CZI is philanthropy theater.
The CEO wants to be and be seen as a philanthropist. This explains many/most decisions, like why she is the CEO, the lack of accountability for failure, reduction in spending *only to increase operating time*, and the empty mission statements that sound good but don't hold up to any scrutiny. (Cure all disease with $50 billion over 80 years? That's the annual NIH budget. Eliminate disparity in academic outcomes? Then why are grants and solutions de-emphasizing outcomes, or outright ignoring them?)
In general, acting like CZI is creating impact is more important than showing impact and learning from mistakes.
(Remainder about the education initiative.)
The principals' attitudes are reflected by most senior leaders.
CZI has spent hundreds of millions (billions?) on an internal program that is no better (and possibly worse!) than alternatives (including the status quo!), yet the response is changing goals and messaging instead of strategy.
There's a lot of circular reasoning; "the important problems are the ones that can be solved by the solutions we already came up with." If you ask questions, you get excluded, but if you play along, you get increased scope.
