Reimagining Governance: Aligning Board Culture with the Mission and Moment

Governance isn’t just the work of a board—it’s a shared system of decisionmaking, accountability, and leadership. This article invites you to expand your understanding of governance itself and discover a liberatory system of governance that is just, collaborative, and representative.

June 3, 2025
Marissa Coleman Headshot

The world around us is changing—fast. Gone are the days when everyone looked the same, lived the same way, and shared the same values. The communities where we work, live, and create are now more diverse and complex than ever before, and so are our organizations. The knowledge and skills needed to grow and sustain a healthy nonprofit have evolved. Once, boards could focus solely on budgets and balance sheets, and consider their job done. Their primary role was fiduciary: to protect the organization’s legal and financial interests and preserve its public credibility and trust. But time has passed. Today, we operate in a multigenerational workforce, with five generations working side by side. That alone requires new approaches to communication, collaboration, and leadership. Add to that the rapid pace of technology, the rise of AI, and the increasing demand for cultural competence, transparency, and accountability, and it’s clear that choral organizations, like many in the nonprofit arts sector, are being called to lead differently. Governance today isn’t just the responsibility of the board; it’s a system of interconnected roles, responsibilities, and practices that guide how an organization plans for its future, makes decisions, and holds itself accountable to its purpose. To keep pace, we need to expand our understanding of what it means to govern. While the board holds legal authority, governance in practice involves staff, community, and other stakeholders who all contribute to mission alignment, strategic foresight, and organizational relevance. Many choral organizations are rising to meet the moment. Others are struggling, often due to inherited board structures that no longer fit. When nonprofit laws were first established—like their corporate counterparts— boards were created to provide oversight and accountability. However, the law offered little guidance on how that role should be fulfilled. The introduction of Section 501(c)(3) in the Internal Revenue Code clarified the board’s responsibility for ensuring public benefit and the appropriate use of charitable dollars. Over time, additional duties, such as hiring leadership and setting policy, expanded the board’s role, positioning directors as fiduciaries responsible for asset protection and legal oversight. As competition among nonprofits increased, fundraising became a higher priority, and the board’s focus began shifting toward organizational preservation. Rather than championing mission and community impact, many boards evolved into hierarchical, bureaucratic entities known more for vetoing forward progress than for fostering meaningful partnership. Others became passive “rubber stamps” for a founding leader’s agenda.

What Is Governance, Really?

Before we go deeper, let’s look back for a moment at how governance typically begins in the life of a nonprofit. Governance is often conflated with structure: bylaws, org charts, policies, and meeting schedules. But governance culture— the unwritten values, assumptions, and norms that guide how decisions actually get made—is just as important. If structure is what’s on paper, culture is what’s practiced. It’s the difference between who is legally empowered to decide and who is actually involved in the decision-making process. Nonprofits are often formed with the bare minimum number of board members assigned on paper in the roles required by law. For many organizations, this establishes a precedent for how board culture and governance will operate for years to come, especially as other startup demands compete for the founder’s attention. Eventually, the need for more strategic leadership becomes clear and focus returns to the board. But what if we took a step back and asked: What does effective governance look like from the beginning? And what might happen if, even now, we updated our structures to reflect the times in which we live?

Recognizing the Need for Change

If your board is struggling to adapt, you’re not alone. These challenges often stem from outdated structures and evolving expectations of board roles and responsibilities. Signs that an organization may need to update its board structure can range from painstakingly obvious to subtle and unassuming. These signs can range from simple things like missed administrative deadlines and under-attended meetings to role confusion, disengaged members, reduced audience attendance and stalled decision-making. All can be indicators that an update is needed. In some organizations, board discussions remain focused on operational tasks (chairs, venues, refreshments) while more pressing strategic questions about audience, mission, and future go unexamined. For others, one or two dominant voices guide the board, even if full votes are unanimous. These behaviors may seem benign, but together they often reveal a need for your board to evolve. Now more than ever, the need for collaboration across the board, chorus leadership, members, audience, supporters, and the broader community is essential for both relevance and sustainability. Inclusive governance is rooted in shared leadership, shaped by those most impacted by the organization’s work. To be responsive to the moment and effective in their role, boards must consider flipping the hierarchy on its head, centering the mission and the people most affected by it as the loudest voices and the greatest place of accountability. By shifting our approach to governance as a whole, boards evolve into bodies that fulfill their role not just on paper, but in practice— with clarity and purpose. So how does a board begin to move in this direction, and what does that shift actually look like in practice? I’m glad you asked. Boards don’t move forward by accident; they do so with intention. A practical starting point is to assess where your board currently sits on the governance continuum described below. Use the reflective questions in the next section to discuss where you’d like to be and what gaps exist. From there, identify which changes will have the most meaningful impact on your organization and prioritize those. Set a few bold goals based on the priorities, assign responsibility, and decide how you’ll track progress. The goal isn’t to change everything overnight; it’s to build sustained momentum that shifts both how you operate and how you lead.

A Continuum for Change: Evolving Your Board’s Governance

Assessing where your board sits on the governance change continuum can be a powerful first step toward meaningful change. This five-stage framework reflects how governance culture typically evolves over time and often parallels the life cycle of the organization itself. By identifying where you are now, your board can gain insight into what’s possible next: setting incremental goals, targeting structural and cultural improvements, and moving with intention toward a more inclusive, mission-centered future.

  1. Start-Up: Governance is informal and founder-led. The board exists mostly on paper and may not be involved beyond incorporation. Decisions are often made quickly by a small group of early organizers. Example: A volunteer chorus is founded by a passionate musician who manages operations and artistic direction, with minimal board oversight
  2. Nominating Model: As the organization grows, the board becomes more structured. Meetings are held regularly and may default to Robert’s Rules of Order for parliamentary procedure. A nominating committee may be established but meets solely for the focus of filling seats. Strategy, evaluation, and board development are limited. Example: A growing chorus incorporates as a nonprofit and appoints a board, but governance remains task-oriented and compliance-focused.
  3. Board Development Model: The board begins to invest in its own growth. Onboarding, education, and evaluation processes are introduced. Compare active, and the board reflects more diverse experiences and perspectives. However, decision-making may still be top-down, with limited engagement from staff, singers, or the community. Example: A midsize chorus conducts board self-assessments or strategic planning retreats, but program decisions remain isolated from audience input
  4. Governance Model: Leadership is shared across the board, staff, and sometimes even the chorus or audience base. A governance committee oversees board health, inclusion, and alignment with mission. Strategic conversations invite multiple voices, and the board begins to operate as a learning body. Example: The artistic and administrative team co-facilitates board retreats; community members serve on committees and provide program input
  5. Liberatory Governance: Governance is fully integrated with values, voice, and purpose. Stakeholder input is centered. Power is distributed intentionally. The board leads in partnership with community, staff, and constituents. Equity, accountability, and long-term vision drive every decision. Example: A chorus board co-creates program direction with singers, audience, and staff, using real-time feedback and shared ownership models.

Once your board has identified its current place on the continuum, the next step is to cast a vision for where you’d like to go. This is the time to name what values you want your governance culture to reflect and to surface the structural, relational, or cultural gaps that may be holding you back. What needs to shift for your board to operate with greater clarity, collaboration, or impact? By asking honest questions, prioritizing high-leverage changes, and committing to shared responsibility, your board can begin closing the gap between where you are and where you want to be. The reflective questions in the next section can help illuminate that path.

Questions to Help Your Board Reflect and Evolve

Reflection is where culture shifts begin. These questions can help start the conversation:

  • Who has voice in our governance system?
  • How do we define success beyond compliance?
  • Where is leadership shared, and where is it concentrated?
  • What assumptions are we holding about our board’s purpose, and are those still serving us?
  • What feedback have we been given that points us to an area of focus?
  • How do we currently hear from our community, and does that feedback shape decisions?
  • When was the last time our board had a generative conversation—not just about what happened, but about what’s possible?

These questions are not meant to overwhelm. They’re an invitation to begin reimagining what governance can look like in your organization and a place to start when you’re interested in developing a plan for progress. That said, engaging in a major shift can feel daunting, especially in the midst of everything else vying for your attention. You may even determine that governance doesn’t feel like the most urgent priority right now. That’s okay. Keep this conversation on your radar by watching for signs that your current approach may need reimagining. Governance issues don’t always announce themselves loudly; they often build quietly over time until sud - denly, a crisis emerges. Shared governance helps mitigate that risk by ensuring that multiple people, across roles and perspec - tives, are paying attention. When leader - ship is distributed, potential issues surface earlier, and solutions become more collaborative and effective

Marissa Q. Coleman, MSW is a transformational coach, strategist, and facilitator. As principal of Make Shift Happen International, she helps leaders navigate life and leadership transitions with courage, competence and clarity.