Anchor, Advocate, or Administrator? Unpacking the Backbone Organization’s work in a Collective Action for Real Impact
In India’s development sector, collective action has become a powerful pathway for driving systemic change. Yet behind every successful collaboration lies an often-invisible player: the backbone organisation. Whether anchoring the coalition, advocating for its shared purpose, or managing the mechanics of coordination, this role is critical — and frequently underestimated.
This session takes a closer look at what it means to be the “glue” in collective action. We’ll explore the multiple hats backbone organisations wear, the tensions they navigate between neutrality and leadership, and the emotional and operation all about of ensuring that collaboration doesn’t unravel.
Drawing on practitioner insights and lived experiences, we’ll unpack the realities of holding alignment amidst power imbalances, ensuring accountability without authority, and reating space for both efficiency and trust-building.
Whether you sit within a funder consortium, a programmatic coalition, or a systems change platform, this conversation will offer practical reflections, honest provocations, and hopeful strategies on how to strengthen the role that often holds everything —and everyone — together.
What is a backbone organisation, and what role should it play in collective action?
Lakshmi Pattabi Raman (Centre for Exponential Change) began by cautioning against oversimplification. While the term “backbone” originates from collective impact literature, in practice it appears under many names - system orchestrator, secretariat, system support organisation. Regardless of nomenclature, the essence of the role is the same: to keep things moving forward, towards a shared purpose in a faster and more efficient manner.
She emphasised that the backbone’s role is both structural and relational. Structurally, it may design the collaborative, shape strategy, guide pivots, enable learning, and manage shared narratives and reporting. Relationally, and just as critically, it must build, hold, and continually renegotiate relationships across funders, implementers, and communities. Much of the work involves transforming relationships so that the collective can keep progressing toward its shared agenda.
Lakshmi underscored that the role cannot be static or prescriptive. Collectives operate in fluid, dynamic environments; therefore, the backbone must be agile and responsive, evolving as relationships, contexts, and needs shift over time.
Akshay Soni (formerly The/Nudge) built on this by describing the backbone as a role that wears many hats, with coordination as the dominant function. Aligning activities, managing communication, tracking shared metrics, and organising forums form the backbone’s daily operational core. Other roles - moderator, convener - become more prominent at different stages, during the lifecycle of the initiative.
Importantly, Akshay rejected the notion of the backbone as a “parent.” That framing implies hierarchy and authority, whereas the backbone’s true function is facilitative rather than controlling. Over time, his experience showed the role expanding into additional, often under-acknowledged domains: consensus-building, capacity-building across partners, and crisis management. These responsibilities, while rarely planned for, become inevitable in real-world collaborations as evidenced when Saamuhika Shakti faced challenges during the first Phase of the initiative. Echoing Lakshmi’s perspective, Akshay emphasised that - ability to deal with whatever gets thrown your way - is critical. While not a constant day-to-day function, this responsiveness enables the collective to navigate shocks, stabilise operations, and sustain momentum through periods of uncertainty.
Does the backbone shape culture and trust within a collaborative—and what does that require of the organisation playing this role?
Shailja (Dasra) reframed the question by stating that a backbone does not set culture as much as it creates conditions for culture and trust to emerge. Drawing from both structured collaboratives and organic grassroots movements, she reminded participants that collective action has long existed without formal backbones—and that structured philanthropy must coexist with, not override, these traditions.
From her experience, shaping culture begins with governance clarity: who holds decision-making power, how agenda-setting happens, and whose voices carry weight. These choices fundamentally influence trust. She stressed that backbone organisations must be agnostic to solutions and methodologies, remaining obsessively focused on the problem rather than advocating for any one approach as bias toward particular solutions will erode trust.
Equally important is resisting the role of gatekeeper. While backbones often sit between funding and implementation, they must actively amplify voices beyond their immediate partners, especially those closest to communities, and ensure credit and visibility flow where they are due.
What determines who should play the backbone role? Is it the implementer, a funder, or an independent organisation - and how does context shape that choice?
Returning to this question, Lakshmi shared that the backbone in her view is a role that can be played by different actors, and it need not be just one fixed type of organisation. That role may be played by implementing organisations, funders, independent intermediaries, or even shared across actors—each bringing distinct advantages and limitations.
Implementers offer deep credibility, community trust, and contextual knowledge, but may struggle with perceived neutrality or internal conflicts of interest. Independent organisations can act as neutral bridge-builders, yet often start with lower legitimacy among grassroots actors. Acknowledging her experience in the funder role, Lakshmi noted that while they can bring convening power and resources to the collaborative, it can also introduce real and perceived power imbalances that can silence honest feedback.
Rather than prescribing a single “right” model, Lakshmi argued for intentional role design. Parts of the backbone function—convening, learning, resourcing, facilitation—can be distributed across actors, as long as there is someone whose primary responsibility is to hold the big picture: connecting assets across the network, stewarding the shared purpose, and ensuring momentum without excessive bureaucracy.
How can a backbone manage power dynamics in a collective while maintaining trust and transparency?
Akshay acknowledged that backbones inevitably hold power—through agenda-setting, information control, and proximity to funders. The challenge therefore is not eliminating this power, but exercising it responsibly.
Drawing on his experience leading Saamuhika Shakti in Phase 1, Akshay described the backbone’s posture as one of servant leadership, not authority. Key practices that helped balance power dynamics included:
Open and transparent decision-making: Decisions on agendas, processes, and data were explained in broad forums. Over time, this evolved into proposing ideas, actively seeking partner input, and refining decisions collectively—so ownership was shared.
Clear separation of process and content: The backbone acted as an expert on process (how to convene, collaborate, and structure discussions), but as an equal voice—not a dominant one—on content. Partners led on programmatic goals; the backbone acted as a guardrail aligned to the common agenda.
Loyalty to the problem, not solutions or organisations: The backbone internalised that its primary allegiance was to the shared problem and collaborative process, not to any single organisation or preferred solution. This often meant pausing discussions, drawing out quieter voices, and ensuring equitable participation.
Other trust-building practices included approaching partners as learners rather than experts, investing heavily in one-on-one conversations to surface unspoken concerns, and—most powerfully—acknowledging mistakes openly. Owning errors, he noted, is disarming and builds credibility, especially when power asymmetries already exist. Together, these practices helped the Saamuhika Shakti backbone navigate inherent power dynamics while fostering transparency, shared ownership, and a genuinely collaborative culture.
How can a backbone realistically navigate shifting expectations, define its boundaries, and clarify what should fall within its mandate?
Shailja reflected on the backbone role as one that is inherently complex, demanding far more than coordination or facilitation. She cautioned against the assumption that backbone organisations should build the implementation capacity of partners, noting that partners are engaged precisely because they already bring deep domain expertise. Instead, she noted, the backbone’s responsibility lies in building the capacity of the collective itself—creating the conditions for collaboration that allow joint efforts to generate leverage beyond what individual organisations could achieve on their own.
She emphasised that the backbone’s role carries a high degree of accountability, as the backbone often holds together a diverse ecosystem of stakeholders—funders, civil society organisations, and community actors. The work involves managing multiple, often competing expectations and ensuring that the collective functions as a space where all partners feel heard and are able to contribute their strongest capabilities. Rather than being overwhelmed by this complexity, a strong backbone treats it as a core strength and governs the process with intention and care.
Drawing on Dasra’s experience with the 10–19 Adolescents Collaborative, Shailja illustrated how the backbone role evolves over time. In nascent fields, backbones may need to play a stronger agenda-setting and field-building role; as the ecosystem matures, they must step back, transfer ownership, and sometimes even relinquish the backbone role entirely to more proximate actors.
Shailja stressed the importance of judgement and self-awareness. A backbone organisation must continually assess whether it is the right entity to play the role at a given moment, and how that role should change as both the collective and the field evolve. The work requires agility, responsiveness, and a willingness to adapt to emerging needs without overstepping boundaries.
Ultimately, she framed the role as demanding but deeply worthwhile. Change through collective action is slow, complex, and difficult to measure—but when done well, it creates a durable, system-level impact that no single organization can achieve alone.
When does a collective or backbone reach a point where it needs to evolve into a different kind of organisation, what should guide that transition, and what clearly falls outside a backbone’s role?
Shailja underscored that a backbone must be careful not to overreach. It should not direct implementation where capable partners exist, gatekeep funder relationships, claim undue credit, or design solutions without being rooted in community realities. Instead, the role is to remain community-centred, accountable, and enabling—strengthening the ecosystem rather than replacing it.
She also highlighted that backbone work demands political and contextual savvy. Collectives are shaped by funder interests, organisational incentives, and the dynamics of logos and egos. Alignment cannot be assumed simply because there is a shared mission. True collaboration requires real investment from partners, clarity on roles and incentives, and sometimes difficult trade-offs, including sharing credit and intellectual property.
Finally, Shailja noted that collective action cannot rely on formal structures alone. It requires sustained, multi-layered communication and rigorous measurement across systems, programmes, and populations. In complex ecosystems, this often means assembling multiple partners to capture impact—reinforcing that backbone work is inherently complex, non-linear, and far from effortless.
On transitions, Shailja noted that transitions in a backbone role need to be intentional and evidence-led. What helped Dasra was conducting regular reviews—often through third-party assessments—to reflect on whether the organisation was still playing the right role, even when long-term plans were in place. These reviews, though resource-intensive, were critical in guiding decisions about evolution and transition.
Should a backbone role be time-bound, with success defined by its ability to eventually shrink or become redundant as the collective matures?
Akshay described the backbone as a role that should be inherently time-bound, much like any organisation created to solve a specific problem. Using the example of polio eradication, he noted that while core systems may remain necessary, certain coordinating and awareness-building functions naturally become redundant over time. In the same way, a backbone should aim to gradually reduce itself so that resources and ownership shift closer to on-ground impact.
He explained that the backbone’s role evolves across phases. Early on, it acts as a central convener—building trust, setting a common agenda, and coordinating efforts. In the middle phase, it becomes a facilitator and capacity builder, supporting collaboration, data sharing, communication, and conflict resolution. As the collective matures, many of these functions can be absorbed by partner organisations, allowing the backbone to transition into a lighter stewardship or secretariat role.
Finally, Akshay emphasised that this transition must be intentional. Distributed leadership should be built from the outset, processes embedded into partners’ existing systems, and a clear transition plan articulated early on. By being explicit that the backbone exists to enable partners—not to lead indefinitely—it reduces power imbalances, strengthens ownership, and allows the collective to sustain itself beyond the backbone’s active involvement.
Arjun reflected that framing a collective’s journey across early, middle, and mature stages makes the backbone’s role clearer and more accessible. Grouping the many responsibilities discussed into these phases helps participants better understand how expectations shift over time.
He also emphasised the often-overlooked importance of celebration as a backbone function. In large, multi-organisation collectives, partners may lack visibility into each other’s contributions, which can obscure progress and dampen momentum. By intentionally creating spaces to recognise milestones and collective movement, the backbone helps surface shared achievements and sustain motivation across the network.
What key challenges or pain points in collective action should be mindful of?
Lakshmi highlighted a critical but often overlooked tension in backbone work: the risk of prioritising being “nice” over being effective. Because the role is deeply relational and consensus-driven, backbones can slip into people-pleasing, smoothing over differences rather than confronting them. This, she cautioned, can lead collectives to settle for the lowest hanging fruit, undermining the very purpose of collaboration, which is to achieve outcomes that no single actor could accomplish alone.
She argued that a backbone must therefore be willing to ask hard questions, push back, and say no when needed. This includes recognising when partnerships are not working and having the courage to cut losses or let go of participants - not because they are bad actors, but because the collaboration is no longer serving its purpose. Avoiding these tough calls, she noted, wastes time, resources, and the collective’s potential for systemic change.
Lakshmi also emphasised the backbone’s responsibility to continually interrogate the long-term sustainability of the collective. Questions about whether and how the backbone should transition out, how leadership might be distributed, how funding will be sustained, and how community agency can be embedded into a broader movement must be asked early - not years down the line. In her view, holding these forward-looking, sometimes uncomfortable conversations is a core mandate of the backbone role.
Closing Reflection
Arjun closed by reflecting on how the discussion underscored both the complexity and nuance of the backbone role. Questions such as whether a backbone should be responsible for fundraising, he noted, sit firmly in grey areas, shaped by power dynamics, culture, and context rather than clear-cut rules.
At the same time, he observed that despite this complexity, the conversation brought meaningful clarity. Through shared experiences and reflections, the panel surfaced rich, practical insights that help frame how backbone roles are understood, navigated, and exercised in real-world collective action settings.
Reading & Resources — all on the topic of collaboration and backbone organisations
Q: If the backbone function continues operating independently, is there a risk that stakeholders may perceive them as not having adequate ‘skin in the game’ or direct accountability for outcomes?
Shailja(Dasra): Very good Q. I think the idea is not independently but holistically. Having allegiance to the mission and not to organizations. Would like to be clear and say that backbone organizations have to have complete accountability. No question about that. What is the accountability and can there be non authoritative but role specific responsibility that they carry is the way I look at it.
Lakshmi Pattabi Raman (C4EC): I like to think of Backbone as co-travellers with all the other actors in the network - be it funders or the implementing orgs. The only non-negotiable trait for a BB is Humility.
Q: Is there a tradeoff in terms of speed to kickoff/ execution if the backbone decides that consensus of 12-14 orgs is a prerequisite for any decision?
Shailja (Dasra): yes. From our assessment we have seen that in the initial phase collective action models take significant investment at the set up and initiation phase. but then after a tipping point the change takes off transformationally - an upward tick
Shruti Venkatesan (Sattva): +1 to Shailja. The significant investment of time is also crucial because of the nature of issues that collectives aim to solve which are usually systemic in nature. Hence, it is critical to look at this as a feature and not a bug. A feature to be leveraged.
Lakshmi Pattabi Raman (C4EC): To add to what Shailja said, not every decision has to be 100% consensus. If the foundation is strong, I have seen that orgs would agree to disagree on some specific aspects but agree to move forward towards the shared agenda. But clear communication helped keep things moving and not stalling.
Q: I want to ask about any challenges in the transition period when Saamuhika Shakti changed the backbone organization? What criteria does Saamuhika Shakti use when choosing its backbone organization to ensure the right fit for the initiative?
Akshay Soni (Ex-The/Nudge Institute): The main challenge (out of multiple ones) in the transition phase is ensuring that a good portion of the trust built by the old backbone is transferred to the new one - a period of co-existence of the two would likely work well for that, so that the existing culture and mode of working are disrupted less. For the choosing, we sided four main metrics:
Experience of the org in collaboratives
Ecosystem positioning (important for convening, thought leadership, etc)
Management Depth (second and third tier leadership)
Ability to hire the team immediately (given the transition)
Q: What is the most critical overarching guiding factor in architecting design & common goals of collaborative action?
Shruti Venkatesan (Sattva): It all needs to stem up from what the community needs. That becomes the fundamental driving force and must influence the shared agenda, selection of partners, duration of the program, etc. In the context of Saamuhika Shakti, we conducted an ethnographic study which indicated the needs of the waste picker community. These learnings combined with stakeholder consultations led to the design of the common agenda.
Lakshmi Pattabi Raman (C4EC): In the case of Saamuhika Shakti, the design phase to arrive at the shared agenda, identifying the initial partners etc. took almost 12 months.
For updates on upcoming webinars, subscribe 👇
SUBSCRIBE
TO OUR Quarterly
Join our mailing list and be the first one to know about our efforts!
