What do we mean by involving people who disagree with your advocacy effort?
Advocacy groups often work closely with people and organizations that already support their goals.
It can also be useful, in some circumstances, to communicate or collaborate with people who disagree with part or all of a proposal.
These people should not automatically be treated as opponents.
They may:
- Share the same overall goal but prefer a different strategy
- Have concerns about cost, implementation, timing, or unintended effects
- Have responsibilities or institutional constraints that shape their position
- Lack information about the proposal
- Represent communities or interests that have not yet been included
- Strongly oppose the proposed change
Involving people with different views can sometimes improve understanding, identify practical problems, reduce unnecessary conflict, strengthen a proposal, or reveal areas where cooperation is possible.
Collaboration is not appropriate in every situation. Safety, power differences, rights, ongoing harm, organizational responsibilities, and the wishes of people directly affected should all be considered.
Why might you involve people who disagree with you?
Constructive engagement may help your group:
- Better understand the concerns and interests shaping disagreement
- Identify misunderstandings or gaps in information
- Learn about implementation challenges your group may have overlooked
- Identify areas of shared interest
- Develop possible compromises or alternative solutions
- Build relationships that may be useful for future community work
- Reduce unnecessary polarization
- Create opportunities for collaborative problem-solving
The purpose should not be to “neutralize” critics, gather information about them for strategic advantage, or gain access to their networks without their knowledge.
Engagement works best when participants understand why the conversation is happening and what each side hopes to accomplish.
Are they really opponents?
Before deciding that someone is an opponent, ask what they actually disagree with.
A person or organization may oppose one proposal while supporting another.
They may disagree with:
- The goal
- The proposed strategy
- The cost
- The timeline
- The evidence
- The organization responsible for implementation
- The likely effects on another community or interest
Positions can also change over time.
Maintaining respectful communication can therefore be valuable even when substantial disagreement remains.
Someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily an opponent.
When might engagement be useful?
Engagement may be worth considering when:
- Communication remains possible
- Participants are willing to listen and respond
- There appear to be shared interests or overlapping goals
- Better information could clarify the disagreement
- A practical or policy problem may benefit from joint problem-solving
- Negotiation could produce meaningful progress
- The people directly affected consider engagement useful
When might engagement be inappropriate?
Not every conflict should be approached through collaboration.
Direct engagement may be inappropriate or require additional safeguards when:
- There are credible threats, harassment, intimidation, or violence
- Harm is ongoing
- Significant power differences make voluntary participation difficult
- One party controls another participant's employment, housing, services, legal status, education, or safety
- There is a documented pattern of bad-faith participation or deliberate deception
- Participation would expose people to unnecessary retaliation or trauma
- Legal, regulatory, or formal complaint procedures are more appropriate
- The people most affected do not want direct engagement
- The time and resource demands would outweigh the likely benefit
Respectful disagreement can sometimes be the appropriate outcome.
Collaboration should not be treated as a measure of whether advocates are reasonable or willing to compromise.
How can you involve people who disagree with you?
Clarify why you are considering engagement
Before making contact, decide what you hope the conversation will accomplish.
Possible goals include:
- Understanding concerns more clearly
- Correcting misunderstandings
- Sharing information
- Identifying areas of agreement
- Exploring a pilot program
- Negotiating a specific policy or implementation question
- Agreeing to work together on a related issue
- Establishing a process for continued communication
Avoid treating silence or a promise not to oppose you publicly as the only meaningful form of success.
A clearer understanding of why agreement is not possible can also be useful.
Identify appropriate participants
Decide who actually needs to be involved.
Consider people or organizations that:
- Have relevant authority or responsibility
- Are directly affected by the issue
- Have useful knowledge or expertise
- Have worked with your group before
- Share at least some goals or concerns
- Represent perspectives that have not yet been included
- Can participate constructively in the discussion
Do not select participants only because they have enough power to help your organization achieve what it wants.
Ask whose participation is necessary for a fair and workable process.
Include people directly affected
A disagreement between two organizations may affect many people who are not represented by either organization.
Those people should not be treated merely as “stakeholders” whose cooperation is needed to prevent disruption.
They may have legitimate rights, knowledge, interests, and decision-making roles.
Ask:
- Who will live with the consequences of the decision?
- Who experiences the current problem?
- Who may experience unintended effects of a proposed solution?
- Who has historically been left out of similar decisions?
- How can those people participate meaningfully?
Make contact transparently
Explain:
- Why you are requesting the conversation
- What issue you want to discuss
- Who will participate
- Whether any decisions are expected
- Whether the meeting will be confidential or public
Avoid presenting a meeting as informal relationship-building if your group actually intends to negotiate commitments or gather information for a public campaign.
Establish ground rules when useful
Ground rules can help reduce confusion and clarify expectations.
Depending on the meeting, they may address:
- Participants
- Meeting location
- Accessibility
- Language and interpretation
- Time limits
- Confidentiality
- Media communication
- Recording or note-taking
- Outside experts
- Decision-making authority
- Procedures for ending or pausing the meeting
Set a clear agenda
A shared agenda can clarify:
- What questions will be discussed
- Which questions are outside the scope of the meeting
- Whether the meeting is exploratory or intended to reach decisions
- What information participants should review in advance
- What will happen after the meeting
Use working groups when the issue is complex
A broad issue may be easier to address through smaller working groups focused on particular questions.
Working groups should include people with relevant knowledge and perspectives.
Avoid using subgroup processes to move controversial decisions out of public view or exclude people who should have a voice.
Review evidence together
Some disagreements involve different understandings of the facts.
Participants may benefit from reviewing:
- Public data
- Research
- Legal or policy requirements
- Community-generated information
- Lived experience
- Technical analysis
In some cases, participants may agree to jointly identify questions that need additional research.
Be cautious with the idea of an “unbiased expert.” Every source has a perspective, methodology, and set of assumptions.
Instead, agree in advance on criteria for credible evidence and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
Consider an independent facilitator or mediator
A trained facilitator or mediator may be useful when:
- Trust is limited
- Meetings repeatedly become unproductive
- Participants have difficulty communicating directly
- Power differences require additional procedural safeguards
- Several organizations are involved
Make sure the facilitator's role is clear.
Mediation is not appropriate when it creates pressure to compromise on safety, rights, or accountability.
Begin with exploratory conversations when appropriate
Some groups may benefit from an initial meeting focused on understanding the issue rather than reaching an agreement.
Participants can discuss:
- How each group understands the problem
- Their concerns
- What they need from a future process
- Which questions require more information
- Whether continued engagement appears useful
People should not be required to disclose personal emotions or experiences simply because the meeting is exploratory.
Expect more than one conversation
Complex disagreements are rarely resolved in one meeting.
If progress appears possible, agree on:
- Next steps
- Responsibilities
- Additional information needed
- Who else should be involved
- When participants will meet again
Guidelines for constructive engagement
The following practices may help:
- Understand interests and values. Identify where goals overlap and where they differ.
- Enter the conversation with realistic expectations. Collaboration may be possible, but agreement is not guaranteed.
- Be respectful. Treat people with dignity while remaining able to challenge harmful policies or conduct.
- Communicate your own goals clearly. Do not hide the outcomes your organization is seeking.
- Listen carefully. Ask questions and check whether you understood another participant correctly.
- Consider several options. Avoid treating the first proposal from either side as the only possible solution.
- Evaluate compromises carefully. Consider effects on the people most directly affected.
- Maintain alternatives. Your organization may need another strategy if negotiations do not produce an acceptable result.
Compromise is not always required
Being willing to communicate does not mean being required to compromise on every issue.
Some matters involving:
- Legal rights
- Safety
- Discrimination
- Accessibility
- Professional or ethical obligations
- Basic program integrity
may not allow a middle-ground solution.
The relevant question is not simply, “What's in it for each side?”
Ask instead whether a proposed agreement is fair, lawful, workable, evidence-informed, and consistent with the needs and rights of the people affected.
Reaching an agreement
If participants reach agreement, clarify exactly what has been decided.
An agreement may involve:
- A specific action
- A pilot project
- A change in policy or practice
- Joint research
- Continued negotiation
- Cooperation on one part of the issue
- Agreement on general goals while details remain unresolved
Do not describe neutrality or silence from another organization as a partnership unless that is how all parties understand it.
Put important agreements in writing
Written agreements can reduce misunderstanding.
Depending on the situation, the document might be:
- Meeting notes
- A letter of agreement
- A memorandum of understanding
- A formal contract
- An implementation plan
The agreement should identify:
- What each party has committed to do
- Who is responsible
- Timelines
- Resources
- How progress will be measured
- How disagreements will be addressed
- Whether and how the agreement can be changed
Do not assume that handshakes, physical contact, or other gestures are appropriate or culturally universal.
Communicate the agreement to people affected by it
Do not wait until after an agreement is finalized to involve people whose lives or work will be affected.
Meaningful participation should occur earlier in the process whenever possible.
Once an agreement has been reached, explain:
- What was decided
- Why
- What tradeoffs were made
- What remains unresolved
- Who is responsible for implementation
- How community members can provide feedback
The goal should not be to “sell” an agreement or obtain “buy-in” after decisions have already been made.
People should be able to understand, question, and where appropriate influence the agreement.
Use current, specific language when discussing equity commitments
For example, rather than referring broadly to “minority hiring targets,” identify the actual issue involved.
Depending on context, this might include:
- Racial or ethnic disparities in hiring
- Equal employment opportunity
- Local hiring
- Disability inclusion
- Language access
- Workforce diversity
Use terminology that accurately reflects the population, legal context, and policy being discussed.
Build implementation and accountability into the agreement
Agreements are more useful when there is a clear plan for implementation.
Consider including:
- Regular progress meetings
- Public reporting where appropriate
- Defined performance measures
- A review date
- A process for addressing complaints or disagreements
- Independent review when appropriate
- Community participation in evaluation
Monitor commitments from all participants
Accountability should apply to every organization involved, including your own.
Instead of simply “watching your former opponent,” establish transparent measures that allow everyone to determine whether commitments are being fulfilled.
Document:
- Actions completed
- Deadlines met or missed
- Resources provided
- Problems encountered
- Outcomes
- Necessary changes
In Summary
People and organizations that disagree with an advocacy effort may sometimes be appropriate partners in discussion, negotiation, research, or limited collaboration.
Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically an opponent. They may share the overall goal while disagreeing about strategy, cost, implementation, evidence, timing, or competing priorities.
Engagement can help clarify disagreements, identify shared interests, improve proposals, and sometimes produce workable agreements.
Collaboration should not be pursued simply to neutralize critics, gain strategic information, or obtain access to another organization's relationships or resources.
Begin by clarifying why engagement is useful, who should participate, what the risks are, and what people directly affected by the issue want from the process.
Direct engagement is not always appropriate. Safety concerns, rights violations, harassment, serious power differences, or repeated bad-faith participation may require formal procedures, stronger advocacy, limited contact, or another approach.
When meetings occur, use clear ground rules, accessible processes, transparent goals, reliable evidence, and independent facilitation where appropriate.
Compromise can be useful, but it is not automatically the goal. Some rights, safety standards, and ethical obligations should not be negotiated away simply to obtain agreement.
People affected by the outcome should be involved before decisions are finalized. Do not treat them merely as audiences who need to be persuaded to “buy in” afterward.
If an agreement is reached, document responsibilities, timelines, implementation, evaluation, and accountability.
Finally, accountability should apply to all participants. Former opponents do not need special surveillance; all organizations should be evaluated according to whether they fulfill the commitments they made.
Constructive engagement is most valuable when it helps people understand one another more accurately and produces fairer, more workable community decisions – not simply when one side succeeds in bringing the other into its campaign.