"stretch" collaboration

10 Dec, 2025

Originally published on my old Ghost-hosted "Method Qusest" blog. This was post 8 in my #100DaystoOffload challenge.

Sue Pritchard (of FFCC) recommended Adam Kahane to me. (Thanks, Sue! I am a bit ambivalent about his past working for big oil companies though...)

His writing on collaboration is not groundbreaking.¹ But has some helpful bits, and has also helped break me out of my recent network analysis bubble.

Here are some notes on Kahane's view of collaboration, based on initial reading—about a third of Collaborating with the Enemy (2017).²

Three "stretches" or shifts from "conventional" collaboration:

1. In how we relate: moving from insistence on togetherness and unity (consensus, shared goals), to relationship between diverse parts. Relationship means embracing conflict, and working to stay connected through/despite conflict.

2. In how we progress work: being (systematically) experimental and co-creative. No need to agree on the problem AND the solution or goals. There is no optimal plan and we shouldn't wait for it, if we have foundational shared recognition that something needs to change.

3. In how we understand our role: letting go of any impulse to control or force preferred solutions. We can't all privately think of ourselves as above/apart from the people and processes we seek to influence. If we expect others to change, we have to be willing to change too (reminds me of active listening).

Collaboration as one of four choices we can make:

• We collaborate when we want to change a situation; we think change is possible; and that we can't do it on our own.
• We force change to happen when we want change, think we know best or are really wedded to our solution/idea/vision, and think we might have the power to make it happen.
• We adapt when we see no way to change or escape from a situation.
• We exit when we see no way for things to change but have the power to remove ourselves / opt out.

Seems kinda useful for reframing judgement around failure to collaborate or not wanting to collaborate. Refusal or reluctance might be for a good reason!

Relating this to food systems transformation work...

A broad question rolling around my mind: what are the preconditions for collaboration? And, when/where it might be the case that consensus is necessary for diverse actors to work together for food systems change.

Some quick reflections for now:

• There has to be a basic recognition of there being some kind of problem. Kahane seems to be in agreement about this. But in the food systems context: there are so many problems! Is it ok to come together with the basic sense that "we all see something that is wrong in the current system", even if we're seeing different basic issues? At what point do fundamental disagreements about the issues and evidence bases make collaboration impossible? [2026 addition: or, what type of disagreements?]
• On the one hand, it's invigorating and freeing to let go of concern about potentially collaborating with "enemies". On the other ... there is a genuine concern about collaborators engaging in good faith vs bad faith. So another precondition is probably good faith engagement. But how to be sure? And what about external power structure dynamics?
• There needs to be some kind of structural container and/or participants' commitment to neutralise external power dynamics? Otherwise what appears to be a collaborative space may be hijacked or coopted by powerful interests exerting influence. I.e. forcing pretending to be collaboration. But... what if we can't actually control this? I.e. the system is more powerful than some actors no matter how coordinated and effortful?
• There is broad talk of the need for collaboration and building consensus/shared understanding by people in the UK food system. I hear it all the time. And at the same time, of course, the government can regulate and/or markets can continue to shape what people do. Those would fit into the categories of being forced or having to adapt. So, Kahane's framework could be useful for distinguishing what we might consider true collaboration.

Bye for now. Future posts may include more exploration of other thinkers and researchers, looking at this question of ... what do I call it? The scope of agreement/alignment that is needed for actors to come together and collaborate?³