Speaking truth to power: do funding foundations need a Court Jester

• In Event: Accountability

Abstract

Honest feedback is paramount for effective leadership in any organizational setting (Van Velsor, Taylor, & Leslie, 1993). Nonetheless, providing candid feedback to those in power is fraught with challenges, often heightened by organizational properties (Edmondson, 2003). This paper delves into the intricacies of feedback mechanisms within funding foundations by distinguishing between two lines of reasoning. First, we look at the inherent difficulty in both delivering and receiving honest feedback, by applying the concept of parrhesia, or speaking truth without restraint (Foucault, 2001). Second, we investigate the consequences of the challenges posed by certain organizational characteristics of funding foundations, situating our discussion within the broader rise of the nonprofit sector (Ostrower, 2004; Toepler, 1998).

For this research, we investigate four types of funding foundations: ones that get feedback from donors and beneficiaries, ones that get feedback only from donors, ones that get feedback only from beneficiaries, and ones that do not get feedback at all. It must be clear that the challenges for leaders in these organizations to hear the truth are not similar. Through semi-structured interviews with foundation leaders, donors, and beneficiaries, we identify conditions that either facilitate or hinder parrhesia (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). We expect our findings to underscore the perpetual need for some kind of 'court jester'—an entity or mechanism that can candidly relay truth to power, particularly in the context of the marketization of the nonprofit sector (Mintzberg, 1985; Frumkin, 2006). Moreover, we expect that the necessity for multiple functionalities of the court jester becomes more pronounced in funding foundations depending on their possibility to get feedback from donors and beneficiaries (Brest & Harvey, 2008).

This research introduces parrhesia, the ancient concept of unrestrained truth-telling, into modern organizational studies, providing a novel lens for examining feedback dynamics in power structures (Foucault, 2001). It classifies funding foundations based on feedback sources, crafting a systematic framework for studying feedback in diverse settings (Brown & Moore, 2001). A highlight is the reimagining of the 'court jester' role from historical contexts, symbolizing candid feedback mechanisms in today's organizations (Mintzberg, 1985). Practically, the study enhances self-awareness in funding foundations by identifying conditions impacting parrhesia, fostering more transparent environments (Edmondson, 2003). Tailored feedback strategies emerge from insights into which court jester functions align with different foundation types (Van der Ploeg, 1995). By emphasizing feedback from donors and beneficiaries, the research empowers these stakeholders, hinting at stakeholder-centric policies (Freeman, 2010). These insights can drive policy recommendations, advocating for strengthened feedback systems and better leadership. In sum, the paper seamlessly marries ancient concepts with contemporary organizational practices, offering invaluable insights for academia and practice.

References

Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 569-587.

Brest, P., & Harvey, H. (2008). Money well spent: A strategic plan for smart philanthropy. Bloomberg Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(1), 99-115.

Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless speech. Semiotext(e).

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.

Frumkin, P. (2006). Accountability and legitimacy in American foundation philanthropy. The legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspectives, 99-122.

Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as a political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 133-154.

Ostrower, F. (2004). Attitudes and practices concerning effective philanthropy. The Foundation Center.

Salamon, L. M. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 5(2), 125-151.

Toepler, S. (1998). Foundations and their institutional context: Cross-evaluating evidence from Germany and the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 153-170.

van der Ploeg, T.J. Supervisory powers relating to foundations: A comparative analysis of foundation law. Voluntas 6, 255–274 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02354016

Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 46(6), 717-737.

Authors

• Juri Hoedemakers

• Lucas Meijs, Erasmus University Rotterdam

• Philine van Overbeeke, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam

• Sara Compion, Kean University