Know Thyself: A New Assessment Tool Asks Funders to Take a Hard Look in the Mirror

Perhaps the most compelling storyline in philanthropy right now involves the extent to which philanthropy follows through on pledges to boost support for racial justice, shift power, and democratize giving in response to the tumultuous events of 2020. Facing an array of urgent needs and demands for better philanthropic practice, funders pledged many millions in racial justice funding, vowed to improve diversity among employees and grantees, and set out to make funding less restrictive and top-down.

Over two years later, whether they’ve made progress depends a lot on who you ask. Back in March, a report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy noted that 97% of surveyed foundations said they sustained at least some 2020-era grantmaking changes in 2021. Around the same time, the Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity produced a less bullish report asserting that foundation and corporate support for racial justice and equity was substantially lower than figures cited by other sources.

Such mixed results suggest that becoming a more responsive and equitable grantmaker may take more time and interrogation than some in the sector assumed. As uncomfortable as it may be, leaders need to ask deep questions about their strengths and weaknesses. Have their efforts thus far actually generated real impact? Should they alter their practices further? And if so, how?

Enter Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), the 501(c)(3) organization that wears many hats — grantmaker, philanthropic middleman, and research shop, churning out deliverables to help funders give in an impactful way. Gleaned from extensive research and interviews with funding leaders, RPA’s latest offering, “Operating Archetypes: Philanthropy’s New Tool for Strategic Clarity,” outlines how various funders engage in key activities like fostering equity, measuring impact, and serving communities.

The idea is that by identifying with one of eight “archetypes,” funding leaders can get a better understanding of where they currently stand, how they compare to their peers, or whether it’s time to pivot to another archetype entirely. You might think of it as something like the Hogwarts Sorting Hat for foundations, assuming that metaphor means anything to you. RPA’s new framework doesn’t argue that one archetype is more effective than another. Rather, it acts as a springboard to facilitate structured introspection in foundation boardrooms, and while nonprofit leaders aren’t the intended audience, they can nonetheless extract valuable insights by getting a handle on the kinds of questions that stakeholders should be asking themselves.

“Every philanthropic organization wants to know how to be more effective and create transformative change,” said Olga Tarasov, director of knowledge development at RPA, who drafted the framework along with Melissa A. Berman and Renee Karibi-Whyte. “Engaging in Operating Archetypes analysis provides funders with a useful framework for answering some of these acute questions.”

The framework flows from RPA’s Theory of the Foundation initiative, which seeks to “enhance the capacity of philanthropies to effectively align their resources for the impact they envision.” Taking a page from Jungian psychology, RPA posits distinct archetypes to describe funders. They are Talent Agency, Think Tank, Campaign Manager, Field Builder, Venture Catalyst, Designer, Underwriter, and Sower. RPA also provides case studies of funders that exhibit characteristics of each archetype.

For example, the Think Tank archetype “applies its in-house expertise and research to design policy or system solutions.” Arnold Ventures, which takes a technocratic approach to addressing domestic policy challenges in healthcare, criminal justice and education, fits within this archetype.

An Underwriter provides “big bet” support to “major institutions (often cultural, medical or educational), civic groups or favored causes based on long-standing interests, values or personal experience.” The case study here is the Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund’s Arts in Health program, which supports New York City-based organizations that use the arts as a tool for healing.

The authors list a set of core attributes that help to define an archetype, and pair each attribute with a simple question. For example, the Equity attribute asks leaders, “How do you include voices most affected and share power to advance equity?” 

For the Equity attribute, the Think Tank archetype prioritizes the “perspectives and experiences of front-line movements and marginalized communities in supporting/creating organizations.” Meanwhile, the “Campaign Manager” seeks to “empower leaders closest to the issues to design and coordinate campaign strategies.” 

The study’s authors acknowledge that its archetypes are “metaphoric, idealized representations” and that “few organizations will fall completely and exclusively within one type.”

Having said that, authors also encourage funding leaders to resist the urge to be all things to all people. “RPA has found that foundations comfortable with a blurred array of archetypes may be limiting their impact,” the authors wrote. They suggest that leaders will be more successful by coalescing around one archetype and sticking with it.

As with any thought exercise, there’s some subjectivity at play. Having spoken with Tisch Illumination Fund Executive Director Rick Luftglass, I can attest to the finding that the funder’s work using the arts to address health needs is a “big bet,” in line with the Underwriter archetype RPA assigned it. But at $10 million, the fund’s Arts in Health initiative isn’t that big of a big bet, relatively speaking. It’s also not an abnormally risky proposition, considering that a voluminous body of research speaks to the efficacy of the practice.

These are minor points, and you could have some pretty lively arguments over what archetype funders might be. What, for example, is MacKenzie Scott’s archetype? Probably a Sower. But maybe a Field Builder? Some large funders like Gates or Ford are probably trying to pull off several archetypes at once.

But the framework’s value isn’t the precision of RPA’s case studies, or even the ability to neatly categorize every grantmaker into a bucket; it’s more about asking foundation leaders to consider the behavioral characteristics of each archetype and say, “Yep, that’s us,” or, “That’s what we want to be.” Or maybe, “This is us, but we could do a better job in the following ways.”

Of course, yet another strategic framework could open up the floodgates for the endless navel-gazing that so often paralyzes professional grantmaking operations. Do we really need more efforts to find strategic clarity instead of just cutting the darn checks? I guess that’s my internal Sower talking. 

But the report offers a reminder that in a sector that is, at least in theory, pluralistic, funders adopt multiple — and often overlapping — models to address problems. A science research funder will follow different rules and values than a social movement funder. And yet, both likely seek to carry out their chosen roles in more effective and more equitable ways.

At a time when foundation leaders are being pulled toward a new existential crisis seemingly every month, they could probably use guidance in identifying their “true selves.” Doing so, the authors note, “will enable funders to think about how they achieve and evaluate impact, and better center and embed equity in their work.”