Over the past three months I’ve spoken with ~30 founders, board members, and staff at EA organisations, in an attempt to better understand what governance looks like within this community.
These conversations have taken the form of semi-structured interviews, exploring each individual's experience of governance. Most have started broad, answering something like "what is and isn't working?", before focusing on specific challenges or opportunities for improvement.
This isn't formal or representative research (I would very much like to speak with more people in general, and those at funders/fiscal sponsors/large organisations in particular!) but some clear patterns are emerging. I feel confident in beginning to share some initial reflections on the 'state of governance' in the EA community, and some suggestions for improving governance that will apply to many EA organisations.
With that in mind, this is post 1/n in an 'Unweirding Boards' sequence, which will:
- Outline the current state of governance in the EA community, as I understand it
- Answer the most frequently asked questions about boards
- Support those setting up, serving on or working with boards to practice 'good governance'
I hope this post, and others in the sequence, will prompt discussion about what 'good governance' looks like. I expect to update my views in response, and to improve the scope and quality of The Good Governance Project’s support accordingly.
The State of Governance
Setting up and maintaining a board is hard
The vast majority of people I spoke to shared experiences similar to those articulated in Holden Karnofsky's original post on boards. Boards really are, by default, a bit weird.
In my conversations, the following challenges came up time and time again. This list isn’t MECE; the issues overlap. I’m separating them for clarity.
Getting clear on purpose
Across interviews, the question “what is a board for?” came up repeatedly: should it ensure regulatory compliance, make strategic decisions, or get involved in day-to-day operations?
Very few organisations have arrived at the same answer. Some boards are advisory, some largely rubber-stamp management decisions, and some are quasi-operational.
Right-sizing time/effort spent on governance
Nearly everyone recognised there were trade-offs to consider when approaching governance. Time spent setting up and running a board was often seen as a distraction from programme delivery, fundraising or other urgent/important work. This was, unsurprisingly, particularly true for newer/smaller organisations.
Some founders spoke about approaching governance in stages - establishing organisations with very light-touch boards and 'professionalising' as the organisation matured. Those further on in their journey often reflected that, in hindsight, investing more and earlier in governance would have been a good thing.
Clarifying decision-making
Only a handful of organisations were explicit about who decides what (e.g., strategic moves, hiring, budget changes, reserves policy) or how decisions are made (consensus vs voting, quorum).
Running effective meetings
I heard uncertainty about what a ‘good’ board pack looks like or what should/shouldn't be discussed during board meetings. There were questions about what the right mix of data vs narrative was, which standing items are essential, who should facilitate conversations, and whether the board should meet without staff for part of the session.
Appropriately engaging and getting support from board members
Several board members said they lacked the information or context to deliver on their responsibilities. On the other side, staff (especially non-founder EDs) often felt under-supported. One put it plainly: “the relationship feels very one-sided - I spend a lot of time answering the board’s questions and get very little value back.” This echoes Faunalytics’ recent leadership-turnover study, in which 60% of non-founder EDs agreed that “my board was not supportive enough.”
Identifying board members
Selecting the right (mix of) people is hard. Most conversations came back to two choices: the blend of skills, experience, credentials, and connections the board needs at this stage, and how separate/independent board members should be from the organisation.
When governance is good, it's really good
There are organisations within the EA community that, having overcome some of the challenges articulated above, are reaping the rewards of good governance - these are organisations for whom the board adds real value and in which governance supports, rather than hinders, the work.
Among those I spoke to, the clearest benefits of good governance looked like:
Leadership is held to account
The leadership team has clear goals and success measures, and are subject to an appraisal process. Board members back the team when it’s hard but could replace them if needed. Nobody is guessing what “good performance” means or relying on others (primarily funders) to step in when it might already be too late.
The organisation is held to account
One ED described their board as "holding the organisation's mission in trust". Effective boards keep focus and challenge drift (towards an ED's or a funder's priorities). Sufficiently independent board members can make the difficult decision to wind down or close the organisation if it is no longer effective.
The organisation benefits from perspective and insight
There’s enough outside perspective to surface risks and opportunities, and enough inside context to provide effective advice. Board members can 'check and challenge' because they understand the work well enough to engage with it.
Leadership enjoys peace of mind
This surprised me, but several people raised it.
Effective boards give staff (especially founders and EDs) peace of mind. There is a genuine 'backstop': someone else has an eye on the organisation's direction, delivery and progress.
Next Steps
This post is a starting point - something like a field note on patterns I’m seeing. I expect the real value will come from subsequent posts in which I address specific challenges and offer practical guidance on how to do good governance.
Getting More Perspectives
I'm still interested in speaking with founders, board members and staff about governance. So if you want to chat, please have a low bar for reaching out!
I'm particularly interested in speaking with those of you who have experience of one or more of the following, as these perspectives are underrepresented so far:
- Large and/or mature organisations
- Funders
- Fiscal sponsors
You can see my availability and book a date/time that suits you here.
Writing the Sequence
The aim is to post ~weekly, but there's no clear structure right now. If there's a challenge you think I should address first, or a resource you'd like to see then please let me know.
I'm excited for the rest of this sequence!
Some basic questions I'm curious to get data are: what are the sizes of the boards you've been surveying? And how do board sizes compare to team sizes? How often do boards meet? Outside of meetings, how often are there other comms (email/Slack/etc)?
Thanks!
Boards vary in size from 2-9 people, although some organisations had no governance board (that’s one for another post!) and some had more than one board (eg governance, advisory) and multiple sub-committees (eg finance, risk).
I haven’t properly compared board vs staff size but my experience is that boards tend to increase in size as perceived risk and complexity increases (driven in part by organisations scaling their operations). Something that I’ll expand on in a later post is that I think many people underestimate the risks of under-governance (or don’t recognise the ways in which good governance can mitigate against general org risks) and default to “no/small/informal board = fine” longer than they should.
On meeting frequency and communications - I’m afraid that there’s so much variation between organisations that it’s difficult to generalise!