Rethinking Failure in Philanthropy
In a thought-provoking panel at the Impact/Failure Conclave, Pakzan Dastoor, Jeffrey Prins, Veena Joshi, and Aravind B peeled back the layers of philanthropy’s aversion to failure. The session challenged the way we define failure, the cultural biases we inherit, and the power imbalance between funders and organizations. Together, they navigated blind spots in how success is measured, how funders often replicate state behavior instead of pushing boundaries, and why philosophical alignment between donor and doer matters more than ever.
The discussion emphasized that the role of philanthropy should be to take risks, something governments cannot afford to do. But instead of embracing that spirit, many funders push grantees into tight reporting cycles and numerical metrics, avoiding hard conversations about failure. The result? Lost opportunities for course correction and true innovation. Speakers argued for redefining metrics of success, embedding institutional memory, and building trust-based funding relationships where learning and adaptability are prioritized over perfection.
From ethical success to “successful failures,” the session brought forward examples where things didn’t go as planned but still made a difference. Whether it’s decentralization being stifled, confirmation bias clouding impact, or misaligned expectations, the message was clear: failure isn’t a flaw, it’s a fundamental part of growth. Philanthropy must evolve to welcome reflection, embrace discomfort, and reframe what success actually looks like.
