Facilitating for Collaboration: Our Approach to Building Relationships, Networks & Alliances

We’ve learned a lot about holding space in a way that supports collaboration across differences, increases capacity, and fosters a healthy social movement culture. This is essential work for building broad-based alliances that have sufficient collective power to fundamentally change our toxic system for the better.

A post by Linda Doyle

Holding Space with Values

I became a facilitator because I saw how much influence facilitators have on setting the tone of engagement within a group and how they can bring their values by translating them into framings, practices and by modeling them themselves.

Undoing internalised systems of domination & oppression: We all hold beliefs that we have internalised from mainstream culture. Our socialisation is not our fault, but it is our responsibility to overcome it. We need to learn new ways of relating to each other, and to support others to do the same and hold them lovingly accountable. I’m not going to say much on this because it’s been said better by others (e.g. OpenEdge), but I did want to include it front and centre.

“Our socialisation is not our fault, but it is our responsibility to overcome it.”

Regular appreciation: Name what you appreciate about the group, the work they’re doing, how they’re doing it, what they’ve achieved together, and what each person brings, e.g., framings, insights, practices. In my experience, this lifts the mood, creates a sense of connection, and provokes motivation to keep showing up and to face challenges. It seems obvious, but how often do you actually do it? How do you weave appreciation into the design of the session itself? How do you encourage others to bring appreciation? (Samantha Slade really emphasised the importance of this when she consulted us on the design of the Wikimedia Summit 2024.)

Generous → generative: All too often, I hear people dissing perspectives, approaches or theories of change, along with the people advocating for them – people getting a kick out of hating on something. This is not good for our movements, and often it goes unchallenged. This is not to say there aren’t valid critiques to be discussed, but let’s also reflect on the manner in which we conduct ourselves, the energy we bring to these debates. When I notice these behaviours, I try to bring in a way of looking at things that fosters a more generous understanding of why people think the way they do, and make suggestions for how to have generative conversations on these topics. Essentially, it’s giving people the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that because they are not enacting your values in the same way as you, they do not share those values. Modelling being conscientious about how you speak about people you disagree with can be really helpful here. (This has rubbed off on me from Cait Crosse.)

There might be righteous anger that needs expression, and this is not to suppress that – just try to aim it at the problematic behaviour, not the person enacting it.

“The left is divided by ideas, the right are united by interests.”

Pepe Mujica

Spreading the “no”: Sometimes someone voices something that isn’t easy to express, such as dissent or calling out language or behaviour that upholds systems of harm. Others agree, but they don’t say so (i.e., the opposite of groupthink). The person who spoke up holds it alone, while others sit back without chiming in.

If only one person voices the dissent or names problematic behaviour, it may not be given the weight it’s due, and that one person may get tired of holding these contributions over time. In order to function well as a team, we need to understand who thinks what, and avoid letting someone carry the critical feedback (which is a gift to the group) alone.

You can check whether this is happening by asking: “Does anyone else feel that way?” You can set the threshold as low as you want: “Does even a little part of you feel like that?” This supports a group to find true consent, rather than to just go along with things (which leads to problems later). Consent is the necessary complement to autonomy for me, and both are essential to building a future free from coercion. (This is a technique used in Lewis Deep Democracy; see also Processwork for underlying theory.)

Returning to values/vision/goals: Reminding people about their common values or purpose is a helpful way to bring the group back to what’s really important to them, and refocus on what they could achieve together. It’s useful to bring this in when things have gotten bogged down in details on which people disagree, which causes unnecessary division. Sometimes they need to reorientate towards what they have in common and what they can achieve when they focus on that. This often helps groups to achieve something within the limited time they have to meet, and therefore leave that meeting with a sense of progress and be more motivated to further the collaboration. (You may find the general approach of non-violent communication helpful and check out OpenEdge for trainings and resources on non-violent communication with a systemic equity lens.)

Working together: In addition to the above, it can also be useful to focus on working together on a concrete activity, task etc., rather than trying to establish ideological alignment first. This helps people get to know each other as humans and understand each other’s worlds through each other’s eyes, building alignment along the way.

According to Dave Snowden, this is more effective than directly discussing values, who quotes research on bringing protestant and catholics from the north of Ireland to work together on a project in an international context instead of facilitating discussions between them.

“We need to start from the assumption that no one has the answer to our current predicament , that we cannot not be together.”

Zab Maboungou

Movement Ecology Perspectives

Understanding social movements as ecosystems is a framework that can help us improve our movement culture. This approach connects to values because it acknowledges inherent diversity and the emergent nature of alignment, and invites us to be open and humble about our own positions.

Strategic plurality: Bringing in the idea that none of us know the right answer – the challenges we’re facing are complex and ever-changing, so it’s very unlikely that there is a simple and unchanging answer to them. Hence, we need to explore a diversity of strategies. This should make us humble about our individual strategic smarts and farsightedness.

“No one way works, it will take all of us shoving at the thing from all sides to bring it down.”

Diane de Prima

Strategic collaboration: Reminding people that we don’t always have to agree on everything to collaborate with someone (which relates to the above point about working together); collaborating doesn’t imply that we’re aligned on ever topic. If Fred Hampton could sit down with working-class whites who were waving confederate flags, we can push ourselves to consider collaborations with those we’re not 100% aligned with.

I think this is something we really need to work on. A recent nationally representative study shows that ‘progressive activists’ are more likely to refuse to work alongside people with oppositional views compared with other groups pushing for change within the UK. They are also less willing to discuss topics they deem too harmful within the context of democratic debate, compared with other groups. Let’s ask ourselves: does this further the cause of building a broad-base of collective power? Will this help to lure some people back from fascism?

“If you’re in a coalition and you’re comfortable, you know it’s not a broad enough coalition.”

Bernice Johnson Reagon

Finding niches: Everyone doesn’t need to do everything. The myth that we do hurtles people towards burnout and harms our movements. It’s internalised individualism of a neoliberal flavour.

Just as different organisms play different roles within an ecosystem, so too can we rely on each other to fulfil different roles. Rodrigo Nunes calls this functional differentiation; he refers to both differentiation in terms of general attitudes, e.g. the ‘four roles of social activism’ (advocates, helpers, organisers and rebels) highlighted by Bill Moyer and George Lakey, and differentiation in terms of the interventions we take: from direct action to community organising, from lobbying to mutual aid, and from software coding to building treehouses for occupations.

As Rodrigo Nunes puts it: “functional differentiation is one of the key features – and strengths – of an ecology. […] To truly think of one’s actions ecologically is to be less invested in one’s own self-image than on the need to play, or at least recognise as valid, whatever part a situation might require.”

Dealing with Differences

A perspective (that I’ve learned from OpenEdge) that is helpful here is to deeply try to hold difference for what it is, keeping at bay the tendency to judge better or worse, and if possible, even see it as a strength.

Believing in a way forward: If we peel away the layers of disagreement to reveal the shared values and needs underneath a tension, we can find creative solutions to resolve it and come back into connection with each other. This is because it is easier to find strategies to meet needs (e.g., feeling understood, connection, efficiency), rather than specific things (‘I want you to do this in that way’). This is not always the case, sometimes there’s a real impasse but then you can be united in your shared sorrow that there’s an impasse. (I learned this from Roz Bird at Navigate.)

Processing tensions: Tensions and conflicts happen, and that’s OK. Having a regular dedicated time to voice them is very helpful. If there’s a conflict within the group, the group needs to collectivise the problem by thinking through how they can support the people most directly involved.

Often tensions manifest on an interpersonal level when in fact they’re not interpersonal. Supporting people to see that their tensions may be arising from different perspectives, positionalities, or structural aspects of their organisation or network, usually releases the heightened emotionality of tensions, along with giving a good dollop of empathy (whilst being careful not to collude). I recommend Navigate’s Living Systems course (based on work by Dominc Barter) to set up good systems for working together.

Often you need a professional mediator sooner than you think, and it’s worth investing in this. Once you realise you need one, especially in more cash-strapped groups, there’s usually an additional argument about who’s paying for it. Putting money in a “conflict pot” on a regular basis can prevent adding more fuel to the fire. Conflict mediators are in high demand, so if you feel a call to that work, consider getting trained: If you live in Scotland, you can contact Tripod to learn more about their conflict mediation trainings. Otherwise, sign up for Navigate’s newsletter to be kept in the loop about future opportunities. (I learned about transformative conflict work from Miki Kashtan, Roxy Manning, and Ceri Buckmaster.)

Acknowledging emotions and disagreements: Often people are hating on things because they have an underlying frustration, e.g. that the movement isn’t as effective as it could be, or they feel that a specific strategy is detrimental to the cause. It’s useful to name this explicitly and dig into it: Is it true? If so, what can we do about it?

Acting as a sounding board: When someone has a tension with someone, they need to address it with that person directly. However, it can be supportive for them to process their thoughts and feelings with someone else beforehand. To be an effective sounding board, you can provide empathy and reflect back what they’re saying to help them feel heard about why they feel the way they do. It’s important to do this without agreeing with the judgement of the other person (e.g., avoiding “yeah, they’re a dick”). Empathy takes the emotion down, and then you can check whether they want to hear your take on the situation (e.g., bringing in the “benefit of the doubt” perspective) and co-create a plan about how to take the issue forward.

‘Say that!’: This is a suggestion to offer someone who has expressed something to you about a tension they have with someone else. It invites considering if it would be useful for that person to hear it by asking “What if you said this to that person?” Sometimes we get lost in details of what happened, who said what, and forget to explain where we’re coming from and what we actually want to achieve, e.g., “My ultimate goal here is to reconnect with you”. Often we don’t realise these things until we chat things through with another person. (Props to Paul Kahawatte from Navigate for this one.)

Design & Needs

There are also some very practical things you can do when designing and holding a space that make it more likely for true collaboration to happen.

Designing the session: Think through whether the attendees of a meeting, gathering or workshop know each other, how can they get to know each other in a playful way, whether there are pre-existing tensions or needs to be addressed first, if they are on the same page, if someone has a perspective that everyone needs to hear, what role power, privilege and rank might play in the group and how that can be mitigated, or if some people need to be reassured – to name just a few considerations.

Attending to needs: Meet people’s needs the best you can so they are showing up in the best state possible: Have regular breaks so people don’t get tired, provide snacks so that people don’t go hungry, inform them upfront about the agenda so they don’t feel unnecessary uncertainty, encourage movement, add energisers (stretching or short games), and if it’s a longer form engagement, give people the space they need to rest, regulate, process information, and reflect on group dynamics. And if all else fails, create plenty of opportunity to voice their needs to you throughout the session, to clarify, and to check understanding – people are like dogs, they tell you what they need.

Learning from Each Other

We need to work together! It’s been said so often, it’s a cliche by now – but it’s still true! At the Movement Ecology Collective, we believe we need the right perspectives, tools and compassion to do it successfully. The approach I’ve outlined has taken a lot of personal reflection, along with guidance and role modelling from my friends who are committed to bringing new ways of being into the world. This includes the folks at Navigate, OpenEdge, the Skylarks Collective, Miki Kashtan, along with Buddhist friends amongst many more.

And last but not least a personal request: Effective facilitation is always important, but all the more so when supporting people who are neurodivergent. Please send an email if you have any particularly good resources on this!