“Bill Gates, amid controversies, hits Sun Valley to talk climate change,” a recent headline blared on websites around the world.
Everyone knows climate change is a big deal. Everyone surely knows what the “controversies” are. Based on media reports of the last few months, one might think the controversies are equally as big a deal as climate change.
Bill and Melinda French Gates made their divorce official on Monday. Accompanying reports of the marriage’s breakup has been international journalistic attention to what might have led to the divorce, including Bill’s possible infidelity and meetings with Jeffrey Epstein.
But for all the speculation about supposed scandalous behavior on the part of Bill Gates, what I mostly see is someone who is next-level smart, a demanding and ambitious boss, and a man who is somewhat awkward socially. I know that because I worked at the Gates Foundation for three and a half years during a period of major growth for the foundation. What we’re seeing now is the same Bill Gates the world has known for the past three decades.
Maybe Bill Gates is not the nicest person. But his personality is irrelevant when it comes to evaluating his impact on important matters like global health and education, and that’s really where the news media should be putting its focus when it examines the world’s biggest philanthropists.
There’s plenty in that realm to applaud and criticize, but focusing on personality makes it seem as though likability is connected to effectiveness. Nothing could be further from the truth. What’s more, all the focus on personal foibles is leading to the spread of dangerous misinformation, such as the lie that getting the Covid vaccine allows Bill Gates to implant a trackable microchip in anyone who gets a shot.
Celebrate Vaccine Achievements
Thanks in part to the work Bill Gates has spearheaded at the foundation. the world has the scientific tools to deal with biological threats such as Covid. Covid has killed 4 million people in a year and a half. It is undeniable that Bill Gates’s efforts and resources are part of the reason virtually no one who is vaccinated is dying of Covid. Given the extensive experience of the Gates Foundation in distributing vaccines in the hardest-to-reach areas of the world, the organization is better placed than virtually any other to expand access to the Covid vaccines. If ever there was a moment to acknowledge and celebrate the Gates Foundation and Bill Gates’s ruthless focus on vaccines, this is it.
Similarly, climate change is altering life on earth as we know it. Few people other than Bill Gates are devoting the level of resources that he is has committed to efforts to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Separately from the foundation, he has already invested $2 billion in efforts to address climate change, with plans to invest an additional $2 billion over the next five years. In February, Bill published How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, a book describing the thinking behind these investments.
Of course, the Gates Foundation is not perfect. It’s notoriously difficult to work with from the outside, and not so easy from the inside. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how it is governed. The Gates Foundation’s influence on organizations that represent governments across the globe, such as the World Health Organization, is also worthy of debate. There are legitimate concerns about why unelected officials like the Gateses have so much say over policy.
Governance and Giving Rates
Two of my former Gates colleagues, Alex Friedman and Julie Sunderland, recently wrote a column with recommendations for “how to fix the Gates Foundation.” In calling for change, they cited two things in particular — the need for an expanded board of directors and a policy decision to give more away every year than the federally required minimum of 5 percent of assets.
These are good recommendations for the foundation world in general.
Most prominent foundations have boards with outside directors. I’m not sure how much more effective it makes them because all grant-making institutions are insular, hard to penetrate, and their results are difficult to judge. Still, there are important voids to fill on the board now that the two trustees other than Bill and Melinda are gone. Warren Buffett has resigned, and Bill Gates Sr. died last year. Bill Sr. was a big part of the heart and soul of the foundation. Warren Buffett’s departure is less significant in altering foundation policy; he always made clear that he trusted the Gateses to make good giving decisions — and that is why he gave a big chunk of his fortune to their foundation.
Nonetheless, it is a major step forward that the Gateses announced last month they would be expanding the board. I suspect the new trustees will serve more as advisers than deciders. Based on my experience at the Gates Foundation, I’m fine with that. Bill Gates’s singular intellect, focus, and relentless ambition are features, not bugs, as is said in the tech world where he made his fortune
What matters far more to all of philanthropy would be a decision by the Gateses to accelerate annual distributions from the foundation.
If they declared that they planned to regularly give significantly above the 5 percent minimum that would set a standard, others would follow. And it might lead Congress to decide it’s time to increase the minimum required.
More wealth is being created, increasingly so in recent decades, so there’s going to be plenty of money for philanthropy. There’s no reason to worry that faster spending by foundations will at some point leave a gap in dollars for good causes. The Gates Foundation made an important first step when it said it would seek to spend all its money within 20 years of the death of its founders. And, of course, the Gateses started the Giving Pledge to encourage other uber-wealthy individuals to commit to significant philanthropic disbursements, often within their lifetimes.
Not a Boy’s Club
My personal view is that Bill and Melinda made a good pair, so I hope they will continue to work together to lead the foundation. Bill’s fierce intellect and ambition made the foundation what it is. Melinda, with her own intellectual firepower and the people skills Bill famously lacks, widened the foundation’s focus in many areas.
But, the core strategies, most especially the science-based health and agricultural development programs, reflect Bill’s interests, and that is likely to continue even if Melinda leaves in two years — an option that the divorce agreement allows, the foundation revealed in July.
Maybe that is a good thing. The Gates Foundation is more focused and strategic than most large foundations. The one thing that saves it in the end from its bureaucracy is that there is a single decider.
Would I want every organization run this way? No! But, in a lot of ways, it’s worked quite well for the millions of people the foundation has helped.
To those who worry that the foundation will become a boy’s club if Melinda leaves, that does not seem likely. The foundation has always had high-ranking women as part of the leadership. Two of the four CEOs have been women, including Patty Stonesifer for the first 20 years of the foundation’s existence. Many other women have played important roles at all levels of the foundation.
Let’s not accept the myth spread by the news media that the Gates Foundation is an organization that needs fixing because of very common personal life developments of Bill Gates. He may be newly divorced, and divorce gives individuals a second chance. The world may not get second chances from the perils of climate change and pandemics that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation are confronting with resources and expertise like few others. That’s what all the headlines about the Gates Foundation should be focused on — not the gossip about the personal lives of the founders.
