Letting go? Devolving decision making over foundation resources in places.
It looks like we are going to make a move to shift some of the decision making over Lankelly’s resources outside the organisation. In at least two of the places where we are committed to working, locally-based ‘coordination teams’ are in development. They will drive the local action-inquiry, around the question ‘how do we change the systems that perpetuate severe and multiple disadvantage in X place?’ When we’ve got our internal processes and permissions sorted out, we hope to be devolving decision making over resources to them.
We’ll still be members of these groups but not majority members. In one respect this is a small change. Funding decisions at Lankelly are already made by small internal groups called ‘portfolio teams’, many of which have external members. It does feel symbolically important though. It is a statement that it is not ‘our’ money. It is money that belongs to the mission. It is also our attempt to acknowledge honestly that we at Lankelly don’t know and are not particularly well placed to figure out what needs to happen in Gateshead, Manchester, York or Barrow to support transformational change. We do not somehow see more clearly and further than others. It also reflects our belief that it is not right that a small group of (mainly) middle class London-based foundation staff are the gatekeepers and controllers of the resource. ‘Decision making is devolved’ is one of the System Behaviours we try and live by, and which we think characterise the change we want to see.
So, we feel pretty confident we are doing the right thing. We’re not being particularly innovative, Big Local has gone much further, but it’s still far enough to give us pause. There are some practical things to consider. There are also more fundamental questions about how far a foundation can go to give away its power. Is it even possible?
These coordination teams bring together people from across the place, from different hierarchical positions, including people with lived experience of the systems of care and welfare we want to change. We’re spending time building relationships and attending to these dynamics but still, we are assuming people can avoid being trapped in role. We’re banking on being able to leave the baggage that gets in the way of relating to each other as people with common cause at the door. Can people from these different positions really work together as equals, even if they want to?
Things are further complicated by our membership of these groups. Are we kidding ourselves that we can mitigate the power dynamics inherent in representing the ‘funder’? We’re not proposing to give away control entirely. We are still setting the parameters, defining the mission and stating that some things are non-negotiable. Can we be full and equal members and yet represent Lankelly Chase? We have identified a risk here that we retain confusing ‘soft’ power that is more slippery and harder to challenge than the traditional kind. How do we watch out for this? Can we really avoid it? Are we trying to have our cake and eat it?
We may feel we are being brave, shifting our decision making outside the organisational boundary, but really, we are talking about it shifting to small groups of people, all of whom are drawn from our networks. We are thinking of this as probably an interim step to something more distributed and participatory. However, we don’t know whether these groups can avoid taking on some of the unhelpful power dynamics that come with being the resource controllers themselves. Can they hold this position more gracefully than us inside Lankelly? All involved recognise the deep importance of reflective work, a focus on learning and the retention of a sense of being at the service of wider networks here but still, are we expecting too much? Are we just transferring our responsibilities onto a group of people who lack the job security we have as foundation employees?
As I am writing this, I am thinking that I cannot avoid my own complicity and the compromised position I hold. These questions come with a whiff of the patronising (as though we at Lankelly can work out the answers on behalf of others). I can also feel an unease that I know is connected to my own insecurity and self interest. The logical consequence of all this might be that foundation directors are not needed. Someone put it to me recently that this might just be “busy work for high status Guardian readers” anyway (that stung, I must admit). Perhaps I am on a journey of realising that the best thing I can do is to get out of the way.
Cathy Stancer
