Decoded: Coalitions
Neither Kumbaya Nor Cartel: Our Misunderstanding Of Coalitions Limits Their Impact
Coalitions that drive policy change are built on conflict — avoiding that undermines their power
By Zach Laris, MPH
At the Table or On the Menu
I’ll never forget an intern saying “I came to DC expecting exciting partisan politics, but the most brutal politics I’ve seen are those coalition meetings.”
Indeed, I knew exactly what she meant; the way that disagreements over messaging, strategy, and tactics boil over.
What took me years to understand was that it’s their core feature, not a bug to solve.
Consider the coalition, that multi-organization partnership mobilizing advocacy across differing perspectives toward a shared goal.
This shapeshifting creature can be an unstoppable force one day… and a meeting that should have been an email the next.
During my time as an advocate, I spent over a decade doing coalition work.
I participated in well-run coalitions, and built and ran terribly ineffective ones whose failures taught me more than any success.
While coalitions come with inherent frustrations, they have tremendous power to drive change.
But we misunderstand their fundamental nature, and as a result they often outlive their purpose or get stuck.
Understanding how coalitions work is key to seeing how “good” ideas can get stuck and “bad” ideas can take off.
So let’s go under the hood and see what coalitions are really for, how to think about their design, what they can do well, where they get stuck, how they regenerate, and why it matters for you.
Setting the Table
The mistake is focusing merely on the surface. Fusing unexpected allies is powerful, but that’s the steam, not the engine.
Coalitions are borne out of conflict; you see them clearly by asking what conflict they solve.
Take the Home Visiting Coalition (HVC), which brings together the major national home visiting program models along with leading maternal and child health organizations.
Its origin story wasn’t a group of like-minded allies linking arms — it was a stalemate. The fight? How much evidence a program needed to qualify for federal funding.
Each home visiting model had different levels of evidence strength and outcomes. Competing separately, they canceled each other out and confused policymakers.
The deadlock made dedicated funding impossible. The HVC broke the logjam.
By aligning on a shared standard for evidence, they unlocked bipartisan support for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program — securing permanent federal funding for home visiting.
Where You Sit is Where You Stand
These root conflicts emerge from the diverging constituencies, goals, values, and approaches that different organizations and individuals take, even when they may have a specific shared policy goal.
For example, over decades of leadership by the late MaryLee Allen, the Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalitionbrought together hundreds of organizations focused on child welfare policy.
When it was at its most effective it reshaped what was possible in policy and how everyone talked about it.
While the groups often aligned on specific policy proposals or campaigns, they brought differing reasons.
A children’s advocacy organization might push for stricter service provider oversight and accreditation, driven by a sense of justice.
A service provider might support the same proposal because they’re the right thing to do, and they already meet those standards, which offers a competitive edge and new market opportunities.
On paper, they align.
But to simply say they agree on the concept broadly would be mistaken; the children’s advocate may welcome even more stringent standards, while the service provider would balk at them if they are so stringent as to make services unsustainable.
This is the paradox of coalitions: the same policy goal masks very different agendas.
And yet, it’s precisely this mix of competing incentives that sparks and fuels the leverage coalitions create.
The takeaway: the right balance of partners creates just the right level of tension to generate massive policy change.
Arranging the Seating
The disruptive power of coalitions comes from the conflict they reconcile.
Strong coalitions don’t start with consensus — they design for dynamism.
The goal isn’t to avoid disagreement; it’s to harness it. That means being intentional about who’s at the table and why:
Who brings assets, audiences, or credibility others don’t have?
Whose relationships make policymakers pay attention?
Whose absence would weaken the story you’re trying to tell?
Consensus isn’t the starting point– it’s the product.
Clearing the Table
No coalition is permanent.
Some sunset intentionally. Others drift over time, and either face irrelevance or revitalize themselves through an overhaul of their approach.
The reason is in their very origin; coalitions are born from conflict. Once the conflict that created them fades or shifts, their purpose weakens.
Once that happens, a coalition is no longer injecting dynamism into the center of an issue, but patrolling its perimeter for external threats; acting more as a cartel than a coalition.
This stifles revitalization through new conflict.
The best coalitions know this and plan for it. They either:
Reinvent themselves by surfacing and embracing new conflicts, or
End gracefully, freeing up energy and relationships for the next fight.
The signs of it happening come clearly.
When consensus comes quickly and more time goes to polite updates than debate, it’s drifting.
When there's a quick rejection of revisiting a status quo showing its age, you’re seeing cartel behavior.
The takeaway: a coalition without fresh conflict isn’t a coalition. It’s a standing meeting.
Opportunities for the Future
Coalitions are a vehicle for transformational policy change— but only when you design, manage, and evolve them intentionally.
Often the most effective coalitions aren’t huge ones with consensus from everyone, but small ones willing to take hard and risky positions.
Whether you’re running a coalition, participating in one, or working with them as a policymaker, here’s the five-part playbook for building effective coalitions that drive impact.
Map the Conflict. Coalitions exist to solve problems no single player can fix alone.
Ask what conflict brings you together and why.
Understand what each partner needs, fears, and values with in-person closed-door meetings.
Communicate Constantly. Coalitions collapse in silence.
Don’t assume alignment lasts— check in individually with partners, often, at least once a month.
Regularly ask: what’s changed for you? It could be something you’re not even tracking.
Surface Tension Early and Often. Avoiding disagreement kills coalitions. Lean into it.
Invite competing perspectives from the start by building relationships and trust.
Diplomatically raise uncomfortable questions, even if it's not a table you arranged or shaped.
Craft Compromise. Consensus is the outcome, not the table stakes.
Map where partners’ needs, assets, and influence overlap.
Encode alignment into your agenda so everyone who matters gets enough to stay committed.
Know When to Fold ‘Em. Dynamism has a shelf life.
Revisit purpose regularly. Are we still solving the right conflict?
If not, reinvigorate with a new fight, or sunset gracefully.
Whoever drives the hard work of welcoming conflict will shape the arrayed forces that make possible what comes next.