Conversations That Count: Building Alignment for Greater Impact
By: Erica Weinberg
Philanthropy is being called upon to step up in new ways. Funders being asked to do more -- to fill critical gaps, respond with agility, and pivot as conditions shift. Communities are looking for sustained commitment, not short cycles of investment. Grantees look for partners who recognize their needs, invest in their capacity, and help them prepare for what comes next.
The moment demands a willingness to think beyond short-term fixes toward strategies that are flexible, responsive, and designed for long-term impact. But before funders can lead boldly, they need to reach clarity internally. This often means engaging in the kinds of hard conversations that are easy to avoid—about values, priorities, governance, power, and what role philanthropy should play in building and sustaining community.
These conversations aren’t easy. Perspectives clash. Power dynamics surface. Tensions rise. As I’ve written before, it takes creativity and bravery to seek unity when perspectives diverge. The goal is not to erase differences, but to find shared values—even small ones—that allow us to move forward.
At Ideas in Philanthropy, we partner with foundations, companies, and philanthropic families who are wrestling with these challenges. Here are four approaches we’ve found help shift difficult conversations into productive ones that strengthen alignment, trust, and ultimately, impact.Agree on the Rules of Engagement and a Shared Goal
1. Creating Space for Respectful Dialogue
Difficult conversations require structure. Without clear agreements, meetings can spiral into conflict or avoidance. Whether it’s a company aligning on its social impact priorities, a foundation board debating how to center community, or a family wrestling with generational differences in approach, the first step is to co-create ground rules. Respect, empathy, patience, and listening are non-negotiables.
What works:
Agree in advance on norms for dialogue—time limits for speaking, no interruptions, no personal attacks.
Name the goal up front: is it to make a decision, surface perspectives, or simply begin a dialogue?
Recognize that small steps count. Incremental agreements often pave the way for durable shifts over time.
Revisit the rules as needed. What worked in one meeting may need to evolve as dynamics shift.
2. Surfacing What Lies Beneath
Progress stalls when assumptions go unspoken. Taking the time to understand the full spectrum of perspectives—the “must haves,” the non-negotiables, and the areas of flexibility—helps avoid unproductive standoffs.
In practice, this might mean one-on-one conversations with board members, community partners, or company executives before bringing the group together. It might mean naming openly who holds influence in the room and how that shapes dynamics. By surfacing what’s under the surface, leaders create space for candor and the possibility of movement.
What works:
Ask open-ended questions like: What makes this issue hard for us? Where do you feel compromise is possible? What would success look like in three years?
Identify shared interests and overlaps—no matter how small—that can serve as a foundation for consensus.
Map sources of influence and power clearly, so they can be acknowledged rather than quietly driving outcomes.
Normalize the idea that disagreement doesn’t mean failure; it’s often the starting point of real progress.
3. Returning to the “Why”
Funders who succeed in navigating internal differences don’t start with “what should we fund?”—they start with “why are we here?” Anchoring in shared values provides the connective tissue that can hold different perspectives together when tensions rise.
For a company, this may mean revisiting its social impact vision and how it aligns with core business values. For a foundation, it may mean reflecting on purpose, practice, and the kind of future it wants to help shape. For a family, it may mean connecting back to legacy and long-term purpose. Shared values create the compass for decision-making, especially when specific strategies remain up for debate.
What works:
Spend intentional time clarifying the “why.” Why this work? Why now? Why us?
Articulate values in plain, accessible language—not jargon—that stakeholders can actually use in discussion.
Test values against real decisions. If a proposed initiative doesn’t line up with the agreed “why,” it’s worth revisiting.
Treat values as living, not static. Reaffirm them periodically to ensure they still resonate as the context shifts.
4. Learning as a Bridge
When conversation stalls, learning can unlock movement. Bringing in outside voices—community leaders, issue-area experts, peer funders—often helps diffuse conflict and reframe debates. Learning together also creates a shared experience, which can build trust and common language.
Structured opportunities for collective learning not only deepen understanding of the issues at hand, but also demonstrate humility: a willingness to admit that no single funder or board member has all the answers. This shift can make space for new ideas and unexpected solutions.
What works:
Host retreats or facilitated sessions that combine education with reflection.
Draw on knowledge beyond your usual networks; let impacted communities shape the dialogue.
Use joint learning as a platform for experimentation—piloting a new approach can be a bridge between competing perspectives.
Treat learning as ongoing, not a one-off step. Continuous input strengthens both trust and decision-making.
