Leonardo Cunha

Liderança | Empreendedorismo | Gestão | Planeamento | Estratégia | Escrita para Financiamento | Especialista em financiamento para desenvolvimento | Orador internacional

12 de abril de 2025

In today’s increasingly fast-paced and complex world, non-profit organisations are being asked to deliver more, often with fewer resources. With donor fatigue, shrinking public funding, and mounting societal issues, the sector is being pushed to rethink not just how services are delivered, but how relationships—both internal and external—are structured.

One of the most effective responses to this shift is the creation of collaborative networks. Far from being just another strategic option, these networks are becoming fundamental infrastructure for driving systemic change.

Why Collaboration Goes Beyond a Buzzword

Historically, non-profits have operated in competitive environments, where success was defined by individual achievements rather than collective progress. While this model has occasionally spurred innovation, it has just as often resulted in duplication, inefficiency, and missed opportunities for shared learning.

Collaborative networks offer a meaningful alternative. They foster cooperation, promote information sharing, and encourage alignment of missions across multiple organisations. As Kania and Kramer (2011) explain, collective impact comes from “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (p. 36).

In this way, networks allow organisations to shift their focus—from isolated impact to coordinated, strategic action.

From Shared Values to Shared Systems

What enables these networks to function isn’t just goodwill—it’s structure.

Effective collaboration is built on shared governance, mutual accountability, unified measurement systems, pooled funding, and jointly developed programmes. These elements allow for deeper alignment and smarter use of resources.

Large-scale efforts like the Global Fund or the GAVI Alliance illustrate the kind of impact possible when cross-sector partnerships are designed with strong governance and clear goals. Whether in healthcare, education, or climate justice, collaborative models are showing their strength.

Technology also plays an increasingly important role. Digital platforms now make it easier than ever for organisations to coordinate through shared project tools, cloud-based data, and real-time virtual communication.

Trust: The Unseen Foundation

Technology may streamline logistics, but the true backbone of any collaborative effort is trust.

As Vangen and Huxham (2003) point out, trust in partnerships doesn’t appear overnight—it builds over time through cycles of interaction, feedback, and shared success. Without trust, even well-funded collaborations can falter due to miscommunication, fear of information loss, or conflicting priorities.

Sustaining trust within networks requires a commitment to transparency, mutual accountability, and a willingness to recognise and manage power dynamics between partners.

Rethinking What Impact Really Means

Working collaboratively also forces the sector to reconsider how it defines and measures success.

Instead of focusing on organisation-specific metrics, networks rely on shared indicators, long-term outcomes, and system-wide progress. This shift can be challenging, especially when funders and regulators continue to prioritise individual accomplishments.

Still, reframing accountability through the lens of collective impact makes space for more adaptive, longer-term strategies.

Collaboration Brings Benefits—And Complexity

While the benefits of collaboration are significant, it isn’t a cure-all. Networks often require considerable time, administrative effort, and negotiation. Disagreements around leadership, resource allocation, and ownership of outcomes are common.

Power dynamics also pose a real challenge. Larger, well-funded organisations may end up dominating decision-making, marginalising smaller, grassroots partners. If these dynamics go unchecked, collaboration can unintentionally reinforce the very inequities it aims to dismantle.

These are not arguments against collaboration. Rather, they are reminders that effective networks need thoughtful design, inclusive facilitation, and principled leadership.

A Sector-Wide Call to Action

The most urgent challenges we face today—climate change, social inequality, political fragmentation—are not isolated issues. They are systemic, transcending sectors, borders, and institutional roles.

No single organisation, no matter how well-resourced, can solve them alone.

For funders, this means shifting focus from one-off project grants to longer-term investments in collaborative infrastructure. For non-profit leaders, it requires dedicated time for building trust, sharing knowledge, and nurturing relationships. For policymakers, it calls for creating policy incentives that reward partnership and collective action—not just individual success.

As Senge (2006) notes, the capacity to learn faster than others may be the only true competitive edge. In today’s non-profit world, much of that learning now happens not within organisations, but between them.

Collaborative networks are not just another strategy—they’re a critical response to the complexity of our time.

References:

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross‐sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x

Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36–41.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organisation. Currency.

Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism. British Journal of Management, 14(s1), S61–S76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00393.x