Nobody dislikes learning, at least in the abstract. It ranks right up there with apple pie, baseball, and foundation partnerships – almost everyone is in favor of it. But in reality learning is difficult (come to think of it, so are foundation partnerships). Organizations, like people, tend to avoid learning when possible. It is usually easier to go with the way things are than it is to change them. Think of your recent New Year’s Resolution. Or the challenges of refining a foundation’s program agenda.
It is somewhat ironic that foundations, given their role as social change generators, face more challenges in changing than other organizations. They are insulated from market pressures on the one hand and tight public accountability on the other. In both the way they operate and the program agendas they adopt, foundations, compared to other types of organizations, enjoy greater autonomy.
That independence is the source of both great potential and significant risk. The risk, in the felicitous phrase of Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan Colby in their recent Harvard Business Review article, “Galvanizing Philanthropy,” is not enough “truth tellers.”
Being a learning organization is one possible way to mitigate this risk. A learning organization is committed to improving through structured attention to its performance relative to its environments and its goals. The key to being a learning organization for foundations is being oriented to the external environment, not to internal structures and processes.
In this respect, foundations are similar to other nonprofits, where “greatness has more to do with how nonprofits work outside the boundaries of their organization than with how they manage their own internal operations” (Heather McLeod Grant and Leslie R. Crutchfield, “Creating High Impact Nonprofits,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2007).
An external orientation focuses foundation attention on basic questions like:
- What are the environments in which we operate?
- How do we analyze our environment?
- How do we look at risk?
- How do we think about our role relative to other actors in the environment?
- Where do our program ideas come from?
- How do we expect program activities to be sustained in future environments?
Wrestling with these questions is a critical (and constant) activity to determine what a foundation can and cannot do effectively, and to navigate the task of establishing and nurturing relationships with others.
Although it is important to ultimate effectiveness, being a learning organization is not easy for foundations. One reason is that, quite simply, they don’t have to. Because of their relative freedom and unencumbered resources, the external pressures on foundations are significantly weaker than those on businesses or public agencies (foundation “customers” are almost always polite, at least in earshot of foundation staff, regardless of a foundation’s actions). This means the impetus for change, for embracing learning in a meaningful way, must come from foundation leadership.
In addition, a learning organization entails being receptive to (even encouraging) differing perspectives. The impetus for a climate for give and take of ideas must originate inside the foundation and be genuinely acted upon in interactions with external actors; otherwise critical voices outside foundations will not speak up.
So to return to the question we started with – can foundations be learning organizations? – the answer is yes. But it does not come naturally or easily.
Disclaimers and Disclosures: The views expressed in the CEP blog by guest bloggers are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
| Posted in | Assessing Performance, Developing Strategy, Managing Operations, Uncategorized |
| Tags | change, external orientation, foundation performance, learning organization, managing risk |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adin Miller, RWJF Pioneer. RWJF Pioneer said: Can Foundations be Learning Organizations? @RWJF’s Bob Hughes wraps up his guest series @CEP_CambSanFran blog http://bit.ly/7JE0Bc [...]
This post addresses a critical issue: how funders can get a real “outside-in” perspective when the feedback loops are structurally distorted.
We’ve encountered many leaders who really do want to keep raising the bar on themselves and their institutions. They know that learning is key to innovation and impact. But as this blog notes, they find it hard to execute in practice. In our work we’ve found that leaders must align three key elements to become a learning organization: a leadership team that holds themselves accountable for learning as a top priority, a culture that values continuous improvement over time, and structures and processes that reinforce and reward learning behaviors.
Behind closed doors, many leaders acknowledge the “rhetoric/reality gap” about learning – that despite their aspirations in fact these elements don’t align in their institutions. They don’t embrace smart failures, identify and reward specific instances where learning has actually improved their own grantmaking behavior, or hold themselves accountable for getting better over time.
Shortly before his invention succeeded, Thomas Edison was asked about his failure to deliver on the promise of electric lighting. He replied: “I have not failed. Now I know 1,000 ways not to make a light bulb.” We would be wise to learn from his example.
Great post from Bob and great comment from Susan (whose excellent recent HBR article, which Bob cites, is a great resource).
CEP has devoted much effort over the past nearly nine years to creating the feedback loops that Bob and Susan note are crucial for maximizing foundation impact. I very much agree that thoughtful, committed foundation leaders want this kind of feedback; but it can be tough to get when surrounded by those who might be predisposed to say what they believe a funder wants to hear.
I think the fact that 200 foundations have participated in our Grantee Perception Report (GPR) process — to get candid and comparative feedback from those on the ground doing the tough work — is something to applaud and celebrate. An increasing number are participating in our other assessment processes, too, getting feedback from stakeholders, staff, and even those who should matter most: intended beneficiaries.
My colleagues and I will be writing more in the coming weeks here about what kind of learning happens as a result of these processes — and what kinds of changes foundations are making as a result.
Phil Buchanan, CEP
Bob, thanks so much for putting this notion and question to the field about the learning organization. Over the past year or so my thinking on this has been shifting as something seemed to be missing. Then I found some writing by Wes Martz and the gap was filled. Wes speaks about the evaluative organization. And true, this is a field that can split hairs and get caught in a war of words, but I think in this case there is an important difference. Here is what Wes states:
Although an evaluative organization is a learning organization, a learning organization is not always evaluative. The evaluative organization “adds value” to the learning organization concept by assessing the extent to which the knowledge acquired by or integrated into the organization is worthwhile and used to improve organizational effectiveness. Hence, an evaluative organization is a learning organization that instinctually reflects on its actions and external environment and continuously improves as a result of those reflections.
For more: http://bit.ly/cgzP8l
The discussion continues.