Telephone Calls and Meetings with Applicants
No matter how well worded the foundation's external communications may be, there will still be a never-ending parade of requests from grantseekers to talk with and to meet with you. Grantmakers often feel besieged by this insatiable demand. Some spend too much of their time trying, without success, to meet it. Some throw up their hands and refuse to be disturbed. Both approaches are counterproductive in the long run. There is a happy medium between becoming enthralled by nonstop outside demands and turning into the second coming of Greta Garbo. Achieving this happy balance requires a disciplined approach to grantmaking.
Many new program officers have vowed to pursue an open-door policy: being accessible on demand to anyone who phones or who asks for a face-to-face meeting. If they religiously follow this policy for any length of time, they soon discover that they have lost control of their schedule and that they no longer have sufficient time to devote to other important parts of their job, such as managing funded projects. There are ways, however, to preserve accessibility while protecting your calendar.
Telephone calls are the bane of many grantmakers because of their utter unpredictability. They interrupt meetings, derail trains of thought, and imperil deadlines. However, there are ways to handle even this bugaboo. A simple policy is to take an unsolicited telephone call only if you are not doing something more important, such as trying to meet a deadline imposed by the CEO. One variation on this policy is to demur on taking the phone call now but to ask the caller to try again during specified office hours. Another and more precise variation is to make a firm telephone appointment time. Either approach has the virtue of placing telephone calls under your control and, by bunching, minimizing the constant interruption that the telephone brings in its train.
Controlling meetings presents a somewhat different set of challenges. Most foundations require grantseekers to make an appointment in order to visit a program officer but leave the details of the arrangements up to him or her. It is always in the interest of the grantseeker to have a face-to-face meeting with you; sometimes it is in your interest as well. There are two tests you can apply to decide if a meeting (or for that matter, a phone call) is warranted. The first test is whether the person seeking the meeting has a substantive agenda. It is always in the interest of the grantseeker to have “get acquainted” meetings with you before proposing anything specific. In fact, such meetings sometimes turn into fishing expeditions, with the grantseeker-angler trolling for information from you, the fish. Sometimes, for political reasons, you cannot avoid such meetings. If possible, however, you should insist that there be something substantive on the table to discuss, such as a concept paper or a proposal. This imposes some discipline on the grantseeker and gives the meeting a definite purpose.
The second test is whether the applicant will agree to a reasonable time limit. From the standpoint of the grantseeker, the longer the meeting, the better: it gives him or her a greater chance to get to know you and the foundation you represent. From your point of view, as the length of a meeting increases, you experience diminishing returns, and valuable time is lost. Set a time limit and stick to it. An hour is usually sufficient; anything longer than two hours should be reserved for those who have traveled great distances or have a complex, expensive proposal to present. Courtesy meetings should be limited to a half hour, if at all possible, as it is highly unlikely that a grant relationship will develop from them.
The meetings themselves must be conducted with enormous sensitivity. The late Dr. Peter Ellis, a long-time program director with the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, was a master of foundation meeting etiquette. More than fifteen years of experience as a grantmaker led him to propound Ellis's Iron Law of Meetings and to derive eight rules for conducting meetings based on it. Ellis's Iron Law of Meetings states, “All grantseekers are optimists searching for affirmation; therefore they are prone to misinterpret any communication from a grantmaker, whether verbal or nonverbal.” Dr. Ellis was adamant that grantmakers must be direct and clear in their oral and written communications with applicants. They must be especially conscious of the signals they are sending, whether overt or subtle, whether intentional or unintentional. If program officers are careless or imprecise in their communications, grantseekers will leave the meeting with precisely the opposite message than the one intended, leading to needless misunderstandings and potentially dangerous consequences. The eight rules that Dr. Ellis formulated for meetings are aimed to minimize this threat of miscommunication and to remove ambiguity from the grantmaker-grantseeker relationship. They apply equally to telephone conference calls.
ELLIS'S FIRST RULE: Define the purpose and predict the probable outcome of the meeting very clearly at the time of setting it up.
In his experience, Ellis noted that because the process of foundations is largely a mystery to most grantseekers, some of them actually believe that getting a meeting is tantamount to getting a grant. In order to demystify the process, therefore, you should inject clear expectations at the beginning. For example, if the purpose of a meeting is merely a courtesy call, then you should convey to the applicant, as tactfully as possible, that it is highly unlikely that the meeting will lead to a grant. It is far better to deliver disappointment early, before expectations are built up.
ELLIS'S SECOND RULE: Begin the meeting with a disclaimer.
Ellis used to tell of a frustrated grantseeker who, when Ellis declined his request, blurted “Why not? You are the program officer, aren't you?” The title of program officer may suggest to some people that its bearer has the authority to make unilateral decisions about funding requests. It is wise, therefore, to begin by saying (as is true of most foundations) that you propose but others dispose. No decisions can be made at this meeting, so the most the applicant can expect is to educate the foundation about the applicant's idea. Nor can you make any guarantees that the final decision about the request, once made, will be favorable.
ELLIS'S THIRD RULE: Remember that it is vitally important to qualify statements, especially positive statements.
Such words as if, should, in case, and possible are your best friends. Unless you qualify a statement, the grantseeker will interpret it to be true. For example, Ellis told of a young grantmaker who was asked by an applicant to explain the foundation's proposal review process. “Well,” responded the program officer, “first we read your proposal, then we recommend it for funding, then the officers of the foundation sign off on it, and finally the board approves it.” The program officer thought he was delivering a hypothetical scenario, but the applicant interpreted the affirmative statements to mean that the request was already approved. Later, after the proposal had been declined, the applicant called in great anguish to say that he had already informed his board that the proposal would be approved by the foundation. According to Ellis, here is what the grantmaker should have said: “Well, first we will read your proposal. If it meets our criteria and if it is competitive, then it is possible that we might recommend it for funding. Should the officers of the foundation sign off on it, then it would go to the board. The board does not approve every proposal we send for funding, but in case they should approve this one, then it would be officially a grant.” This statement contains no fewer than six qualifications. That may sound like overkill, but you must remember that an applicant will likely seize on any unqualified statements, so it is necessary to qualify every time when discussing the probable fate of a proposal. Another of Ellis's aphorisms should be mentioned here: “There is a word for program officers who unilaterally promise people grants. That word is unemployed.”
ELLIS'S FOURTH RULE: In grantmaking, the possibility of failure does exist (in contradiction to the apocryphal doctrine once attributed to Queen Victoria).
You must explicitly state this possibility to the applicant during the course of the meeting. “Every time I failed to mention during the meeting that the proposal could be declined,” said Ellis, “after I declined it later, I would get a phone call from the disappointed grantseeker, who would say ‘But you never said that it might be turned down.’” Of course, any proposal can be turned down, but it is better not to leave unstated that simple fact of foundation life. If worse comes to worst, it is extremely helpful to be able to remind the applicant that you had uttered those very words of warning during the meeting.
ELLIS'S FIFTH RULE: We send important messages not only through words but also through nonverbal cues, tone of voice, and general demeanor.
Ellis often told of a meeting he attended when he was new to the foundation, at which an applicant was asking for $6 million for a project that was clearly outside the scope of the Kellogg Foundation's programming interests. The senior officer conducting the meeting gave the applicant this message, but he did it with such warmth and in such an encouraging tone of voice that the applicant came away believing that her proposal had only to be submitted to be funded. It later fell to Ellis to disabuse the grantseeker of this notion. Clearly, she had not heard the words: what came through were the smiles, the empathy, the warm tone of voice. Unfortunately, this story has been repeated many times in many different foundations. Grantmakers tend to be positive people who wish to be affirming even when they cannot give someone money. So if it becomes necessary to deliver bad news, or even a tough disclaimer, they try to soften the blow. What comes across to the grantseeker, unfortunately, is not the negative message but rather the warm and fuzzy nonverbal cues. A similar problem arises when you become enthusiastic about the concept under discussion. Your verbal disclaimers duly offered are drowned out by the sense of enthusiasm in your voice. You need first to be aware of this phenomenon, then to alter your behavior accordingly. It is important to be attentive but not overenthusiastic, cordial but not overwarm, affirming but not overencouraging. Finally, you should issue a specific disclaimer about behavior, such as, “If I appeared enthusiastic about your idea, I would suggest that you do not attach any significance to it. Decisions about your request will be made by a committee, so one person's opinion will not be decisive.”
ELLIS'S SIXTH RULE: Be sure before the meeting ends to clearly summarize what happened during its course and to review the next steps that were agreed on.
As Ellis used to remark, “It is quite possible for two people to attend two entirely different meetings together.” In the course of an hour or more of intense conversation, it is easy indeed for the parties to misunderstand such points as whether a formal or informal proposal should be submitted, the amount that should be requested, or the timetable for next steps. Discussing these outcomes explicitly near the end of the meeting ensures that both parties have a chance to iron out any misconceptions, achieve a common understanding of what transpired, and agree on what comes next.
ELLIS'S SEVENTH RULE: Close the meeting by reiterating every disclaimer uttered during its course.
Again, it may appear to be overkill, but as Ellis was fond of saying, “I'd rather have them consider me redundant now than have them consider me repugnant later.” It simply saves infinite trouble in the long run if every applicant understands that you cannot unilaterally say yes; that the foundation can, and may very well, unilaterally say no; and that your nonverbal reactions are not a reliable forecast of the outcome of the request.
ELLIS'S EIGHTH RULE: Document the results of every meeting.
“I have never regretted writing meeting notes,” said Ellis, “but I have always regretted it on every occasion when I thought I was too busy to do it.” Take notes during the meeting and translate these notes into a document as soon as possible afterwards. This is sensible for at least two reasons. First, if the meeting leads to a proposal that is eventually funded, then the meeting notes become the first entry in the file that must be kept on the project. Second, if the proposal is eventually declined, you will have a record of the meeting in case the grantseeker complains about the decision to a higher authority within the foundation.
It is worth repeating that all of Ellis's rules for meetings, including the eighth rule, apply to telephone conferences as well as to face-to-face encounters. It is all too easy to make a promise over the telephone, then to completely forget about it after hanging up. Documenting phone calls is not always convenient (or even safe, if the conversation is taking place over a car phone), but it is professionally sound practice to document it as soon as possible afterwards.
A final note on meetings: the vast majority of all grantseekers are honest and ethical professionals, but a tiny percentage are not. In the best of all possible worlds, grantmakers would never attend meetings without a colleague present. Every program officer with a few years of experience in the field has a horror story in which one of the few unscrupulous grantseekers deliberately lied about something he or she supposedly said or did during a meeting. Of course, it will not be possible, especially in smaller foundations, to avoid solo meetings. If, however, you have any reason to be concerned—or a “gut” instinct is aroused—it is always a good idea to have a witness, or at least to document the meeting all the more carefully.