Working with governments requires a different approach from engaging with startups or NGOs.
Government priorities, timelines, and communication styles vary significantly, and successful collaboration depends on deep listening, cultural intelligence, and trust-building.
Don't forget patience, lots of patience. Bureaucracies can move slowly.
At Brink, we’ve spent years working alongside governments to create innovative solutions that are embedded in real-world contexts and designed for long-term impact. And in my role as Kenya Country Lead on the EdTech Hub I have worked with the government of Kenya, and supported my colleagues working with governments in other countries, to use the evidence we generate to support meaningful integration of technology into classrooms for both teaching and learning, guided by different contextual realities. Along the way, we’ve learned a few things that make collaboration more effective—and it’s very much a work in progress.
This blog shares some of the methods we’ve used to navigate government engagement successfully. But this isn’t just about our approach. We want to open the door for you and others to share their own experiences—what’s worked, what hasn’t, and what we can all learn from each other. Let’s start the conversation.
Before diving into specific strategies, here are the core principles we’ve found to be essential when working with government partners:
In my time working with governments I have noticed it’s the people who pour energy and effort into how they interact with government as much as what they are doing with government, who are able to build the trust and rapport needed to truly make change happen and over sustained periods. I have also found that taking the time to understand the motivations and intentions of those you are working with in the government, and positioning to support them to take these forward, makes a huge difference.
I have had the privilege of interacting with passionate government officials who welcome support in doing great work for those they serve. When I reflect on my own practice and that of my colleagues at Brink, on the EdTech Hub, and with peers I follow and admire, I notice a mix of technical and relational things that really make a difference. I have tried to capture a summary of them here;
I have mapped these below with strategies to implement and examples of what my colleagues and I have tried on different programs.
Read Ciku's previous article:
Innovating with Government for Lasting Impact
Governments operate based on priorities that are set for a particular period of time (eg the electoral term). To work effectively with them, I find you need to align your engagement with their strategic goals.
Understanding these priorities enables you to find the need you can fill, and engage in a really targeted way, so that you are aligned to their needs. This involves having empathy for their role and position and I often ask myself ‘what pressures and constraints might they be facing in their position right now?’
For each interaction, think about the key priorities in the room and what each person might be looking for from this interaction.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
When working with the Tanzania Institute of Education (TIE) on teacher professional development, we started by understanding their pain points. We workshopped with members of the institute to determine the assumptions they had about the process that we could test and either validate or pivot to ensure that the plans and policies were developed with the teachers’ reality and expectations in mind. This enabled us to design interventions that fit within their strategic shift toward tech-enabled learning.
Successful partnerships require a reciprocal relationship. When working with governments, I’ve noticed that the strongest collaborations are the ones where both sides feel they’re gaining something valuable.
It’s not just about what you need—it’s about what you can offer. I’ve found that governments are often looking for insights, connections, or ways to achieve their strategic goals more effectively. By offering something meaningful, you build goodwill and deepen the relationship over time.
I’ve experimented with keeping a running list of valuable insights, research, or connections that I can offer in different situations. This helps me be more intentional about reciprocity in relationships rather than just focusing on my organisation’s needs.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
On EdTech Hub, we have taken the time to build relationships and trust with our government colleagues, and this has looked different over time; showing up at convenings, reintroducing ourselves and our work to different departments, supporting different programs, to mention a few. We are now being included in conversations beyond our primary engagement and this shows that there is a recognition of the value we bring.
Listening well means more than just hearing words—it’s about understanding context, pressures, and hidden barriers. I used to focus primarily on the content of what people were saying, but I’ve learned that true understanding happens when you listen across multiple levels.
At Brink, we’ve tried using a three-level listening approach:
Level 1: Listening to respond (the default setting most of us have).
Level 2: Listening to understand (focusing on the speaker’s intent, not just their words).
Level 3: Listening for deeper systemic insights (noticing patterns, unspoken pressures, and underlying motivations).
When I intentionally shift my focus to Level 2 or 3, I find that conversations become more productive, and partners feel truly heard—which often leads to more trust and better outcomes.
Consider this:
Government cultures differ significantly from private sector or NGO environments. I’ve noticed that small things—like the formality of greetings or the role of hierarchy—can make a huge difference in whether a partnership succeeds or stalls.
In our African culture, and I'm sure we are not the only ones, allowing your host, in this case our government partners, to set the pace of the meeting is essential. Do not be in a hurry to get down to business. It is likely that conversations will begin with enquiring about family, the top news of the day, etc. It is in these informal moments that relationships are built.
At Brink, we’ve tried to make cultural competence a deliberate practice, providing briefings and guidance to ensure our team members are aware of local norms before engaging with government partners.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
Whenever I am preparing for a meeting with government partners, I think about what I know about the culture. And this differs from government to government depending on how conservative the culture is. In some cases for example, I am always conscious to think about how I dress for the meeting, especially because I am used to working in a very informal environment. Now, this is not a hard and fast rule and no one will kick you out of a meeting for not strictly adhering to a dress code (it hasn't happened to me yet!) but it's about trying to not attract unnecessary attention that could take away from the business at hand.
It is also important to consider hieracy. For example, we have found that in some cases, juniors will not speak up on certain issues if their seniors are in the room and so how you set up conversations in such situations will determine how well they flow.
Spending time in government offices, attending their meetings, and seeing how decisions are made has been a game-changer for me. The way things look from the outside isn’t always how they work on the inside.
By embedding myself in the daily realities of my government partners, I’ve been able to better understand their constraints and work within them. This has helped avoid frustration when things move slowly and has given me insights into how to navigate bureaucracy more effectively.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
On occasion while waiting for a meeting to kick off at a government office, I have had the privilege of being offered a desk to work from and the interactions have been invaluable. I also really enjoy the moments when we get to travel out of town with our government colleagues where we have all their attention and can have insightful informal conversations. I'd love to do 'deep dive days' and shadow key stakeholders. If this is something you've been able to do I'd love to hear about it.
Many governments favour long-term roadmaps and rigid strategies. But the reality is that change happens in between the five year strategic plans and that some of the most effective change happens through a series of course corrections based on evidence and real-world experience—so I’ve found it useful to build in flexibility from the start.
One thing I’ve seen work well is working with colleagues in government to rethink how their environment allows for this kind of flexibility. This requires getting into the mechanics of the bureaucracy more, but at Brink our work is based on the knowledge that our behaviour is shaped by our context. When we pay attention to our context, we can shift our behaviour. In this case I mean things like how budgets work, or what colleagues are incentivised to focus on - like can they allocate a portion of project budgets specifically for experimentation and adaptation, or can they put innovation or experimentation skillsets into the performance criteria of their teams. These are real examples of things we’ve seen work well, they create permission for iteration and make it easier to respond to changing contexts without everything grinding to a halt.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
When we worked with a Whitehall Department and our partners ODI on becoming more of a learning and adaptive organisation, they implemented a principle that allowed for 10% of a program's budget for experimentation and addressing unforeseen challenges. We also worked with the department’s HR team to add ‘adaptive management’ to staff growth plans, which incentivised the behaviour and showed it was not just permitted, but valued and encouraged You can read more, here
I’ve noticed that one of the biggest blockers to innovation in government is simply not having a safe space to test new ideas. When there’s pressure to get things right the first time, it’s harder to take risks or experiment.
Creating dedicated innovation hubs—whether physical or virtual—can provide a space where government teams feel empowered to think differently, collaborate, and test new solutions in a lower-stakes environment.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
In collaboration with EdTech East Africa, an EdTech eco-systems builder, EdTech hub is bringing together EdTech stakeholders (including government) who work on Foundational numeracy and literacy under the FNL goal to co-create and align our visions for what we want to see technology achieve for our learners, Creating this space has built trust and visibility on each other's work which is crucial for collaboration, and enabled us to align on how we support government initiatives.We believe we will go further, together.
For more on carving out space for innovation, see our white paper, here: https://www.hellobrink.co/the-carve-out
I’ve seen projects stop abruptly because a key person left or a political shift changed the landscape overnight. That’s why I’ve found scenario-based planning to be an essential tool—it helps prepare for the unexpected and ensures work can continue even in the face of uncertainty.
By running regular scenario-planning workshops, I’ve been able to identify potential risks early and co-develop strategies with government partners to keep things on track.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
At Brink we are fans of carrying out pre-moterms as we begin a project. This allows all the stakeholders to come together and, using scenario planning, think through everything that could happen to either accelerate or hinder the progress of the work - political changes, funding shifts or even emerging technologies, and come up with contingency measures.
If you’d like to give pre-mortems a go you can see our pre mortem tool here.
1. Build a Knowledge Management System (KMS)I’ve noticed that one of the biggest challenges in working with governments is staying on top of evolving priorities, policy shifts, and emerging insights. It’s easy to lose track of what’s happening across different teams, especially when working across multiple projects or countries.
One thing that has helped is setting up a Knowledge Management System (KMS)—a shared space where my team can document key research, government strategies, and insights from our engagements. This means that when a team member needs to step into a meeting, they’re already armed with the most relevant and up-to-date information.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
At EdTech Hub, we realised that our country engagement leads needed to have broad knowledge of different activities across the programme. To address this, we built a structured knowledge-sharing system that allows quick access to the latest insights and keeps everyone aligned.
I’ve learned that the best insights often come from more proactive approaches than just having access to what is in mainstream media—like having someone on my specialist network who has worked in government, has strong relationships and has insights on how the government machinery works, regularly checking government press releases, and keeping channels of communication open with my colleagues in government.
Beyond just gathering information, I’ve also found that sharing insights with partners creates more value. Instead of hoarding knowledge, I now try to pass on useful reports, data, or trends that I know will be relevant to government teams. This builds trust and often leads to richer conversations.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
EdTech hub has the privilege of convening the Edtech Subgroup within the Education Development Partners Convening Group (EDPCG) in Kenya. This group regularly convenes Ministry of Education and partners and is a great forum to share progress, insights and learnings as well as allow the ministry to update on education programs progress and request support. We have seen improved coordination and collaboration because we are all up to date on what is happening in the sector.
Some of the most innovative solutions I’ve seen in government come from adapting ideas from other sectors. Whether it’s behavioural science, human-centred design, or systems thinking, bringing in outside perspectives can spark fresh ways of tackling problems.
At Brink, we’ve tried “Cross-Pollination Sessions” where we take insights from other fields and explore how they could apply to government challenges. These have led to unexpected but powerful connections between disciplines.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
Part of what is so great about Brink is that we all work on different programs and we often have touch points where we share our work and create room for cross-pollination. These enable us to think about what is working in other sectors and explore how we can adapt some of the concepts when working on challenges we are tackling together with the government.
When I first started working with governments, I focused on individual relationships. While this is key, I’ve realised that real influence comes from understanding the system as a whole—who the key players are, how decisions get made, and where power actually sits.
Creating stakeholder maps has helped me avoid common pitfalls—like investing too much in a single champion, only to see them leave. It also makes it easier to navigate complex networks and find unexpected allies.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
When working with Kenya’s National Innovation Agency (KeNIA) on a 10-year innovation roadmap for the country, we ran a pre-mortem session that included mapping out key stakeholders. This enabled us to understand where, and by whom, decisions affecting KeNIA were being made and who was critical to include in our deliberations. . This helped us proactively engage relevant stakeholders and create visibility on the work, as well as gain an understanding on the political dynamics we could have easily missed including, in this case, a survey for citizens to submit their views on the future of their country.
Not all relationships are the same. Some are about building trust and authority, others are about getting things done quickly, and some evolve over time. I’ve found that keeping track of the different types of relationships I’m building—and why—helps me be more intentional.
Consider this:
An example from our work:
On the EdTech Hub, some of the relationships we initially built in the public sector have evolved into deeper partnerships, where former contacts now act as champions for our work. Tracking these shifts has helped us stay aligned and leverage relationships more effectively.
A strong network isn’t just about how many people you know—it’s about the quality of those connections. I’ve found it useful to assess network health regularly by asking questions like:
At Brink, we’ve experimented with creating a Network Health Index—a way to measure the strength, diversity, and effectiveness of our professional networks. This has helped us identify gaps and ensure we’re building relationships that last.
Consider this:
I’ve learned that working with governments isn’t just about technical expertise—it’s about relationships, adaptability, and a deep understanding of the system. The more intentional we are in how we listen, collaborate, and build trust, the more impact we can create together.
But this is just one perspective—what have you noticed? What’s worked in your experience? I’d love to hear your reflections and keep this conversation going. Let’s share what we’ve learned so we can all get better at working with governments in ways that truly make a difference.
Elections introduce uncertainty into government collaboration. Leadership and priorities can shift rapidly, impacting ongoing projects.
Try this:
• Stay adaptable and avoid over-reliance on any one individual.
• Keep relationships broad, engaging both political and civil service staff.
• Have an engagement plan that accounts for potential government transitions.
We know that working with governments can be complex, and there’s no single right way to do it. These are just some of the strategies we’ve used. But we want to hear from you—what’s worked in your experience? What lessons have you learned?
Let’s build a shared understanding of what it takes to innovate effectively within government systems. Drop me an email and let’s continue the discussion. I’m at ciku@hellobrink.co
A very special thanks to Jennifer Otieno, who I have the privilege of doing so much of this work with on EdTech Hub! And to Abi Freeman, Miranda Dixon and Rob Hinchcliffe who have poured their time and wisdom into helping me write this up.
