I am excited to share in today’s Female Leaders in education and philanthropy edition of the PurposePhil Pulse the exchange I’ve recently had with Ellie Bertani, the founding CEO of the GitLab Foundation. With a background that spans global health philanthropy, executive roles in the private sector, and a deep focus on economic mobility, Ellie brings a systems-oriented, practical, and refreshingly candid approach to her work. Under her leadership, the GitLab Foundation has embraced a bold idea: if venture capital aims for 100x returns, why shouldn’t philanthropy try to do the same?
We spoke about her unusual career path, the Foundation’s ROI-driven grant model, and how AI is helping her team move capital faster and more thoughtfully. Ellie also shared her reflections on leadership, transparency, and why she invites total strangers, from students to fellow funders, to shadow her for a week.
Dear Ellie, thank you for your time and for joining this interview. Let’s start with a bit of an introduction to the GitLab Foundation. What’s the mission, and how did you come into the role?
Sure! The GitLab Foundation is still fairly new. We’re about two and a half years old. Our mission is centered on helping people increase their lifetime earnings. That includes everything related to economic mobility: helping people access opportunities, reduce economic inequality, and build stable lives that allow them to support their families and contribute to their communities.
We were founded when GitLab, the company, went public in 2021. At that time, GitLab set aside one percent of its shares to start this foundation. The CEO then, Sid Sijbrandij, then agreed to match that commitment with an additional 1% of equity from his personal shares. Since then, he’s become even more involved.
What’s interesting is that Sid approached philanthropy with a question. His background includes venture capital, he runs a side VC firm, and he asked: “In venture, we try to get 100x returns. Is it possible to get 100x returns in philanthropy?” When I came on board, I said, “Well, I’m not sure, but I think we can find out.”
That became our North Star. For every dollar we grant, we ask: can we drive at least $100 in increased earnings into the hands of people who need support?
That’s a pretty specific goal. How do you measure something like that in practice?
We actually build a financial model for every single grant. It’s not complicated, but it’s grounded in real logic. We look at the predicted income change that a project or organization can generate, and we compare that to a counterfactual, what would someone’s income have been if they hadn’t gone through the program?
We also consider how many people the program can realistically reach over time and how efficient it is from a cost perspective. So those are the three core components: income impact, the counterfactual trajectory, and reach or scale.
It’s a little nerdy, but important. That counterfactual is really what makes the analysis meaningful.
Since we launched, we’ve made over 130 grants, ranging in size from about $250,000 to just under $3 million. And now that we have about a year and a half of portfolio data, we’re seeing that 60 to 70 percent of our projects have actually met or exceeded that 100x benchmark.
We’re also fortunate to have a board that’s relatively risk tolerant. So, we ask prospective grantees questions like: “What’s something you’ve always wanted to do but haven’t been able to fund?” We’re okay if a fair number of projects don’t work out. That’s part of the model. It’s how we find the truly breakthrough ideas.
And where are you currently operating?
We’re working in three geographies right now. The U.S., Colombia, with hopes to eventually expand into Latin America, and Kenya, where we also hope to grow our presence in East Africa over time.
Could you share a bit about your own journey into this role? Your background spans quite a few different sectors.
It’s true. I’ve had a pretty eclectic path. I actually trained in the sciences and thought I was going to be a doctor. I was pre-med. But I ended up in philanthropy, working early on in healthcare and global health.
I’m originally from Seattle, and one of my first roles was helping start a foundation that focused on access to healthcare for the uninsured in the U.S. From there, I was lucky to join the Gates Foundation fairly early in my career, where I worked mainly on HIV and tuberculosis programs within the global health team.
One of the things I found fascinating at Gates was how they approached health problems from a market lens. For example, in partnership with the U.S. government and FDA, they created incentive structures for drug companies to develop medications for neglected diseases (like tuberculosis and malaria), things that didn’t have clear profit potential, so the private sector had largely ignored them. But once the right incentives were in place, companies started investing heavily.
That really stuck with me. I thought, “This is amazing. I want to understand how to do this well.” So, I went to graduate school and got a joint degree in policy and business.
After that, I made a deliberate decision to spend the next ten years in the private sector. I wanted to learn how business works from the inside. What makes something efficient? How do you build something that sells? What’s it like to operate on that side of the fence?
I ended up at Walmart, one of the world’s largest employers, and I worked on workforce development, helping frontline workers upskill, grow their careers, and increase their earnings. That’s where I really deepened my interest in economic mobility.
Later, I joined Wells Fargo for a couple of years doing similar work. And then I paused and asked myself: what’s next?
That’s when Sid reached out. He was looking for someone with experience in both philanthropy and the private sector, someone who was market-oriented and could build a foundation focused on economic mobility. It was a perfect fit.
It’s impressive how your experience across sectors now informs your leadership. How would you describe your leadership style today?
I really appreciate that question. Leadership is something I care deeply about, and I’ve been fortunate to learn from both great and not-so-great leaders over the years.
One of the most influential periods for me was during my time at Walmart, when the company was trying to transition into a more digital-first organization. I ended up becoming a product manager, leading a tech team that supported our frontline workforce.
That’s where I learned the value of agile leadership. Taking a problem, building a quick solution, getting it into the hands of users, getting feedback, iterating. That mindset has really shaped how I lead today.
At GitLab Foundation, we move fast, unusually fast for a foundation. We make decisions quickly, and we push authority down to the people closest to the work. It’s not a command-and-control structure. I see my role as one of support and enablement.
We also operate as a learning organization. Every two months, the full team comes together to reflect on what we’re learning from grant results. Our modeling and measurement team prepares the data, and we now use AI to identify patterns across all 130 grants.
That combination of agility, deep learning, and a human-centered approach really defines how I try to lead.
Let’s talk more about that use of AI. How is it helping you with learning and measurement?
It’s been transformative, honestly. From the beginning, we started recording every grantee meeting, such as kickoff calls, midpoint check-ins, final reports, and storing those recordings. At the time, we thought it would be useful for internal reference. But now, with tools like GPT, we’re able to do so much more with that data.
We’ve created a custom GPT that can analyze those transcripts across the board. So, we can now ask questions like: What are the common challenges our grantees are facing? What themes are emerging across our education-focused grants? Where do grantees feel most supported by us, and where not?
It allows us to spot patterns we wouldn’t catch just by reading one-off reports.
We’re also using AI in our modeling process. One of the hardest parts of building the models is gathering counterfactual data and finding reliable sources for what a person’s income would have been without the intervention. That used to take one to four hours per project.
Our Director of Modeling recently built a GPT that does it in about 30 seconds. When he showed it to me, he said, “You have to promise not to fire me.” Of course, I told him, “This is amazing. This just enables us to move more money, with greater speed.”
So, the core value here is speed. With better tools, we can move capital faster, with just as much rigor.
I also wanted to ask about your CEO shadow program. It’s such a unique initiative. How did that come about?
I love this program so much. And I can’t take credit for the original idea. It actually came from Sid. At GitLab, he offered a CEO shadow program where any employee could apply to shadow him for up to two weeks. I actually did it myself when I first joined the Foundation, and it was a fascinating experience.
About a year and a half into our work, I decided to launch our own version. But since we’re a small team, we opened it up beyond employees. Anyone can apply; students, people interested in philanthropy, funders, grantees.
We launched it last December, and now, almost every week, I have a CEO shadow join my meetings. Unless I’m traveling, it’s a regular part of my calendar.
It’s been such a valuable experience. At the end of each week, I have a debrief meeting with the shadow, and I ask what they observed, what surprised them, and what questions they have. Their reflections often give me new insights, and sometimes I even adjust how I lead based on their feedback.
Some have become mentees. Others have helped me better understand grantee perspectives. It really is a two-way learning process.
Did you ever get pushback? Such as concerns about confidentiality or competitive exposure?
Good question. We do have confidentiality agreements. Every shadow signs an NDA, and we make sure people understand the rules.
But at the heart of it, it’s about culture. One of my core beliefs, especially having worked across sectors, is that culture will eat strategy for lunch. We’ve been very intentional about shaping a culture grounded in transparency.
It’s one of our six values, alongside collaboration, results, efficiency, diversity, and iteration. We try to live those values every day.
For example, our public-facing handbook explains exactly how we operate. It includes guidance for grantees, outlines our funding process, and even shares our impact data. The shadowing program is one more expression of that transparency.
I also think it’s important to move away from the idea that philanthropy is competitive. That mindset makes sense in business, but here, we’re all trying to make the world better. There’s no reason we shouldn’t share ideas, learn from each other, and even fund projects together.
I have to watch that impulse in myself too. I’m a pretty driven person. But I remind myself, we’re not here to “beat” others. We’re here to do the best work we can, in partnership with others.
Finally, looking at the broader picture. Given all the upheaval in the global funding environment, how do you stay grounded? And what gives you hope?
It’s a lot. I feel incredibly lucky to be doing this work, and I try to remember what a privilege that is. But I also feel the weight of responsibility.
Many of our grantees, especially internationally, have been impacted by things like aid cuts or geopolitical restrictions. For example, we have grantees in Kenya and Colombia who are struggling to stay afloat or to navigate shifting travel rules. Two of our own staff in Colombia aren’t sure they’ll be able to fly to the US to attend our next retreat.
There’s just a lot of uncertainty. Things are changing quickly. Decisions are being made and unmade. Rules flip overnight. That level of chaos can be really damaging to nonprofits.
So, my advice to my team, and to myself, is to play the long game. Don’t just react. Focus on what we can control: how we work, how we decide, how we learn.
That also means sticking to our risk appetite. Other funders are pulling back and only funding “safe bets.” That’s exactly when we need to keep leaning in to support newer, riskier ideas.
We’re staying disciplined in our modeling. We’re being thoughtful about what makes us distinctive. And we’re staying connected to our grantees, to each other, and to the values that brought us here in the first place.
That’s what gives me hope.