What was different about how this work was funded?
Janet: This way of working is not uncommon for us. At Hewlett, we often provide flexible funding, especially when something is new or being seeded. We’re not the type of funder that cooks up solutions and then hires someone to execute them. We trust those closest to the work to shape how it evolves. This means we can lean into flexibility when the work calls for it —when there’s risk, or uncertainty, or something that needs to be figured out along the way.
In this case, the work started as an organizational effectiveness grant rather than a programmatic one, which created more space for internal learning and evolution before being tied to defined strategic outcomes.
What did that flexibility actually enable in practice?
Kim: It allowed the work to evolve in ways we couldn’t have planned for. When TIME started, the idea was relatively linear: bring a group of INGOs together, work through a set of questions, and collective change would follow. That’s not what happened.
Because when we faced obstacles like changes in engagement or substantial shifts in funding, that model just didn’t hold. But because there was flexibility, we could ask: What is actually needed now? And pivot toward that, while still holding onto the broader purpose of transformation. Looking back, the work is much stronger and more relevant now than when we started. But we wouldn’t have gotten there if we had to stick to the original plan.
What did that look like on a day-to-day basis?
Kim: One of the biggest differences was being able to come into conversations without having everything figured out. This work has rarely fit neatly into a defined category. It requires operating in a “grey area,” holding direction while navigating an inherently messy middle.
There were moments where we would say: “This isn’t working the way we expected” or “We’re not sure what comes next.” And we didn’t have to put a spin on that. We could struggle out loud. Because TIME is structured around core learning questions, we knew we could make mistakes as long as we learned from them. The relationship isn’t punitive.
There was one point where we knew we needed to engage more deeply with civil society. But we also knew we didn’t have the time or resources to do it well at that moment. So instead of rushing into something performative, we said: not yet. That kind of decision is only possible if you’re not being asked to prove constant activity.
Janet: That’s something I’ve been reflecting on too; what made that level of openness possible. Because it’s not always the case in funder–grantee relationships. Part of it comes down to time and the strength of the relationship, but structure also plays an important role. When partners are not held to overly rigid metrics or workplans, it creates more room for trust. At the same time, the trust is rooted in confidence in how the work is being led.
You, at TIME, have this incredible pulse on what’s happening in the field—what’s needed, what’s shifting—and the way you’ve responded has been very clear and grounded. Your pivots have made sense. And importantly, I know you’re asking the hard questions of yourselves. So, I don’t have to.
Kim: All of that has created space for us to be thought partners.
How did you know the work was still “on track” without traditional metrics?
Janet: We don’t rely heavily on dashboards or strict indicators in this kind of work. Instead, we look for other signals: Are people talking about it? Are they interested in partnering? Are you being invited into new spaces? When a new connection turns into something meaningful, that’s a strong indicator that the work is relevant and useful. It may not be precise, but it’s a way of validating the work and the use case.
Kim: Right, so relevance became a practical indicator of impact. Because for systems change work like this, the impact doesn’t always show up in neat, attributable ways. It shows up in who engages, what conversations shift, what gets picked up and used.
What did accountability look like in this context?
Kim: There was still accountability; it just looked different. The question wasn’t: “Did you deliver exactly what you said you would at the beginning?” It was: “Is this still meaningful? Is it still needed? Are we learning and adapting?”
Janet: Exactly. It’s not that there’s no accountability: it’s that accountability takes a different shape. The role of the funder is not to direct the work, but to ask good questions. I remember a time when I had to say “Okay, you’ve done a good amount of reflection. At what point is this turning into action?”
That’s not about catching someone out. It’s about making sure the work is still worth doing. At some point, the buck does stop — but it’s not tied to a fixed plan. It rests on whether the work continues to be relevant.
Kim: Yes, and those questions forced us to really focus. If the work no longer had a clear purpose, we had to be willing to reconsider or stop.
Were there tensions in working this way?
Kim: Definitely. One was the funding structure itself. Most grants were one year. So, designing programming sometimes felt like writing the end of a TV season without knowing if you’d be renewed. That created uncertainty. But it also forced the two of us to face hard questions at key moments like: “Are we still fit for purpose? Are we done or is there a way to pivot?”
Janet: I remember those conversations. There were moments where we asked really tough questions: “Does this initiative still have a purpose? If the work has shifted this much, how does it fit now?” We’re not going to continue funding something indefinitely if it no longer has a clear purpose. But the question is different from: “Did you hit your targets?” It’s more: “Does this still make sense in the context you’re in?”
What does this say about funding systems change more broadly?
Janet: One thing that’s clear is that there’s a real need right now for connection—for networks, for collaboration, for spaces where people can figure things out together. We’re seeing that across the field.
At the same time, that kind of work is harder to fund. It doesn’t fit neatly into program areas or traditional metrics. And even when one funder supports it, the broader system often still operates in more traditional ways, such as competitive funding, predefined outcomes, and short-term projects. So, there are limits to how far any one approach can go.
Kim: That tension comes up a lot. There’s growing recognition that the work needed right now is relational and ecosystem-level. But the funding structures are still largely designed for discrete, programmatic interventions and funder-driven outcomes.
This raises a deeper question: Are organizations being funded to achieve their own purpose or to deliver on someone else’s? Until this reality shifts more broadly, this kind of work will always be somewhat constrained.
An invitation
This program isn’t a model to replicate exactly. It’s one example of what becomes possible when flexibility is real, trust is practiced, and accountability is anchored in purpose rather than plans.
At a time when the sector is being asked to adapt quickly under pressure, those conditions are not just helpful: they may be necessary. The question is not whether flexible funding is “better.” It’s whether the way we fund is aligned with the kind of change we are asking for.
Because ultimately, funding shapes the system we get.
Explore our free TIME Transformation Lab resources and guides
Sign up for our TIME Newsletter to receive our updates
