At three recent philanthropy gatherings*, I’ve heard open discussions of failure in grantmaking strategy and execution. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data,” but I’m heartened by this mini-trend.

Why is it still so hard to talk about failure in philanthropy?

  • There’s no incentive. Under what circumstances is one encouraged to fail? Working out, playing sports, rehearsing for a performance – these are all activities where you’re meant to try something new, see how it goes, fix what didn’t work, and try again. You get immediate signals that tell you what’s not working, and often someone is there to tell you what to do instead, or how to do better. What’s crucial in those cases is that you’re not alone, and that there is someone in the role of spotter – observing your performance with a frame of reference of how to do it better, giving you timely feedback on how to improve. And you can see the results of your improved performance. Signals about performance in philanthropy travel much more slowly, if at all, and the roles are not nearly as clear. As discussed in a prior post, most foundations are minimally staffed, so there’s not a lot of space for an HR function. And most program staff are recruited for their content expertise, not because they’re good managers. So you can’t count on there being a spotter for you within your foundation. Don’t get me wrong, people within the foundation do pay attention to what you’re doing, and you are called to account if you don’t follow the rules. But those rules aren’t necessarily set up to support performance or performance improvement. Which brings up another point…
  • There are disincentives, real and imagined. Boards are often risk-averse. (But what exactly are they worried about?) Senior leadership may be launching a new initiative that they’ve had to persuade the board or outside stakeholders is worth taking on, and they don’t want to give ammunition to their critics. (But is anyone actually paying attention?) There are internal cultures of perfectionism. (But what are the actual consequences of imperfection?) The audience with whom you’re sharing may not understand what it takes to make a good grant, and will take your failure out of context. (But what’s so bad about having to explain yourself?)
  • There’s not enough context. Foundations are not good about telling the story of their work. On the one hand, you don’t want to brag, when it’s really the nonprofits to whom you provide support that are doing the hard work. On the other hand, if no one ever has any understanding of where you’re coming from, and why you operate the way you do, then it becomes especially hard to talk about when things don’t go right. If the first time people are hearing about you is when something goes wrong, you’re going to get an unsympathetic reading, and you’ll be on the defensive from the get-go.
  • It’s not easy for anyone. Let’s not underestimate the fragility of the human ego: it stings when something doesn’t work out, especially when, like a lot of foundation folks I’ve met (and am), you’re a high achiever with a passion for this work who feels lucky and privileged to play this kind of role.
  • The stakes are comparatively high. I owe this insight to Phil Buchanan from CEP: failure in philanthropy is not the same as failure in a commercial enterprise, the kind where “fail fast” is a popular mantra. If the newest tech product launch fails, the consequences are not the same as if a social-impact bond working on recidivism among juvenile offenders fails. There’s actually an interesting discussion to be had about the loss of jobs if a business effort fails vs. the failure to receive services if a nonprofit effort fails (how well do we know the service works, etc.), but some other time.

What other reasons are there for why it’s hard to talk about failure in philanthropy? How can we overcome them?

*I note that all three discussions happened in grantmaker-only spaces. There’s value in a trusted network of peers, as my colleague Brian Walsh calls it, that provides a space in which to be more open. I look forward to the day when such conversations can happen in broader public networks.

What would it take to promote a more open discussion of failure in philanthropy? What benefits would that provide?



Tags: , , ,

13 Responses to “#FailEpic”

  1. Chris Langston Says:

    Important analysis. I agree with your points and I would add from my experience that just deciding that something failed is hard. Clarity can be hard to come by.

    Even when I’ve argued that a project that I myself developed as a grantmaker was a failure, the grantees and many others around, prefer to suggest that it was just “differently successful,” but not a failure, even when the outcomes achieved were far removed from those intended. For example, it is easy to retrospectively revise goals down from “we need change x” to “we need awareness of the need for change x” or “we want x in 5 years” to “we will have x in another 5 years.” And sometimes these revisions may be right and more patience may pay off, but you won’t know for sure for a while. . .

  2. CardonaC Says:

    Thanks, Chris, an important and subtle point. What I like is that you’re owning the success or failure with grantees and others, rather than only judging internally (particularly if you end up revising standards downward).

  3. Jo Andrews Says:

    Come to An Ariadne Annual Policy Briefing where the funders contribute to an annual Lemon of the Year dinner – failure is explored and re-told at length. always with the ending, and what I learnt from this was……….

  4. CardonaC Says:

    Love this practice, thanks for the invite and comment!

  5. Wayan Says:

    Every year I host Fail Festivals in London and Washington, DC so we can get over our fear of failure. More here: http://www.ictworks.org/tag/failure/ I also work with a number of small/community foundations to help them talk about failure more openly.

  6. Wayan Says:

    Wanna do one in NYC this fall? Happy to help organize it.

  7. CardonaC Says:

    Intriguing! Just followed you on Twitter, hit me up via DM. Thanks!

  8. The Blog Briefly Known as "Democratizing Philanthropy?" » Blog Archive » #FailEpic, continued Says:

    […] Dispatches from a philanthropy program officer « #FailEpic […]

  9. David Biemesderfer Says:

    For the past two years, Florida Philanthropic Network has held a FailFest session at our Statewide Summit on Philanthropy. In each FailFest session, five Florida grantmakers shared personal stories about how they’ve failed in their work and what they’ve learned from the experience. The FailFests have been well-received by our philanthropy members – they rank among the most popular conference sessions we’ve ever done. You can view videos of some of our FailFest presentations at our YouTube channel:

  10. CardonaC Says:

    This is a terrific resource, David, thanks! Look forward to watching the videos. I especially appreciate that you make them available to all online.

  11. The Blog Briefly Known as "Democratizing Philanthropy?" » Blog Archive » All of the Feels (#FailEpic, part 3) Says:

    […] is it so hard to foundations to talk about failure? In the last two posts, and the lively comments therein, we’ve seen a few reasons: lack of incentives, […]

  12. Celebre O Fracasso! Não Celebre O Fracasso! | Ver Says:

    […] Case Foundation promovem o poder da aprendizagem através do fracasso. Adicionalmente, as excelentes séries de blogposts de Chris Cardona, bem como os artigos de investigação realizados pela Stanford Social innovation […]

  13. Esquecendo o fracassoBlog de Impacto Says:

    […] fundação Case,  Be Fearless, promovem o poder do aprendizado através do fracasso. A excelente série de posts de Chris Cardona e a exploração de empreendimentos sociais fracassados da SSIR mostram como mais do que nunca o […]

Leave a Reply