"I've never seen anything like this," a participant once told me during a coffee break at a multi-stakeholder convening. "We started with such broad challenges this morning, and now we're talking about concrete collaboration opportunities. As a whole group. How did that happen?"
I smiled, because I knew the answer wasn't magic, it was facilitation. Skilled, intentional, external facilitation. Over years of supporting foundations, international organizations, and coalitions in their systems change work, from co-creating grantee strategies to facilitating global dialogues on migration policy to coordinating public-private partnerships in education in West Africa, I've learned something critical: the most transformative collaborations don't happen by accident. They happen because someone is holding the invisible architecture that makes genuine co-creation possible.
Why This Matters Now
Systems change has become the rallying cry across global education and philanthropy. Everyone wants to address root causes, not just symptoms. We want interconnected projects, collaborative ecosystems, theories of change that reflect reality rather than wishful thinking.
But here's the uncomfortable truth: trust and collaboration don't just happen because you put diverse actors in a room, or on a Zoom call.
In my work facilitating multi-stakeholder processes, whether it's foundations co-creating strategy with grantees, international dialogues on feminist migration policy, or public-private partnerships in education, I've seen a consistent pattern. Organizations commit to genuine co-creation. They invite the right people. They set aside time and resources.
And then they struggle, because co-creation requires something most organizations chronically underinvest in: dedicated, skilled facilitation.
Recent research makes this gap even more visible. The Co-Creation Rainbow Framework, developed through a systematic review of co-creation methods, reveals a stark divide between academic researchers and practitioners.1 Academic methods focus heavily on understanding individual stakeholders, 77% fall into the "understanding" category, while practitioners in the field gravitate toward methods that stimulate collective creativity and enable collaboration, with 96% and 73% respectively.
What's most striking? Neither academics nor practitioners are creating adequate platforms for collective decision-making, the very principle that defines genuine co-creation.
This is a daily reality in systems change work. And it points to why facilitation matters so much.
What Facilitation Actually Builds in Systems Change Work
Over years of facilitating complex, multi-stakeholder collaborations, I've learned that effective facilitation does four critical things that coordination alone cannot accomplish. Whether it's a foundation skeptical about investing time in relationship-building, or an international organization rushing to deliverables, the pattern repeats: people initially question the time spent on trust and connection. And then they see why it mattered.
Here's what skilled facilitation actually builds:
Building Trust Before Strategy
Early in one major collaboration I facilitated, I could sense skepticism about my proposed approach. Why spend so much time on exercises asking people what "home" means to them? Why dedicate sessions to personal storytelling in groups of three? Couldn't we just get to the work?
But afterward, that same senior leader told me something I'll never forget: "I finally understand why we spent all that time on personal connection first. The strategic work happened so much faster and deeper because of it. I was wrong to question it."
In my facilitation work, I structure exercises that might seem inefficient on paper. Small group storytelling. The 1-2-4 model where people first reflect individually, then in pairs, then in fours, before coming to the whole group. Lots of breakout spaces, lots of written reflections alongside verbal discussions.
Across different processes, from grantee learning exchanges to global policy dialogues, I've heard variations of the same feedback. Participants tell me that for the first time in years of professional convenings, they could "leave their fundraising hat aside and just be." Not performing. Not pitching. Just present as a human being thinking alongside other human beings.
That's when I know we're building something real. Because systems change doesn't happen between organizations, it happens between people who trust each other enough to take risks together. As David Ehrlichman writes in Impact Networks, building trust among individual participants is the foundation for any network that aims to catalyze systemic change.2
Managing Power Dynamics That Would Otherwise Derail Everything
Here's a hard truth about co-creation: power dynamics don't disappear just because you call something "participatory." They have to be actively managed.
In my work across different contexts, I've consistently seen why anchor funders or lead organizations cannot also be the facilitators. They're players within the ecosystem, with resources and convening power, yes, but often with less implementation knowledge and context expertise than others in the room. When funders or lead agencies try to facilitate their own convenings, every suggestion carries unspoken weight. Every question feels like a test.
As an external facilitator, I can hold space differently. When powerful stakeholders get excited (understandably!) about a particular direction early in a process, I take note but keep the full group's exploration open. No favoritism. No premature closure.
I also actively manage other power dynamics. In global dialogues and multi-stakeholder processes, I regularly work with both prominent academics from prestigious institutions and practitioners from the Global South. Left to natural dynamics, we would hear one set of voices much more than others.
So I design for equity, not just equality. When we use methods like pitching with structured written feedback, where each idea gets input from everyone, quieter voices can contribute fully. When I invite specific people to lead sessions addressing their concerns, it sends a message: your expertise matters here, not just your ability to speak loudest or fastest in English.
Creating Space for Every Voice (Especially the Ones Usually Unheard)
Across my facilitation work, I've repeatedly encountered language barriers that would silence participants if left unaddressed. Non-native English speakers whose thinking is sophisticated but who can't formulate ideas quickly enough for rapid oral discussions. I've watched them typing responses in chat while the conversation has already moved on.
This cannot stand in genuine co-creation.
So I redesign. More small group work. More written feedback opportunities. Multiple modalities for contribution. Sometimes separate check-ins to ensure people can share their full thinking, not just what they can express quickly in their second or third language. When I redesign for equity, participants who might have been marginalized become fully integrated, not because they've changed, but because the format has adapted to them.
This is what facilitation does that coordination doesn't: it pays attention to how power, language, personality, and culture shape who gets heard, and then intentionally creates conditions for different voices to emerge.
Designing for Both Virtual and In-Person Connection
When I design processes that combine virtual and in-person elements, people often wonder: can you really build trust online?
My experience says yes, when you're intentional about it. Regular sessions over months, using varied methods, creating familiarity and shared ways of working together. I've seen genuine relationships form through screens.
But in-person time, when possible, remains invaluable. While formal sessions matter, it's the informal spaces that make the difference. Coffee break conversations where people discover unexpected common ground. Lunch discussions that spark collaboration ideas. The dinner or joint dance where laughter breaks down final walls.
You can't replace that human magic. But you can prepare for it. When participants have built familiarity virtually first, they arrive at in-person convenings not as strangers forced into collaboration, but as colleagues ready to deepen work they've already begun.
Whether in a career transition cohort, a foundation learning exchange, or a global migration policy dialogue, this pattern holds: the combination of sustained virtual relationship-building and strategic in-person time creates the conditions for authentic co-creation.
When to Invest in External vs. In-House Facilitation
I've been thinking a lot about this question, because I know not every organization can afford external facilitators for everything. So when is it essential versus nice-to-have?
External facilitation is essential when:
- You're doing complex, multi-stakeholder processes where the funder wants to be part of the ecosystem, not the coordinator
- Power dynamics require a neutral convener who has no stake in any particular outcome
- You're genuinely co-creating strategy, not implementing something already decided
- The success depends on building trust across significant differences (geography, language, institutional power, disciplinary backgrounds)
In-house facilitation skills matter when:
- You're managing ongoing program work and sustaining momentum between major convenings
- Budget constraints are real (they always are)
- You need basic meeting effectiveness and inclusive practices in day-to-day work
Here's what I tell program managers: develop foundational facilitation capacity, absolutely. Learn to design inclusive meetings. Practice active listening. Understand group dynamics. But also recognize when you need to bring in external expertise. Basic facilitation skills are not the same as complex process design. Know the difference.
And if you're a foundation leader investing in systems change? Budget for facilitation from the start. Not as an afterthought. Not as "event management." As strategic infrastructure that makes everything else possible.
What Success Looks Like
When a major facilitation process ends, there are usually concrete outcomes. Collaboration plans. Shared commitments. Co-created strategies or action agendas.
But that's not how I measure success.
I measure it by what happens afterward. Do people keep learning from each other? Do they organize joint initiatives or sessions at conferences long after the collaborative facilitation has ended? Are they collaborating with minimal external support, because the infrastructure is built and can now grow organically?
Across my work, whether it's grantees from a foundation learning exchange, participants in a global policy dialogue, or members of a professional cohort, I look for the same signals. When someone tells me "the networking was so easy, not transactional, not forced, just human, and we'll be connecting in 2 weeks through our WhatsApp group" I know we've built something real.
That's the foundation for lasting collaboration, the kind that might actually change systems.
The Investment We're Not Making
Here's my provocation for the field: We say we want systems change, but we underinvest in the very capacity that makes it possible.
We budget for consultants to write strategy documents. We fund convenings and conferences. We pay for monitoring and evaluation. All important.
But genuine collaboration, the kind that creates new possibilities rather than just coordinating existing work, requires facilitation. It requires someone holding the threads, knowing each participant's needs, creating conditions for trust, managing power dynamics, ensuring all voices shape the outcome.
That work is skilled. It's time-intensive. It can't happen "on the side" of someone's program management role. And it can't be done well by the same institution holding the purse strings.
So here's my call to action:
If you're a foundation leader: Budget for facilitation in your systems change work. Not as a line item under "meetings and events," but as strategic capacity. Hire external facilitators when you're trying to become part of an ecosystem rather than lead it.
If you're a program manager: Invest in developing your own facilitation skills for day-to-day work. Take training. Practice. Study group dynamics. And also learn to recognize when a process needs expertise beyond what you can provide in-house.
If you're a consultant or facilitator: Help organizations understand that facilitation isn't event management. It's the architecture that makes collaboration possible. Position it that way. Price it that way. Demonstrate its value that way.
Systems change requires interconnection. Interconnection requires trust. Trust requires time, intention, and skilled facilitation.
My years facilitating complex collaborations have taught me this: When we create the conditions for genuine co-creation, remarkable things become possible. Not despite the time invested in relationship-building, but because of it.
The question isn't whether we can afford to invest in facilitation. It's whether we can afford not to.
What's your experience with facilitation in complex collaboration? I'd love to hear your stories, please share in the comments.
Footnotes
- Agnello, D.M., Smith, N., Vogelsang, M., et al. (2025). Developing and validating the co-creation rainbow framework for intrinsic evaluation of methods: a health CASCADE structured review of models representing co-creation principles. Health Research Policy and Systems, 23:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01381-1
- Ehrlichman, D. (2021). Impact Networks: Create Connection, Spark Collaboration, and Catalyze Systemic Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. https://www.converge.net/book