Article · August 2026 · 6 min read

Governance: how communities and networks are held together

By Roel Ottens

Governance is often the word that makes people reach for an org chart. But in communities and networks, governance is not only about formal structures. It is the answer to a simpler question: how is this group held together? What keeps people showing up, coordinating, resolving tension and moving toward a shared goal?

In our baseline work we look at governance through three lenses — character, coordination mechanisms and locus of control — and then check the chosen form against four determining factors. None of this is about finding the one right model. It is about finding the form that fits the community or network at this stage of its life.

Governance is how the community or network is held together.

Character: social vs bureaucratic, symmetric vs asymmetric

The first thing we read is the character of the governance. Some communities are held together mainly by social forces: shared identity, mutual trust, peer expectations and informal norms. Others rely more on bureaucratic forces: agreements, roles, procedures, reporting and formal decision rights.

A second dimension is symmetry. In a symmetric community, participants are more or less peers. Influence is distributed, and no single actor dominates the agenda. In an asymmetric community, one or a few actors have substantially more power, resources or authority. They may be the founder, the funder, the host organisation or the platform owner.

Both dimensions are design choices, not moral verdicts. A young, exploratory network may thrive under light, social, symmetric governance. A network delivering public value at scale may need clearer, more bureaucratic, asymmetric coordination. The question is whether the character matches the work the community is trying to do.

Is the community held together by trust and shared identity, or by formal agreements and hierarchy?

Coordination mechanisms in use

Once you know the character, you look at the actual coordination mechanisms. These are the tools the community uses to align action without requiring everyone to be in the same room all the time.

Common mechanisms include: social norms (what is expected here), social control (peer pressure, reputation, inclusion and exclusion), planning (shared goals, roadmaps, milestones), performance management (metrics, reviews, accountability loops), incentives (financial, reputational or access-based rewards), shared staff (people employed to support the whole network), standardisation (common methods, formats or quality criteria), shared IT (platforms, data, communication infrastructure) and joint marketing (promoting the community and its members together).

A healthy community usually uses a deliberate mix. Relying on only one mechanism tends to create fragility. For example, a network held together only by a charismatic coordinator can collapse when that person leaves. A network driven only by performance metrics can start to feel transactional and lose the social fabric that makes people want to stay.

Which coordination mechanisms are active, and are they enough to keep the community aligned?

Locus of control: three forms of governance

We then look at where the formal authority sits. This is the locus of control. In our work we distinguish three forms.

Self-governed network. The participants share authority. Decisions are made collectively, through consensus, voting, working groups or rotating leadership. This form works best when trust is high, the number of participants is manageable, and there is strong goal consensus.

Lead organisation network. One organisation takes the lead. It often owns the brand, the budget, the platform or the convening power. This form is effective when the network needs clear direction, fast decisions or a visible champion, and when the lead organisation is trusted by the others.

Network administrative organisation. A separate entity is created to manage the network on behalf of the participants. This could be a foundation, an association, a joint office or a secretariat. It is useful when the network becomes too large or complex for a single participant to coordinate, and when there is a need for neutral, professional administration.

Again, there is no single best answer. A network may move from lead organisation to network administrative organisation as it grows. A community may oscillate between self-governance and a more centralised form depending on the season or the challenge it faces.

Where does authority live, and is that location serving the community's purpose?

The four determining factors

When we advise on governance design, we check the chosen form against four factors. These help explain why a particular form is likely to work, or why it is under strain.

Trust. The higher the level of trust among participants, the lighter the governance can be. When trust is low, communities need more formal mechanisms, clearer agreements and more explicit accountability.

Number of participants. Small groups can coordinate informally. As the number of participants grows, the complexity of coordination grows faster than the group itself. At some point, informal governance becomes too slow or too fragile.

Goal consensus. When participants agree deeply on what the community is for, governance can be more decentralised. When goals conflict or are unclear, the community needs stronger mechanisms for alignment, arbitration and decision-making.

Need for network competences. Some communities need specialised capabilities that no single participant has: research, facilitation, technology, marketing, fundraising or policy advocacy. When those competences are needed at the network level, governance must be able to mobilise and steward them.

The report we write in a baseline study checks the current governance form against these four factors. If there is a mismatch — for example, a self-governed network with low trust and many participants — we flag it as a design tension worth addressing.

The right governance form depends on trust, scale, goal consensus and the competences the network needs.

How we use this in the Community Baseline

In our Community Baseline studies, governance is never a box-ticking exercise. We start by understanding what the community or network is trying to achieve. Then we map the character, coordination mechanisms and locus of control against that ambition.

We interview key participants, review documents and observe how decisions actually get made. We look for what is written and what is lived. Often the most important governance signals are informal: who gets invited to meetings, who can call a pause, who holds the informal veto, who carries the relational memory of the group.

The result is not a recommendation to copy someone else's governance model. It is a clear picture of the current governance logic, the tensions it creates, and the design options that would better serve the community's next chapter.

Governance is not a template. It is a design choice that should fit the community's ambition, trust level and stage of development.