Reconciling the What with the How: Dialogue Series with Philanthropic Leaders – Part 3
The dialogue series „Reconciling the What with the How: Self-Reflective Conversations with Philanthropic Leaders“ is part of the Future-Proof Funding Initiative. In the third interview of the series, Katherine Milligan sits down with Maya Ziswiler, CEO of the Roger Federer Foundation.
Katherine Milligan: You’ve held a lot of significant roles in philanthropy, and I’m curious what you feel are the things that too often go unspoken and unnamed. How do you experience the dissonance between what we say and how we behave in our sector?
Maya Ziswiler: It starts with asking what philanthropy is set up to do. Often the way that philanthropic institutions make decisions about distributing their resources reinforces the power imbalance between them and the communities they support. That’s the first dissonance.
Second, there can be a discrepancy between a community’s needs and a foundation’s priorities. When that happens, does the foundation impose their priorities on the regions and the people they work with even if it’s not what people actually need or will make the biggest difference?
Third – and this isn’t talked about a lot – but philanthropy’s power comes not just from distributing resources but also the power these institutions hold to shape narratives. What’s important? What’s not important? It’s generally not the marginalised communities themselves shaping those narratives.
The last element I struggle with is our risk aversion as a sector. We say we should take more risks and innovate. But when you look at the structures that are put in place, the layers of decision-making and approvals, the rigid templates and so on, it stifles innovation and discourages experimentation with potentially transformative solutions.
KM: Setting priorities and reinforcing power imbalances, shaping narratives, stifling innovation with structures. Thank you for naming those. What would be steps towards greater coherence in any of these areas?
MZ: Let’s start with collaboration. There’s a lot of talk about reducing inefficiencies by working together. At the end of the day, when it comes down to it, many foundations want to have their name on an initiative or on a program. So ego often comes in the way of collaboration.
We really have to get better at finding ways to collaborate, especially now that funding is becoming scarcer. I spend a lot of time thinking about collectives and collaborative giving. We have to find ways to make this work better, where each foundation and organization involved feels like they have a seat at the table and sufficient visibility, but visibility isn’t the priority; impact is.
The other practice that would create more coherence is flexible, long-term funding. Move away from supporting individual short-term projects with very rigid reporting requirements and spend time on a longer due diligence process, where you’re actively listening and establishing trust. Then you can think about a true partnership with long-term, flexible funding where you’re supporting rather than controlling.
I find a lot of philanthropies are stuck in that conservative traditional model of giving grants to a single NGO. Now is the time for us to change that paradigm – philanthropy’s role is to build and support new players in the ecosystem, not just the established ones. For example, in Lesotho, the Roger Federer Foundation partnered with the government and key organizations like the Global Partnership for Education to attract new private funding for early learning. We’re pursuing similar collaborations elsewhere.
KM: Your point about collaboration and ego feels so important – lots of these collaborative efforts get gummed up in such transactional tit-for-tat energy. You’ve got all these big institutions around a table to channel funding to smallholder farmers in Africa and they’re all fighting about whose logo goes first on the press release. What principles would create more coherence in collaborative funds?
MZ: When I’ve seen collaborative models fail, it’s because there’s a dominance of one player versus others. Many years ago, I was involved in a collaborative fund. One donor decided to put in more money than the other foundations, and then started demanding special privileges. I’ve also seen collaboratives fail when there is suddenly competition among the different implementing partners around who gets the biggest slice of funding.
So you have to thoughtfully bring together the right players who are complementary to each other, make sure you’re clearly articulating what you’re trying to achieve as a collective, and establish everyone’s role and responsibilities in the governance structure. It sounds easy. It’s not.
KM: No, it’s definitely not. Your point about the governance structure is so important. How the money will be allocated and who makes those decisions is where the rubber hits the road. Let’s shift gears to talk about what you’re seeing now. This is a very distressing and disorienting time and there is a lot of harm, particularly in the education sector. What concerns you most? What are your program partners sharing with you?
MZ: I’m hearing a lot of distress and worry about not knowing what’s coming. How much funding will be available in the future? How deep will the cuts be? That uncertainty is creating a lot of anxiety.
There’s also an emerging feeling of, “I don’t know who to trust anymore.” There was always some degree of competition for funding, but now that sense of competition is really heightened. non-profit leaders are asking, “Do I need to sacrifice long term thinking for short term results? Do I need take money away from the work happening on the ground to focus on glossy marketing communication?”
So that’s on the negative side, but there’s also a positive side. I was really encouraged in my travels throughout Africa by the sense of pride and ownership and resilience. They know what the right solutions are. They’re asking the right questions about being less dependent on foreign support and pivoting away from international aid. They’re shifting their mindset about working with local government and there’s a sense among our program partners that it’s needed and necessary for long-term sustainability.
KM: Could you offer some reflections on your own leadership journey? If you look back, what would you tell your younger self? How have your views evolved?
MZ: If I could go back in time, I would think about the due diligence process and rigid reporting requirements quite differently. Yes, there should be an accountability mechanism and a focus on results. But if you are rigid and controlling, then your partners won’t tell you when they’re having issues. It’s about creating a sense that you’re supporting each other through the ups and downs, so that your partner organizations don’t hide the issues and setbacks they’re facing.
The other thing I’ve really shifted my view on is impact evaluations. Ten years ago there was a strong movement around randomized control trials. While evidence-based decision-making is important, let’s not be dogmatic and say if it doesn’t have an RCT then it’s not worth our funding. Lots of different types of evidence can be used to make the good decisions.
Maybe the most important thing I’ve learned is how vital relationship building is in being effective as a leader, as an organization, and as a partner. Networking can feel fake and inauthentic, and I have evolved to focus on meaningful connection. Authentic relationships help you build a stronger team and help your organisation be more effective.
KM: At the end of the day, relationships are what’s most important, right?
MZ: Absolutely. It’s not fluffy. It matters. What also matters is your awareness of real and perceived biases and power balances. What biases do you have that you’re not even seeing? What perception of power might you be conveying in the way you communicate? We all need to be more mindful about that and engage with partners in a way that there is mutual growth and accountability.
I also think there’s something important around learning and unlearning within organizations. As an organization or a team, how can you unlearn what you thought was the right thing to do? For example, I was probably moulded in this way of being super efficient and constantly pushing myself to the max. But at the end of the day, we want to be a sustainable organization and not burn out. That means role modelling and making sure the team has sustainable work practices in an environment where they can deliver over the long term.
The series was initiated by Katherine Milligan, elea fellow at IMD and senior lecturer at the Graduate Institute, and Suba Umathevan, CEO of Drosos Foundation. It is an invitation to a deeper dialogue that gets us closer to the heart of what really matters in philanthropy and what needs to shift.
Read the previous interviews here:
Part 1: Suba Umathevan, CEO of Drosos Foundation
Part 2: Cheikh Mbacke Gueye, CEO of the Medicor Foundation
Tags