Why are grantmakers stuck in separate siloes?

One of the most unexpected twists in my career was becoming the first-ever head of technology at the Walmart Foundation in 2013, thanks to a chance encounter with its president. She was looking for someone to lead the IT team, and I was looking to contribute to society on a deeper, more meaningful level than my role leading the software testing of merchandising and logistics applications. 

New to the world of corporate philanthropy, I dove into the complexities of grants management, logic models, and theories of change. I worked with an array of practitioners—grants managers, program officers, finance experts, and others—and learned everything I could about corporate social impact. 

So, when the opportunity arose for me to become CIO at the Walton Family Foundation, one of the world’s largest private grantmakers, I was thrilled but cautious. Why? I expected to have to learn about private philanthropy from scratch, as I had with corporate philanthropy. But to my surprise, the two worlds were strikingly similar. Then I wondered: Why do private and corporate grantmakers continue to operate in separate silos? What might we achieve if we worked together? 

There’s no reason for separate silos 

It’s easy to assume that private and corporate grantmakers are fundamentally different. Corporate grantmakers typically align their giving with business goals, often reinforcing their company’s mission or bolstering their brand reputation. Private foundations, by contrast, are perceived as aiming to solve social challenges and drive positive outcomes in the world. 

While these distinctions can be valid, in terms of work processes and technology, the two types of grantmakers are strikingly alike. They both have grant programs aligned with an overarching mission and overseen by program officers and grants administrators. The staff mostly use the same tech tools and rely on the same data to inform their grantmaking. Some private and corporate grantmakers use the same grants management systems, and many platforms designed for each type of organization are very similar. And both private and corporate funders use grants data and nonprofit profiles—to vet prospective grantees, to perform due diligence, and to discover organizational details like staff demographics. 

And both types of grantmakers tend to have similar views on key grantmaking practices, such as valuing rigorous impact measurement and reporting, transparency and equity, and community engagement. 

Private and corporate grantmakers have complementary strengths  

It all begs the question: With so many similarities in work processes, technologies, and perspectives, why isn’t there more collaboration and exchange of ideas between corporate grantmakers and private foundations? For example, at both the Council on Foundations and PEAK Grantmaking, corporate grantmakers account for less than 10% of members. At the Technology Association of Grantmakers (TAG), it’s less than 5%. Just imagine the advances corporate and private funders could achieve by coming together to share new ideas and best practices. Practitioners from these two groups bring complementary strengths to the table, and by collaborating, they could significantly amplify social impact.  

On one hand, corporate grantmakers are steeped in business acumen and are adept at operating in an environment where short-term goals and quarterly business reviews require efficiency and precise measurement of goals and KPIs. At the Walmart Foundation, many of my colleagues came from other areas of the company and had extensive knowledge of corporate operations and advanced data analysis. This level of knowledge would benefit private philanthropy, where many practitioners have more traditional academic backgrounds. 

On the other hand, private foundations tend to emphasize deep expertise in a specific issue area and a longer-term focus and commitment to addressing systemic challenges. Their approach could help corporate practitioners approach their work with a more strategic, comprehensive focus on outcomes. As corporate grantmakers often focus on shorter-term partnerships with fewer local nonprofits, this approach to systemic change could help corporations create longer-term, more sustainable outcomes in their local communities. 

By working together, these two types of grantmakers could pool resources, share insights, and develop collective strategies that are more innovative and impactful than either could achieve on their own. The end result would be greater impact and sustainable change that ultimately benefits nonprofits and communities, leading to better outcomes and systems change. 

Collaboration can amplify impact 

The gap between private and corporate grantmakers is more a product of perception than reality. By recognizing shared strengths and fostering collaboration, corporate and private funders can harness their complementary expertise to drive greater social impact. It could be as simple as more corporate practitioners joining member organizations like PEAK and TAG to participate in knowledge sharing and dialogue about best practices. Practitioners from both types of organizations could broaden their career opportunities by seeking employment outside of their respective silos, where their skills and experiences would add new value and diversity. 

Breaking out of silos and working together isn’t just about merging practices—it’s about multiplying the potential for meaningful change. By combining our respective expertise, we can amplify our collective efforts to build a more equitable and impactful philanthropic landscape. 

Photo credit: insta_photos via Getty Images