Others looking in at this discussion may also bring the grantee/grantor binary. The viewpoints of the foundation looking at its purpose and the viewpoint of grantees who seem to only acknowledge foundations as an ATM are also present. This brings an assumption of where a foundation might be in the spectrum you present versus where the foundation thinks (or decides) it should be. Bringing greater understanding of the foundation will move us away from the binary. We often hear that NPO need to get their governance in order, and that may also be appropriate for the foundation.
Yes, I absolutely agree. A hearty dose of self reflection on foundations is needed.
From a practical standpoint, I still don't understand why this isn't encouraged in the field (yes, we talk about best practices but I feel like that is almost distracting from reflection on the 'heart' of the matter). We love to debate strategic Vs relational Vs impact Vs trust en masse, rather than ask each foundation specifically, can you explain why and the decision making that led you to perpetuity? What is the primary purpose for which your foundation "tool" exists?
From a critical lens, one might argue the distraction keeps the system at status quo, intentionally. What you are saying and what I am, I think, might actually shift something?
We could use a renaissance when it comes to nuance. Michele, your piece, and especially the questions it asks, is spot on in this moment:
"So instead of asking, 'Should we spend down or stay forever?' we might begin with better questions: What are we trying to preserve, and why? What does long-term stewardship look like in this moment? And ultimately, what is our foundation’s purpose, in the first place?"
Thank you for the comment, Susan. I research so that we can have greater nuance. We get stuck at a level of conversation that obscures the heart of the matter - purpose and operating with such. I think it's entirely possible to get there. I point to the field's creation of this blanket discourse as much as to foundations themselves.
This post provides a very helpful framework for thought and discussion. Coincidentally, I recently had a related post. https://esherylaccount.substack.com/
Others looking in at this discussion may also bring the grantee/grantor binary. The viewpoints of the foundation looking at its purpose and the viewpoint of grantees who seem to only acknowledge foundations as an ATM are also present. This brings an assumption of where a foundation might be in the spectrum you present versus where the foundation thinks (or decides) it should be. Bringing greater understanding of the foundation will move us away from the binary. We often hear that NPO need to get their governance in order, and that may also be appropriate for the foundation.
Yes, I absolutely agree. A hearty dose of self reflection on foundations is needed.
From a practical standpoint, I still don't understand why this isn't encouraged in the field (yes, we talk about best practices but I feel like that is almost distracting from reflection on the 'heart' of the matter). We love to debate strategic Vs relational Vs impact Vs trust en masse, rather than ask each foundation specifically, can you explain why and the decision making that led you to perpetuity? What is the primary purpose for which your foundation "tool" exists?
From a critical lens, one might argue the distraction keeps the system at status quo, intentionally. What you are saying and what I am, I think, might actually shift something?
We could use a renaissance when it comes to nuance. Michele, your piece, and especially the questions it asks, is spot on in this moment:
"So instead of asking, 'Should we spend down or stay forever?' we might begin with better questions: What are we trying to preserve, and why? What does long-term stewardship look like in this moment? And ultimately, what is our foundation’s purpose, in the first place?"
Thank you for the comment, Susan. I research so that we can have greater nuance. We get stuck at a level of conversation that obscures the heart of the matter - purpose and operating with such. I think it's entirely possible to get there. I point to the field's creation of this blanket discourse as much as to foundations themselves.
This post provides a very helpful framework for thought and discussion. Coincidentally, I recently had a related post. https://esherylaccount.substack.com/