In any effective project partnership, what I call a ‘co-everything’ approach is key. Shared decision-making, co-designing, and a co-evaluation of power dynamics and your work. Power imbalances are natural within all our partnerships, but acknowledging where they surface, and where they hinder our work and collaboration, can help us shape partnerships in mutually supportive ways.

Here are some ideas on how to ensure your partnerships with other INGOs, local NGOs, communities, donors, your broader public – whoever they may be – are strong, reciprocal, and meaningful.

Identify Mutual Benefits

A partnership is mutually beneficial when everyone is valued equally, has a voice in the process, and sees practices that align with their needs and priorities. That’s true for our professional partnerships with teammates as well as with other partners, but it’s rarely a concept that’s translated into broader partnerships.

They’re often built on assumptions about what each side “should” bring to the table, conversations around resources and budgets – both of which have their place, but aren’t as relevant in the long-term. Limiting conversations to the input level (taking a Theory of Change approach to how a partnership can help everyone to grow), can lead to harmful imbalances where one group or person exercises more influence or resources. Here’s how you can ensure your work is meaningful for everyone:

Start by discussing what each partner hopes to gain. For example, one of you may need access to resources in the project, and another may value knowledge exchange. Clarifying these goals early ensures both sides feel heard and valued. Mutual benefit doesn’t mean either side needs to compromise – there’s room in a project for multiple goals and outcomes, after all. In this example, access to resources or services can help build a foundation for sharing knowledge among all NGOs in your space, and both objectives can be met.

Each of you brings unique strengths, whether technical expertise, community networks, or local knowledge. Take time to identify these strengths collaboratively, considering how they can be applied in ways that support both parties’ objectives. Where are each of you bringing your organisational and team’s technical expertise and ‘competitive advantage’ to the collaboration, and how can that be used to strengthen your partnership?

As you work together, spend time reflecting on how you are meeting each other’s needs. Address any imbalances and adjust objectives or your activities accordingly.

Confront Power Dynamics

Power is always at play in partnerships, even when it isn’t immediately visible. Resources, visibility, and perceived expertise can all influence how decisions are made and whose voices are prioritised. Beyond how power is allocated in a budget – which is a separate conversation for another article – look at how your partnership manifests in practice. Think through who is more visible than another and why, and whether that needs to shift to a more balanced approach.

Start by reflecting on your position within the partnership. That may look like examining practical signs like budget allocations, job titles, the split of time, etc. Consider the factors that might give you an advantage, such as access to funding, technical knowledge, or institutional support. Acknowledge how these might unintentionally create power imbalances.

Unpack whether these imbalances are helping to address mutual benefits or not. It’s common for one organisation to be more ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of a funder than another, and if they use this position to advocate for equity for their partner, or to elevate their work, that’s a great way to confront power. This element isn’t about only ‘balancing the scales’ – you will need to be strategic about the types of power you can challenge and the consequences of doing so.  

Years ago for example, I supported policy inclusion for an ethnic minority, and used mainstream think tanks as the lead organisation in projects. This approach worked for a few reasons: we were targeting policymakers, who find mainstream research-based organisations more ‘legitimate’ than movement-based groups. Whether that’s valid or not doesn’t matter here: when we’re doing a project we have to see the world as it is right now rather than what it should be.

However, a condition for their funding was meaningful partnership with community-based groups and individuals from this ethnic minority, who brought their technical and lived experience to the larger group, strengthening the success of their advocacy work. In exchange, the individual’s work and profile were elevated, and many received full-time jobs at the mainstream organisation at the end of the project. Many others started their own NGOs. We worked to confront the inherent power dynamics of advocacy work by making this ethnic minority visible during advocacy activities: they designed and led them, with the backing of a team from the mainstream organisation.

This takes me to my next point: don’t shy away from the conversations. Talk openly about power within the partnership, including the realities of who is seen as more powerful and valid than another, and how through demonstrating the status quo should change, we can support that. This could be a structured conversation where both groups discuss their perceived power and how it might affect the partnership. By naming these dynamics, you create space to address them constructively.

Co-Designing

Co-design involves creating solutions or projects together, bringing each partner’s knowledge and ideas into the process. This approach ensures that all perspectives shape the project’s structure and implementation, making it more applicable to real needs.

Begin with shared planning sessions. Discuss goals, needs, and priorities together rather than bringing a pre-determined plan to the table. Ask open-ended questions to invite each partner’s ideas and perspectives. Keep the structure or logframe adaptive to new ideas that emerge during the project as well, and co-design any changes to it too.

In co-design, different types of knowledge contribute to the process. Both technical expertise and lived experience offer valuable insights. Think about how a community member’s lived experience might reshape a project originally designed with a technical focus alone, from the perspective of someone outside that community. Make room for each type of knowledge and recognise the importance of balancing them.

Co-design requires adaptability. Create opportunities to revisit and adjust plans as the project progresses. This might involve regularly scheduled feedback sessions where both partners can suggest changes based on emerging needs or challenges.

Make Decisions Together

For partnerships to thrive, decisions must be made together. Shared decision-making goes beyond consulting each other; it involves true collaboration in determining the path forward. This will involve unlearning and relearning, and everyone has to be prepared to do so.

Decide from the outset how decisions will be made. Will they be based on consensus, or will there be specific roles for each partner? For instance, if one has more technical expertise, they might lead decisions in that area, but all choices should still be collectively agreed upon. A code of conduct or memorandum of understanding is a good way to formalise decision-making.

Document decisions and keep everyone informed. When changes occur, make sure everyone knows the reasons behind them and the expected impacts – and makes collective decisions considering all these factors.

Encourage feedback from all partners and be prepared to make adjustments. This openness to adaptation reinforces mutual respect and makes space for each partner’s evolving needs.

Ongoing Reflections

Power dynamics and mutual benefit aren’t issues you solve once—they require ongoing adjustments and action. Reflecting on your progress can help joint assessments of whether the partnership is meeting everyone’s needs – and if not, how it needs to change to do so.

Create spaces for regular reflection. These could be quarterly sessions dedicated to assessing whether power dynamics feel balanced, if each partner is receiving benefits aligned with their goals, and how codesign and decision-making processes are working. These can be added to your regular team meetings, to minimise the burden.

When creating these safe spaces for honesty, identify how feedback should be shared. Ask each partner for honest feedback on what’s working and where improvements are needed. Create a culture where constructive feedback is welcomed, by linking it with problem solving for example so it’s always forward looking and rarely only critical. This can help address emerging imbalances in constructive ways.

Keep track of reflections and changes made during the partnership. These can go into donor reports, or documented to share widely – and using the example above, can support one of the partners with their knowledge sharing goals. Over time, this set of data will help all partners to grow as an organisation, and strengthen their future partnerships too.

By focusing on understanding power dynamics, intentional codesign, and shared decision-making, you create partnerships that respect and uplift all voices. This approach isn’t about perfect equality but about fostering a relationship where each partner feels valued and respected, contributing to an outcome neither could achieve alone.