An analysis of partnership insights from leaders across global education and philanthropy
Over the past months, I've had the privilege of speaking with 17 female leaders in education and philanthropy for the PurposePhil Pulse series. From emergency contexts in Syria to global networks spanning 60+ countries, from foundations in Switzerland to grassroots organizations in Pakistan, these conversations explored their journeys, their leadership, and their vision for systems change.
One theme emerged so consistently that it demanded deeper examination: partnership. Not partnership as a checkbox on funding applications, but as the fundamental infrastructure for creating lasting change. As I analyzed these conversations, patterns emerged that challenge how our sector typically approaches collaboration.
Here's what these leaders taught me about what it really takes to build transformative partnerships.
The Foundation: Building Trust Over Time
Every leader emphasized that trust is the irreplaceable foundation of effective partnerships. But the trust they describe isn't built through contracts or kickoff meetings, it's cultivated through consistent presence, transparent communication, and demonstrated alignment over years.
The challenge? Building this depth of trust fundamentally conflicts with the sector's operating model. Funding cycles typically run three years or less, yet meaningful partnerships often take a decade or more to mature. Leaders described repeatedly starting over with new government officials after elections, rebuilding relationships when donor priorities shifted, and navigating the constant tension between what partnerships need and what systems provide.
Dr. Randa (Grob) Zakhary at Education.org articulated what she calls the "three Ts": Trust, Translation, and Traction. Trust comes first and enables everything else. But this trust emerges only through co-creation, credibility, and consistency over time, and it requires cultural humility and genuine openness to learning across difference.
"Relationships are foundational for everything in a network like this, as is a deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusiveness." Aashti Zaidi, CEO, Global Schools Forum
Co-Creation: Starting Together, Not Meeting at the End
A persistent development pattern involves external organizations designing solutions and then seeking local partners to implement them. Nearly every leader I spoke with challenged this approach, describing instead a fundamentally different way of working that begins with joint problem diagnosis and co-creates solutions from the outset.
The shift seems subtle but proves transformative. When IRC's Ahlan Simsim team began working in Iraq, they didn't arrive with a predetermined program. Instead, they sat with Ministry officials to understand actual challenges. What emerged: only 9% of Iraqi children had pre-primary schooling, yet infrastructure constraints made building new preschools impossible. Together, they co-created a two-week school readiness program integrated into existing grade one. Today it runs nationwide, owned by the Ministry, no longer even called an "Ahlan Simsim program."
This co-creation requires more than involving partners in implementation planning. It means visiting schools together, building relationships at multiple levels, and maintaining genuine curiosity about local context rather than arriving with expertise to transfer. Several leaders described pivotal moments when they and government partners witnessed problems together, and how that shared observation created joint ownership of solutions in ways presentations never could.
"We didn't come in saying, 'We have this program you can use out of the box.' Instead, we sat down and really examined the challenges they were facing together with them." Heidi Rosbe, formerly IRC Ahlan Simsim
Power: The Dynamics We Avoid Discussing
Perhaps the most uncomfortable theme centered on power, specifically, the imbalances that funding creates and the ways the sector systematically avoids addressing them.
When one organization controls resources and another needs them, genuine partnership becomes structurally difficult regardless of good intentions. Local partners may agree to elements they don't fully believe in because saying no risks future funding. External actors may claim to value local expertise while simultaneously positioning themselves as the knowledge source.
What makes this particularly challenging is that most organizations genuinely want equitable partnerships, they're not deliberately wielding power inequitably. Yet good intentions don't eliminate structural dynamics. Some leaders described their organizations undergoing explicit processes to shift approaches, moving away from positioning themselves as the "big NGO with greater expertise" toward recognizing that local partners often have deeper contextual understanding.
Addressing power dynamics requires deliberate redistribution of decision-making authority. This might mean letting partners choose which programs to implement rather than requiring a single model, or creating feedback mechanisms where partners can honestly assess funders without jeopardizing relationships. It definitely involves recognizing that proximity to context creates its own form of expertise.
"Real partnerships require relationships of shared power. It requires humility, adaptability, and trust." Romana Shaikh, founder, Kizazi
Networks: Scaling Partnership Through Connection
For several leaders, the network model itself represents an evolution in thinking about scale while maintaining relational depth that partnerships require.
Traditional scaling often involves replication, taking a successful model and implementing it elsewhere. But replication frequently fails because context matters profoundly. A network approach offers an alternative: independent, locally-led organizations that maintain contextual responsiveness while learning from each other through structured connection.
Wendy Kopp's journey from founding Teach For America to building Teach For All illustrates this evolution. Rather than franchising the American model globally, she helped launch a network of fully independent organizations, each deeply rooted in local context while connected through shared purpose and mutual learning. The network approach enables both depth and breadth, deep contextual work in each location, with breadth through shared learning across 60+ countries.
But networks require significant investment in relationship infrastructure, creating spaces for peer learning, facilitating knowledge exchange, building trust across cultural differences. They demand tolerance for diversity in approach rather than standardized implementation. And they take time; returns on network investment accrue slowly as relationships deepen and learning compounds.
"I've come to think of networks as a very under-appreciated strategy for scaling social impact. The combination of local ownership and global connection is very powerful." Wendy Kopp, founder, Teach For All
Transparency: Opening the Black Box
While the sector often discusses transparency in terms of financial reporting and metrics, several leaders described a more fundamental openness, one that makes decision-making visible, shares challenges alongside successes, and creates genuine mechanisms for partners to influence how organizations operate.
Ellie Bertani at the GitLab Foundation exemplifies this. She runs a CEO shadow program where anyone can apply to spend a week shadowing her, and maintains a public handbook detailing exactly how the Foundation operates, including grant-making processes and impact data. This transparency builds trust, enables learning, and creates accountability.
Other leaders emphasized continuous communication beyond formal reporting, sharing challenges in real-time rather than only in retrospect, admitting when approaches aren't producing expected results, and adjusting course together. This requires genuine openness to criticism and willingness to change based on what partners say.
"One of my core beliefs is that culture will eat strategy for lunch. We've been very intentional about shaping a culture grounded in transparency." Ellie Bertani, CEO, GitLab Foundation
The Long Game: Patience in an Impatient Sector
Perhaps most striking was how consistently these leaders emphasized patience, even as the sector increasingly pushes for rapid results and scalable solutions.
Transformative partnerships simply take time. Trust builds slowly. Systems absorb innovations gradually. Leaders described partnerships spanning a decade or more before achieving significant systems-level impact. Yet funding cycles rarely extend beyond three years, creating fundamental misalignment.
This temporal mismatch creates real challenges. Organizations must prove short-term results while knowing meaningful change requires long-term commitment. Several leaders developed strategies for navigating this: aligning multiple funders around shared longer-term goals, embedding changes into government systems so they outlast projects, and building relationships at multiple levels to maintain continuity across transitions.
The emphasis on patience extends beyond timelines to pace itself. Camila Pereira's concept of "rested leadership" suggests sustainable change requires leading from rest rather than constant hustle. Constantly pushing for rapid progress can undermine the relational foundation that enables real change.
"Partnerships have been central to all the work I've done. And here's the truth: it's hard work. It takes time, patience, and intention. But it's also the only way to create real, lasting impact." Camila Pereira, CEO, Global School Leaders
What This Means for Practice
Seven practical implications emerged across these conversations:
1. Invest in Relationship Infrastructure Dedicate time for relationship building as ongoing work, not a preliminary step. This includes regular face-to-face engagement, informal conversations, and genuine investment in understanding partners' contexts and cultures.
2. Design for Co-Creation from Day One Start with joint problem diagnosis before jumping to solutions. Build on existing strengths rather than importing external models. Accept that co-creation takes longer initially but creates more sustainable outcomes.
3. Address Power Dynamics Explicitly Acknowledge that funding creates power imbalances. Deliberately redistribute decision-making authority. Value local expertise as equal to external technical knowledge. Create safe mechanisms for honest feedback.
4. Commit to Longer Timelines Align funding cycles with realistic change timelines (5-10 years minimum). Support partners through multiple phases. Measure progress in years, not months. Build relationships at multiple system levels to maintain continuity.
5. Build Networks, Not Just Bilateral Relationships Create spaces for peer learning across organizations. Facilitate South-to-South knowledge exchange. Support collaborative rather than competitive approaches. Accept that network effects compound slowly but create lasting value.
6. Practice Radical Transparency Share challenges alongside successes. Maintain ongoing communication beyond formal reports. Make decision-making processes visible. Be honest about organizational limitations.
7. Pace Work Sustainably Build in time for reflection and learning. Create spaces to recharge and avoid burnout. Match pace to what systems can actually absorb. Model sustainable practices we want to see in education systems.
A Call to Action
The education sector faces unprecedented challenges: learning losses from the pandemic, climate disruption, declining aid budgets, and persistent inequities. We cannot afford partnerships that are merely transactional. We need relationships that transform systems, and the people within them.
The 17 leaders featured in this series demonstrate what becomes possible when we move beyond formal agreements to create relationships rooted in genuine trust, collaborative creation, redistributed power, and patient commitment. They show that another way of working is possible, one that respects local leadership, values relationship as much as results, and measures success over years rather than quarters.
As I reflect on these 17 conversations, I'm struck by a paradox: the insights these leaders shared aren't particularly complex or inaccessible. Trust, co-creation, shared power, patience, these aren't revolutionary concepts. Yet they remain radical in practice precisely because they challenge fundamental sector habits. The question isn't whether we know what effective partnerships require. It's whether we're willing to do the harder, slower, more humble work they demand. These leaders have lit the path. The choice to follow is ours.
This article synthesizes insights from 17 interviews with female leaders in education and philanthropy published in the PurposePhil Pulse series over recent months. You can find the full interviews at https://www.purposephilcareer.com/blog.