“Our job is to work with the people that invite us in to identify additional stakeholders in the community and strategies for stoking their interest.
Once those stakeholders and strategies for outreach and education have been identified, the next step is to identify mechanisms to build trust and strategies. The most effective way to build trust is developing conscious coalition-building model structures and decision-making processes that are clear, transparent, and democratic. Developing clear processes as well as platforms or principles of unity that are both ways of holding all of us accountable as well as clearly stating what our purpose is - that is the most effective way of building trust.
Enduring involvement rises out of both of these clear processes, platforms, and campaigns with measurable outcomes that reflect both short-term and long-term goals. Otherwise if a campaign of structure, a coalition, is open-ended without any clear goals, enduring involvement can become alienating and ineffective.”
– Eddie Bautista, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
One of our Leadership for a Changing World awardees, Eddie Bautista, points out four important components of a workable coalition:
A unified platform
Clear coalition structures
Open communication
-
Both new and established coalitions can benefit from exploring and applying these principles. Through practice, time, and flexibility, a coalition's leadership and members will develop the comfort and confidence needed to minimize conflicts and work together effectively. We also suggest some further tips for making a coalition work.
A coalition's success relies on whether members trust and can rely on each other. Basic coalition structures and accountability processes lay the groundwork. Trust and confidence also come with time, working together on concrete projects, and informal interaction.
Just thinking about the following questions can help leaders to identify potential sources of misunderstanding or frustration among members, and to find ways to address them in the full group.
In addition, sometimes revisiting questions like these - considering the group's commonalities and complementarities - can bring a new view to who its members are in relation to one another.
If you are just starting your coalition, you might use these as discussion questions to open the group's first meeting.
Who are we? Who do we each represent?
Why are we each here? Why do we care about the issue? Why do we need or want to join the coalition? What are our agendas?
What do we each bring? What is our perspective - individual and organizational? What are our resources? What can we do? What are our strengths?
What are our limits? Do any of us have resources that we cannot contribute to the coalition? Can we each make decisions on behalf of our organizations? Are there issues about which any of us are sensitive? For example, could a particular stand on an issue weaken our credibility with our constituents or threaten our sources of funding? How can we accommodate these sensitivities?
Basic coalition structures help a coalition function and manage tensions or differences. The key is to keep it simple, creating structure, processes, and rules only when needed. If your coalition is experiencing procedural problems, has enough attention and time gone in to creating these structures? Are problems arising because the existing structures do not serve all members equally? Is anything missing? Does anything need to be revisited? Do structural complaints mask other, deeper complaints?
Basic coalition structures:
Membership: Who can join the coalition? What criteria must be met?
Participation: How are members expected to participate? What is the minimum level of participation? Who represents organizational members, attends meetings, and participates in discussions? Do they need to have decision making authority within their home organization? How are resource needs shared by members? Do larger organizations contribute more? Can smaller organizations contribute resources other than money? How do members participate in decision making? How are roles defined and assignments made? What are the consequences if assignments aren't completed?
Leaders: How are the leaders chosen? How are they held accountable to the members?
Making decisions: How are decisions for the coalition made? Basic, simple processes are needed to identify which decisions need group discussion, to create space for discussion, and to mediate conflicts over decisions. Are decisions made by leadership after group discussion, or by the full group? By consensus or voting? If voting, do larger organizations have more votes? Or does each organization get one vote, allowing smaller groups to be have an equal voice? If a member doesn't have decision making authority within their home organization, can more time be given before voting? Are there different processes for strategic decisions, day-to-day decisions, emergency decisions?
Coalition identity and members' autonomy: When do members act as a group? Through what process is this decided? How long does that process take? Is there a shorter process during emergencies? When and how can members act alone? What are the consequences for violating agreements?
Communication: Are notes taken at each meeting? Are they distributed to members? How? What information needs to be shared between meetings? How is it shared? Through phone? Fax? E-mail? Mail? A web page? Some combination? How do members stay in touch when there is an emergency? What language(s) should be used? What impact does this have on time needed during meetings? On resources for interpreters, translating materials, and so on?
Logistics: How often does the coalition meet? How often to subgroups or task forces meet? Where does the coalition meet? Is the location rotated or fixed? Who facilitates each meeting? Is facilitation shared and/or rotated? How is the meeting agenda created? At the beginning of the meeting? Through consultation with members before the meeting? Who prioritizes the agenda items?
Leaders in a coalition need to address conflicts and tensions as they emerge, to help members to voice concerns or frustration, and to identify creative solutions drawn from multiple perspectives. Creating space for open discussion is critical, but can be difficult when members feel it's risky to speak up, or when anger, distrust, or other emotions are involved. Do the practices below suggest any new ideas or any new possible ways to open out discussion?
Set the example that all voices should be heard. Be aware of some members speaking more than others, and what power dynamics among members may be involved. For example, members who are from groups with less traditional power - such as women, minorities, or representatives of smaller organizations - may find it difficult to speak up. Help the group develop and observe ground rules that prevent anyone from dominating discussions, and encourage quieter members to participate.
Create “safe space” - a comfortable environment where members feel heard when they voice concerns. Avenues for voicing concerns can range from one-on-one conversations or anonymous feedback, to caucuses or full group discussion. For tensions that involve the full group, be sure to hear from everyone.
Discuss the “undiscussables” - a tension or conflict that no one talks about openly, especially if one is afraid to offend someone, or wants to avoid conflict. It's difficult to address a tension if you can't find its source. Set the example by talking about such unspoken taboos.
Identify common ground. Use this to focus the discussion as you address differences. Also, focus on the issue, rather than the personalities involved in the conflict.
Ask questions to seek more information to manage the conflict. Make sure everyone has the chance to speak. Also, share all relevant information. Be specific. Use concrete examples.
Acknowledge the role of emotions. Do they help highlight critical issues? Or do they cloud judgment and the ability to problem solve? If necessary, allow emotions to cool down before problem solving. Give each person the chance to express their concerns without being challenged or corrected. Also, keep in mind that some strong emotions that are expressed may be unrelated to the conflict. Try not to take others' outbursts personally.
Don't question someone else's motives, or place blame. Maintain and demonstrate mutual respect for each other. Don't personalize criticism. Don't act defensively if you disagree with someone. Ask questions to better understand other's perspectives, feelings, and ideas.
Listen well to get to the heart of the matter and to draw out ideas for possible solutions. For example:
Focus on the speaker, and demonstrate that you are listening and understand. Body language, eye contact, tone of voice, and the questions you ask all demonstrate that you are listening - rather than distracted, disinterested, or already decided on the matter.
Avoid blocks to listening, such as: talking without allowing someone else to speak; deciding on your opinion before someone finishes speaking or you've heard from more than one person; rehearsing a response in your head while the other person continues to speak; avoiding conflict by agreeing with anything the speaker says; trying to “win” the argument, rather than focusing on common ground and possible solutions; being afraid to be wrong, or assuming you're right.