The following article was written by Neil Hart, executive director of grantmaking at Mergon.

Collaboration has the potential to multiply impact in a way very little else can. It also sharpens us. When done well, it becomes a place of learning, stretching, and refinement that you simply don’t get working in isolation.

But that’s the ideal.

In reality, collaboration is rarely straightforward. It is often slower than we expect, more demanding than we plan for, and more exposing than we are ready for. Which raises a more important question than how do we collaborate?

At Mergon we are involved in several collaborations across the African continent. None have come easy. All have been a great blessing over time.

So how do we discern which collaborations are worth building, and how to build them well?

That word, discernment, has become central for us.

Discernment is the real starting point

It is easy to rush into collaboration on the back of shared passion. Two organisations care about the same issue, speak similar language, and see an opportunity to do more together. Energy builds quickly. Ideas flow.

But shared passion is not the same as shared alignment.

We have learned, sometimes slowly, that if you don’t do the deeper work early, you pay for it later. You can use the same words and still mean very different things. You can agree on outcomes while carrying very different assumptions about how those outcomes are achieved, what success looks like, and what compromises are acceptable along the way.

That kind of misalignment does not always show up immediately. It reveals itself over time through friction, slow progress, and models that never quite settle.

So we have had to learn to slow down at the beginning and ask a better question:

Are we truly aligned in what matters most?

Start with values, not strategy

In one recent partnership, we found ourselves stuck…walking through mud. There was mutual respect, strong relationships, and genuine intent. But progress was slow, and the work felt heavier than it should.

Eventually, we paused the strategy conversation altogether and spent time on something more fundamental.

Not what are we building?
But what do we actually value?

The shift was significant.

We began asking simple but revealing questions:

• Do we believe we are stronger together than we are apart?
• Are we willing to learn from one another, even when it challenges our own assumptions?
• Do we value unity enough to work through difficulty rather than around it?

Those conversations were not always easy. But they created a kind of clarity that strategy alone could not produce.

Interestingly, we did not formalise a list of values in that moment. But they became visible through the posture in the room: humility, openness, a willingness to learn, and a commitment to one another.

From there, things began to move.

We have come to see that there is an order to healthy collaboration:

Values shape strategy. Strategy shapes the model.

When you reverse that order, things tend to feel forced.

Expect it to be slower than you want

Collaboration requires more than agreement. It requires integration.

Every person at the table brings years of experience, formed in different contexts, cultures, and ways of thinking. Those differences are not obstacles to overcome. They are the very thing that makes collaboration valuable.

But they do take time to work through. What feels obvious to one person may be completely unfamiliar to another. Assumptions have to be surfaced. Language needs to be clarified. Ideas need to be tested and reworked.

This can feel inefficient, especially to those who are used to moving quickly. But rushing this process usually leads to shallow alignment and fragile outcomes.

We have had to learn patience here.

The work deepens as understanding deepens. And understanding does not come quickly.

It will cost you

At some point, every meaningful collaboration asks the same question:

What are you willing to give for this to work?

Time is the first cost. Convenience is usually the second.

We have found that some things simply cannot be built at a distance. There is a depth of trust, honesty, and shared understanding that only emerges when people sit together, wrestle through ideas, and give unhurried attention to the work and to one another.

This requires intentional rhythms. It requires planning ahead. And it often requires choosing what feels less efficient in the short term for the sake of something more substantial in the long term.

But the difference is noticeable. Unity is not accidental. It is built.

Get the right voices in the room

Another lesson we have learned, especially in building the FiftyFour collaboration has been around who is at the table.

If collaboration is confined to a small group of decision-makers, it will almost always lack depth. Strategy may be sound on paper, but disconnected from reality on the ground.

We have seen the value of bringing in a broader range of perspectives, especially those closer to execution and context. They see things others do not. They ask different questions. They expose blind spots early.

This creates what I would describe as perspective intelligence.

It allows the work to be shaped not just by authority, but by insight. And the end result is usually stronger, more grounded, and more adaptable.

What we are really contending for

At its heart, collaboration is not just about efficiency or scale.

It is about unity.

Not a superficial agreement, but a deeper alignment of heart, purpose, and direction. The kind that can hold tension, absorb difference, and still move forward together.

When that kind of unity is present, something shifts. There is a strength added to the work that does not come from any one organisation or individual.

But it does not happen automatically.

It is discerned.
It is built.
And it is sustained through intentional choices over time.

Read here to learn about Mergon’s grantmaking approach.