Let me take you back to 2007. The fledgling streaming service Netflix had just started up, Rihanna’s smash hit Umbrella was filling radio airwaves, and the 91��Ƶ government tabled a plan to modernize the legal framework governing nonprofits – without consulting nonprofits. Let’s just say people were not happy with at least one of the things on that list. Many of you have seen us at the forefront of this issue since then – yes, I’m talking about ONCA, the infamous 91��Ƶ Not-for-profit Corporations Act. 

When ONCA was introduced, there was no entity that represented or worked with nonprofits in a cross-cutting, provincial way. Many sector-specific or region-specific networks and bodies existed, but no way for the 58,000 incredibly diverse nonprofits, charities, and community groups across 91��Ƶ to talk with each other, let alone come together and be responsive to common issues. And because of this richness and diversity, there was no way that one entity or body could ever fully represent the sector or work on “behalf” of it. Thus the seeds were planted for what would eventually become 91��Ƶ Nonprofit Network. 

Getting clear on networks

Often when we think of networks we may think of networking, and picture being in a room, eating snacks while trying to pitch your work to strangers. But network engagement and network theory go far beyond that. 

Networks, at their most basic, are a group of interconnected people or things. They are not static, and many networks can exist at any given time. One of their defining characteristics is that they depend on leadership at many levels and positions, rather than a singular leader directing how things go. 

To respond to the then-unproclaimed ONCA, a group of sector leaders came together and formed a working group to function as a conduit between ONCA, and nonprofits on the ground. The group produced briefs to inform and gather insights, connected resources, and provided policy support. Working groups at ONN are not committees. They are not structured on formal or representational seats; people flow in and out depending on their capacity and expertise. Networks can take on many different forms, but a golden thread is the idea that networks act as bridges – to other networks, between and across geographies or key issues, and with each other. 

To ONN, a network approach is grounded in based on the beliefs that:

• Networks are sets of relationships and the patterns they create. 
• Leadership is already found in multiple, varied spaces and should be nurtured and shared.
• We can do more together than we can do alone.
• Systems change when new networks and patterns form, and re-shape old systems. 

ONN’s role in stewarding networks

ONCA continued to be one of ONN’s main priorities over the years as we advocated for key amendments to make the bill work better for nonprofits. Fast forward to now, 2024. ONCA was officially proclaimed in 2021, and ONN continues to prepare and support nonprofits to respond to the bill. We have a robust and cross-cutting policy agenda that acts as our compass on what we work on, and is created through the myriad voices and experiences of our network. 

Though ONN is itself an incorporated nonprofit organization, we continue to function as a network and with our network approach. We see this as absolutely critical to stewarding an enabling environment for networks to contribute to a thriving nonprofit ecosystem. 

We know that we cannot address complex issues alone or in siloes, and that the power and wisdom is in the network. This is why “connected networks” is the first and foremost strategic impact outlined in our operational plan, with outcomes such as:

• A strong, supported group of regional networks that spans the province and acts as hubs for nonprofits in their geographies. 
• Provincial associations and regional networks are connected, sharing information and collaborating with each other. 
• Formal and informal networks across the province are learning from each other, ultimately influencing public policy to reflect the sector’s needs and contributing to shared solutions.
• Varied relationships with formal and informal networks, including ONN members rooted in reciprocity.

A network approach nurtures experimentation, learning, emergence, and distributing leadership and power. We know that innovations or opportunities emerge over time, from unexpected people and places, and cannot be known from the very start. A network approach is also grounded in equity, as it encourages peer relationships and distributed power and allows for multiple perspectives, uncomfortable conversations, and the sharing of lessons learned which can lead to meaningful change.

Our network approach is not simply a means to an end, but a reflection of our core purpose and values in action. This is not about ONN, nor any singular organization; it’s about the work happening in our communities, and the pursuit of an equitable future for everyone. Coming together builds our resilience and relationships; and the impact on our people is the guiding light. That’s not going to happen because of one person, one organization, or one network. It will happen because of an investment in collective action and reciprocity.

What is governance as shared leadership?

This is often how we understand governance decision-making:

The board is the locus of control. In fact, the words ‘the board’ and ‘governance’ are used interchangeably even though broader stakeholders like the staff leadership team, communities served, and volunteers often provide input into governance decisions. Their input may include everything from feedback to recommendations – but the board ultimately makes governance decisions. 

It’s also interesting to note that in many organizations the board does operational work alongside its governance work. This adds to the confusion about roles of governance.   

Now let’s look at a shared governance approach:

In this diagram, the centre point is the role governance plays in the organization – such as generating impacts – and the governance functions that must be performed. Everything else flows from these. The board still plays a critical role, but governance leadership is more broadly distributed, and decisions are made in a collaborative way. It feels more like interlocking nodes that form a system of governance.

Though these diagrams may oversimplify, they offer a good starting place for conversations. For example – does your governance approach look more like one of the diagrams or is it a hybrid? Why does it look that way?

Three reasons it’s critical to focus on shared governance leadership

1. Shared governance helps address the increased complexity of governance. 

It’s tough for nonprofit boards to fulfill all the responsibilities of governance, which have become increasingly complex. While board members are generous with their volunteer time, it’s limited and the expectations placed on them are high. When organizations share responsibilities more broadly, it reduces the board’s burden, and leverages the talents, experience, skills, and knowledge of the organization’s full ecosystem..   

2. Shared governance deepens equity and broadens decision-making. 

There’s an urgency to deepen equity in decision-making, including widening the diversity of perspectives, and challenging some of the traditional ideas of who does governance work. Questioning who should and could share in decision-making, and making changes based on that, helps deepen equity. 

3. Shared governance helps create more clarity. 

Most organizations already share their  governance –  to some degree – but it’s not always done with clarity.  For example, collaborations are growing, which means more governance decisions are made outside the single organization’s board room, like setting collective priorities. Yet many organizations don’t approach it with intentionality – like figuring out how to align conflicting directions — or manage complex risk and confusing accountabilities. 

Clarity about shared governance can also be helpful for the partnership between the board and staff leadership. It’s often said that the board does governance and the staff leadership supports and implements it. But this simplistic distinction doesn’t begin to capture the complexity of the relationship. It also doesn’t acknowledge that staff leadership is actually doing a lot of governance work, not just supporting board decision-making. 

Many organizations have governance committees, advisories and task groups that include non-board members. There’s often a Terms of Reference describing the intent and other expectations. But it is uncommon for underlying power dynamics to be addressed. For example, there may be clarity on paper about the authority these groups have to take action, but less about what power the board is prepared to give up. 

The reality is that sharing governance responsibilities and decision-making has some challenges – along with benefits.

Maximizing benefits of shared leadership while mitigating challenges

We’ve identified three key strategies to maximize the benefits of shared governance leadership while mitigating the challenges:  

• Recruit the leaders with the right skills, personal attributes, values and mindsets to make it work.
• Create an enabling culture. 
• Adopt a purpose driven approach.

Dive deeper into each of these in our accompanying .

It’s worth noting that trust is clearly at the heart of successful shared governance, which is hard to build and easy to lose. But if you adopt these three strategies, then trust is likely to follow. The diagram below shows an example of how your organization can adopt a purpose-driven approach. You’ll find it in the tool, .

Get started on governance as shared leadership now

It’s more important than ever to explore how governance can be shared, taking advantage of the benefits and mitigating the challenges. Get started right now by taking one (or all!) of the following actions: 

• Share this blog with your leadership and governance teams and have a conversation about what questions or insights spark for you.
• Check out the Board Essentials resource, and the accompanying tool , to gain confidence you’re doing what you need to do before exploring sharing governance work.
• Learn more about shared decision-making in the resource, Shared Decision-Making for Nonprofit Governance.
• Dive deeper into governance work by exploring the Differentiating governance responsibilities and decisions resource, and then really dive in by experimenting with the tool. 

Governance as shared leadership isn’t just about tactics and engagement strategies – it’s about a mindset and way of working that’s premised on the belief that you can accomplish so much more through a collaborative, networked governance system.

Download transcript.

Three key takeaways about governance culture:

1. Governance culture is a complex, often invisible force that has a big impact on how governance is done. 

Governance culture speaks to the values, mindsets, and ways of interaction of those who do governance work, such as the board, executive director, senior leadership, and any others participating in governance decision-making. 

Governance culture is a combination of:

• Mindsets – e.g. attitudes, perspectives, ways of thinking/behaving, worldviews
• Values – e.g. the core beliefs valued by the organization and the people within the organization 
• Ways of interaction – e.g. how people act together, towards, or with others; norms and habits

Governance culture can also include unique habits and norms that have formed over periods of time or within certain groups of people, becoming ‘normalized’ into a culture.

It impacts the actions, decisions, rules, and power dynamics that influence governance work. This manifests, for example, in who is consulted in decision-making, what types of knowledge and opinions are valued, the degree of risk tolerance, and how leadership is expressed and conferred. It comes out in questions of, How do we value feedback? Whose opinions and what kinds of types of knowledge are being valued by governance leaders? These things are greatly influenced by the mindsets, the values, the deep seated perspectives that people hold – often without realizing that they’re there. 

2. Many nonprofits don’t address governance culture intentionally, but doing so can open doors to governance innovation. 

Governance culture is highly prevalent but often not explored or named intentionally. Many organizations just assume organizational culture and governance culture merge; but they are different. Organizational culture typically focuses on the organization’s relationship to the community, to human resource and ethical principles, and links to the organization’s vision. It doesn’t focus on the conscious or unconscious mindsets, values and perspectives of those who are fulfilling governance, including what’s driving decisions and how governance structures and processes are created. As a result, there can be misalignments and misunderstandings. 

If organizations are more intentional about their governance culture it opens up opportunities for innovation. For example, it causes governance leaders to determine what processes, structures and practices align with their intended culture, rather than just adopt generic ones. It causes deeper reflection that goes beyond just diversifying the board, to challenging notions of power and privilege and unpacking how to create truly equitable practices. 

3. Your nonprofit can start digging into this work right away, and the upcoming Reimagining Governance Lab will support you! 

Reflections about governance culture can happen during strategic planning sessions, be folded into regular check-ins and meetings, or be a well-resourced and longer-term activity that happens over months. This journey will look different for every nonprofit. 

A key starting place is to build trust and create the right environment for navigating governance culture together, enabling the team to surface insights. The goal is not to create a perfect culture, because that doesn’t exist. Think about the values that you feel should drive your governance, and then reflect on the degree of alignment between those and the personal values, perspectives, and mindsets of individual governance leaders. Then, reflect on what everything means, examining the opportunities and challenges of your current circumstances. 

For instance, if everyone is very aligned in values and mindsets, this could make governance work easier because there is a high level of agreement. However, if this goes on unexamined or without intentionality, it could prevent the group from seeing gaps, understanding barriers to their programs or services, and get stuck in ‘groupthink’ over the years. 

A more intentional governance culture focuses on the relationships and human dynamics that drive your governance. It also means that nonprofit organizations are more responsive to the evolving environment, which ultimately enables them to better serve communities. 

The Reimagining Governance Lab, a virtual space for people to explore innovative approaches to governance, will be sharing a tool that helps organizations to explore and reflect on their governance culture.  to stay connected and receive updates on the launch of the Lab! 

By Erin Kang and Linda Mollenhauer

This vlog is the second in a three-part series that will highlight learnings from ONN’s Reimagining Governance, a collaborative initiative with Ignite NPS. Following this series, we will be launching a virtual space for people to explore innovative approaches to governance in the nonprofit sector.

Recently Vu Le, a leader in the sector and the face behind the popular blog Nonprofit AF, to nonprofits and charities: Why do we keep doing things the way we do? 

As Vu notes, the spotlight shouldn’t necessarily be on individual board members, many of whom are doing their best and actively contributing to the organization. Rather, it’s the system and the design of governance that should be reimagined. As ongoing conversations about racial justice remind us, it is simply not enough to focus on the symptoms of an issue: solutions must hone in on the root of the problem.

The root issue of nonprofit governance is its design. We have been thinking about the design of governance so narrowly. Typically, governance is equated with the board of directors and there is a false line in the sand between governance and management. On the ground though, we know that’s not how it really works. 

Though there are many examples of strong boards, the reliance on a model that revolves around the functionality of just one structure (the board) means it’s vulnerable to a variety of factors. For instance, folks in the sector trade stories of good governance going sideways due to single factors like a new board chair coming in. One or two factors should not derail the effectiveness of a system. Considering that governance is a system with many structures, players, influences, and processes not only consisting of the board could result in more resilient governance systems.

The current design of governance emphasizes just one aspect of governance: the performance of the board. Thus, there are a variety of very important programs and courses that work to nurture and support the capacity of the board to do its work well. 

However, governance is a much more complex system. We need to make this invisible system visible: a web of players including CEOs, management, funders, community partners, and members. In doing this, we can change how we see the playing field of governance. Adopting a bird’s eye view reveals there are many interrelated parts of the governance system and this allows us to identify where power may be concentrating, and possibilities for equity that extend beyond the boardroom. 

Boards of directors have also carried an enormous weight of responsibilities, which has grown over the years. The expectations and pressures are only higher now, and governance leaders across the sector are struggling to juggle many factors. Some have likened the experience to “dancing as fast as we can on a shoestring” – and that was before COVID-19.

In short, a lot is being asked of boards. Organizations are facing issues like growing deficits and other high-risk decisions. Placing these decisions in front of a small group of volunteers to make, who may have limited capacity or knowledge is unrealistic and as Vu further points out, could even be harmful to the organization and its mission. Creating a wider network participating in governance decisions not only opens up more possibilities for the work, but takes care of those who are needing to make those decisions.

There are many examples of different board governance models, but they often don’t factor in the organization’s unique circumstances – like fitting a round peg into a square hole. In order to ensure organizations have governance systems and practices that work for them, their governance system must consider their fixed requirements, organizational life cycles, and many other factors. In other words, how can we create what we need rather than simply work with what we were given?

Research shows that there is a for real transformation. So, where to start? One place to start could be reframing the questions we ask about governance to consider the broader governance system, not only the board. For example, instead of asking ‘How can we fix the board’, we could ask ‘What is the most effective way for us to fulfil our governance’? As one governance leader put it, “How can we start seeing the board as the host of governance, rather than the home of governance?” Or imagine, with their “integrity board”, if all organizations started from a place of “what do we want the governance of this organization to make possible for accomplishing our mission?”. 

As the world reconsiders what the future of work will look like, it is time to experiment, be messy and imperfect in order to better govern organizations and in turn, better serve communities. That includes getting innovative in seemingly rigid, unshakeable areas like nonprofit governance. In fact, maybe those areas of greatest rigidity are where we must be most innovative. What could we discover if organizations could shape their own governance, to their own purpose and circumstances? It’s time to push ourselves.

Reimagining Governance, in collaboration with Ignite NPS, is an initiative with the overarching goal of provoking a shift in how nonprofits think about and undertake their governance. Through research, connecting with sector leaders, and experimentation, Reimagining Governance is developing a Transformative Design Process that will enable organizations to shape their own governance, rather than fit into prescriptive models. or get involved by contacting erin@theonn.ca.

From childhood, we are taught the value of leadership. We are encouraged to develop our skills in leadership, from the classroom to the workplace. Often, the benefits of leadership are tied to ideas of individual success. I will lead. I will take charge. I will be successful. What we can often overlook is that we do not exist in our own spaces. We overlap with one another.

I grew up shaped by experiences of difference and violence; this permeates all of my work. Earlier in my life, I let the fact that I’ve gone through so many different experiences blind me from seeing the larger picture and my place in it. Since I have a University education, I thought I knew my stuff. Since I have felt erasure and marginalization, I thought I knew injustice. Since I can be a leader, I thought that I should be.
A couple years ago on a hot summer day, at a Black Lives Matter gathering, someone I deeply admire addressed the allies in the crowd. Would we, he asked, be willing to step back and let them drive this march? Would we step down while they led this movement? Would we stand behind their leadership –  without making this about us?

Despite the Canadian narrative of multiculturalism and our propensity to view ourselves as better off than our southern neighbours, we live with deep inequities and injustices. We are founded in these truths. We must confront the fact that our silence and inactions make a larger statement than our actions.

We must ask how we will move forward with this. Our power, intentionality, and love need to be brought into every day, every step of our work. We don’t always need to be leaders. We don’t always need to sit at the helm. We can ask ourselves how we can share our power. We can remember that though we may face certain barriers ourselves, there are challenges others face that we may not.

Shaping our cities and services for community goes beyond looking at built form or system structures – at its core, it’s about self-determination. As leaders impacting political, public policy, and other systems around us, it is on us not only to lead the charge, but to Follow – with a capital F. True allyship – true inclusivity – includes making sacrifices. It cannot end after one-off actions or at our convenience. It’s not a story we can tell. It’s about how we live. It demands we be quiet. It demands we let go. It demands we look beyond what we can do to help.

We must learn when and how to let others lead, and when and how to use the tools at our disposal – our power, our privilege – to actively challenge oppressive systems. How will we shape our cities to empower its peoples, encourage learning and togetherness amidst complex change? This is for us to decide.