Professionalization is an important lens for how we view foundations. On one hand, both in academic and practioner literature, it is taken as a sign of maturity in operations and of expert decision-making, the basis for a strategic approach to philanthropy. However, professionalization has also been criticized for removing the donor’s original intentions, for bureaucratizing grantmaking, for hiring staff for its own sake, and even, for not choosing a higher rate of endowment payout.
For me, understanding the role of professionalization is two-fold. First, it’s a prime component of what might be termed our philanthropic export package. In our dominant philanthropic framework, we suggest that professionalization is important and creates greater impact. These claims are not well researched. As we export this system to other cultures, we should make sure our claims are sound or at least better understood. Second, foundation professionalization has primarily been a matter of counting numbers, in particular the growing number of foundation staff. Examining the views of foundation staff themselves would give a clearer, more rounded perspective on the issue.
As a foundation practitioner, I know that self-analysis is a low priority, but I believe it is worth making time for. I believe that it affects how the foundation does its work and defines its success. Understanding the professional roles of foundation staff and how they help build foundations is one way of learning more about our larger philanthropic system. I hope my work contributes to expanding our knowledge of the expression and approaches to professionalization and to building more spaces for practitioner reflection.
Originally posted Alliance Magazine, March 2017
