The primary step for any organisation is to place a set of problems or challenges on the table. Once there is agreement from the stakeholders that these challenges do exist, it seems that there are likely to be a number of ways to solve them. Each solution will have its strengths and weaknesses and the final solution should be that which is the strongest solution overall for all stakeholders, rather than necessarily the strongest solution for any individual stakeholder. This is exactly what a democracy should be aiming. Otherwise the natural tendency among any group of people as I read the research, is for a dominant group (about 20%) to corner 80% of the resources leaving the 80% to rely on 20% resources. This is the outcome of unfettered capitalism but some of our liberal friends have a proclivity toward this as well. Feudalism was worse of course. But capitalism is only successful while the peasants get enough to make them believe they are well off. And that relies on the rape of the land and environment (sound familiar). The democracy should be able to elevate best solutions so that we have a much smaller gap between the greedy and the weak.
So in the same vein, organisations should be able to bring challenges to a common table and solve them for each other. Ultimately a mindset of this nature can help to recognise where a change or merger of organisational structure is really necessary.
Ultimately it does rely on a common sense of goodwill and failure of this will always stall progress,