Nuance enables a civil society. It allows us to find middle ground. It allows us to press forward within flawed systems.
Nuance is not popular right now.
This year-end, I’m honoring a giant in the field of philanthropy who acknowledged our field’s contradictions and embraced it anyway. Our field needs his lessons right now.
Joel L. Fleishman passed away this fall at the age of 90. He was a pioneer in philanthropy studies. I remember my excitement when I came across his 2007 book, The Foundation: A Great American Secret. There were few books that so directly addressed my career focus.
Its pages laid out a duality: Foundations spur progress and they fall short of their promise.
Critics say that foundations imbue high net worth individuals with undue influence. That’s true. But, it’s hard to remember a recent critique that balanced the negative with the good that philanthropists do.
Read The Bill Gates Problem by Tim Schwab, and you’ll never know that The Gates Foundation has benefited millions of children and families worldwide. Yes, Bill Gates may have conflicts of interest between his business pursuits and his funder influence. It would be hard not to after having devoted the second half of his life to advancing all means of global health and clean energy, both philanthropic and corporate. The Bill Gates “problem” and his significant solutions can exist at the same time.
We can operate within this flawed ecosystem, call for reforms, and still stand up for the good it produces.
We’re going to have to do all three in the coming months and years. Regulatory scrutiny is coming for our sector.
You might cheer some funder reform, such as an increase in foundation payout. Advocate as you may. Let’s also remain loud in philanthropy’s defense. Otherwise, potential foundation donors will move to less transparent giving vehicles or stray from charitable giving altogether.
In an era when institutions are held up to impossibly high standards and are met with scathing criticism, here are some of Mr. Fleishman’s nuanced teachings and what we can do to more fully realize them.
Foundations Enable Civil Society…when They Go Bold
Foundations are best positioned to take risks and invest in societal solutions because they operate outside the constraints of politics and profit motives.
Some of philanthropy’s greatest gifts, from public libraries to our 911 emergency system to the HeadStart Program, emerged because both nonprofits and their funders engaged in high-stakes innovation. All three relied on foundations to incubate them and government to scale them.
Are most foundations’ risks well placed? Are they sufficiently bold?
Mr. Fleishman would say no. Foundations need to embrace the risk of failure as a necessary part of innovation. Nonprofits that work in deeply entrenched issues rely on funders to spur breakthroughs.
Action: Deepen relationships with private funders and encourage their bold action. Let them know where your organization is going and the need for experimentation to get there. Remind them that your partnership relies on their courage. In my experience, candor begets trust, and trust begets audacity.
Foundations Require Accountability…within Reason
Mr. Fleishman stressed funders’ societal responsibilities, while giving them space to learn and iterate.
He saw foundations as rare entities in that they have no short-term accountability for their results. Their donors make tax-exempt gifts and wait years for the recipient foundations to fully spend those contributions, if they ever spend down.
This system ignores private investors’ impatience. It recognizes the long horizon needed to solve complex problems like a nationwide emergency call system.
Mr. Fleishman implored funders to engage in their own rigorous evaluations, while acknowledging how hard it is to measure improvements in certain fields. He didn’t want increased accountability to devolve into simplistic measures that misrepresented the complexity of the work.
Action: Let your foundation partners know how much time your team saves when they post their latest financials, grantee lists, and detailed priorities on a public website. Cite funders that are open about how decisions are made, their timelines, and how funds are used.
Foundations Need Their Special Status…and To Check Their Power
What drew me to Mr. Fleishman’s work was the leverage he saw as inherent in private philanthropy. He saw its potential to bring other funders to bear and to impact systems. Those principles drive my interest in this work to this day.
He was the first I remember to call foundations to task for philanthropy’s power dynamics. Decades before it became known as trust-based philanthropy, Mr. Fleishman called for funders to listen to their grantee communities, ensuring their voices helped mold funding strategies.
He wrote:
I consider foundations a major force for good in American society…[T]hey operate within an insulated culture that tolerates an inappropriate level of secrecy and even arrogance in their treatment of grant-seekers, grant-receivers, the wider civic sector and the public officials charged with oversight. This needs to change.
Foundations, like many institutions, rely on an honor system that compels them to blend their private missions with the public good. It’s hard to think of a better metaphor for what’s currently driving our conversations about democracy.
Action: In a culture without nuance, where foundations have to be good or bad, we can remind our elected representatives of the good that philanthropies do in their districts. Let’s also tell our funders that what we need most from them is predictable, flexible funding.
Mr. Fleishman’s Gift of Nuance
There’s no better time for us to recall Mr. Fleishman’s teachings as both a critique and a roadmap for improving the sector. We don’t have to agree with them all to sharpen our collective case for philanthropy. Our vehicles for private giving are imperfect like all else.
What makes foundations invaluable is the quest to solve the world’s most intractable problems. That’s an unachievable standard that is nonetheless a quintessential human pursuit.
What a thoughtful piece, Susan. I love how you’ve captured the duality that Mr. Fleishman championed—acknowledging flaws while embracing the transformative potential of philanthropy. It’s a reminder that progress often lives in the gray areas, where critique and optimism coexist.