Meaningful Change through Coalition Building – Part 3

The Roles of Empathy and Influence

We’ve reached the final post in our three-part series on building coalition across differences to make way for meaningful change. We started with two case studies: one from Erin on creating a centralized triage process for the Hennepin County Treatment Courts, and one from CJ on changing the Community Corrections funding formula in Minnesota. We each shared our ideas about how to build coalition, reach actionable consensus, and maintain engagement. For this third post, we sat down for a conversation about our experiences with coalition building, focused on the common themes of empathy and influence that showed up in both our case studies.

Empathy builds cohesion

Developing cohesion in a group of stakeholders with differing backgrounds, needs, priorities, and beliefs is not easy. Some relationships will be new, with people going through the process of figuring each other out. More difficult is when some members of the coalition have a shared history of competition, distrust, or even outright hostility. In our experience, commitment to a common cause might be enough to get initial engagement from coalition members, but positive relationships are needed to keep them engaged. Empathy is a necessary component of relationship-building, whether you’re starting from scratch or healing from the past.

Acknowledge differences while grounding in common purpose

Coalitions form to accomplish a shared goal that the members cannot reach on their own. That shared goal can be a unifying factor, but don’t lose sight of the fact that individuals within the coalition will still have differing – and sometimes divergent – needs and opinions. The hope is that you can work together to find a way to meet everyone’s needs well enough to keep them engaged. It won’t look like everyone getting everything they want. Compromise will be necessary, but the goal is for everyone to end up better off than they started. As you work toward compromise, it is important to acknowledge the differences. That lets people know you see and hear them and are considering their needs as you search for a path that can work for everyone.

Seek to understand the underlying reasons for difference

We reflected that, when we know we disagree with someone, we often know their stance but don’t always know the underlying reasons for that stance. Finding effective ways to handle the disagreement depends on determining whether it’s rooted in divergent beliefs and values or if there are perhaps some other dynamics and constraints at play. For example, maybe the person you disagree with is representing a broader organizational position. If they don’t agree with that position personally, or if there’s also some organizational dysfunction at play, it can feel dangerous to openly acknowledge those dynamics. But better understanding that person’s reality can help the rest of the coalition to find viable paths forward. It’s a gamechanger when people start to get real about their context, but it may not happen in a large group setting.

Influence is the engine

Coalitions typically arise because there is no single stakeholder with sufficient authority to make something happen. Influence is thus the critical factor that determines a coalition’s efficacy. You need sufficient influence within and between the coalition members to keep people united around a common goal. You also need the coalition as a whole to wield enough influence to gain the necessary support from decision-makers. Influence is what powers a coalition and makes change possible.

Share the load

Depending on your role in a project or organization, you might feel like you hold primary responsibility for forming or maintaining a coalition. We have both fallen into that trap and have had some painful moments of realizing that our influence didn’t expand as far as we thought or needed. Even if there is one person who has all the influence necessary, it puts the coalition in the risky position of being reliant on one individual. What happens if that person switches roles or gets busy with other things or changes their mind? Your coalition will be more resilient if you have multiple people who each have influence over some others than if you have one person on whom everything hinges.

Identify the people with true influence

The kind of influence that makes a difference for coalitions is rooted in trust. It’s not about who is on the invite list for the most galas or who has the most impressive collection of personal cell phone numbers. These can be tied to influence, but they don’t guarantee it. When we’re trying to discern true influence, we look for the people that others trust enough to follow to the table. Others are willing to at least entertain a conversation or explore a concept because they know that the influential person will engage in good faith and reciprocate their effort.

Plant seeds and give them space to sprout

In reflecting on some of the most influential people we’ve worked with, we found that we have shared respect for those who operate by planting seeds. The influential person might have a side conversation after a meeting, make a quick phone call before an important event, or bring something up over lunch. Through a series of gentle nudges, they build energy around a need or idea. That energy then emerges in group conversations among coalition members, who collaborate to develop a solution that is workable for everyone. The influencer helps to catalyze the effort but doesn’t dictate the result. Each coalition member is given agency to let the seeds grow in the direction that they think makes sense, and then they come to consensus about how to proceed together. This also contributes to buy-in and a sense of shared ownership for the proposed solution, which can make a huge difference in maintaining commitment and engagement.

Tend to relationships

We both feel some discomfort with closed-door wheeling and dealing when trying to foster collaboration and cohesion within a coalition. We prefer the transparency of having conversations as a group. However, we also recognize that the side conversations and meetings-after-the-meeting will happen. Sometimes it’s because there isn’t enough trust, yet, for people to feel safe being real with the large group. Or maybe there’s some historical baggage that needs to get worked through in private. Regardless of the reason, we try to embrace the positive side effects of the one-on-ones and small group discussions. Those are opportunities to nurture relationships, build trust and connection, and really hear people. Sometimes we participate in those spaces ourselves, and sometimes it’s better for it to be someone else who has influence with that sub-group.

Lasting change is made together

Building and maintaining effective coalitions is not easy, but we have found it to be the most viable path for creating meaningful, lasting change. The process of uniting around a shared goal, co-creating solutions that are workable for everyone, and nurturing the relationships necessary to do this work has ripple effects. It can shift the way stakeholders, a system, or multiple systems interact in the future, hopefully for the better. And once you’ve formed a coalition around one cause, you have a starting point for future efforts and are better positioned to keep making change.