Do Foundations Have Attention Deficit Disorder?
posted on: Tuesday, March 27, 2012
By Kevin Laskowski
In an insightful and incisive editorial in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Joel Orosz, formerly of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and now a professor at Grand Valley State University, writes:
“The major social ills foundations seek to heal—racism, generational poverty, failing schools—are enormously complex, intricately interconnected, and deeply rooted in America’s history and culture. Big foundations respond to these social ills with grant-making programs that are too brief, too distractible, and too ephemeral: in short, too ADD.”
Orosz blames the “hotshots in a hurry” currently helming the nation’s grantmakers:
“Big foundations are increasingly led by eminences from high-powered worlds of business, academe, and politics whose entire careers have been ADD in action; people who have held posts just long enough to manipulate them into springboards for the next promotion in their résumé-building quests. A five-year stay in a single job is a tremendously long commitment for these hotshots in a hurry.
When such CEO’s take jobs at foundations, evolutionary change is out of the question, as is even revolutionary change; their approach might best be described as a ‘sack of Rome’ change.”
I find the diagnosis of ADD fascinating – and I hope to suggest some treatment ideas shortly – but I wonder if this phenomenon is entirely new to the sector. Certainly, as an increasingly professional sector offers more of a career path than capstone, ambitious folks will be looking to make their mark. But foundations are largely free to pursue self-chosen goals as they see fit and have been for a long, long time.
That’s a great strength and also a weakness; focus becomes a constant challenge. How do you pursue private visions for public benefit without upending institutions and communities every five years? Without shareholders or voters to whom foundations must answer, what is there to keep executives attentive and responsive? Where can you turn for the kind of perspective Orosz now has? What promotes self-awareness in our leaders? Where is the diverse opinion that challenges professional excesses?
Orosz’s editorial itself illustrates these difficulties. I wonder if this could have written by a current program officer. Could a current program officer cop to being “a jerk” while helming a $5-million corporate grantmaking portfolio? Could a foundation executive call for an end to the charitable deduction (twice!) while still president? The more we can do to encourage perspective, self-awareness and dissent among our leaders while they are in the field, the better our leadership and our communities will be for it.
What do you think? Do foundations have ADD? What can we do about it?
Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.Labels: accountability, foundations, Kevin Laskowski
In an insightful and incisive editorial in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Joel Orosz, formerly of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and now a professor at Grand Valley State University, writes:
“The major social ills foundations seek to heal—racism, generational poverty, failing schools—are enormously complex, intricately interconnected, and deeply rooted in America’s history and culture. Big foundations respond to these social ills with grant-making programs that are too brief, too distractible, and too ephemeral: in short, too ADD.”
Orosz blames the “hotshots in a hurry” currently helming the nation’s grantmakers:
“Big foundations are increasingly led by eminences from high-powered worlds of business, academe, and politics whose entire careers have been ADD in action; people who have held posts just long enough to manipulate them into springboards for the next promotion in their résumé-building quests. A five-year stay in a single job is a tremendously long commitment for these hotshots in a hurry.
When such CEO’s take jobs at foundations, evolutionary change is out of the question, as is even revolutionary change; their approach might best be described as a ‘sack of Rome’ change.”
I find the diagnosis of ADD fascinating – and I hope to suggest some treatment ideas shortly – but I wonder if this phenomenon is entirely new to the sector. Certainly, as an increasingly professional sector offers more of a career path than capstone, ambitious folks will be looking to make their mark. But foundations are largely free to pursue self-chosen goals as they see fit and have been for a long, long time.
That’s a great strength and also a weakness; focus becomes a constant challenge. How do you pursue private visions for public benefit without upending institutions and communities every five years? Without shareholders or voters to whom foundations must answer, what is there to keep executives attentive and responsive? Where can you turn for the kind of perspective Orosz now has? What promotes self-awareness in our leaders? Where is the diverse opinion that challenges professional excesses?
Orosz’s editorial itself illustrates these difficulties. I wonder if this could have written by a current program officer. Could a current program officer cop to being “a jerk” while helming a $5-million corporate grantmaking portfolio? Could a foundation executive call for an end to the charitable deduction (twice!) while still president? The more we can do to encourage perspective, self-awareness and dissent among our leaders while they are in the field, the better our leadership and our communities will be for it.
What do you think? Do foundations have ADD? What can we do about it?
Kevin Laskowski is research and policy associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: accountability, foundations, Kevin Laskowski
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
2:04 PM
3 Comments:
Shakely is simply wrong. Nonprofits ARE permitted to lobby, just only up to a certain point. The IRS does NOT ban nonprofits from doing ANY lobbying. The nonprofit sector needs to get wise and be clear about the facts. How can Shakely write so sloppily, saying nonprofits cannot lobby? C'mon NCRP, call him on it.
By
Sam Talbott, at 3:57 PM
I don't think Shakely is wrong. I'm guessing you're referring to these lines from his L.A. Times piece: "Last year the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to free speech, corporations are the same as people and can contribute all they want to politicians and political action groups. All corporations except nonprofit corporations, that is. Support a political candidate from the pulpit, or contribute to your local congressman, and you will lose your tax-exempt status."
That's true: A 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in partisan political activity, i.e., the organization cannot do anything that supports or opposes a candidate for office.
But you're right that nonprofits can lobby, within limits. The Alliance for Justice and the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest can acquaint those interested with the particular rules governing this activity.
Nonprofit efforts to influence public policy for the better can have incredible impact. Nonprofits should feel comfortable exercising their power to advocate, organize and, yes, lobby, and funders should feel comfortable supporting nonprofits that engage in these activities.
By
Kevin Laskowski, at 2:37 PM
Big foundations should have heads at the top who have no other business commitments of their own.
Business Ideas
By
vinman, at 3:26 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home