6 Components of a Trust-Based Relationship

“All social relations are laden with power. Getting out from under dominant power relations and mastering power dynamics is perhaps the most essential skill for change agents across all sectors seeking to ignite positive change in the world.” --Cyndi Suarez, The Power Manual

There are as many ways to enter into trust-based philanthropy as there are reasons why so many funders are embracing this approach.  For some grantmakers, the easiest entry point is in the structural policies and practices that nurture trust-building. To support those ready to take this type of action, the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project has articulated six principles to help clarify concrete steps foundations can take to align their practices with their values.  But, to be clear, trust-based philanthropy is not just what you do; it’s how you do it. 

In the earliest stages of developing this approach, and through every stage since, there is one element that has stood at the center of this work: developing and nurturing relationships of mutual trust and partnership. Central to this is the ability to acknowledge, account for, and actively reimagine power dynamics.  

Cyndi Suarez posits that this place of intimacy is one of the most vital locations to change power dynamics in a society riddled with inequities. To that end, we at the Trust Based Philanthropy Project have articulated the following relationship principles that undergird our trust-based approach to grantmaking:

1. Clue in to context 

One immediate way to build trust, especially with grantee partners who are on the asking end of the money equation, is to come to the table with an understanding of context.  On a wider social scale, the racial wealth gap is widening, public services are shrinking, civic and human rights protections for the most vulnerable are under attack, and capital continues to grow only for a tiny percentage.  In the nonprofit sector, grassroots efforts and organizations led by Black, Latinx and Indigenous leaders struggle to secure funding. In order for funders to be trustworthy, we must examine where our power and privilege intersect with these contexts, and how our race, class, gender, education, sexual orientation, immigration status, able-bodiedness and other factors confer social power--or not.

2. Create conditions for mutual learning

Principally, funders have the power to design the relationship itself.  Funders set the terms and tone, modeling rules of engagement, both explicitly and implicitly.  The University of Vermont’s Matt Kolan suggests that to create conditions for mutually beneficial relationships, we must embrace asking permission, listening, honoring what we hear, being willing to be changed by the relationship, and expressing gratitude.  What if we approached relationships with our grantee partners this way? What would it look like if we co-designed relationships without an end game of “will I or won’t I fund them” and instead created conditions that enabled long-term mutual learning and reciprocity?

3. Be willing to share power 

Any relationship of trust is inherently a relationship in which each party is equally valued and has influence. When we embody a power-sharing approach, we are willing to name that power imbalance up front and honor the experience, time, ideas, and preferences of our partners.  We listen, we check our ego, and we understand our ideas and funding to be additive -- not directive -- to the work our partners lead.

4. Invite authenticity over performance

Change is messy and humans are, well, human.  If we don’t burden our partners with unrealistic expectations (e.g., How will you end poverty in 12-18 months?), and we are clear from the start that we are in this together to learn, we can nurture relationships that honor complexity.  Designing for this complexity would mean: 1) acknowledging that systems change is not easily quantified, and 2) being in the messiness of learning together how change happens.  And this leads to another critical point: Funders do not have all the answers! We are also human, and our strategies and organizations just as complex and messy as those of our partners.  A relationship of shared power means that we are honest about this, that we share our own existential questions, and that we do not stay so attached to being experts or thought leaders.

5. Demonstrate care 

In their brown paper on Measuring Love, Shiree Teng and Sammy Nunez ask, “If we aren’t doing this for love and with love, why are we doing it?”  Professionalism needs not be divorced from caring, from demonstrating a loving kindness toward the people and the work that calls us to purpose.  In relationships of trust, wherein the agreement is to learn together, we equally care for our partners and feel cared about. We learn names and remember where people are from.  We ask after the sick baby or parent. We treat our partners as people who have lives and priorities and universes beyond the email reply we are looking for.

6. Encourage wholeness

Philanthropy California’s Full Cost Project encourages a funding relationship that sees and supports all of the parts of an organization that make social change real.  Instead of viewing overhead as wasteful, the people and operational costs are seen as mission-critical. While our funding structures follow such great leads as Full Cost, our relational approaches can embody this understanding in how we relate to our partners.  Do we model wholeness ourselves? Do we see others and ourselves as whole people, more than our roles and work outcomes?  

Imagine what would be possible if these were the norms that defined our relationships -- within and across organizations, between funders and grantees, and across the ecosystem that we all live and work in. Our hope is that by designing and embodying these principles, we are planting the seeds for relationships of trust to bloom.  What is one way you have been able to build and sustain trust — either in your personal life or elsewhere?