So I think it is key that foundations start communicating about what a great job they do AND the mistakes they makes. The first without the second is just PR. The second without the first might make things worse. Doing both, will I believe, lead to the increasing influence of foundations.

The costs and benefits of admitting mistakes are shaped by the context. The benefits we’ve talked about in this thread, but let’s consider the costs for a moment - again, in the spirit of understanding the incentives foundation leaders have, so that we can offer more targeted advice/solutions/ideas that will promote greater communication around mistakes.

In the corporate and political worlds, there’s already an existing degree of visibility/exposure, so your mistakes are out there, people probably know about them, so a response is expected. Sean’s last point applies to that situation: early response is better and builds trust.

But in the foundation world, the level of visibility is not the same. In this context, a public admitting of a mistake may be the first time large parts of the public have ever even heard of the institution. So this can create a problem for leaders of that foundation to be willing to step forward.

This problem is compounded in some cases by a point BEEN THERE brings up: some foundations are dependent on donors for their continued operation. An additional vulnerability. What’s more, most foundations are local, so the focus of negative feedback is more concentrated.

So we have a number of categories that it’s important to keep in mind in promoting greater foundation transparency and communication around mistakes:
* Private foundations are less vulnerable to negative feedback from admitting mistakes than public charities and corporate foundations/giving programs
* National/regional foundations are less vulnerable than local foundations
So it follows that we’d expect community foundations to have the hardest time admitting mistakes, because they’re local and depend on donors. And we’d expect private, national/regional foundations, like Hewitt and Irvine, to have the (relatively) easiest time doing so: hence Brest and Canales taking the lead.

Now, with a better understanding of the potential costs of admitting mistakes, let’s go back to the benefits. And it’s here that the institutions that bear the greatest potential costs can also reap the greatest potential benefits. Community foundations have the advantage of relatively higher levels of visibility in the community. They’re also committed to the community for the long term. So there’s a context of good work in the past, present, and future against which mistakes can be judged by the public.

The answer is more communication overall. If your message is out there in the community about the good things you’re enabling nonprofits to do through your giving, then a mistake can be seen in context. Lack of communication about success breeds lack of communication about failure. So get out there and tell your story in good times, so you can also tell it in bad times without paying reputational costs. And everyone will benefit: your community, your grantees, other foundations - heck, maybe even your own conscience….

But if your reason for discussing failures is to help others learn from your mistakes, then it seems to me that the core audience should be other foundations since they’re the ones who can learn most directly from other foundations.