编者按
我们很高兴与大家分享由罗素家族基金会(The Russell Family Foundation)的创始人理查德•罗素和CEO理查德•吴所撰写的文章，文中描述了他们对家族基金会透明度的理解和如何把握工作中的透明程度和意义。
在现代文化中，透明度已经成为一个热门词，但你是否注意到公开透明正在成为形式化工作?你有没有发现自己曾密切关注自己与他人分享了多少信息?他们和你分享了多少，自愿的程度如何?
如果是这样，那就说得通了：这是我们保护自己的一个重要部分。我们大多数人都把透明度和信息披露联系在一起，作为建立理解和终极信任的一部分。但是当我们把这些标准分开时会发生什么呢?可以通过透明度来帮助建立更好的关系吗?
我们认为可以。
如果使用得当，透明度是一种强大的力量。关键是在广泛的接触和互动中决定什么是“合适的”。在我们之前的文章中，我们分享了(1)在信息公开与成员参与之间寻求平衡和(2)用三维棋盘、时间轴等信息共享工具来提高透明度的经验。这一次，我们希望集中精力，分享透明度如何实现双赢。
图片来自网络
当然，最主要的好处是信任——信任是任何关系的基础。随着时间的推移，透明度会建立信任，因为这是我们展示自己和自己想做的事情的方式。我们展示自己的某些事实，并表明我们愿意被审视和评估。我们倾听也被听到。
例如，有原则地坚定立场或承认错误是展示透明度的有力方式。这样做需要勇气，但这种真诚可以为新的、更深层次的关系铺平道路。它还能让人们从这些关系中获益，比如建立关系网、倡导、合作、发现和联合资助等等。也就是说，研究和经验都表明，透明度不是一个放之四海而皆准的解决方案。过度(或强加)的透明度会带来反向后果，包括效率降低、创新受阻，以及在必要时无法保持适当的保密性。(参见罗伯特·里德博士Robert Reid撰写的《私人基金会的不透明性》The Opacity of Private Philathropy一书，以进一步探讨这一观点。)
例如，一个家族基金会愿意尝试创新项目，传统的政府资助机构会认为这些项目太有争议或风险太大。鉴于它们较少受到公众监督，它们在支持创新方面处于更有利的地位。然而，在这种情况下，太多的透明性可能会使有希望的项目偏离轨道，导致额外的成本；或者更糟的是削减资助。这又变成了为了透明而透明。
正如许多熟悉企业经营之道的人证明的那样，在短期内不透明的做法，实际上可以促成更好的结果。私营部门明白这一点，因为它是市场经济的一部分。家族基金会也应该注意这一点。
三重过滤测试
一般来说，家族基金会根据他们的组织价值观和管理层能力来决定透明度的适当程度或必要性。这些帮助我们决定何时主动或被动地透明——以及透明到何种程度。此外，像我们的三维棋盘这样的工具可以帮助确定在与社区的不同成员联系时存在的边界，并有望促进跨社区的沟通。
然而，我们发现还有另一种历史悠久的方法很有用。这是希腊哲学家苏格拉底提出的三重过滤测试的一个变体。
据说，苏格拉底设计了三个过滤器来过滤谣言中有价值的信息。第一个过滤器是真理。苏格拉底会问别人想要分享的消息是否绝对真实。第二个过滤器是“善良”。苏格拉底想知道这些信息是正面的还是负面的。第三个过滤器是有用性。苏格拉底需要知道这些信息是否实用或必要。如果过滤器显示出信息既不真实、也不好、也没用，那么苏格拉底会问：为什么要分享它?
他说得有道理。
本着同样的精神，当我们参与一个项目时，我们喜欢问自己一些过滤问题，以帮助我们判断我们是否需要更透明或更不透明。例如：
我真正的目标是什么?
有多少利益相关者?
他们的角色和观点是什么？
什么样的信息是最相关和/或最有用的?
哪些额外的细节可以提供信息、支持或鼓励?
期望得到、建设性的反馈有多少?
这样的考虑可以帮助我们找到透明度的最佳点，避免“过度共享”。“这一过程有助于我们从同事那里获取信息，因为透明度往往是相互的。最重要的是，它帮助我们表现得更好。更好的沟通总是带来更好的结果。
当我们开始对罗素基金会的环境项目进行战略性的改进时，这一点变得非常清楚。过去近十年来，我们一直成功地支持着加州普吉特湾地区的可持续发展项目，但我们不满意的是，带来的改变还不够快。我们的员工和理事会认为需要新的想法。
2009年，我们开始了全面的重新规划。在这个过程中，我们的一些重点领域，如绿色事业（Green Business），被逐步淘汰。同时一些诞生了出来，比如皮亚乐普流域倡议（Puyallup Watershed Initiative）。
图片来自网络
还有其他的重点领域缩小了规模，如环境教育和普吉特湾恢复，以最大限度地扩大社区影响。所有这些变化对我们的资助事业带来了重大调整。
从一开始，我们就知道我们寻求的改变会以不同的方式影响我们网络中的成员：不是每个人都会对结果感到满意。一些合作伙伴最终将获得退出资助，而其他合作伙伴将不得不调整其资金要求，以满足最新的指导方针。具有挑战性的会谈摆在面前。因此，我们的工作人员采取了高度透明度的程序，以显示我们对平稳过渡的承诺。
当达到不同的时间节点时，我们不断通知受赠方和资助申请者。当潜在的新方向出现时，我们咨询了合作伙伴的专业知识和想法。最终，当宣布改变时，他们给出了一个的完善的说明。最重要的是，我们分享了一份详细的报告，总结了我们在几十次访谈中所听到和学到的东西，访谈对象包括受赠方、社区利益相关者和思想领袖。此外，在任何更改公开之前，受赠方会接到私下电话或面对面沟通，以详细了解这些决策并讨论其影响。
非营利组织在听到他们不再符合资助者的优先资助范围时是很难过的，但是当他们在规则变更时得到征询，这对双方是有益的。最后，即使是不再有资格获得资助，受赠方也对能够参加对话并受到尊重表示真诚的感谢。
透明度是双向的，不是每个人都以同样的速度前进。根据我们的经验，家族基金会可以通过清晰、诚实、坦率地传递利益相关者所期望的信息来适当地模仿公开透明。作为反馈，他们将获得更深、更有成效、更持久的关系。
原题：Nurturing Relationships with Transparency
来源：National Center for Family Philanthropy
日期：2017年9月28日
Editor’s Note: We are very pleased to share a year-long series of blog posts from leadership at The Russell Family Foundation (TRFF) describing the deep and ongoing work they are engaged in together to better understand the levels and meaning of transparency in their work. Our thanks to the Fund for Shared Insights for supporting NCFP’s work in the area of transparency and family philanthropy. If you would like to hear more on this topic please join Richard for two sessions at NCFP’s Forum.
Transparency has become a “buzz” word in modern culture, but have you ever noticed how the notion of transparency tends to be transactional? Have you ever found yourself keeping tabs on how much information you share with others? How much they share with you and how freely it is volunteered?
If so, that makes perfect sense: it’s a big part of how we protect ourselves. Most of us link transparency with disclosure as part of an exchange that builds understanding and ultimately trust. But what happens when we separate these standards? Can transparency be redeployed to help build better relationships?
We think it can.
Transparency is a powerful force when used appropriately. The trick is deciding what is “appropriate” across a wide range of contacts and interactions. In our prior blog posts, we shared our experience cultivating transparency through the lens of finding balance and sharing knowledge. This time around, we want to concentrate on ways to harness transparency for mutual benefit.
The main benefit, of course, is trust – the foundation of any relationship. Over time, transparency builds trust because it’s how we reveal ourselves and our intentions. We expose certain facts about ourselves, and signal our willingness to be exposed and evaluated. We listen and are listened to.
As an example, taking a principled stand or owning up to mistakes are powerful ways to show transparency. It takes guts to open up this way; but such sincerity can pave the way for new and deeper relationships. It also unlocks the benefits of those relationships, such as networking, advocacy, collaborating, inventing, and co-funding to name a few. That said, research and experience both demonstrate that transparency is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are consequences to excessive (or imposed) transparency, including lost efficiencies, stymied innovation, and the inability to maintain appropriate confidentiality where necessary. (See The Opacity of Private Philathropy, by Dr. Robert Reid, for a further exploration of this perspective.)
For example, consider a family foundation that is willing to experiment with new programs that traditional governmental funding agencies would see as too controversial or risky. They are better positioned to support innovation given that they are less subject to public scrutiny. However, in cases like this, too much transparency could derail promising projects, resulting in additional expense to get the work back on track; or worse, a forfeiture of investment. This comes back to the transactional aspect.
As many familiar with the expediency of business will attest, opaque practices that impede transparency in the short term, can actually contribute to better outcomes. The private sector understands this and it’s part of the competitive market. Family foundations should take heed too.
The Triple Filter Test
Typically, family foundations rely on their organizational values and managerial skills to determine how much transparency is appropriate or necessary in a relationship. These help us determine when to be proactively or reactively transparent – and to what degree. In addition, tools like our three-dimensional chessboard can help determine where boundaries exist when connecting with various members of the community and, hopefully, facilitate communications across them.
However, there is another time-honored method that we find useful. It is a variant of the Triple Filter Test attributed to the Greek philosopher, Socrates. According to legend, Socrates devised three filters to screen worthwhile information from rumors. The first filter was truth. Socrates would ask if the news someone wanted to share was absolutely true. The second filter was goodness. Socrates wanted to know if the information was positive or not. The third filter was usefulness. Socrates needed to know if the information would be practical or necessary. If the filters revealed that information was neither true, nor good, nor useful, then Socrates would ask: why share it at all?
He had a point.
In the same spirit, when we engage on a project, we like to ask ourselves a few filtering questions to help us gauge if we need to be more or less transparent. For instance:
What is the real objective?
How many stakeholders are involved? What are their roles and points of view
What kind of information would be most relevant and/or useful?
What additional details would be informative, supportive or encouraging?
How much feedback is desired/constructive?
Considerations like these help us find the sweet spot of transparency and avoid “over-sharing.” This process helps us solicit information from our associates, because transparency tends to be reciprocal in nature. Most of all, it helps us perform better. Better communication always leads to better results.
This became abundantly clear when we initiated a strategic refinement process of the Foundation’s Environmental Program. We had been successful supporting sustainability projects in the Puget Sound region for nearly a decade, but we weren’t satisfied that things were changing fast enough. Our staff and board felt that new ideas were needed.
In 2009, we initiated a comprehensive redesign effort. During the process, some of our focus areas, like Green Business, were phased out. Others were born, like the Puyallup Watershed Initiative.
And still other focus areas, such as Environmental Education and Puget Sound recovery, were narrowed in scope to maximize community impact. All of these changes caused major adjustments in our grantmaking.
From the outset, we knew that the changes we sought would affect members of our network in different ways: not everyone would be happy with the outcomes. Some partners would eventually receive exit grants, and others would have to adjust their funding requests to satisfy updated guidelines. Challenging conversations lay ahead. Therefore, our staff undertook a highly transparent process to demonstrate our commitment to a smooth transition.
As various milestones were reached, we kept grantees and grant applicants informed. As potential new directions revealed themselves, we consulted our partners for their expertise and ideas. Ultimately, when changes were announced, they came with a thorough rationale. On top of that, we shared a detailed summary of all that we had heard and learned during dozens of interviews among grantees, community stakeholders and thought leaders across the Sound. Furthermore, before any changes went public, grantees received personal phone calls or had one-on-one meetings with staff to review the decisions and discuss their impact.
It’s tough for nonprofits to hear that they are no longer “a fit” with a funder’s priorities. But it helps when they feel consulted in defining the change process. In the end, even grantees who were no longer eligible for funding expressed their sincere appreciation for being included in the conversation and treated with respect.
Transparency is a two-way street, and not everyone travels at the same speed. In our experience, family foundations can model suitably transparent behavior by delivering what their stakeholders expect – clarity, honesty, and candor. In return, they will be rewarded with deeper, more productive and long-lasting relationships.
*免责声明：本站文章图文版权归原作者及原出处所有 ，文章内容为作者个人观点，并不代表本网站。如果您发现网站上有侵犯您的知识产权的作品，请与我们取得联系，我们会及时修改或删除。
