“Skibidi Ohio rizz.”

My 11-year-old says it with total confidence, often on repeat. They have no idea what it really means—and that’s kind of the point. It doesn’t mean any one thing, but it sounds right. It’s a phrase floating around their middle school, passed from kid to kid like a secret code: under-defined and wildly popular.

That’s how language works when it’s all about fitting in. In middle school, it’s mostly harmless—a way to belong. But in organizing, language without shared meaning is a different story. When we use words like “coalition” without defining them, we risk creating confusion where we need clarity, and mistrust where we need alignment.

Over the past two decades, I’ve seen “coalition” used to describe everything from casual partnerships to deeply integrated campaigns. The only common thread? A shared goal. But often, that’s where the unity ends—and where the frustration begins.

If we want to build coalitions that last, we need to be clear not just about what we’re doing together, but how. Because it’s in the how that the meaning of the word “coalition” takes shape. 

The problem with undefined terms

Language is slippery. Once a word starts getting used often enough, it can begin to feel self-explanatory. With kids like my middle-schooler, that can lead to viral phrases. It spreads because it feels familiar, not because it’s clearly defined. Everyone uses it, so everyone assumes they understand it.

In organizing, we fall into the same trap more often than we’d like to admit.

Terms like “coalition,” “partnership,” or even “movement” get thrown around with confidence, and often with good intentions. But when we don’t take the time to define what those words mean in practice, we set the stage for conflict and confusion. What one group considers a loose alliance, another might treat as a tightly coordinated campaign. One organization might expect shared decision-making; another might assume it’s leading the charge.

I want to be clear: when I emphasize the importance of a shared understanding of terms like “coalition,” I’m not talking about getting the perfect dictionary definition. Too often, we swing from surface-level agreement on vague language to drawn-out debates over what those same vague words actually mean. Neither helps us move forward.

We don’t need a five-week argument about the definition of coalition—though if you’re curious, The Organizing Center does have a definition of coalition we use. What actually matters is that any coalition takes the time to have five honest conversations about how they’re going to work together. That’s what makes the word coalition meaningful in practice.

What makes a coalition work

So what does it take to move beyond the illusion of agreement?

In her recent piece, Winning Coalitions Have the Right Kinds of Differences, Maraam Dwidar offers a useful framework for thinking about what holds coalitions together. She highlights two critical ingredients: complementary capacities and architecture. The first is about what each group brings to the table—skills, resources, constituencies, or access. The second is about how the work is structured—how decisions are made, how communication flows, and how roles are defined.

These two elements offer a vital starting point for any coalition that wants to do more than just issue a joint press release. They allow different groups to align their strengths and avoid working at cross-purposes. Expanding on Dwidar’s framework gives additional insights into what keeps coalitions strong, effective, and intact. In practice, in addition to decision making structures and leadership structures that address power imbalances, coalitions that achieve real outcomes are willing to have hard conversations with each other. These topics are not technicalities; they’re the scaffolding that holds collaboration together under pressure.

Five honest conversations for resilient coalitions

1. Defining Our Purpose

Every coalition needs to define what success looks like and why the coalition exists in the first place. Too often, groups come together under banner statements like “we’re building power for our people” or “we’re fighting for housing,” but never articulate what that means in concrete, measurable, or time-bound terms. As a result, different groups interpret the coalition’s mission through their own lenses: one thinks they’re organizing for legislative change, another for narrative shift, another for community defense. Without clarity, even well-meaning collaboration starts to fray.

When a group of us launched the Alliance for a Just Philadelphia (A4JP) in 2018, our goal was to create a cross-issue progressive platform for the 2019 municipal elections. At the time, we prioritized broad representation across the city’s major issues over having a long-term vision. Our early demands targeted City elected officials, the District Attorney’s office, and the School Board.

Over the past seven years, we’ve had to revisit and re-clarify our purpose multiple times.  After multiple disjointed efforts (some unsuccessful), the coalition went through a year-long process to reground itself in a connected—but newly articulated—purpose: advocating for a People’s Budget and building towards co-governance with municipal elected officials.

Through that process, it became clear that achieving this new vision would require narrowing our focus to just two key targets: the Mayor and City Council. Some member organizations, who were focused on the DA or the school board, chose to step back from A4JP at that point—recognizing that their self-interest (see convo #3) no longer aligned with the coalition’s updated purpose.

Clarity of purpose doesn’t mean that everyone has to have the same mission, but it does require agreement on the coalition’s collective purpose. Why this coalition, at this moment? What will count as a win? Do we exist just for this one fight or are we entering a long-term partnership? A shared answer to those questions provides direction, enables evaluation, and avoids the all-too-common dynamic of everyone rowing in different directions while thinking they’re on the same boat.

2. Developing a shared approach or strategy

Once purpose is defined, the next challenge is agreeing on how to pursue it. Strategy shapes priorities, tactics, tone, and timelines. When there’s no shared strategy, coalitions become vulnerable to conflict, inaction, or contradiction—especially in the face of external pressure.

For example, when I worked at Philly Student Union, I was part of a coalition that included other youth organizations, the teachers’ union, legal advocates, and various public education advocacy groups. While we all agreed on a common demand, after our first few wins we struggled to unify our tactics. Some members wanted to hold weekly protests outside the Governor’s Philadelphia office (despite him primarily being in the state capitol) while others wanted to disrupt School Board meetings. Some pushed for legal advocacy and quiet negotiations with city officials while others wanted us to write regular op-eds. None of the tactics were inherently wrong, but without a unified approach, the coalition’s overall impact was weakened. This was a moment where “complementary capacities” actually worked at odds with each other. 

Shared strategy doesn’t mean perfect agreement or uniform action. It means a negotiated and explicit plan that defines how the coalition will move, how hard choices get made, and what tradeoffs are acceptable. Without shared strategy, even shared goals become unreachable.

3. Understanding self-interest

Understanding self-interest is another essential—but often misunderstood—pillar of resilient coalitions. Too often, the term “self-interest” is treated as synonymous with selfishness, when in fact it’s the opposite in a movement context. Self-interest simply means having clarity about your why: what your organization or community needs that makes participating in a coalition a good idea in the first place (and knowing that might be different from the self-interest or why of other organizations).

When groups enter a coalition without a clear grasp of their own stakes, they  tend to overextend, undercommit, or become reactive to the agendas of others. On the flip side, when self-interest is understood and openly named, it becomes a foundation for alignment, negotiation, and sustainability. Each group can advocate for its needs while also respecting the interests of others. 

When I was coordinating the Philadelphia Coalition for Affordable Communities, one of the first things we asked new members was: What’s your self-interest? And not just in winning the campaign—but beyond that. What did they really need?

That approach came from lessons we learned in an earlier effort—many of the same organizations had worked together on the Campaign to Take Back Vacant Land, pushing the city to create a Land Bank––a public agency that would consolidate and distribute publicly held vacant land. Even though the organizations all wanted the Land Bank, they wanted it for different reasons.

There were community farmers who had been growing food on vacant lots for years—they wanted permanent ownership of that land. There was a labor union that wanted to make sure any new businesses built on the land respected workers’ rights and gave neutrality and voluntary recognition. And there were housing advocates who wanted that land used for affordable, accessible homes for low-income families.

Knowing those different goals early on helped the coalition to be honest with each other and to shape legislation that worked for the majority of coalition members—not just some of them.

Working in this way, coalitions become spaces of principled collaboration rather than performance or passive agreement. Without that clarity, what often looks like unity is actually quiet misalignment, which tends to surface only when tension or sacrifice is required. Naming self-interest is not a liability; it is how groups stay in coalitions for the long haul. In the case of the Philadelphia Coalition for Affordable Communities, many of those coalition members have worked together for over 20 years. 

4. Designing a culture that supports disagreement

Many coalitions pride themselves on being “united,” but unity without room for disagreement is brittle. In reality, resilient coalitions need a culture that welcomes disagreement and develops practices to navigate it. Disagreement is often a healthy sign that people are being honest about their priorities, concerns, and boundaries. When surfaced early, disagreements can lead to stronger strategy, greater trust, and smarter decisions. In addition to being able to openly name disagreement, coalition members need to come to the coalition with clarity about what they will and won’t compromise on. When working with other organizations, with varying self-interests, it’s important that coalition members are willing to see and consider others’ perspectives.

A coalition that avoids hard conversations simply maintains the illusion of harmony. Decisions get made in side-conversations. Tension builds beneath the surface. Then, when pressure mounts—a crisis, a high-stakes campaign, a public misstep—the coalition cracks because it never developed the muscle to disagree constructively.

Creating a culture that supports disagreement requires both norms and structures: ground rules for meetings, facilitation that encourages dissent, decision-making processes that account for disagreement without sidelining it. Resilient coalitions are not conflict-free; they are conflict-capable.

5. Developing loving accountability practices

Without clear roles, commitments, and expectations, even the most energized coalition will falter. Accountability doesn’t just mean calling people out when they fall short. It means creating systems that make responsibilities visible, follow-up routine, and feedback safe.

In resilient coalitions, accountability is proactive. There are regular check-ins to track progress on shared goals. Member organizations know what they’ve committed to, when it’s due, and how it fits into the coalition’s broader strategy. If a commitment needs to shift, it’s discussed, rather than ignored or silently dropped.

This isn’t about perfection. People miss deadlines. Priorities change. But without accountability practices—like shared work plans, peer feedback, or rotating coordination roles—the coalition’s momentum depends entirely on individual charisma or crisis response. That’s not sustainable. Trust is built when people know that others will show up, follow through, and communicate when they can’t.

The risk of skipping the work

When coalitions skip the hard work of definition—when we assume shared understanding without confirming it—we set ourselves up for conflict that could have been avoided. I’ve seen groups align around a shared enemy or a common demand, only to fracture six months later because they never clarified their strategy, roles, or expectations. Without a shared foundation, every disagreement feels personal. Every decision feels political. And when things get tough—and they always do—trust dissolves instead of deepening.

Too often, we treat coalition-building like a vibe. If everyone agrees on the headline, we assume we’re in alignment. But a “coalition” isn’t a feeling; it’s a structured formation. It demands real decisions: how we work together, share power, handle conflict, and stay accountable to each other and the communities we’re from.

More than just a vibe

It’s easy and sometimes tempting to ride the momentum of a popular phrase, a shared enemy, or a moment of collective energy. But when we say “coalition” without agreeing on what we mean, we risk eroding the very thing we’re trying to build: collective power.

If we want to avoid the confusion, mistrust, and conflict that so often derail promising coalitions, we have to do the slower, more intentional work of defining how we work together. That means naming our purpose. Aligning on strategy. Owning our self-interests. Creating space for disagreement. And committing to accountability—not just to each other, but to the communities we’re organizing alongside. It’s hard work and there are tools and trainings available to support coalitions to work intentionally together and to navigate conflict. 

My kid doesn’t need to know what “Skibidi Ohio rizz” means. But in organizing, language without clarity doesn’t just waste time—it erodes trust, stalls momentum, and undercuts the change we’re fighting for. Vague language spreads fast. So does dysfunction. If we want to build coalitions that last, we have to define what we’re building—and commit to doing it together.

---