“This is more important than just saying no nicely”:

Grantmaker and grantseeker

communications at the point of grant refusal

Anton Bradburn and Jenny HarrowCass Business School, City University

A collaborative research project, work in progress (CAF and ACF)

- an evident research gap, a ‘private matter’?

- the theory and practice dimensionsorganisational learning and rationing ; 2 case studies

- our starting point – pilot work in the SW,on ‘grant rage’….

 

Before snowball sampling grantmakers, we pictured them hypothetically , facing expressions of grant rage as

- Absorbers - Absolvers - Agony Aunts or Nodders - First Aiders - Stone Wallers

First Aider model paradoxically added to the grant rage, and inhibited learning?

 

A limited study – the critical factor of those “suffering in silence”……

How do grantseekers and grantmakers characterize their communications with when grant success is not achieved?

• What learning are grantseekers and grantmakers able to draw from these experiences and characterisations?”

Glass, 1999: “if grant makers and grant seekers can communicate more frequently and more frankly, the organizational changes that take place in foundations in the next century can be productive and rewarding…”

The Rockefeller Brothers Foundation (2004) - poor rating from failed grantseekers, “less approachable” -38% response level

•

Main communications survey not yet underway ; meanwhile, we are back into case studies …

1 . A ‘pre survey’ survey led to the offer of a case study by a failed grant seeker, with some “heavy duty learning”

2. Grant rage wins in the South West – secondary–sources mini-case of the Arts Council reversing adverse grant decision for the Northcott Theatre, Exeter

1.The ”Easy Street” case study

Act ‘The Natural Fit’ :Act II “This is our project..

Act III ‘the Waiting Game’    

Act IV: ‘The Lack of a Letter’

Epilogue: “I ‘ll stage manage it next time”…

Learning not to invest too hard in any bid, ‘cut and paste’ from other work, substantially limit development of high commitment relations, put on a show; avoid being “over –motivated”

2. The Northcott Theatre, Exeter case studyi. ‘the shock’ –December 07, losing ACE

yearly grant of £547,000 from April 2009; but a slightly open door ….

ii. Campaigns commence – a ‘bandwagon effect’

iii.The ACE U –turn in January 08 ; “sensational backtracking”

iv.Whose victory?......

“Moments of Reprieve, Dec/Jan 2007/8” 0r “Don’t You Just Love It When You’re

Right?”

Exeter’s Vice Chancellor: the grant-rager’s perfect scenario

 

“” The Arts Council has listened to the reasoned arguments put to them by the Theatre and its funders.

We always felt that the case for retaining the Theatre's funding was unanswerable and that has proved to be the case."

Some (preliminary) concluding thoughts

- no suggestion of indifference towards failed grantseekers,tho’ they may feel it - what counts as useful learning for the non successful ? (lessening effort and commitment not what grantmakers want?)

- public grant rage - energizing supporters, or more (just) an expression of rise of incivility in the workplace? What legitimises grant rage? GR as bullying?

-“More than saying no nicely” – a major challenge, since grant making is at heart a financial transaction ,about which there will never be perfect information

- rationing concepts need to be discussed? But (Mechanic, 1995)

“Explicit rationing is unlikely to be as equitable as its proponents argue and is likely to make dissatisfaction and perceived deprivation more salient.”

“..grantseeking is a term invented by those with power, about those without power”.

(Mayer 1993)