One of the defining dynamics of this moment in philanthropy is that while there has been visible retrenchment around DEI, it has also forced a deeper and more disciplined examination of the work itself. Across the sector, institutions are being pushed to clarify not only what they believe but why their leadership structures matter in the first place.
For many foundations, especially lean and family-led foundations, the conversation has become increasingly difficult to navigate. Language that once felt widely accepted has become politically charged. Public positioning carries greater scrutiny.
But beneath the noise of the broader cultural debate sits a more fundamental institutional question: How do philanthropic organizations build the capacity to interpret and respond to an increasingly complex world?
A Governance Design Challenge, Not Just a People Challenge
In my own experience serving as a trustee at Grunin Foundation and as a trusted advisor to philanthropic institutions, I’ve come to believe that many of philanthropy’s current tensions are not simply ideological disagreements. They are signals that our governance systems are being asked to respond to conditions they were never originally designed to navigate.
Too often, diversity conversations in philanthropy have been framed primarily as matters of representation, values alignment, or moral obligation. While those dimensions remain important, they are ultimately incomplete. The deeper issue is structural.
Leadership homogeneity is not simply a demographic outcome. It is frequently the product of governance systems designed to reproduce familiarity, continuity, and concentrated authority over time. — Tomás Alvarez III
In other words, this is not only a people challenge. It is a governance design challenge. And governance design directly shapes institutional intelligence.
What Is Institutional Intelligence?
By institutional intelligence, I mean an institution’s capacity to interpret complexity, integrate multiple forms of knowledge, and make sound decisions under conditions of uncertainty. In an era defined by rapid social change, widening distrust in institutions, technological disruption, and increasingly interconnected social problems, this capacity matters enormously.
Many philanthropic institutions were designed during a different era—one that rewarded stability, predictability, and centralized expertise. Those qualities are not inherently problematic. But complexity changes the demands placed on leadership systems, which require adaptive interpretation, not just technical expertise. This is part of what led to the development of Pluralistic Leadership, a governance design framework cocreated to help philanthropic institutions strengthen their capacity to operate amid complexity and uncertainty.
Pluralistic Leadership is not about symbolic inclusion, ideological conformity, or replacing one dominant group with another. It begins with the assumption that expertise matters deeply. The question is whether institutions understand expertise broadly enough to meet the demands of the present moment.
Professional, financial, legal, and operational expertise all remain essential. But so does proximate expertise; the lived, relational, and implementation-level knowledge held by people closest to the conditions institutions are attempting to influence. The absence of proximate insight is not simply an equity issue. It can become an intelligence issue.
Why Lean Foundations Have an Advantage, and a Blind Spot
For lean foundations, this conversation may be especially relevant. Smaller foundations often possess qualities that large institutions struggle to maintain: relational closeness, flexibility, adaptability, and the ability to move quickly. In many ways, we are uniquely positioned to experiment with new governance approaches precisely because we are less bureaucratically rigid.
At the same time, many lean foundations still inherit leadership models shaped by older assumptions about authority, legitimacy, and risk. Board recruitment frequently occurs through existing networks. Decision-making authority remains concentrated among a relatively narrow set of voices. Community participation may exist operationally, while fiduciary authority remains structurally centralized.
The Questions Pluralistic Leadership Asks
Pluralistic leadership asks institutions to examine these dynamics not through a lens of blame but through a lens of institutional capacity:
- What forms of intelligence are present within leadership systems?
- What forms are missing?
- How does governance structure shape what an institution is able to see, understand, and respond to?
- And perhaps most importantly: What kinds of leadership systems will this moment—and the future—require?
What This Moment Requires
I believe philanthropy is entering a period where these questions will become increasingly unavoidable. Public trust in institutions has steadily eroded over the past several decades, with recent Pew Research Center data showing trust in many major American institutions near historic lows. Communities are demanding greater legitimacy, accountability, and responsiveness, while social conditions are evolving faster than many governance systems were designed to process.
Ultimately, the future of philanthropy may depend less on whether foundations can preserve older models of leadership and more on whether we can design governance systems capable of shared intelligence, adaptive interpretation, and meaningful responsiveness to the complexity of the world around them.
This case study is excerpted from Exponent Philanthropy’s 2026 publication on Racial Equity in Lean Foundations. Read the full report to explore the data behind these dynamics. Pluralistic Leadership is an open framework intended to support that conversation. To learn more or download the framework, visit Pluralistic Leadership.
Get the 2026 Racial Equity in Lean Foundations Report »
About the Author
By Tomás Alvarez III is a Trustee at Grunin Foundation in New Jersey; Founder of Future Funders; and a Social Worker and Philanthropic Advisor.
