Please Be Good at Philanthropy with Jen Ford Reedy

Jen Ford Reedy has spent more than a decade leading the Bush Foundation, and over that time she has come to a conclusion that should be a challenge to the field—nobody actually has to be good at philanthropy. There's no license needed, no regulators keeping them accountable, and no market that punishes funders for doing it badly. You can just write checks, get celebrated for your generosity, and never once answer the question of whether any of it actually worked.

Her new book, Please Be Good at Philanthropy, out on July 21, 2026 from Disruption Books, argues that good intentions aren't enough, and that philanthropy can do real harm when it's done badly. Jen talks with Eric about why she thinks being good at this work is a skill you have to learn, not something you arrive at already knowing, no matter how successful you've been elsewhere. They acknowledge the challenges funders face in getting honest feedback, especially from grantees who don’t want to risk the relationship. And they discuss the importance of being honest about what didn’t work, without blaming grantees.

After the interview, Eric and Kirk chew on what philanthropy actually owes the people it serves, and concede that maybe they should please be good at podcasting while they’re at it.

Follow Let's Hear It, leave a rating, and help more people find the show.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Welcome to Let's Hear It.
Let's Hear It is a podcast forand about the field of foundation
and nonprofit communications,produced by its two co-hosts, Eric
Brown and Kirk Brown, no relation.
Well said, Eric.
And I'm Kirk.
And I'm Eric.
Let's Hear It is sponsored by thePrebys Foundation, a foundation
creating an inclusive, equitable, anddynamic future for all San Diegans.

(00:22):
Check out their amazingly goodpodcast, Stop & Talk, hosted by
Grant Oliphant and Crystal Page.
You can find them atstopandtalkpodcast.com.
You can find Let's Hear It on anypodcast subscription platform.
You can find us onlineat letzhearitcast.com.
And if you like the show, please,please, please rate us on Apple Podcasts
so that more people can find us.

(00:43):
Let's get onto the show.
Hey, happy summer, almost.
Actually, it's not.
You know, it's so counterintuitive,it's not even quite summer yet.
It will be summer when thisis dropped, though, right?
It's just coming right up.
Any minute now, and thendays will just get s- darker.
It goes too fast.
It goes too fast.
I hate it.
Yeah.
Yeah, it goes too fast.
Can't we plateau?

(01:03):
Believe me.
I, you know, and, and a- actually, I'vealready achieved my own personal human
solstice- … and I'm just getting darker.
Yeah, really.
I thought you were gonna sayyou've achieved, you're just
a long, bright, sunny day.
That's what I think
you are.
You're just a long, bright,crystal clear, sunny day.

(01:23):
Au contraire- Sunny day … mon frere.
So we're on a very interestingtrajectory with Let's Hear It.
Aren't we, though?
And I'm, I'm, I'm getting a littlenervous about it, I have to say.
I should imagine.
I, I would think so.
But, but I think- … what I like aboutour conversation today is that we've
got a real expert on tap to lead usthrough this conversation, who comes at

(01:48):
this with an enormous amount of personaland individual credibility, both in
terms of their career trajectory, butalso because of the work they're doing.
I can't wait for this.
And, and honestly, I, I know I give youa hard time, but I think- Yes, you do
… it's fi- finally I need to say thank you.
What?
Thank you for… Because this is such-… an important and nuanced conversation.

(02:10):
And by the way, coming from Minnesota, astate that I'm headed to in a, in about
two weeks for some, for some family time.
So tell us all about what we'reabout to hear- Okay … 'cause
this is a great conversation, and Iwould dare say incredibly salient,
incredibly timely for our field.
I would say I did this for you.
Because our guest is as Midwesternnice as a human being could be.

(02:35):
She- And there's a lotin there, by the way.
There's so much in there.
It's so great.
There is.
Her name is Jen Ford Reedy.
She's the president of the BushFoundation in Minnesota, and she,
she's just written a book calledPlease Be Good at Philanthropy.
That's great.
Now, obviously we had Glenn Galen on, andhis take was, stop being so sh- you know,

(02:59):
crappy at philanthropy, and Jen's approachis please be good at philanthropy.
It is a Midwestern polite way to talk.
But the book itself is actually quitepointed and very straightforward- Mm-hmm
… about how to do philanthropy well andwhat the pitfalls are of doing it poorly.
And so we had a terrific conversationthat I enjoyed immensely.

(03:22):
Jen was incredibly fun to talk to.
And, uh, yeah, I, I, I hope peopleget a lot from this conversation.
And Jen, thank you forcoming on Let's Hear It.
Jen brings an enormous amount ofcredentials to this conversation, not
just having been at Bush since 2012, butat the Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation
before that, was at McKinsey before that.

(03:42):
You're about to hear fromtop-notch, top-tier leader,
strategic thinker in this field.
So this is Jen Ford Reedy,president of the Bush Foundation.
We'll listen to Jen on Let'sHear It, and we'll come back.
There's a problem hiding inplain sight in philanthropy.
Nobody has to be good at it.
There's no license required, no regulatorybody watching, not really, no market

(04:07):
that punishes you for doing it badly.
You can start a foundation, writesome checks, get celebrated for your
generosity, and never once have toanswer the question, you got a nice
tax deduction, what did society get?
My guest today, Jen Ford Reedy, hasspent more than a decade leading
the Bush Foundation, and she's beenchurning over this problem ever since.

(04:27):
Her new book, Please Be Good atPhilanthropy, is a straightforward,
respectful call for better philanthropy.
She argues that good intentions are notenough, that philanthropy can cause real
harm when done badly, and that the fieldneeds to get a lot more honest with itself
about whether it's actually delivering.
It's a book for newcomers and veteransalike, and it's really, really good.

(04:49):
Jen Ford Reedy, welcome to Let's Hear It.
Thank you.
It's lovely to be here.
I loved that intro.
I hope I didn't mess up by chucklingthroughout, but No way That was great.
Very entertaining intro.
No, we're gonna do laughtracks later afterwards.
Okay.
We can record laugh tracks at theend and, and insert them throughout.
Excellent.
Excellent.
Okay.
Yes, we'll do it.

(05:10):
So, uh, thank you so muchfor coming on the show.
Now, your book is so perfectly timed.
I, I believe that we're in somekind of a, a, a large scale
conversation about philanthropy.
We're gonna get into why you wrote thisbook and what, what you think people
really need to take away from it.
But first I wanna talk to,about you a little bit.
Okay.
You're currently president of afoundation, but you didn't, you
know, you weren't born that way.

(05:30):
Uh, and then professionally, I mean,you spent, uh, nine years at McKinsey.
Yes.
Which seems to have been an interestingproving ground to learn about the
wild, wonderful world of philanthropy.
Can you talk a littlebit about those days?
Well, I'll just say, I mean, the,the training you get at McKinsey,
which is a consulting firm for peoplewho don't know, so you get to work
with lots of different kinds oforganizations on lots of different
kinds of problems, is, is, can be usefultraining for a lot of different things.

(05:55):
I'd also say one thing thatwas amazing about getting to
spend a long time at McKinsey isthat you actually get feedback.
Like people tell you, areyou good at stuff or not?
So I was regularly gettingfeedback on stuff that I thought
I was pretty good at, you know?
And you actually get used to theidea of like, oh, you always have
an opportunity to get better.
You have an opportunity to get better,you have an opport- And you start
actually getting kind of addictedto that idea that you can do better.

(06:18):
So I think, I think there are parts ofthat that are still in me and feeling like
we don't do that so well in philanthropy.
But in general, the skillset youget at, at McKinsey, the ability
to analyze problems, you know,something you can use for good or
for ill, like it's just a skillset.
Um, and there are a lot of wayswhere I've had to build on or, you
know, shift how I was thinking aboutproblems coming from that more sort of

(06:42):
business oriented analytic approach.
And there were a lot of ways where Iwas humbled coming into philanthropy,
and that's a big part of the book too,is saying like, if you're coming in,
you're probably good at something.
Um, but that doesn't mean you'rejust naturally good at philanthropy.
Well, I think you become a much bettersinger and funnier joke teller when
you come into philanthropy, you know?

(07:04):
It's extraordinary.
It's one of the things that getsin the way of us being good, right?
Is that for a whole variety of reasons,we don't get very good, honest feedback.
Yeah.
And that's certainly one of them,that you, you don't wanna bite the
hand that feeds you or could somedayfeed you and Right … so you, you're
not getting… You have to work hard.
You have to be intentional and puteffort in if you're actually gonna get

(07:25):
meaningful feedback that lets you knowwhether you're good at what you do or not.
Well, okay, so I wanna talk aboutthe Bush Foundation 'cause it, it's
really a very interesting foundation.
So the, we say it's not beans, it'snot beer- … and it's not presidents.
It's a different Bush.
Our, our Bush is Archie Bush.

(07:45):
Yeah.
Who's one of the guys who built3M into a major corporation.
He and his wife, Edith, establishedthe foundation in the '50s,
and he was truly a good guy.
Like, we are very lucky in our originstory, um, that Archie was really a
generous guy, and he left us with-Enormous flexibility, like with intention-

(08:05):
Mm … like in the founding documentssaying that, um, talking about, you know,
the dead, dead, dead hand of the donor.
Which if you've used that phrase, it meansyou've done some of your research in sort
of understanding how, how foundationsand trusts can go awry, and he didn't
want that for the Bush Foundation.
He wanted us to be relevant and useful.
And so we have very littlerestriction technically.

(08:27):
Mm. And then a really inspiring donorexample to work from, um, which is a
lovely place to get to operate from.
And- Yeah … our orientation isaround problem-solving, so we're not
organized around specific issues withspecific goals of what we're trying
to get accomplished in those areas.
We're- Mm … organized around thecapacity of the communities that we serve

(08:51):
to solve problems, whatever those problemsare, whatever's important to communities.
So we work in Minnesota, North Dakota,South Dakota, and 23 Native nations,
and really, in a variety of ways,are just supporting problem-solving
capacity and then really big-thinkingproblem-solving efforts to address issues.
Right.

(09:11):
When you first got to the foundation,obviously you had had insight into
philanthropy from having worked at aconsultant at, um, at the Death Star.
Well, maybe some of my best friends workat McKinsey, but yeah, so it's a model.
And, and so you had insight, but, butnobody I think really understands what a
foundation is like until they're actuallyin there and, you know, drinking the

(09:33):
free drinks from the, you know, the, therefrigerator and other things like that.
Yeah.
I did have a, I did havea stop in between, where I
worked at a- Ah … communityfoundation, so that helped a lot.
And so it really helped that I'd workedin philanthropy before I was the leader
of a foundation which is remarkablynot the case for- … you know, so
many people coming into philanthropy.

(09:53):
Even at the presidential level, it'slike we do not value philanthropic
experience even in our hiring process.
So, you know, the number ofpeople who- whose first gig in
philanthropy is running a foundationis, is pretty amazing actually.
It is.
We, we actually had two at the HewlettFoundation, but they were very impressive.
You know, they both did it really well.
They were really smart people,and they were people with learning

(10:14):
orientation, both those folks.
But it is strange.
It's a strange thing about our field.
Yeah.
And, and that's fine.
I mean, you can have a professionwhere there's a bunch of credentials
before you can work in it, and then,you know, there are real negatives
about that in terms of making ithard to get in, keeping people out.
And, you know, if you really wannahave, have a, a field where you
have true diversity and- Yeah

(10:35):
of backgrounds and people workin it, then it's nice not to
have those barriers to entry.
But if that's the case, then you've gottabe great at training people once they
get in, to have neither of those things,to have not sort of expectations coming
in or good support once you get in.
Means, you know, we're justall learning on the job.

(10:55):
Yeah.
And relearning on the job, right?
Right.
As each, each new person comes in, ina way that makes us, you know, less
effective as individual practitioners,less effective as institutions,
and less effective as a field.
All right.
So you, you come in.
Uh, now you're thepresident of the foundation.
Yeah.
So you've worked at a communityfoundation, uh, and you also, you

(11:17):
know, w- worked at a consulting firm.
W- how did you think about … Oh,okay, if I were the president of
a foundation, I, I, I don't thinkI'd have a clue about what to do.
But you seem to have donea pretty good job so far.
So how did you find this role, andhow did you find this field once
you were deeply on the inside of it?
Uh, well, I had probably more experiencewith philanthropy in general because of

(11:40):
getting to serve a number of foundationsat McKinsey and outside of McKinsey,
and then my foundation experience.
But I also knew Bush.
Like, I'd- Yeah … actuallybeen a partner with Bush, so it
gave me insight into what I wishI- Ah … Bush did differently.
Um, you know, because I was in the orbitand, and actively working in partnership.
There were some things that, to me,were very clear of a, "Oh, I see

(12:02):
ways that this could be stronger."
And, you know, you come in and youtalk to all the staff, you talk to
stakeholders, you talk to board.
Like, you're going around andlearning, you know, everyone else's
experience, and there were some thingsthat were very- Mm … um, clear.
There were some thingsthat were real ahas for me.
Um, and I'll tell you one particularaha, which is probably, you know,
quite related to coming in witha McKinsey-esque orientation into

(12:24):
philanthropy, is that, you know, we havedone a Bush Fellows program since 1965.
I mean, way back when Archie Bush wasstill here, he designed this program.
Wow.
That was the kind of program hewished he could have had as a leader.
It's a amazing program.
I'd lo- I mean, it's, it's $150,000to leaders to invest in themselves.
I mean, it's, it's amazing, right?
This program.
And I came in and thought, "Well,you know, we've always done that

(12:47):
program, we'll keep doing it."
Like, but it's hard to measure and don'treally know if it's having an impact.
Like, that was kind ofmy orientation coming in.
Then I went around theregion talking to people.
Over and over and over, I would runinto people who were Bush Fellows
who would say what a transformationalexperience it was, and saying, you
know, "It fundamentally changed whatI thought was possible in my life."

(13:08):
And to me it was kind … Like, hearingthe people say it in the same words
even over and over, I was like, "Oh,it's hard to measure, but there's
something really powerful there." And Ithink part of it is thinking like, "Oh,
we're a place-based foundation, right?
We're this place.
We can only be in this place what thepeople in it believe they can be, and

(13:29):
are willing to work to be, and, you know,have the skills to, to do that work."
And realizing like, "Oh, actually, ifwe could do all our grant making in a
way that actually helped people thinkbigger about what was possible, that
may be the highest value thing we coulddo, even if, you know, that particular

(13:52):
aspect of the work is not measurable.
So it, it was one of my first lessonsin sort of like shifting a, a mind away
from a d- a definition of impact thatlimits you in ways that undervalue, in
some ways, the, the spiritual parts ofthe work, which are sometimes- Mm-hmm
the most powerful, right?

(14:12):
It's the hearts and minds and, andbelief- Yeah … part of the work.
Yeah, for sure.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
My old boss, Larry Kramer, at Hewlett,which was a very analytic place- Yeah
… he absolutely warned against the precisionof numbers, the, the, what do you call,
the f- the false precision of numbers.
I mean, you could come up with anexpected return of some kind of investment
or something like that, and it was anumber, it had a decimal point in it.

(14:33):
Yeah.
And you're like, you know, uh, whatever.
But, you know, sometimes we alsohave to fall back on the, the old
Potter Stewart thing, which is, youknow, we'll know it when we see it.
But- Know it when you see it … whatI think that your point is that
you're also telling stories aboutthe effects of the grants and the
people who participated in them.
Yeah.
A- and that kind of communicationscomponent is important.
Yeah.
And we- we'll get to that in a minute.
But I wanna turn to the book,because first of all, it

(14:55):
is a very Midwestern title.
Um, Please Be Good at Philanthropy.
That is published by a not so,yeah- Please … not so Midwestern-
Please … sounding publisher calledDisruption Books, which I also find
to be an elegant partnership there.
You start this book by sayingthat the field is, and in a
very polite way, under-orientedtoward being good at what we do.

(15:18):
We're falling short.
What do you say the most common waysthat foundations fall short are?
I mean, I think- In really fundamentalways, we don't have definitions of what
it means for us to be good at our jobs.
I mean, we just don't.
It's that fundamental that Ithink, you know, the question
is, are you good at philanthropy?

(15:39):
How do you know?
Yes.
And there are a whole bunch of reasons whythose are really hard to answer questions.
We've already alluded to some of them.
Um, you know, it's also hardbecause we're trying to do things
that are hard to measure, right?
But, but in a very basic sense, wedon't have a performance management
mindset or performance improvementmindset in a way that's really basic

(16:03):
for other kinds of organizations.
And there are parts of this book whereI thought, oh, if you're really coming
in from outside of philanthropy, you'llread it and just be like, "Well, yeah.
Sure." "Definitely you should do that."And I was like, no, actually in our
field, this is not what we normally do.
This is not how it happens.
And I think there are all differentreasons for that, like, you know,

(16:24):
trying to measure ourselves based onthe impact we have out in the world,
which is really hard to measure.
Yeah.
So then you can get sort ofobsessed with that and not actually
understand what you're doing.
I think one really significant culturalthing for our field has been, for
a long time, for a lot of people,feeling like, um, it was noble to

(16:46):
make it about the grantees, right?
It's not about us.
It's not about us.
It's not about us.
And, and that was with really good intent.
But what it means is… Well, one thingit means is that we're black boxes, right?
People don't understand us 'cause wedon't talk about ourselves and what we do.
But it also means we don't have theskills or the habits or the processes
to actually be able to say, "Thisis what we do, and this is how you

(17:07):
know we're doing it well or not."
You know, that's so interesting.
So I think this combination of maybefalse humility coupled with, I don't
know what else, this, this lackof enemies in nature that you talk
about, no regulators, no enemies,means that we, like we have- Yeah.
Yeah … we're missing those skills,that we can't run fast, and we don't
have sharp teeth, so we haven't evolvedinto something that's effective.

(17:28):
Yeah.
Especially, you know,especially in communications.
So we're gonna take avery, very quick break.
Don't go anywhere.
We're gonna be back and dig into this bookbecause there is so much to talk about.
We'll be right back with JenFord Reedy right after this.
You're listening to Let's HearIt, a podcast about foundation and
nonprofit communications hostedby Eric Brown and Kirk Brown.

(17:50):
If you're enjoying this episode,you may just be a rule breaker.
Check out season three of Break FakeRules with Glenn Galich, CEO of the
Stupski Foundation, as he chats withinspiring leaders in philanthropy,
government, media, and more aboutbreaking the fake rules that don't work
so that we can build a future that does.
Check them out whereveryou get your podcasts.
And now, back to the show.

(18:16):
And we are back with Jen Ford Reedy, whosenew book, Please Be Good at Philanthropy,
from Disruption Books, is such ainteresting and wonderful little companion
piece to the other big book that's justcome out, Control, by, by Glenn Galen.
He's a funder of ours, just, you know,for full ex- uh, full disclosure.
But anyway, he, he kindadrops this depth charge.

(18:36):
He's very, very pointed about whatphilanthropy does wrong and why.
Uh, y- y- you've taken aslightly different approach
around the prescriptions forhow philanthropy can get better.
And one of those things that has, youknow, chapped my hide completely is
this new report from the Center forEffective Philanthropy that shows
this phenomenal disconnect betweenwhat foundations think they're doing

(18:58):
and what grantees are experiencing.
And for, for me anyway, this, this is,like, a huge wake-up call for foundations
to do better, to better connect withgrantees, to help them understand what
their needs are, and filling those needs.
And I'm just wondering if you have,if you've heard, what your own
response is to this, this research,about what your counterparts in

(19:19):
philanthropy are saying about it.
I, I mean, I think it's traveling.
I think people are readingit and, and understanding.
And I think, I mean, you're right to bringit into the conversation as potentially
a case in point of how feedback loopsare not happening, the way you actually
need to have feedbacks loop, loopshappen to be good at anything, right?
Um, I mean, there's always some part whenthere's sort of this is what nonprofits

(19:42):
think about philanthropy and this is whatfoundations think, that there should be
some degree of disconnect because we'reactually doing two different jobs, and
we're doing it in partnership, right?
So we're each bringing, um, differentperspectives, different purposes.
But I think what the CEP report helpfullyshows is, like, a degree of disconnect
that suggests, like, something is reallyoff in, in how we're understanding the

(20:05):
problem, how we're getting and processinginformation as partner organizations,
as co-conspirators, or what- whateverthe relationship is between, you
know, foundations and their grantees.
Like, we need each other, andso we need to be understanding
each other's experience.
We need to understand each other'spurpose, and we need to understand how
we work in alignment to get to, youknow, the shared purposes that we have.

(20:27):
All right.
So you write in the book a lot abouttrying to listen and hear and get
information, notwithstanding thedisproportionate power relationship
between grantees and their funders.
Yeah.
Uh, w- what are you doing?
How are you advising people to getthat kind of honest feedback to, to
learn the, kind of the real stuff?
Well, I mean, there's not oneanswer to that, which is true
of every question you would askabout foundation practice, right?

(20:48):
That's part of the book isactually saying, like- We tend
to should each other a lot.
Like, you should do this, youshould do that, you should do that.
And it may or may not apply-Yeah … given what we're doing.
So I feel like the, the main adviceis for what you are trying to do,
foundation X, what do you need to knowto be smart enough to do that well?
What do you need to know tounderstand the risks that you're

(21:10):
creating for other people?
What do you need to know about whetherpeople want this intervention or not?
What do you need to know about whatit would actually take in terms
of having the supports and theincentives and the resources to
actually make the change happen?
I mean, I think talking tocommunity has been within the field
sometimes in a you should category.

(21:31):
And I just feel like it is stronglyin a, like if you use a competence
frame, it's just like, do youwanna be good at what you do?
Do you wanna actually have theimpact that you say you wanna have?
Well, you can't do it Withoutreally listening and understanding.
Yeah.
And the specifics of that will bevery different, whether you're doing
something global, whether you're doingsomething local, whether you're doing

(21:52):
something about, you know, curing adisease, whether you're doing something
about, you know, how people areexperiencing the criminal justice system.
Like, it's, it's different.
But I think we have, um, a numberof resources, you know, groups that
have come up that are specificallyabout, like, trying to help
foundations get good feedback,and I reference them in the book.
Yeah.
Throughout the book.
I try to, you know, point peopletowards, um, you know, folks who can give

(22:15):
counsel, because it does take effort,and so you have to believe that it's
central, I think, to being good forsome folks to feel motivated to do it.
Well, you talk a lot about this kindof formal learning mentality- Yeah
… which I think is really interesting.
So y- and you cite so many resources.
There's lots of information out there andresources, orgi- organizations who can

(22:37):
support people doing better philanthropy.
And obviously, so- someone is taking themup on it, or else they wouldn't exist.
But, but my sense from reading the bookwas that foundations really can… I
mean, they should, for the most part,find ways to learn as much as possible.
Learn, yeah.
Yeah.
And that sometimes you go to afoundation, all of a sudden you're,
you know, you become the expert, thegenius- Yeah … because you have the

(22:59):
checkbook, but that's really not the case.
Uh, how, how do you learn, and whatare the things that you encourage your
counterparts at other foundations to doin order to learn more about their work?
Well, some part of it is, like, theintentional acknowledgement, right?
And to say what you're saying, like,we have to learn, keep learning
to, in order to be effective.

(23:20):
I think within Bush, I can saywe do it at all different levels.
So it's like every year, thisis our engagement priority.
Like, we're not doing enough in westernNorth Dakota, or we're not doing enough
with- Mm … this cultural community.
What do we need to learn?
Like, how are we going outand having the conversations?
How are we understanding issues?
Also, how are we actuallydoing internal learning?
Like, we'll have someone come in and do aworkshop for us on what- Mm-hmm … what

(23:41):
don't we understand about… Thereare, you know, big-picture strategic
learning we do at different times.
Like, how do we learn how peopleare experiencing a program?
So when we're doing a five-yearstrategy or review of a program, how
are we out talking to stakeholders tounderstand is this working, is it not?
There's the, you know, how dowe anonymously survey people-
Mm … different times to get feedback.
Uh, it, it's at all differentlevels, and I think it's sort of

(24:03):
like once you start doing it, youget a little addicted, I think-
to feeling like, oh, we can getbetter if we actually have the
information that helps us get better.
And sometimes it's little things like Imentioned earlier Bush Fellows Program.
We'll have an open mic session atthe board meeting where a Bush Fellow
comes in and they can say anythingthey want to the Bush board, right?
Ah.
So we try to pick people differentparts of our region working on

(24:24):
different issues and say, "What doyou think the Bush board should know?"
And they can say anything, you know.
And, and then, you know, we have aboard retreat coming up in August.
We'll be out in Sioux Falls meetingwith people, and the board directly
meeting with people, and board andstaff together learning on panels of
issues that we're trying to explore.
So it's, I mean, it can be all throughout.
Well, this is amazing 'cause you'regenerating this level of inquiry and

(24:47):
interest and competence internally.
This is coming from withinand not from without.
And as you say, there are very- Yeah… very few constraints on philanthropy.
There's no particular accountability, andfoundations feel, especially now, like
they're in some kind of defensive crouch.
But you argue in the book thatthis is mostly self-imposed.

(25:09):
So- I'm, I'm just so curious.
There are so many ways to thinkabout what we could do about this.
Uh, what, what would create the pressure?
I don't know.
Are there constraints oraccountability mechanisms that we
ought to be putting on philanthropyto get them to be more competent?
I don't know.
It's, it's hard to think aboutaccounting m- accountability

(25:29):
mechanisms for effectiveness.
I mean, that's part of the trick.
I, I think part of what we haven'tdone though is to create even the
expectation that you should- Mm-hmm… be good at philanthropy, right?
So even within the field, whensomeone's brand new to a new
foundation position or brand new inphilanthropy, we will celebrate them.

(25:52):
Because now they're giving money.
You know, as opposed to saying like-Yeah … "Oh, welcome to the field.
You're gonna have to learn stuff."You know, I f- I think that the fact
that it's mostly an apprenticeship forpeople coming into foundations, right?
So they come in and they're told,"Well, this is how you do it.
We make $10,000 grants.""We make them quarterly.
This is our process." And thenyou're like, "Oh, okay." And then

(26:13):
you learn to do that really well.
Yeah.
And you do exactly what you've beentaught philanthropy is, 'cause you only
know what you do in that organization.
I think part of what I'm hoping withthe book is if you can orient people
from the beginning to just haveconsciousness that every single thing
your foundation do- is doing is a choice.
Yeah.
Everything's a choice.
So job number one, go in and understandthose choices and learn to do that.

(26:36):
But then you can think aboutare those choices serving you?
Right.
And if you have clarity on what youractual purpose is, then you have a way
of asking those questions to say, dothese choices make sense relative to
our purpose and what we're trying to do?
Mm-hmm.
I also think, um, you know, those ofyou out in California where you are,

(26:59):
you are in the, you know, the hotbedof, you know, ex- super- … smart
people who have made money doing onething, who are coming in and believing
they're gonna disrupt philanthropy.
Yeah.
Right?
And I think there are a lot of us whoare like, "Please, please, please."
You know?
Like, there's stuff you have to learn.
But if we as the institutionalright, field, right, if we as the

(27:22):
professionals aren't even good atsaying to people coming into our
institution, "You have stuff to learn"-Yeah … like, how are we creating a
broader expectation, almost culturallythroughout the country, that this is
a, this is a skill you have to learn?
So that when there's the big announcementthat somebody's gonna create a
foundation, the reporters are askingquestions that are like, "Well, how
are you gonna learn how to do that?

(27:43):
How are you testing?" As opposed to just,"What change are you gonna do?" Right.
"And we're gonna celebrate youfor having that intention."
Um, or you know, the ability to expect-Reports on what happens to those things
that, you know, are announced with fanfareand, and the ability to ask the follow-up
questions and have more attention toeach other and attention to foundations

(28:08):
just generally that's more aboutlike, well, what impact did you have?
How, how did it go?
How did people feel about it?
Like, how do you- Yeah … give morepeople kind of the, the questions or
the orientation to not just celebrateintent and not just celebrate intent
or intent and, and good wishes, um,to say like, "That's great that you

(28:32):
have that, but as we're gonna talkabout the work of your foundation,
it's not gonna be on those terms."
Talking about the work of thefoundation, you write about how
talking about successes are important,'cause we wanna be able to know it
worked and, you know, we wanna beable to take stock of how we're doing.
Uh, you know, are we, arewe earning our tax break?
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
But what didn't go right is equally asimportant because you have to be able to

(28:54):
help alert people about, you know, like,"Don't waste money on this strategy,"
or, "If you wanna really pursue astrategy like this, you can learn from
the things that we did that didn't- Yeah
go according to plan." You write aboutsome of these great philanthropic
moonshots that- Yes … didn't pan out.
Yes.
And I've always said, you know, aroad closed sign is one of the most
important signs in transportation.

(29:18):
That is very true.
That's good.
So for whatever reason, they don'tsee the value in helping their
colleagues know what not to do.
Can you talk about how we can bebetter about sharing what doesn't work?
I think there are lots of differentdimensions of that, and one is, in
general, we don't put a lot of time intounderstanding and sharing the results
of our evaluations, good or bad, right?
Like, but then the bad part does getcomplicated when something doesn't

(29:39):
work, for a lot of reasons, includingnot wanting to hang your grantees out.
You know, we, we had a, a teachertraining initiative that we're-
there are case studies that'llbe on the website for this book.
The book doesn't come out till July,but once it's, it's out, the, the, um,
those resources will be available, andwe wrote a case study on it saying like,
"This did not work. It did not work."
And you know, I was on, did a panel,people who work in foundations,

(30:02):
about this work- Mm-hmm … withsome of our grantees, our partners,
and they're saying the good thingsthat they did with the money- Ah.
… which are true.
Like, there were, there are always, youknow, pockets of success within something.
And I'm saying it was a failure.
And oh my gosh.
Mm. The discomfort- … of people inthe room who kept wanting to say, "But
it's not a failure because…" And Iwas like, "We're the one who did it.
Like, we're okay saying it was a failure.""We've told our partners this is how we

(30:26):
feel." But it feels- Yeah … I mean,we're a high empathy maybe field, but it
feels like you're taking other people downwith us, and I think that's part- Yeah
of, again, this like can we distinguishus and our role from what our grantees do?
Because the, we were sayingit's a failure based on what we
intended it to be, what we did.

(30:47):
And i- if you can make that distinctionabout your own performance as a
foundation, good or bad, then I thinkit can be easier to- You know, put
something out that other people canlearn from that doesn't feel like it's,
you know, trashing, um, the work ofgood organizations and good people.
Yes, absolutely.
That point is well taken.

(31:08):
We used to have a worst grant contest atthe Hewlett Foundation, and it was the
worst grant for which we were the most atfault, and from which we learned the most.
But Hewlett is famously good atputting stuff out there, you know,
like, willing to, and one of thecase studies in the book is also
from a Hewlett program, you know?
So, and when people are willing to putstuff out there that's the non-success
stories, I mean, it's such a contribution.

(31:31):
But- I mean, we, we were trying to builda culture of learning f- Yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah … from, from our own failures.
Uh, so, you know, if your programwon the worst grant contest, you
got dinner with the president.
Um, but again- Yeah … thiswas not about the grantees,
this was about our own mistakes.
All right, I, I wannamove to another topic.
Okay.
Uh, there's this burning question inmy mind, and I'd love your take on it.

(31:54):
W- what do you say to one of thosebazillionaires who is now sitting
on tens or even hundreds of billionsof dollars, this is money they
could not possibly spend in 100lifetimes, maybe 1,000 lifetimes,
about how to use that money for good?
I mean, there's a ton of money, andit feels to me like philanthropy
may not necessarily always be thevehicle to move that kind of money,

(32:18):
or that traditional philanthropy aswe know it may not be the best way
because there's just so much money.
Yeah.
What do you say to one of thosefolks who just became a billionaire
this week through one of those IPOs?
How do they use that money properly?
Well, first is really encouraging themto use it to the benefit of others.
Yeah.
I think there's sometimes where wecritique philanthropy in a way that
I worry is gonna make- … peopleless willing- Yeah … to give.

(32:43):
Right.
And I do think, of all the things,if, if we live in a society where
people happen to get that rich, right?
Yeah.
Which we can have our critique aboutthat, but I, I do appreciate when
folks are trying to use it for good.
So I think there's an affirmingand encouraging of, of that.
I think next thing is saying,like, congratulations.
Right.
That you were so good or so lucky insome ways to, to get this wealth, and

(33:08):
I'll say, "If you want to actuallydo good in the world, this is a
different skill than all the skillsyou used to build up that wealth.
Some of them are gonna apply, but awhole lot of them aren't, and if you
don't actually shift your mindset-You're not gonna have the success you
hope, and then you may get discouraged.
So let's work upfront to help youunderstand some of the ways you're gonna

(33:31):
have to bre- bend your brain coming in,which is chapter one of the book, right?
How do you think philanthropically?
Just to say, like, if you're comingin with a different kind of strategic
orientation, you're gonna haveinstincts that undermine yourself.
And I think there's an appealing to, we-let's help you be a great philanthropist.
Yeah.
I think you're trying to aska different question too,
which is just about magnitude.
Yeah.

(33:51):
I actually think magnitude is absorbable.
Um, I, I really do.
I think that there is so much greatuse for philanthropic capital that
maybe isn't, doesn't look like the sexyinitiatives- Mm … that we sometimes
like to do within philanthropy, butis actually just like, no, we have

(34:12):
a giant affordable housing problem.
Like, so much money Yeah … could go intothinking differently about construction
and just plain building houses for people.
Yeah.
I mean, like, we can absorb money.
Right.
It's just not through every kindof, you know, way of thinking
about s- about philanthropy.
And I also think we've tended to, youknow, through the, in the last 20 years

(34:34):
with so much emphasis on impact andstrategy, we've made people feel like they
have to do philanthropy that's complex.
And I was like, real simple, we canput that money to work- Mm-hmm … in
really, really good ways if youdon't get too heady about it.
Well, I would also tellthem to read your book.
Oh, that's nice.
Please Be Good at Philanthropyfrom Disruption Books.

(34:58):
Jen, I, I really, reallyenjoyed this conversation.
I really enjoyed the book.
I think it is exactly the tonicfor the cold that we have.
Oh, I'm so glad to hear it.
I'm so glad.
And best of luck with it.
It's out in July.
Thank you so much for talking with us.
Thank you for having me.
It was a real delight.
And we're back.

(35:18):
So I, I think we need to reallyestablish and underscore that when we
say Bush, we're not talking president.
Right.
We're not talking beer.
Right.
Right?
I love- And we're not talking beans.
I just… And that's, you're rightin the heart of this Midwestern
knowing sensibility, the humility.
Uh, so let's just say thank you, Jen,for bringing us, for bringing us there.

(35:40):
We're talking about the Bushesthat come from having created 3M,
which, which I think did- don't weowe the, the Post-It Note to 3M?
Isn't that, isn't that one ofthe many things that we owe
to 3M, is the Post-It Note?
Ah, okay.
Sure.
I don't think people use Post-Itsthe way they used to, but still.
I know.
It's funny.

(36:01):
So Jen brings us to the heart ofthis discussion, which is, hey,
let's remember philanthropies arecreated because of, guess what?
Tax treatment.
Right.
These are actually public resources, sohow about let's have some conversation
about how they demonstrate and documenttheir value, their public good value.

(36:22):
And th- you had mentioned theMidwestern part of this to get started.
This is such a nuanced piece tokinda weave through and thread.
I almost feel like it has to comefrom a Midwestern perspective and
sensibility because there's so much tounpack here, and yet there's a common
sense and very enormously importantpart of this was just like, yeah, these
are, these foundations are stacks ofmoney that are created through, you

(36:45):
know, public fiat, and guess what?
That means they have todemonstrate public value.
How do you do that?
And it's a very salient questionI feel like Jen is bringing
for, bringing to all of us.
Right, 'cause, you know, if you havesome New York schmuck yelling about
philanthropy- … who's gonna listen?
And, and isn't this conversation just ar- it's, it's like a call and response

(37:08):
with the conversation with Glenn.
Yes.
And of course, the conversation withAlicia- Mm … about this disconnect
between foundations and their grantees.
Yeah.
And we see, I would say, theantidote to that disconnect is
what Jen is doing at the BushFoundation, and frankly, her book.
Mm. If you, if you're at a foundationand you're seeing that your grantees feel

(37:29):
like you're out of touch, that you don'tunderstand what they're going through,
all that kind of stuff, pick up a copyof Please Be Good at Philanthropy- Yeah
and read it cover to cover,and when you're done reading it
cover to cover, read it again.
Yeah.
Because in here are the ways that youcan learn about how to connect with your
grantees, how to be more responsible,how to understand when things are working

(37:51):
and when they're not, how to shareinformation about when they're not.
Because I've said this a milliontimes on this show, you know, a
road closed sign is one of the mostimportant signs in transportation.
And, "Don't make the same mistakeswe did" could be one of the most
important messages in philanthropy.
Mm-hmm.
And that is not a message that foundationstend to send, and she's absolutely

(38:14):
encouraging that, among other things.
So yes, it probably takes aMidwesterner to be nice about it.
But given this time right now, ifphilanthropy is going to continue
to be relevant, and if it's goingto cond- continue to, I don't know,
actually accomplish things, theprescriptions in this book are essential.

(38:38):
Yeah.
Well, and you know, she, she… Wealways talk about origin story, and
I love that Jen brings kind of thisc- consultant's instinct for what are
we trying to do with performance andcan bring into that foundation leader
sensibility about humility and recognizingwhat's so difficult to measure.
But can we talk for just asecond, though, about how the

(38:59):
Bush Foundation is organized?
'Cause I think this is sointeresting, too, and I feel like
this perspective certainly helpsinform Jen's thinking here, is that
the Bush Foundation is actuallynot organized around single issues.
It's organized around this notion ofexpanding problem-solving capacity.
And, and this whole conversation aroundevaluation and what, what impact, what

(39:22):
benefit are we creating, I feel like itshows up in stark relief against that
framework, too, because the f- thisfoundation is saying, you know… And
actually I'm curious to get your take onthis, because this foundation is saying,
"We're not coming to the field tellingyou which problems you should care about."
Right.
"And we're not gonna resource you tosolve the problems that our strategic
philanthropy has told you are necessaryto solve." And actually, that's really

(39:42):
interesting because I think some of ourcore changes and movements of our time
have kind of been revealed by foundationsactually working at that level.
But this is a perspective that says, "No,actually, we need to engage in people,
organizations, communities, regions.
Let's hear from them what problemsthey're trying to solve, and then let's
actually provide resources that helpfolks solve problems that make their

(40:05):
communities better, thrive, et cetera."That, that to me just feels like it's a
really interesting sensibility in termsof this whole conversation about trying
to understand what impact we're havingand, and how do we characterize that.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Uh, another way of thinking aboutit is a needs meeting orientation.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Uh, you go out, you go out to thecommunity and you find out what

(40:26):
people need, and then you do yourbest to help them achieve that.
And you're right, most foundationsare set up in terms of issue areas.
We do environment, we do democracy,we do this, that or the other.
Which, if you ask me, is oftenjust as useful for the foundation
in being able to say no.

(40:47):
Yeah.
Because someone will cometo them with a great idea.
Mm-hmm.
And they'll say, "Nah, we don't reallyfund that. That's- Yeah … that's out
of our guidelines," that kind of thing.
So it is a, it's a no tool,not necessarily a yes tool.
And so if you go out into the communityand say, "What do you need? What are you
dealing with? What are the challengesthat you have, and how can we in one

(41:08):
way or the other support you in beingable to overcome those challenges?"
That is a totally different mindset.
And I agree, not manyfoundations do it that way.
The Irvine Foundation, it would setup these initiatives that w- were
designed to address some kind ofchallenge that were different from the
old program s- way of doing things.
And so that's a variation on that.

(41:29):
I think it's really interesting,and I think that it's something,
even a foundation that does haveprograms, they could carve off some
part of their grant-making and say,"Let's just meet people's needs.
Let's figure out what some importantneed is, and then just serve them-
Yeah … ins- instead of deciding fromon high that this is a problem and
we're gonna be the ones who solve it.

(41:50):
And there's one more thingabout problem-solving.
I've said in the past that I, it,in a sense it sets the foundation
up as the hero, and I don't thinkthat's how Jen is referring to
problem-solving in this context.
Mm. Like I say, I think it's reallymore like im- like meeting folks'
needs, and needs that are articulatedby people in the community who are

(42:10):
dealing with whatever challenges they'redealing with or seeing opportunities
that might present themselves, andhow the foundation can support them
in achieving some kind of aspiration.
Yeah.
And, and this is what welove about this work, right?
Because Jen is having this conversationfrom sitting within philanthropy and
doing this high-impact work and thinkingabout it in new and different ways.

(42:32):
So one of the really kind of poignantquestions that comes up for me around
this is- Well, i-i-if you have thisfoundation and you can operate at such a
high degree of private discretion, whatcompetency do you need to demonstrate?
Yeah.
You know, honestly, this is theprofessionalism plus the nice, because
that is such a- Yep … powerfulquestion, and there's no way that I

(42:56):
know how to ask that question withoutcoming across as, like, just a,
"Wait, what? Who are you?" You know?
Who… But, but I think ifyou're an expert, you're sitting
in the field, you've got…
You understand the nuances ofthe way the agenda is, you can
actually put this question forward.
It's like, how competent do we need to be?
And then what do we need tolook at to help us understand
what that competency looks like?
And then I would even go one step further,which is, like, we do have a field that

(43:18):
has a lot of, like, grantee re- perceptionreports, and we get grantee feedback.
But, but whether or not that feedback islanding and what changes it's creating, we
often don't know that part so much, right?
We-- Maybe we get theblog post on the website.
But, but really, you know, what's actuallyaffecting the DNA for how this works.
So, so to me, that's kind ofthe hard-edged question that's
sitting under here is, like,well, what, what do we owe people?

(43:39):
What's the, what's the transaction weshould be, you know, saying, "Hey, this
is what we're signing up for," when we'retalking about philanthropy at scale?
All right.
Well, there's a lot in there to unpack.
One of the things is, and I think it'sin the book, almost positive it's in
the book, which is that there is no kindof graduate level course, a degree in
philanthropy that kind of gives you a legup in helping you understand how to do it.

(44:01):
Yeah.
So you go get an MBA andyou work in business.
You go get a PhD and you work in academia.
And, and so on the one hand, it's like,oh my God, really, do we need another-
industrial, whatever, educationalindustrial complex around philanthropy?
The answer is maybe, because thereare all sorts of things that you could
learn that could make you better atphilanthropy that you learn before

(44:23):
you go into the foundation world- Mm
instead of while you'reexperimenting with people's lives.
Okay, so that's the education business.
Yeah.
And the other thing that she talksabout is that there's an amazing number
of presidents of foundations that havenever worked in a foundation before.
Mm. So we don't hire from withinand work your way up as nearly
as much as people do- Yeah

(44:43):
in, in other places.
And some rather big foundations rightnow have presidents who have never worked
at a foundation, and they come in andthey go, "Ooh, hoo, hoo, this is gonna
be easy because I'm really smart." Andit doesn't turn out to be that way.
It turns out to be so much morecomplicated than you think.
Mm. And it i- it is true, to beresponsible, to be responsive, to be able
to listen to the things that people aren'tgonna tell you, I mean, it's, it's hard.

(45:08):
Yeah.
And you have to have so much humilitywhen you go into a foundation 'cause
people just tell you you're fabulous.
Yeah.
And it's lovely to hearit, but it's not true.
You're not fabulous.
You're normal.
You're like you always were.
Yeah, yeah.
And so nobody really trainsyou for that sort of stuff.
We, we have kind of degraded inphilanthropy over these years, and now
all of a sudden grantees are saying,"Our founders don't understand us.

(45:30):
Whoa." "That's surprising." Well,this is where Jen brings this
incredible range of experience.
And by the way, in terms of thatclass, Jen is actually teaching a
philanthropy 101- I know … classfor the Massachusetts Foundation-
Yeah … which is exactly whatwe need right- There we go.
We need… That's right.
We need Jen Ford Reedy at thefront of the room teaching.

(45:50):
And so this is the other piece that isso great here, is that Jen's not coming
forward saying, "Hey, we need some biglicensing board," or, "Let's create some
new bureaucratic giant compliance regime."
She's actually saying, in the absenceof these external constraints, how
about the internal discipline part?
Let's talk about a willingnessto receive feedback.
Let's talk about the humility.
Yeah.
Right?
Let's talk about a willing to learn.

(46:11):
Let's talk about actuallylistening to communities.
And, and again, I keep goingback to community is such a
really interesting word becausewhat does that word even mean?
Like, you know, where do we find thecommunities that we're listening to?
What do we mean for evaluation?
And then, and then howdo we admit failure?
And, and I think, you know, for me,the reason why I think messengers and
workers and practitioners and expertslike Jen are so important is that I

(46:32):
also feel like there's just a crucialkind of care and feeding of the field
that's going on here because- Mm-hmm
because we don't have thesekind of external mechanisms
that are kinda pushing on us.
This changes as a result of foundationslooking deep inside and saying, "This is
how we're gonna put this into practicewithin our particular institution." And
at least in my experience, that reallyrequires somebody who can patiently,

(46:55):
kindly, with humility, but also withexpert clarity, walk people through the
process, and I feel like that's whatwe're getting here in terms of what
Jen's bringing forward with her book.
Ab- absolutely.
And these are the kinds of tools thatwe need more of, no question about it.
There, there are some good books onphilanthropy, but not nearly enough.
And like I said, this is a kind of a soupto nuts great primer on- Yeah … how to

(47:21):
think about philanthropy, and I'm so glad,I'm so glad that s- that she wrote it.
And like I said, it is a counterpointto Glenn Galich's book Control.
Yeah.
In, in many ways they're saying muchof the same thing, but attacking
it or at, going at it from aslightly different perspective,
and I think that's really valuable.
Yeah.
Yeah.

(47:41):
Well, let's, let's say a major thankyou to Jen for coming on Let's Hear
It, giving us this book, you know.
I, I, this, this sensibility, just'cause we have a checkbook, it doesn't…
We, we might, that make us feel wiseif we've got the checkbook, but it
actually doesn't make us wise, right?
Right.
She's saying if we want theprivilege of doing this work, we
should be doing enough to be goodat, at it to deserve the privilege.

(48:02):
And again, that's, man, that, that, that'sso powerful, meaningful, poignant, timely.
And honestly, Eric, like in this era,to hear such seminal leaders coming
forward with this kind of balanceof discipline and humility, isn't
it just kinda good for the soul?
You know what I mean?
Isn't it just kinda good to know thatwe have leadership like this out there?
I don't know.
It was… I, I don't know.

(48:23):
I, I, it's… I love it.
I love it.
It's good for my teenytiny soul, that's for sure.
That's great.
Well, please go find the book.
So this is Jen Ford Reedy from the BushFoundation, and the book is… And,
and, and give me the title of the bookagain, 'cause I, I just, I love this.
Please Be Good at Philanthropy isjust one of my favorite all-time

(48:43):
titles for a book- Yes … ever.
And, and my other favorite thing is thatit is published by Disruption Books.
Oh, there you go.
That's, that's great.
So please go check out PleaseBe Good at Philanthropy.
And I guess, you know, Eric, weshould be, we'll take this on too.
We're gonna try to begood at podcasting, right?
We're, we're, we're gonnaplease be good at podcasting.
You're doing great with it.
I, I mean not so much.
Eric, it's a little late for that.
I know.

(49:04):
It's so much, it's so- If wewere gonna be good at podcasting,
we'd have been good by now.
Yeah, I know.
It's true.
True.
Well, Jen Ford Reedy, president ofthe Bush Foundation, thank you so
much for coming on Let's Hear It.
Thank you for sharing with us allof your work and your insights.
And please go out and find the bookPlease Be Good at Philanthropy.
There you go.
And we will, we will see younext time on Let's Hear It.
Read it, and then be good at philanthropy.
Read it and be good at philanthropy.
We'll see you next time.

(49:25):
Bye.
Okay, everybody.
That's it for this episode.
Please let us know if you have anythoughts about what you heard today
or people we should have on this show,and that definitely includes yourself.
And we'd like to thank JohnAllee, the tuneful and inspiring
composer of our theme music.
Our sponsor, the Lumina Foundation.
And please check out Lumina'sterrific podcast, Today's Students,

(49:49):
Tomorrow's Talent, and you canfind that at luminafoundation.org.
We certainly thank today's guestand, of course, all of you.
And most importantly,thank you, Mr. Brown.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Okay, everybody.
Till next time