I was recently asked by Spring Impact to contribute a short reflection to their Scale Mail newsletter on a question that continues to surface whenever I speak about Living Goods’ evolution:
How did you bring your board along when your model had to change?
It is a reasonable question.
But it assumes something slightly misleading.
You do not “bring” a board with you in the sense of convincing them to follow. What you do is create the conditions for alignment. That requires governance discipline, structured dialogue, and clarity about what is being protected and what is being reimagined.
When Living Goods shifted from primarily direct service delivery to a government integrated model designed for national scale, the technical model change was significant. The governance work behind it was just as significant.
Here is what mattered most.
1. Ensure your board reflects where you are going, not where you began
Boards are often formed in the early phase of an organisation’s life. They reflect the founding energy. Entrepreneurial bias. Deep belief in the model. Comfort with speed and experimentation.
That was true for us.
As the organisation matured, the strategic question changed. We were no longer asking how to optimise delivery in areas we controlled. We were asking how to reach national tipping points through public systems.
That required different experience. Public sector credibility. Policy navigation. Risk management at scale. Operational oversight across geographies.
The shift was not about rejecting what had built the organisation. It was about acknowledging that ambition had increased.
Boards must evolve as strategy evolves.
Changing board composition is not always necessary. But assessing capability against future ambition is non negotiable.
2. Clarify governance versus management learning
One of the most important internal shifts was becoming explicit about decision rights.
We agreed early on:
• What required formal board approval
• What required board discussion and input
• What leadership would test through controlled experimentation
Scaling through government is inherently less predictable than scaling a model you directly control. You introduce political cycles, budget constraints, incentives you do not manage, and operational realities that vary by district.
Progress slows. Results fluctuate. Early pilots underperform before they improve.
If every fluctuation becomes a governance issue, leadership becomes paralysed.
Learning is part of leadership’s role. Governance is about oversight, risk tolerance, and strategic direction.
Being clear about this distinction created space for disciplined experimentation without eroding trust.
3. Redefine success before debating structure
A model shift is often resisted not because it is strategically unsound, but because the board and leadership are still measuring success through an outdated lens.
Growth is visible. Revenue increases. Headcount grows. Programmes expand.
Scaling impact through systems is less visible. Organisational size may stabilise or even shrink. Influence increases while direct delivery decreases.
At Living Goods, we faced a constraint that clarified the conversation.
Even with substantial additional funding, we would only ever directly reach around 5 percent of the population.
That figure forced a different question.
Was our objective organisational growth or population level impact?
Once the board aligned around that ambition, the model discussion became more pragmatic.
Redefining success is often the unlock.
4. Engage allies and sceptics deliberately
Boards are not homogeneous.
Some members will be instinctively aligned with bold strategic shifts. Others will be cautious, particularly where control and reputation risk are concerned.
Both perspectives are valuable.
Allies help maintain momentum when progress is uneven.
Sceptics force sharper thinking and more robust risk mitigation.
The most important conversations rarely happened inside the quarterly meeting. They happened individually, in advance.
Pre socialising complex ideas is not manipulation. It is good governance practice.
And if every discussion is smooth and agreeable, it is worth asking whether sufficient challenge is present.
Constructive friction strengthens decisions.
5. Name the trade offs without dilution
Scaling through government required explicit trade offs.
Less direct control over frontline performance.
Lower intensity of support per community health worker.
Greater dependence on supervision systems and digital tools rather than our own staff.
Boards understand risk. What undermines confidence is ambiguity.
We modelled the financial implications. We compared reach scenarios. We were transparent about quality safeguards and where performance might dip before improving.
The conversation shifted from “Is this risky?” to “Is this the right risk to take given our ambition?”
That is a more mature debate.
Boards do not need certainty.
They need a credible strategy and leadership that acknowledges complexity without defensiveness.
Final reflection
Bringing your board with you is not about unanimous enthusiasm at every milestone.
It is about:
- Ensuring the board has the capabilities required for your next stage
- Establishing explicit decision boundaries
- Aligning on what success truly means
- Naming trade offs clearly and modelling their implications
Boards are not there to simplify the work.
They are there to strengthen it.
💡 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐫?
You can learn directly from me this March, when I joins Spring Impact as a guest speaker for Funding for Scale — a masterclass for social leaders building fundable, scalable models.
👉 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞:
https://bit.ly/46rmJ0b
Warmly,
Liz
Strategic Advisor | Former CEO | Founder, Volante
Based in Kenya, available globally
