WEBVTT - A Guide to a Better Way to Get Ahead at Work 0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:09.480 Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Business 0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:13.760 Week with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:14.320 --> 0:00:17.160 Carol Masser, Yes, you can't always get what you want. 0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:19.640 Have you heard that Mick Jagger says that Rolling Stones say. 0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:20.000 Yeah, they do. 0:00:20.840 --> 0:00:22.520 It may be true, but if you play your cards right, 0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:25.280 you can get what you need from the people you 0:00:25.320 --> 0:00:27.360 work with. At least that's what human behavior professor and 0:00:27.440 --> 0:00:30.280 career coach Melody Wilding says in her new book. She's 0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:32.960 professor of human behavior at Hunter College. The new book 0:00:32.960 --> 0:00:35.519 it's out this week. It's called Managing Up. How to 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:37.360 get what you need from the people in charge. She 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:40.240 joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive at Brokers Studio. Welcome. 0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:42.120 Can I just say I was telling you. 0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:43.080 Fan of the Rolling Stones? 0:00:43.159 --> 0:00:44.839 No, I am a fan. I mean with Jagger at 0:00:44.840 --> 0:00:47.519 the oscars. I mean, how cool was that? Having said that, 0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:50.600 I remember someone one saying to me, you're so good, 0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:52.240 but you don't manage up enough. 0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:53.640 And it was like, who was that? 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:55.680 And when I'm going to tell you the details? But 0:00:55.840 --> 0:00:58.800 what was kind of crazy later off air? But it mean, 0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:02.720 you know, in most of my life. I just did 0:01:02.720 --> 0:01:06.440 my job, did it well, worked really hard, and things 0:01:06.520 --> 0:01:11.040 just happened. But I understand the importance of managing up. 0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:14.800 Tell us first of all, tell us exactly what that means. 0:01:15.280 --> 0:01:18.720 Yes, And I think it's worth rebranding managing up because 0:01:18.720 --> 0:01:21.040 a lot of people hear it and they think suck up. 0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:24.000 They think the person who's ingratiating themselves to their body. 0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.080 I think it's suck up exactly, we see someone exactly. 0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:31.120 But managing up done well is building a relationship with 0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:34.360 the people that have more positional power than you. Primarily 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.240 that's going to be your manager, but today a lot 0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:41.200 more people besides your direct boss control your success and 0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.440 your future at work. And so, just as you were saying, 0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:47.360 it is more important than ever because work is more 0:01:47.480 --> 0:01:51.040 complex than ever, and now that more people are working 0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:55.400 remotely in hybrid you don't have as much organic access 0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:57.480 to the people you work with. You do have to 0:01:57.520 --> 0:02:00.800 make more of an effort to make your accomplishment it's visible. 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:03.200 To build a relationship, all of that has to be 0:02:03.280 --> 0:02:04.360 so much more intentional. 0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:06.320 Well, as I mentioned, you're a professor of human behavior 0:02:06.320 --> 0:02:09.080 at Hunter College. You're also a career coach and a 0:02:09.080 --> 0:02:12.600 lot of your book is based on real life interactions, 0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:16.679 really conversations counseling that you've done with some of your clients. 0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:20.040 What are the themes that emerged when it came to 0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:23.800 the modern workplace? Because it kind of sounds simple, but 0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:25.600 it's not simple. It's pretty complex. 0:02:25.240 --> 0:02:28.000 Stuff, that's right, that's right. I think one of the 0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:31.160 key themes is realizing that you work with people that 0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:34.920 are different than you. And I know that sounds very obvious, 0:02:34.960 --> 0:02:37.639 but so many of us were in our own bubbles 0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:42.080 and we take things personally when in actuality, what we 0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:46.000 think are difficult behaviors are actually just a result of 0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:47.160 different styles. 0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:48.960 What do we say, don't take it personally? 0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:55.919 Okay, Carol, But yeah, it's so funny because we think 0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:59.519 about segments. Let's be real, right, be real. We think 0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:03.640 about it and there is a performance aspect, an entertainment aspect, 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:06.360 and formative aspect. But you want it to be an 0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:09.240 interesting and engaging conversation. Could be a killer story, but 0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:11.680 if you don't have the right voice, it's just not 0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:14.920 going to go well. And so right, it's not show friends, 0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:17.960 it's show business. Has some smart individual once said to 0:03:18.040 --> 0:03:20.560 me this idea is you don't just have on people 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.520 you know that maybe you like or whatever. You want 0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:28.440 to have an engaging conversation, because that's part of the 0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:29.240 business we are in. 0:03:29.600 --> 0:03:32.200 Well, that's where some of the psychology comes in, right. 0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:35.320 You have to open up too much, talk about going back. 0:03:37.320 --> 0:03:41.320 You have to understand people's pressures, desires, and you have 0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:45.000 to frame your message around that, not because you're trying 0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:47.200 to be someone you're not, but so they connect with 0:03:47.320 --> 0:03:50.080 it and they hear you and they're interested. And so 0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:52.320 that's part of how do how do we make it 0:03:52.360 --> 0:03:56.720 appealing to what people really want? And especially in the workplace, 0:03:57.000 --> 0:03:58.000 that's all the more important. 0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:00.000 And the other thing though, I wanted to pick up 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:01.720 is when you said that the idea of don't take 0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:03.960 it personally, and this is another thing you and I 0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:05.720 talk about. It's like, well, wait a minute, I'm a 0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:08.320 person and I've got feelings. So when someone says like, well, 0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:11.320 don't take it personally, it's like, how are we supposed 0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:11.920 to think about that? 0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:14.120 Yes? And when I mean bad station with you, yes, 0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:17.280 And I'm sure you both in just before we were recording, 0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:19.880 you were saying how fast everything is changing, and so 0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:22.159 I'm sure, you're on the receiving end of emails that 0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.080 are just one word okay, got it. And for some 0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:28.720 people they may take that personally and say, does this 0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:30.839 person hate me? Am I getting fired today? Why did 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.960 they use a period instead of an exclamation point? And 0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:36.800 what I'm saying is that some people that may be 0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:40.520 their default communication style, where you may lead with a 0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:42.560 lot of context and pleasantries and. 0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:43.240 How are you doing? 0:04:43.320 --> 0:04:46.200 And you want to know about their personal life, and 0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:49.560 other people are straight to the point. They want the bullets, 0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:51.640 they want the bottom line. And when you know that 0:04:52.600 --> 0:04:55.599 you understand where their behavior is coming from, you're much 0:04:55.640 --> 0:04:58.400 less likely to go to that worst place. 0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:02.560 Is it possible, well to understand each other if you're 0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:04.200 not in the office physically together. 0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:06.200 I think it is. I think it is. In the 0:05:06.320 --> 0:05:08.520 first chapter of the book, I talk about what's called 0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:11.520 the Alignment conversation. The book is actually based around these 0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:16.400 ten conversations for managing up to give people methodology to follow, 0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.839 and in there I talk about being observant. Yes, you 0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:24.080 can ask questions about someone's preferences, but you also have 0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:27.960 to have your eyes open. How is someone communicating even digitally? 0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:33.120 Are they communicating and sending you things via Slack or text, 0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:36.000 for example, who's speaking up first in meetings, who's turning 0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:39.680 their camera on or not unmuting themselves. All of those 0:05:39.720 --> 0:05:42.640 are cues about the power dynamics and what's going on. 0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:45.440 So what would you say, like, I put down the 0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:50.000 lie forgetting to mute themselves. I always am and they're like, 0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:54.000 I'm on the subway platform. Could you ah, like how 0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:55.760 to ask for a raise, how to say no to 0:05:55.800 --> 0:05:58.680 your boss, how to ask for promotion or an opportunity? 0:05:58.760 --> 0:05:59.839 Are there rules around? 0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:04.359 And obviously every relationship, even in the workplace, is going 0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:06.640 to be specific and different. But I wonder if there's 0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:07.440 some thoughts on that. 0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:12.120 Definitely thoughts on that. I would say rules, not exactly, 0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:13.599 because every workplace is different. 0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:15.479 As part of managing up, though, part. 0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:19.320 Of managing up exactly is having organizational awareness to understand 0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:22.279 the environment that you're operating in the workplace culture, but 0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:26.680 also who you're dealing with. Let's talk about saying no, 0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:30.800 for example, because today you can't just outright say no. 0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:33.080 There is an expectation that you will be a team 0:06:33.160 --> 0:06:37.240 player and everyone's being expected to take on more, so 0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.159 you can't just say I'm not doing that. And in 0:06:40.200 --> 0:06:42.440 the book, I talk about a few approaches. One of 0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:45.400 my favorites I call the trade off approach, and that's 0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:49.279 where you say, okay, I hear X is important in 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.200 order to do why, which you've also shared you want 0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:54.159 me to work on. That means we're going to have 0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:57.800 to temporarily slow down on something else. Are you comfortable 0:06:57.839 --> 0:06:59.400 with that? Or what would you like us to d 0:06:59.600 --> 0:07:04.040 priority ties? And so with that, you're framing the conversation, 0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:06.680 you're framing the decision, but at the end of the day, 0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:09.840 you're putting the authority back in the other person's stand 0:07:10.040 --> 0:07:11.640 to make a call. 0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:14.480 You know, there's a section in the book called Expose Yourself, 0:07:14.840 --> 0:07:17.760 and I know it's a little tongue in cheek, but 0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:20.320 what essentially you talk about is is put get around 0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:23.080 people that you're not typically around. And there's something that 0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:26.480 sticks out here which I love. Take the elevator instead 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:28.160 of the stairs, or grab a coffee from a different 0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:30.040 spot if it means you're more likely to bump into 0:07:30.080 --> 0:07:32.680 someone new or influential. You're here with us. You probably 0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:36.280 noticed the elevators only go to the sixth floor. That's 0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:38.840 by design. Yeah, it's to make sure that you are 0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:42.320 around everybody in the organization work. It totally works. I 0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:43.000 see people. 0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:43.880 From all over things. 0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:46.560 Yeah, but it also raises the question that I have 0:07:46.600 --> 0:07:48.200 if you, you know, you want to open yourself up 0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:50.200 to people at work, this idea of you know, quote 0:07:50.240 --> 0:07:53.080 unquote bringing your whole self to work, right. Like, I 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:54.640 saw a little bit of an eye roll from you 0:07:54.720 --> 0:07:56.760 just now when I said that, do you really want 0:07:56.800 --> 0:07:59.600 to do that? In this day and age. Work is work, 0:07:59.640 --> 0:08:01.680 it's not. It's not you're not hanging out with your friends. 0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:05.040 I understand. I think there's a difference between bringing your 0:08:05.280 --> 0:08:09.360 whole self and being true to who your professional self is. 0:08:09.760 --> 0:08:13.080 Your whole self is who you are at home and 0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:17.640 all of your weaknesses and quirks, and there still needs 0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:20.400 to be an air of professionalism that comes along with it. 0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:25.160 So I don't really believe in this idea of authenticity 0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:28.560 at work because we all have to maintain this air 0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:33.440 of professionalism. So but yeah, it exposing yourself is really 0:08:33.480 --> 0:08:36.640 about how do you put yourself in the path of 0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:39.600 new people that you could meet. Because even though we're 0:08:39.600 --> 0:08:42.240 talking about managing up, yes, it's about your boss. Do 0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:44.400 not make your boss your single point of failure. 0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:48.040 Yeah, that's really interesting. So what you say managing up, 0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:50.960 it's really managing ups. Like there's most people that like, 0:08:51.200 --> 0:08:54.080 there's multiple people that you should be having conversations with. 0:08:54.800 --> 0:08:55.280 That's right. 0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:58.680 Oh, absolutely, whether that's your skip level manager, your boss's 0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:02.360 boss for example, your boss as peers, other powerful colleagues. 0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:06.200 That can be tricky in some situations a ken, because 0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:09.080 then it looks like you're sort of going over the 0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:10.559 head of your immediate manager. 0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:13.559 Yes, well, that's not the first thing you want to 0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:16.439 jump to, and that's why the book is based around 0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:20.000 these conversations, because they build on trust and rapport. But 0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:22.800 when it does come to scheduling a skip level, which 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:25.240 is what we're talking about, you don't want to you 0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:27.040 want to bring your boss in the mix. This is 0:09:27.040 --> 0:09:29.360 something you could bring to your one on one and say, 0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:32.559 I would love to gain a better understanding of the organization, 0:09:32.640 --> 0:09:35.000 the priorities that we're working on. I think a great 0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:37.000 way to do that would be meeting with your manager. 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.640 Would you be comfortable with me doing that? And if 0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:41.760 you think that might be too much of a risk, 0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:44.280 you can also say, how about would you be open 0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:46.880 to your boss coming to our next team meeting or 0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:49.439 all hands for example, so it doesn't feel like you're 0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.440 doing a end run around them. 0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:53.679 You do have a chapter about the money conversation, So 0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:56.000 what's your advice. You just got about a minute left here. 0:09:55.960 --> 0:09:59.800 And show me the money which goes the money to 0:09:59.840 --> 0:10:03.040 make that's bring it up because most people like when 0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:05.640 they go in for a conversation it's either new opportunities 0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:08.800 and or you know, money or a combination above. 0:10:08.840 --> 0:10:11.959 Okay, yeah, two quick things. Don't just focus on what 0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:14.760 you've done in the past. Focus on the value can 0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:17.560 provide going forward, because your boss is going to have 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:20.160 to make a compelling case up their chain of command 0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:23.280 why they should pay you more. And then second is 0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:25.800 when you are asking for more money, frame it in 0:10:25.880 --> 0:10:28.760 terms of fairness. Use language like I want to make 0:10:28.760 --> 0:10:32.240 sure my compensation matches the level that I'm performing at. 0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:35.000 So it doesn't feel like, well, I just deserve this 0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:37.800 or I feel like I deserve this. It sounds more 0:10:37.840 --> 0:10:40.080 like it's coming from a place of equity and just 0:10:40.200 --> 0:10:41.479 writing the skills. 0:10:41.520 --> 0:10:43.800 Do most bosses like talking with their employees. 0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:49.400 It's you know, TVD, TVD. But what I have found 0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:51.760 is that you know, I think I think there's a 0:10:51.800 --> 0:10:54.880 lot of boss bashing out there, and I think most 0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:57.800 bosses are trying their best. They are imperfect people and 0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:01.960 imperfect situations, and they really want to do their best. 0:11:02.000 --> 0:11:04.040 I've had a lot of bosses give this book to 0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:06.679 their team, so you know, I hope we're seeing a 0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:07.440 change for the better. 0:11:07.480 --> 0:11:08.880 And I have to say, like, we're in a pretty 0:11:08.880 --> 0:11:11.560 cool environment that everything's just open. There are no offices, 0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:14.360 so you run into people or you're sitting next to 0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:16.880 like bosses and stuff, so it's kind of out there. 0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.720 It's also a newsroom environment but the whole company, but 0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:21.719 not every place is like that. And I know when 0:11:21.720 --> 0:11:23.720 there are doors and stuff and different floors, it can 0:11:23.720 --> 0:11:24.040 make it a. 0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:24.680 Little bit tougher. 0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:25.720 This was fun. 0:11:25.720 --> 0:11:26.360 Thank you so much. 0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:28.920 Thank you for having it. Melodie Wilding. Her new book 0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:32.000 is Managing Up, How to get what you need from 0:11:32.120 --> 0:11:34.920 the people in charge, and she's professor of human behavior 0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:36.560 at Hunter College. Take some notes there. 0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:40.920 Oh yeah, Paul, you saw me typing. You think I'm doing? 0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:43.440 Do not go anywhere, folks, more to come right here 0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:44.320 on Business Week. 0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:47.040 Well, in just a few years, Mackenzie Scott has given 0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:51.839 away close to twenty billion dollars to thousands of nonprofits. 0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:55.520 What a shock the philanthropic community, though, is not just 0:11:55.559 --> 0:11:57.439 how much she's given away, but how she's done it. 0:11:57.960 --> 0:12:01.840 Essentially raining money on organizations with quote no strings attached 0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:05.840 attitude unrestricted giving is what it's called in that world. 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:11.000 But how effective has it been? Alisha Smith Arigaga is 0:12:11.040 --> 0:12:14.920 the vice president of Research at the Center for Effective Philanthropy. 0:12:14.960 --> 0:12:17.920 It's an organization that uses data to help donors make 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.720 sure their giving is as effective as possible. Alicia, thanks 0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:24.480 so much for joining us this afternoon. Do appreciate it. 0:12:24.520 --> 0:12:29.160 This idea of adding value by giving up control. It's 0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:34.560 what yield giving. Mackenzie Scott's organization is all about what 0:12:34.600 --> 0:12:36.400 did you find in your research about whether or not 0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:37.280 it's working. 0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:39.200 Well. 0:12:39.240 --> 0:12:42.840 Thanks so much for having me today, and we at 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:46.000 the Center perfect of Philanthropy have been studying Scott's giving 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:50.480 over the last three years and serving organizations that receive 0:12:50.600 --> 0:12:54.400 funds through Scott's quiet process, which means that you know, 0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:58.160 organizations would often get a call, you know, inquiring about 0:12:58.400 --> 0:13:00.880 their finances and leadership, and then they get a follow 0:13:00.920 --> 0:13:03.160 up call sometime later letting them. 0:13:03.000 --> 0:13:06.120 Know that they received a really large gift, And what we. 0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:09.040 Learned in our research is that these gifts had tremendous 0:13:09.080 --> 0:13:12.800 impacts not only on the organizations, but on the communities 0:13:12.840 --> 0:13:17.800 the organization serve, on the leaders the organizations serve, and 0:13:18.200 --> 0:13:21.800 we also learned that they're you know, is mixed response 0:13:21.880 --> 0:13:24.520 in the funder community to this kind of giving as. 0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:29.200 Well is of giving based on what you guys are 0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:30.599 finding out. 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:35.439 I mean, from what we learned, we definitely. 0:13:35.040 --> 0:13:39.240 Found that there are huge positive impacts from this type 0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:41.959 of giving. One of the things there there are a 0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:44.160 couple of ways in which this kind of giving is 0:13:44.200 --> 0:13:47.000 different from what typically happens. You know, it's not just 0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:49.800 the size of the gifts. Many folks are like, wow, 0:13:49.920 --> 0:13:52.520 nineteen billion dollars. I don't have nineteen billion dollars. But 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:56.640 it wasn't necessarily the amount. But often Scott's gifts were 0:13:57.240 --> 0:14:01.280 seventy percent of the operating budget on average of an organization, 0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:06.360 which is really large. They were unrestricted in terms of 0:14:06.400 --> 0:14:08.800 the amount of time in which they had to be spent, 0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:12.680 which is very unusual, and then they have few reporting requirements. 0:14:12.720 --> 0:14:16.920 And so those kinds of characteristics are characteristics that we 0:14:16.960 --> 0:14:21.120 see much more rarely in grant making, and so we 0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:25.480 saw some really powerful impacts from those pieces in this data. 0:14:25.560 --> 0:14:28.480 Are there copycats emerging in the best sense of the 0:14:29.000 --> 0:14:33.840 word because they have seen the way it's working. Are 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:36.960 are other individuals organizations starting to do this? 0:14:38.440 --> 0:14:43.040 There are so For example, well, just a few months ago, Jeff. 0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:48.080 Atwood came out saying that he was really inspired by 0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:53.800 Mackenzie Scott's giving. He also is part of, you know, 0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:56.600 a group of folks who have billions to give away, 0:14:56.800 --> 0:15:00.240 and talked a lot in the Chronicle Philanthropy and other 0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:03.200 places about how he was so inspired by her giving 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:04.680 that he was going to give in the same way. 0:15:05.160 --> 0:15:06.520 We also know that this is the. 0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:10.520 Co founder of It's i think a computer programming platform, 0:15:10.600 --> 0:15:14.480 right stack overflow, So yeah, forgive me, yeah, go. 0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.720 Ahead, yeah, So yeah, he was an individual donor who 0:15:17.720 --> 0:15:20.680 we saw using a lot of the same strategies. And 0:15:20.720 --> 0:15:24.520 then there's some foundations as well who have shifted portions 0:15:24.520 --> 0:15:27.440 of their giving to giving in this way. You know, 0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:29.400 would love to see more of us, since the data 0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:32.520 shows that it works, But we are seeing some trickles 0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:35.800 of folks who are doodling this similar kind of giving. 0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:38.320 You know, I have to say, before I came to 0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:41.360 Bloomberg and when I was an undergrad, I did some 0:15:41.480 --> 0:15:47.080 donor and development work for a major business school. And 0:15:47.960 --> 0:15:49.880 it's interesting that I think when a lot of people 0:15:50.440 --> 0:15:54.000 like to donate, sometimes it's a major capital project, you know, 0:15:54.400 --> 0:15:56.520 an addition to a school or so on and so forth. 0:15:56.880 --> 0:15:59.720 But a lot of times, I feel like it's safe 0:15:59.760 --> 0:16:02.440 to say that I think donors like to be very 0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:04.440 involved in where the money's going, and there is a 0:16:04.440 --> 0:16:08.040 lot of strings attached. I'm not saying good or bad, 0:16:08.240 --> 0:16:12.880 it's just sometimes the way it goes. The majority of donations, right, 0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:18.080 philanthropy is often with guidelines with strings attached. 0:16:18.200 --> 0:16:21.080 Yes, yes, that is correct. 0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:24.080 Does some of those, but do some of those strings? 0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:24.320 Also? 0:16:24.920 --> 0:16:27.360 What's good about it is it's transparency and you make 0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:31.160 sure the money is actually spent towards something and it 0:16:31.200 --> 0:16:36.200 isn't somehow potentially wasted away and not necessarily going. 0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:38.040 Towards the goal. 0:16:38.360 --> 0:16:41.360 So is that part of also having those strings attached, 0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:43.000 that you really do know where the money goes? 0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:46.920 Well, I think the really powerful thing here is that 0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:49.800 even though there weren't necessarily strings attached on the back end, 0:16:49.800 --> 0:16:52.520 like Scott was, pretty clear, and for the most part. 0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:54.600 For most of these folks, these were one time gifts. 0:16:54.720 --> 0:16:58.840 Yeah, what they did do was pretty intensive vetting of organizations, Right, 0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:02.160 So they're looking finances, they're looking at leadership, they're looking 0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:05.560 at strategic plans, and they're choosing organizations on the front end. 0:17:06.200 --> 0:17:08.040 So the donor's done a lot of work on the 0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:11.040 front end in terms of, you know, deciding where the 0:17:11.080 --> 0:17:14.040 funds go, and so then if you really trust where 0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:17.359 you've made that investment, there's less of a need to 0:17:17.480 --> 0:17:21.320 then at the back end, you know, trying to determine, well, 0:17:21.359 --> 0:17:23.800 did you know X percent of what I was funding 0:17:23.880 --> 0:17:27.240 go to Y or Z. But you know, really doing 0:17:27.280 --> 0:17:30.720 that upfront work, I think is what's really powerful and 0:17:30.840 --> 0:17:33.359 unique about the way that Scott gave and what we 0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:35.920 see in the data is that organizations were really great 0:17:35.960 --> 0:17:38.560 stories of the funds and did all sorts of innovative 0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:39.240 things as well. 0:17:39.400 --> 0:17:41.600 You know, you shared with our producer Paul Brennan that 0:17:41.800 --> 0:17:47.520 the backlash in terms of her how Mackenzie Scott donated money, 0:17:47.640 --> 0:17:51.600 that there was a backlash from foundation leaders about her approach. 0:17:51.640 --> 0:17:55.840 What specifically did they do, Is it just vocal verbal 0:17:56.119 --> 0:17:59.440 or what was it. What was that backlash? 0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:02.520 Well, you know, there wasn't necessarily backlash, But what we 0:18:02.600 --> 0:18:05.080 found in our data is that there's mixed you know, 0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:08.439 we asked funders and we surveyed a national sample of 0:18:08.480 --> 0:18:11.679 funders who do over five million dollars in grant making, 0:18:12.480 --> 0:18:14.159 if you you know, and ask them if they look 0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:16.000 at Mackenzie Scott's giving, how has. 0:18:15.880 --> 0:18:17.399 It influenced their own giving? 0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:20.119 And what we see is that, you know, while folks 0:18:20.440 --> 0:18:24.040 funders reported a large majority of them that they see 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:26.560 the way that she gives is impactful to the organization 0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:29.480 she gives to, when they're then asked if they would 0:18:29.480 --> 0:18:32.439 do that same kind of giving in their organization, we 0:18:32.520 --> 0:18:34.159 see much more mixed reactions. 0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:35.400 And we know, you know, what. 0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:38.439 We saw in interviews from this is that it's due 0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.640 to all sorts of reasons, right, whether that's some sorts 0:18:41.640 --> 0:18:44.400 of constraints from the board or constraints of the organization. 0:18:44.800 --> 0:18:46.840 There are other folks who just don't choose to give 0:18:46.920 --> 0:18:52.080 that way, and so the number of foundations who've adopted 0:18:52.080 --> 0:18:54.080 this approach is much more varied. 0:18:55.520 --> 0:18:56.040 Overall. 0:18:57.080 --> 0:19:00.320 Lisha're gonna have to leave it there. Alicia Smith Jaga 0:19:00.760 --> 0:19:02.639 is the vice president of Research at the Center for 0:19:02.680 --> 0:19:07.000 Effective Philanthropy. Check out the work that the organization has done. 0:19:07.040 --> 0:19:09.160 They use data to help donors make sure their giving 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:12.480 is as effective as possible. She joins us from Austin, Texas.