Editors’ Note: Michele Fugiel Gartner offers an outline of the history of foundation staff role development, adapted from an article, co-written with Tobias Jung and Alina Baluch, published in The Foundation Review (2023).

In today’s polarized political landscape, philanthropy is under increasing scrutiny, from calls for greater transparency to more profound challenges about legitimacy and political influence. While much of the critique targets donors and institutional structures, less attention has been paid to the professionals who operate within foundations: the staff. Yet it is precisely this group whose makeup and evolving roles may hold clues to understanding both the vulnerabilities and capacities of philanthropy today.

Context

Recent portrayals of foundation staff often reflect the assumption that their influence is deliberate and by design. These depictions suggest that after the 1969 Tax Reform Act, foundation professionals swept into institutions with clear agendas and consolidated power. But this narrative is thinly supported by empirical evidence. The history suggests that foundation professionals emerged more accidentally than intentionally, without shared education, regulation, or certification. This fragmented evolution complicates their capacity to uniformly shape or shield the sector. If foundation professionals are to be considered within the broader logic of philanthropy’s power and promise, a more nuanced understanding of their development is required, one that accounts for their diverse pathways, implicit authority, and uneven organizational roles.

This leads to the following question: Who are the individuals working in private foundations, and how did they get here?

Born from my private foundation work, this question persisted for over a decade until it became part of my doctoral studies. In exploring foundation research, it became evident that while much attention had been given to foundations’ organizational and societal roles, their internal dynamics and the influence of those who work within them remained relatively unexplored. In a seminal work on the foundation administrator, Arnold J. Zurcher and Jane Dustan (1972) emphasized that “knowledge about the managers of an enterprise is key to understanding the enterprise itself.” This understanding is crucial in the context of foundations, as it helps to demystify the world of foundation work.

Drawing from the literature on foundation staff roles in the U.S. throughout the 20th century, my colleagues Tobias Jung, Alina Baluch, and I explored these issues in our article, published in The Foundation Review in 2023. The research marks a significant step in examining foundation staff and their impact on foundation operations. Our paper traces the evolution from the early 20th-century concept of the philanthropoid to the more formalized role of the foundation professional. We draw on 47 sources from 1930 to 2022, with 1930 marking the first citation of the term “philanthropoid”—a milestone that acknowledged a specific role bridging the donor and the charitable beneficiary.

The story of foundation staff roles unfolds over four distinct research periods, each marked by key philanthropic events and evolving responsibilities. This narrative journey offers a deeper understanding of how staff role development influences foundation growth and vice versa.

1925–1950: Introducing the Philanthropoid

The story begins in the early 20th century, a time when iconic foundations like the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rosenwald Fund, and the Kresge Foundation were taking shape. These foundations were driven by newly wealthy industrial and commercial titans such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Their giving philosophies were articulated through essays like Carnegie’s 1889 The Gospel of Wealth and Rosenwald’s “Principles of Public Giving.” The landscape of philanthropy was further shaped by critical regulatory actions, including the U.S. Revenue Acts of 1913, 1917, and 1918, which established tax exemptions for charitable contributions.

As the number of foundations grew, so did the need for skilled managers to oversee charitable activities. Figures like Frederick Gates, who managed John D. Rockefeller’s charitable requests, and Alexander Flexner, who modernized medical education under Carnegie’s vision, emerged as pioneers. In this context, Frederick Keppel, president of the Carnegie Corporation, coined the term “philanthropoid” to describe these middlemen who facilitated philanthropic endeavors.

During this period, the literature primarily consisted of personal reflections from foundation executives. These early philanthropoids, mostly white and male, shared insights into foundation operations, characteristics of effective staff, and the art of management. Their writings provided a glimpse into the evolving nature of foundation work and laid the groundwork for future professionalization.

1950–1975: Appointment of Operational Administrators

The second period saw the appointment of operational administrators, driven by two significant developments. First, philanthropic professional associations such as the Council on Foundations (1949) and the Foundation Center (1956) were established. These bodies became vital advocates for foundations amidst increasing regulation. Second, pivotal U.S. tax regulations were enacted, particularly the 1969 Tax Reform Act (TRA), which imposed rigorous rules on private foundations to ensure compliance and accountability.

The literature of this era critiqued foundations’ minimal social impact and explored ways to enhance their operations. The 1969 TRA necessitated hiring more specialized staff, such as lawyers and accountants, to navigate the new regulations. This period marked the emergence of the “foundation administrator,” a role characterized by increased responsibilities and professionalization. The new term represented a shift toward more serious consideration of foundation staff roles in terms of both the duties and the emergence of new roles. Staffing became linked to a foundation’s legitimacy.

One notable figure was McGeorge Bundy, who became president of the Ford Foundation in 1966. Bundy mentored and promoted other foundation staff, including Paul Ylvisaker and Susan Berresford, who would go on to play significant roles in philanthropy. This era highlighted the shift from reactive support roles to proactive, professional administration, with staff playing crucial roles in legitimizing and advancing foundation missions. Focusing on administrative roles and duties also meant that these individuals could be studied empirically for the first time.

1975–2000: The Rise of Organizational Managers

The third period reflects the rise of organizational managers and the growing availability of data generated by professional associations and academic research. This era saw the establishment of new foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2000) and the Skoll Foundation (1999), which introduced innovative approaches to philanthropy, as well as the development of philanthropic media (e.g., Chronicle of Philanthropy in 1988), academic research (e.g., Yale’s Program on Nonprofit Organizations in 1975), and philanthropic archives (e.g., Indiana University in 1997).

Empirical studies began quantifying changes in foundation staffing, revealing insights into demographic diversity, hiring practices, and staff professional backgrounds. The term “foundation manager” evolved to describe a new cadre of career professionals who brought legitimacy and strategic management to the field. In a previous period, the term foundation manager would have been used to describe the foundation board of directors. In the 1990s’ scholarly literature, the term was applied directly to internal foundation staff representing an emerging group of people with careers in foundations.

In this period, critical views of foundation staff appear. In the late 1970s, foundation staff were assessed as “professionals,” described as being a group based on similar political ideologies and backgrounds, highlighting their perceived power within the philanthropic sector. Some critiqued this professionalization, arguing that it reinforced conservative approaches, lacked evidence of improving grantmaking outcomes, and created complex systems rather than fostering innovation.  In the 1990s, foundation managers were further critiqued, citing the impact of increased staffing on administrative costs and the power dynamics between foundation managers and donor direction and strategic control of foundations. These critiques contrasted with earlier perspectives, which viewed the increasing professionalization of foundation staff more favourably. Despite these divergent views, the foundation manager’s role was recognized as vital for professionalizing foundation operations and enhancing their effectiveness.

2000–Present: Codifying Foundation Professional Competencies

The fourth research period marks the codification of the foundation professional. Following the incorporations of significant foundations like Gates and Skoll in the late 20th century, the early 21st century witnessed further field-level developments. These included the advent of online professional resources (e.g., Charity Navigator in 2002), the establishment of academic research centers (e.g., the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University in 2003), and the introduction of higher education philanthropy courses (e.g., the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University in 2012). These developments attracted a wider range of stakeholders interested in shaping foundation roles and work.

This period also saw a surge in personal viewpoints and empirical literature examining the professional identities of foundation staff and leaders. The most significant feature of this period was the emergence of competency codification literature, which outlined the required education, skills, and characteristics for foundation roles. This literature has grown steadily, with increasing interest in developing competencies for specific roles, such as CEOs and program officers. Codifying competencies helps clarify expectations and demonstrate the legitimacy of foundation staff roles.

During this period, the term “foundation professional” gained wider usage, evolving from its earlier association with power to a more functional application describing the elements of foundation staff roles. This shift acknowledged foundation professionals as a small but growing group, empowered by philanthropists to use substantial resources to effect significant change. This era also highlighted leadership appointments, such as Patty Stonesifer at the Gates Foundation and Darren Walker at the Ford Foundation, demonstrating that both business strategy and sector experience are valued in foundation leadership.

Despite efforts to define what constitutes a foundation professional, the variety of appointments and studies during this period illustrates that the answers remain complex and sometimes conflicting. With increasing field-level developments and stakeholder involvement, the role of the foundation professional continues to be shaped by diverse ideologies on how foundation work should be conducted, echoing discussions from previous periods about the power and influence of these roles.

Amateur Traditions and Emerging Professional Influences

The evolution of foundation staff roles from philanthropoid to foundation professional highlights the interplay between amateur traditions and emerging professional influences. Initially, foundation staff roles were unsystematic and unstructured, with early philanthropoids like Frederick Gates and Alexander Flexner having no specific foundation training or education. They were often drawn from diverse fields, such as the ministry, academia and government, reflecting an era where passion and personal networks were more valued than formal qualifications.

Despite the lack of formal structures, many saw the amateur tradition as appropriate for philanthropy, emphasizing passion and flexibility over standardized professional requirements. However, as the field evolved, there was a growing recognition of the need for professionalization. This led to the development of competency frameworks that provided clarity and legitimacy to foundation roles, making them more credible and influential.

The resulting tension between maintaining the flexibility of amateur traditions and the structure of professional influences paints a complex picture of foundation staff roles. While informal entry points have allowed some diversity in regard to career backgrounds, the lack of formal advancement opportunities has hindered progress in gender and racial diversity and inclusion. Meanwhile, the push towards professional competencies underscores the importance of credibility and effectiveness in modern philanthropic work. This dichotomy continues to shape the roles and perceptions of foundation staff today.

An understanding of the historical development of foundation staff can allow foundation staff and professional associations to reflect on how roles develop, who influences their development, and how these roles, in turn, influence foundation work. This unified perspective allows practitioners to engage in forward-looking conversations about the future development of their roles while acknowledging the historical tension between amateur traditions and professional influences. Recognizing that amateur traditions are not inherently negative and professional influences are not always positive opens space for a more nuanced assessment of current practices.

Foundations can often seem opaque, making their internal dynamics challenging to understand. However, this opaqueness is not just a result of their structure but also of the tools and perspectives used to examine them. By mapping a century of foundation staff roles, reorienting the focus on individual professionals within foundation research, and critically reflecting on staff role development, the article on which this post is based sought to advance understanding of how staff roles influence philanthropic foundation development and catalyzes reflection and discussion among foundation practitioners and professional associations.

Conclusion

As the philanthropic sector navigates mounting challenges, from political polarization to internal reckonings around equity, attention to the people inside foundations becomes ever more critical. The staff who translate values into action, who negotiate between donor vision and community need, are neither passive actors nor omnipotent strategists. Their influence is real but often unstructured, situational, and constrained by institutional cultures. Understanding the role of foundation professionals requires moving beyond simplified origin stories or assumptions of control. It demands a closer look at how they shape, and are shaped by, the foundations they serve. In doing so, we can better assess whether their presence helps the sector withstand critique or inadvertently invites it. Either way, they are not peripheral. They are central to how philanthropy functions in practice and how it may respond to the urgent questions facing civil society today.

-Michele Fugiel Gartner

Michele Fugiel Gartner is the Lead Researcher at Philanthropic Foundations Canada and an Adjunct Research Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration Carleton University (Canada).