1,200 Philanthropists Walk into a Room…
Last week I attended the 19th annual Yale Philanthropy Conference, where nonprofit leaders gather to “tackle the social sector’s most challenging questions.” This year’s theme was “Advancing Justice- a deliberate framing to facilitate conversations on racial equity, climate crisis, voting rights, and more.” I got up early, excited to reach New Haven, which is, for many reasons, unusual. It was a perfect place to hear from people who dedicate their lives to fixing the world’s most challenging problems. Speeches were delivered. Panels were paneled. Hands were shaken. I gathered three key takeaways. Here they are in (relatively) unfiltered form:
1. The quality, expertise, and dedication of people
From the opening keynote to the mid-day speaker and beyond- every person involved was selected to provide a unique perspective. It was refreshing to see speakers and audience members rid themselves of political chains and discuss tough, complex issues with candor, humility, and reflection. It was inspiring to see how good people connect their personal stories (and traumas) to the world around them in ways that inspire, move, improve, and heal.
Two specifically stood out. The first was the keynote conversation between Edgar Villanueva and Devin Murphy, who boldly discussed the concepts of Liberated Capital, the damages of colonial past in the US, and the need to decolonize wealth in today’s America. The second was a brutally honest panel about enterprise capital for nonprofits and social enterprises, the challenges of resourcing, and financial sustainability in the sector. Both approached important challenges unapologetically, educated about the respective programs and activities, and provided interesting perspectives on taboo topics like the damage of cancel culture and the financial challenges nonprofits face today.
2. The echo chamber
Throughout the day, most of the content kept reverting to the ethos of philanthropic activity. While approached from different angles, a large portion of the discussion centered on the “why” of philanthropy and the dire (and true) need to support further, empower, and fund nonprofit activities, people, and organizations. In addition, there was a lot about who controls the philanthropic investment, and how this needs to be diversified and decentralized. While I completely agree with the ideas and notions presented, it did feel like converting the converted.
In a room full of philanthropists, there is no need to say “philanthropy is important” aside from some sense of self-validation, which I hope we are past. In a room of diverse, equitable, empowered individuals, there is little value in highlighting, yet again, that a small, homogenous group of white, rich men still controls most philanthropic enterprises. A more interesting, perhaps challenging approach would be to bring in different views and perspectives and create honest conversations about the many shades of gray in this complex universe.
Perhaps hearing from a city government official about the challenges of splitting limited resources and making tough compromises that will hurt people’s lives. Or hearing from a FT500 executive about the challenges of CSR and ESG in the private sector and why DEI has not proven impactful. Or from the Pharma industry, the political ethical, and operational dichotomies of R&D investment, population health, and revenue would have made for a much less convenient, less rah-rah, and perhaps- a more fruitful discussion.
3. Avoiding Critical Issues
After one of the sessions, I ran into Devin Murphy of the Bridgespan Group. In his keynote with Edgar Villanueva, they discussed “changing people’s hearts and minds.” I shared with Devin a learning I recently took from an inspiring leader and friend, Dr. Linda Golar, CEO of the Black Women’s Health Imperative, who, in one of our recent conversations, told me:
“I get so tired of trying to change hearts and minds. Sometimes it feels like if someone is going to be racist, just be racist. I can’t control that. What I can control are the guardrails, laws, and regulations that limit the damage they cause—so sure- hearts and minds. But what I want is to change behaviors”.
Devin laughed, nodded, and then we had to rush into the session. I hope we continue discussing it because it is the most critical view- creating measurable, sustainable change. And here lies the problem.
In the eight hours of programming, content, lectures, and panels there was almost no discussion about “the what” and “the how”. No discussion about design thinking. About operational excellence. About leveraging data and insights to make smarter decisions at either the strategic or programmatic levels. No mention of performance metrics, benchmarks, or optimization. No reference to the tools and processes that can take a beautiful, meaningful “why” and turn it into tangible impact on people’s lives and well-being.
“The why” is critical, but in a conference by philanthropists, for philanthropists, it’s also easy and will forever confine us to the theoretical, academic realm of theoretical diatribe. In a room full of people who wake up in the morning in the service of others, and of a greater cause, the most impactful thing we can do is talk about how to instill better insights, processes, knowledge, tools, and data to amplify, improve, and scale their work, and bring to light the critical impact they create. The faster we realize that, the quicker we can step outside the echo chamber, self-congratulating theory, and progress towards a more meaningful impact.