A colleague from a funding organization shared a serious problem they were trying to solve.  They had a grantee who was in its second year and not really gaining traction with their project.  The grantee had some leadership changes, but a consistent board who was very involved and working hard to be successful.  The challenge for the funder was they weren’t expert in the area being funded (that was why they worked with the grantee) but had some thoughts on how to move the project forward.  However, they recognized that if they shared their thoughts, it could send the grantee down a road which may or may not lead to success.  That is, the funder’s idea was just that, an idea, but more often than not the grantee took “ideas” and interpreted them as “directives”.  They heard, “you should consider trying this…” and misinterpreted it as “you must do this …”.

Power dynamics come into play in many parts of professional life.  When a boss makes an offhand comment, it’s often interpreted as if they’re speaking through a megaphone.  Employees often hear these comments disproportionately to their intent and the bigger the boss, the loader comments are heard.  If a CEO is speaking with a megaphone, the funder seems to be speaking with an amplified megaphone!  So how do you maintain a productive, collegial relationship with a healthy give and take of information with partners who are perceived to be unequal?

There is no single solution to this, it is a constant work in process taking effort on the part of both parties, funders and grantees, to recognize the situation and actively address.

What can a funder do?

  1. It is important to be intentional about what type of relationship the funder will develop with its grantees. Will it be one where the funder holds all the cards?  That is, the funder (and this applies to all levels in the funder organization from CEO to grant administrators) must determine if they are the experts and their approach is the one grantees should take.  Or will they take the approach that the grantee is receiving this funding because of their capabilities and expertise and the grantee leads the way.  Reality may be somewhere between these extremes, but if the funder really does want to take the back seat, it requires conscious effort in all interactions.
  2. This requires going overboard with how statements are couched. Remember the amplified megaphone; even off hand comments can sometimes be taken out of context.  Having a discussion and clarifying, “I’m not saying you should do this, since you’re more familiar with the situation than I am, but have you considered ….?”.
  3. How sincere is the funder in recognizing the superior expertise of the grantee? Does this mean that if the project needs a mid-course correction the funder is willing to listen to reasons why and be flexible in recognition of grantee suggestions or to quickly step in with suggestions?

What can a grantee do?

  1. Have a frank conversation with your funder about what type of relationship and communications they expect. Do they consider their expertise in the area at the level that they want to ring in on details and approaches on the project?  Or will they totally defer to the grantee?  Again, reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but having that candid conversation opens the door to revisiting the topic when difficult decisions need to be made down the line.
  2. When recommendations come from funders, don’t immediately change direction of the project and don’t automatically make changes to conform. Take a deep breath and explore the suggestion – is it just that, or is it something that the funder needs the grantee to do.  These can be difficult conversations (made slightly easier if you followed #1 above) but can save a lot of effort if addressed immediately.
  3. When a mutual decision is made on how to proceed – accept and implement with enthusiasm. This is not the time to resist or complain; that does not advance the project.  By the same token, the funder should be taking the same approach of “we’ve decided on a course of action , now we’re all going to implement it till we are successful”!

My colleague made a suggestion and, sure enough, the grantee heard an amplified megaphone.  It took walking back the suggestion to some extent so that the direction of the project was not totally changed.  It also instantiated a construction conversation that helped the grantee see that a new direction (which they collaborated in designing) was needed to move the project forward to success.  Sometimes it takes two sets of hands to drive the train!