Sonal Sachdev Patel is the Marshall Institute’s first Philanthropist in Residence. In this blog, she reflects on the role and sets out her plans for the future.

It’s been a year and a half since I became the LSE’s first Philanthropist in Residence at the Marshall Institute.

You can read all about my early ambition and the idea behind the role here.

Since then, I’ve worked alongside the Marshall Institute’s team led by its Director, Professor Stephan Chambers, and Swatee Deepak as Practitioner in Residence and Founding member of Shake The Table to create something truly valuable in the world of philanthropy.

This blog explains how in five self-reflective questions (and roughly 1000 words)…

What did we set out to do?

As a philanthropist, I recognise the incredible responsibility – and privilege – of this work, and the distinct value peer-to-peer support can have in this context. Indeed, I’ve seen the importance of similar networks for grassroots leaders; where respect is shared, trust is built and inspiration abounds in small, in-person settings.

It’s fair to ask whether wealthy people really need another special space just for ourselves (we don’t). But our goal is in creating a neutral space to build trust and community to ultimately move us along our giving journey – toward a better, faster, more equitable and abundant philanthropic practice.

That was top of mind as we designed the structure of our peer philanthropy roundtables for more seasoned philanthropists. We were crystal-clear on what it needed to be:

• A space for philanthropists to reflect, explore and challenge in a neutral, non-judgemental environment in a world where people are increasingly unsure of expressing their views for fear of getting cancelled
• A space for philanthropists to listen to and learn from their peers, helping to foster community
• And a space that is genuinely ‘sell-free’ – no wealth advisors, no consultants.

These criteria alone would set our work apart from many philanthropic convenings, but it was what happened in that space we created that was particularly powerful.

What did we actually do?

We convened five roundtable discussions, each attended by about 15 philanthropists and hosted by Swatee, Stephan and me.

In the first session, we invited the philanthropists present to help us co-create the agenda and discussion topics for the events that would follow. We also ask for feedback after every roundtable to ensure future discussion topics are evolving and relevant for the group. Those topics included:

• The rise of the anti-rights movement (and what we can do about it)
• Inheritance, family dynamics and inequality
• Risk and fear in philanthropy
• How philanthropy can support and hinder democracy

At each event, everyone in attendance was invited to speak and share their perspectives. They shared their perspectives with a level of candour, insight and thoughtfulness that simply blew me away, especially as most were meeting for the first time.

As all our discussions are strictly Chatham House rule, we anonymised meeting notes to share with participants, as well as a list of further reading for those interested in digging deeper into the topics.

What worked?

The feedback from our roundtables has been overwhelmingly positive. Here’s some of what we’ve heard from our participants:

• “I was somewhat astonished by the openness and extent of personal sharing that occurred – very special!”
• “I like that it wasn’t trite and that the topics were seriously difficult ones.”
• “I found the entirety of the discussion of value and intellectually a feast.”

I believe we were able to create an enabling environment for valuable, open and ‘non-trite’ discourse because of our small in-person group size, and because of that agenda-neutral, sell-free space.

The addition of outside speakers also brought deeper opportunities for more information and inspiration on our focus topics. One speaker, for example, asked us to decide which of these roles had the fewest constraints in creating social impact: the CEO of an international NGO, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, a government minister, or a philanthropist. The consensus clearly identified the philanthropist as the person with the fewest constraints. It was a timely reminder that our relative lack of accountability – and all the flexibility and freedom it affords – demands that we bring our own rigour, intention and, frankly, boldness, to our work.

These roundtables aren’t about finding the “right” answer (there isn’t one). But participants did raise many thoughtful questions that deserve further consideration and discussion:

• “Giving away money I know how to do; how do I give away power?”
• “How do I extend my philanthropy to include all my assets (e.g. social, political, and cultural capital) in the spaces I am active in?”
• “Philanthropy is roughly 50% tax sheltered; is it twice as effective as tax?”
• How can I fund democratic outcomes without funding political parties?

What didn’t?

We also received some thoughtful pieces of constructive feedback, including asking for pre-reading material in advance of the events, and more diverse viewpoints to reduce the risk of becoming an ‘echo chamber’.

Beyond these helpful suggestions, I’m also thinking very carefully about how to better answer these questions in our forthcoming discussions:

• How do we measure the impact of this programme?
• How do we keep existing connections strong as new participants join?
• And can we scale this, while still maintaining the collegiality and trusting dynamic of our small, in-person events?

What next?

LSE’s Marshall Institute is an extraordinary place combining academic rigour and a real freedom to explore within a clear mission. I have benefitted enormously from this dual spirit in my first 18 months as Philanthropist in Residence, also having the pleasure to speak to students about what I have learned from our family foundation’s philanthropy, supporting LSE’s 100x Impact Accelerator social unicorns and teaching as part of MI’s team on peer philanthropy.

I am delighted to continue all of this and more for a second year.

I’m grateful to everyone who joined us at the first five roundtables, and to all those who helped to make them possible. Here’s to another year of radical honesty, being vulnerable and being open to change.