The greatest political lesson learned from building coalitions and working collaboratively is that solving problems on a community basis has a greater chance of succeeding for these reasons:

First, local problems have already spread well beyond the jurisdiction of local leaders and government officials thereby limiting their restorative powers.

Second, health and human services can get their hands around the most pressing local issues with the promise of knowing how they’re connected to other municipalities.  

Third, it provides financially strapped nonprofits an opportunity to build capacity as they learn about sustainable initiatives already working in other population centers.

Fourth, when governing bodies, social agencies and civic leaders begin to think, act and work together they attract investments from businesses, gain the support of state and national politicians and receive additional support from charitable foundations. 

In his seminal text On Leadership, John Gardner says, “Coalition builders seek to formulate goals and values that lift all participants out of their separate preoccupations by gaining their commitment to larger objectives. … The major task in collation building is to establish trust among the participants in the coalition. … Coalition requires that all parties develop habits of candor, that they hold posturing and game-playing to a minimum, that they be forthright not only about their real interests, needs and goals but also about their fears and suspicions.”

Which is why the process model outlined below helpful to study the process model outlined below.  If your unpracticed in the ways of coalition building will find the process model

The purpose of the React—Respond—Reflect process model is to provoke more listening and encourage less speaking during peer-group interactions. Participants should keep in mind that they will be more effective and expend less peer-group energy by being “quick to listen and slow to speak.”

REACT: Voice first impressions or impulses

The temptation to react when a thought crosses your mind is natural, but it should be held in check to encourage the speaker to continue. Expressing your feelings and thoughts prematurely shifts the focus away from the speaker and discourages rather than encourages a more thorough exploration of the issue.  Our freedom, our pluralism, our dispersion of power all invite healthy conflict as various groups and individuals pursue their diverse purpose. The reconciling of such divergent purpose is one of the tasks of the leader.  (p.97)

RESPOND: Answer positively or affirmatively

The appropriate time to respond will become obvious once the speaker has expressed what is foremost on his or her mind. A positive response not only acknowledges that you’ve heard what’s been said thus far, but also encourages the speaker to respond more openly to your questions and concerns. Without a genuine attempt to understand and acknowledge why someone is acting like an idiot, you will never know enough about that person to motivate her to act differently. In fact, trying to force change on someone without first empathizing with her will only leave her with the (accurate) impression that the idiot is you. And who needs that?

REFLECT: Suggest alternatives or resolutions

The opportunity to reflect on alternative outcomes and explore potential solutions will automatically surface when critical judgment is suspended and the dialogue is free flowing between all participants. At this point you can hold up the mirror so others can see the situation through multiple eyes.  

“Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” (Ben Franklin)