President Obama launched My Brother’s Keeper to help close the opportunity gap for boys and men of color in 2014. After learning about it, Delia Farquharson and Francis Wynne began rallying community members, local officials, school board members, and children’s mental health leaders to set up a coalition in their hometown, Mt. Vernon, New York. However, not everyone was excited about the network. A city councilperson mentioned to Farquharson that Mt. Vernon was “not ready as a community” to take on the responsibility of coalition work. When My Brother’s Keeper Mt. Vernon was awarded a state grant, the school district took over coordinating the program with little collaboration from the community. 

Researchers Witesmann and Heiss have found that idealizing collaboration’s benefits and end goals can cause nonprofits to overlook the costs—especially at the beginning. In reality, conflict in networks is inevitable. Networks must prepare for and manage conflict from the start if they are going to make a lasting impact.

 

 

What kinds of conflict affect nonprofit networks?

Power disparities do not always cause conflict, but networks that don’t address their power dynamics can run into tension. Power distributions are never equal and are dynamic in networks across individuals, organizations, networks, and their communities. Conflict manifests in networks in three ways:

1. 1. 1. Individual-organization conflict:

      Within networks, individuals represent their partner organizations, usually as part of their jobs. Some individuals are enthusiastic about supporting their organization in a network role, while others do not share that passion. For example, employee turnover caused replacements, gaps, and shifts within the member organizations. Because of these changes, some individuals find themselves assigned to a network they know little and have no interest in.

   2. 
      

1. 1. 2. Organization-network conflict:

   3. Partner organizations usually have different expectations for their network. While each is dedicated to the mission, each may also hold other priorities, methods, or stances on relevant issues. Conflict can result when different expectations lead to one partner organization pushing its stance on others (or silencing others’ stances). Different expectations are especially evident regarding expectations of network resources, as funding does not always directly benefit partners, causing network tensions.

       

      Network partners also have different expectations for network activity, such as conducting meetings, achieving funding, making decisions, or connecting with their community. Partners can struggle to articulate these different expectations and reach common ground.

      When networks and their partner organizations are goal-directed, they work to fulfill their missions by gaining enough resources to follow through with their strategies. Having competing priorities can prove challenging: organizations’ desire for independence comes up against network constraints of interdependence. In the end, partners must find a balance when sacrificing some of their independence to be part of a more significant initiative, which can be frustrating.

       

      Finally, conflicts at the organization-network level can occur when hidden agendas exist. When an organization uses its participation for an undisclosed purpose, agendas can clash. When a partner is not honest, truth cannot flourish, and sabotage can cause network damage.

   4.  

1. 1. 3. Network-community conflict:
      

   2. Changes in the environment—in the community or social system broadly—can affect network activity. A depletion of resources sector-wide, like under-resourced schools, for instance, can harm the network’s initiatives and impede future work with an already disenfranchised community.

       

      A lack of community support can also challenge a network. Cultural or regional differences can sometimes make getting programs off the ground difficult. Not every community is receptive to implementing a network approach from another community.

       

      Similarly, networks may face conflict when they take too long to achieve impact or do not make an impact at all. If networks don’t produce value, or if they cause new problems for their communities, then community support dwindles.

       

      Finally, some local structural or systemic forces may be too challenging for a network to sustain itself. Institutional racism and wealth inequality, for example, can saturate communities and be difficult to disrupt.

   3.  

How can my network address conflict?

Designing your network’s structure and management to address how power is used can help ease conflict and move all network actors toward impact. First, consider trust-building techniques with face-to-face dialogue, repeated interactions, and informal opportunities for actor connections. Building trust can be challenging, but it is the most significant predictor of partnership effectiveness in serendipitous networks.

 

Building network structures and investing in conflict management skills can help maintain trust. Formalizing decision-making processes, seeking training in conflict assessment, or hiring a third-party mediator can help address conflicts without exacerbating them. With skills in place and an agreed-upon action process, your network can prioritize which conflicts to work through to make a more substantial impact.

 

Finally, investing in community power can be a powerful way to let the interests of the community your network serves guide the network through conflict. Check out my latest blog on community engagement for more details.

 

Conflict management tool: Consensus-based decision-making

 

 

When power disparities spark conflict in your network, actors can start to disengage. Whether stopping participation, exiting the network, or starting a new one, actors will act when their voices are not valued to work through network conflict. Enter consensus-based decision-making.

 

Contrary to voting, consensus-based decision-making is a longer process that considers all voices rather than tallies. While there are a few versions of the model, its basic formal process finds a way to meet everyone’s needs transparently:

1. 1.  

   2. 1. Understand the decision being made.

      All actors must understand the decision and why it is essential to address it. Having each explain in their own words what the decision means can help align all involved.

1. 1.  
   2. 2. Raise a proposal.

      The group with the greatest stake in the decision makes a proposal for action, allowing the network to move from theory to strategy.

1. 1.  
   2. 3. Raise “blocks.”

      The facilitator will ask the group if any actor cannot live with the proposal, as stated. When an actor raises a block, they must present a counterproposal. This process will continue until there are no blocks.

      When the many rounds of blocks keep coming, those involved can negotiate with other voices. These others can listen carefully to each concern, brainstorm solutions that benefit all involved, and reach a middle ground.

1. 1.  
   2. 4. Raise stand-asides.

      After blocks are addressed, the facilitator will ask if there are any who do not see their stake in the issue. This is also an opportunity to offer friendly amendments or small changes that do not change the proposal’s core. The group that proposed the changes can agree or disagree with them.

   3.  

1. 1. 5. Agreement.

      Once the network agrees on modifications, it reaches an agreement—and builds trust.

 

If you want to learn more about these conflict strategies or need a facilitator to begin your network’s community involvement journey, we can help. Schedule a free 30-minute consultation to learn how.  If you like content like this, check out my book Networks for Social Impact, which includes case studies, more tools, and detailed research on networks.