This is the first in a series of monthly columns on running effective foundations. Have a question about foundations? Ask the authors.
New and experienced foundation leaders often ask us about the pitfalls that keep foundations from performing at their best and how to avoid them.
We find that foundations fall into four common traps:
- unclear or nonexistent goals and strategies;
- inadequate attention to implementation;n conflicts between board and staff;
- hazards related to the culture of grant making.
With the right leadership, these traps can be avoided. Here’s how.
Set clear goals and strategies to achieve them.
Too often, foundation board members don’t have a clear understanding of what they want the organization to accomplish and how to go about doing it. As Yogi Berra said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there.”
At the very least, a foundation should have a mission statement, a defined set of goals, and strategies to reach those goals.
A mission statement captures in a concise way what the grant maker hopes to accomplish. The goals for putting the mission statement into action should be clear and understandable, ambitious yet achievable, and the foundation’s strategies for achieving these goals should be spelled out. The goals can be quantitative, but they do not have to be.
They should also correspond to the scale of the problems they are designed to address, which often requires employing resources beyond those of the foundation. Even the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest grant maker in the world, partners with other foundations, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies in its efforts to eradicate tropical diseases.
Pay attention to implementation.
Foundations often spend a good deal of time developing a strategic plan and then give short shrift to its implementation. This is unfortunate — even the best strategy won’t succeed if it’s not executed well.
Ensuring that a strategic plan becomes reality requires the full attention of the chief executive officer and board. Staff members need to know that the foundation’s leaders will hold them accountable for implementation. Accordingly, the staff should spend time in the field overseeing implementation, and board meetings should include time to hear about the work of current grantees and their progress toward meeting the foundation’s goals.
In addition, board visits to see grantees’ work firsthand can emphasize to staff members and the grantees that the foundation cares about implementation.
Forge a healthy relationship between the board and the staff.
We have seen foundations go astray because trustees and employees don’t get along or lack clarity about their respective roles. Poor rapport between board and staff members can result in confusion about expectations, misunderstandings regarding performance, and lowered staff morale.
To strengthen ties between the boardroom and the office, we recommend that the executive director meet with the board chair at least monthly and, if possible, sit down with each trustee periodically, to better understand their perspectives and any possible concerns. In addition, the executive director should advise the board chair or executive committee of any potentially controversial items on the next board meeting’s agenda — board meetings are no place for unwelcome surprises.
Avoid the three occupational hazards of being a grant maker.
The fourth reason that foundations sometimes go astray relates to a trio of hazards common to philanthropy: arrogance, complacency, and insularity.
It’s easy for foundation staff members to slip into arrogance. They are, after all, in the privileged position of giving away money to supplicant organizations. When grantees’ and applicants’ emails go unanswered and their phone calls are not returned quickly, or when they are treated in a patronizing manner, it’s a sure sign of philanthropic hubris.
Complacency is its companion. Unlike business, which must satisfy investors, or government, which must satisfy voters, foundations are not accountable to anyone but themselves. They are not subject to the competitive pressures of the market or the political arena. They can coast, making safe and easy grants that will keep them out of trouble but have little real impact on the communities or populations they were intended to serve.
Finally, as is often the case with bureaucratic organizations, foundations can easily slide into insularity. Routine paperwork and artificial deadlines can take precedence over substance; staff members stay in the office rather than visiting and understanding the communities they are supposed to be serving.
In our experience, the best way to avoid, or at least mitigate, these three traps is for board members and the CEO to recognize how easy it is for foundations to fall into them, and to take steps to avoid them.
For example, foundation leaders should make sure that staff members understand the importance of treating grantees and applicants with respect. They should make abundantly clear that constructive criticism is genuinely welcomed. Staff and board members should get out of the office and visit grantees where they work.
While these may seem obvious at first glance, they will require a major attitude shift for many foundations. And they are important. The fact is, even if a foundation does other things well, it will not make it to the top tier if it succumbs to these three occupational hazards.
The writers are founding partners of Isaacs/Jellinek, a consulting company that works with foundations, and the authors of “Foundations 101: How to Start and Run a Great Foundation.”