Regular readers will know that I often cite the delivery, quality, transparency mantra as important foundations for any socially-beneficial enterprise seeking to operate in today’s world/markets. Two of those, quality (including measurement) and transparency, have collided in a huge furore over a US-based philanthropic funder/evaluator called GiveWell. You know when the founder of an organisation has to title a blog post "I had a lapse in judgement, did a horrible thing, and I apologize", that things are not good.
Basically, one of GiveWell’s founders was caught asking himself a question (with a fake ID), then responding (with another ID) promoting GiveWell. He was also subsequently tracked using various aliases to promote GiveWell elsewhere online and, according to some posts, give their competitors a kicking. Not good, particularly when the organisation has shouted from the rooftops about the need for transparency and openness. This has made the reaction (see GiftHub and the original Metafilter post for the gruesome details) all the stronger and more vicious, alongside the fact that many seasoned professionals in the field had already been rubbed up the wrong way by GiveWell’s perceived arrogance and naivety (the two founders are recent converts from hedge fund management, and their initial response was to offer the MetaFilter community money by way of an apology).
The laundry continues to be aired in public too. The much-respected blogger Lucy Bernholz is on GiftWell’s board, and has posted here asking what she/the organisation should do. Having put itself forward, as Jeff Trexler puts it, as a model of accountability, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
What’s interesting about this, I think, is not only the importance of walking the walk as far as transparency is concerned, but also about really understanding the internet and its power (constructive and destructive). If people thought that this blog was being used to advertise products, or had press releases placed with it, it would damage the credibility…as would any suggestion that we were making up comments on this blog or other people’s. At the same time, people expect the blog to represent and inform about the work of SSE and its students and Fellows, amongst other material, in as fair and objective a way as possible. We don’t always get the tone right, and sometimes have strong, subjective opinions, but trying to manipulate the audience is never an option, as GiveWell are discovering.
Incidentally, our new intern Thor does exist and is not a figment of my imagination. He’ll be giving the unvarnished, barely moderated truth in his month-long stay with us here….
[UPDATE: the GiveWell founder has been demoted to Program Officer, according to this official statement from the organisation’s board]
This incident shows the danger of believing in simply applying a market mentality and the corresponding mechanisms to every situation. The drive to move fast and hard — a necessity in the hedge fund world — doesn’t serve one nearly as well in philanthropy (though market manipulation of this type with a hedge fund could have landed them in jail).
One of the big dangers to social enterprise is the attempt of well meaning but over confident converts from the mainstream private sector to think that overlaying their “best practices” on the non-profit sector will solve the world’s problems.
It is interesting when those who supposedly made their fortunes through the “free” market feel entitled to subvert those market forces for their own gain. Is it stupidity or just arrogance?