The governance professional who is technically right but unable to influence an organisation may achieve less than the governance professional who understands those dynamics. Effective governance shifts are commonly in the application of observation, knowledge, insight and influence in complex organisations. Suneet Sharma reflects transitioning from law to charity governance.
People listen to their lawyer. Usually because they’ve come in hot water and need a route back from boiling point. I saw it often as a junior lawyer, and I see it just as often now as a charity governance professional. What I’ve spent in my governance practice trying to name is why the response is so different – because the request is often the same. The change isn’t in what people ask for. It’s in the authority they assume you have when you answer and the dynamics at play.
The authority that comes built in
Law carries weight before you’ve said anything. People consult a lawyer for a problem to be solved: draft the tricky clause, interpret the provision, give me options and the best route through. Sometimes it’s broader – handle this negotiation, corporate sale or manage this dispute to a commercial close. But underneath every version sits the same assumption. Law is the purview of specialists, rigorous subject experts called upon for technical and interpretive work, and their words carry an authority people grant automatically.
Consider the recent uncertainty over single-sex spaces. For Women Scotland confirmed that “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex rather than gender identity, with a statutory Code of Practice still to follow. In the interim, firms and experts were scrambling to interpret what had changed. And yet — this is the point — no one questioned whether to act on what lawyers said. Although at times the advice was uncertain; the authority behind it was not. That is the thing law confers for free.
Where the authority drops away – and the four factors come into play
In governance the paradigm shifts. I have had to manage, more than once, the framing that “Charity Commission guidance is just that – guidance.” The incorrect framing does damaging work: this isn’t the law, so we needn’t follow it like the law – rather than it being codification via must’s and should’s. But the real story is rarely about the legal status of the guidance at all. It’s about organisational priority, politics, and dynamics – and sometimes even whether the person giving the advice has earned the standing to be heard.
In law that standing is more easily granted. In governance it has to be won, in every conversation, often against the room. In that context explaining that the guidance codifies the law and expresses in must’s and should quickly becomes noise.
When a stakeholder challenges the necessity of following a piece of guidance, arguments proliferate. That becomes about dynamics just as much about the issue at play. That’s politicising of a governance issue, dynamics playing out and it can happen more often than not. The question arises- is governance inherently political and, if so, how does that intersect with authority?
The answer is yes, it can be. Any governance question in implementation involves power, dynamics and priorities all which intersect, conflict and coincide to varying degrees. That space is where authority is earned, questioned, asserted and lost. In governance it is a ground where professionals can all too often assert rather than listen, learn and influence. Falling back to asserting rather than persuading has costs.
It is also tempting that identifying the right answer is considered the difficult part. In governance it can be highlighted that implementation is usually harder. Most boards do not struggle because they cannot identify the right course of action. They struggle because competing priorities, personalities, histories and pressures make the right course difficult to pursue.
Learning to navigate this environment as a governance professional is a key skill. Knowing when someone is adversarial to you, where the oxygen in the room is used and where the wounds are as well as how to navigate them becomes central to success. More so than being right about the point you were going to make.
So when I take that breath before I say something, I ask-
- What ought to be happening on any particular point? Including any red lines or guardrails that mean you should move quickly and firmly.
- What is at play here?
- Why is it happening here? What plausible explanations are there?
- Taking into account those factors what is the best approach to get the outcome that is in the best interests of the organisation?
The skill is knowing that influence governs how and potentially when you carry a point, never whether you carry the non-negotiable ones.
Take a charity that has almost faced closure due to high costs. They have been running at excessively high reserves position exceeding 12 months costs ever since, without properly interrogating that position. The governance position is that that reserves should be set and justified, with overly high reserves needing further justification or a plan for reduction. The Commission states that reserves limits will vary for charity to charity and does not set a recommendation range on that basis. Charities should hold reserves for identifiable and justifiable purposes, while also ensuring that charitable funds are used effectively in furtherance of their purposes. Any latitude and justification sits with the trustees to decide.
Saying any of this is not likely to make the board move on the reserves issue. Subtler and patient discussions with the Treasurer and other stakeholders are needed to unpick the boards trauma response that has filtered through to its risk appetite and dynamics. Then when ready it may be best to let the Treasurer themselves carry the point as an ally who needs to lead the decision, before pointing to what needs to happen to remediate the reserves position, using a forewarned Chair and thorough papers. That is a much more effective approach, that brings stakeholders with you than the blunter method of pointing out reserves are high without justification.
Those questions will help you navigate terrain on the map governance knowledge has given you.
Knowledge tells you what ought to happen.
Observation shows you what is happening.
Insight helps you understand why.
Influence helps you bridge the gap.
Without all four, being right is often not enough.
Leave a Reply