The Power of Learning Together: How Cohorts Build Connection and Collective Action

At a time when virtual communication is the norm and nonprofits are understaffed and overworked, bringing people together to learn from one another can feel almost novel. In our recent work facilitating a board development cohort for local arts organizations, my colleague Sruti Baz and I were reminded that learning alongside peers offers things that technology and even high-quality one-on-one support cannot: perspective, connection, and the momentum that comes from tackling shared challenges together.

We initially designed the cohort to provide board-development support to more organizations with limited resources. It accomplished that goal. But as the work unfolded, we realized the cohort model wasn’t simply a more efficient way to deliver support. It created value that would not have existed in a series of individual engagements.

We saw clear benefits from the group approach that would have been missing in any other engagement.

Better questions lead to better conversations. Consultants, coaches, and program officers can bring expertise and an outside perspective, but peers often surface the practical questions that matter most in the moment. During a planned conversation about strategic board engagement, for example, one participant raised an immediate challenge: How are other organizations getting board members back in the room after years of virtual meetings?

That question sparked a candid exchange about what our cohort members had tried, what had worked, what hadn’t, and how much in-person time was actually necessary for the strategic conversations they wanted to foster. One person’s question unlocked useful learning for the entire group.

Participants become resources for one another. Even the most experienced facilitator brings only one perspective and one set of experiences—but a cohort brings many.

Over the course of our work together, participants shared examples from their own organizations, filled one another’s knowledge gaps, and offered advice grounded in the realities their peers were navigating. An organization further along in managing difficult board members could share what shaping new roles meant for them and how that played out. Someone whose organization had grown from a small board to a large board could offer practical advice to someone wrestling with growing pains.

The facilitator’s role shifts, too. Rather than being the primary source of expertise, we can create the conditions for participants to recognize and draw upon the expertise already in the room.

Connection can turn into collective action. Perhaps the most unexpected benefit of our cohort was what happened as relationships developed across it.

Arts leaders who may not otherwise have had sustained opportunities to talk candidly with one another discovered common challenges—not just regarding the needs of their boards, but also around the broader environment in which their organizations were operating. By the end of the cohort, participants were discussing how to advocate collectively for midsize arts organizations and committing to stay connected as they navigated a changing funding landscape.

We hadn’t designed the cohort to produce a shared advocacy agenda—and that is precisely the point. The relationships and trust built through repeated conversation created space for participants to identify a shared interest and imagine what they might do together.

For funders, consultants, and nonprofit leaders, this is an important reminder: shared learning models offer more than efficiency. They can support change across multiple organizations while strengthening relationships, distributing expertise, and building a culture in which peers look to one another for ideas and support.

In our experience, their greatest value comes in opportunities no facilitator could script: the question that changes the conversation, the participant who becomes a mentor, or the shared challenge that becomes an opportunity for collective action.