I was sitting in a workshop last week with some of the world's leading business consultants. We were advised that in this time of rapidly changing technology and "disruption" what organizational leaders value most is speed. The more we can help our clients rapidly improve, develop and implement strategies, and generate new innovations, the better.
"Except for philanthropy," I thought.
In my experience many grantmakers move at a snail's pace. Let me give you some examples:
- Finding it perfectly acceptable to take nine months to make a grant. (Why not nine weeks, or even nine days? If you really need nine months to make a decision, something is very wrong with your process.)
- "Collaborations" of funders that meet monthly for years without setting clear goals or taking any actions. (Either develop a plan or disband already. Or, admit that your gathering is simply for networking to properly manage everyone's expectations.)
- Allowing five internal departments a total of five weeks to approve a written Request for Proposals that has already been revised four times. (This should take close to five days. While feedback should be welcomed, someone eventually should have authority to make a go-or-no-go call on the way external documents are worded.)
- Declaring that next year is a "learning year" without providing clear structure or guidance as to what is supposed to be learned and how. (I can recall an instance where one foundation adopted this "learning year" strategy. I spoke with three different program officers and I still don't understand what they were trying to do. I don't think they did either).
- Being unable to make major decisions between quarterly board meetings, so a process that could take two months to complete is stretched out over a year. (Sometimes this is a function of sharing too much decision-making authority. Other times it's the inability of one person or a small group to make a decision on their own.)
While I do believe that it is often helpful to "go slow to go fast" and "first, do no harm," I think the lack of urgency on the part of grantmakers is often simply ridiculous. In all of these examples, you can practically hear the brakes groaning as productivity - and impact - grind to a halt.
Why does this happen? It could be because there are few regulatory and almost zero market forces pushing foundations to act faster. But there is an equal dearth of consequences if a foundation acts quickly and happens to make a mistake. So absent of any outside pressure, the responsibility for the snail's pace rests solely on foundations themselves.
So, here's a tip for speeding things up. Pretend for a moment that there is outside pressure. A new law has just been passed that mandates all foundations to award grants or contracts within 60 days of an RFP release. Then imagine a reporter who insists on access to all foundation board meetings (except for executive session) and reports on the foundation's progress to the community every month.
Ask yourself and your staff: What could we do to streamline and speed up our grant process? How could we take our internal ideas from concept to market in half the time? How can we set performance targets that include speed and efficiency as well as outcomes? How can we turn our snail into a Thoroughbred?