From collaboration to transformation: The role of Communities of Practice in shifting power locally

Read our new learning paper on the role of Communities of Practice formed and supported under the Giving for Change programme.

Barbara Nöst

In recent years — particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic — civil society collaboration has gained new importance, driven by evolving technology and growing global challenges. Amidst the growing challenge of resource scarcity in the civil society sector, collaboration is increasingly seen as a strategic necessity rather than just a trend. But why do civil society organizations (CSOs) collaborate in the first place? There are multiple motivations for forming or joining more permanent networks, coalitions or temporary alliances. These range from increasing resource efficiency and expanding influence, to enhancing impact. CSOs may join forces to access larger grants or service contracts that would be out of reach individually. Others collaborate to pursue shared advocacy goals, engage in joint research, strengthen operational coordination or to benefit from peer learning and innovation. Being part of a collective brings clear advantages: it can raise an organization’s reputation, open doors to new learning opportunities, resources and networks, or offer opportunities to increase one’s influence and visibility vis-à-vis funders, local decision-makers as well as other stakeholders at the regional or global levels.

The important ingredients of collaboration

How do CSO collaborations actually play out in practice? I experienced CSO collaborations collapsing because of lack of commitment or authority of members, limiting the group’s ability to act, members’ diminishing interest in the group’s purpose if there are no prospects of quick gains and, finally, power imbalances remaining unaddressed that weaken the group’s sense of shared ownership. CSO collaborations only thrive when the collective effectively addresses several key aspects. These include bridging differing philosophies and approaches, agreeing on a clear, shared purpose, committing and assigning individuals with decision-making authority to attend to the collective’s needs, agreeing on the leadership arrangements, and actively addressing power imbalances if they surface within the collective.

Power – the overlooked ingredient

CSO collaborations are often overshadowed by unconducive power dynamics that are rarely acknowledged and addressed. A typical scenario is one where a CSO collaboration is shaped by the funder’s agendas, placing local CSO members — already facing precarious funding situations — at risk of developing new dependencies. If CSOs collaborate around a shared goal to align with a funder’s preference, the power is held by the funder.[1] The phrase “Who funds you owns you” becomes reality. Another scenario is when power imbalances within the collective — where one or a few members dominate the rest — can undermine the group’s trust and ownership. Such imbalance can emerge when well-resourced members, often INGOs, supply the bulk of financial and infrastructural inputs for the workings of the collective, enabling them to shape the agenda and force it on other members. Such power imbalance can marginalize other members and hinder shared ownership. Both scenarios can undermine the CSO collective’s power and compromise the impact the CSO collective hopes to achieve.

Fearing marginalization, local CSOs often overlook these power imbalances, seeing them — albeit reluctantly — as part of the current aid system’s unwritten rules. Consequently, concerns over power imbalances within a CSO collective are typically voiced only in private and behind closed doors. There is a persistent undercurrent of simmering discontent among local CSOs, but in a system marked by resource scarcity and increased competition for limited finances, these frustrations rarely surface openly. Given these challenges, CSO collaborations often merely serve organizational self-interests, such as boosting organizational visibility or standing a better chance of accessing funding opportunities. CSOs, however, rarely collaborate to build power from the bottom-up.

Local CSO-led Communities of Practice flip the script

Communities of Practice (CoPs) represent a distinct form of collaboration. As defined by Wenger: “Communities of practices are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”[2] Between 2021 and 2025, the Giving for Change programme — led by a consortium of four organizations[3] championing locally-led development — supported the emergence of Communities of Practice in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Palestine and Uganda. Local CSOs came together to form CoPs, united by a shared belief in community-led development as the only meaningful alternative for addressing local challenges. CoPs’ came together for the purpose of learning and exchange centered on domestic resource mobilization, building local constituencies for social change, strengthening community voices and exploring questions of power and accountability.

Local change must be cultivated from within

The CoPs were designed as spaces for mutual learning and sharing, as well as for testing new approaches and ways of working. So, what distinguishes these CoPs from ordinary CSO collectives? While CoPs are not immune to internal power imbalances, they have learned to build collective power through joint learning, experimentation and collaborative action. Even though each CoP evolved in its own, unique way, given the specific socio-economic country context in which they operate, there is clear evidence that a mind-set change has emerged across all CoPs. They saw their rootedness and their proximity to the communities they represent as a source of power. They recognized that competition amongst themselves — especially over limited funding — undermines their individual and collective power as well as impact. They understood that their collective power is built on knowledge exchange and joint learning, and that local issues can be addressed through collaboration, community mobilization and domestic resource mobilization, without having to depend on outside support. CoP members now share the conviction that an alternative system to the traditional aid system is possible.

CoP members have shared numerous examples of how these mind-set changes have manifested in their work at local level. The close collaboration, through joint learning and testing of new ways of working with communities and local stakeholders, helped individual CoP members gain self-esteem, which manifested itself in greater confidence and willingness to engage with other actors. Showing up as a collective to represent community concerns boosted their public recognition, and through the power they collectively claimed, they were able to strengthen their position in local decision-making. CoP members talked about how they moved from a state of inaction to shaping community-led advocacy, and from being stuck in their belief in being donor dependent to taking the lead in local resource mobilization. Others reported changes include how they reframed sustainability and how they redefined their roles within their local philanthropic ecosystem. There is ample evidence that local CoP members have begun to integrate the principles of community philanthropy into their work.

Through collaborative efforts fueling their collective growth, CoPs morphed into powerful local actors capable of leading transformations in their communities, as clearly articulated by a CoP member in Kenya: “Members are now seen as thought leaders and change-makers in their respective fields, leading to more invitations to policy discussions, stakeholder engagements, and decision-making forums. The network’s collective voice has successfully influenced policies and programmes, particularly in areas like public participation and governance. Local champions and community leaders within the network have gained confidence, skills and platforms to speak up and take action on key issues. The network has helped build a new generation of bold advocates and change agents who drive local development.”

Self-reflection is the precondition for joint reflection

In each of the eight countries where these CoPs emerged, respected and capable local CSO support organizations — known within the Giving for Change programme as Alliance Partners — played a vital role in nurturing their development and facilitating their operations. Alliance Partners led joint reflection processes with CoPs to envision and redefine their role in driving transformations that genuinely shifts power to local communities.

However, to confidently lead such conversations, the facilitating organization itself must first engage in self-reflection to understand its own role in the process — a point emphasized by one Alliance Partner representative: “I think we started by doing the inner work, and we realized that for us to build anything, we ourselves must be able to give something…We have done a lot of work and had conversations about how we work, our understanding of #ShiftThePower, what it means to us as an institution, looking at our history and where we are going, and how we then can take these values to permeate everything we do.”

Putting the #ShiftThePower Manifesto for Change into practice

CoPs — though to varying extents — are actively implementing key principles of the #ShiftThePower Manifesto for Change. These include, amongst others, valuing community-defined development over top-down approaches (principle #4), prioritizing movement building over externally defined capacity-building (principle #5), recognizing the power of non-financial assets (principle #7) and committing to internal reflection and organizational change (principle #9). This specific CoP model demonstrates that when local CSOs come together for joint learning, experimentation and action, they are able to offer a more equitable and community-driven alternative to traditional forms of collaboration.

By: Barbara Nöst. Barbara is also the author of our new learning paper on CoPs: Community-led development through community and domestic philanthropy – Communities of Practice in the Giving for Change programme.

[1] “Beware the funder that wants grantees to collaborate around a shared vision, such as better mental health. This may seem like an ideal ‘clear goal’ at the start, but in such cases, the funder holds all the power.” From Why Collaborations Fail.

[2] https://www.ohr.wisc.edu/cop/articles/communities_practice_intro_wenger.pdf

[3] These are the African Philanthropy Network, Global Fund for Community Foundations, Kenya Community Development Foundation and Wilde Ganzen Foundation.