unrestricted support because it allows them to try things. I don’t think sometimes donors understand, nonprofits do not have crystal balls, and they cannot predict how some kind of program is going to work. But with unrestricted, you can start, you can say, “Oh, not working.” You can iterate. You can pivot. You can go in a different direction. And you’re not really having a program trying to fit a contract you have with a donor. So she’s done so many things so well.

If someone’s wondering if their wealth advisor is conversant and skilled in helping them get the most out of their philanthropies, what question would be wise for them to bring up, Kris?

Kris: It’s a great question because a lot of donors do turn to their wealth advisors for advice, which is good if the wealth advisor can help them. And too often, I think the problem with wealth advisors is they focus on the transaction instead of the transformation. So by this, I mean a donor might say, “Hey, I want to start a foundation,” and the wealth advisor says, “Great. Let me get that paperwork started for you. We can make that happen.” Or the donor says, “I want to give to the food bank,” and the wealth advisor says, “Great! I’ll figure out how to do that.” 

Now, you think those were good things, right? And I have nothing against food banks, of course, or foundations for that matter. But I think what the wealth advisor should be asking at that moment instead is that question we started with earlier, which is “Why?” And just to clarify, “Why a foundation, not a donor-advised fund or some other vehicle? Why the food bank, and what are you trying to accomplish?” And really help the donor think through: what are they trying to accomplish with their philanthropy? And only then figure out what’s the best way to accomplish it. 

And so, it could be, “I want to give to the food bank because my … I’m not really sure. They seem like a good organization and my neighbor gave to them, and gosh, people should eat, right?” And they should, and people need food banks, especially right now. But you also might want to question that a little bit to say, “Well, what are you trying to accomplish? What’s meaningful to you as a donor? What kind of difference do you want to make in the world or your community?” 

You might learn the donor really believes in, I don’t know, self-sufficiency. You could help them unpack that so that maybe supporting efforts to help people be able to get a living wage, or get a job that pays well enough with benefits so that the family can take care of themselves and buy their own groceries and not need to rely on a food bank; or maybe the donor really cares about systems change, wants to kind of change systems; or recognizes there’s food deserts and communities that have no access to groceries and wants to impact that. 

So I think what you want to look for as a donor in your wealth advisor is you don’t want a “yes person.” You don’t want a “yes man,” who says, “Absolutely! We’re on it.” You actually want someone that questions you and just makes sure that you have clarity on what you’re trying to accomplish and can have that conversation with you.

And in fact, I actually do a lot of work with wealth advisors and estate planning attorneys and private banks to help them help their clients because often those individuals, they’re super savvy at estate planning, or lowering your taxes, or thinking about wealth preservation, but aren’t necessarily skilled in having conversations about giving and philanthropy and how do you engage the kids. And so, I often work with them either behind the scenes or directly refer to their clients to help their clients grapple with some of those questions. 

Denver: That’s really good advice because sometimes I think with wealth advisors, you have this service orientation, so when you say food bank, they want to get right on it. And what you’re saying is what they really need to do is create a container for the client and then have those individual gifts fit within that container, that broad container, so there’s a rhyme and reason to all these activities as opposed to one-off here, one-off there.

Kris: Exactly.

Denver: Finally, Kris, this has been such an incredible year as you mentioned before: COVID; racial equity and racial justice; the January 6 attack on the Capitol. How will this confluence of events shape philanthropy over the next decade in your opinion? 

Kris: I think in three ways. One is I think many philanthropists and funders have made dramatic improvements in how they give, meaning getting the money out the door faster; supporting organizations led by people of color serving communities of color; reducing expectations around excessive applications and processes and hurdles and whatnot for the nonprofit; focusing on the general operating support that we talked about. 

Also, really kind of looking at racial equity internally, not just who are we funding, but how are we contributing to racism and injustice, and trying to operationalize equity within their own staffs and boards. And I think all that is really amazing work, and it needs to continue. 

I do a lot of advising and coaching with philanthropists and foundation leaders, and one of the things I’m encouraging people to do is to really intentionally reflect back on the changes that you made in the past year and what can you maintain going forward. And again, this is not like a month-long exercise. This is a two-hour brainstorm with yourself and your team.

Denver: Right. Speed, speed, speed.

Kris: Well, come on. We don’t have a lot of time.

Denver: That’s right!

Kris: And to say: What changes did we make last year that worked great? What did we try differently that was a flop, that didn’t work at all? What do we wish we had put in place before the pandemic? For example, the ability to make online grant payments. What did we put in place that really helped us?  And what do we want to maintain going forward? 

And not just with specific practices, but even things like: What do we want to maintain that worked so well, and how else can we apply it across our organization? So, for example, sticking with the speed example, if we were really successful at getting money out the door faster and the world didn’t stop spinning, what else can we do faster? Can we do our strategic plan faster? Can we make decisions faster? Whatever. And so how do you apply that across the organization? 

And then document it. Write down, “These are the six things we’re going to maintain going forward, or the two things…” and really just stick with it because if you could make all of these changes during the past year, a very turbulent start to this decade, then you can make them or maintain them when things are not normal but at least more calm, or you know you can continue to make them when crises continue. And so that’s one of them.

I think, secondly, certainly, a focus on systems change I think is going to be really important because think of our public health system, for example, which has been decimated over the past few decades, and think of the turmoil that resulted with a not very effective, comprehensive national public health system in this country. We can all point to a zillion other systems. So really that emphasis on systems change so that you can create that lasting transformational change. 

And then thirdly, I think, efforts at the very practical level to focus on democracy building and really efforts to maintain and support and engage people in our democracy — if that’s voter engagement, if that’s education, if that’s roll-up technology, whatever it might be. I think that’s a really important area for funders to continue to support because I think we’ve seen how perilously close we can be to losing it, and there’s nothing really more important.

Denver: And the thread through all that is that no learning takes place without reflection. And that gets back to: be a little less busy and take a moment and think about these things because it truly is a once-in-a-generation opportunity in order to be able to do that. 

Tell us about the website of the Putnam Consulting Group and what visitors will find there.

Kris: Yes. So is my website. And from there you can find all kinds of information. I have lots of free resources, articles, podcast interviews. This interview will be up there eventually once it gets published and as well as the book. So Delusional Altruism,, but you’ll find that link there on the website, and you can order copies of the book. It’s, of course, available on Amazon, and Barnes and Noble, and there’s links there. And also information about my services. I do a lot of advising and coaching for funders as well as strategy development, strategy implementation, and, of course, speaking. 

Denver: The whole gamut, that’s for sure. Well, the full title of the book again is Delusional Altruism: Why Philanthropists Fail to Achieve Change and What They Can Do to Transform Giving. And I think in today’s world, we really need to fully leverage all our assets to deal with some of these vexing problems.

Thanks, Kris, for being here today. It was a real pleasure to have you on the program. 

Kris: Thank you so much, Denver.

Listen to more The Business of Giving episodes for free here. Subscribe to our podcast channel on Spotify to get notified of new episodes. You can also follow us on TwitterInstagram, and on Facebook.

Share This: