Grantmaker Collaboration: An i4 Case Study on Talking the Talk vs. Walking the Walk

Order Here

By Michael Gilbert & Mike Bergfors

In philanthropic circles, collaboration is one of those “it goes without saying” ideas. In other words, it’s widely regarded as a good thing and rarely debated. But does it really go without saying? In a report on some of the largest private foundations in the U.S., The Gilbert Center compared how grantmakers talk about collaboration online and what they actually do about it. This case study examines that research through the lens of The Gilbert Center’s i4 Framework.

Intelligence: The study chose certain keywords on grantmaker websites as indicators of sentiment favoring collaboration. Outbound linking behaviors were chosen as indicators of collaborative activity. A careful look at this data shows enormous diversity of attitude toward collaboration and remarkably infrequent – but revealing – direct online collaborative action.

Insight: With the evidence at hand it looks like talking about collaboration and acting collaboratively may not have much to do with each other, in that no correlation exists between talking about collaboration and actually taking collaborative actions online.

Integrity: Linking may be an excellent indicator of collaboration, but as a force-field diagram reveals, there are many other factors to consider. Also, linking is not the only collaborative act and many such acts would never be visible online.

Innovation: Further areas for investigation might include: Examining where collaboration is already actually happening successfully. Examining the barriers to online collaboration. Adjusting marketing metrics to put outbound traffic on the same footing as inbound traffic. Is collaboration actually as important as we make it out to be? If not, perhaps toning down the advocacy so prevalent in the sector. Building on these metrics and expanding their scope and utility, applying them to other areas of foundation work, including the activities of grantees.