The Elephant in the Room: When Power Imbalances Shape Our "Collaboration"
Last month, I wrote about building trust in partnerships. It generated a lot of thoughtful conversations, including one that got me thinking more deeply about the relationship between power and trust. A leader at a local nonprofit reached out to share something that's been weighing on her: the inherent competition baked into our sector that can make real, authentic collaboration (and trust!) feel nearly impossible, despite our best intentions.
Her question made me realize we've been having incomplete conversations about partnership. We talk a lot about the power of partnership in the social impact space, but we talk far less about the power dynamics that shape those partnerships, often in ways that undermine the very collaboration we're trying to build and reinforce existing power imbalances.
How Funders Shape Partnership Dynamics
Here’s an uncomfortable but necessary truth: funders have enormous influence over whether nonprofits collaborate—or compete. The way philanthropic systems are structured sets the conditions under which nonprofits operate. Incentives, reporting structures, and resource distribution models all shape how organizations relate to one another, often in ways that undermine the very collaboration funders claim to value.
When philanthropy prioritizes independent scaling over collective impact, or requires partners in a joint effort to apply separately and manage siloed grants with duplicative reporting, it doesn't just create extra administrative work—it builds a system that disincentivizes trust and shared responsibility.
For example: A "collaborative" grant might award $50K each to three organizations tackling food security—but with each expected to hire their own project coordinator, track their own metrics, and submit separate reports for overlapping work. This structure reinforces fragmentation.
Now imagine the alternative: A $150K grant to a lead organization with clear subgranting flexibility and shared decision-making. One coordinator, joint community engagement, integrated data collection, and partners compensated equitably for their contributions. That’s a structure that supports real partnership.
And competition is just one layer of the problem.
Too often, organizations rooted in marginalized communities—those with the deepest relationships and most contextual understanding—are expected to be the public face of initiatives, carry out the community engagement, and do the bulk of implementation. But it’s the better-resourced partners who hold the purse strings, craft the messaging, and shape the strategic direction. The result? Tokenism masked as collaboration.
Funders shape the table, and if they don’t intentionally redistribute power, it’s no surprise that “equal partnerships” often benefit the already-advantaged.
What Funders Can Do Differently
It’s important to recognize that most funders are operating within their own set of constraints—limited staff, board accountability, and a need to demonstrate outcomes to stakeholders. These pressures often lead to funding structures that unintentionally create barriers to collaboration. Fortunately, some funders are beginning to challenge these dynamics—not just through values statements, but through structural changes. A community foundation I recently worked with is piloting an initiative that requires real collaboration—not just in theory, but in practice—as a condition of funding.
There’s growing data that more equitable, flexible funding models lead to better outcomes. According to the Center for Effective Philanthropy, nonprofits that receive multi-year general operating support report stronger organizational health and more adaptive capacity.
Similarly, evaluation of the Ford Foundation’s BUILD (Building Institutions and Networks) Initiative found that grantees were better able to collaborate, engage in strategic planning, and respond to community needs than peers with more restricted, project-based funding.
And a 2023 study by the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project reported that organizations led by and serving marginalized communities were significantly more likely to describe trust-based funders as “partners” rather than “gatekeepers.” These shifts don’t eliminate the challenges, but they show what’s possible when funders choose to align their practices with equity and trust.
Other promising approaches include:
Collaborative funding pools where grantees co-manage resources
Shared measurement systems that emphasize collective outcomes, not just organizational KPIs
Trust-based grantmaking that reduces the administrative burden and builds long-term stability
Ecosystem grants that fund networks and infrastructures, not just individual players
These aren't just nice ideas—they're necessary shifts if we want to support authentic, effective collaboration in the nonprofit sector.
That Time I Held the Power (And Didn’t Want to Admit It)
I’ve been on both sides of the table. Years ago, I worked at a national organization that supported grassroots groups through funding and strategic support. Coming from community-based work myself, I thought I “got it.” I didn’t want to be the kind of funder who held power over partners. I wanted us to be collaborators, equals. It was giving “I’m not a regular mom, I’m a cool mom” energy.
But here’s what I learned the hard way: good intentions don’t erase power imbalances. No matter how I framed it, everyone in the room knew I controlled the funding. And when you control the funding, you shape the conversation—whether you mean to or not.
It wasn’t until I started naming that power—out loud—and building structures to shift decision-making authority that trust actually grew. I began advocating for more flexible funding, multi-year grants, adaptations to our MOUs, and changes to how we talked about the work. Partners felt freer to say what they really needed. And we built better work together because of it.
Power-Conscious Partnership Strategies
Let’s be clear: the responsibility for fixing these dynamics shouldn’t fall squarely on the shoulders of already over-burdened grassroots organizations. But for nonprofits navigating these systems, here are some practices I’ve seen help level the playing field—at least a little.
Start with the honest conversation.
Before launching a partnership, discuss the different kinds of power each org brings (funding, community relationships, infrastructure, lived experience) and name where the imbalances lie. Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.
Design decision-making that redistributes power.
If one partner holds most of the money, others should have more say in how it's spent. If one org has the trust of the community, they should shape the engagement strategy—not just implement it.
Learn more: Five Ways that Nonprofits Can Make Decision-Making More Inclusive and Effective | The Bridgespan Group
Create real feedback loops.
Build in time for reflection and honest check-ins. Ensure that less-resourced partners have a safe way to share concerns without fearing retaliation or lost funding. For tips on building trust in partnerships, check out my last blog: The Three Layers of Trust and What They Mean for Your Partnerships.
Compensate equitably.
Emotional labor, trust-building, and implementation work are real contributions. Funders and lead organizations need to budget accordingly—not expect under-resourced partners to do more with less.
These practices aren’t silver bullets. But they’re part of the work of resisting inequitable systems while we push for deeper change.
The Work We All Need to Do
Ultimately, this isn’t about one well-meaning funder or one strained partnership. It’s about systemic dynamics that emphasize scarcity and urgency, reward competition, concentrate decision-making power, and treat collaboration as an output rather than a process. We can’t build meaningful partnerships without confronting these dynamics head-on. That means funders must design differently, and nonprofits must be supported to assert their needs and boundaries.
The key insight I keep coming back to: ignoring power dynamics doesn't make them go away. It just makes them invisible to the people who benefit from them most.
And until we create systems that shift power, not just share credit, collaboration will keep falling short of its promise.
Let’s Get Honest
What have you seen funders do that actually shifts partnership dynamics? What’s worked—or hasn’t—in your own collaborations?
If you're wrestling with power dynamics in a current partnership or funding relationship, I’d love to talk it through. Sometimes an outside perspective can help identify what’s hard to see from the inside.
And if this resonated with you, consider sharing it with someone navigating these same questions. The more openly we talk about power, the more likely we are to build structures that make equity real—not just aspirational.
