This Paul Sullivan column in the NY Times — Two Paths for Charitable Giving: From the Heador From the Heart — discusses one of the perennial questions about charitable giving — does it come from the head or the heart? A good piece to reflect on.

My own view is that this is a bit of a chicken and egg question … and which comes first depends on who’s eyes you are looking through.

Looking at it from the donor’s perspective, I’d argue that the area of giving is prompted first by the heart … some emotional response that leads a donor toward, say, saving babies as opposed to saving whales. Supporting the search for a disease cure versus supporting a local cultural institution. Building homes for the poor versus libraries for the alma mater.

Having arrived at that area of focus, emotional attachment might still reign awhile. Maybe a long while if the organization does the right kind of relationship building. And a strong relationship can certainly overcome some deficiency of supporting evidence as to the efficacy of one’s giving.

But eventually, if the donor is deeply attached to the cause or mission, they will inquire more, learn more, expect more … and become more attuned to what their head is saying — What results have I seen? Who else is working in that arena and do they appear to be more effective? Or do they have a strategy I think might better get the job done?

Thoughtful sifting begins. But, keep in mind, at the end of that sifting, the donor still wants the emotional satisfaction of eventually feeling that they have made a wise choice … they want to enjoy their giving.

Meanwhile, from the organization’s standpoint, the full spectrum of possibility is behind that first gift they receive.

The donor having already decided they wanted to support curing cancer, your organization’s appeal might simply have been the first one that arrived in the mailbox. No headwork there … heart meets opportunity. You’d probably be right to assume they didn’t give you a careful review!

Alternatively, that donor could have been committed to curing cancer for years, but decided your organization offered a new approach that they wanted to try. Maybe in fact they did take a very careful, rational comparative scan of what was on offer … and then decided to choose you.

Perhaps it’s best not to worry too much over whether head or heart caused the donor to first knock on your door.

Instead, I’d suggest worrying about what comes next. In that regard, it’s fortunate that donor longevity — loyalty, if you will — involves both the heart and the head. It’s not chicken or egg after all … it’s chicken and egg!

Two motivations for the smart fundraiser to work with and integrate to nurture a committed donor.

Never lose the emotion that drives their interest, but don’t forget that reason is lurking around, waiting for the opportunity to carry the day!

Maybe the rule should be: Start with the heart; but never stop with it.

Tom