Associations are weird. Associations can better be contrasted with representative democracies than compared to them. An association governance model is driven by their unique purpose (pursuing common good together) and responsive to their necessarily peculiar culture (collaboration and group decision-making). The model is usually referred to as “representative governance” and it is a customized hybrid of the dynamics of corporate governance and political governance.
Association governance is one-half a corporate model. Associations are governed by a board with the same three fiduciary responsibilities of any corporate board – the duties of care, loyalty and obedience. Board members are legally required to think, talk and decide on the basis of what is in the best interests of the enterprise on whose board seat they are sitting at the moment.
Association governance is one half a political model. Association boards are also composed of members that tend to be elected or selected to represent the perspective of a particular segment of membership or key stakeholders. A rich diversity of opinion on boards—generated by the presence of a wide range of life and work experiences—is generally acknowledged as increasing the creativity, quality and confidence of decisions.
The confluence of the two models can create tension when they are not understood or approached with the right governance philosophy. The tension can be navigated when board members and those they represent commit to a governance philosophy that subordinates “being representative for” to being “representative of.”
If board members believe they are “representative for,” then they see themselves as the elected representatives of a particular constituency. They voice only the self-interests and opinions of that constituency and vote only on behalf of that constituency’s interests.
Board members who view their role as ensuring that the views, beliefs, values, and self-interests of the constituencies they know the best are on the table as part of the conversation, are “representative of.”
Being “representative of” can build trust in governance. But, this trust is only earned when the process of governance is viewed as:
- Credible – members view the process by which decisions are made as one based on rationality, not on political power; the reasonable use of information gathered from a variety of sources; and
- Legitimate – members believe that all of the views of all the important voices were part of the conversation that led to the judgment.
Check out this related video:
Representative Governance Model from Tecker International on Vimeo.
Read Similar Blog Posts
About the Author
