Management Pitfalls

Grantmakers soon discover that the art of managing funded projects is a difficult one, indeed. There are any number of snares for the unschooled or unwary, and while many could be mentioned, four stand out as the most dangerous.

Fire and Forget

In the U.S. military, there is a class of missiles that is so automated nothing need be done to guide them after they have been launched, hence the nickname “Fire and Forget.” Some grantees complain that that is exactly what some program officers do: “fire” (make the grant), then “forget” (ignore the management of the grant). One long-time grantseeker even compares the situation to the rituals of courtship: “There is a first meeting, a few dates, then you are going steady. All this time, grantmakers pay you lots of attention, but after you consummate the relationship—boom! They never call, they never write.” There can be no denying that some of this goes on in the relationships between grantmakers and grantees. The need to be thorough in front-end due diligence—to meet, read proposals, write Q&C letters, make site visits—takes time, and the need to meet payout makes these tasks urgent. There is no comparable urgency associated with managing existing grants.

You should always keep in mind, however, Stephen R. Covey's distinction between the urgent and the important (1989). Not all urgent things are important (the ringing telephone urgently demands an answer, but an aluminum siding salesperson may be calling), and not all important things are urgent (providing technical assistance to a funded project will result in greater impact at its close, but the technical assistance need not be delivered today). The fallacy arises when you begin to believe that if a task is not urgent, it is not important—and therefore the truly important task is not merely deferred but actually ignored. Active management is essential in order to maximize project outcomes. To fire and forget may be a good military doctrine (assuming you have the right missile), but it is a bad strategy for grantmaking.

Full Immersion

This is the polar opposite of Fire and Forget—much less common to be sure, but no less problematic. In fact, it is probably worse, because benign neglect is usually better than malign meddling. To continue to use the imagery of relationships, if Fire and Forget is the equivalent of “love ‘em and leave 'em,” then Full Immersion is the equivalent of an obsessed suitor. In this situation, the program officer becomes inappropriately involved in activities both directly and indirectly relating to the grant. He not only sits on the advisory board for the project but also begins to compete with the project director in the day-to-day management of the project. He not only visits but visits repeatedly. He not only dispenses technical assistance but also delves into personnel issues and budgetary minutiae.

To be truly effective, you need to be, in the parlance of elementary education, “the guide on the side.” In the Full Immersion mode, you are the “sage on the stage.” It can be tempting, while dispensing technical assistance, to become impatient and finally to wade in and handle matters personally. This is the wrong thing to do on two counts. First, it wrongs the project director, whose responsibility it is to administer the project. Second, it wrongs the foundation, which is paying you to manage several projects, not focus like a laser on the daily operations of a single project. You need to maintain a healthy distance so that you keep the big picture in view.

Ignoring the Good Kids

All parents of a challenging child will recognize the problem: the child who is a handful absorbs all of their energy and attention, while the “good kids” get shortchanged. In the same fashion, problem projects urgently demand your attention, and you spend so much time fighting their fires that there is insufficient time left to manage the good projects. Although fighting fires is good, ignoring high-potential projects most emphatically is not. From the point of view of society, it is bad because so much potential is wasted. From the point of view of your own portfolio, it is also bad, for the problem projects rarely return great outcomes—and neither will many promising projects if they do not get any of your help. But how can you ignore a plea for help from any funded project? The answer: sometimes it is necessary. It is far better to let a few projects stumble—better even to experience an occasional failure—than to consistently squander latent superb outcomes by allowing potentially great projects to lie fallow.

Moreover, if you have a portfolio full of problem children, it suggests that something is very wrong with the foundation's selection process or with your judgment. A few clinkers are inevitable, no matter how careful the vetting might be. (If a foundation is taking on the proper amount of risk and not simply funding unimaginative “safe” projects, the occasional problem-filled grant is unavoidable.) But a portfolio of grants that is overrun with duds means that poor judgment in selection has become the rule rather than the exception. The important thing is to do what you can for the problems without ignoring the needs of the good kids.

Avoiding the Average

If good kids often get the short end of the stick, the average kids often get no stick at all. One grantmaker put it this way: “Once you have gotten the grant, if you never want to see me again, just perform in a consistently mediocre fashion. If you louse up, I will be there to bail you out. If you excel, I will be there to work with you on expansion or on bringing the project to scale. But if you don't screw up and don't distinguish yourself either, I will be somewhere else: with a flop or a star.” Unless you are making grants in the foundation-world equivalent of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon—where all of the commitments are above average—it is true that in grants management, the bad is the enemy of the good, and both are the enemies of the average. The mediocre project is easiest to ignore because it is not itself on fire, nor does it appear as if it is going to set the world on fire. This is an understandable calculation for you to make, but it is fallacious on two counts. First, it shortchanges the project, which, if it was worth funding in the first place, is probably worth helping now. Second, it shortchanges society, for although troubled projects rarely can be elevated all the way to being high in impact, average projects often are not that far away from excellence, and sometimes a little technical assistance from you is just the missing ingredient. For these reasons, you should never ignore the average.