John Kania, Mark Kramer, and Patty Russell’s provocative essay is a full-dress acknowledgement of the dangers of implementing the rigid tools of strategic philanthropy and the need for a transition to a more “emergent” (i.e. collaborative, inclusive, flexible, and intuitive) approach, one that embraces co-creation, positive attractors, and building system fitness. Their analysis is sharply on-target, although identifying three all-too-rigid types of social sector problems (simple, complicated, and complex) may be more artful than helpful. Still, it’s a meaningful and timely snapshot of how we have progressively handcuffed ourselves to the conceptual and operational limitations of strategic philanthropy and resisted changes in how big philanthropy (the largest 200 funders) does business.
One of the reasons I believe that foundations should adopt a more emergent approach is because of my own experience leading the Surdna Foundation. When I became CEO in 1989, after being a grant-seeker for nine years, we were guided by the concepts of co-creating programs and strategies and improving the system fitness of grantees. Our signature program of the 1990s, the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program (CCRP) to renew a large swath of the South Bronx, was gradually built on co-creative thinking and action. The program ultimately included six community development corporations (CDC) and 27 funders working over a period of seven years. The CDCs set their own courses, separately and together, around a common theme of comprehensive economic and human development.
Surdna acted similarly in numerous other areas, such as helping to create the field of transit-oriented development. While many of the steps we took were intuitive and, by today’s standards, primitive, Surdna was an early example (perhaps too early) of a funder acting emergently. Despite the occasional—and very promising—recent breakthrough approaches in philanthropy (such as impact investing, collective impact, and vastly greater and better data collection, analysis, and use), the story of emergent philanthropy remains patchy, sporadic, and not very “sticky.”
Why has it been so hard for foundations to move in an emergent direction? In addition to the barriers mentioned by the authors, there are three possibly deeper, structural and behavioral reasons. First, foundation cultures are elitist, self-empowered, and unaccountable. (There certainly are exceptions to the assertions I make here, which suggests some reason for optimism.) They increasingly demand hard proof of success in short time frames, and are transient in their financial support. Many are very modest contributors who ask for a lot of time and attention in return. This may or may not create headaches for a grantee, but it certainly doesn’t hasten a movement toward emergence—which can happen only when power differentials are reduced to a minimum and responsibilities are truly shared. The oft-quoted statement by the late Paul Ylvisaker, that “Foundations are the passing gear of society,” is a fine mantra but poor history.
Second, in the last decade funders have increasingly evolved their own perspectives on solving social problems that often put grantees in an anomalous position regarding their own proposed solutions to social problems. Certainly this has been the case in the controversy over charter schools. Some funders have tightened the ground rules of fundability and, further, raised a high bar for evidence-based proof of viability, if not sustainability of results, which are difficult to assemble and project. Few RFPs are issued today, by foundations or by federal and local governments, without asking for “evidence based” results and likely replicability. But often funders and governments are unwilling to pay for data gathering, monitoring, analysis, and evaluation. Often their demands overlap with others’ requests, making life for grantees much more complicated. The view of Kania and colleagues that “evaluation methods must take a developmental approach that focuses on learning and sensing opportunities” is surely correct, as is “developing the ability, structures, and systems to scan for how various forces intersect and interact with one another.” Yet we may be as far away from that goal as we were a decade ago.
The third reason it has been hard for funders to move in an emergent direction is because many boards don’t govern attentively or conscientiously. Staff is often overworked, hewing tight to program guidelines while practicing their craft in program silos. Where is the time and talent to move in a contrary direction? Where is the time to develop relationships and better “sensing” of difficult or dangerous trends in the environment? Where are the incentives to hire differently, appoint differently, employ differently, and evaluate oneself differently? Here, I’m rather more downbeat than the authors, who “see tremendous potential for staff and boards to see more clearly their relevance and connectedness to the people they wish to serve.”
The paradox is that despite these inhibitors, successful initiatives, experiments, and programs exist almost everywhere. Yet they rarely cumulate toward greater sustainability in a philanthropically non-emergent world. The accurate observations of Kania, Kramer, and Russell need an even stronger leadership edge to tug us off the path of strategic philanthropy and toward the road to emergence. Philanthropists and foundations are like individuals; creatures of habit where behavioral change is hard to achieve and sustain. How then might we hasten the steps toward emergence? Here are some simple and uncomplicated (not complex) steps to consider.
1. SSIR could formally ask CEOs and board chairs of foundations for their views on the essay and how the suggestions of Kania, Kramer, and Russell apply to their work and intentions. It should publish the responses with attribution.
2. BoardSource could convene sessions for leaders of funders, to engage them with their peers in sussing out how directors could press helpfully for emergent philanthropy.
3. FSG could publish a handbook on how to adapt an emergent approach and possibly train a few trainers to ride the circuit (assuming demand for the product), using the ideas presented in the article subsection, “How to Move To an Emergent Model.”
4. Everyone could seek out the perspectives of nonprofit CEOs and board members and seriously consider their suggestions for building emergent philanthropy.
5. Various centers, universities, and foundations could publish cases of how emergence actually happens and takes root.
6. The Council on Foundations and regional associations could offer programs on the subject of emergence at their conferences.
7. Individual foundations could re-think their cultures and structures and develop ways to become more emergent, effective, and focused.
Read the rest of the responses.