What Worked … and Didn't

An article in the New York Times last week "Foundations find Benefits in Facing Up to Failures" by Stephanie Strom is enlightening and a little disturbing. The message in a nutshell is, "sometimes you try things that don't work and it is important to have transparency about your efforts."  The implication being that foundations which operate for the most part as non-profits (and enjoy the tax benefits therewith) have been less than forthcoming historically. The fact of the matter is that we are taught early on to maximize our successes and minimize our failures and that is exactly what has happened in the foundation world, government world, and local non-profit world as we all seek to put forth ideas and to raise money. Very few prospective grantees are extolling all their failures as they seek money for new projects. So what is the news flash here?

For me the issue is less about the transparency of what didn't work and more about the honesty of how hard community work really is and the time it takes to make progress. While some of the fault of the "less than successes" lies in the design, my guess is that the real crux is the systemic nature of the problems we are trying to solve, the length of time we give to track our success, and our lack of understanding about the inertia that exists in organizations and communities. Add resistance to change, unwillingness to recognize the seriousness of the problem, or the silo approaches to interrelated problems and you even get a clearer picture.

While I certainly applaud the foundations and non-profits that are sharing what didn't work, I would encourage all of us to still be committed to taking on the big issues—in other words don't make the landscape of problems so small that it ensures success— and staying focused; analyze why things go awry as The Annie E. Casey Foundation did in the nineties with the New Futures program; and most important, get a conversation going on these issues and know what has already been done.

We have big problems in this country and we need the free and creative thinking of foundations, government, and non-profits to help shape solutions. It is okay to try something and learn from it for the next time. All successful inventors have a list of failures as well as successes. As my friend Dan Yankelovich once said, "if these were easy problems to solve, someone would have already solved them."

Comments

[Dan Bassill]

Well said! It's amazing how non profits are expected to show metrics of how they accomplish change and have an impact on complex social problems, yet they are forced to do so with inconsistent resources, second hand equipment, and in a short and defined period of time.

We're dealing with complex problems, that require complex and long-term solutions, and the involvement of the talent, time and ideas of many people, over many years.

We're innovating into ambiguity. If these were easy problems to solve, someone would have solved them. What does it take to find leaders and investors who will go beyond sound bytes to sound strategy?

To illustrate this complexity, I've posted a link to a strategy map on the Tutor/Mentor Connection web site. http://tinyurl.com/2futnp

Every box on my map represents an action that many leaders need to take and that we try to support. Until others begin to map their ideas, and their strategies, then share them with many other people, we'll have too many random acts of kindness, or too many ill defined initiatives, but not enough long-term commitment and flexible innovation resources.

Thanks for writing this. I hope lots of people read it.