Amidst the ongoing discourse surrounding power dynamics and equity, there’s a pressing need to explore how individuals and institutions navigate the complexities of power shifting. How do we move beyond conventional structures and embrace amore inclusive approach to decision-making and resource distribution? In our conversation with Nate Wong, partner at The Bridgespan Group and Openfields advisor, we explore the transformative potential of power shifting in shaping the world of philanthropy.
Can you start by telling us what power shifting means to you and how it evolved over your career?
NW: Power shifting, to me, is about acknowledging the existence of power dynamics and understanding our individual and collective roles within them. It’s recognizing our agency in shaping those dynamics and deciding how we use that understanding to create more equitable relationships and systems. This perspective has evolved significantly for me over my career, particularly as I’ve become more attuned to my identity as an Asian-American and how it intersects with power dynamics in various spaces.
Can you elaborate on some tipping points or moments of realization you’ve experienced in your journey toward embracing power shifting?
NW: There were two key inflection points for me. As an Asian-American, I've often felt the pressure to assimilate and conform to dominant (often white) cultural norms, which sometimes meant suppressing aspects of my identity that didn’t align with those norms. However, as I’ve grown professionally and done internal work, I've come to see the power in embracing and celebrating all facets of my identity as an asset and not a liability, including those that may have been marginalized or overlooked.
Also, I’d say that a career shift six years ago from consulting to advising was pivotal for me. Embracing elements of leadership coaching highlighted the significance of drawing out individuals’ answers rather than imposing solutions from above. This shift marked a move away from a top-down paternalistic approach to one that empowers people by valuing their perspectives and honoring their agency by creating space and dialogue.
How do you see power shifting manifesting in philanthropy, especially in light of recent reckonings around issues of equity and justice?
NW: The discourse on power shifting often assumes that those in power are merely ceding it to those who lack it. But for me, it's about redefining power and recognizing different kinds of assets, such as lived experiences, as valuable contributions. Philanthropic funders must move beyond merely delegating power and start acknowledging the expertise and wisdom that exist within communities and valuing their contributions as equal partners in the pursuit of social change.
Sadly, this approach requires a lot of brokering due to the widespread skepticism and mistrust of traditional institutions(philanthropy, government or otherwise), and that’s where credible intermediaries like Openfields or Bridgespan can bridge gaps by creating spaces for objective discussion and dialogue, acknowledging that we don't operate on neutral ground. Establishing trust and fostering meaningful relationships are paramount in this process.
All of this begins with internal reflection. Are our current practices yielding the best outcomes? Are we inclusive of diverse voices in decision-making? Rather than adopting trends, we must critically evaluate and interrogate our approaches and question the status quo. Internal questioning precedes community engagement; it sets the stage for thoughtful brokering and discomfort management.
All of this begins with internal reflection... Rather than adopting trends, we must critically evaluate and interrogate our approaches and question the status quo.
For those who want to examine their own roles and biases in power dynamics, what steps do you recommend they take?
NW: Self-reflection and introspection are key first steps. It’s important for individuals to interrogate their own positions of privilege and how they may contribute to or perpetuate existing power imbalances. Tools like those offered by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project can be helpful in guiding this process, particularly for grant makers. But there’s a larger shift that needs to take place around how we conceive of value. Like in leadership coaching, success involves defining metrics with communities, not imposing them externally. The funding world can demand rigorous metrics, which can overshadow qualitative successes. Initiatives like the Boston Impact Initiative and Ujima Project in Boston or East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative Fund and Real People’s Fund in Oakland are great examples of a participatory approach to investing in the community. Projects like these highlight the importance of community relationships and participatory governance in defining value. Communities should drive their own success metrics, not just fulfill external criteria. This shift requires funders to relinquish control and embrace evolving metrics aligned with community needs.
Shifting to a more trust-based approach in philanthropy requires a willingness to embrace uncertainty and relinquish control to some extent. What are some of the trade-offs or challenges you’ve observed in this transition?
NW: I think one of the main challenges is redefining notions of accountability and success within philanthropic organizations. Accountability discussions can’t solely revolve around meeting predetermined goals. While those metrics matter, the conversations themselves, the relational touchpoints, hold intrinsic value. Moving away from traditional metrics of success, such as output-based measurements, toward acknowledging the value of relational investments requires a fundamental shift in mindset and culture. These touchpoints require time, investment, andthoughtful questions to understand progress and setbacks more completely. This can be uncomfortable for some organizations that are used to operating within more rigid frameworks. Building trust and relationships takes time and intentional effort, which may not always align with the urgency of certain issues or funding cycles. However, the long-term benefits of trust-based approaches, including stronger partnerships and more sustainable impact, far outweigh the initial challenges.
You teach a course “Building a Social Impact Consciousness" at Georgetown University where students develop personal manifestos. Can you share a bit about your own manifesto and what it entails?
NW: George Eye, a co-founder of Greater Good Studio, once asked, “Who am I to do this work [in social impact]?”That question really resonates with me and has helped shape my vision for thework I do. My personal manifesto is all about embracing the complexities of who I am. It’s about reclaiming my identities as assets. I’ve come to see this as abridge-building opportunity as I navigate predominantly white spaces or BIPOC communities. It’s about reclaiming what I once felt unsure about and recognizing it as a strength. I see myself as a container builder, creating spaces for others to recharge and reflect. Rather than being at the forefront, I’m more about facilitating dialogue and asking the right questions. It’s about giving others the room to explore and grow. Living by my manifesto means constantly checking in with myself. Am I staying true to my values? Am I acknowledging my own power and privilege? Am I holding myself accountable to my community? But at its core, my manifesto is about embracing who I am, fostering inclusivity, and building genuine connections for positive change.