WEBVTT

00:00:03.177 --> 00:00:06.957
Hi, I'm Paul Verschure and together with my colleague Jana Betnard,

00:00:07.137 --> 00:00:08.457
we're speaking with Larry Kramer.

00:00:09.697 --> 00:00:13.957
Until 2012, Larry was Professor of Law and the Dean of Stanford Law School,

00:00:14.197 --> 00:00:18.077
after which he became the President of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

00:00:19.177 --> 00:00:22.297
Larry is concerned with political polarization and cybersecurity,

00:00:22.977 --> 00:00:27.757
global climate change and the challenges to maintaining democracies in the 21st century.

00:00:29.397 --> 00:00:34.317
Larry analyzes how effective philanthropy can be realized, including the collaboration

00:00:34.317 --> 00:00:35.997
between funders and recipients.

00:00:37.077 --> 00:00:41.577
Good morning. Hi, good morning. It's good to be here. Great that you could join us.

00:00:41.997 --> 00:00:45.737
So now on the topic of collaboration, before we really delve in,

00:00:45.917 --> 00:00:52.717
could you give us a little sketch of your professional trajectory that brought you with us today?

00:00:53.617 --> 00:00:58.017
Sure. So most of my life I was an academic. I was a law professor.

00:00:59.037 --> 00:01:04.697
I started at the University of Chicago. Then I was at the University of Michigan. Then I was at NYU.

00:01:05.617 --> 00:01:09.817
I became an associate dean there and then moved and became the dean of Stanford Law School.

00:01:10.257 --> 00:01:15.297
I was dean there from 2004 to 2012 and moved to the Hewlett Foundation in September

00:01:15.297 --> 00:01:19.257
2012, where I have been ever since. Longest job I've had, I think.

00:01:20.917 --> 00:01:24.457
So could you give us a very short sketch of the Hewlett Foundation?

00:01:26.177 --> 00:01:30.137
It's a large, general-purpose foundation. It was started by Bill Hewlett.

00:01:30.317 --> 00:01:34.097
He and Dave Packard, as you know, started the Hewlett-Packard Company,

00:01:34.357 --> 00:01:39.837
and then each of them took most of their personal fortunes and started independent foundations.

00:01:40.617 --> 00:01:46.417
So we've been operating since 1966. They professionalized the foundation in 1977.

00:01:47.017 --> 00:01:51.397
At that point, they crystallized the sort of five core historical programs,

00:01:51.597 --> 00:01:55.017
which are in environment education performing arts

00:01:55.017 --> 00:01:59.977
at the time it was called population that's evolved into essentially women's

00:01:59.977 --> 00:02:05.917
rights and then been melded in with global governance so um and then we have

00:02:05.917 --> 00:02:11.397
begun a program in philanthropy and in u.s democracy so now we fund across a

00:02:11.397 --> 00:02:14.057
broad array of things environment doing climate and conservation,

00:02:15.298 --> 00:02:20.318
What we call gender equity and governance, which is women's family planning,

00:02:20.378 --> 00:02:23.958
reproductive health, and women's economic empowerment, as well as various global

00:02:23.958 --> 00:02:26.378
governance issues related to greater inclusion.

00:02:27.258 --> 00:02:31.338
We do performing arts in the Bay Area. We do a variety of things in the education

00:02:31.338 --> 00:02:38.238
space, cybersecurity, democracy, a new initiative called economy and society, and so on.

00:02:38.338 --> 00:02:40.838
So it's very broad based. Indeed.

00:02:41.678 --> 00:02:44.818
We give away around $600 million a year.

00:02:46.558 --> 00:02:52.218
Okay. Great. Well, so maybe as a start, what is collaboration and what is it good for?

00:02:54.558 --> 00:02:57.678
Sounds like a song. Absolutely nothing, except it's the opposite.

00:02:58.858 --> 00:03:02.378
So, you know, I mean, in general, one could say, but certainly in philanthropy,

00:03:02.538 --> 00:03:06.298
there's essentially nothing any of us wants to accomplish that we can accomplish

00:03:06.298 --> 00:03:09.758
alone, except for, you know, really small things.

00:03:09.758 --> 00:03:15.198
So if you have ambitions to achieve a goal that's really meaningful in philanthropy,

00:03:15.498 --> 00:03:16.838
you can't do it by yourself.

00:03:16.918 --> 00:03:19.998
So you have to collaborate with other funders. And then, of course,

00:03:20.038 --> 00:03:23.798
the very nature of philanthropy is collaboration with your grantees.

00:03:23.798 --> 00:03:27.018
You're giving money to organizations to accomplish something.

00:03:27.278 --> 00:03:32.738
And if you do it badly, you tell them what to do or you just give it to them

00:03:32.738 --> 00:03:34.618
and pay no attention to what happens after.

00:03:34.678 --> 00:03:38.658
Really good philanthropy is effectively a partnership with all of the grantees

00:03:38.658 --> 00:03:39.458
that you're working with.

00:03:41.358 --> 00:03:45.838
So could you unpack this a little bit? Because now we're looking at two domains

00:03:45.838 --> 00:03:47.838
where the collaboration takes place, right?

00:03:47.878 --> 00:03:53.238
On the one hand, between philanthropic organizations, and on the other hand,

00:03:53.238 --> 00:03:58.678
between a single philanthropic organization and its grantees.

00:03:58.838 --> 00:04:02.738
Well, and also between the grantees. So one of the things that we facilitate

00:04:02.738 --> 00:04:06.678
and encourage with our funding is for the grantees to also get to know each

00:04:06.678 --> 00:04:07.378
other and work together.

00:04:07.718 --> 00:04:11.718
Right. But let's start with one at a time, right?

00:04:11.778 --> 00:04:16.738
For instance, if you look at your collaboration with your grantees,

00:04:16.738 --> 00:04:21.698
what are the key features of making that successful? How does that work?

00:04:23.038 --> 00:04:28.358
So I think the key feature is it's building trust.

00:04:29.999 --> 00:04:35.839
And, you know, maintaining that balance so that you're not trying to exercise

00:04:35.839 --> 00:04:39.959
control in ways that are going to be counterproductive to what you're doing,

00:04:40.039 --> 00:04:41.439
but can still have input.

00:04:41.639 --> 00:04:47.059
In a sense, it's having both partners recognize what their respective strengths are.

00:04:47.239 --> 00:04:51.159
So the grantees are, you know, they're working on the issues that we're working

00:04:51.159 --> 00:04:54.959
on on a daily basis in the field, on the front line, so to speak. week.

00:04:55.139 --> 00:05:00.219
And that gives them a perspective on how best to accomplish the goals that we don't have.

00:05:00.399 --> 00:05:03.019
You know, we have a little bit of it because most of our people came from those

00:05:03.019 --> 00:05:06.639
organizations, but they haven't been there for a while and they're not there on the day-to-day.

00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:10.679
On the other hand, we're working with, you know, dozens of organizations and

00:05:10.679 --> 00:05:15.279
funders across the whole field, which gives us a perspective that most of our grantees don't get.

00:05:15.719 --> 00:05:20.419
And so it's really finding a way to maximize the respective advantages each

00:05:20.419 --> 00:05:23.739
of us has in a context where there's real respect.

00:05:24.799 --> 00:05:28.779
The challenge then being, of course, letting the fact that we're giving them

00:05:28.779 --> 00:05:34.119
money not become the main factor in shaping the relationship,

00:05:34.359 --> 00:05:35.499
because it's all about relationships.

00:05:36.199 --> 00:05:41.499
Okay, that's exactly what I was just wondering. Why does trust matter if you've got money?

00:05:41.859 --> 00:05:46.839
The money is there making things happen.

00:05:47.139 --> 00:05:53.839
So what does trust do to make a difference in the success or failure?

00:05:54.799 --> 00:05:56.499
Of one of these granting relationships.

00:05:57.789 --> 00:06:00.829
It does two things, although maybe it's the same thing from two angles.

00:06:01.349 --> 00:06:05.269
If they're having difficulties or not necessarily achieving everything they

00:06:05.269 --> 00:06:09.649
want to achieve, it enables them to be able to come to us and tell us and seek

00:06:09.649 --> 00:06:12.309
our assistance in helping figure out how to solve that problem.

00:06:12.629 --> 00:06:16.289
And on the flip side, if we're doing things in ways that are counterproductive

00:06:16.289 --> 00:06:20.409
or unhelpful for them, similarly, it enables them to come to us and to be able

00:06:20.409 --> 00:06:21.829
to say, look, this isn't working.

00:06:22.249 --> 00:06:24.549
And if you don't have that kind of trust, if they're worried,

00:06:24.649 --> 00:06:28.729
for instance, that if that we're some sort of thin-skinned prima donna who will

00:06:28.729 --> 00:06:33.089
pull the money if they insult us, then we're not going to be able to work as

00:06:33.089 --> 00:06:37.049
productively as if they can actually share their challenges and share ours.

00:06:37.669 --> 00:06:39.929
And vice versa. Of course, it goes both ways also.

00:06:41.109 --> 00:06:48.669
But Larry, that means also given that your organization is in this domain for

00:06:48.669 --> 00:06:53.629
so long, I assume you have procedures or ways to, if you want,

00:06:53.669 --> 00:06:55.409
shape or engineer trust.

00:06:55.689 --> 00:07:00.009
So how does that work? Because someone applies. It might be an entity you're

00:07:00.009 --> 00:07:01.409
completely unfamiliar with.

00:07:01.909 --> 00:07:05.689
So how do you now engineer trust in that relationship?

00:07:06.389 --> 00:07:08.809
Yeah, I don't know that I would use the verb engineering it.

00:07:09.149 --> 00:07:12.269
You build it. I'm provoking you a bit, I know.

00:07:12.829 --> 00:07:18.269
But it's mostly like it's not a process you can do from outside the relationship.

00:07:18.269 --> 00:07:21.489
It really, at the end of the day, no matter how long you've been in the field,

00:07:21.669 --> 00:07:22.909
it's relationship building.

00:07:23.069 --> 00:07:25.629
Besides which, people are changing all the time. We have term limits.

00:07:25.749 --> 00:07:26.829
Our staff are turning over.

00:07:27.029 --> 00:07:31.289
The grantees similarly have people coming and going. So you still can't escape

00:07:31.289 --> 00:07:33.629
at the end of the day that it's about relationships.

00:07:33.869 --> 00:07:40.749
Now that said, yes, there are various techniques that we do use that run the

00:07:40.749 --> 00:07:45.569
gamut from, for instance, we don't actually take unsolicited applications for grants.

00:07:46.662 --> 00:07:51.502
What we do is we articulate a strategy which begins with a clear articulation

00:07:51.502 --> 00:07:56.902
of the goal we're trying to achieve, of the causal story about how we think

00:07:56.902 --> 00:07:59.502
our role can help achieve that goal,

00:07:59.662 --> 00:08:04.082
and then some loose way in which we plan to keep track of whether we're achieving our larger goal.

00:08:04.402 --> 00:08:09.262
That enables us then to go look for grantees or if grantees do approach us to

00:08:09.262 --> 00:08:12.722
be able to say yes or no for some objective reason.

00:08:12.922 --> 00:08:15.442
Like this is not consistent. this is a good thing you're doing,

00:08:15.522 --> 00:08:17.222
but it's not consistent with our strategy.

00:08:17.502 --> 00:08:20.082
And there's so many organizations out there, you know, it's,

00:08:20.082 --> 00:08:24.322
we can't even fund all the ones that are consistent with our strategy. So that's a piece of it.

00:08:25.002 --> 00:08:28.642
Then when you are funding with someone, they understand why you're funding them

00:08:28.642 --> 00:08:32.142
and you understand, and you and they understand what it is that you're looking

00:08:32.142 --> 00:08:34.082
for them to contribute to your shared goal.

00:08:34.542 --> 00:08:38.422
So that's an important piece of it. And then the way you give them the money, right?

00:08:38.502 --> 00:08:42.522
So we tend to have a very strong emphasis on giving people general operating support,

00:08:42.762 --> 00:08:49.342
and for multi-year whenever possible, as opposed to narrowly tied project grants

00:08:49.342 --> 00:08:53.622
in which we're supervising their budget and making sure like X percent goes

00:08:53.622 --> 00:08:56.522
to Y and Z percent goes to B.

00:08:57.842 --> 00:09:02.662
You build trust by saying, okay, we agree. Here's the money. Go do it.

00:09:03.242 --> 00:09:06.382
Let's talk. Let us know if you're having problems. We'll keep in touch with

00:09:06.382 --> 00:09:10.962
you. You keep in touch with us, but you've really sort of taken as much as possible

00:09:10.962 --> 00:09:15.122
the control through money out of the equation.

00:09:16.302 --> 00:09:20.942
Always trust different from just a contracting relationship.

00:09:23.896 --> 00:09:28.716
Well, I mean, I guess in some sense, it's not. You can have arm's length contracting

00:09:28.716 --> 00:09:30.116
in which there is or isn't trust.

00:09:31.356 --> 00:09:34.556
So that is to say, a grant, it's not a formal contract, of course,

00:09:34.616 --> 00:09:38.236
but it is a bilateral relationship in which there's expectations on each side.

00:09:38.436 --> 00:09:41.296
So in that sense, it resembles a contract. contract and then

00:09:41.296 --> 00:09:44.816
as with any contract you know if you've ever renovated a

00:09:44.816 --> 00:09:47.936
house you have a contract with your contractor but it goes a lot better

00:09:47.936 --> 00:09:51.536
if you and the contractor get along with each other understand each

00:09:51.536 --> 00:09:55.416
other and trust each other right so it's not different in the sense that any

00:09:55.416 --> 00:09:59.656
bilateral relationship with mutually shared goals works better if the parties

00:09:59.656 --> 00:10:04.896
know and trust each other what's striking to me sometimes is is how unaware

00:10:04.896 --> 00:10:08.136
people seem to sometimes be of that fact, right?

00:10:08.196 --> 00:10:11.676
And they'll go into a contracted relationship in a way that would never go into

00:10:11.676 --> 00:10:14.576
any other relationship, like a friendship or, you know, whatever,

00:10:14.696 --> 00:10:17.356
when they still share those same essential company.

00:10:19.056 --> 00:10:26.736
But you mentioned earlier that one of the steps that helps you and your organization

00:10:26.736 --> 00:10:32.296
to maintain and build trust with the grantees is also to very carefully select

00:10:32.296 --> 00:10:35.616
with whom you engage, right? Yeah.

00:10:35.956 --> 00:10:40.076
But that's interesting, right? But there's a flip side to that because in some

00:10:40.076 --> 00:10:41.796
sense you get a selection bias, right?

00:10:41.876 --> 00:10:47.716
You might then also start to work with, let's say, a subset of possible grantees

00:10:47.716 --> 00:10:53.396
that, let's say, adhere to your basic management principles as an example.

00:10:53.436 --> 00:10:59.656
How do you assure that you still achieve your mission in sort of an even-handed way.

00:11:00.436 --> 00:11:04.996
Despite this strong pre-selection of your grantees?

00:11:05.256 --> 00:11:09.236
Yeah, that's a great question. So I think we have sort of, again,

00:11:09.296 --> 00:11:12.756
at least three different mechanisms to try and assure that we're doing that.

00:11:13.016 --> 00:11:17.256
So one is, as I said, we'll have an articulated goal and a story about how we

00:11:17.256 --> 00:11:20.316
think the work we're going to do with grantees will achieve that goal,

00:11:20.416 --> 00:11:25.516
but we do require for ourselves some way of measuring whether we're actually making progress.

00:11:26.076 --> 00:11:29.296
Now, we do not do that on a grant-by-grant basis.

00:11:29.756 --> 00:11:33.256
With each grantee, we'll say to them at the point where we're making the grant,

00:11:33.376 --> 00:11:35.756
how do you want to measure whether this grant is successful?

00:11:36.336 --> 00:11:40.456
And then we'll use that. But at the strategy level, we'll have measures that

00:11:40.456 --> 00:11:44.356
are independent of the individual grantees, but that let us know if we're making progress.

00:11:44.636 --> 00:11:48.416
So I don't care about selection bias if we're achieving our goal,

00:11:48.536 --> 00:11:51.356
right? That's the purpose. But if we're not, that's a signal.

00:11:51.656 --> 00:11:58.016
A second Second device for us is we also, at least once every five years and

00:11:58.016 --> 00:12:03.376
often in between, we'll do independent evaluations where we'll bring in an independent

00:12:03.376 --> 00:12:06.436
third party to evaluate and assess how we're doing.

00:12:06.736 --> 00:12:09.336
And then the third, and in some ways the most important for us,

00:12:09.356 --> 00:12:10.996
is as I mentioned earlier, we have term limits.

00:12:11.476 --> 00:12:15.056
So the program staff are turning over and you've got fresh blood coming in all

00:12:15.056 --> 00:12:23.336
the time that are taking a new look at the strategy, at the ways and the sub-strategies

00:12:23.336 --> 00:12:26.356
that the grantees are choosing. They're developing new relationships with them.

00:12:26.456 --> 00:12:30.296
They bring in their own networks and ideas and thoughts and so on.

00:12:30.996 --> 00:12:35.536
We try and balance that. When you come in, it's not as though you come in to

00:12:35.536 --> 00:12:36.916
wipe the slate clean and start over.

00:12:37.596 --> 00:12:40.476
You don't. It's like you're supposed to pick it up and move from here,

00:12:40.536 --> 00:12:44.236
but we do want you to put fresh eyes on it and see if there are issues there.

00:12:44.236 --> 00:12:48.396
So all of those kinds of devices, particularly overlapping, we think work to

00:12:48.396 --> 00:12:52.336
help us avoid the kind of, we're just dug in, we're used to doing something

00:12:52.336 --> 00:12:54.256
this way, we're just going to keep doing it.

00:12:54.576 --> 00:13:01.996
Right. But can you give an example of a project that really worked out marvelously

00:13:01.996 --> 00:13:08.036
well beyond expectation following these rules? Sure.

00:13:09.177 --> 00:13:14.417
Well, so again, these approaches are pervasive across the foundation.

00:13:15.137 --> 00:13:16.937
So we use them in everything we do.

00:13:17.657 --> 00:13:22.677
And so, yeah, I mean, I think I could point to almost anything that we've managed to be successful in.

00:13:23.177 --> 00:13:27.197
Okay, I'll give you actually a really good example. Because oftentimes the changes

00:13:27.197 --> 00:13:32.337
need to be signaled as much by changes in the outside world as by what happens internally.

00:13:32.517 --> 00:13:35.937
So for instance, we've been doing Western conservation since 1966. 60 cents.

00:13:37.377 --> 00:13:41.257
Our goal, it's a preserved biodiversity goal.

00:13:41.977 --> 00:13:47.137
We identified essentially a long-term goal of trying to preserve half of the

00:13:47.137 --> 00:13:48.877
lands west of the Rockies.

00:13:48.917 --> 00:13:52.517
That's where our geographic focus is for some kind of conservation.

00:13:52.557 --> 00:13:56.357
It doesn't have to be full, but some kind of conservation, depending on the

00:13:56.357 --> 00:13:58.257
particular ecosystem, what's most appropriate.

00:13:59.177 --> 00:14:03.057
During the Obama administration, we had these amazing opportunities to make

00:14:03.057 --> 00:14:07.417
gains because the administration was was really, you know, eager to do all sorts of things.

00:14:07.497 --> 00:14:12.597
We made a ton of gains, uh, national monuments, um, lots of conserved lands.

00:14:12.757 --> 00:14:15.757
Then Trump got elected and they just immediately undid everything.

00:14:16.357 --> 00:14:21.557
And for us, that was a realization that, well, it wasn't an instant realization.

00:14:21.657 --> 00:14:24.657
We did a lot of talking and thinking, talking to our grantees,

00:14:24.657 --> 00:14:26.817
evaluate all the kind of stuff that I've talked about doing.

00:14:26.997 --> 00:14:31.257
And the lesson we learned of course, was that you, you need to build local support.

00:14:31.797 --> 00:14:35.217
And the local support has to be across the political board.

00:14:35.517 --> 00:14:40.657
So you need not just conservationists, you need the support of the farmers and

00:14:40.657 --> 00:14:42.657
the ranchers and the native communities in the,

00:14:42.737 --> 00:14:47.037
you know, and so we shifted our work up to begin much more local work,

00:14:47.097 --> 00:14:51.837
to focus less on federal public lands and as much on private and state lands

00:14:51.837 --> 00:14:56.377
as ways to achieve our goal, based on what we learned. And we've made enormous progress now.

00:14:57.317 --> 00:15:01.457
And the idea was, Because anything you make will be more enduring that way. Sorry.

00:15:01.697 --> 00:15:06.517
Right. They won't, when things change in Washington, if the local forces are

00:15:06.517 --> 00:15:10.297
like, no, we want this, leave it where it is, you're much more likely to have it remain.

00:15:11.857 --> 00:15:18.197
Yeah, this is fascinating. And so when you were first moving in,

00:15:18.417 --> 00:15:25.017
I assume then, maybe I shouldn't assume, let me ask you, did you then start

00:15:25.017 --> 00:15:29.337
recruiting some of these local groups to be your grantees?

00:15:29.577 --> 00:15:32.077
Exactly. Huge shift in the grantee population.

00:15:32.417 --> 00:15:35.837
And so what was that relationship like in the beginning?

00:15:36.637 --> 00:15:39.897
Because I'm interested in trust, right?

00:15:40.477 --> 00:15:48.337
And as you were reaching out to them and you're interested in conservation and

00:15:48.337 --> 00:15:52.537
they might not see that immediately as being in their interests, right?

00:15:52.717 --> 00:15:59.877
And so you have some divergence or perceived divergence in interest and not

00:15:59.877 --> 00:16:03.577
yet an establishment of trust. So how do you build that relationship?

00:16:05.181 --> 00:16:09.161
So as I say, it's so much the personal wealth.

00:16:09.461 --> 00:16:14.801
First is the way in which you give the funding and the behaviors that you demonstrate in doing so.

00:16:14.861 --> 00:16:18.841
What are we asking for by way of what we need to decide whether to fund you?

00:16:18.881 --> 00:16:23.221
Are we putting you through the ringer for no particularly good reason?

00:16:23.301 --> 00:16:27.141
Or are we asking for things that you can understand why we want them?

00:16:27.381 --> 00:16:31.601
How are we talking to you? What are we looking to you to tell us as opposed

00:16:31.601 --> 00:16:34.981
to us to tell you? We have a kind of implicit rule that you should be listening

00:16:34.981 --> 00:16:38.341
at least as much as you're talking in any conversation with the grantee.

00:16:38.361 --> 00:16:39.521
That's actually a formal principle.

00:16:39.941 --> 00:16:44.741
We have this thing we call seven habits of excellent work with grantees. That's one of them.

00:16:45.701 --> 00:16:50.661
Listening half the time. And then, of course, how do you build the ongoing relationship?

00:16:50.841 --> 00:16:52.201
What kind of contact do you remain?

00:16:53.041 --> 00:16:56.641
When do you listen? When do you tell? When you tell? How do you tell?

00:16:56.781 --> 00:17:00.041
It's, again, like developing trust in any relationship. relationship here

00:17:00.041 --> 00:17:02.781
was one of the interesting things though that we discovered as we made this

00:17:02.781 --> 00:17:05.561
move from overwhelmingly supporting these

00:17:05.561 --> 00:17:08.621
large national organizations to working much more locally

00:17:08.621 --> 00:17:12.061
the local groups had all been

00:17:12.061 --> 00:17:15.301
starved of funding of course they had not been getting much attention from funders

00:17:15.301 --> 00:17:22.841
like us um and they were didn't trust each other um because they had all been

00:17:22.841 --> 00:17:27.681
in competition with each other for the most part and so as big a part of that

00:17:27.681 --> 00:17:29.081
process for us, maybe bigger,

00:17:29.201 --> 00:17:33.301
has been helping build trust among the grantees we're now trying to get to agree

00:17:33.301 --> 00:17:36.041
on what kind of conservation they want within their community.

00:17:37.521 --> 00:17:44.261
And again, that can be really challenging and has been a big, big part of the work.

00:17:45.061 --> 00:17:49.981
But so if you build trust with these local communities, you follow a specific procedure?

00:17:50.441 --> 00:17:54.721
Are there certain things that you feel are absolutely necessary to deploy in

00:17:54.721 --> 00:17:58.521
a certain order or communicate? No, it's not that scientific.

00:17:58.621 --> 00:18:01.481
As I said, there's some general principles, as I said, listening,

00:18:01.841 --> 00:18:05.501
trying to give general operating support, trying to make it multi-year,

00:18:06.281 --> 00:18:11.101
letting them tell us how to think about measuring the success of the grant.

00:18:11.381 --> 00:18:13.421
But it's not like a checklist.

00:18:13.721 --> 00:18:16.821
It's really a way of approaching and working. Right.

00:18:17.181 --> 00:18:20.901
But Larry, if we talk about this relation with the grantees,

00:18:20.921 --> 00:18:23.741
do you have an example of a complete failure?

00:18:28.921 --> 00:18:32.961
Um, I'm sure there are, no, I'm not, I'm not even, you know,

00:18:33.041 --> 00:18:37.101
I mean, um, but I'm trying to think of a complete failure of a relationship

00:18:37.101 --> 00:18:41.621
with grantees as opposed to, you know, we've had many grants that didn't work out.

00:18:42.001 --> 00:18:47.181
Um, I can think of, uh, I can think of, uh, what would be regarded as a failure.

00:18:47.361 --> 00:18:50.201
This is collaboration among funders example.

00:18:50.561 --> 00:18:54.101
No, but I want to go to the funder funder relationship after this one.

00:18:54.891 --> 00:18:58.731
First, I want to understand this use case of the relationship with the grantees

00:18:58.731 --> 00:19:01.671
and why would the collaboration break down?

00:19:02.431 --> 00:19:04.471
What are the reasons of that breakdown?

00:19:06.071 --> 00:19:10.711
So I guess here's what I'd say. And in saying that I can't come up with one

00:19:10.711 --> 00:19:13.531
off the top of my head, it's not because I don't think there is one.

00:19:13.631 --> 00:19:16.671
I'm sure there are many, but they don't show up.

00:19:17.331 --> 00:19:22.551
As I've been told, the way they will show up will be you've developed a relationship,

00:19:22.651 --> 00:19:24.431
but the grantee feels they can't be honest with you.

00:19:24.891 --> 00:19:28.531
And so they're not telling you. And then at some point you stop working with

00:19:28.531 --> 00:19:32.011
them and then they think badly of you, but they don't say that.

00:19:32.271 --> 00:19:34.771
It's really hard to ferret that out, I think.

00:19:35.891 --> 00:19:39.891
So, you know, because it's not the case, you know, we get criticized,

00:19:39.951 --> 00:19:42.511
but very seldom, even by our former grantees.

00:19:42.551 --> 00:19:47.011
And that takes you back to the thing that potentially makes the dynamic so unhealthy,

00:19:47.371 --> 00:19:50.311
which is their potential desire for funding in the future.

00:19:50.931 --> 00:19:56.191
I've got 40, 50 program staff, and I'm sure they don't all follow all of this

00:19:56.191 --> 00:20:00.211
and work perfectly well with all of their grantees all the time. It's just not possible.

00:20:00.811 --> 00:20:03.871
And as I said, these are mostly interpersonal relationships,

00:20:03.971 --> 00:20:07.391
and people don't always get along with each other.

00:20:07.471 --> 00:20:11.311
So there's all sorts of things that I'm sure are showing up that way,

00:20:11.391 --> 00:20:14.451
but they don't show up in any way that's really obvious.

00:20:14.451 --> 00:20:17.231
So it's hard for me

00:20:17.231 --> 00:20:20.211
to identify but but in no way am i suggesting that it

00:20:20.211 --> 00:20:23.631
doesn't happen or if it does it's not making its way up the mile but do

00:20:23.631 --> 00:20:26.951
you feel that the dependence between the organization and

00:20:26.951 --> 00:20:30.431
the grantees the financial dependence builds a

00:20:30.431 --> 00:20:33.531
layer of opaqueness in that relation that then

00:20:33.531 --> 00:20:40.011
later pops out actually as a relationship that is not functional but hidden

00:20:40.011 --> 00:20:46.331
yeah so yeah well what What I'd say is that potential layer or that dynamic

00:20:46.331 --> 00:20:50.531
is the thing you're working to overcome always. That is the problem.

00:20:50.751 --> 00:20:53.951
And then it can be exacerbated if there are interpersonal differences.

00:20:53.991 --> 00:20:57.231
It can be alleviated if you manage it as a partnership well.

00:20:57.571 --> 00:21:00.691
And then, as I say, when you haven't overcome it,

00:21:00.831 --> 00:21:05.311
it doesn't necessarily show up in an obvious way other than the grantee relationship

00:21:05.311 --> 00:21:09.411
doesn't work out and the partnership ends, but usually not with somebody sort

00:21:09.411 --> 00:21:14.891
of sending in a complaint or telling me that so-and-so program officer acted really badly.

00:21:15.011 --> 00:21:19.271
So it's hard for me to identify a grantee relationship that failed that way.

00:21:19.391 --> 00:21:22.191
Not the case where that's where I went to funders, not the case with fellow

00:21:22.191 --> 00:21:26.591
funders where there's equality built into the nature of the relationship.

00:21:26.951 --> 00:21:30.191
So let's move to the relationship with other funders, right?

00:21:31.151 --> 00:21:34.551
So how does that work? How do you maintain trust there?

00:21:35.851 --> 00:21:38.951
Well, the building and maintenance of trust is very similar.

00:21:39.131 --> 00:21:41.871
I mean, again, it's still just a matter of interpersonal relationships.

00:21:42.251 --> 00:21:46.991
The dynamic or the problem is different because, so when you think about grantees,

00:21:47.798 --> 00:21:52.978
The dynamic you're trying to overcome is the one where you and they assume that

00:21:52.978 --> 00:21:54.578
you have power and they don't.

00:21:54.998 --> 00:21:58.578
Now, I often say, and I actually believe this, it's not really true.

00:21:58.638 --> 00:22:03.058
We need our grantees as much as they need us because we can't do anything but give away money.

00:22:03.218 --> 00:22:07.618
And if we have goals to accomplish, if I'm choosing to give it to the organizations

00:22:07.618 --> 00:22:10.458
that make the most sense for what we're trying to accomplish,

00:22:10.538 --> 00:22:14.698
and if I blow that relationship, I have to go to another grantee who presumably

00:22:14.698 --> 00:22:16.418
I don't think is as good, right?

00:22:17.078 --> 00:22:21.618
But nevertheless, the dynamic is really constructed so that that's to be overcome.

00:22:21.698 --> 00:22:25.498
When it comes to fellow funders, of course, that's not the dynamic.

00:22:25.718 --> 00:22:29.398
Instead, the dynamic is, I don't need you at all. I can just do my own thing.

00:22:29.838 --> 00:22:34.558
And so what you're really trying to build is some sense of, yeah,

00:22:34.578 --> 00:22:37.878
but we'll accomplish more if we do it together, even if it requires both of

00:22:37.878 --> 00:22:42.518
us to bend a little what we might do if we could do it by ourselves.

00:22:42.518 --> 00:22:48.298
When I got into philanthropy, my first year, I wrote an article about collaboration

00:22:48.298 --> 00:22:54.978
because I was surprised at how difficult it was to collaborate with fellow funders for this reason.

00:22:55.978 --> 00:23:00.318
And now there's additional complications in the case of funders, which we can go into.

00:23:00.638 --> 00:23:05.158
But, you know, the article was essentially that we needed to think more about

00:23:05.158 --> 00:23:09.178
using, you know, in the international relations theory world,

00:23:09.258 --> 00:23:12.498
there's this notion of specific reciprocity and diffuse reciprocity.

00:23:12.518 --> 00:23:17.598
And the only collaboration that I saw and still see for the most part in philanthropy

00:23:17.598 --> 00:23:19.038
was specific collaboration.

00:23:19.338 --> 00:23:23.498
And we could use a lot more diffuse collaboration, just one hand washing the

00:23:23.498 --> 00:23:27.318
others, doing things for other foundations that may not necessarily line up

00:23:27.318 --> 00:23:29.018
with my strategy, but I know it'll help them.

00:23:29.038 --> 00:23:31.758
And I know I'll get something back later on. And then we build the muscle.

00:23:32.158 --> 00:23:35.298
And there's still very, very little of that. And so that's what you're trying

00:23:35.298 --> 00:23:37.758
to overcome is that sense that I don't need you.

00:23:37.858 --> 00:23:41.578
I'm happy to work with you if it lines up exactly with what I want to do.

00:23:41.578 --> 00:23:43.658
But otherwise you do your thing, I'll do mine.

00:23:44.764 --> 00:23:51.304
But Larry, there's a bit that I'm missing because in some sense,

00:23:51.404 --> 00:23:57.004
what you didn't articulate, at least from my understanding, is why would you

00:23:57.004 --> 00:23:58.604
even talk to each other, right?

00:23:59.024 --> 00:24:03.684
Because you immediately stepped in by saying there might be this almost instinctual

00:24:03.684 --> 00:24:04.904
response like, well, I don't need you.

00:24:05.744 --> 00:24:10.024
But why then talk to each other at all, right? So what is the driver or the

00:24:10.024 --> 00:24:13.904
force that still brings funders together to say, no, we have to collaborate?

00:24:14.544 --> 00:24:19.784
Is it because of optimizing, let's say, resource or is it because of optimizing impact?

00:24:20.464 --> 00:24:22.544
It's optimizing impact.

00:24:23.324 --> 00:24:28.384
So as I say, I think all of us have goals that are bigger than what we can actually

00:24:28.384 --> 00:24:29.384
accomplish by ourselves.

00:24:30.164 --> 00:24:33.744
But the question is, and there's maybe a little bit of schizophrenia there.

00:24:33.884 --> 00:24:37.104
The question is, how do I hold that while at the same time saying,

00:24:37.164 --> 00:24:38.624
but this is how I I think it's to be accomplished.

00:24:38.964 --> 00:24:41.744
And if you're willing to do it that way, I am willing to work with you.

00:24:41.784 --> 00:24:44.444
But if you want to do it somewhat differently, then you do your thing and I'll do mine.

00:24:44.684 --> 00:24:47.344
And those two things tend to coexist in the funder world.

00:24:48.464 --> 00:24:54.904
The driver is we can get more done if we do it together, but I think I have the right way to do it.

00:24:55.304 --> 00:24:57.464
And I'm not willing to bend that to do it your way.

00:24:57.924 --> 00:25:04.364
But is the risk there the sense of identity and visibility that you don't want to diffuse refuse that?

00:25:04.924 --> 00:25:09.404
Or is that the risk that you try to mitigate in that? Yeah.

00:25:09.764 --> 00:25:13.204
So this is where you get into some of the additional complexities.

00:25:13.544 --> 00:25:16.944
When I wrote the article my second year, I said, this is not about ego.

00:25:17.284 --> 00:25:21.444
I don't think. Okay. I will say, having now been in the field for 10 years,

00:25:21.484 --> 00:25:25.984
actually, that is definitely a component at the institutional level. We want credit.

00:25:26.484 --> 00:25:31.044
We believe we have the right way to do things and so on. So there is some of that.

00:25:31.584 --> 00:25:35.964
But the bigger issue, quite honestly, is within any foundation,

00:25:36.244 --> 00:25:38.784
decision-making responsibility is diffused.

00:25:39.544 --> 00:25:42.644
Typically, you've got a program officer, you've got a program director,

00:25:42.964 --> 00:25:44.464
you've got a CEO, and you've got a board.

00:25:44.824 --> 00:25:48.364
And all of them have to line up on this in order for it to go forward.

00:25:48.924 --> 00:25:53.644
But they may have slightly different incentives and understandings about what they want to do.

00:25:53.704 --> 00:25:57.104
The program officer is like, no, I really want to do it this way.

00:25:57.184 --> 00:26:02.464
I don't want to give up some of my limited budget in order to do it the way

00:26:02.464 --> 00:26:03.964
this other foundation wants to do it.

00:26:04.024 --> 00:26:07.344
So I'm kind of opposed to this, even if my CEO and board are in favor.

00:26:07.724 --> 00:26:11.404
Program director has a slightly different set of incentives.

00:26:11.484 --> 00:26:13.064
One, keeping the program officer happy.

00:26:13.304 --> 00:26:16.984
Two, keeping the overall program resources lined up, and so on.

00:26:17.044 --> 00:26:21.824
So you can have slightly different understandings and incentives that all you

00:26:21.824 --> 00:26:28.224
need is one veto to make it very difficult. So what has been the biggest success

00:26:28.224 --> 00:26:30.344
of working between funders?

00:26:31.423 --> 00:26:36.423
Um, so yeah, we have this, you know, this is at the same, I have,

00:26:36.503 --> 00:26:41.283
again, my own divided feelings, but on the one hand, it's so difficult and so frustrating.

00:26:41.343 --> 00:26:45.383
And sometimes it feels so hard. And I have projects that I think are so good

00:26:45.383 --> 00:26:49.563
and I can't get anybody to go along, even when I'm willing to bend some, that's frustrating.

00:26:49.703 --> 00:26:52.843
On the other hand, if I look across our programs, I realized we're actually

00:26:52.843 --> 00:26:55.523
collaborating in every single thing that we do.

00:26:56.203 --> 00:27:00.663
Um, so again, I could give lots of examples, but the easiest and best one,

00:27:00.723 --> 00:27:03.803
because I think I think it's the biggest and in some sense, the most important

00:27:03.803 --> 00:27:04.783
one has been around climate.

00:27:05.983 --> 00:27:09.283
And that's, we've been at it a long time. It's such an important problem.

00:27:09.383 --> 00:27:12.723
The collaboration is huge now, but there's a, I don't know if you want to hear

00:27:12.723 --> 00:27:16.823
the story, but it was a long process of learning to collaborate.

00:27:17.083 --> 00:27:20.603
So can I ask you, because so climate is going to be a big.

00:27:22.363 --> 00:27:28.043
It's probably exactly where to take this, but in choice of partners for collaborating

00:27:28.043 --> 00:27:29.043
with other institutions,

00:27:29.583 --> 00:27:36.563
do you find that you tend to work with other granting agencies that share your

00:27:36.563 --> 00:27:42.223
same goals more closely or ones where it's easier to build the relationship of trust?

00:27:43.543 --> 00:27:51.483
Either or. Because it's so hard to do, for me, the general principle is,

00:27:52.336 --> 00:27:55.956
Let's collaborate wherever we can. So if we share strategies,

00:27:56.176 --> 00:27:58.656
that's a good potential.

00:27:58.796 --> 00:28:01.396
If we share tactics, even though we have different strategies,

00:28:01.656 --> 00:28:04.116
we can cooperate on the tactical level.

00:28:05.016 --> 00:28:09.636
And so I'll take it where it goes. In general, it's easy when you share both.

00:28:09.816 --> 00:28:11.596
And it's difficult when you don't.

00:28:11.856 --> 00:28:15.516
But I don't think I can say it's more difficult because at that point,

00:28:15.536 --> 00:28:18.556
Ben, a lot of other their factors enter in on a case-by-case basis,

00:28:18.736 --> 00:28:22.076
including who the particular funders are.

00:28:22.456 --> 00:28:26.856
Every funder has a different sort of taste for collaboration or not.

00:28:27.036 --> 00:28:29.036
And so it gets really hard to say generally.

00:28:30.176 --> 00:28:32.416
If you really want to do it, though, you can.

00:28:34.336 --> 00:28:38.476
And as I say, the more you share in common at the strategy level,

00:28:38.576 --> 00:28:41.416
at the tactical level, at the personal level, the easier it gets.

00:28:41.416 --> 00:28:46.356
That much is a continuum, but it would look, rather than a continuum,

00:28:46.376 --> 00:28:49.256
it would be more like a sphere where you could be at different places within it.

00:28:49.576 --> 00:28:55.916
Yeah, I'm still trying to get a sense of what's necessary, what's efficient.

00:28:57.036 --> 00:29:00.616
Is the shared goal really a shared mission?

00:29:00.676 --> 00:29:04.356
What drives, makes it much easier to form a relationship?

00:29:04.356 --> 00:29:10.756
Relationship or do you find that when there's just someone who's kind of sparks the imagination.

00:29:11.776 --> 00:29:16.916
Um, because they also have a lot of enthusiasm for just making the world better

00:29:16.916 --> 00:29:20.336
that you then find places where you can collaborate.

00:29:20.776 --> 00:29:27.736
Yeah. Yeah. So here's, I think the correction I'd give to the way you're presenting it is collaboration.

00:29:27.816 --> 00:29:30.456
Isn't an on off switch. It's a continuum.

00:29:31.236 --> 00:29:36.016
So that's why it's hard. It depends on the thing.

00:29:36.056 --> 00:29:39.856
There's so many different ways to collaborate that depending on how all those

00:29:39.856 --> 00:29:44.636
kinds of factors play out, you may collaborate in different ways rather than

00:29:44.636 --> 00:29:46.256
not collaborate or collaborate.

00:29:47.142 --> 00:29:51.722
And, and so, as I say, I think it's a very messy, that's why I think about a

00:29:51.722 --> 00:29:55.122
field at which you can, you know, there's multiple dimensions and you may share

00:29:55.122 --> 00:29:58.162
different pieces of different ones that take you to different forms of collaboration.

00:29:58.582 --> 00:30:01.562
Let me tell the climate story. Cause it's a good example. Cause we've gone through

00:30:01.562 --> 00:30:02.842
all of the different stages.

00:30:03.102 --> 00:30:07.462
So in some ways, the most powerful collaboration is when you can pool funding, right?

00:30:07.482 --> 00:30:11.782
Everybody deposits the money in a shared pool, and then somebody just executes

00:30:11.782 --> 00:30:13.062
a strategy with that funding.

00:30:13.102 --> 00:30:18.322
And that was the original idea for climate. So in 2007, Hewlett and Packard

00:30:18.322 --> 00:30:22.722
and McKnight pooled, it was a billion dollars over five years,

00:30:23.042 --> 00:30:29.322
and created an organization called Climate Works that was then going to execute

00:30:29.322 --> 00:30:33.642
a global strategy for solving, literally solving the climate problem.

00:30:33.782 --> 00:30:35.602
And if you go back and look, it was kind of brilliant strategy.

00:30:36.422 --> 00:30:38.662
At the time, it looked like great.

00:30:39.582 --> 00:30:44.582
Five years later, we had to switch it up. Why? So first, the world had changed.

00:30:44.862 --> 00:30:48.702
What had looked like a problem that governments were ready to act on climate

00:30:48.702 --> 00:30:53.662
but just needed assistance on how to do it in different sectors had become deeply politicized.

00:30:53.702 --> 00:30:56.982
So now you needed to do a whole lot of advocacy and you needed to understand

00:30:56.982 --> 00:30:59.002
the different politics in different countries.

00:30:59.122 --> 00:31:01.102
And the organization wasn't necessarily built for that.

00:31:01.402 --> 00:31:06.022
But more importantly, the idea was other funders would join in and not a single

00:31:06.022 --> 00:31:07.942
other funder was willing to pool their funding.

00:31:08.042 --> 00:31:11.702
They all wanted to do their own thing. So they started making grants to the

00:31:11.702 --> 00:31:16.482
organizations that this pool of funding had set up, but now they were all being

00:31:16.482 --> 00:31:19.502
pulled in multiple different directions with different funders doing project

00:31:19.502 --> 00:31:22.262
funding and so on. So it's like, okay, let's step back.

00:31:22.522 --> 00:31:26.622
If no one's willing to pool, what's another way in which we can build the kind

00:31:26.622 --> 00:31:30.382
of collaboration and cooperation that we need that will at least move us more

00:31:30.382 --> 00:31:32.542
forward? And we came up with the idea of a funder table.

00:31:32.882 --> 00:31:37.062
So the idea with the funder table was rather than pooling the money at ClimateWorks,

00:31:37.082 --> 00:31:42.382
the The various funders would all meet on a regular basis, share their strategies.

00:31:43.568 --> 00:31:48.608
And find ways to... Now, the original idea was we'll still develop a single global strategy.

00:31:49.008 --> 00:31:52.628
Then we'll ask funders, what do you want to fund here? And we'll look at the way it played out.

00:31:52.708 --> 00:31:56.048
And it's like, well, look, we have twice as much funding here as we need and

00:31:56.048 --> 00:31:58.408
only half as much over here. So who's willing to shift?

00:31:59.128 --> 00:32:03.468
Well, that didn't quite work either because again, it was too hard to come up

00:32:03.468 --> 00:32:06.728
with a single strategy that everybody agreed on, on that complex of problem.

00:32:07.028 --> 00:32:10.088
It was too hard to get people who wanted to fund an X to say,

00:32:10.168 --> 00:32:11.568
nevertheless, I'll fund in why.

00:32:12.088 --> 00:32:18.648
So we moved to the next stage, which was just building the relationships among

00:32:18.648 --> 00:32:22.328
all of the funders and then finding places where you could get two or three

00:32:22.328 --> 00:32:24.928
or four funders to work together on a particular thing.

00:32:25.988 --> 00:32:29.988
Then we started expanding it again, bringing in other funders into this process.

00:32:30.188 --> 00:32:35.088
We're now, what, 10 years into this new form, 10, 9, 10 years into this new

00:32:35.088 --> 00:32:38.908
form of collaboration of the funder table is now there's a kind of core group,

00:32:38.968 --> 00:32:42.168
but there's multiple side groups and many different projects that have different

00:32:42.168 --> 00:32:44.188
groups collaborating together in different ways.

00:32:44.368 --> 00:32:49.008
And the larger field has now become much more fluid in that way.

00:32:49.168 --> 00:32:53.508
So that's what I mean. It was a process of adapting and adopting new practices

00:32:53.508 --> 00:32:59.348
based on where funders were willing to go to get as much cooperation as we could to move forward.

00:33:00.668 --> 00:33:06.348
That's a very complex process. And could you sketch the main obstacles you identified?

00:33:06.348 --> 00:33:11.948
Because it sounds like you're moving around all sorts of obstacles so what are

00:33:11.948 --> 00:33:18.808
these main obstacles and what are the dependencies the first and biggest obstacle was the fact that,

00:33:19.370 --> 00:33:23.510
Funders wanted to make their own grants and keep control over the particular grants.

00:33:23.550 --> 00:33:27.290
They didn't want to surrender the money to some central pool where other people

00:33:27.290 --> 00:33:30.330
would be making the grant-by-grant decisions. That was one.

00:33:30.670 --> 00:33:35.390
Then a second was, as we've talked about, they had different views about what

00:33:35.390 --> 00:33:41.330
were the best or most important things to do to achieve the—there was a shared goal, right?

00:33:41.390 --> 00:33:45.750
The shared goal was Paris, or before Paris, it was like, let's keep global warming

00:33:45.750 --> 00:33:49.430
below low two degrees, a rise of two degrees.

00:33:50.170 --> 00:33:55.230
But at that level of generality, there were so many different paths to take

00:33:55.230 --> 00:33:59.630
and so much disagreement about what were the best ways to do it. So that was the second.

00:34:00.090 --> 00:34:05.330
And then the third was, I think, different funders had not just different tastes

00:34:05.330 --> 00:34:07.330
about what to do, but different competencies.

00:34:08.570 --> 00:34:11.690
Actually, let me step back. On the different ideas about what to do,

00:34:11.770 --> 00:34:15.590
there were also lots of funders had, this is where you get into the the complex

00:34:15.590 --> 00:34:20.070
dispersed decision-making within had limitations on what they could do put on

00:34:20.070 --> 00:34:21.870
by their board or by their structure.

00:34:22.010 --> 00:34:24.350
So you had some funders like, we're only going to fund in Europe.

00:34:25.510 --> 00:34:28.850
And you'd say to them, well, funding in China is funding in Europe when it comes

00:34:28.850 --> 00:34:32.790
to climate because the consequences are going to be felt in Europe because of the emissions in China.

00:34:33.170 --> 00:34:35.930
But it was like, nope, we fund in Europe or we fund it wherever.

00:34:36.070 --> 00:34:39.410
Or others were like, we want to do technology. That's all we're going to do is technology.

00:34:39.810 --> 00:34:43.390
So you had lots of those Those kinds of limitations that you also had to surmount

00:34:43.390 --> 00:34:47.010
while trying to bring them into the fold, which then required other funders

00:34:47.010 --> 00:34:48.250
to be, okay, you do technology.

00:34:48.410 --> 00:34:50.890
That means we don't have to, and we'll do this thing over here.

00:34:51.330 --> 00:34:54.650
But I can't do that unless I know what you're doing and why you're doing it. You know what I mean?

00:34:54.970 --> 00:34:58.010
So those kinds of limitations played out.

00:34:58.010 --> 00:35:02.530
And then, of course, then you get to the interpersonal level and just the extent

00:35:02.530 --> 00:35:07.190
to which people really trust others, believe what they're saying,

00:35:07.350 --> 00:35:12.970
which, by the way, led to huge benefits in the sense of climate's a super complex problem.

00:35:13.270 --> 00:35:16.870
It's really helpful if I am working with another funder who I trust.

00:35:17.732 --> 00:35:21.592
When I'll rely on their data and information about the nature of the problem

00:35:21.592 --> 00:35:26.192
or the optimal opportunities that exist to advance it, where I don't have to

00:35:26.192 --> 00:35:30.392
do that myself every single time, because we can all rely on each other.

00:35:30.492 --> 00:35:34.592
So you get a lot of economies of scale built in that you wouldn't have even

00:35:34.592 --> 00:35:37.032
when everybody's still doing their own grant for their own thing.

00:35:37.292 --> 00:35:39.472
So Larry, the way you described this challenge.

00:35:40.172 --> 00:35:43.872
So at times, I guess you might have felt,

00:35:44.472 --> 00:35:50.752
that maybe some of the funders you were also talking with might face some sort

00:35:50.752 --> 00:35:56.792
of discrepancy between the overall goal contribute to preventing the dramatic

00:35:56.792 --> 00:36:04.132
impact of climate change and the identity and objectives of their own organization, right?

00:36:04.232 --> 00:36:08.132
That appears there's a possible conflict here. Like you cannot say we only fund

00:36:08.132 --> 00:36:13.372
in Europe if we face a global problem, right? You can with a problem like climate

00:36:13.372 --> 00:36:17.192
because we know we're not going to say we're here because we know none of us.

00:36:17.232 --> 00:36:18.612
We're not going to solve the whole problem ourselves.

00:36:20.112 --> 00:36:23.912
So what's the chunk where we can help? Well, our chunk is going to be limited to you.

00:36:24.192 --> 00:36:29.032
That's what we're going to find. I tried to see what your view is on this possible

00:36:29.032 --> 00:36:34.572
discrepancy between the overall commons, the overall goal, right?

00:36:34.572 --> 00:36:42.752
And often these philanthropic organizations have very ambitious altruistic goals,

00:36:42.912 --> 00:36:48.052
but then the internal needs, if you want, and the internal constraints of the

00:36:48.052 --> 00:36:49.132
organization itself change.

00:36:50.365 --> 00:36:55.285
It sounds like there's a tension there. So I don't think we experience it that

00:36:55.285 --> 00:36:56.225
way with climate funding.

00:36:56.545 --> 00:36:58.045
As I said, what limitations they

00:36:58.045 --> 00:37:01.005
have are limitations on the piece that they're going to contribute to.

00:37:01.345 --> 00:37:05.985
Where we do experience some of that is with non-climate funders who nevertheless want to help.

00:37:06.685 --> 00:37:11.805
So you get, I'm a health funder, right? And so, but I think climate's really important.

00:37:11.925 --> 00:37:14.825
So where we can do something that advances our health goals,

00:37:14.885 --> 00:37:18.525
that also helps with climate, we'll think about it. And maybe we'll do that.

00:37:18.525 --> 00:37:23.445
Yeah, we'll work on having all hospitals built in ways that are green,

00:37:23.605 --> 00:37:26.425
you know, or, you know, whatever it is.

00:37:26.645 --> 00:37:31.285
There's all sorts of, when you think about the co-benefits and potential co-benefits

00:37:31.285 --> 00:37:35.265
that come with other things that may actually contribute to climate.

00:37:35.425 --> 00:37:38.585
So there, and it's sometimes a little frustrating because you want to go,

00:37:38.665 --> 00:37:40.225
oh, that's such a marginal contribution.

00:37:40.465 --> 00:37:43.285
You could do so, if you really care about climate, you could do so much more

00:37:43.285 --> 00:37:46.365
if you just fund climate directly. But that's not what they want to do.

00:37:47.185 --> 00:37:51.765
That's what I try to understand, the psychology, because let's look at the counterfactual,

00:37:51.865 --> 00:37:54.505
right? I might have a philanthropic organization.

00:37:55.085 --> 00:37:59.965
I might want to contribute to, let's say, climate, but also see that another

00:37:59.965 --> 00:38:01.785
philanthropic organization is

00:38:01.785 --> 00:38:07.125
way more efficient in translating money into impact than I will ever be.

00:38:07.645 --> 00:38:11.345
So if I'm serious about my overall goals, I should just close down,

00:38:11.485 --> 00:38:14.805
hand over the money to this other organization, and let them do it because they're

00:38:14.805 --> 00:38:17.745
much better at it. Yeah, but this never happens.

00:38:17.925 --> 00:38:24.985
Never happened. The only example I can think of is Warren Buffett gave his money

00:38:24.985 --> 00:38:28.325
to Bill Gates, basically saying he seems to do philanthropy really well.

00:38:28.385 --> 00:38:29.245
I'm just going to give it to him.

00:38:29.845 --> 00:38:34.445
And that's because, again, most people, yes, they want to have impact,

00:38:34.585 --> 00:38:37.045
but they want to have impact. They want to participate.

00:38:37.345 --> 00:38:41.565
They want to be involved in doing this themselves.

00:38:41.865 --> 00:38:46.405
And that's overwhelmingly true. I'm actually aware of one other foundation,

00:38:46.605 --> 00:38:49.425
which I can't say because they're not public about it yet, that is now thinking

00:38:49.425 --> 00:38:52.385
about, though, saying, okay, here's $150 million.

00:38:54.305 --> 00:38:57.685
Foundations, pitch us. We'll just give it to the foundation that seems to be

00:38:57.685 --> 00:38:59.085
having the most impact with that.

00:38:59.205 --> 00:39:02.145
And that's an interesting… But Larry, what's important about this,

00:39:02.185 --> 00:39:07.145
since this never happens, there are some internal dynamics, possible also psychological

00:39:07.145 --> 00:39:10.385
aspects, economic aspects, that prevent that from happening,

00:39:10.425 --> 00:39:11.825
even though it would be completely rational.

00:39:15.065 --> 00:39:18.685
That's true for you guys, right? I mean, I'm sure if we sat down and looked

00:39:18.685 --> 00:39:22.325
at the world and said, who would be the best people to do some work on collaboration?

00:39:22.605 --> 00:39:26.145
There might be other. You don't even ask that question. None of us does because

00:39:26.145 --> 00:39:29.445
we're doing the thing we want to do as best as we can do it.

00:39:29.525 --> 00:39:32.665
And philanthropists are no different than anybody else in that respect.

00:39:32.765 --> 00:39:36.225
So I'm not just giving my money to somebody else to give away because I want

00:39:36.225 --> 00:39:38.485
to do philanthropy. Now, I want to do it well.

00:39:39.275 --> 00:39:43.635
But doing it well, to me, isn't not doing it by just giving it to somebody else to do.

00:39:43.975 --> 00:39:47.875
Yeah, but there's an interesting difference here, right? Because in our case

00:39:47.875 --> 00:39:51.935
as academics, you would say we try to understand something with all our limitations.

00:39:52.175 --> 00:39:56.235
We try to understand and we invite the best people we know about to help us with that.

00:39:56.675 --> 00:40:02.715
But the philanthropic organization is tying itself to some large,

00:40:02.895 --> 00:40:07.675
challenging comments that is critical to the human condition.

00:40:07.675 --> 00:40:09.375
I don't see the difference.

00:40:09.435 --> 00:40:11.935
You guys aren't just doing this to understand it better yourselves.

00:40:11.955 --> 00:40:15.975
You're doing it to produce something that will help other people in the world understand it better.

00:40:16.615 --> 00:40:19.995
And you don't even ask the question whether you're the best people in the world

00:40:19.995 --> 00:40:21.975
to do that. Nor should you, by the way.

00:40:22.115 --> 00:40:26.175
As I say, I don't think that, you know, that, you know, so, but all I'm saying

00:40:26.175 --> 00:40:28.535
is it's not particularly different when it comes to philanthropy.

00:40:28.915 --> 00:40:32.875
The people who do philanthropy want to do something to make the world a better

00:40:32.875 --> 00:40:35.615
place, but they want to do it. Right. Yeah.

00:41:04.355 --> 00:41:09.135
Also, I think a bit in diverse perspectives, in the sense of shaping,

00:41:09.155 --> 00:41:14.595
having to compromise and changing a little bit the goal.

00:41:15.355 --> 00:41:19.835
I was also wondering about the role that diversity played when you were talking

00:41:19.835 --> 00:41:23.155
about how diffuse decision making is within the organization.

00:41:23.615 --> 00:41:28.695
So can you talk a little bit about how important diversity is in your sphere

00:41:28.695 --> 00:41:30.455
for effective collaboration?

00:41:31.155 --> 00:41:34.155
So let me ask what you mean by diversity, right?

00:41:34.315 --> 00:41:38.835
Because there would be, you know, like if you use that word now in most settings,

00:41:38.995 --> 00:41:41.895
what people hear is you're talking about race or race and gender. Yeah.

00:41:42.855 --> 00:41:47.055
Or do you mean it more broadly? No. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification.

00:41:47.595 --> 00:41:51.735
Actually, in this sense, in this setting, I'm less interested in identity diversity,

00:41:52.755 --> 00:41:55.135
than I am in cognitive diversity.

00:41:55.235 --> 00:41:59.875
So diversity of perspectives, but it could show up in interest experiences.

00:41:59.955 --> 00:42:05.515
Or when you were talking earlier about the local grantees, there was probably

00:42:05.515 --> 00:42:07.515
some identity diversity that showed up there.

00:42:07.655 --> 00:42:12.535
So in other words, identity diversity is a subset of the larger question of

00:42:12.535 --> 00:42:14.115
diversity, at which point I think it's critical.

00:42:14.575 --> 00:42:19.035
Um, and it critical as it would be for anything, at least in getting things going.

00:42:20.082 --> 00:42:23.802
Right so there comes a point when you have to make decisions about what to do

00:42:23.802 --> 00:42:27.442
and then you move forward but in the first in the first instance when you're

00:42:27.442 --> 00:42:31.362
trying to figure out what to do so i think that is pluralism this may be a better

00:42:31.362 --> 00:42:33.462
way to do it you need to really speak to a.

00:42:34.142 --> 00:42:38.522
Pluralism of different views ideas thoughts approaches techniques and that can

00:42:38.522 --> 00:42:43.482
cut along all sorts of dimensions all sorts of dimensions um identity ones race

00:42:43.482 --> 00:42:47.722
ethnicity ideological ones ones, experiential ones,

00:42:48.022 --> 00:42:52.042
location geographical ones. You know, there's tons.

00:42:52.222 --> 00:42:57.142
You can't do them all, but trying to figure out what are the most appropriate

00:42:57.142 --> 00:43:00.702
forms that we need to make sure we hear from, that's one.

00:43:01.142 --> 00:43:04.362
Then in the implementation, you certainly want to have people,

00:43:04.602 --> 00:43:07.222
again, you want, as you implement,

00:43:07.542 --> 00:43:11.022
you want to have a diversity of views, nevertheless, generally aligned about

00:43:11.022 --> 00:43:14.562
where you're trying to go, because you don't want to spend the whole time fighting

00:43:14.562 --> 00:43:16.302
the original fight over and over again, right?

00:43:16.322 --> 00:43:20.082
At a point, you make a decision about how to go, but implementation itself poses

00:43:20.082 --> 00:43:21.642
challenges all the way along.

00:43:21.962 --> 00:43:25.402
So they are both in terms of your staffing, the grantees you work with,

00:43:25.482 --> 00:43:28.442
and most importantly, the people you're talking to and hearing from.

00:43:28.522 --> 00:43:29.462
I think it's really important.

00:43:29.562 --> 00:43:33.842
I published an essay a few years ago called I'm Listening to People Who Think

00:43:33.842 --> 00:43:36.982
We're Wrong and then have tried to build into the foundation of process so that

00:43:36.982 --> 00:43:38.662
we are on an ongoing basis,

00:43:38.782 --> 00:43:45.582
always nevertheless listening to, hearing from, talking to the people who think

00:43:45.582 --> 00:43:48.722
we're not doing this right, just in case we're missing a trick or two.

00:43:48.862 --> 00:43:51.162
And since all the arguments are constantly evolving.

00:43:51.382 --> 00:43:54.862
So I think that's what the outside evaluations are for.

00:43:55.182 --> 00:43:58.082
You need always to be challenging yourself.

00:43:59.002 --> 00:44:05.782
So how do you build a culture that sees diversity as a benefit within the organization

00:44:05.782 --> 00:44:09.822
and then in the broader grant-making sphere?

00:44:11.810 --> 00:44:15.750
Well, rather than seeing it as, as some, some constraint that you have to get over.

00:44:16.990 --> 00:44:19.790
Yeah. So I don't, that's a hard answer.

00:44:20.650 --> 00:44:25.130
That's how do you build a culture generally? Right. Cause it'd be so big part

00:44:25.130 --> 00:44:26.970
of the answer would be, however you build a culture generally,

00:44:27.010 --> 00:44:28.590
you do that with this question as well.

00:44:28.950 --> 00:44:34.730
Um, you know, which means, um, as a, as, as the leader of an organization,

00:44:35.010 --> 00:44:36.110
what am I signaling people?

00:44:36.290 --> 00:44:40.370
What am I demonstrating in my own conduct and behavior? What am I asking my

00:44:40.370 --> 00:44:43.050
senior team to demonstrate in their own conduct and behavior, right?

00:44:43.150 --> 00:44:46.530
What do we talk about? What do we say are our values and do we live up to them?

00:44:46.630 --> 00:44:50.610
So that's obviously the biggest piece as it is for any kind of cultural question

00:44:50.610 --> 00:44:51.790
in any kind of organization.

00:44:53.070 --> 00:44:58.330
Here, as I say, we've tried to build in some formal practices to ensure that we do it.

00:44:59.150 --> 00:45:02.750
We were really working on the listening to people who think we're wrong when COVID hit.

00:45:02.910 --> 00:45:07.170
We did a number on the ability to do that because it's not done well over Zoom.

00:45:07.170 --> 00:45:11.010
If you want to bring in people who really think that you're just wrong,

00:45:11.270 --> 00:45:14.690
you want to have them in a context where there's going to be more conversation,

00:45:14.910 --> 00:45:16.970
not just the formal session. You're going to have lunch together.

00:45:17.150 --> 00:45:20.270
You're going to talk. You're going to get to interact as people.

00:45:20.450 --> 00:45:23.050
Otherwise, it's really hard for people to listen that way.

00:45:23.390 --> 00:45:26.830
So we try to have various practices when we do that.

00:45:26.910 --> 00:45:31.410
The Hewlett Foundation prides itself in all of its work, particularly along

00:45:31.410 --> 00:45:36.830
ideological and what we called identity forms of diversity and really paying attention to that.

00:45:36.830 --> 00:45:40.030
And, you know, if you look at our guiding principles, it's signaled as something

00:45:40.030 --> 00:45:43.770
that's really important to the foundation, you know, and so on.

00:45:43.830 --> 00:45:50.190
So it's an ongoing process that is done as much between the lines as,

00:45:50.410 --> 00:45:52.090
you know, when I think about our guiding principles,

00:45:52.530 --> 00:45:57.490
what I try and do is just refer to them, not all of them all the time,

00:45:57.530 --> 00:46:01.350
but whenever as a way of just, they're important, you know, each time you talk

00:46:01.350 --> 00:46:05.150
about one of them, it signals that they broadly are important and then, you know, and so on.

00:46:05.150 --> 00:46:11.430
So it's all those kinds of processes that basically, you articulate a value

00:46:11.430 --> 00:46:14.390
and you live the value is the best way to do it.

00:46:16.388 --> 00:46:19.808
You want to go on, Jenna? Sorry, I had a little.

00:46:20.768 --> 00:46:25.728
Well, I'm fascinated. I know we need to close, but I just want to say I'm fascinated

00:46:25.728 --> 00:46:31.088
by these guiding principles. And you haven't said very much.

00:46:31.128 --> 00:46:37.168
It came up a little bit earlier in the context of telling us that there's term

00:46:37.168 --> 00:46:43.408
limits for your employees, but yet Hewlett maintains its mission,

00:46:43.508 --> 00:46:46.108
despite turnover of personnel,

00:46:46.548 --> 00:46:51.008
maintains collaboration within the organization and across, you know,

00:46:51.008 --> 00:46:54.448
with other grant makers and with its grantees.

00:46:54.448 --> 00:46:59.388
And I have this sense that those guiding principles are crucial.

00:47:02.188 --> 00:47:07.968
Well, I think so. Some of it was the way we developed them and try and keep them going.

00:47:08.168 --> 00:47:11.888
So most foundations, I think, have something like our guiding principles.

00:47:12.068 --> 00:47:14.948
They may not call them. They have something guiding principles,

00:47:15.188 --> 00:47:16.548
core principles, whatever it is.

00:47:17.068 --> 00:47:20.468
We had them. They were articulated by the board back at the beginning.

00:47:20.528 --> 00:47:22.748
And then they just sat there and nobody knew anything about them.

00:47:22.748 --> 00:47:26.008
As we approached our 50th anniversary, I used it as an opportunity.

00:47:26.608 --> 00:47:28.888
Actually, we spent a year engaging the staff.

00:47:29.814 --> 00:47:36.474
The whole staff in in developing in reviewing reassessing re-articulating the guiding principle,

00:47:37.254 --> 00:47:40.214
it was a multiple rounds thing we did it in various different

00:47:40.214 --> 00:47:45.154
ways and we did more than just produce a guiding principle we produced an underlying

00:47:45.154 --> 00:47:50.454
text that explained the principle and a set of examples and our behavior and

00:47:50.454 --> 00:47:54.274
and then we review those as i say i try to talk about them in between but we

00:47:54.274 --> 00:47:58.414
also have a process where every team once a year is supposed to just read Read

00:47:58.414 --> 00:47:59.994
them over and make editorial suggestions.

00:48:00.914 --> 00:48:05.754
Like, that example is a bad one. Here's a new one. Like, this text doesn't quite make sense.

00:48:06.154 --> 00:48:11.674
Whatever it is, you know. And so it's a way of keeping them alive in people's minds.

00:48:11.934 --> 00:48:16.994
Different departments have written papers on how the guiding principles apply in their work.

00:48:18.274 --> 00:48:21.694
You know, and so they're a great reference point.

00:48:21.834 --> 00:48:24.394
Can you get away without them? I think you can. The foundation,

00:48:24.594 --> 00:48:27.974
as I say, sort of had them but didn't rely on them for its first 50 years,

00:48:27.994 --> 00:48:30.874
in effect, but still ran pretty well.

00:48:31.014 --> 00:48:37.354
But they're helpful. They're really helpful, I think, in establishing some lodestars.

00:48:38.214 --> 00:48:42.094
Trust the common law professor to introduce a constitution. Yes,

00:48:42.094 --> 00:48:43.374
exactly. Yeah, exactly.

00:48:44.794 --> 00:48:48.014
But Larry, there's actually another channel of collaboration,

00:48:48.134 --> 00:48:53.474
which is critical to your organization, which is the interaction with financial

00:48:53.474 --> 00:48:59.494
institutions, because you have to also maintain, in some sense,

00:48:59.654 --> 00:49:04.314
the endowment with which your foundation runs.

00:49:04.574 --> 00:49:09.914
So do you see that as, indeed, a separate domain of collaboration with its own principles?

00:49:11.434 --> 00:49:16.454
Well, I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, we have a team that manages our endowment.

00:49:17.034 --> 00:49:21.474
Do you mean, do we collaborate with them? Like, does the program side collaborate

00:49:21.474 --> 00:49:22.374
with the investment side?

00:49:22.454 --> 00:49:25.774
Or does the investment side collaborate with... Well, as an organization,

00:49:26.154 --> 00:49:31.054
you must be deeply involved in all sorts of financial transactions. Yes.

00:49:31.435 --> 00:49:35.395
With also external partners to maintain your endowment.

00:49:35.655 --> 00:49:39.635
And of course, it's run by your own team, but this is a complex collaborative process.

00:49:40.295 --> 00:49:45.395
It is. And of course, it's much more complex than the last few years because

00:49:45.395 --> 00:49:47.975
prior to the last few years, nobody paid attention.

00:49:48.195 --> 00:49:52.135
You ran your endowment, you sought to maximize your returns. That was what you did.

00:49:52.515 --> 00:49:57.875
There had been historically, but now there's, no, you should invest your endowment

00:49:57.875 --> 00:50:02.275
consistent with mission and you should invest your endowment in ways that itself

00:50:02.275 --> 00:50:04.735
achieve impact and all sorts of questions like that.

00:50:05.455 --> 00:50:08.715
And different foundations approach this differently. I would say one of the

00:50:08.715 --> 00:50:13.775
really remarkable facts about philanthropy at this moment is we differ,

00:50:14.015 --> 00:50:17.515
foundations, we differ enormously on what we think we should do.

00:50:17.635 --> 00:50:20.275
I work on climate. Somebody else doesn't. They work on poverty.

00:50:21.415 --> 00:50:25.395
In the fields we work, we have different views about how best to achieve our

00:50:25.395 --> 00:50:28.735
goals, right? We're going to work through advocacy at the national level.

00:50:28.775 --> 00:50:30.915
We're going to work through movement building at the local level.

00:50:31.635 --> 00:50:35.135
Nobody inside philanthropy regards those as questions where,

00:50:35.215 --> 00:50:38.555
unless you're doing it my way, there's something deeply wrong with who you are.

00:50:38.715 --> 00:50:40.175
You're immoral. You're acting badly.

00:50:40.395 --> 00:50:43.455
And for some reason, as these investment questions have emerged,

00:50:43.835 --> 00:50:46.875
even though they themselves are also just tactical questions,

00:50:48.278 --> 00:50:52.578
people tend to layer on a level of moral judgment that they don't apply to any

00:50:52.578 --> 00:50:55.498
of the other differences between how we work, which is a big puzzle to me.

00:50:55.718 --> 00:50:58.978
So the question, for instance, whether to divest from fossil fuels,

00:50:59.018 --> 00:51:04.518
to me is a question of, we're trying to keep global warming below two degrees, okay?

00:51:04.778 --> 00:51:09.738
I can divest. Now, unless I'm going to indulge in this, which for us is not

00:51:09.738 --> 00:51:13.818
true, notion that I can divest and it has no effect on my returns, just not true.

00:51:14.198 --> 00:51:16.978
It might might be true for some organizations, depending on how they invest,

00:51:17.098 --> 00:51:19.558
but not for us, then it's a grant question.

00:51:19.858 --> 00:51:24.318
Will divesting have more impact than the impact I can have by earning and spending?

00:51:24.958 --> 00:51:29.138
Because that's what matters. And I don't judge anybody else who chooses to divest

00:51:29.138 --> 00:51:30.878
because they think that's the right thing to do.

00:51:31.238 --> 00:51:35.398
Okay. So that's all a long way of saying that our approach to our endowment

00:51:35.398 --> 00:51:37.878
is itself tied to our assessment of impact.

00:51:38.698 --> 00:51:43.298
What do we think will produce, will enable the Hewlett Foundation to have the

00:51:43.298 --> 00:51:45.438
most impact for the things it's trying to do.

00:51:45.878 --> 00:51:50.218
So we have very few screens, right? We screened out tobacco like everybody did

00:51:50.218 --> 00:51:52.618
a few years ago, but that was a costless screen, to be honest,

00:51:52.758 --> 00:51:55.998
because there were like three stocks and it was easy for everybody to do.

00:51:56.258 --> 00:52:01.158
Most of the claims that people are making today require much more significant

00:52:01.158 --> 00:52:04.338
changes in the way an endowment functions in order to do that.

00:52:05.078 --> 00:52:08.358
Most of the people claiming that you should do it don't know anything about

00:52:08.358 --> 00:52:12.238
how endowments work. And so just sort of assume it's like we're picking stocks

00:52:12.238 --> 00:52:15.038
and we could just pick different stocks and we would earn the same amount of money.

00:52:15.078 --> 00:52:18.018
And that's not remotely the way it works. So the questions are complex.

00:52:18.698 --> 00:52:21.138
And the question of how to utilize

00:52:21.138 --> 00:52:26.198
your endowment is a tactical one around impact is what I would say.

00:52:26.338 --> 00:52:29.538
So it's not a question of collaboration or not.

00:52:29.638 --> 00:52:33.698
It's just a question of like the question on which programs to go into,

00:52:33.778 --> 00:52:35.778
which strategies to pursue and how to pursue them.

00:52:35.778 --> 00:52:40.378
But I could have imagined that, for example, the collaboration between funders,

00:52:40.378 --> 00:52:44.818
there would be some sort of discussion around, let's say, a code of conduct

00:52:44.818 --> 00:52:47.378
or guidelines of investment or I don't know what.

00:52:48.126 --> 00:52:51.426
No right but but

00:52:51.426 --> 00:52:54.586
any more than there's the conversations that exist

00:52:54.586 --> 00:52:58.006
between funders are on a more specific level right

00:52:58.006 --> 00:53:01.446
we don't talk about whether we should all make grants or i don't

00:53:01.446 --> 00:53:05.186
know you know do some other kind of so and it's no different on the investment

00:53:05.186 --> 00:53:10.466
side there are conversations on the specifics like you know you should be investing

00:53:10.466 --> 00:53:14.806
in clean energy or not and there you might want to talk with other funders about

00:53:14.806 --> 00:53:18.066
how to do it for us the one place that comes up is impact investing.

00:53:18.506 --> 00:53:23.926
So impact investing, clearly there are for-profit entities that can produce social impact.

00:53:24.286 --> 00:53:29.086
That's obvious, right? The question is, does it make sense for us to invest in them?

00:53:29.326 --> 00:53:33.266
That gets into a much harder set of questions about what our competency is,

00:53:33.506 --> 00:53:37.666
what we would need to do internally to do that legally, how frequently it would

00:53:37.666 --> 00:53:39.726
line up with our other goals and so on.

00:53:40.006 --> 00:53:44.726
So my board decided a few years ago, given the way in which we work,

00:53:44.726 --> 00:53:48.426
the kind of strategies in which we pursue, we don't see the likelihood of lots

00:53:48.426 --> 00:53:51.866
of impact investing being worth the amount of internal change we'd have to make.

00:53:52.026 --> 00:53:57.126
But they said at that time, if you see an opportunity, go get a partner,

00:53:57.326 --> 00:54:01.426
find somebody who does that kind of work. And I have sometimes done trades.

00:54:01.726 --> 00:54:06.726
Like if you'll invest in this, I'll do a grant for something that you want to

00:54:06.726 --> 00:54:08.166
do where we're also in alignment.

00:54:08.726 --> 00:54:12.706
And so that kind of collaboration takes place. We've We've done that in lots

00:54:12.706 --> 00:54:15.966
of different contexts where I can do it that way. You can do it this way.

00:54:16.146 --> 00:54:19.606
So you do that for us and we'll do this for you. And it actually is both of

00:54:19.606 --> 00:54:20.726
us achieving our shared goal.

00:54:21.286 --> 00:54:27.606
Right. So do you see this as one of the critical questions on your radar moving forward?

00:54:28.586 --> 00:54:35.306
Which question? Which question? Impact investing, how you maintain your endowment,

00:54:35.506 --> 00:54:38.026
the financial commitments you make, and how this might compromise,

00:54:38.126 --> 00:54:40.926
let's say, credibility relative to your overall mission.

00:54:41.266 --> 00:54:44.806
Is this a critical question or just one of the many things you have to deal with?

00:54:45.632 --> 00:54:49.292
I guess I'd say both. It's one of the many things I have to deal with.

00:54:49.432 --> 00:54:52.992
It's a critical question right now because there's so, again,

00:54:53.152 --> 00:54:57.272
having paid no attention to it for so many years, there's so much attention

00:54:57.272 --> 00:55:01.932
at the moment that it's coming largely from critics who I think don't really,

00:55:02.052 --> 00:55:05.852
they haven't taken the time to really understand the complexities.

00:55:05.972 --> 00:55:10.372
And so you're managing criticisms that it's not that they have nothing to that,

00:55:10.472 --> 00:55:14.932
but it's it's really hard to engage in the conversation because most people

00:55:14.932 --> 00:55:18.132
aren't willing to take the time to understand the issues well enough to appreciate

00:55:18.132 --> 00:55:21.572
that, you know what, there are actually different answers to this question and

00:55:21.572 --> 00:55:22.652
here's ours and here's why.

00:55:22.852 --> 00:55:25.032
So it's critical in that sense.

00:55:25.332 --> 00:55:29.132
And it's always critical because this is the pool of resources that we,

00:55:29.172 --> 00:55:32.652
that's why you have to think this is our source of impact, right?

00:55:32.732 --> 00:55:37.572
So we have to be smart and careful about how we use it, both directions.

00:55:37.872 --> 00:55:39.092
Now, last point.

00:55:39.732 --> 00:55:44.092
That's just one of many critiques of philanthropy that have emerged in the last 10 years.

00:55:44.312 --> 00:55:49.712
So they're all both critical and one of the many things you have to manage.

00:55:50.232 --> 00:55:56.212
And they all share this notion of they're often presented as this is the way to do philanthropy.

00:55:56.772 --> 00:56:00.132
And for an organization like ours, which has so many different kinds of goals

00:56:00.132 --> 00:56:04.012
and we're doing so many different things, none of them is the way to do philanthropy,

00:56:04.172 --> 00:56:09.572
but they all have something from which we can learn and places in which we should use them.

00:56:09.692 --> 00:56:13.952
And we just have to figure out how and when it makes sense.

00:56:14.272 --> 00:56:17.792
So Larry, two questions to finish up. They're straightforward.

00:56:18.232 --> 00:56:22.332
Like, do you believe also in the face of these big challenges you described,

00:56:22.552 --> 00:56:30.352
climate change as an example, do you believe humanity will be able to deploy

00:56:30.352 --> 00:56:35.952
employ sustainable collaboration to really respond in a significant way to these challenges.

00:56:37.810 --> 00:56:40.390
Depends on which day of the week you ask me that question. I mean,

00:56:40.410 --> 00:56:45.430
there are definitely days when it's like, we're just sunk. I feel so badly for my daughter.

00:56:46.190 --> 00:56:49.190
And then there are days when I think, you know what, I think we can get there.

00:56:49.190 --> 00:56:55.430
And to me, the three largest challenges globally that we face in these terms,

00:56:55.550 --> 00:56:59.970
climate and biodiversity more broadly, because there are sources of the diminishing

00:56:59.970 --> 00:57:03.690
biodiversity which are not climate-related, is one.

00:57:04.370 --> 00:57:10.270
The future potential and survival of democracy or not is another.

00:57:10.790 --> 00:57:15.970
And the general way in which we think about the relationship between government,

00:57:16.110 --> 00:57:18.330
markets, and society is a third.

00:57:19.390 --> 00:57:24.650
Almost all the other problems tie into those. And what I think is the question

00:57:24.650 --> 00:57:26.870
is, again, not an on-off switch.

00:57:27.210 --> 00:57:31.670
The question is, will we be able to adapt and adjust the way we have been approaching

00:57:31.670 --> 00:57:33.670
those three problems well enough?

00:57:34.770 --> 00:57:40.470
Or how well will we be able to stave off how much disaster, climate being the obvious one?

00:57:40.610 --> 00:57:45.190
We're not the likely, I think we're doing well enough that extinction is not in the offing,

00:57:45.250 --> 00:57:50.070
but anybody who thinks that we're not still at risk of seeing the collapse of

00:57:50.070 --> 00:57:55.210
all of our government and social structures is deluding themselves,

00:57:55.410 --> 00:57:56.650
but that doesn't have to happen.

00:57:56.930 --> 00:58:02.870
But at the very least, the impacts are going to be enormous and impose serious

00:58:02.870 --> 00:58:04.170
costs on everybody in the future.

00:58:04.190 --> 00:58:07.030
The question is how far along that continuum are we going to slip?

00:58:07.150 --> 00:58:08.130
And I would say that for all three.

00:58:08.490 --> 00:58:13.870
Right. But then last question, Larry, if you could change one thing in humans by magic?

00:58:14.030 --> 00:58:18.290
Just one feature of humans, one trait. If you could change one trait in order

00:58:18.290 --> 00:58:21.750
to improve our ability to collaborate, what's the one thing you would change?

00:58:23.690 --> 00:58:29.970
What I think actually is biologically built-in tendency to frame the world in us-them terms.

00:58:30.810 --> 00:58:35.370
Right. I mean, that's what gets in the way. So think about, we have problems

00:58:35.370 --> 00:58:40.270
now that require global governance, but almost nobody can embrace the idea of global governance.

00:58:40.350 --> 00:58:46.490
We are so ground into a we, whether it's national or local or religious groups versus them,

00:58:46.750 --> 00:58:51.710
you know, and at least my understanding from the sociobiological and archaeological

00:58:51.710 --> 00:58:56.910
and anthropological people that I've talked to is that's kind of ground into our genetic structure.

00:58:57.170 --> 00:59:00.250
And it would be like, if we didn't have that, we would certainly find it a lot

00:59:00.250 --> 00:59:02.670
easier to collectively solve what our collective problem.

00:59:03.290 --> 00:59:05.550
Larry Kramer, thank you very much for this conversation.

00:59:06.710 --> 00:59:10.330
Hi, you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration.

00:59:11.370 --> 00:59:14.690
Produced by the Ernst Trommel Forum and the Convergent Science Network.

00:59:15.410 --> 00:59:18.350
You can find more episodes on our website.