Reconciling the What with the How: Dialogue Series with Philanthropic Leaders – Part 4
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 Andrea Studer, CEO of the Fondation Botnar.
Katherine Milligan: This dialogue series is about naming the unspoken, exploring tensions, and creating greater coherence in a sector that’s undergoing profound change. Perhaps you could begin by sharing some of the tensions you experience day-to-day.
Andrea Studer: Every day I see the tension between the “housekeeping” aspects of this work and the strategic dimensions. In my weekly conversations with our board president, I structure things into: internal housekeeping, strategic issues, and then the world. Too often we get stuck in housekeeping, while the urgent issues of the world sit at the bottom of the agenda.
Yet as a foundation, with capital to manage and deploy, we hold a deep responsibility. For us at Fondation Botnar, that means supporting young people worldwide—helping them to be heard and to shape their futures. It also means making tough choices about where our limited resources and credibility can make the most difference.
Over the past year, I’ve also realized that leadership requires not only setting priorities but also stopping things when necessary.
There is a temptation in philanthropy to keep adding initiatives, but wisdom often comes from knowing what to deepen or expand and what not to pursue.
KM: So true. Many foundation CEOs will resonate with this tension, I think. What about contradictions in the Swiss landscape in particular? The times demand urgency and boldness, yet in Switzerland privacy and discretion are prized. How do you experience this tension?
AS: Globally, there’s also a shift in priorities—away from solidarity and development, toward security and military spending. That creates an uncomfortable question: what is the role of philanthropy? To compensate for government cuts? To catalyze new approaches? Or to uphold values like justice, equity, solidarity, and respect? These are not easy conversations, but they’re essential.
In the Swiss philanthropic sector, as you mention, there is a tension between discretion and voice.
Our sector values privacy, yet we are in a moment where silence is risky. Justice, equality, solidarity, human rights: these are our values and core principles we uphold as a foundation.
How can foundations contribute to discussions about those values?
KM: And how does this tension play out with your board, especially when it comes to “advocacy”? That can be a dirty word in philanthropy.
AS: Exactly. It’s understood differently. Advocacy is often accepted when it’s behind closed doors in Ghana with a Minister, but not when it’s signing onto a public letter in Switzerland. Boards may fear politicisation and the potential for critique that comes with it.
That’s why we must speak, together. Collective action creates safety and impact. We’ve seen it before, like when Swiss foundations acted jointly to defend education funding. As part of our advocacy, we worked with Parliament and we joined efforts with Swiss Foundations to put an open letter in the media. That collective action had some success.
Personally, I think we have an obligation to be vocal at the moment. If we perceive there’s too much risk in making statements, then a normalcy bias starts to set in.
The less you talk about the erosion of values like solidarity and justice, the more normal it becomes not to put out statements or talk about it anymore.
We have seen that normalcy bias in the past, and it is very dangerous. We have to stick to our cores values like respect and solidarity and justice – and we have to underline them.
KM: What’s your message to philanthropy executives peers who hesitate?
AS: From the conversations I’m having, my view is that people are deeply concerned about the direction our societies are going in. Our collective values, our sense of solidarity, is somehow falling apart. Is it still important to care about others, or it is only important to care about ourselves? People are observing this shifting narrative, these shifting values, and are alarmed. It cannot become normal.
KM: That rings very true in the conversations I’m having as well, and that shift in narrative feels so disorienting. One of the values that’s been widely discussed in philanthropy over the past couple of years is sharing power. How do you think about power dynamics in philanthropy?
AS: I’m a social anthropologist by training, and I’m come to realise that we never truly escape our own biography, context, and culture, even if we try. That’s the point we sometimes miss in these conversations about shifting power.
It’s easy to discuss decolonizing aid in Europe, but in Ghana the reality is different. Talented young people and NGOs of course look for international funding for their ideas and initiatives. We want to shift power, to work collaboratively, to give agency—but context matters.
We have to be aware that we will likely always be in a position of power even though we try and shift power. It’s the reality: we have the money, the political safety, the reparative environment, everything. We need to be deeply aware of it in our thought process and our strategy and in how we interact with partners.
KM: Cultivating that awareness and then translating awareness to actionable principles is so vital. Let’s look inward for a moment, if we can. What personal reflections would you like to offer about how to show up as a leader in this moment? How do you interpret your role as the leader of Fondation Botnar?
AS: Leadership is not about hierarchy – it’s about collaboration. When I arrived, there were many brilliant people supporting and nurturing impactful projects, but there wasn’t enough coordination on a portfolio level. If our ambition as a foundation is to contribute to systemic impact, we need to think in portfolios so the projects we support can nourish each other and influence systemic change in the longer term.
Leadership means serving the institution’s purpose. To help clarify our institutional purpose, we’ve been asking: what do we aim for collectively, not individually?
As CEO, my role is to create spaces for uncomfortable questions and move in a way that everyone on the team can come along. And it’s my job to protect my team’s ability to take risks. That requires honest and transparent conversations with the board.
It means continually rethinking what we are doing, and be honest and open enough to say, “At the time, we thought this was a good decision, but now we need to rethink it and perhaps propose something different.” That’s how I try to walk the talk.
KM: Looking outward again: what keeps you up at night or concerns you most?
AS: After 80 years of development cooperation, progress remains uneven. It’s humbling. One big issue that concerns me is how much competition there is instead of collaboration and coordination. It’s become performance-oriented in a way: we all want to have the spotlight, have a platform, be perceived as successful.
There have been discussions about reforming the multilateral institutions for 30 years. Some of those reforms are about how big those organizations have become, but just as important is how uncoordinated country-level work is. In some countries you will have 20 different UN organisations, bilateral agencies, philanthropic organisations, and NGOs – and it’s hard to see what they’re doing together.
It’s more important to cooperate with others than be visible.
KM: Where do you think the philanthropic sector should invest time and energy now?
AS: Infrastructure funding! See where we can fund organisations, not projects. Become an important partner in helping partner organisations move their work forward when you’re not there anymore. That means investing in an organisation’s infrastructure and capacities beyond a specific project.
What that also means is we have shift what we communicate about ourselves as foundations. Storytelling is important, but it cannot be more important than producing results. And sometimes the story about how you’re creating impact with your grant making and support is not very “sexy” because it’s slow and complex.
Translating all of that into a language that your board can support and the wider public can understand is very challenging. Some of these changes we may not even see during my tenure. As a sector, we need to challenge ourselves and hone the skills to do this translation work and convey that story well, sharing what we are learning along the way.
KM: Infrastructure funding – I love this! What a powerful call to action for the sector. Imagine what would happen if funding organisational infrastructure rather than funding projects became the norm. What final reflections would you like to share?
AS: In the end, it comes down to hope. The work of Austrian historian philosopher Philipp Blom has moved me. His latest book explores what it means to have a meaningful relationship with the world. And essentially what that means is: how do we hold onto our hope for a better future and translate that hope into agency today?
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 the Drosos Foundation
Part 2: Cheikh Mbacke Gueye, CEO of the Medicor Foundation
Part 3: Maya Ziswiler, CEO of the Roger Federer Foundation
Tags