26. May 2026

The Governance Burden Is Breaking Good People. There's a Better Way.

If you find this useful, I share practical tools and insights by email Sign up to the newsletter

The uncomfortable truth sitting at the heart of small charity governance right now is that many trustees are tired, over-burdened and just don't fully understand all the areas that they are responsible for. We tend to frame governance failures as a training problem, a recruitment problem, or an engagement problem. Trustees just need to be better informed, more diverse, or more committed. But that framing lets the real issue off the hook entirely.

The role itself has become almost unsustainable.

The trustee job description has quietly tripled

A generation ago, trusteeship broadly meant turning up to a few meetings a year, applying common sense to major decisions, and trusting the people running the organisation to get on with it. That was already a meaningful ask of unpaid volunteers with jobs, families and lives.

Now that same volunteer is expected to hold competent oversight across safeguarding, data protection, cyber security, financial controls, serious incident reporting, HR oversight, risk management, funding compliance, impact measurement, and trustee recruitment — while also finding time for strategic thinking and proper scrutiny of the organisation's direction. Each of those areas carries genuine personal liability. None of them are simple. And almost none of them are why someone said yes when they were asked to join the board.

Most trustees joined because they cared about the cause. Not because they wanted to become quasi-regulatory specialists in their spare time.

Disengagement isn't apathy. It's overload.

When trustees go quiet in meetings, miss papers, or stop asking probing questions, it's easy to read that as a lack of commitment. Sometimes it is. But more often, it's the behaviour of someone who is already cognitively overwhelmed and has quietly learned that the safest thing to do is say as little as possible. The board becomes reactive rather than strategic. Meetings drift toward operational detail because nobody has had the headspace to prepare properly. Away days get cancelled because everyone is too busy surviving.

Good governance gets quietly replaced by survival administration.

And in the middle of all of it, somewhere, there is usually one exhausted person — a founder, a chair, an administrator — holding the entire governance machine together through sheer force of will and increasingly fragile spreadsheets.

We already outsource the things we can't reasonably expect volunteers to carry alone.

Here's where the assumption worth challenging comes in. No one seriously argues that volunteer trustees should also be doing the charity's bookkeeping, preparing management accounts, or running payroll. That would be absurd. We outsource those things — not because trustees are incapable, but because they require specialist knowledge, consistent attention, and more time than a volunteer role can reasonably absorb.

So why do we still expect boards to self-manage the entire operational scaffolding of governance?

Coordinating agendas. Tracking policy review schedules. Maintaining compliance calendars. Preparing board papers. Managing trustee onboarding. Chasing actions. Supporting the chair. Drafting minutes. Monitoring regulatory changes. These things don't require a trustee. They require consistent, skilled administrative and governance support — the kind that most small charities have never thought to commission, because it has always just fallen on whoever was willing to carry it.

Poor governance already has a cost.

This is where small charity leaders often hesitate. Frontline need is real and immediate. Paying for governance infrastructure can feel like a distraction from the actual work, even an indulgence. But poor governance has its own price tag — one that tends to arrive later and hurt more. Trustee burnout. Weak decisions made without proper scrutiny. Missed risks. Regulatory failures. Funding losses. Board dysfunction that takes years to repair.

The cheapest governance model often turns out to be the most expensive one.

What's emerging — slowly, but with real momentum — is a different approach. Charities using external governance support in the same way they use accountants. Not consultants who appear once and vanish. Ongoing partnerships that keep governance rhythms moving, support chairs, coordinate trustee development, run compliance tracking, and create the conditions for boards to do what they're actually there to do: think clearly, ask hard questions, and make good decisions.

That's not outsourcing governance. It's resourcing it properly.

The conversation we keep having is: how do we get trustees to carry more? The conversation we need to have is: what support structures do small charities need to remain healthy and sustainable in the decade ahead?

Because the organisations that figure this out early won't just be better governed. They'll be more resilient, more strategic, and far kinder to the people giving their time to lead them.

That's worth paying for.

Want more like this? I send practical tools, funding ideas, and honest insights straight to your inbox for small and medium charities. Sign up to the newsletter