Key ingredients for effective collaboration across difference

By Karen Goldberg, Senior Consultant, Reos Partners

We have to collaborate across difference

When was the last time you had to work with people you didn’t agree with, trust or even like? And yet you knew it was imperative for you or your organisation to do so? What was that experience like for you? What did you find most difficult, and why?

The challenges of our time require that we collaborate not just with those who see and make sense of the world in a similar way to us, but also with people whom we might not agree with, like or trust. And this is true across a diversity of contexts, sectors and issues, from cooperation across the UN system to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to collaborating across the science-policy interface, to techno-political processes that need meaningful engagement with social partners, to advancing ESG imperatives in the context of other potentially competing company priorities.

What stands in the way of effective collaboration?

In order to better understand the current collaboration challenges faced by diverse actors working in the climate space, my colleague, Mpinane Senkhane, and I had the opportunity to speak with an esteemed and diverse group of expert knowledge holders and practitioners about their collaboration challenges and also what they think is needed to address these challenges. Experts included Amanda Dinan (Technical Project Manager and Stakeholder Engagement, SouthSouthNorth), Debra Roberts (Acting Head: Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit, eThekwini Municipality)? Eric Walker (Director of Energy Development and Management at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Emily Tyler (Climate Lead, Meridian Economics), Gina Ziervogel (Director of the African Climate and Development Initiative), Happy Khambule (Environment and Energy Manager, Business Unity South Africa (BUSA)), and Hellen Wanjohi (Resilience African Cities Lead, World resources Institute (WRI)).?

What surfaced from these conversations were three deficits that stand in the way of effective collaboration across difference - what we at Reos Partners call “radical collaboration” . These are deficits in shared understanding, trust and mutual respect.

Deficit in shared understanding

Misalignment in understanding of the problem, the solution, expectations, and the lack of a shared language, are seen as key challenges to effective collaboration. During our interviews, one person spoke about how their organisation ended up leaving the project they were involved in, with a number of staff members suffering burnout as a result of the tensions and misaligned expectations and communications; while in another case, it took years for a scientist-policy-maker team to come to a mutual understanding of how each team understood the problem and what was needed; in a third example, the misalignment simply continues, resulting in inertia and wheel-spinning in the project and team, in the context of collapsing state-owned infrastructure.

“Right from the onset there was misalignment with what was meant by the terms of reference and how we were going to tackle it… in a typical inception meeting, you quickly go round the table, do a brief round of introductions and quickly get into the nuts and bolts. So the fact that we were so misaligned really only surfaced 3 months into the work.”

When asked why this misalignment was not addressed up front, reasons given included the following:

• Convenors and team members are unaware of this misalignment to begin with and therefore drive the project forward on incorrect assumptions, without making time to check assumptions and expectations;?
• In the context of time-starved, under-resourced teams, taking the time to ensure that everyone is on the same page is not seen as a priority, especially in light of all the “actual work” that needs to be done; and?
• Unspoken team dynamics (including power dynamics), often prevent individuals naming their own confusion or lack of understanding, or naming divergent agendas to the entire team.

“The people who have the most power are the ones who have the least inclination to invest the time.”

Deficits of trust

Deficits of trust are common when new collaborative initiatives or teams are established. These deficits may present as explicit types of mistrust: for example, the mistrust between labour and business, the mistrust between many grassroots community-based organisations and larger NGOs, or the general societal mistrust of politicians. But invariably, they manifest in other, often more subtle ways, within and across organisations. Reasons for this could include:

• Lack of transparency: e.g., organisations may not trust one another’s agendas, especially when these are not transparent or clearly articulated;
• Existence of pre-existing relationships and partnerships: e.g. Pre-existing relationships and partnerships amongst some members of a team or group can result in experiences of exclusion by some. Mistrust can quickly build, around who is in the inner circle of relationships and networks, and therefore has influence and decision-making power, and who is on the outside and therefore at risk of not being taken seriously or having access to the same resources and opportunities. This level of mistrust? is usually overlain at a structural level by who holds power, rank and privilege in an initiative or team;
• Power asymmetries: e.g. For those who are marginalised, silenced or undervalued, questions around who has voice, decision-making power, who will win and who will lose in the process, fuels mistrust. On the other hand, for those who assume power, their mistrust might present as a resistance to opening up the space for feedback or discussion, for fear of the(ir) agenda being challenged or hijacked, or because they assume that their way is the ‘right’ way to addressing the problem.?
• Fear of being co-opted: e.g in multi-stakeholder processes, actors often represent the interests of a particular constituency, and being seen to agree or align with their apparent adversaries may be perceived as ‘collaborating with the enemy’. Further, there is often a fear that multi-stakeholder processes are performative, and are a set-up for being co-opted to serve a particular interest or agenda.

“When we are in the spaces, we are really into our hats. And we don't want to be weak, to say, ‘look, actually on this issue, you are right and we should be coalescing around your position.’ Or ‘we shouldn't have put forward this particular policy or we shouldn't have done that project because this is the outcome.’ We don't allow for that because we feel that we're going to be too vulnerable, we'll lose our credibility. And we can't let down the constituency or the group of vested interests that we represent.”

Deficits in mutual respect and value

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all have biases about who’s opinion, perspective, worldview, and voice matters most. Some of these biases are more apparent to us, while others are subconscious, and are often referred to as ‘implicit biases’. These implicit biases are based on learned associations between particular qualities and social categories, including race, gender, language, class, religion, to name just a few. These biases show up everywhere, from who sets the agenda; to who makes the rules; to who decides who is welcome and not welcome in a collaborative space; to who is seen as a partner or collaborator, and who is seen as peripheral, incidental or irrelevant; to who leads and occupies space; to who is involved in meaning-making; to whose perspectives and interests are ultimately centred and taken forward.?

“The knowledge I hold from my experience is not seen as valuable as the knowledge I hold from my science.”

Over and above fuelling mistrust, the consequences of this deficit in mutual respect are significant. It likely partly accounts for why practitioners and policy makers struggle to bring their experiential knowledge back into the world of science (because many scientists do not value experiential insights and perspectives as real knowledge), and also why common language across a diversity of actors is not easily built (because if a particular perspective is not viewed as relevant by those with power, then they will not take the time to integrate this view into the broader field of knowledge or understanding). Furthermore, these biases entrench the structural inequities and social and environmental harms that so many of us are trying to address in our work.?

So what’s to be done?

To address these deficits, we can work at individual and collective levels.?

At the individual level, we can build the capabilities and competencies of more people to be able to understand and become curious about people who see and experience the world differently to them; to communicate their own positions more effectively, in a way that others can understand; to learn how to build trust with others;? and do their own personal work to become aware of their implicit biases, prejudices and assumptions, as a step towards valuing and respecting people who think, see, understand and experience the world differently to them.

On a collective level, we can bring together groups of people in a manner that enables transformation in these domains.?

What might that look like in practice?

So what might this look like in practice? Below are two cases that can provide an imagination for what’s possible.

Case: Strengthening adaptive leadership capacities with multi-sector African researchers and practitioners

Reos Partners and START International designed and facilitated the ProGREEN Fellows Program in 2022. This programme accompanied a group of Francophone early career renewable energy scientists and professionals from West Africa on a journey toward strengthening personal and interpersonal leadership competencies for effectively collaborating with others and for navigating the challenges of trying to address complex socio-ecological problems. In 2023, START subsequently went on to lead the Sheila N. Onzere Memorial Leadership Fellows Program, bringing greater visibility to African women scientists, strengthening their skills for collaboratively working with others, and linking them with a diverse community of professionals with shared aspirations for more equitable and just work at the interface of science and society. This programme adopted the same module content and format developed during ProGREEN.?

These programmes received over 400 applications which were competitively reviewed and narrowed to fellows from Senegal, Togo, Benin, Mali, C?te d’Ivoire, Niger, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Burkina Faso with multi-sector backgrounds in academia, the private sector, the public sector, and civil society.?

Essential to these programmes was supporting fellows in cultivating five meta-competencies that are particularly important for developed shared understanding, trust and mutual respect.? They are included below.

1. Reflexivity: being able to focus on ourselves and critically reflect on how our assumptions, experiences and positionality (i.e. our lived experiences, differences in social position and power in relation to others) influence the way we see, experience and make sense of the world and how others see, experience and make sense of us. Reflexivity can help build contextual awareness, sensitivity, and respect when working with diverse people, it can illuminate power relations and power dynamics in a group and can help to spotlight potentially problematic assumptions that can hinder the success of collaborative work.
2. Empathy: is about trying to understand the world through someone else’s eyes – to experience the world as they do – even if we have a different perspective or opinion. Developing this competency is especially useful when we hold very different worldviews or perspectives to others we need to work with, and is particularly important when we hold a lot of positional power in relation to other stakeholders.
3. Flexibility: is the capacity to adjust to change quickly and calmly so that we can deal with unexpected challenges effectively. Building the competence of flexibility increases our confidence in our ability to handle a wide range of situations, even in the face of conflict or change. It also invites a sense of openness to other ideas and ways of seeing the world and what might be needed.
4. Courage: is the willingness to examine your own beliefs, mental models and blindspots and to tune into uncomfortable conversations or issues, including the extent to which we may be exerting our power over others in a way that causes harm. It is also the courage to be open, vulnerable and willing to make mistakes in order to learn when the situation warrants it. Courage is required by both individuals and groups to address potential power differentials in a group and to be able to have meaningful, difficult conversations. It is important to note that the stakes for practicing courage are different for different people within a group due to the power differentials.
5. Curiosity: This is the willingness to “lean in” or “lean forward” to learn and understand more about ourselves, how others perceive us and the world around them, the readiness to try things out, and be curious, even about the things that are hard and make us feel uncomfortable. Developing this competency can strengthen the efficacy of the other competencies.?

Testimonials

“Another important thing I adopted is using empathy and reflexivity. Before, I was more or less rigid in my positions. Now I tend to put aside my own point of view and try to see things from other people’s perspectives. I am open to learning from others and not afraid to take risks and try new challenges.” ~Belemsobgo Sidnoma Nita, PhD Candidate in Environmental Law, University of Lagos in Nigeria

“This experience has instilled in me a profound appreciation for the richness that diversity brings to a team. It's not just about acknowledging differences but actively valuing and leveraging them.” ~Dorcas Stella Shumba, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate at United Nations University - Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)

Case: Rediscovering Hawai‘i’s Soul:? A collective process that built mutual understanding, trust and respect

Note: Much of the text of this case is taken directly from the report, “Possible Futures of Hawai‘i’s Soul”.

In 1970, a group of Hawaiian elders and non-Hawaiian civic leaders from across the state convened to grapple with issues facing Hawai‘i at the time. One of their tasks was to help bring Hawai‘i together by defining what is aloha, which renowned poet and philosopher Pilahi Paki articulated as the coordination of mind and heart within each person. Her definition of the Aloha Spirit was encoded into Hawai‘i State law in 1986.?

More than 50 years later, Hawai‘i’s unresolved issues and growing conflicts had the potential to divide communities and affect everyone who loves and calls these islands home. In August 2022, Hawai‘i Executive Collaborative,? a group of business and civic leaders dedicated to making Hawaii a better place, partnered with Reos Partners to convene a team of 43 individuals from different backgrounds and perspectives that included Hawaiian elders and practitioners, community representatives, and business leaders. Many were on opposing ends of spectrum on contentious matters. Through Reos Partners’ process called Transformative Scenario Planning, the team produced a set of four scenarios of possible futures facing Hawai‘i.?

Co-developing these scenarios with such a diverse team was made possible by the way in which the process was carefully designed and facilitated to build trust, mutual understanding across differences and divides, and to value and respect the importance and contribution of all actors as problem and solution holders. Importantly, the process was designed and facilitated in collaboration with Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, centering Native Hawaiian language, ceremony, and teachings.

According to Duane Kurisu, chairman of the Hawai‘i Executive Collaborative “When we first stepped into the room, there were such diverse feelings. I thought, what’s going to happen? Is this thing going to blow up or what?... But when you talk in a trusted space, even though you might have different views, you can talk about difficult subjects with dignity. And while we could see temperatures rising, it was never a shouting thing. It was all about trust.” According to Michelle Ka‘uhane, senior vice president and chief impact officer of the Hawai‘i Community Foundation, this process also built bridges between sectors that had previously seen one another as only adversaries: “There are deep historical traumas that Native Hawaiian communities face, but I’ve worked a long time in the Hawaiian community, and I know we were only talking to Native Hawaiians. This opened my eyes to understand there are allies and business leaders who want to help,”

According to the Hawai‘i Executive Collaborative, the process enabled people with diverse interests and perspectives to show up with “candor, courage, trust, and willingness to be part of this unprecedented effort, and for helping to define Hawai‘i’s Soul.”

Conclusion

It is possible to address the deficits of shared understanding, trust and mutual respect that stand in the way of effective collaboration. However, this will not happen without paying attention to what is needed, and investing time, resources and expertise to address these deficits. At an individual level, there are many people, who, as a matter of necessity or vocation, find themselves as bridge-builders and inter-connectors between different interests or perspectives, and who are seeking the skills and capacities to help diverse teams align and understand one another, build trust and mutual respect. Building these capacities could be in the form of courses, training, peer support networks and coaching, many of which already exist. At a collective level, a critical first step in any initiative or project is to allocate time and budget for alignment at inception and throughout an engagement or project cycle, and enlisting expertise to facilitate this alignment in a way that generates trust amongst all stakeholders.?

For multi-stakeholder processes, this requires careful consideration of and investment in the convening process (e.g. why are actors being asked to come together, who is convening, who needs to be involved) as well as expertise in design and facilitation of multi-stakeholder processes that balance the need for outcomes and impact, with a process that deliberately builds shared understanding and trust; works consciously with issues of power, rank and privilege; and enables a growing appreciation of and tolerance for different ways of knowing, being and acting.