Comments on: Why Haven’t Foundations Made More Progress in Becoming Strategic?

By: Reduce ambiguity. Increase results. | Cavitt Associates

Reduce ambiguity. Increase results. | Cavitt Associates — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:38:18 +0000

[...] Hughes in “Why Haven’t Foundations Made More Progress in Becoming Strategic?” states: Having clear goals is essential for strategy, and for assessing performance. It is hard [...]

By: Bob Hughes

Bob Hughes — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:10:53 +0000

Ellen,
Thanks for the inquiry about non-foundation corporate philanthropy. I have no direct experience with this, so I invite others who do to comment. In general, it appears some companies have responded by being more strategic, others have hunkered down. My hunch is that companies that have become more strategic will put themselves in a better position in the future. The alternative – retrenchment – is less strategic because it implicitly assumes a future environment that will reward an unchanged strategy. In any type of organization, a dynamic strategy – one that is under constant review and modification from diverse perspectives and takes into account environmental changes – is more likely to produce better results. We do know that turbulent times often produce some disruptive and transformative innovations – severe economic downturns can be among the most valuable time to experiment with new directions because assumptions are questioned and unanticipated opportunities emerge.

By: Phil Buchanan

Phil Buchanan — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:31:56 +0000

Most major donors and foundation staff I know are not interested, as Alison suggests, in doing what “simply makes them feel good.” They are interested in maximizing the positive impact of the resources with which they have been entrusted. It’s only when they have confidence that they’re doing so that they feel good. The problem isn’t that it’s “unnatural” but rather that it’s challenging – for all kinds of reasons including those discussed by Bob so well in his post and those discussed in our report, Essentials of Foundation Strategy. But all the examples of philanthropic impact I can think of – from the Rockefeller Foundation’s support of the Green Revolution to RWJF’s efforts to reduce tobacco use to the Stuart Foundation’s work today with foster kids – shared some key elements. Clear goals, coherent strategies, and good, relevant performance indicators. There’s nothing unnatural about this. And it’s not even new in the way many assert. The early great American philanthropists often operated in these ways.

By: Jara Dean-Coffey

Jara Dean-Coffey — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:27:18 +0000

I wonder if a different set of questions might be more fruitful in identifying what actions support “being strategic” and how to move them forward. For instance:

1. What is strategic, as opposed to effective, deliberate etc?

2. In what ways have foundations demonstrated their “strategicness” (think I just made that up) and to what end?

3. What have we learned to date about being strategic (across fields and sectors) and how can that enhance the efforts underway in philanthropy?

As you can see, I tend to see things from a “what is working” viewpoint. In evaluation, it is often referred to as an appreciative inquiry lens. I believe the questions we ask determine what we find.

By: Ellen Sandberg

Ellen Sandberg — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:36:23 +0000

I wonder if Mr. Hughes could comment on how this applies to non-foundation corporate giving which is very often conducted with corporate dollars and not through a foundation.
Corporations have learned the hard way due to the world recession that all spending must be strategic. Hence, I wonder if Mr. Hughes has any insight into how non-foundation corporate has become more strategic as a result of the current economic climate.

By: Bob Hughes

Bob Hughes — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:57:25 +0000

Thanks for the comments. Let me punctuate my colleague Robin Mockenhaupt’s point about stakeholders: a challenge for some foundations is that the very act of selecting their goals, or changing them over time, de facto changes their stakeholders. At the same time, current stakeholders often work very hard to see that their interests are incorporated in any changes. These dynamics underscore the contested nature of the goal-setting process. Allison Fine makes an important point about the range of ways foundations can and do work. To me it cycles back to the value of being clear about goals. If a foundation’s goal is to be, using CEP’s terminology from Beyond the Rhetoric, a charitable banker, and to give money to charitable causes mainly for the expressive benefit of giving rather than achieving some social goal, that is fine. The heterogeneity of the sector is a key strength; all foundations shouldn’t be strategic in the same way. But what seems to occur sometimes is a foundation positing ambitious goals, but then acting like a charitable banker. That situation offers opportunities, albeit usually quite challenging ones, for aligning goals and behavior.

By: Naturally vs. Unnatural Ways of Working « A. Fine Blog

Naturally vs. Unnatural Ways of Working « A. Fine Blog — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:48:41 +0000

[...] by Allison Fine on January 7, 2010 I read the post “Why Haven’t Foundations Made More Progress in Becoming Strategic?” by Bob Hughes on the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s (CEP) blog with interest. Hughes [...]

By: Robin Mockenhaupt

Robin Mockenhaupt — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:30:26 +0000

Liked Bob’s post. Perhaps one reason why being strategic/ deciding what not to do is so difficult for Foundations is because there isn’t crystal clarity and priority about who stakeholders are, and what are Foundations’ accountabilities to those stakeholders.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:12:19 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by adincmiller: Great post by RWJF’s Bob Hughes on why foundations haven’t made more progress in becoming strategic in grantmaking: http://bit.ly/6CcsCA...