Like many endeavors, family philanthropy benefits from thoughtful approaches to decision-making. In practice, however, boards have to contend with family dynamics, group norms, varying personalities, timelines, and more. And, different decisions may call for different types of decision-making. For example, a large shift in strategy is likely a decision that the whole board should agree on. But a relatively inconsequential decision need not get bogged down in a voting process and may be a decision best made unilaterally.
For the Rasmuson Foundation, group decision-making processes have been a largely successful practice, highlighting the potential of collaborative decision-making to bring stakeholders together and strengthen relationships while improving the quality of the decisions the foundation makes. “There can be misplaced distrust in family philanthropy,” says Board Chair Adam Gibbons. “But when people come together and recognize that you’re all working toward the same shared purpose, that’s what builds trust and results in better decision-making.”
An Evolution Toward More Inclusive Decision-Making
Today, CEO Gretchen Guess and Gibbons, a third-generation family member, characterize the foundation’s decision-making as quite collaborative, with a goal that major choices about grants, governance, operations, and more are made with a high level of buy-in from the board. “We strive toward consensus on most things but sometimes have to fall back on a majority or supermajority,” says Gibbons.
That hasn’t always been the case, though, and Gibbons partially credits a generational and leadership shift. “We operate differently than when we were founder led. We are far more group-oriented,” he says. Previously, the board chair and CEO largely made decisions with some input from board members and sometimes decisions were made before they sought input. While Gibbons says the foundation is “much slower to make decisions” now, both agree that inclusive decision-making has paid off in other ways. “I think the collaborative nature within the board, within the staff, and between the board and staff have increased trust and healthy relationships,” says Guess.
Working through tough decisions together can foster trust, and trusting relationships can also support smoother relationships. “Board members each come with their own agendas, concerns, fears, and ambitions. Working together through a challenging task—such as revising your bylaws, hiring a new CEO, or launching a new initiative—that requires sharing agency and not having the final decision rest with a single person, that’s how you build trust,” underscores Gibbons. Guess shares that they’ve built a culture that allows them to hold each other accountable and ask hard questions. “We have worked hard on radical transparency and using one-on-one conversations to gain feedback,” she says.
Delegating to Committees
Committees have been a critical structure for the 12-person Rasmuson board. Every board member serves on at least one standing committee, which includes finance, grantmaking, governance, nominating, audit, and investment. Additionally, the foundation uses ad-hoc committees as needed. Committees are charged with asking questions, doing their homework, and bringing a recommendation back to the whole board.
Although Rasmuson’s committees typically aren’t given decision-making authority, Gibbons and Guess say it has improved their group decision-making. Delegating work to committees gives a smaller group of board members the opportunity to dig deeper into an issue in ways that the full board doesn’t have the capacity to do. Aided by the trusting relationships that board members have developed with each other and with staff members, “committee recommendations are often fully taken and not contracted by the full board,” says Guess. For example, Gibbons says the grantmaking committee serves as a liaison and sounding board with the staff. “The committee asks questions of the staff members and helps them hone their due diligence to ensure that they provide the board with a stronger docket.”
The Value of Community Board Members
Half of the Rasmuson board is made up of community members—something that Gibbons and Guess say enhances the group’s decision-making. “Our family has a rich, longstanding history of having outside experts at the table,” says Gibbons. This began with the bank the family ran, which had an advisory board of Alaskans from different sectors. “Alaska’s a big state and it’s a complicated state. We make better decisions with people who understand the issues at the table—who are from a particular region or a particular part of the economy. That was true in the commercial sector and it’s true in family philanthropy.”
Guess says the family members are well aware of the value that community board members bring to the group’s decision-making. “The family members respect the local knowledge and skills that the community members bring to the board and will often ask and receive this expertise during deliberation.” Gibbons agrees, “get the smart voices around the table and your decision-making will be better for it.”
Power and Family Dynamics in Decision-Making
Power dynamics are undeniably at play in family philanthropy. For the Rasmuson Foundation, dynamics shifted with leadership transitions, as Gibbons and Guess work less unilaterally than their predecessors. To mitigate power dynamics between family and community board members, Gibbons says they seek community members who have “experience and conviction and the willingness to voice an opinion in a room with 11 other vocal members,” though he says it can take a few meetings for board members to find their voice. While community board members have equal voting rights and are respected by the family, family members may hold more power by virtue of being family and having longer tenure on the board. Guess says the foundation is “working to improve this reality through stronger recruitment, onboarding, and participation.”
Family dynamics are also inherent to the practice of family philanthropy. “Board meetings with generations of family can be hard, even emotional at times,” Gibbons says. “As an organization, though, we still need to be able to function and we need to move forward with a decision.” To move forward when emotions, family dynamics, and power dynamics get in the way, both Gibbons and Guess recommend an external facilitator or advisor. Not only can a skilled facilitator or advisor provide a new perspective or the expertise a team needs, but Gibbons also notes that they can depersonalize issues and help to make sure that everyone is heard.
A Quirky Enterprise
Family philanthropy is, as Gibbons says, “a quirky enterprise” where participants bring their individual experiences, funding biases, emotions, and assumptions to a group effort. For the Rasmuson Foundation, seeking consensus the majority of the time has come with its challenges, but has resulted in more deliberate, inclusive decisions that support a stronger impact. For other families, a less collaborative approach may be more effective. Regardless of how your family makes decisions, be thoughtful about who you include in the process and the tradeoffs and benefits of your approach. You can learn more about the decision-making methods family philanthropies can employ in The NCFP Guide to Demystifying Decision-Making in Family Philanthropy.