An article on governance in associations is not easy to write. You have to admit that since the subject is so delicate, it's almost impossible to approach it without hurting feelings. I apologise in advance for that. Associations are full of people who have founded organisations, done the best they could, and moved forward over time with organic growth. The problem is that in the midst of this goodwill, the intentions may be noble, but there are bad practices, which grow and become more complex as the organisations grow and develop.
The founders
Starting with one of the most central issues, we have the ‘saviour founder’ complex. Although the rules of good governance state that mandates should be limited in time, many organisations continue with the same directors for 20 or 30 years, without any democratic rotation. This happens for many reasons, but it is often the result of an emotional inability to let go of that management position, and the failure to reflect on succession processes and encourage people to prepare for that role in the future. One of the most important issues in this process is the failure to realise that founders can and should play an important role in the organisations they have created, but that they should not remain in management positions forever. There are virtuous alternatives, such as being part of a strategic or scientific council and agreeing that you will always be included in the consultation on the association's key issues.
Founders feel an emotional connection, a sense of belonging, and even some sense of ownership for the organisation they have created. Like a baby they raise from the first breath, some never manage to cut the umbilical cord. They create a co-dependent relationship with the organisation, which they use for a sense of identity, emotional support and validation. In turn, the organisation's mission becomes so central to their lives that they no longer have a life outside it. These founders follow the organisation to the limit, even going into debt for it. They are often exhausted, worn out and in burnout.
The absolute priority in their lives is the organisation, to the detriment of leisure, friends, family and their own happiness.
Conflicts of interest
Emotional governance is often accompanied by poorly reasoned decisions. Ethical issues are ignored. Decisions to involve family members in organisational positions multiply, without due process and transparency, sometimes even without the required technical skills. This leads to losses in efficiency, effectiveness and even very unpleasant situations in the organisational context, with serious conflicts and employees resigning because they feel wronged.
When it doesn't have immediate consequences, other serious situations eventually arise. The complexity of managing family members, especially people from the direct family nucleus (husband/wife, child) is such that few organisations don't experience its harm. Keeping the family context completely separate from the professional one is too demanding for most people, contaminating both contexts. Combined with the hierarchy, it's a kind of cauldron that boils until it spills over. All the more so because there is a family member who will be responsible for assessing the other's performance and giving feedback and constructive criticism, which often undermines the family relationship. Returning to the selection and recruitment process, it's almost impossible to publicly claim that an Association board member who appoints a family member to the post is doing so because he or she is the only person in the world with that competence. Is that so?
Of course, you can tell me that the roles were distributed as soon as the organisation was founded. Indeed, that's a different situation. But as we mentioned eternisation before, couldn't this situation have evolved into a better solution for everyone? As the organisation grows, it should have introduced transition processes, from executive to non-executive roles, and then to advisory roles. Or if the executive functions are to be maintained, ensure that the leadership is renewed and that there are democratic elections. Above all, ensure that internal decision-making processes eliminate conflicts of interest, and that people refuse to decide on situations in which they have a personal conflict. This also includes contracting out services to external suppliers.
The root of all evil
As an international consultancy firm, Stone Soup Consulting receives many requests from associations to help with areas that need support, the most frequent being fundraising and strategy/planning and evaluation. We receive concrete requests from all areas. Sometimes it is the fragility of their financial sustainability, with the despair and uncertainty that it brings. Other times it is the inability to move forward with a strategic planning process, remaining in an all-consuming operational whirlwind of day-to-day urgencies. And yet other times, it is the evaluation of projects or impact assessments, which have never been carried out to a standard that allows decisions to be made for the future of the organisation.
Whatever the reason that generates interest, organisational diagnosis often reveals other root causes. Sometimes the origin lies in governance processes. Dictatorial and toxic leadership, decisions made in a conflict of interest, an inability to value the technical skills of those in the organisation, facilitation and a lack of ethics. With governance of this kind, it is impossible to plan, decide, focus on impact, invest in people and their personal and professional development. This uncovers unexpected causal links such as a funding gap directly linked to leadership toxicity.
The light at the end of the tunnel
All the whirlpools seem overwhelming, until we remember that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. With calm, deep breaths, we can stop drowning and dive towards the light. We can take advantage of the metaphor and do the same in the organisational context. There's nothing that can't be solved. We just have to be able to embark on the process of change, however difficult it may be.
For those who are not in a decision-making role, this statement sounds like a utopia. But even for these cases there are solutions. There are ways to denounce bad practices, issues of corruption, mistreatment of officials or mismanagement of public funds. There are ways to mobilise people to take forward the noble mission of organisations and remove these toxic leaders. There are good, technically competent people ready to take on leadership roles. There are people with good ideas on how to overcome dilemmas and conflicts. There are people who can help with transition processes, and to move forward ethically, one step at a time. There are good practices to implement.
But it is important to note that not everything comes from an evil background. Human behaviour is complex and treating it in a simplified way can lead to the implosion of deserving organisations. The cause may remain strong and rooted, but reason is often clouded by emotion. In this fog, you may be contributing to the downfall of the much-loved organisation to which you have dedicated a lifetime. It is up to us to realise how to clear that fog.
Cláudia Pedra
Managing Partner, Stone Soup Consulting
