Understanding funders by stepping out of the bubble

Recently I attended a meeting of a dozen civil society organisations. We had been brought together to discuss stronger networking ties between us, but the underlying expectation had been to have potential funders in the room, who might want to support our non-profit initiatives. The funders never turned up and the ensuing conversation quickly centered around the difficulties we all experience in raising funds for our activities. The discussion was highly revealing to me. Externalized in the people around me, I perceived my own mindset when it comes to fundraising more clearly. The mirror held up to me was sobering.

The dominant undercurrent in the room was that most funders (especially foundations and government agencies) are stupid and don’t understand the importance of our work. I myself have become wary of engaging with foundations (apart from a small handful of players, which have been very supportive of betterplace). Having spent nine years talking to them a pattern emerged: Foundation directors and employees seem to be very happy to meet and listen to what we are doing. At the end of a civilized conversation they confirm how interesting our work is, but regret that it doesn’t match their funding areas. But, they would be more than happy to meet again and have another tea. … Over the years I have become frustrated by these encounters. Running a social business, finding clients, supporters and funders is a constant struggle and it hurts to see one potential opportunity after the other being shattered. Thus when my friend and betterplace supporter Stefan Shaw writes a provocative blogpost likeStiftungen vergeigen, I feel validated.

But hearing the same rhetoric at the aforementioned meeting, I was struck by its narrowness and subtle animosity. Besides enthusiasm and determination, our voices gave away the scars of rejection and hurt. I could see how our attitudes prevent us from being understood by foundations or public sector funders.

Power imbalances prevent an open dialogue

Ideally the relationship between funder and project maker is well balanced: The former has the necessary resources; the latter has the ideas and projects to create social impact. De facto the encounter is often marked by a deep power asymmetry: the social entrepreneur/changemaker enters the relationship under much higher pressure than the funder. We depend on finding the right partners for our work, those whose mission is aligned with ours and who enable us to pay our teams. Many of us spent a disproportionate amount of time fundraising; time which we should really be spending on strategy, team building and project delivery.

This power asymmetry — and many unsuccessful fundraising attempts — makes us much more vulnerable. Consequently, instead of being completely open and available for dialogue, we are often already contracted when coming through the door.

I observe myself pitching projects, speaking enthusiastically about the potential of digital communication, the need for research, education, prototypes or scaling. Yet being in “broadcasting mode” prevents me from truly seeing my counterparts, understanding their concerns and realistically judging their level of understanding.

To openly show your vulnerability in a meeting with a funder somehow doesn’t seem a very good strategy. Instead one way to re-balance the relationship, at least internally to ourselves, is to cling to a sense of superiority. We believe that we are more knowledgeable about the future, and about the importance of digitization for that future than our counterparts in the well-furnished foundation rooms.

Yet — how can I be really superior, if I am engaged in a silent battle with potential funders? How can I expect to be valued, if I don’t value the other and our relationship myself?

Superiority means including and transcending the old

Being superior or more advanced means being more inclusive. Being able to hold multiple perspectives, also those of the people who could potentially fund my activities. Understanding their mindset, with all its potential and limitations.

If I practice this perspective shift, I might see that digitization is not part of most funders’ mindset. I might perceive that they are as overwhelmed by the accelerated tech-induced change as a large part of the general population.

Once I see funders more clearly, I can’t be disappointed by them. Because in order to be disappointed, I need to have been following an illusion. (The German word „enttäuscht“, describes this neatly: If I see someone for what they are, I will be ent-täuscht, i.e. my Täuschung will end). Truly seeing my counterpart will enable me to understand immediately which parts of my arguments and “sales pitch” can land and which can’t. I need to see funders not as a deficient species, whose only asset is their money, but as the human beings they are.

Nobody owes us anything. We do the kind of work we do because we are intrinsically drawn to it. We feel that this is what needs to be done. But we can’t expect others to see and feel the same.

We could stay within our bubble, but if we want to have an impact, we need to reach out. And most of the money is also outside the bubble. Thus if we want to mobilize a larger alliance for our work and have a true impact we need to be more inclusive.

First seeing the gulf — then bridging it

Multiperspectivity means that we are aware of our own attitudes and biases, as well as those of others. It means to acknowledge that we don’t all live in the same world, but in many different, only partially overlapping bubbles. We might believe that we live in the “real” world, the one that matters. But many wouldn’t agree.

I was forcefully reminded of this a few weeks ago when driving with my daughter and my aunt, a former teacher, through Berlin. After a lively discussion between my daughter (who at the time worked at a startup accelerator) and me, my aunt remarked: “I have tried to follow your conversation. But I understood less than 20% of what you said.”

I was amazed, I thought we had had a perfectly accessible dialogue: we hadn’t spoken about the blockchain, github or bots, but about very everyday topics.

Since the shock result of the Brexit-referendum I have been thinking more about social inclusion than ever before. The success of the Leave-campaign also has to do with the growing gulf between those “in the know” and those left behind by change. I believe it is up to those of us who thrive on innovation and acceleration to include the others who don’t. If we fail to do so, we might be brilliant intellectuals, but we would be poor human beings.

(This post was first published on July 27 on the betterplace lab website)