4 ms·

I was on the board of a foundation that was charged with giving out money for a cause, and I found it very disillusioning because what I learned was that no mat

I was on the board of a foundation that was charged with giving out money for a cause, and I found it very disillusioning because what I learned was that no matter what the foundation did, they would declare victory. Every project was victorious. Every project was a success. There was a lot of back slapping. There were a lot of high-sounding mission statements and vision statements, a lot of congratulations, a lot of nice dinners—but nothing ever got done. This is what most nonprofits, and a surprisingly large number of businesses, are like: https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-through-grant-applications-at-all/ https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-throug.... Some nonprofits mistakenly believe that grant evaluations are about evaluating the efficacy of the program, rather than declaring victory: https://seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-stern-book-discussion/ https://seliger.com/2013/06/02/with-charity-for-all-ken-ster...

lumost 5y ago
An important corollary is that if you mistakenly attempt to rationally evaluate a program when everyone expects backslapping... then it's going to come across as a declaration of abject failure. When stakeholders expect victory to look rosy, and instead it looks balanced then they'll believe something went wrong.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  I accidentally killed a very promising project this way. I gave a pitch demonstrating how it could stand up brilliantly to multiple avenues of ruthless investigation and criticism. People didn't listen to the words, they listened to the emotion of the ruthless investigation, and they discarded the idea in favor of one which would have tipped over if someone had brought a similar magnifying glass to within a mile. Once I realized that good pitches were about emotions, I started getting much better results.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    It's a very painful moment in everyone's career when they realize that, no, they're not the only one that has noticed that powerpoints are usually full of fluff, and no, they're not going to get anywhere by changing that, because yes, they got that way for a reason.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      I don't think it's just presentations or even corporate culture in general. I sell second-hand goods online, and have found that explicitly describing any defect completely torpedoes the sales process. Having a photograph that shows it off clearly but saying nothing doesn't have that effect, though.
      - lumost 5y ago
        It’s the same bias, we’re so accustomed to sales pitches proclaiming perfection that an honest pitch sounds like the top of a disaster.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        Honestly, I think it goes much deeper than that. The more I learn about optimising the business for revenue, the more I come to understand that consumer-focused retail is essentially a socially acceptable form of prostitution. We don't exist to solve a problem in peoples' lives, but to satisfy primal urges, indulge fantasies and make people feel powerful/special. The actual product you take home is just a souvenir. Going back to GP's comment, I wouldn't be surprised if many corporate jobs could be looked at this way too.
        posix86 5y ago
        Perhaps that is cultural? We're used to faults only being addressed when they're really dire; hence, if you address any faults, your product must be in a dire state. In reality, that is probably the case, but it's also the case that any culture always moves in this direction; the nash equilibrium is reached only if you describe your product a bit too rosy.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> I was on the board of a foundation [ ... ] I strongly suspect this was a US-based foundation. That behavior is not exclusive to the USA, but much, much more predominant here. It's almost a stereotype of US (individual and corporate) behavior.
robocat 5y ago
Quote from reviewed book in link: “a bedrock and simplistic assumption that has long shackled the charitable world: that money spent on direct services is the only worthy use of charitable funds, while money invested in organizational effectiveness is to be kept as close to zero as possible. It is an equation widely accepted by the donating public, by the press, by charity watchdogs, by government regulators, and by most charities themselves. To keep overhead costs down, charities forgo necessary investments with devastating and sometimes deadly results.” There are a lot of parasitic organisations that provide shitty expensive advice/consultancy services to crappy charities. A sort of web of symbiotic parasites, helping charities to provide no value. It is no surprise that crappy charities can spend a ton of money on “organisational effectiveness” that only return negative value overall.
77pt77 5y ago
> There were a lot of high-sounding mission statements and vision statements, a lot of congratulations, a lot of nice dinners—but nothing ever got done. Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. "The Red Queen"

lumost 5y ago

An important corollary is that if you mistakenly attempt to rationally evaluate a program when everyone expects backslapping... then it's going to come across as a declaration of abject failure. When stakeholders expect victory to look rosy, and instead it looks balanced then they'll believe something went wrong.

jjoonathan 5y ago
I accidentally killed a very promising project this way. I gave a pitch demonstrating how it could stand up brilliantly to multiple avenues of ruthless investigation and criticism. People didn't listen to the words, they listened to the emotion of the ruthless investigation, and they discarded the idea in favor of one which would have tipped over if someone had brought a similar magnifying glass to within a mile. Once I realized that good pitches were about emotions, I started getting much better results.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It's a very painful moment in everyone's career when they realize that, no, they're not the only one that has noticed that powerpoints are usually full of fluff, and no, they're not going to get anywhere by changing that, because yes, they got that way for a reason.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I don't think it's just presentations or even corporate culture in general. I sell second-hand goods online, and have found that explicitly describing any defect completely torpedoes the sales process. Having a photograph that shows it off clearly but saying nothing doesn't have that effect, though.
    - lumost 5y ago
      It’s the same bias, we’re so accustomed to sales pitches proclaiming perfection that an honest pitch sounds like the top of a disaster.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        Honestly, I think it goes much deeper than that. The more I learn about optimising the business for revenue, the more I come to understand that consumer-focused retail is essentially a socially acceptable form of prostitution. We don't exist to solve a problem in peoples' lives, but to satisfy primal urges, indulge fantasies and make people feel powerful/special. The actual product you take home is just a souvenir. Going back to GP's comment, I wouldn't be surprised if many corporate jobs could be looked at this way too.
      - posix86 5y ago
        Perhaps that is cultural? We're used to faults only being addressed when they're really dire; hence, if you address any faults, your product must be in a dire state. In reality, that is probably the case, but it's also the case that any culture always moves in this direction; the nash equilibrium is reached only if you describe your product a bit too rosy.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> I was on the board of a foundation [ ... ] I strongly suspect this was a US-based foundation. That behavior is not exclusive to the USA, but much, much more predominant here. It's almost a stereotype of US (individual and corporate) behavior.

robocat 5y ago

Quote from reviewed book in link: “a bedrock and simplistic assumption that has long shackled the charitable world: that money spent on direct services is the only worthy use of charitable funds, while money invested in organizational effectiveness is to be kept as close to zero as possible. It is an equation widely accepted by the donating public, by the press, by charity watchdogs, by government regulators, and by most charities themselves. To keep overhead costs down, charities forgo necessary investments with devastating and sometimes deadly results.” There are a lot of parasitic organisations that provide shitty expensive advice/consultancy services to crappy charities. A sort of web of symbiotic parasites, helping charities to provide no value. It is no surprise that crappy charities can spend a ton of money on “organisational effectiveness” that only return negative value overall.

77pt77 5y ago

> There were a lot of high-sounding mission statements and vision statements, a lot of congratulations, a lot of nice dinners—but nothing ever got done. Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. "The Red Queen"