Why do partners working on the same problem see it so differently?
Partners working on the same problem often see it differently because each one experiences a different part of it. For example, in a partnership built around workforce training, a college, an employer, a community organization, and a funder may all care about the same goal, such as helping people into stable careers, but each is accountable to different people, measured by different results, and working with different information. The college may see students who leave before finishing. The employer may see new hires who aren't ready for the job. The community organization may see the transportation or childcare problems that keep people from showing up at all.
Each of those views can be accurate and still incomplete. Treat a partner's priority as information about where it sits in the work. Asking each partner what it is responsible for, what it is seeing, and what it would need in order to act often reveals that the disagreement is narrower than it seemed, or that it rests on information only some partners have.
What does being "on the same page" need to mean?
Being on the same page needs to mean that partners share an understanding of the problem, agree on the priorities they will work on together, and know what happens next and who is responsible for it. It doesn't need to mean that every partner agrees with every point or gives up its own priorities.
Partners will keep some interests that differ, because they are different organizations. Name those differences so they don't stall the work later. A useful outcome of an alignment conversation is a short written record. It sets out what the group agreed the problem is, the priorities it will act on, the next steps with names and dates, and the questions that remain open and when the group will return to them.
How does looking at evidence together help when partners disagree?
Looking at evidence together helps when partners disagree because it moves the conversation from whose view is right to what the information shows and what it means. Each partner may bring program records, participant or employee feedback, outcome data, or direct experience of what happens day to day. Placing those side by side lets the group see where the pieces support each other, where they conflict, and what no one knows yet.
The interpretation has to be shared, too. Data don't make decisions; people do. Partners need time to ask what a finding means, why they might be seeing it, and whose perspective is missing from it. That doesn't always require new data collection. Start with what the partners already have, and gather more only when the group agrees on a question that the existing information can't answer. If your partners are moving toward common measures across sites, Will shared measurement flatten what makes each site different? takes up that question.
How do differences in power between partners affect alignment?
Differences in power between partners affect alignment because they shape who speaks openly and whose priorities win by default. Picture a funder at the table with the organizations it funds, or one partner that's much larger than the others. People may agree in the meeting and raise their real concerns later, or not at all.
You can reduce that effect by designing for it. Talk with partners individually before the group meets. Use small-group discussion or written input so that ideas can be considered apart from who offered them. If you're the funder, say plainly which decisions are open to the group and which are not, so partners know what their input can change. What's the difference between grantee support and compliance monitoring? looks at the same power question in a funder's relationship with its grantees.
If the conversation is already stuck in meeting after meeting, Our meetings go in circles and nothing gets decided. What are we doing wrong? looks at how the meetings themselves are set up.
The Grantibly perspective
Angelika's perspective
We are sociologists first, so we naturally think about individuals, groups, organizations, systems, context, relationships, and patterns. When partners see an issue differently, we want to understand what each one is responsible for, what each is experiencing, and who holds decision-making power, because those things shape what people are willing to say and what they believe is possible.
Our facilitation work is rooted in our backgrounds in sociology and evaluation. We ask questions, guide group dialogue, identify patterns, and help groups make sense of what they're hearing and saying, while considering the power dynamics and backgrounds of the people participating. Our clients are experts in their work, their people, and their context, and better work comes from combining their knowledge with ours.
