![]() We can’t simply invest in our partners’ projects we have to invest in our partners themselves.ĭoing so will require setting aside our pride and closely collaborating with our partners to make sure we help them do their best work. And it’s high time for us to hear and heed our own advice, and to actively reorient ourselves and our organizations around these two goals. Is essential for us to enhance our impact. Listening to and learning from grantees, Darren Walker writes: So how does this pertain to “Stewardship is the open hand.” What does this ideal look like for the philanthropic community? The Ford Foundation again provides a model. ![]() We know this to be true, we’ve all lived it. As Ben Paynter wrote, “ Together, that may tackle another issue: In general, the group found, it was making short-term grants of often a year or two, which–especially for organizations without money in the bank–didn’t provide the security to take risks or grow.” What if more funders were like the Ford Foundation, led by Darren Walker, that has diverted $1 billion (with a “b”) of its $12.5 billion endowment (8% of its total value) to “ mission-related investments that generate both financial and social returns.” In doing so, Ford has also begun making more grants for general operating support, and allowing up to 20% for indirect costs. ( Here’s a great tongue-in-cheek commentary on that very thing from the always excellent Nonprofit AF blog.) We’ve all lamented the turn to restrictive programmatic funding and/or funding that is tied so closely to specific donor interests that we struggle to make the case to them. Think about it in terms of philanthropy for just a minute. Using “shared authority” means that we are treating the work/relationship as one that mutually benefits each of us. ![]() ![]() Thinking of it from the community’s standpoint, why are we the ones who have the authority in the first place? Did they give it to us? Did we insist on it? Do they agree we have it? Regarding stewardship, the former connotes more of the “closed fist” ideal. One example my colleague Rebecca Shrum pointed out to me just recently was the use of the phrase “sharing authority” versus “shared authority.” We have to improve not only our approach but also the language we use. I think we’re better at doing this than we’ve ever been before, but we have to continue to strive to improve how we do it. It seems so simple an equation, and it really is. The open hand is asking, “What is it that we can do that benefits you?” The closed fist is more like, “I’ll tell you what you need that we can provide.” (Sometimes the latter statement also adds the word “only” to the equation.) The biggest takeaway I had when I first heard it was that I have to remember that I’m in this together with stakeholders, constituencies, and my community. But like most simple mantras with value, there is a lot of meaning packed within. It’s a simple statement in that it’s easy to remember. But as it pertains to our work in public history, it is a reminder of the obligation of history organizations to keep in mind who we are doing this work for rather than who we are doing this work to. The phrase - “Stewardship is the open hand, not the closed fist” - has multiple meanings in multiple contexts. (For the purposes of this post, I’ll be using the term stewardship as “ the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.” In this case, the history that we care for on a daily basis.)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |