Wanted: Philanthropy CEOs Who Can Shift Out of Neutral
Philanthropy frequently justifies its independence by invoking capacities it seldom displays.
Philanthropy frequently justifies its independence by invoking capacities it seldom displays. Philanthropy, we are told, is the vaunted passing gear. “Social action is usually a slow process,” wrote Paul Ylvisaker, who championed the poor through his long career in government, philanthropy, and the academy. “Foundations by stepping in can speed up the process, acting as ‘society’s passing gear.’” But where Ylvisaker saw potential for grantmakers to be catalysts and agents for change, we too often today see foundation leaders who prefer to be neutral conveners.
In 2011, dozens of prominent philanthropic CEOs left their organizations or announced their departures, including Paul Brest, Greg Chaillé, Steve Gunderson, Feather Houstoun, Gara LaMarche, Lance Lindblom, Margaret McKenna, Aryeh Neier, Gary Yates, and others. These high-profile exits have me considering what we need from CEOs of our nation’s grantmaking institutions.
These times demand philanthropic leaders who can shift their organizations—and philanthropy—out of neutral. We have to be fair and honest with each other even if we disagree. But we cannot be neutral in the face of staggering inequality, decreasing opportunities, low social mobility and the steady destruction of our natural environment—especially knowing there are powerful interests that are organized and resourced to keep things that way. Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, “If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Philanthropy needs leaders firmly on the side of those with the least wealth, opportunity, and power: leaders with a burning hunger for justice, humility, and, most of all, courage. If our sector gains more CEOs with these qualities, it will more likely become Ylvisaker’s hoped-for passing gear.
We need leaders who are impatient with incremental change and who can instill a shared sense of urgency in others. We too often set aside conversations about philanthropy’s ends. What should we as a field contribute to society? For what and for whom do we stand? We opt instead for the lighter fare of philanthropy’s means. We do this to avoid uncomfortable disagreements and to accommodate the wide variety of goals and forms philanthropy takes. There is a difference, though, between delaying a conversation and tabling it indefinitely. We need leaders who can articulate clearly what philanthropy ought to do for those among us who need the most.
Recently, some have suggested that grantmakers scale back their ambitions and practice humbler philanthropy. That certainly should not mean humility of goals. Given the challenges currently facing our nation and the world, we need CEOs who are humble enough to support the greatest aspirations of true community-led organizations, instead of foisting foundation-designed grand plans on grantees. Humble grantmakers ask: do our funding practices acknowledge the expertise and wisdom of others, particularly grantees? Do we include the experience of those with the least wealth, opportunity, and power in our thinking? Are our fates bound up with those we hope to benefit from our philanthropy?
Philanthropy in general still balks at substantial funding for high-impact strategies such as advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement. Even foundations that do fund those strategies often provide measured support of large, established, top-down efforts. Half-measures are proffered as thoughtful, realistic strategy. Lack of courage contributes greatly to this problem. “Courage isn’t the absence of fear,” writer Ambrose Redmoon tells us, “but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.” We need CEOs in our sector who can courageously put the communities they serve first and take real risks, while boldly funding and empowering those who have historically been kept on society’s margins.
As boomers change jobs or retire, we can expect more transition at foundations and associations, large and small. The hiring choices that boards make will reverberate for a generation or more. The public seeks—and has a right to expect—the best from our nation’s grantmakers. Who will shift us out of neutral and into the passing gear?
Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
How the Rockefeller Foundation is approaching evaluation with developing country partners.
What the Irvine Foundation has learned over the past six years about performance assessment.
How the Ford Foundation is engaging its global staff in building a shared culture of results.
How the Omidyar Network uses a venture capital model to measure and evaluate effectiveness.
A group of conservationists, former bankers, and management consultants have imported ideas from Wall Street to create a new way to protect large ecosystems.
Proposed new rules by the Treasury Department and the IRS would make it easier for philanthropies to make Program Related Investments.
How do we ensure that philanthropic subsidies in impact investing are put to productive use?
Foundations are shifting the conversation about their work and impact.
COMMENTS
BY Martha Paschal
ON December 6, 2011 10:42 AM
Bravo! Excellent post!
BY Aaron Hurst, Taproot Foundation
ON December 6, 2011 12:46 PM
Great post, Aaron. As we look at where to source this talent we should look to those who have been part of bold change and understand what it takes to make it happen. Too often the top talent at foundations didn’t cut their teeth breaking rules but rather making or following rules.
BY Simone N. Sneed, CEO & Founder Catching Brilliance
ON December 6, 2011 02:07 PM
Aaron, I couldn’t agree with the tone of this article more. However, it seems to me that a component of the solution lies in the content of your comments.
If it is true, and I believe that it is, that “We need leaders who are impatient with incremental change and who can instill a shared sense of urgency in others.” then maybe we need to more deeply examine who ascends to leadership positions in philanthropic institutions.
Having worked in social justice and philanthrophy for the past decade, it seems to me that indivdiuals and communities who currently recieving funding, are best suited to impart urgency into not only a strategic vision but everyday decisions.
I believe it would be wise for the sector to invest more resources in providing opportunities to shift fund recipients into positions of philanthropic leadership. Positions where they are able to use their lived experience, expertise and insights to catalyze the types of societal changes that you allude to.
BY Royce Siggard, Education Transformation Resource N
ON December 6, 2011 04:36 PM
When goals switch from activity to outcomes, creativity will be unleashed, driving meaningful results. When the first attempts only achieve marginal success, new ideas are then sought out in an effort to solve the problem. It’s through these interations that innovation finally yields desired results. The current funding and accountability model uses activity as its chief metric. Shift to an outcomes focus, and leadership will respond with more urgency.
BY Christopher Charles Robison (ixipurpixi)
ON December 7, 2011 05:48 AM
I’m fighting a losing battle by myself, need all the help I can get these days…
BY Rebecca Stone, Non-profit consultant
ON December 7, 2011 07:53 AM
It’s only in your last paragraph that you mention what I see as the bigger issue: that the onus here is not on the individuals who lead foundations, but on the boards that hire them. Foundation boards (large and small) are notoriously risk-averse, as you describe, leading to foundations that are heavy on process. Some initiatives that come out of that are still good, but the process can also take the wind out of a lot of bold ideas. So finding individuals ready to lead a dynamic process isn’t the hard part. Inspiring boards of directors to accept the “risk” of working outside the safely mainstream is the challenge, because only those boards will be interested in hiring the kind of leader you describe.
BY Sushma Raman
ON December 7, 2011 10:49 AM
Great article, Aaron. The transition in foundation leadership occurring at several large foundations will hopefully open up new opportunities for building community engagement and empathy.
BY Karen Coy-Romano, CFRE, President, Solutions Unlim
ON December 7, 2011 12:12 PM
Aaron,
Thank you for sharing what continues to be a thought-provoking and often frustrating issue—and to those whose comments added to the richness of the discussion. Having spent over four decades in advocating for transformational change and social justice issues, I see a cycle of repetitive resistence to that sense of urgency and consistency in addessing the challenges and barriers faced by those with the least power, influence and resources. Yes, I agree that part of the challenge lies with foundation decisions/expectations, but from my inside perspective, I have observed and experienced the biggest challenge over the years often lies with the respective board of directors of a nonprofit organization or institution that does not have the sense of urgency, courage or the resilience to impact social problems in a manner that changes the lives of those they hope to serve.
BY Amy Reisch, First 5 Marin Children and Families Co
ON December 7, 2011 12:39 PM
Great article! And so critical now. Agree with many of the comments—particularly about Boards (in our case Commission). I would add that in our experience, the funders’ own internal practices and funding methodologies must reflect social justice values. Transparency, inclusiveness, respect, and willingness to take the time and make long-term investments in partnership with funded projects/communities are crucial to successful support of social justice initiatives,
BY spence Limbocker
ON December 10, 2011 07:56 AM
As always Aaron has gotten to the real issue in philanthropy - leadership. We have had very little true leadership in philanthropy for years. I hope the boards of foundations listen to this call.
BY Paul Shoemaker
ON January 15, 2012 10:07 PM
Well said, Aaron. I remember the concept of the “time value of money” from business school occasionally. And I think it applies to our work - i.e. the human value of resources spent more wisely and faster. If there is an urgency to getting the next line extenstion of potato chips on the market, how expedient should we feel AND BE in our work in communities and around the world?