Myths of Philanthropy #3: Individualism and Scarcity, with Zaineb Mohammed & Devi Leiper O'Malley

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Rodri Davis. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this is the third and final installment in the miniseries that we've been running on the myths of philanthropy. So I hope you've been enjoying them so far.

0:12

For this one, I'm joined again by

0:56

Chiara Cataneo from Elemental, who's been helping to curate and pull together this series. And we are then joined this time by Zeyneb Mohamed and Devi Lipa o'. Malley. Zeyneb is the communications director at the Katali Foundation. Now, the Katali foundation is a family foundation based in San Francisco and set up in 2018 that has a mission of trying to redistribute wealth to black, indigenous and other communities of colour. And it's been doing that from the outset over a limited time horizon. So the intention is to spend down all of its assets over a period of about 10 years. And Devi is currently involved with an organisation called Closer Than youn Think, which is a sort of hybrid consultancy and ideas studio that works at the intersection of activism, philanthropy and art. And previously, Debbie was the co executive director of Frida, the Young Feminist Fund, which is the world's largest participatory fund that's exclusively for young Feminist organisers, a really interesting organisation. And she's previously worked with a number of of other organisations, including the Global Fund for Women and others. And so we sat down a few weeks ago to discuss the idea of scarcity and individualism and how these two ideas interact and whether the idea of resources being scarce within the world at large and also within the philanthropy sector and the idea that things need to be done in an individualist way, or that we need to understand impact in an individualist way, whether that shapes the approaches that we have within philanthropy and what we can do perhaps to kind of turn things in a different direction and overcome some of those assumptions that we make? Without further ado, let's go into the conversation. Rather than me trying to tell you what's in it, why don't we let Devi and Zainab tell you in their own words? And I will be back at the end for the usual little bit of housekeeping.

0:57

Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Chiara Cataneo again from Elemental, who's helping me to kind of co curate this series on myths of philanthropy. So. Hi, Chiara.

3:05

Hi. Nice to see you. Again.

3:15

Yeah, good to see you, too. We're joined as well today by Zainab Mohammed from Katali foundation and also by Davy Lipa o' Malley from Closer Than youn Think. So hi to both of you. Hello.

3:17

Hi. Thanks for having us.

3:29

Yeah, no, it's great to have you on the podcast. So we're here today to talk about one of the myths, myths in this series about philanthropy. And it's sort of two part thing. It's about kind of individualism and also how that interacts with the idea of scarcity and the scarcity mindset. So I think maybe the best place to start, Chiara, if you could just say a little bit briefly about why that was one of the myths you wanted to cover in this series and kind of what the myth we're talking about today is.

3:31

Yeah. So we thought that it was really important to discuss with Davy and Zanig this, these two myths of philanthropy because of the consequences that they have both in the design and the operations of philanthropy itself. And these are individualism and collectivity and scarcity and abundance. We will see through the conversation how they are important because of both the approach of philanthropic institutions and also because of the ways that they influence the support that philanthropy can give to social movements and grassroots organizations.

3:57

Yeah, absolutely. I think we'll pick up on a lot of that in the conversation. So I think the thing I wanted to start off talking about is this idea of scarcity and the idea that there's a kind of scarcity mindset. And I know, Zainab, this is something you wrote about in your essay, so maybe I could start with you and just ask you to say a bit about what it means to have a scarcity mindset and why it's so pervasive and common in the nonprofit world.

4:42

Sure, of course. I think when it comes to philanthropy in particular, a scarcity mindset can show up both in grant making practices and also in internal processes within a foundation. And so I think the scarcity mindset comes from this very pervasive belief in philanthropy that there aren't enough resources, there's not enough money, basically. Right. So, you know, there's, there's so many causes to give to, to, and there's not enough money to give to them. And of course, this is completely false. There's, there's plenty of money. All of these foundations have millions, billions, sometimes trillions of dollars or I guess trillions of dollars collectively to give to all of these causes. And so that mindset is really incongruous with the Reality that there is actually an abundance of resources to give. And I think that that scarcity mindset really comes from like a place of fear, where funders feel this fear that, oh, if I give to this thing and it doesn't succeed, that I'll have like wasted money on it. And I think the challenge with that, right, is that we don't know what's going to happen with so many different initiatives and projects. And so if you come from that mindset of scarcity and fear, then you're coming to it from a place of really thinking about things in this very limited way where you're not embracing the possibility of what could happen. Something could not succeed, go the way that people think it will, or it could succeed, but maybe in a really different way than they thought it would. So I think just, I guess that's a little bit different answer to a different question, which is just the impact of having a scarcity mindset. But I think part of the root of that issue in philanthropy is that foundations think they are in the best possible position to eradicate some kind of social problem. And so if you believe that, then you think, okay, well, I have to exist forever so that I can fix this problem. And if you have to exist forever, then you have to kind of have this like mindset of hoarding resources, of making sure that you'll have enough for future giving and doling it out in little bits and pieces. And so then you can see people kind of cutting back grant making budgets when their investments aren't going as well as they wanted to and kind of thinking with the sense of like, okay, I have to kind of focus on like a single issue area so that I can have like the biggest possible impact in that area.

5:06

Yeah, absolutely. You mentioned a load of things there that I want to pick up on and how it touches on things like the idea of perpetuity and kind of timescales for the philanthropy. And Davy, I wanted to just. The flip side or one of the kind of knock on effects of having this scarcity mindset, it seems to me, is that it also introduces the idea that organizations need to compete for these scarce resources. And so this idea of competition becomes the dominant one between in the nonprofit and philanthropy world. Why do you think that is? Are we in a position where the focus is far too much on competition and not on collaboration when it comes to philanthropy? And is that partly down to the kind of roots of modern philanthropy essentially kind of in capitalism, which makes us believe that the best way to get the best ends is competition rather than working together with others.

7:56

Yeah. I think the way that I was thinking about the question is where I learned to be competitive and definitely grew up trying, like, trying to overachieve and be the best that I could and feeling like I only have this amount of time. And I became a leader of a youth fund at a young age. And I have to relate it to also feeling new and young and scared. And I, I don't think that everyone outgrows that or that the context changes. I think you can continue to be scared as you're old. As Zainab said, I think fear drives a lot of how we behave. And I, you know, competition can be helpful, but I would say, yes, there's definitely not enough collaboration. And I only say competition in the sense of, like, help. There can be a sense of still wanting to remain accountable and to, you know, there's some. There's value in trying to do your best. But when we, when I think about the collaboration side that's been missing is that we're not investing enough time in the relationships we need to have with each other that would allow us to trust each other to make mistakes, that we would trust that people would share resources or that one person gaining is helpful for us all, rather than, you know, if one person gains, somehow I'm going to lose out and that there's not enough for me. And I think it leads to a lot of gatekeeping that could be avoided and worshiping the turf where, you know, we've decided that this person is good at this and we're going to all focus on this person, invest in this person, and not remain open to other ideas or other people or other spaces. We really like to follow a crowd as well.

8:44

Yeah. And one thing I wondered was it's something that you touched on already here, Zainab, which is, and it seems to run across quite a lot of the essays in this whole series, is the sense that often the kind of organizational boundaries and a particular kind of the belief on the part of individuals that you're sort of there to defend the institution that you work for at that moment in time can be a barrier to working more effectively, getting money out to where it's needed, collaborating more. What do you think we can do, particularly from the point of view to try and move beyond that mindset and get people to sort of stop thinking necessarily in terms of, this is my institution. These are the walls around it. These are the resources we have and start thinking more collectively.

10:33

Yeah.

11:18

I mean, I think one of the biggest Things that is upholding that idea is this idea of, like, legacy and reputation, right? Like, people want to feel like, okay, when I'm gone, whether that's like the president of a foundation or the whole foundation itself, like, when we're gone, we want people to remember that we had X impact on X issue, right? That we were leaders, that we got to it first, that we gave the biggest amount of money, that we are sort of responsible for creating that change. And I mean, I think that's. That's a very human thing to want, right? To feel like, oh, the work that I do has this impact on the world. But I think, you know, that is an individualistic mindset, definitely, and I think it does really hold us back. So I. I think a big piece here is letting go of this idea of legacy in that sense of it being sort of your individual legacy, either as yourself, a person, or as your institution. And thinking of it more in terms of what was I able to contribute to collectively, right? Like, what ecosystems have I supported, what ways have I supported learning, both for myself and for others in the field? So I think it's not so much that you have to let go of the idea of your work has an impact, but what is the shape and texture of that impact and being more expansive around what is a meaningful way to leave behind a legacy as an institution? At the Katali foundation, which started as a spendout, one of the things we really are thinking about as we're thinking about evaluation, is thinking about our partners evaluating us, right? So less like us evaluating them and thinking about, like, oh, you know, what kind of work have they been able to do in this timeframe? And more like, what's their perception of how we've supported them? Have we been an effective supporter of their work? And thinking of that as part of our legacy, I think also can push back on this idea of, like, I have to do this thing myself. And can, I think, really support the idea that it really does take a village to move anything meaningful forward?

11:18

Yeah, absolutely. And, Davy, in your work, in your kind of personal experience, how have you tried to do that, to sort of adopt that more collective mindset about the work you do and focus less on the individual and kind of do the structures that we currently work in within Flanth B allow for that? Very easily.

13:38

I think I had a benefit of. So when I was co leader of Frida, we were. We. We were funders. We had the power and privilege to be a funder, but we had to fundraise. So it was Always helpful in having to, to experience both of those things. So I would, I think I learned by trying not to do what I didn't like myself. So, you know, in some example, I do think funders and you know, it comes down to individual people that you might be interacting with and perhaps there's values and norms at that institution as well that you reinfor. But it comes down to individual legacy too. You know, some great examples of grant officers that I had to work with were those that were so forthcoming with information and would help me meet other funders and meet other people that they thought would be great to collaborate with. They were very abundant and generous with the assets that they had and very clear about this is who you're meeting, this is how they think. Be careful that they, you might ask this question or they're going to ask you on this. They were just, they very much prepped me and it was. No one had ever done that for me before. And just to be able to go into a space with ease and have that feeling is something I hope to offer to any of the grantee partners that we funded. And seeing that my impact in this individual way could help them enjoy the experience rather than have it be so intimidating. And then on the other hand, something I never wanted to do was a case from a more corporate funder. You know, I got told off by a grant officer because I took a three second pause or perhaps I sighed. If you know me, I'm not a confrontational person. So I don't think I, I sighed rudely, but I did take a moment when I heard that they were going to downsize our grant. So I had disappointment. But because I sighed, I was told off for not being grateful enough and not being appreciative enough. And I don't ever want to do that to someone else. I want to appreciate that that would have been some difficult news. And while we want to believe, you know, like resources are still abundant and out there, there's not always the same availability at all the times that you want. We're all still trying to get the money we need. And yeah, so I, I also think with the experiences I've had is just the individual legacy and trying to treat people as human through it all. I think I've been thinking about it a little bit more about like when it comes to abundance of resource. Of course we're talking about money, but we are talking about abundance of time as a resource that I think is lacking at the moment. We are. So there is urgency in our work, but Something gets lost, I think, in needing to spend time with each other to build the relationships. And collaboration takes a lot of time. Competition does not. So I think that's another shift that we have to make if we're going to be shifting towards collaboration and ecosystem work and deeper legacy and deeper impact.

13:57

Chiara. Yeah. Have you got some thoughts on this?

17:02

Yeah, I was thinking about something that Zainab mentioned, that we should come from a place of philanthropy approaching seeing its role as creating the condition to make itself redundant. And also I was thinking of some of the practices that you have mentioned that you apply in your work that are. I think they could be good examples and could be. People sometimes find it difficult to envision what it looks like to act within different frameworks. So I'm thinking, for example, of the question that you ask your grantees. Who else would you like to. To fund or who else should be funded for you to, you know, to be more successful? And I'm thinking also of the. The example that you shared of what it means to come from a place of. Yes. So if you could just talk a little bit about that.

17:05

Of course. Yeah. I think those are definitely. I mean, I want to be clear. I think, you know, people do uplift Katali a lot as sort of doing certain things right. And I also just want to be very open that we do not think we have all the answers. And we are very much still, like, we're a spend out, so we're not going to be around for long. But we're only five years in, so we still have a lot to learn. But I think Chiara is touching on a few things that we do to try to resist this scarcity mindset in philanthropy, which is hard to do. The ecosystem mindset. This is a question that our capacity building director, Jocelyn Wong, has really pushed us to ask our grantees is, who else do we. Do you need to fund? Do we need to fund for you to be successful? And I think the. The great thing about that question is that, you know, when it comes to, like, the sense of competition that Davey is talking about. Right. Like, a lot of times grantees will sort of gatekeep their relationships with the foundation because it, you know, everybody needs money. Right? Like, and, you know, any organization rightly thinks, like, their work is important and wants that work to continue. And so they feel that pressure of like, okay, I gotta meet payroll. I gotta pay for all my programs. And so they can have that tendency to be like, okay, I need to preserve my relationship with this program officer so that you know, I continue to get money, and if I start connecting them to other people, that could mean that I don't get the money anymore. Right. And so I think this question is really about pushing back on that idea that it's not that we're not going to fund X Organization, but that we recognize that in order for X Organization to be successful in its work, it needs to be operating in an ecosystem of like many other thriving organizations. I heard this once from another funder and they were talking about how the goal is not for your grantee to be out ahead of everybody else on something, because if your grantee is way out ahead of everybody else's something, they don't have strong partners to be in collaboration with, to be in coalition with. And so then their work is actually less effective because it's not being sort of scaffolded by all of the other pieces that are necessary. And so we're actually holding ourselves back from having the impact that we want by having this very narrow focus on who are my grantees and how can I set them up for success, rather than thinking, okay, I'm funding these organizations, how can I add on to that funding to make sure that the organizations I'm already funding continue to succeed? So I think all of that plays into that question that we ask about who else we need to be funding. And then I think the piece about starting from a place of yes. And this is something that's becoming more and more of a challenge for us as a spendout. Like, we're more than halfway through. There are things we do have to say no to sometimes now, you know, like I think people are coming to us for funding, maybe coming to us from some, like, for some, like big multi year grants. And sometimes we're going to say no to those things. So it's not like you say yes to everything. Like, that's unrealistic. But it's more that I think, again, this comes back to fear. I think in philanthropy and also in many institutions, we have like a sort of knee jerk response to say no. Right? Like somebody asks you something that you haven't done before and your instinct can be to say, like, no, we can't do that because like, oh, it's a slippery slope. If we do that, then we might have to do this other thing. Or like, no, like the, the legal constraints or whatever it is, right? So it's more just like, okay, like let's take a beat, let's take a pause when somebody asks for something and really try to come from A mindset of is this possible? Right. And like to maintain that sense of curiosity as you explore, is there a way we can do this? I think foundations operate by all the rules which we have to do. But there's so many different ways of interpreting any different policy, rule, legal practice. And I think that if we have the most fear based mindset to our interpretation of those things, we are going to end up saying no a lot. Where maybe there's a place to just explore whether something is possible.

18:05

Yeah. And I think it is a beautiful point of connection with what Devi was saying about this. Both individual and collective dimensions. So you mentioned earlier, Zainab, you were talking about nonlinear growth and different ways of understanding how change happens, who contributes to change. And I think Devi, both in your practice, in closer than you think and when you talk about the leadership model that you adopted and then also when you talk about how change can happen in different ways and how the evolution of grantees or organizations can be different. So it doesn't need to be from small to big to have a significant impact. I would like to ask you to talk a bit more also about the role of individuals within the ecosystem. And not in the sort of traditional way that philanthropy chooses, picks its donors and identifies a hero, but how the individual is still very important in connecting and weaving within the ecosystem.

22:32

Yeah, and I kind of look back in the short time I've had on earth so far, but there was a period where we were really into like finding these heroes and funding them. And we still are a little bit in that space. But I think we've also gone so far over to not wanting to fund individuals in a way that we've missed out on the kinds of individuals that could be supported. And we don't want to fund individuals as heroes because they can become they. A lot of the times those people were isolated. A lot of the times they're not necessarily collective organizers, but perhaps the best storytellers or had the most proximity and access to certain relationships. But I think we're missing funding some of those individuals in our ecosystems that are the, the weavers, the healers, those that take a collective approach to their work and are there to, to tend to the ecosystem. You know, I, I don't have a full answer of what's right or wrong, but I think there is something that we've lost in taking a chance on some individuals. And it's not funding an individual for their idea and their, but more for their presence in, in, in the space. I think that there's something to look further at. And that came from some personal experiences of just going through leadership transition and working with other leaders who are in transition and felt a little bit lost and needing, you know, suddenly not having a job and. But still doing a lot of work and wanting to build new ideas that we didn't normally have the time to when we were leaders of organizations trying to make sure everyone got paid and that the rent was covered. Suddenly we had all this time and all these ideas, but not as many resources to do anything with that. And I'm not pitching myself, but I saw so many amazing people who had learned so much in their experience doing in their social justice organizations, just having a moment to gather their thoughts and build new ideas, I think is really valuable. So that's just one example, but I think there's something to explore there of the individuals who are the pollinators, the weavers, the connectors through the ecosystem.

23:44

And just building on what Chiara asked there, I think this is really interesting. I wondered if one of the challenges is that as human beings, we do tend, I think, to respond best to compelling stories. But often those stories, at the end of the day, become ones about individuals. So even if we're talking about a big, complicated historical event, we have to break that down into the players who kind of played parts in it. But the danger is that in sort of focusing on those individual stories, you lose sight of the. The collective. So do you think part of it is that in this sort of focus on narrative and storytelling we're seeing in philanthropy at the moment, we need to make sure we're serving both of those things, both the kind of compelling individual, but also keeping one eye on the collective.

26:06

Yeah.

26:48

And I think you can tell the story of a compelling individual who is working for the collective. And that's what we don't do enough of. We're not. We're telling a lot of stories of people who are at the front line of the protests, which is amazing and very visual and very evocative. But we also need to hear the stories of the people who brought the water to the protest or helped, you know, design the security for people in the protest. And I. You know, this is super oversimplified, but, you know, in the west, we have individual stories of, Of. Of heroes of, like, who really broke out of the mold and pioneered and did something on their own, which has value. And then a little bit in the east, you know, we have individual stories that, you know, talk about how they sacrificed for a. Their family or for their community. So if we could take a little bit of both, we can still enter a story through an individual because we're human and like to connect with one person at a time. But we need to center those people in a larger. In the larger story and value the actions that people. All the kinds of actions people take in social justice work to understand the collective and the march towards progress together. What do you think, Zayn?

26:48

Yeah, I was just gonna. I think that's. That's totally right. And I was just commenting on this to a coworker that, like, I think this is. It's definitely like, an uphill battle to fight back against because we are so socialized here in the US Where I am to. To think about those individual heroes, right. There's, like, a very deep, ingrained narrative around individualism in America, around, like, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like, you know, rags to riches, like, just by the grit of your teeth. Like, you can, you know, get anywhere you want to be. You can go from being on the street to being a billionaire, right? Like, this is like, so sort of like the quote, unquote, American dream. And you see that story in TV and movies and in the news. Right? And so, like, we definitely have to think about how do we make the collective action appealing to people. Right? Because there is a huge appeal to somebody who is personally struggling to see the story of someone who, like, came from nothing, became, like, a wealthy person. And they think, okay, that could be me, right? Tomorrow, that could be me. And I think instead, we have to make these, like, these stories about collective action, about being in community with people, about building things together, seem equally appealing to someone, seem more appealing, and make them see how, like, that. That. That action actually leads to, like, greater happiness. Right. Which I think is, you know, what. What a lot of people are looking for. And, yeah, it's really just about, like, can we even it out a little bit? Have a few less stories about the billionaires and maybe a few more stories about all of us building things together.

28:01

Yeah. And I'm definitely going to move on, but just to pick up on what you said, because it's something I hadn't really thought about before. There is that link, isn't there, between those collective stories and individual. Because actually, all the evidence shows that one of the things that genuinely makes us most happy at the end of the day is when you subsume your individuality within a collective and do something that is kind of bigger than yourself. And maybe the stories that kind of give people a sense that collective action isn't just about grim sacrifice, but it's about actually doing something that is fulfilling for you as an individual as well. I think there's something really powerful in that. I just wanted to circle back a bit to something we touched on a couple of times around the relationship between both scarcity and this kind of individualist mindset and the idea that the first purpose of foundations is to try and exist forever and to hold onto their resources, this kind of perpetuity idea. And obviously Zainab, you work for Kataly and kind of well known as an example of an organisation that's taken a very different approach and is spending down. I wondered whether actually one of the things that would make it easier for the idea of spend down to spread more widely across the world of philanthropy would be to try and encourage more of that abundance mindset, if it would be easier for organizations to consider spending down if they weren't starting from the point of view of scarcity.

29:49

Definitely, I think so. And I think sometimes the idea of spending down and abundance seem, at least in my mind, incongruous, because as you get closer to spend out, you have less and less money. And so you have to say no to more things, like I said. But I think a big part of it is not, again, being so focused on ourselves as an institution and like the power and resources that we have. So I think one of the things that we try to do at Katali is to really think about how do we redistribute these resources in a way that they continue to be regenerative in communities. Right? So it's not like, okay, we give a grant, that grant gets spent, the dollars are done. But it's more that, you know, we. We give a grant or we make an investment or we make a loan in some cases, and then that money continues to live on in those communities, continuing to regenerate and create more shared prosperity among the community. So I think that's how you can sort of think about, you know, a spend out, an abundance mindset is really thinking about, like, how do you. How do you want your resources to live on beyond you kind of making this initial investment?

31:07

And David, I'd be really interested for your take, obviously, this question of perpetuity versus spend down and also just the question of urgency and how much urgency there is right now and the need to spend more and to not think about existing forever for the sake of it is one that's causing a lot of debate in your work. How do you come across it and what are your thoughts on it.

32:25

I think I've heard a lot of like, you know, from certain funders, you know, when they're evaluating themselves, they really don't. They want to say, we don't want to exist forever. We want to be gone in 10 years or 20 years. And how can that help us figure out what we need to do today? I think it's, I think it's helpful for sure. I think it's hard to not be cynical that the work is not, not done by that time. But I think living for the, like a legacy beyond yourself. Yeah, I think that's incredibly helpful and that, you know, it's. That you're funding not, you're not. It allows you to, again, to take a wider view of what's going to happen after you're gone and know that it like put yourself in the mind, in the, in the position of the partners that you're funding who are doing the actual work, work on the ground. I think that there's a relationship that abundance and openness leads to flexibility and so not just in terms of offering more dollar amount, which is great, but also perhaps more flexibility with how you fund and openness to, to doing the funding in different ways. So I guess I'm just thinking about that in recent times also with the urgency and different crisis and people and funders being able to send money in new ways, like especially through Covid and being more open with, with grantee partners needing more time or needing to redirect their money to, to deal with community needs, there was suddenly a realization of people existing in community. And I, I think that was. I hope we continue to keep walking through that portal, although I feel like we've all forgotten that the pandemic happened as well. So I, I don't know if I answered your question, but I, I relate to the importance of, of just getting to a point of abundant thinking leads to other flexibility and openness and, and centering in the position of people on the ground.

32:47

Yeah, absolutely. And one thing, I guess we're sort of thinking about this in terms of individual funders and what they can do in terms of sort of changing their own mindset and behavior and thinking. But I'm guessing to get, get a shift towards an abundance mindset and away from sort of individualism at a, at a sector level. We also need different infrastructure potentially. What do you think we might need that could make it easier for people to sort of move away from an individualist mindset and to act collectively and to collaborate. What sort of practically is missing at the moment.

34:50

Yeah, I mean, I guess I think that, you know, people taking relatively small action can still be really meaningful in terms of inspiring others to step forward. Right? You think about like some of the foundations this past year who said, like, okay, we're going to increase our grant making budgets by, you know, whether it's 1%, whether it's 50%, you know, I can look at that and say like, 1% is not enough and it isn't. But at the same time, I think we do have to kind of celebrate some of those things, even if they don't seem like enough to us. Because I think by celebrating it, you make clear to other funders like, oh, I could also be celebrated for this, right? Like, if we're trying to kind of get in the mindset of people thinking about like, you know, what people's reaction to their work will be, I think the more that we embrace people taking some small steps towards an abundance mindset towards increasing their budgets, their grant making budgets, you know, celebrating whatever steps those are, so, so that, so that it can be a positive sort of beacon to the field. Like, yes, we can do this. And, you know, maybe we can't increase by 50% this year, but if we start with 5%, then maybe that also socializes like our board or our trustees or whoever to start thinking about like, oh, we did this small amount and look, and look at what it did, right? Look at what that small amount did and then maybe we can push, right? So I think it's like, you know, incrementalism, there's lots of problems with it. And so if you stop at like, okay, we're going to do this small thing and then that'll be enough. Like, of course that's problematic, but if you think of it like this is a journey towards getting to a place of doing something big and transformative, but you're not going to do the big and transformative thing all at once, right? You're going to take steps to achieve that. So I don't know if that answers your question, but those are some, some thoughts on it.

35:24

I think I would add that also it's just needing to take more time also to learn what collaboration, what it takes to collaborate. You know, we, we can take, make the decision to not move in competition and scarcity, but we don't really know yet how to collaborate. And just putting people into a room does not equal collaboration. I think think bringing in a few different kinds of thinkers to, to tell us more about collaboration and to facilitate the collaboration is really important. So putting your finger on like, what made collaborations in the past successful versus other times, I think one thing I would assume is like, there are certain people in that collaboration that were just like inherently skilled facilitators who already took an abundance mindset at. At sharing information and welcoming people into the room and moving at a speed of trust, rather than when we've collaborated in a spirit of competition still of like, we got to get this done and we gotta move toward this target and we don't really care how we feel while we go through it. I think just needing to invest on in collaboration space, the people that make a collaboration possible and being open to learning and taking the time, which is really hard in an urgent context. But again, if you think beyond the moment into the future, I think there's it. It lends itself to knowing that there will be legacy. It's worth it, you know, it can be worth it.

37:27

Yeah, absolutely. And one thing actually reminds me, I wanted to ask is one of the stories that we often get told about sort of individualism, particularly in philanthropy, is that this is the best way to get risk taking because actually sort of bold individuals are able to go out there and do things that they wouldn't be able to do if they weren't able to sort of strike out on the road. But actually, one of the things I've seen from the sort of growth in collective funds within philanthropy is that often those funds where there's sort of intermediaries and people working together end up being able to fund things that are much riskier in certain ways than any of the individual funders would. Do you think this is maybe part of the story that we should be emphasizing about the value of sort of collaboration and working collectively, that actually it might make it easier to fund social movements and grassroots organizations that individual funders sometimes struggle with for various reasons, but actually when working together and that kind of risk is shared out a little bit, maybe we could be a bit bolder.

38:57

Yeah, I think two things about this. I mean, for sure, I think especially right now, when people, foundations are feeling like threatened in particular ways, acting together is a great antidote to that in the sense that you feel like, okay, other people have my back, we're in this together. It's harder to come after, you know, 50 foundations working together than it is to come after one. Right. And so, like, greater solidarity, I think always creates greater strength and greater possibility for people to really stand behind the things that they believe in which we really need now. And then the other thing I'd offer just on the question of risk is to really, like, reframe our thinking about risk. Risk to be less like, what is the risk to us as a foundation? And more like, what is the risk to the community, to the society, to the world if we don't do this? What will the negative impact be if we don't fund this? So I would just offer that too, on the question of risk.

39:58

Yeah, absolutely. And David, I don't know if you've got some thoughts kind of on how those perceptions of risk, which seems like such a big theme that runs through philanthropy, are kind of impacted on your work as well.

40:58

I mean, I would agree definitely with the second point that Zainab made about how we reframe risk. And as a funder with embracing risk, I think, yeah, collaboration is again, important in terms of collaboration with the community to also take on the risk and to understand what risks are going to happen on behalf of the grantee partner if you don't fund it. And if you do fund it, working with them to help minimize the risk that they could take on. I'm just trying to think of, I suppose, of what's risky because I was able to work with an organization that was like, very open to risk and our, and it never, it never failed us. I don't think maybe we made it doesn't mean we didn't make mistakes, but we always saw it as a learning opportunity and that, you know, I think again, when we were doing it in terms of funding young people, we also felt like this is only a short moment in time and these young people will go on and continue to do other things. So I, I think it's, it's, it's definitely helpful to work with other people to, to, to maximize the impact of, of your funds. And I think in a time where we do feel like things are scarce, I, I'm not so worried about. I've been working with a funder that was saying, like, we don't want to keep duplicating each other's work. But I also wonder at this time, like, what does duplication mean when we're all need this money? Like, I don't think duplication is an issue for a small group that's only getting like, like small grants, like, it's okay to duplicate multiple grants. So, yes, I think there's a lot of rethinking when it comes to understanding what risk is. And collaboration definitely is an important way through.

41:10

And I guess just on what you're saying, it strikes me that as well as sharing out the risk in a practical sense through collaboration, actually the sharing out the understanding of risk and different views about what risk means. Because as you say there, I mean, I guess risk looks very different when you're operating within a framework that's very kind of traditional and it's the donor or the funder kind of setting the priorities and putting in place programs and measurement systems versus a very relationship based model where actually you know the people and organizations you're funding. So even if what you're doing is sort of risky in some sense because it might not work, that's not a risk from your point of view because you accept that that is something and then you can just learn from that and that there will still be value in it. So, yeah, maybe there's kind of something about bringing lots of different points of view on risk together. I'm aware that we're coming up on time, so I just wanted, before I kind of let you all go and thank you for your time, just to see whether you had any kind of particular closing thoughts that you wanted to share and in particular, I guess to frame it around the sense of what is possible. If we do address some of the challenges we've been talking about today in terms of individual and scarcity. I mean, what might philanthropy look like if we get this stuff right? Which I know is not a small question.

43:07

I mean, I think it's not going to look one particular way. And I think that's maybe something to close out with is like it's not about this binary between perpetuity or spend out, right? That there are lots. There's like a whole spectrum in between those things. And so that I don't think the app task is like every foundation to spend out within the next five years, but to really like. I think what it takes is like foundations looking at, you know, what are your stated mission, what's your stated mission, what are your stated values and how can you genuinely align your grant making and investment strategy with that? And generally speaking, I think if, if all foundations were doing that, they would be redistributing resources at a much faster and higher rate than they are doing right now. So I think maybe that's not the most revolutionary closing thought, but just a closing thought that I think there is this big spectrum between we're going to exist forever and we're going to spend out in the next five years. And that if folks can start to embrace that, that there can be so much possibility there, I think I would

44:27

end it with, you know, competition also really Increases vulnerability. So looking at building collect like funding collectively and abundantly. Oh, I'm so sorry. Let me start again because someone was calling me. I think where I would take it is looking at how competition can increase vulnerability and trying to avoid that. And instead, as we've been talking through this podcast, looking at the entire ecosystem and building stronger together, these relationships that people have with each other to. To build to the future and build the new is where I would hope philanthropy can go. And the more that we can feel that in ourselves, the more I think we can put it out there, the more, the less we're afraid of interacting with partners, the less we're afraid with interacting with the people that we fund or the people that we fund together with, the more I think it will show up in the work and the way that we create impact through the funds that we give out.

45:37

Yeah, absolutely. And it just remains to say, thanks ever so much to both of you and to Chiara for finding the time to come on the podcast. Been really great to hear about your thoughts and about the work that you're doing. I'll put links in the show notes when we put them together to places where people can find out more information and more about the other episodes in this series. Other than that, just wish you all the best with your work in the future.

46:48

Thank you so much. It was great to be in conversation.

47:12

Yeah. Nice to meet you, Zainab.

47:15

Nice to meet you too, Davey.

47:16

Okay, great.

47:26

Well, my thanks again to Zainab and to Debbie for coming on the podcast. It's great to have the chance to talk to them. Really interesting to hear what they had to say and their sort of ideas that came out of the Myths of Philanthropy series and sort of developing those a bit further.

47:27

I'll put links in the show notes

47:42

to places where you can find those original essays that they were both involved in writing and other things that might be of interest. If you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, why not check out the website@why philanthropymatters.com there's loads there to read. There's lots of long form essays, sort of shorter form guides, news updates, all the back episodes of this podcast and much, much more. You can also find my contact details there.

47:44

So if you want to get in

48:10

touch about anything, including ideas for topics we could cover on the podcast or people like us talk to or series that we could run in future, you know, please do get in touch. I love to hear from people with those kinds of ideas. You can also follow me on LinkedIn and on BluesKY if you want a social media hit. Other than that, if you like the podcast, why not leave us a nice review wherever you picked it up in the first place and certainly help bump us up the algorithms. Or if you really like the podcast and you think there are other people you know who might also enjoy it, why not tell them in person? I think real life recommendations count for a lot these days. Other than that, it just remains to

48:11

say thanks ever so much for listening

48:50

as ever, and I will see you next time. Bye.

48:52

Sam. Sa.

49:10