What does it take to resource change through trust, flexibility & shared power?
- joy10727
- Apr 24
- 3 min read
Earlier this month, I greatly enjoyed moderating a Skoll TheSidebar session on Trust-Based Philanthropy, exploring whether we can truly resource change through trust, flexibility, and shared power.
Participants included funders, implementers, board members, and intermediaries — each bringing hard-earned wisdom to the table and grappling with a core question:
👉 Can we build trust, especially in a world increasingly shaped by fear?
The Case Against Trust: Why Fear Still Wins
Power dynamics, fear of failure, concerns about misuse of funds, and reputational risk often lead partnerships to be transactional.
I heard sobering examples:
• Some implementers are required to report monthly, draining valuable time
• Intermediaries adding bureaucratic complexity instead of enabling support
• A funder who had removed reporting burdens for their grantees in pursuit of trust-based partnerships, but then faced heavy due diligence themselves when raising funds
At the same time, some funders rely on intermediaries out of necessity due to limited capacity for direct partnerships. One idea that emerged was for implementers to collaborate and offer unified feedback to funders when intermediaries exercise undue control or slow progress.
The Case for Trust: It Works — If You Want It to
And yet — in the same room — I heard other input.
One funder replaces formal reports with progress conversations: “What’s working? What’s not? What do you need?” That openness fosters genuine learning, not performative compliance.
A phrase that stayed with me: “Philanthropy moves at the speed of trust". Trust makes grantees and funders more likely to experiment, adapt, and innovate, which leads to better results.
I also heard about the value of subject expertise. When funders deeply understand the sector, they ask the right questions — and know when not to ask too much. For instance, a youth-led organisation with a short institutional history was not evaluated similarly to long-established institutions. That’s why partnering, when possible, with funding partners who bring deep, grounded knowledge of the work is essential.
Board members also have a role. When they bring time, insight, and engagement — not just oversight — they help reinforce a culture of trust, balancing accountability with empathy.
The Shade of Grey: It Depends on What We Design For
Trust is a design choice.
When both funders and implementers intentionally build systems that support trust, with aligned processes, shared expectations, and clear communication, trust becomes possible and powerful.
It shifts the focus from results-based trust to trust as a catalyst for change.
So… Is Trust Possible in Today’s Climate?
YES - but only if we build it on purpose. Not just with good intent, but with bold design.
Not with platitudes, but with systems that reinforce shared values.
Trust doesn’t emerge by accident. It requires:
• Clarity & consistency
• Honesty & vulnerability
• Shared values
• Human relationships beyond institutional ones
• Brave leadership from funders, boards, and implementers alike
Trust may be our most radical and necessary tool in a world of rising uncertainty, from climate to conflict to inequality. It’s not soft. It’s strategic. It can transform our work as funders and implementers from transactional to transformational.
What About You?
So what does trust look like in your partnerships? Can we scale trust across our partnerships and systems?
Imagine the possibilities, the transformations, and the impact.
Could you close your eyes? As in the wonderful song by P!nk — a leap worth taking..
🙏 Huge thanks to the whole room and the panellists Michelle Zhang and Talia Milgrom-Elcott for their insight, clarity, courage, and the team, including Seth Cochran, for making space for this inspirational exchange.
Comments