Ideas

Over the last several issues of our newsletter, we’ve explored the importance of understanding and respecting rural cultures—particularly how those insights influence the way we approach evaluations in rural communities. We’ve also highlighted recurring questions and lessons from place-based change initiatives. Across all community settings, one foundational value consistently emerges beneath both community attributes and evaluation practices: collaboration.

Collaboration is essential—not only among community leaders and organizations striving for collective action but also between evaluators and community stakeholders working to ensure that evaluations drive progress toward equity.

Collaboration: The Ideal and the Reality

Collaboration is widely desired and admired. The word conjures visions of shared goals, mutual respect, pooled resources, inclusive leadership, and bridging differences for collective impact. It reflects the timeless truth that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
But in practice, collaboration is rarely simple. Even in the most favorable environments, it requires participants to set aside personal agendas, prioritize shared objectives, and commit to building relationships—all while navigating inevitable conflict. In rural communities where resources are often scarce, collaboration shifts from a lofty ideal to an operational necessity. As evaluators, we are frequently called upon to assess how well collaboration is functioning and whether it is producing meaningful outcomes.

A Few Hard Truths

Through decades of experience, Community Science has identified enduring lessons about collaboration. But before sharing those, here are two key truths to ground expectations:

1. People will be people.
   Everyone brings distinct perspectives, experiences, interests, allegiances—and most importantly, biases. Much of the collaborative effort goes into managing these human dynamics.
2. The devil—and the angel—is in the details.
   Saying “let’s collaborate” is easy; executing it is complex. Small factors can make or break the process: who dominates discussions, who stays quiet, when and where meetings occur, whether cultural traditions are acknowledged, who steers the purpose, how power dynamics play out, and how conflict is handled.

The Paradoxes of Collaboration (and How to Navigate Them)

Chavis (2001) identified several recurring tensions in collaborative efforts, known as the paradoxes of collaboration. Over three decades of facilitating and evaluating collaborative initiatives, Community Science has seen these tensions repeatedly play out. Below, we revisit these paradoxes along with practical strategies for addressing them.

Mixed Loyalties. Participants often juggle loyalty to the collaboration’s shared purpose with allegiances to their own organizations and constituents. These loyalties can and do clash. While acknowledging the tension is important, the greater challenge lies in how comfortably leaders can express and navigate those divided loyalties. Loyalties may also shift depending on how specific issues impact their communities.

In one evaluation involving nine national social justice organizations representing single and multiracial groups, conflict arose over how to prioritize issues that affected members’ constituencies to varying degrees. They navigated this tension by leveraging mutual trust and lending each other their networks and credibility for joint matters as well as matters unique to each member.

Unity and Diversity. This paradox closely mirrors that of mixed loyalties. Diverse perspectives across sectors bring strength, but also differing ideologies, disciplines, and worldviews. Effective collaboration turns these differences into shared direction.

In the same collaboration mentioned above, members demonstrated the power of diversity by aligning their varied strengths and relationships toward shared goals, while also supporting each other’s individual missions.

Autonomy vs. Accountability. Collaborations must balance the autonomy of each member with collective accountability. Conflict is inevitable, but transparency and respect are key. Our evaluation found that success hinged on the following practices:

• Resources for a manager housed at the lead organization coordinating the collaboration
• Clear delineation of joint and individual roles and responsibilities
• A structured process for documentation, reporting, and feedback loops
• Mechanisms for feedback between decision-makers and implementers

Dependence–Independence. Every collaboration needs a “driver”—typically the organization receiving the grant and coordinating activities. While this organization bears legal and fiscal responsibility, the collaboration’s independence must also be preserved. This paradox can create power imbalances that must be carefully managed.

In the case study we use here to illustrate the paradoxes, tensions surfaced when the coordinating organization required member reports. They addressed this by developing a reporting template and creating feedback loops with all members to promote transparency and shared ownership.

Means vs. Model. Funders and practitioners often seek the “right” model of collaboration, expecting it to be a fix-all. But collaboration is not a plug-and-play formula; it is an evolving practice that requires patience, flexibility, and trust-building.

In the collaboration mentioned above, the funder focused on short-term outcomes without fully appreciating the time needed to build trust among historically divided constituencies. We’ve learned to ask funders early on whether they view collaboration as a means to an end or an outcome in and of itself, and align the outcome measures accordingly.

Scarce Resources. Time, leadership, and relationship-building are essential to collaboration—but they come at a cost. Members are often already stretched thin, and prioritizing collaboration is a real challenge.

Leadership commitment is critical. Once trust is established, it must be transferred to others within the organizations—not just top decision-makers. In our case example, the group developed a committee structure to embed the collaborative ethos throughout participating organizations.

Using Evaluation and Learning to Strengthen Collaboration

One way to manage these paradoxes is through a thoughtful evaluation and learning process. Evaluators need to work closely with collaboration members to determine what they consider as successful collaboration in terms of process and outcomes. These indicators are most commonly used to monitor collaboration:

• Membership – Consider the types of organizations or community sectors represented, the leadership roles held by members within their respective organizations and communities, and the nature of their relationships—whether formal (e.g., governed by memoranda of agreement) or informal.
• Communication – Examine the direction and quality of information flow, as well as the extent to which members understand the collaboration’s goals, strategies, activities, and intended outcomes.
• Decision-Making Processes – Assess whether members understand how decisions are made and believe they have equitable opportunities and clearly defined roles in the decision-making process.
• Leadership – Ensure members recognize who holds leadership roles, agree that the leadership is guiding the collaboration toward its shared purpose in an inclusive manner, and that leaders are continuously developing their capacity to lead effectively.
• Strategic Planning – Evaluate whether members are aware of and familiar with a written strategic plan, particularly its clear, realistic, and measurable short- and long-term goals. The plan should be reviewed at least annually to ensure it remains responsive to emerging needs and unexpected challenges.
• Capacity Building – Determine whether there are agreed-upon protocols for addressing conflict and whether members have access to opportunities to strengthen their skills in conflict management and resolution.
• Continuous Strategy Improvement – Confirm that data on performance (outputs), implementation (process outcomes), and impact (strategic and programmatic outcomes) are systematically collected and used in feedback loops that enable regular reflection and adaptation.

In addition to these indicators about the collaboration, evaluators also need to engage the collaboration members in determining the outcome measures for their strategies and programs.

Final Thought

Collaboration isn’t magic—but it is possible. It requires humility, persistence, and a willingness to confront and manage hard truths—and naturally, conflict. When pursued with the right mindset and commitment, collaboration can generate powerful, enduring change—especially in communities where it’s not just beneficial, but essential.

Citation

Chavis, D. (2001). The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(2), 309–320.