Maybe it is Time to ‘Reverse Engineer’ Our Governance

Increasing globalisation and organisational complexity call for a review of long-standing governance models and decision-making structures. With an eye on 2026, it would be more effective to design governance around the outcomes we want to achieve than to continue relying on legacy frameworks designed for an entirely different context.
In an increasingly global and complex environment, our collaborator Mark Levin (right side) argues for reverse engineering organisational governance by designing structures around desired outcomes, to modernise decision-making processes and better prepare organisations for 2026 and beyond.

I am guessing that none of the readers of Headquarters got up this morning and said, “I think today would be the perfect day for our organisation to reconstruct our entire governance model.”

I know I certainly did not. I am already remarkably busy trying to keep everything up and running in the international trade association I manage on a day-to-day basis.

However, maybe it is time to re-evaluate whether or not our governance structure and, more importantly, our decisionmaking processes, are best preparing us to deal with the world of 2026. If our membership, and the scope of our programmes, events, and activities, are global in nature, is the governance that our organisation adopted when it was founded still the best model to be using 10, 20, 30, or even (in our case) 65 years later?

This is not a discussion about updating by-laws and policy manuals, although that may be an outcome of the reverse engineering process. Reverse engineering our governance means working backward from our goals to uncover how our decisions are actually being made, and, realising that, determining if that process is aligned with our need to be responsive to our members’ needs.

Let’s say our goal in 2026 is to have the largest and most successful annual meeting in our organisation’s history. That is a wonderful goal, but in order to get to that outcome, we need work backwards by asking ourselves these eight questions:

• What is that going to take? How aggressive does our promotional effort need to be? How big of a budget will we need?
   
• Who is going to do all that work? Do we need an ad hoc committee? Should we hire a marketing company?
   
• What is the role of the staff going to be? Do we have the marketing and management talent on board to accomplish our goal? Will we need to borrow staff resources from other departments or organisation priority activities?
   
• At what points do we evaluate how effective our efforts have been? At what point do we start discussing (if necessary) the need to regroup and make some changes to our plan/effort?
   
• What are the measurement criteria to determine the ‘largest’ meeting?

a. Total attendees?
b. Total member attendees?
c. Percentage of members?
d. Total exhibitors?
e. Total income?

• What are the measurement criteria for the ‘most successful’ meeting?

a. Total attendance?
b. Attendee evaluations?
c. Net income?
d. Adoption of new professional standards or policies?
e. Repeat attendees from 2025?

• Who will prioritise these items, and what authority they have to make those decisions?

a. Should it be the Board or a committee?
b. Does designating the annual meeting as a priority give it precedence over other programmes or resources?
c. What is the role of the organisation’s staff in making decisions and determining priorities?

• Do we need to restructure our governance to keep moving forward?

a. Are we bound by out-of-date governance documents that limit our ability to ‘organise for success’?
b. Should we consider adding leadership positions to engage a broader representation of our 2026 membership?

This process could go on and on. The key is to identify, quantify, and track the process by which decisions are currently made and priorities are determined. Then you can identify where changes are needed.

Here is where the ‘reverse’ part of reverse engineering starts paying off. Instead of starting with an organisation chart and assigning programmes and activities to existing individuals or committees, you build an organisation chart to support and accomplish organisational priorities and goals.

Based on the example above, our 2026 governance can now be structured to:

• Identify and engage a broader group of members;
   
• Give this group greater authority to help prioritise organisational goals;
   
• Increase attendee satisfaction at our annual meetings;
   
• Increase the number of active (voting) members in attendance;
   
• Monitor the progress of the meeting more frequently (monthly);
   
• Use the information and recommendations of the professional staff;
   
• Accomplish the goal of producing the largest and most successful annual meeting in our organisation’s history.

Ultimately, reverse engineering our governance is about aligning structure with purpose. Rather than relying on legacy models or outdated decision-making habits, it asks us to start with the outcomes we want to achieve and design a governance system capable of delivering them. By working backwards from our goals, clarifying roles, updating processes, and empowering the right people at the right moments, we can build organisations that are agile, accountable, and genuinely prepared for 2026 and beyond.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark Levin, CAE, CSP has more than 20 years of experience as an association executive and is also an internationally-known speaker and consultant to the non-profit and association community. He currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute, an international trade association, and as President of B.A.I., Inc., his speaking and consulting firm.
 

Published by Meeting Media Company, the publisher of Headquarters Magazine (HQ) – a leading international publication based in Brussels, serving the global MICE industry and association community.