Jobs apparently started a foundation in 1986, but closed it after just fifteen months because, a friend reported, he figured he could do more good by expanding Apple. And that, the author contends, was the very best way that Jobs could serve humanity. In the ensuing years of brilliance and innovation, Jobs was responsible for the iPod, iPhone, and the iPad which the author says is revolutionizing medical training, lessening the symptoms of autism, and saving whole forests from being harvested for paper. And he created 34,000 jobs. All that, the author contends, made Jobs “a magnanimous philanthropist.”

I disagree. It’s true that purchasers of Jobs’ products have enjoyed more beautiful, efficient, productive, and even creative lives. But what about those who could not afford Apple products? Was Jobs or his company known to have given much thought to them? Since the beginning of time, helping others who cannot repay us has been viewed as the highest form of kindness and service. Our nation’s soup kitchens, health clinics, and other service organizations are staffed by volunteers working outside of their vocational fields. Even people of highest education, income, and social status volunteer to perform the high-touch, menial roles of serving the less-fortunate. There is nothing efficient about doctors, lawyers, or professors sorting clothes or painting clinic walls, but it is the most human of acts.

I have a friend who is a maker of very fine furniture, but he does not believe that his greatest work is done in wood. A mentor who is a hotelier has created tens of thousands of jobs over his lifetime, but he continues to help prisoners and homeless people. And in the Bible, we read of travelers on the Jericho road who were condemned for being too busy and not physically attending to a neighbor. We know that Jesus was not impressed by the travelers’ positions or the important things they were hurrying off to do.

Steve Jobs may very well have been generous during his life — I will never know, for sure. But I do not believe that he should be held up as an exemplar of generosity, simply because he succeeded at his job. I believe that a great person serves others, beyond his or her own self interests.

Several philanthropic experts are urging that donors hold off before giving to relief efforts in Japan. How could this be? While a nation is suffering from a major earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant disaster, why should others just look on?

They cite several reasons. First, the government of Japan, itself, has only allowed limited international assistance. The fine print on many appeals for contributions says that the charity is “prepared to assist,” “readying a team,” “stands at the ready,” “assessing the situation.” In other words, the charities want to solicit money and hold it until — if ever — they receive the green light to operate in Japan. Second, just because a major disaster has occurred does not mean that the country is not able to respond to it, itself. Some countries, like Haiti, are not able to address disasters of such a scale. But some times it is important for the country to oversee its own recovery. In her provocative article, Why Donors Should Wait Before Giving to Japan,the author writes, “I’ve often felt that if a country has the resources to coordinate, monitor, and guide the work of hundreds of aid organizations, then they have the resources to just handle the relief efforts themselves.” Third, a proliferation of outside organizations — no matter how well-intended–can lead to confusion, duplication, and competition for space in airports and seaports to bring in staff and relief supplies. Fourth, problems can arise when one organization collects for another cause. It simply means that there is an extra layer of bureaucracy. More to the point, some charities profit handsomely by serving in that middle-man role, without ever delivering the goods.

The best antidote, they suggest, is to pursue excellence by pursuing tough questions. From experience, I know that this can be awkward. Asking pointed, discerning questions about the methods and results of charities can be threatening to the charity’s stakeholders — people who are often unaccustomed to critical evaluation or review. Deep questioning is essential, though, to avoid what Tierney calls the “missing middle” — “you have an ambition, and an annual plan for giving money away, but you do not have a deep understanding of how the act of giving money away will achieve that mission.” Donors engage in wishful thinking they would never tolerate in their businesses — wanting the end result so badly that they overlook vital gaps and steps along the way.

The charitable sector is exceedingly diverse and competitive, with organizations big and small, brand new and established, innovative and traditional, some excellent and some downright lame. Donors dare not assume that all “good causes” are good investments. In the 1964 Christmas classic, “Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer,” there was an Island of Misfit Toys where flawed, outdated, and broken-down toys lived out their years. I have seen that charities are often given a “pass” when it comes to best practices, with their flaws ignored because they provide free public service. Too many charities exist in a type of Island of Misfit Toys — a place where inferior, poorly designed, underperforming organizations live out their lives. While those charities deserve our appreciation, that does not mean they have earned our support.

Donors must avoid charities with “satisfactory underperformance,” and proposals with “missing middles.” The only way is to ask the tough questions.

Everyone had good intentions. Madonna visited the site twice, and was moved to learn that 67% of Malawi girls don’t go to secondary school. Her generosity (reportedly $11 million so far) and the goals of the Raising Malawi organization seemed impressive. But red flags were everywhere.

The plans called for building a $15 million school for 400 girls, in a country of 15 million with a per capita income of $278. The Malawi school reminded me of a proposed orphanage site I visited in northern India–with a campus designed by a star American architect and a massive U.S.-sized budget. I recommended against funding that project. Here, too, I was thrilled by the prospect of making first-rate facilities available to deeply impoverished kids… but I was concerned with the project’s sustainability. Such an expensive building would certainly also be expensive to maintain.

Another discomfort was that Madonna had recruited several celebrities to the cause, including Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Yankee star Alex Rodriguez, and Gucci. I didn’t believe that a cause driven by celebrities on the other side of the world had much hope of being accountable, cost-effective, or successful.

A year later, my fears were confirmed. The school’s plans have been officially abandoned. Raising Malawi’s executive director was forced out amid criticism of cost overruns, including outlandish expenditures on salaries, cars, office space, and a golf course membership, free housing and a car and driver for the school’s in-country director. An independent auditor concluded that “building an expensive school in Malawi was an ineffective form of philanthropy, and suggested instead using resources to finance education programs through existing and proven nongovernmental organizations.” (New York Times)

The report also criticized the Malawi woman who headed the project, noting that, “her charisma masks a lack of substantive knowledge of the practical application of education development.” This is a charitable disaster, and every disaster deserves an autopsy. The flaws were many: lack of subject matter expertise; ineffective on-the-ground, indigenous partners; bloated plans due to the presence of wealthy outside donors; over-funding and under-accountability; and too little attentiveness. The Malawi schoolgirls deserved donors who combined big dreams and solid plans, soft hearts and wise minds… but instead they got broken promises.

One profound way to provide moral leadership in the marketplace, according to sociologist and new Gordon College president Michael Lindsay, is through generosity. [Lessons from Elite Leaders: Bearing Witness at Work through Generosity, Part 3 of 8]  In workplaces, where the focus is on maximizing and conserving revenue, displays of personal generosity stand out.

The broader public takes notice, too, and television and newspaper coverage of mega gifts draw great attention. Unfortunately, the media often sets the bar distressingly low. Far too often, we are fed laudatory accounts of relatively meager donations by sports and entertainment celebrities — gestures designed more for publicity than generosity. For example, a recent episode of Donald Trump’s “The Celebrity Apprentice” featured a melodramatic presentation — where the $2 billion-net worth mogul gave a $20,000 check to a local charity. That may be philanthropy, but it is not generosity.

On the other hand, I was inspired by the story of David Grizzle, Chief Counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Currently, Grizzle heads the FAA’s 300-person legal team, which is responsible for agency regulation and airport safety enforcement. Before going to the FAA, Grizzle was Senior Vice President at Continental Airlines, where he oversaw several highly innovative and profitable programs. One year, he declined a seven-figure bonus offered to him, designating the entire amount to World Vision, the global humanitarian giant and Continental’s charitable partner. Because Grizzle didn’t have to pay income tax on the money, approximately thirty percent more went to people in need. “He’s just an amazing guy. His example of taking something that was actually due him and giving it back, that really impressed me,” says Lindsay.

Grizzle is indeed a great example — for how to be a first-rate business leader and also a virtuous, generous role model in the workplace. It’s a combination which is all too rare, but one that our businesses and our society need more than ever. The good news, too, is that people around us will take notice, and will follow suit.

As a result of these unique challenges, many nonprofits struggle to survive, putter along doing good but never excelling, or fold altogether. But there are other charities– and I have worked for and with many of them– that absolutely nail their mission and values. Their staffs are motivated. Their mission and activities are aligned. Their marketing is descriptive, clear, and compelling.

High-performing charity leaders know that nonprofits simply have to work harder and smarter at every turn. And for-profit business leaders should recognize that there is much that businesses can learn from nonprofits.

In “Profiting from non-profits,” the author notes that nonprofits are particularly good at motivating workers and marketing. “The marketing prowess of many leading non-profits tends to derive from the fact that, unlike most for-profits, they have to persuade people to part with money for goods or services that are used by others. A lot of effort goes into convincing these donors that they are getting value for their money.”

The author also lists off several other best practices commonly found in the not-for-profit world. Non-profits hire people who love their products. They often have flat management structure. Bosses tend to muck in with volunteers when the heat is on. New employees are quickly given real responsibility. Bosses ensure that there is plenty of time during the work week for genuine fun. The strongest nonprofits build long-term relationships based on frequent contact, repeatedly saying thank you and sending updates through newsletters.

When we see charities that are thriving and serving others well, they deserve our admiration, thanks and support. Leaders of those charities start with big hearts, but they won’t succeed unless they also have great business minds.

He wrote that major donors should make more multiple-year grants, which allow nonprofit organizations sufficient  time and stability to achieve long-range goals.  Helpfully, he does concede that “not all nonprofits merit this kind of financing.”  He also argues against only giving out grants two or four times per year.  That kind of schedule may suit donors but puts organizations at an enormous disadvantage, so he recommends a “rolling grantmaking” process.

He observed that only 3-5% of foundation money goes to the poor and truly needy, and he recommended giving to those pressing needs rather than universities and colleges, hospitals, and museums. Citing the Mississippi delta, he also observes that there are large parts of the country that are underserved by philanthropy.

Dr. Eisenberg is a philanthropy insider, but his article challenges the philanthropic status quo.  These times of economic distress present an opportunity for donors to evaluate their effectiveness, and this article is a good prompt.

We Americans also have another reason: our country’s high value for human dignity. Borrowing from philosopher John Locke, Thomas Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration of Independence a bedrock commitment to human rights and individual dignity. That value, so pervasive in Jesus’ teachings and in America’s founding and also in Jesus’ teachings, impels us to intervene on behalf of the least, the last, and the lost around the world.

I thought of this when I recently read The Reason for God by Manhattan pastor Dr. Tim Keller. Keller cited a Singaporean official’s reaction to the caning of an American citizen caught vandalizing cars in Singapore: “To us in Asia, the individual is an ant. To you, he is a child of God. It is an amazing concept.” I was further reminded of my double mandate –as a Christian and as an American– when I read an excerpt in a report by World Vision, a Christian relief organization that is the largest private non-government organization in the world. It said, “Chldren are being exploited every day. We cannot look the other way while millions are robbed of their childhood innocence. Our faith–our conviction that all people are made in God’s image and that children in particular are precious in His sight — compels us to create a safer world for the next generation.”

“So, how is a donor to decide how to give? The answer, of course, is individual and personal, dependent on each donor’s preferences. Donors should ask themselves questions like: How comfortable am I making “risky” gifts to newer, unproven approaches? Do I wish to be personally involved? How patient am I in waiting to see the results of my gifts? Do I wish to make charitable gifts to projects that I can touch and feel? Do I wish to see concrete, quantifiable results from my gifts?

The old joke asked, “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer, of course, is “One bite at a time.” That’s also how you tackle malaria and other global issues, all which require many generous and enlightened patrons. Penn’s Lifting the Burden report helps philanthropists figure out what role they can play, as they make the noble but difficult decision to get involved with the world’s biggest problems.

The charitable world dearly needs for captains of industry find ways to bring their business experience and expertise to bear on charitable matters. Bill Gates compared his experiences at Microsoft and the Gates Foundation: “My job at Microsoft had 3 magical things. First there was an opportunity for big breakthroughs. Second, I thought my skills would let me help create a special company that would be part of a whole new industry. Finally, the work let me engage with people who were smart and knew things I didn’t. (My) work at the (Gates) Foundation… also has the 3 magical elements. The commonsense of the business world, with its urgency and focus, has strong application in the philanthropic world.”

It is important for people with means to do the hard work to become great givers. The nonprofit world, while very different from the business world, does involve Gates’ “3 magical things.” As a foundation executive and a philanthropic consultant, I have seen many projects that made big breakthroughs in society. The philanthropic world is filled with innovative organizations that are designed to be thought leaders in important new fields. And always, the brilliant entrepreneurs in the nonprofit sector continue to inspire and humble me.