One of the biggest challenges to gearing up giving is getting the kind of help that truly makes sense for
you. Bringing on a team can extend your reach and amplify your impact, but doing so also introduces
principal-agent dynamics that make your giving process more complex. So, one of the first things to do
as you consider WHO to involve in your giving is to be sure that adding staff or advisors truly makes
sense for you before you take this step.

Exercise #1: Could DIY Giving Work For You?

Below are a series of options for how you could proceed with little to no help from paid staff or advisors.
As you go through this list, take notes for yourself on your reaction to each

1. Go Simple & Straightforward: Pick a simple issue with a clear causal chain and only one or a very few potential grantees to choose from. For example, it’s easy to support the local soup kitchen and have confidence that your money is doing real good for real people, even if it’s not necessarily addressing the root causes of food insecurity in the community.
2. Go Blue Chip: Pick a handful of name brand organizations that have the reputation for leading the field on the issues you care most about and back them in a substantial way.
3. Go Boutique: Commit whatever time it takes up front for the diligence required to find a handful of
   organizations whose leadership you can personally get to know and trust and whose strategy you believe in—and then back them as a kind of angel investor for the long haul.
4. Go Passive: Pick a mutual fund rather than individual stocks: entrust your philanthropic resources to the United Way or a more specialized pooled fund. Let others who have both proximity and passion on the issues that matter most to you allocate funding on your behalf.
5. Go With Your Gut: This is about following your interests and your instincts when it comes to your
   giving—and letting the chips fall where they may. Shooting from the hip, seeing what sticks…pick your metaphor. If you already have proximity and passion for an issue and you don’t feel the need to spend a lot of time crafting strategy, sourcing opportunities and tracking impact, gearing up your giving doesn’t actually have to take that much time.
6. Go Pro: commit a substantial amount of your time and essentially become your own professional
   advisor/staff. Develop trusted relationships with key leaders on the front lines of the issue(s) you’re focused on, and build your strategy in consultation with them. Do your own diligence on prospective grantees. Once funds are disbursed get close enough to the work to track impact and make course corrections as your giving unfolds.

Are any of these options off the table for sure--if so, why? Do any seem like appealing paths forward to achieve the level of impact and personal fulfillment you are seeking through your giving?  Could some combination of these be a good fit?  Now is a great time to assess whether it's viable for you to proceed with your giving on a DIY basis, or if you really do need to get help as you move forward.

Exercise #2: Mapping Your Decision-Making Process--Who Does What?

Whatever initial conclusions you may draw from considering these six DIY scenarios, a great next step
as you consider the question of WHO will be involved in your giving is to systematically review the
logical possibilities for roles and responsibilities when it comes to making key decisions about
governance, funding allocations and operations.

The chart below shows a key set of decision-making areas for your giving across the top row,
as well as a range of people who might be involved in these decisions. The chart is filled in using the
following codes for the role that a given person plays in a particular decision-making arena:

D=formal authority as ultimate decision maker

d=has one vote among decision makers, majority rules

[D]=informal authority as ultimate decision maker, whatever the rules formally say

P=responsible for bringing forward a proposed course of action

C=consulted before decision is made

I=informed after decision is made

E=executes decision once it is made

It can be helpful to fill this chart out twice.. On the first chart map out who is involved in your
giving right now, and at what level of authority. On the second chart map out your current best
thinking on your ideal decision-making structure in the future—who is involved in your giving and who
is doing what after you really get geared up?

If these two charts end up being significantly different, it’s possible you may have some mixed feelings
about moving forward. For example, if you are starting out as a “checkbook” philanthropist, your
current version of this chart will be pretty simple—you will have a whole lot of decision-making
authority and there won’t be too many other names on the board. This is one reason why making the
transition from doing things on your own to gearing up your giving can feel so challenging. You know
that your own time is limited, and by adding staff and advisors you are potentially introducing a lot
more decision-making friction points and increasing the need for communication exponentially.

 WHO really matters! A big reason that a lot of people with significant philanthropic capacity get stuck
feeling dissatisfied with their giving is that they can’t figure out how to effectively navigate the tradeoff
between streamlined decision making of a DIY approach and the enhanced capacity and potential
impact of a staffed approach. If this sounds like you, chances are you’ll want to dig more deeply into
the allocation of decision-making roles within your giving. The last page of the accompanying worksheet includes a third version of the decision-making chart that you can fill in with specific names--this can be helpful if you are sharing drafts for discussion with family members, staff or other key players in your giving.

Exercise #3: Sharing Decision Making Authority with Family Members and Close Associates

There are three fundamental scenarios to consider when it comes to how your philanthropic
interests and decision-making authority intersect with family members, business partners or
other close associates.

If you already share authority over your giving with a family member or business partner, which of
these scenarios comes closest to your reality? How comfortable does your current arrangement
feel? Does it work equally well for each of you? Would some other approach to sharing authority
bring more joy and/or more impact to your giving?

Fully shared authority can be the most challenging approach

The greater the divergence between you and your partner’s philanthropic focus and your
motivations the more work it will take to make decisions jointly.

• It’s rare for two people’s philanthropic interests to coincide completely
• There’s often an appeal in having at least some separation between spheres of authority: you do your thing and I’ll do mine.
• Making all decisions jointly can take a lot of time and energy--doing it well requires a willingness to explain your thoughts and feelings to someone else.
• Having to explain yourself to someone else can cause some donors to hang back in their giving

The Bottomline: If You Share Authority Invest in Communication and Role Clarity

Determine how committed you are to communicating with each other across differences and proceed accordingly. There’s no right or wrong answer.  If you want or need to share decision making authority make an investment in communicating clearly and operating in a way that works for both of you.  And don’t forget it’s not just about the two of you: many others are counting on you to make the most of your giving!

Download the worksheet

Check out the video, download the worksheet and stay tuned for the next segment in this series, where we'll look at a final set of considerations  in your giving with Design Fundamental #10: Whatever Else.