An Untapped Opportunity for Impact: Funding Networks of Rising Leaders
Underwriting early stage leaders animated by big ideas does not clearly and predictably realize the pre-set outcomes of a philanthropic strategy. But it works!
Many philanthropists focus on funding nonprofit programs and interventions meant to function as instruments of their strategies. These funders tend to underemphasize if not dismiss outright investments in networks of emerging leaders and ideas that, while broadly aligned with their strategies, are not specifically dedicated means for achieving them. Paradoxically, such hyper-strategic philanthropists are more apt to shortchange their own impact.
Putting the Federalist Society in Motion
Consider the Federalist Society – widely and rightly seen by its defenders and critics alike as one of the most effective and influential nonprofits of the last fifty years. But consider the Federalist Society not in the form and at the scale that have made it (in)famous over the past 25 years. View it instead in the initial years of its existence.
When it started up, back in the early 1980s, the Federalist Society was a self-organizing network of clubs founded by and run for the benefit of likeminded students in their mid-twenties at a handful of law schools. Local Federalist Society chapters hosted debates, outside speakers, and legal symposia.
It is difficult (though not impossible, as we will see below) to see this sort of fledgling network getting seed funding today. It had no elaborate theory of change, no timelines for impact, no measurable deliverables.
The Federalist Society’s initial funding was in effect a philanthropic impulse — we might even call it a gift, following the lead of Jason Lewis. In his must-read Substack, The Butterfly Effect, Lewis notes a gift of this sort cannot be extended as a predictable, controlled, and instrumental form of philanthropy:
“At its heart, the ethic of the gift is an ethic of movement. The gift was never meant to sit still. It moves—between people, across time, through networks of reciprocity and care. What makes a gift a gift isn’t just that it’s given, but that it travels. It stirs relationship. It activates responsibility. It circulates meaning. Movement is not incidental to the gift—it is its essence.”
The funders who underwrote the Federalist Society gave in this fashion. They wanted to attract, rally, and animate groups of conservative and libertarian law students who found themselves increasingly outnumbered and isolated at left-tilting law schools. What those spirited and precocious twenty-somethings would go on to do with their legal educations, inflected and linked by their participation in FedSoc, was entirely up to them. But the gifts that underwrote their activities helped set them in motion.
In his masterful book on the conservative legal movement, Steve Teles sums up his explanation of the growth and influence of the Federalist Society by concluding that, “perhaps most importantly, the Society is a producer of social capital in the form of networks that develop as byproducts of Society activities.” He goes on to offer this observation on the social entrepreneurs who started up the Society:
“The key decision this entrepreneurial cadre made was to narrow its mission to facilitating the activism of its members and influencing the character of the intellectual debate rather than directly influencing the actions of government itself.”
The Federalist Society, and the funders who backed it early on, thus sought to invest in up-and-coming leaders and a distinctive set of ideas that resonated with them, putting the resulting network in motion. Where and how the members of this network would move, and whether the gifts involved would ultimately pay dividends, were to be determined. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, it has all the trappings of a sure bet on a grand strategic plan. Back in 1981, it was anything but.1
Farsighted Funding of Nascent Networks
While it is uncommon to encounter funders and nonprofits that are investing in rising networks of leaders without presuming or planning to control what they will go on to do or where they will do it, they do exist. Indeed, in the first half of this year, I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking with fellows in three different networks that operate along these same lines:
The Civic Science Fellows Program, which seeks “to invest in a new cohort of leaders and foster new collaborations, allowing science and research to more meaningfully connect with diverse communities and our shared civic life.”
The Center for Christianity and Public Life’s Fellowship Program, which serves “an intergenerational class of Christians interested in intensive, community-based learning about the intersection of faith and public service.”
The Moynihan Center’s Undergraduate Fellowship Program, which “prepares promising [City College of New York] students for impactful careers in government, policy research, and civic leadership.”
After such experiences, I make a point of reflecting on what I observed and what was encouraging (or not) about the group with whom I met. Looking back, I am struck by the common themes running across these programs and my conversations with their respective fellows, nonprofit hosts, and funders. All three programs…
Are grounded in shared values and beliefs they have articulated about what is good and true and right. Yet they also recognize that different participants can and will move toward these desired ends along a wide range of paths.
Select promising leaders who are determining their future directions – the goal is to help them clarify and get in position to take at least the initial next steps in their journeys, even if their ultimate destinations remain open-ended.
Operate quite intentionally as “formative institutions,” to use my AEI colleague Yuval Levin’s term. That is, they seek to shape and inform the perspectives, self-understandings, and aspirations of their participants.
Provide collective and networked experiences and solidarity — not only for successive peer groups and cohorts of participants, but also for program staff, advisors, funders, alums, and mentors who have come alongside to support them.
These are just three examples of farsighted programs I have recently encountered. No doubt others are out there. There will be more still if and when funders realize they can supercharge progress toward their strategic goals by giving up control of their gifts and instead setting high-potential leaders and ideas in motion.
My understanding of the Federalist Society in its earliest manifestations is also based on conversations over the years with Gene Meyer, who recently stepped down after more than 40 years of service as the President and CEO of the Society. In addition, and in the interests of full disclosure, I funded the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative from 2014 through 2022 while directing the Hewlett Foundation’s U.S. democracy grant making.
Another of the "rising networks of leaders" programs would be Sphinx LEAD, for the "next generation of executive arts leaders," of which I have been a beneficiary (and I think my current and previous employers would agree!) https://www.sphinxmusic.org/sphinx-lead
While I cringe a little at the success of The Federalist Society, in general, I very much appreciate this, and the way that it emphasizes the importance of trusting people, connecting them, inspiring them, believing in them, providing some resources for their moral, intellectual, and professional development, and not imagining that we can micromanage outcomes with strategic plans or impact metrics. Like, if ever-more specialized ROI metrics and intricate funding models worked, we would not be in the current pickle we are in. Thanks for this!