Imagine that a local health coalition is seeking public funding for an early-childhood health program. Some organizations that often disagree with the coalition on other policy questions may nevertheless share concerns about infant health, family well-being, preventive care, or responsible use of public funds. The coalition does not assume that those organizations will support the proposal. Instead, it decides to open a conversation, learn how those groups view the issue, identify any genuine areas of agreement, and determine whether communication would be useful even if no formal partnership develops. Advocacy sometimes requires working across significant differences. This section discusses how to establish respectful communication with people or organizations that often hold different positions from your own. What do we mean by establishing lines of communication with people who often hold different positions? Establishing a line of communication means creating a reliable and appropriate way to exchange information, ask questions, clarify misunderstandings, and discuss issues when useful. The people or organizations involved may disagree with you on many issues while sharing concerns or goals on a particular one. Communication does not require: Agreement on every issue A formal alliance Endorsement of one another's broader agendas A commitment to work together in the future Sometimes the most valuable result is simply having a respectful channel through which people can contact one another when an issue arises. Avoid assuming who will agree or disagree Political, religious, professional, cultural, age, racial, geographic, or organizational identities do not reliably predict every position a person or group will take. People may agree on one issue and strongly disagree on another. Before labeling someone as an ally or opponent, examine: Their actual public positions Their organization's mission Their history on the specific issue What they say their priorities are Whether their position has changed over time Do not build outreach strategies around stereotypes about how a demographic or political group is supposed to think. Why establish communication across differences? To understand one another more accurately When groups communicate only through public arguments, campaign materials, news coverage, or assumptions about one another, misunderstandings can grow. Direct communication can help clarify: What each group actually believes What each group is trying to accomplish Which facts are disputed Which values or priorities differ Where agreement already exists To correct misinformation or misunderstanding Misunderstandings may arise from: Incorrect information Incomplete information Public statements taken out of context Errors in judgment Misinterpretation of another group's actions Lack of direct communication A trusted communication channel can make it easier to clarify what happened before a misunderstanding becomes a larger conflict. To address harm or serious mistakes responsibly If a staff member, volunteer, leader, or organizational representative commits serious misconduct, communication with affected communities or organizations may be appropriate. The response should focus on: Acknowledging what occurred Taking responsibility for the organization's own response Supporting people affected Taking appropriate corrective or disciplinary action Preventing recurrence Listening to affected communities Do not approach another organization primarily because the crisis creates a political opportunity or because contact could improve your image. To identify genuine common ground Organizations that disagree broadly may still share goals involving: Public health Safety Education Family well-being Economic stability Environmental protection Government accountability Another specific community concern Working together on one issue does not require agreement on unrelated issues. To improve future communication Even when no partnership develops, having a reliable contact can be useful when: A new issue emerges A public statement may affect both groups A misunderstanding needs clarification Community tensions increase Joint problem-solving becomes possible To learn from disagreement Communication should not be treated only as a way to move the other party toward your position. Another group may identify: Evidence you overlooked A legitimate implementation concern A value conflict you had not understood An unintended consequence A stronger alternative Be prepared for the possibility that communication may change your own understanding as well. Communication is not the same as coalition building A conversation does not automatically create a partnership. Different levels of relationship may include: Occasional information sharing A reliable contact for urgent issues Dialogue about areas of disagreement Cooperation on one specific project A formal coalition or partnership Let the relationship develop according to actual areas of agreement and trust. Do not treat another group's participation mainly as a way to weaken someone else's coalition or increase your own political strength. When might outreach not be appropriate? Communication across differences can be useful, but it is not always necessary or safe. Consider whether: The proposed conversation has a meaningful purpose The other party is willing to communicate in good faith Participation would create safety or retaliation risks The relationship would require people directly affected by harm to interact with those responsible for it The time and resources required are proportionate to the likely benefit Another process, such as mediation, formal negotiation, investigation, regulation, or legal action, is more appropriate Communication is not a substitute for accountability when serious misconduct or ongoing harm is involved. How do you establish communication? Understand the organizations and issues involved Before reaching out, learn: What the other organization actually says about the issue What your own organization has said Where the positions differ Where possible areas of agreement exist Whether there is a history of conflict or cooperation Whether anyone directly affected should be involved Do not assume motives such as prejudice, selfishness, ideology, or bad faith without evidence. Identify the appropriate contact Determine who has responsibility for the issue or for external communication. This might be: A program director A policy staff member A community-engagement staff member An executive director A board representative Another designated organizational contact Administrative and support staff should be treated as professionals, not as “gatekeepers” whose main role is to block or permit access. Choose a legitimate reason for contact Useful reasons may include: Clarifying a misunderstanding Discussing a specific policy Sharing relevant information Asking for the other organization's perspective Exploring whether common ground exists Discussing a shared community concern Repairing a damaged relationship Asking whether collaboration on a limited project is possible Avoid contacting someone mainly because another organization has recently experienced internal conflict and you believe the moment can be exploited. Use timing responsibly Timing can affect whether someone has the attention and capacity for a conversation. Good times to reach out may include: When the other party has contacted you When a relevant policy decision is approaching When misinformation needs clarification When both groups are responding to the same community issue At the beginning of an initiative when genuine participation is still possible Do not time outreach around private family events, personal celebrations, vulnerability, organizational crises, or other circumstances simply because you believe the other party may be easier to influence. Use introductions transparently A mutual contact can sometimes make an introduction easier. An appropriate intermediary might: Ask both parties whether they are open to an introduction Explain why the conversation may be useful Share contact information with permission Attend the first meeting if both parties want that Do not recruit spouses, relatives, friends, or acquaintances to create access without the knowledge of the person being contacted. Personal relationships should facilitate consensual introductions, not be used as leverage. Do not engineer “accidental” encounters Avoid deliberately placing yourself at someone's restaurant, bar, recreational activity, family event, conference activity, place of worship, or other personal setting in order to create an apparently spontaneous encounter. If you meet someone naturally at a public event and the issue comes up, you may communicate appropriately. But planned outreach should generally use official, professional, or mutually agreed channels. Choose the communication method that fits the situation Possible methods include: Email Phone Video meeting Scheduled in-person meeting Formal letter An introduction through a mutual contact Do not assume that face-to-face communication is always superior. Consider: Accessibility Distance Privacy Safety Scheduling The sensitivity of the issue The communication preferences of the people involved Who should represent your organization? Choose someone who: Understands the issue Can explain your organization's position accurately Listens carefully Can acknowledge legitimate disagreement Knows what commitments they are authorized to make Can communicate respectfully under tension Is willing to reconsider assumptions when new information emerges Authority matters more than prestige If the conversation may involve commitments, send someone who has authority to make or recommend those commitments. Do not choose a representative mainly because the other organization is impressed by job titles, wealth, social status, professional prestige, or political influence. Avoid class or institutional stereotypes Do not assume that a corporate office, neighborhood organization, grassroots group, university, faith community, or other setting requires a particular kind of person in order to be taken seriously. Respectful communication should not depend on whether someone is comfortable around expensive offices or informal community spaces. Prepare representatives to understand the organizational context without stereotyping the people who work there. What should the first substantive conversation cover? Clarify the purpose Begin by explaining why you requested the conversation. You might say: Our organizations often take different positions, but we may have overlapping concerns about this particular proposal. We wanted to understand how you see the issue and whether there is anything useful for us to discuss. Ask questions Useful questions may include: How does your organization understand this issue? What concerns do you have? What outcomes matter most to you? What information do you think is missing? Where do you think our organizations agree? Where do we disagree? Is there any useful next step we should consider? Establish common ground without hiding disagreement Do not manufacture agreement. It is acceptable to conclude: We agree on the goal but not the strategy. We agree on one part of the proposal but not another. We do not agree, but we now understand the disagreement better. We may be able to work together on a separate issue. Offer help without creating an implied exchange Sharing useful information or assistance can build trust. However, avoid framing help as an implicit trade: We helped you, so now you should support us. Be clear when assistance is being offered without conditions. Apologize when an apology is warranted A genuine apology can help repair a relationship. An effective apology should focus on: What happened The harm or concern Your organization's responsibility What corrective action is being taken Do not apologize primarily as a public-relations strategy or as a way to obtain future support. Provide advance notice when appropriate If your organization is about to make a public announcement that significantly affects another organization, advance notice may sometimes be appropriate. This should be done to support accurate communication and reduce unnecessary surprise, not to trade advance information for cooperation. Follow up on the conversation If both parties want continued communication, agree on a practical next step. This might include: Sharing documents Scheduling another meeting Identifying staff contacts Reviewing a proposal Exploring a limited joint project Agreeing to contact one another when a relevant issue arises Keep commitments made during the conversation. If circumstances change and you cannot meet a commitment, explain that promptly. Do not force ongoing communication Not every first conversation needs to become a permanent relationship. Continue communication when: Both parties find it useful Shared work is continuing Relevant issues arise Maintaining the relationship reduces misunderstanding or conflict If the other party declines further communication, respect that decision unless there is a legitimate reason to use another formal process. Periodically reassess whether the relationship still needs regular attention. When communication fails A person or organization may decline to meet or may decide not to continue a relationship. That does not necessarily mean either side acted improperly. Consider: Whether the purpose of the outreach was clear Whether the timing was appropriate Whether trust had been damaged previously Whether the disagreement is too substantial for collaboration Whether another communication method would be more appropriate Whether further outreach should simply stop Circumstances may change later, but do not repeatedly send “feelers” after someone has clearly declined contact. In Summary Advocacy does not require treating every person or organization with a different position as an enemy. Groups that disagree on many issues may still benefit from respectful communication. A communication channel can help correct misunderstandings, exchange information, identify genuine common ground, reduce unnecessary conflict, and create opportunities for limited cooperation. Do not assume political, religious, cultural, age, or organizational identities tell you exactly what someone believes. Learn the other party's actual position before deciding whether communication is useful. Communication should not be pursued primarily to weaken someone else's coalition, enlarge your own power base, exploit internal conflict, or convert another group's supporters. Use official, professional, or mutually agreed channels. Personal introductions can be useful when everyone involved knows and agrees to the introduction, but personal relationships should not be used as covert leverage. Do not engineer apparently accidental encounters or time outreach around private personal circumstances in order to increase influence. Choose representatives who understand the issue, listen well, communicate respectfully, and have the authority needed for the conversation. In the first substantive discussion, explain your purpose, ask questions, identify genuine agreement and disagreement, and avoid pretending that collaboration exists when it does not. Keep commitments and follow up when both parties want the communication to continue. Ongoing contact does not have to continue indefinitely. Respect a decision not to continue communicating. Finally, remember that the strongest reason to communicate across differences is not to gain strategic advantage. It is to understand one another more accurately, reduce unnecessary conflict, and make cooperation possible where real common ground exists. Resources Online Resources Basic Advocacy Skills is a guide that provides basic information to being a good advocate, including information on how to open lines of communication. Identify Allies and Opponents. This advocacy planning model provides information on how to establish a group or individual as an ally, opponent, or neutral/unknown group. Now Hear This is a guide provided by FENTON Communications that offers information on communicating in advocacy. The guide discusses the “9 laws of successful advocacy communications.” Print Resources Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. ACTA publications. This book provides case studies of successful community-building initiatives across the U.S. In addition to this, it outlines how a community can move toward asset-based development. Meredith, C., & Dunham. C. (1999). Real Clout. Boston: The Access Project. Robinson, J. & Green, P. (2010). Introduction to community development: Theory, practice, and service-learning. SAGE Publications, Inc. This book provides both theoretical and practical approaches to community development, as well as case studies and supportive materials to develop community development skills.
