All for one and one for all
Diana Garnham reviews the issue of balancing interests in effective umbrella organisations
KEY POINTS
- Clarity of purpose is vital
- All members should have an equal voice
- The umbrella body is servant to the members
- Beware over-dependence on large bodies
The most common reason that umbrella bodies are established is to enable collaboration on policy and strategy or to achieve greater cost effectiveness for a number of like-minded organisations. Once established, they can cover a range of other activities made possible by the fact that there is a forum in place to facilitate collaborative working. In the commercial sector, such a collective is usually defined as a ‘trade association’.
I have been working with umbrella organisations of various kinds for more than 25 years. They have all been very different causes, from the peace movement to science, and in all of them, the challenge of pleasing all the members all of the time has been a common denominator. Of course, it isn’t possible to keep everyone equally content, but I have learned that structures and processes can play an important part in creating the right environment for the umbrella organisation to succeed. This article summarises my list of essential steps.
Credibility
In order to deliver its mandate for member organisations on national and international policy matters the umbrella body will seek to establish its credibility to speak for, represent, or lead its sub-sector. This is underpinned by the explicit support of member bodies and by the proportion of a sub-sector that is within membership. Attracting and retaining members is essential, so the structure should draw in a wide range of different types of organisation. Members will expect to be able to have a direct influence, and the umbrella body must be effectively and efficiently organised to be credible and responsive to external stakeholders. Furthermore, if the umbrella is a charity, it will need to be able to do all these things whilst ensuring that it is delivering public benefit and not simply serving the interests of members.
Attracting and retaining members
The starting point for any umbrella body must be clarity of purpose, so a clear mission is essential and will help guard against future mission drift. The mission should be to add value for members, focusing on areas where collaboration and critical mass are central to success, to address the concerns of members and to ensure that the umbrella body does not duplicate their activities or directly compete with them for funds or influence.
The level of commitment to the umbrella body is likely to vary and there are many different reasons why organisations become members. Members have a good many things in common but inevitably there will also be many differences, for example in relation to size, age, culture, structure and level of commitment to, or perceived need for, the umbrella body. The membership is likely to include a small number of very large and well resourced organisations, and a much larger tail of smaller organisations. Larger ones may already have a high profile and be much better resourced than the umbrella which may be viewed as an upstart getting in their way. At the same time smaller organisations may worry that the umbrella will be dominated by the larger organisations and will not stand up to them in the interests of all. And the opportunity to share common concerns in a safe space is a role that all value as awareness of the external expectation for increased collaboration builds.
Success depends on all members feeling involved and welcome. Subscription levels and voting mechanisms will give key signals, along with consultation and advisory processes. Importantly, all members should have the right to vote for the board and for policy. I do not favour giving some members permanent board positions or increased voting rights as this can be divisive and lead to smaller organisations (who feel excluded) seeking to establish their own representative or special interest groups and voice. It is far simpler, and more transparent, for all members to be treated equally: one member, one vote.
As for subscriptions, the level needs to reflect size and the ability to pay at the same time as delivering value for money for larger organisations. In establishing the level of subscription it is also important to guard against being over-dependent on one or two large bodies and I would suggest that no single organisation should contribute more than 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the subscription income.
The board should ensure that members are satisfied with the umbrella body and it will seek to monitor levels of engagement. The audit and risk committee can undertake a regular review against some criteria to assess the levels of engagement and commitment, especially that of the larger organisations.
The board is responsible for overseeing the proper use of resources. Where a significant proportion of those resources are generated through member subscriptions members should retain responsibility for fixing the rate of subscription as it may be viewed as their funding. A simple way of achieving this is for members to have an opportunity to vote on the financial plan.
Structures that engage
In charities, it is the trustees that have legal responsibility for strategy and policy. The conventional wisdom is that this means that members of an umbrella body have to take a step back and delegate policy to a board of trustees.1 Even if appropriate checks and balances are put in place, there are two reasons why I don’t think this is right for charitable umbrella bodies:
1) The commitment and engagement of the breadth of members is crucial to the effectiveness of the umbrella body, underpinning its mandate, but clearly only a small number of members can be directly involved through membership of the board.
2) The board cannot be a representative body as the trustees, even if elected, serve in their individual capacity and not as representatives of a sub-set of interests. If the board is seen as in control of all aspects of the umbrella, then all members will feel that they have a right to be on it.
A structure that fulfils the needs of charity law and good governance at the same time as satisfying the expectations of member organisations to be directly engaged is essential. This requires balancing the role of the board and its members and must include strong mechanisms for accountability of the board to members that does not inhibit effectiveness or leadership.
Science Council example
One way of achieving engagement of members and ensuring a strong mandate is for members to approve the mission, strategy and policy priorities for the organisation. At the Science Council we were able to argue successfully to the Charity Commission that while the trustees were ultimately responsible for the strategy and policy of the organisation, this did not mean that it was the trustees that had to shape the policy. Science Council member bodies therefore retain the oversight control of the organisation’s strategy and policies, and its financial plan, by meeting three times a year as a council. This is much more than an advisory council as it includes both presidents and CEOs of member bodies who have the credibility to shape positions on science policy. The board then develops the details of implementation and delivery but reports back to council regularly. The council is able to approve or disapprove and retains the ultimate sanction of being able to elect the board members.
The board is able to reject recommendations and actions agreed by council if they feel it is not in the interests of the organisation (both in terms of reputation or finance), or the proposed policy or action would not be legal. The board has to take its case back to members who can disagree once again. In reality this does not happen as there are better ways to develop agreement.
One voice
There is often an unreasonable expectation that the umbrella organisation will speak with one voice on policy matters, and that which is its principal purpose in life. I find this rather unhelpful. Member organisations are autonomous bodies and it causes a high level of anxiety if they feel their umbrella body may speak for them without their explicit authorisation. There is likely to be a broad consensus at a high level on policy priorities, but most policy consultations are more detailed and there will always be differences in thinking. The umbrella body is best seen as providing a single point of contact on policy rather than a single view. It’s great if a clear consensus emerges – this can increase the potential impact – but even so the umbrella body will be well placed to set out the views and nuanced differences in a way that will still be helpful in informing the policy development. In the longer term this is a more realistic and credible position to hold despite coming across as having less impact.
Keep it fresh
In addition to establishing an elected board, it is important that membership of the board should be refreshed regularly to enable as many members as possible to participate, although I stress this will be about skills and competencies rather than representation. Fixed terms of office are essential (four or five years at most) and rotation should ensure that a one-fifth or a quarter of the board are replaced each year.
Trust, respect and be accountability
The effectiveness of the umbrella body will be greater if member organisations respect and trust one another and also trust the board. Quite apart from subscription levels and voting mechanisms, trust and respect between members is something that boards, chairs and CEOs must nurture and monitor. Inevitably larger organisations do assume that they are the leaders and may seek to align the umbrella organisation with their special interests. The board must therefore ensure that it is working both in the public interest and in the interests of the breadth of membership – an independent chair may be helpful if not essential in achieving this.
Clarity about key organisational values can be invaluable and should infuse the style of working and all activities. These values are likely to include:
- commitments to listen, hear, and honestly represent the views of members;
- to be inclusive, valuing the contribution of every member and not to establish cliques;
- to be committed to transparency and dialogue; and
- to embody a culture where the centre serves the members.
It is also important that the CEO and rest of the staff team know the members well and have a good understanding of their activities and concerns. One question I always ask myself when faced with a decision is: “Who will we upset if we do this and who will we upset if we don’t?” To know the answer to that question is always useful.
Ensuring transparency and accountability usually means sharing as much of the board business with members as is reasonably possible. In general, it is better to be as open as possible so that there is no fear that things are being kept from members, but there are a number of ways of doing this. Circulating board agendas in advance allows members to see what is being discussed. In addition, minutes of the meetings should be available to members and it could be appropriate to also circulate some papers.
Members do need different ways of providing input. Membership of working groups and specialist committees that inform and develop the work of the organisation should be spread widely and kept under review to ensure that as many different member bodies as possible to participate. The chair and CEO should between them meet as many different member bodies as possible during the year, ensuring that there is an opportunity for members to share concerns informally.
Communicate to stakeholders
Clarity about the body’s organisational interests and its ability to be authoritative about the concerns and activities of the breadth of members underpins its credibility and effectiveness. There must be no confusion about those who represent and speak for the organisation on behalf of members. This will usually be the CEO or the chair and it is essential that these individuals are not perceived as representing a particular interest or sub-set of members.
It can be confusing if the spokesperson for the umbrella is associated directly with one of the member bodies and is, in effect, wearing more than one hat. In addition to confusion it will also inhibit the umbrella organisation’s visibility with external stakeholders. If the umbrella body is going to establish itself as the point of contact for the sector, such independence and visibility is crucial and failure to do this will diminish its value to members.
The complex role of an umbrella body means that they have to have the qualities of servant of the members and, when necessary, provide leadership, especially in response to external pressures. Over time that combination of roles together with the depth of knowledge gained about the sector, enables the umbrella body to steer a course that, ideally, keeps most members satisfied, and achieves real value for members and external audiences.
1. See also: ‘An accountable board’ by Rodney Buse in Caritas, issue 42, May 2011, page 9
Author: Diana Garnham
Diana Garnham is chief executive of the Science Council, a membership organisation for learned societies and professional bodies in science which works to promote science and its applications for public benefit and to maintain common professional standards in scientific practice. Diana has served on a variety of government advisory groups and she is a trustee of several charities including the Spinal Research Trust and Sense about Science, and patron of the Cae Dai Trust, a mental health charity.
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.