S2 appears in 97% of cluster diagnostics. Not because ecosystems are poorly led, but because coordination is a rational response to the particular pressure of governing a system you do not control.
The meeting ends with a clear action item. The secretariat will circulate a summary and propose dates for the next session. Six months later, the same people are in the same room. The PowerPoint has a new date in the footer.
No one is obstructing. No one is incompetent. The coordination is genuine. What no one asks is the question that matters: what has stopped happening because this meeting works so well?
This is what S2 looks like from the inside. It does not feel like a stall. It feels like governance.
A stall is a behavioural substitution — the system doing something observable instead of something harder. S2 is specific: when complexity increases, when pressure arrives, when decisions become politically uncomfortable, the system adds coordination mechanisms instead of making exclusionary choices.
The distinction matters. Early coordination is often scaffolding — a necessary precondition for the system to function at all. The stall appears when coordination has become the default response to pressure rather than a deliberate choice. When the working group is convened not because alignment is needed, but because a decision is uncomfortable.
Nobody chooses S2 the way they choose a strategy. It emerges because it works.
Consider what the coordinator faces. They are responsible for a system they do not control. Downstream impact is lagged, contested, and rarely attributable. Making an exclusionary decision — concentrating resources, saying no to an organisation, choosing between competing priorities — risks alienating stakeholders whose cooperation they still need. Coordination reduces that risk. It distributes decision-making until no single actor bears the political cost of the outcome.
Coordination reduces friction, so the system coordinates more. Each time it works, the response becomes more available — and more automatic.
Ecosystem Stewardship · Chapter 4The problem is not that this logic is wrong. The problem is what it displaces. Every decision deferred to a working group is a decision that cannot narrow the system's options, concentrate its resources, or force learning from consequence. The system stays coherent — and stays the same.
S2 rarely operates alone. Its most common partner is S7 — Narrating Instead of Testing. Narrative legitimises coordination (we are making progress) and coordination supplies narrative with fresh material (we are aligning around priorities). Together, they form the Governance Theatre stack: the system becomes excellent at demonstrating process while deferring any commitment that would force it to be held accountable for outcomes.
The second common pairing is S5 — Mediating Instead of Coupling. Intermediary organisations depend on coordination structures for their mandate and their budget. Coordination structures benefit from intermediaries who manage the complexity of direct actor engagement. Each makes the other more durable.
When these combinations appear, removing coordination without addressing the other stalls typically fails. The stack compensates. The intervention is absorbed.
The diagnostic signal for S2 is not the presence of coordination — it is the relationship between coordination and decision. Ask three questions:
First: When did this coordination structure last produce a choice that something would stop? Not slow down, not be reviewed, but stop. If you cannot name one, the structure has become load-bearing without being productive.
Second: What would happen if this forum stopped meeting? If the answer is "things would fragment" rather than "decisions would be taken differently," the forum is managing complexity rather than resolving it.
Third: Who benefits from alignment never quite finishing? Coordination structures employ people. They justify institutional mandates. They create professional identities around ecosystem building. These are real interests. They are not bad faith. But they explain persistence that evidence alone would not justify.
The leverage move for S2 is not to stop coordinating. It is to time-bound coordination and require renewal criteria that are harder to meet than continued existence.
A working group that has met quarterly for four years with a mandate to "ensure alignment" should face a question: what has this structure produced that would not have happened without it? Not alignment. Not relationships. Specific decisions. Narrowed options. Concentrated resources. If the answer is thin, the structure is doing something other than what it claims.
Where leverage does not exist: early-stage ecosystems where coordination is genuinely building the preconditions for later decision-making. Applying this lens too early misreads necessary scaffolding as stabilisation. The test is temporal — is coordination producing narrowing over time, or reproducing itself?
S2 has high X-side observability — the presence of coordination structures is visible in public records, programme documentation, and meeting outputs. Y-side confidence depends on being able to observe the absence of exclusionary decisions, which requires access to steward-held records or direct engagement.
The 97% frequency figure reflects appearance across completed diagnostics, not causal attribution. S2 being present does not mean coordination caused stagnation — it means the substitution pattern was observed. Claims about what the coordination is preventing require higher-confidence evidence of the Y-side.
The framework cannot always distinguish early-stage scaffolding from stabilising substitution without temporal data. Where coordination has been operating for less than two years, claims should be framed as tentative.
S2 appears in 97% of diagnostics. Find out whether it's operating in your cluster — and what it's paired with.
Request a Diagnostic →