“Agreeing on a common agenda is one of the chief tenets of collective impact — and one of the prerequisites for moving collaboration forward,” write the authors of this Nonprofit Quarterly contribution. “However, our experience working with collective impact initiatives and other similar networks suggests that collective impact leaders often struggle to get buy-in from various community stakeholders in the crucial early stages. Specifically, we’ve seen that insistence on a common agenda sets a high bar, and may derail partnerships early on. … Although we agree that a common agenda is important, we suggest that collective impact leaders should treat it as an aspiration rather than a destination. We draw upon several decades of network research and exemplar networks to suggest instead that focusing on the process of creating a common agenda allows for diverse perspectives to impact the initiative’s trajectory. To that end, we identify common barriers to agreeing on a common agenda, including the ‘birds of a feather’ tension and the ‘two hats’ problem. We then offer suggestions for reaching a threshold of agreement that moves initiatives forward — even if total agreement can’t be achieved. There is much to be said for a principled agreement to disagree on some elements of a common agenda.”