Beyond the buzzwords: What we learned about collaboration at the OTT Conference 2025

At this year’s OTT Conference, a diverse group of think tankers gathered for a session called Change Hubs: Beyond the Difference. The session included representation from Latin America, Southern Africa, East Africa, West Africa, Europe, South Asia, and North America. The goal was to share experiences with collaboration: what works, what does not, and how we adapt. Collaboration has become a buzzword frequently raised in discussions about social change and impact, often as a criticism that it isn’t being done enough. The sessions challenged these assumptions and offered examples of the various partnerships between think tanks, governments, and civil society. It demonstrated that, while most attention on partnerships is often on the what, the who and how also matter.

The setup of the room set the tone for the discussion. Participants sat in a circle, with no tables, and at the centre was the map of the world. There were no presentations. The session opened with a reminder from the facilitators: “All the knowledge we need is in this room.” That felt true. In just 90 minutes, participants explored trust, values, risk, and how to navigate partnerships in a complex world.

Connection vs. collaboration

The group began with three quick rounds of paired conversations reflecting on one thing they had achieved recently, one thing they were challenged by and one thing that gave them hope in the current context. It was a simple but impactful way to create a connection early on, and it reminded many that meaningful exchange can happen easily when space is made for it. One participant later reflected, “Connection feels easier than collaboration.”

That distinction resonated. Connection is often seen as immediate and organic. Collaboration, on the other hand, is viewed as a layered and demanding process. It involves navigating power dynamics, risks and institutional constraints. What connection and collaboration have in common is that both involve two or more humans coming together, and they require personal vulnerability and courage. Often, when it comes to partnerships, think tanks pay most attention to the what and not the who and the how, the human.  

During the session, the first group reflection was on the question: Is collaboration harder now than it used to be? Given the prevailing narrative about the state of the world, the expected response was a bleak ‘yes’. However, what emerged was a more nuanced view. Responses varied from “yes” to “sometimes” to “no.” The answer often depended on regional context, institutional dynamics, existing levels of trust, and the leadership. Where there was political instability, a lack of trust, a misalignment of values, poor leadership, and limited resources, collaboration became harder.  

For those who felt stuck, where collaboration efforts had failed or broken down, the risks felt personal. This came through in their stories. Collaboration was not just strategic. It was emotional. It raised questions about professional identity, boundaries, disappointment, and, at times, ambivalence, as well as fear.

Leaders who dedicated time to understanding their context, finding allies, setting boundaries to manage expectations, and building trust discovered ways to move forward despite the challenges. Partnerships need nurturing, and sometimes cannot be rushed. 

The questions that emerged

Several key tensions and questions surfaced in the conversation:

• What are our values, strengths, and boundaries, and how can we be most useful to others?
• Can we adapt our models to enable more effective collaboration?
• Do we still have the time to build the trust we need?
• How do we collaborate with those we are also competing with?
• Are our collaborations actually working, or are we mistaking activity for progress?
• Can we leverage the way collaboration broadens our perspective to improve the questions we ask together?

Are we finding ways to move forward?

The group discussion prompt asked: Despite the challenges, are we finding ways to move forward? Many participants said yes, but with important caveats. Progress requires intentionality, clarity, and patience.

What seems to help:

• Being intentional about who we collaborate with, and why
• Being clear about boundaries and expectations from the start
• Investing in trust through reputation, listening, and follow-through
• Making time for reflection, even under pressure
• Saying no to collaborations that feel forced or extractive

There was also a shared agreement that not all collaboration is good collaboration. Sometimes, competition is appropriate. Sometimes, a failed partnership was simply the wrong fit. Moving forward means learning how to tell the difference.

The thread that ties it together

As one participant put it:

“The tougher it becomes, the clearer it becomes: we need collaboration.”

That line captured the heart of the session. Collaboration is a real need, especially when circumstances are difficult. For collaboration to matter, its complexity must be acknowledged. That includes the emotional weight, the structural constraints, and the fact that collaboration does not always succeed.

The session did not offer all the answers. What it did offer was a space to pause, reflect, and feel understood in the complexity of the work. That, in itself, was a form of collaboration.

(This originally appeared on On Think Tanks here.)