In my first Unweirding Boards post, I summarised the benefits (and challenges) of governance that came up most often in conversations with staff, founders, and board members at EA organisations

In this and subsequent posts, I go beyond quick reflections to make the case for investing in governance, using a Theory of Change lens - taking the view that governance should be treated as an intervention, and we should invest in it only insofar as it tackles real problems and produces outcomes we care about. 

With this in mind, I will:

• Identify problems/risks that I claim show up in the EA community
• Articulate outcomes that good governance can contribute to
• Outline inputs and activities that plausibly deliver those outcomes
• Share practical advice for implementing this ToC so you realise the benefits while avoiding governance’s common pitfalls

The last point is the 'unweirding' bit - it sits slightly outside the ToC framework, but is important. A ToC isn't much use if it can't be delivered reliably and at appropriate scale. 

Building a governance Theory of Change

This is a work in progress, which I’ll refine as I go. I’m building the ToC in public and welcome comments, examples and feedback. I expect revisions toward greater precision and clearer presentation, but not wholesale changes.

I'm not claiming that governance is the only way to deliver on the outcomes set out here. In the same way that many different interventions can contribute to 'increased DALYs', there are lots of interventions that organisations might implement.

However, I will claim that:

• governance is unique in that can both (1) contribute to the desired outcomes and (2) identify and intervene if other interventions fail:
  • as a quick example, consider the outcome 'financial discipline' - good governance contributes to this by establishing reserves targets, setting financial KPIs, appropriately setting and delegating financial authority/responsibility etc and also intervenes if an organisation's finances are being mismanaged in some way
• governance can do some things that other interventions can't (easily) do:
  • as a quick example, consider the outcome 'accountable leadership' - at the sharp end of things, only a governance body with teeth can remove an underperforming founder/executive staff member

For each outcome, I've introduced risks/problems that I claim arise in the absence of good governance. Unless otherwise indicated, these are all problems that have been shared with me during calls with board members, founders and staff in the EA community. I'm not claiming these are present in all (or even many!) organisations, but something like 'for some organisation/individual within the community, this is true'. I will go deeper on these problems in the next post but think introducing them here helps to illustrate the link(s) between governance and outcomes, and what's at stake.  

Outcomes - Capable Organisations

These outcomes manifest at an organisational level and are interrelated. If When I attempt to visualise this ToC, they will sit just to the left of something like 'do impactful work'.

Clear, purpose-led planning

Most people would expect effective organisations to have (or be developing) clarity on something like:

• their understanding of the problem (problem statement)
• the change they want to see (vision)
• their role in bringing about this change (mission)
• how they will deliver on their mission:
  • programme model (ToC)
  • operationally (strategy and/or business plan)

Best practice also considers:

• how impact might be sustained at scale (end game)
• how they might respond to changes in their environment (scenario planning)

There should be a clear thread from problem to business plan: the vision imagines a world in which the problem is solved or addressed at scale; the mission states what responsibility an organisation takes (and recognises the role(s) of others); the strategy considers how an organisation can deliver on its mission; the plan turns strategy into near-term priorities.

A good board, composed of thoughtful and experienced individuals, can and should contribute to planning. A constituted board also holds the organisation's purpose 'in trust', keeping focus even as staff move on and the environment shifts, and providing check-and-challenge as the operational team develops its plans.

Risks/Problems:

• Organisations are operating without a robust ToC and/or supporting monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) framework
• Organisations have a lack of clarity on their mission (in particular, how this relates to other actors)
• Organisations have no (or poor) strategy or business plans, or these are outdated

Outcome-aligned execution

Plans only matter if they are made real. 

Good governance can support organisations to set clear targets, regularly review progress  and adjust plans as required. Whether using OKRs, KPIs or any other framework, making operational teams accountable to a board both assures alignment to outcomes and guards against drift. 

Risks/Problems:

• Organisations have no framework for monitoring progress and/or reflect on progress infrequently/with insufficient rigour
• Organisations fail to respond/adjust appropriately to information they collect
• Organisations shift targets, or consistently 'explain away' failure to deliver on targets

Accountable leadership

It is not controversial to suggest that staff members should:

• be hired, based on the extent to which their skills, experience etc suggest they will be successful in the role
• have clear and agreed objectives that make clear what good performance looks like
• have regular appraisals, considering their performance vs targets
• experience some kind of 'performance management' process, if they are not delivering on targets
• be removed, if their performance suggests they are no longer (were never?) well-suited to the role

This is as true for the most senior staff in an organisation as it is for everyone else. Even founders (who, by definition, cannot be 'hired' in the traditional sense) should be held accountable. A well-functioning board does this.

Risks/Problems:

• Leaders are appointed on the basis of connections and signalling
• Leaders have no/unclear objectives
• The performance of leaders is not appraised
• Leaders are not removed (or are removed much later than would be ideal, at greater cost) if they are underperforming

Financial discipline

Organisations prioritising cost-effectiveness do management accounting (internal reporting to guide decision-making), not just financial accounting (external reporting to regulators etc). These organisations review spend regularly, identifying and addressing inefficient use of resources, and consider financial information when setting/adjusting plans.

Organisations invested in effectively stewarding resource consider how financial authorities and responsibilities are delegated, check that spend is approved, and ensure that misuse of funding is addressed.

Organisations concerned about long-term sustainability, funding diversification and financial autonomy set and pursue targets related to building cash reserves.

As with 'outcome-aligned execution', making operational teams accountable to a strong board assures alignment to a framework for good financial management and mitigates against financial risks.

Risks/Problems:

• Organisations have no (or insufficient) reserves
• Organisations have no framework for financial authority/delegation
• Organisations are using funding inefficiently
• Funding is misspent

Outcomes - Healthy Movement

These outcomes manifest at a community level and are interrelated. 'capable organisations' contribute to a healthy movement, and a healthy movement cultivates capable organisations.

Clearly allocated responsibility

In many traditional nonprofit contexts, funders assume substantial responsibility for governance via compliance - implementing strong controls on how money is used, with rigorous monitoring and reporting on spend (often contrasted with lighter ex-ante assessment of whether to fund).

By design, EA funders lean toward ensuring effectiveness through cause prioritisation and grant quality, and largely expect organisations to govern themselves. This high-trust model works only if grantees have good governance: boards that set direction, oversee execution, and provide check-and-challenge—so funders can focus on their role (prioritisation, learning, field-building) rather than bespoke oversight.

Risks/Problems:

• There is a compliance/control vacuum - organisations are assessed upfront but there is less attention on whether they do what they say
• Funders get distracted from high-value cause prioritisation work by asks to take on additional governance roles

Empowered community

While governing specific organisations isn't the community's job, individual community members can contribute to the good governance of organisations. There are many good examples of this on the Forum, in which individuals: critique a ToC; interrogate a BOTEC; respond to claims made in forum posts; flag concerns about practices.

Good governance is transparent and invites this kind of engagement: empowering community members to contribute to governance in a virtuous cycle.

Risks/Problems:

• Organisations are not challenged/interrogated by external stakeholders

Outcomes - Cross-cutting

These outcomes manifest at both the organisational and community levels.

Well-stewarded resources

Organisations should continue when it's warranted to do so and close when it's not.

Community resources (money, talent, attention, reputation) are allocated well when organisations continue, close or leave the community when it's the right thing to do.

A constituted board (with authority, independence and context) does this best. Decisions should be informed by funders, founders and executive members, but made following a clear process that applies pre-agreed criteria and executes the decision.

Risks/Problems:

• Organisations are sustained when they shouldn't be, or are closed later than would be ideal
• Organisations are closed when they shouldn't be

Supported people

Organisations thrive when their people are healthy and well supported. Good governance holds leadership accountable but also supports individual leaders by:

• advising on high-stakes decisions
• providing coaching and check-and-challenge
• supporting personal development
• ensuring fair compensation
• sharing the load

The community benefits when its people are supported.

Risks/Problems:

• The mental health of those in leadership positions suffers
• Leaders are under-compensated for their work
• Leaders make poor, ill-informed decisions