Blog

On paper, everything was aligned

When we were invited, as a facilitation team, to support an international development project in this South American country, the request seemed clear.

The leadership spoke of a need for “realignment.”

The objectives were defined, and a formal agreement existed between a Paraguayan organization and an international donor.

This was a multi-million-dollar project, structured and detailed, with clearly established expected results.

In the preparatory phase, everything held together.

Once on the ground, however, and through conversations with different stakeholders, a more nuanced reality emerged.

This was not a system in failure. But a system that could be strengthened. And that required trust.

• What appears aligned can still be strengthened The project brought together multiple actors:
• a local management team based in the capital
• middle managers and technical specialists
• local and national authorities
• an international donor
• and rural communities in remote areas

Each operated within real constraints, but also with their own objectives, motivations, and a shared intention for the project to succeed. Alignment was present.

But it was not always shared in the same way. Misunderstandings remained, and certain dynamics were limiting the full potential of collaboration.

The challenge was not to fix, but to strengthen.

Starting where people are

We began in a rural community, where the project’s intended beneficiaries lived. They did not speak Spanish.

Their reality was very different from that of actors in the capital. In a project like this, their engagement was central to the success of the initiative.

And we need to meet people where they were. Therefore, before the program, we took time to meet with the community leader and a local interpreter, who became our co-facilitator.

This moment mattered. It was about recognizing their reality, their structure, and their role. Creating space for real expression

We used facilitation approaches adapted to their context. Participants were invited to bring an object that represented who they were.

Then we invited them to look ahead. They chose the image of a bird they knew well. The question was simple: “If this bird were flying over your community in ten years, what would it see?”. They drew.

They shared.

They explained. At first, there was hesitation. Then came laughter. And with it, engagement.

People began to listen, ask questions, and recognize themselves in what others were expressing. Even the local authorities present were touched by the process.

Trust did not come from explanation. It emerged through experience. When the system comes together, complexity becomes visible

The second phase took place in the capital. This was a structured initiative, with clear responsibilities and committed resources. The layers of interaction were multiple:

• project leadership;
• middle management;
• technical specialists;
• local authorities;
• the donor organization; and
• the communities.

Each played an important role. And each carried its own expectations.

In the room, the full system was present. Yet some dynamics were limiting the flow of exchange. Conversations were happening, but dialogue remained partial.

Creating the conditions for cooperation

We did not try to address tensions directly. Instead, we focused on how people were interacting.

Through structured, participatory facilitation approaches — small groups, rotations, guided discussions — we created spaces where people could genuinely engage. Participants gradually moved away from defending positions.

They began contributing together. Connections strengthened. More open exchanges emerged. The shift was not immediate. But it was real.

The pressure to move fast

In initiatives like this — and more broadly in any organization or effort involving multiple stakeholders — the pressure to move quickly is constant. There is a need to deliver.

To show progress.

But when understanding is not fully shared, moving too quickly limits impact. Plans remain technical, and technical plans do not mobilize people. We often assume that action will create alignment. In reality, alignment is what allows action to go further.

Connection, clarity, action

Once people reconnect, it becomes possible to move forward differently. Connection first. Clarity second.

Action third. From there, roles become clearer. Responsibilities are better understood.

The action plan takes on a different quality. It is no longer just defined. It is carried.

A shared responsibility

In systems like this, trust cannot sit only at the top. It must exist at all levels.

Everyone has a role to play. But this requires capacity in: listening; facilitating; and engaging others.

These are not optional skills, they are essential. When these capacities are present, people do more than deliver a project. They contribute to it fully.

Going beyond expected results

Strengthening cooperation is not only about improving a project, it allows the work to go further.

When people truly engage, the outcome exceeds what was initially planned. It becomes greater than the sum of individual contributions