Coalition Building Across Enemy Lines: Turning Uneasy Partnerships Into Progress

On a university campus marked by intense rivalry between science and arts students, years of competition had built silos and distrust. But then, a citywide charity approached both groups with a new funding opportunity—one that required at least two departments to partner for a grant.

Initial meetings revealed grumbling and eye-rolling. But as discussions progressed, everyone spotted a mutual desire: improving student well-being. With some reluctance, a coalition formed to host a 'Wellness Week.' It wasn’t smooth—debates flared up over minor decisions, and internal rifts sometimes seemed sharper than the rivalry itself. Still, through regular check-ins and a focus on their limited, practical goal, the coalition stuck it out. The event, while messy, drew record attendance and positive press.

Behavioral science calls this an 'uneasy coalition.' Research and real-life cases from Kelman’s conflict workshops show that acknowledging internal divisions and agreeing to collaborate on clearly bounded tasks maximizes the durability of coalitions in deeply divided contexts. Disagreements don’t disappear, but when the limited goal is clear and benefits are mutual, coalitions can create real impact and unexpected lines of empathy.

Start by identifying even one shared goal between opposed groups where you work, learn, or volunteer, and use it as a bridge to propose a joint project, however modest. Don’t shy away from airing the disagreements or splits within your own team—they’ll surface anyway, and naming them early makes for a healthier collaboration. Set a tight scope so no side feels it’s being asked to abandon its core identity. Expect bumps, but also look for those subtle shifts where suspicion gives way to respect or, occasionally, new friendship. You may be surprised which opportunities grow from there.