One of the key issues not made explicit in the conversation the other day was the increasing reality of organisations not using legal form or classic corporate governance models as mechanisms of legitimacy.

As practice and intervention have become increasingly situational and responsive to context – it is the accountability of action which is increasingly recongnised as crucial [thanks Mike for opening this debate up here].

Some everyday mechanisms for making practice/intervention accountable have been emerging from the field i.e. the use of the web as a public declaration device which invites cross peer review. These are behaviours that seem to point towards the emerging concept of ‘open governance’.

These alternative modes not only appear to liberate agency but also avoid the dislocation of practice and purpose; with a Board of Trustees often too removed from the point of intervention to adequately understand, and support the sensitivities of edge innovation practice.

It might come to pass that the governance of practice may ossify or by osmosis move into the governance of organisation, however a worthy space is opening up currently, in which leadership is no longer about getting permission, but is about the freedom to make something unbelievable happen and the accountability for when something goes wrong.

As a number of acerbic wits have said, these big beasts and other big beasts are responsible for the ghosts of working together, with the spirit of working together being a mere convenience.

Reminds me of politicians and the free market and its cycle of failures which have little to do with risk taking but a lot to do with selfishness, greed, ego and no one must be bigger than me attitude.

But the really worrisome thing is that the up and coming potential leaders in those organisations take their attitude and cue from those curently in control. So what sort of junk food leaders will the sector have in future?

In this respect I’d argue the style and method of governance are considerably less important than accountability – there are huge charities that have excellent governance, fantasticly expensive legal expertise and yet I’d never donate to them because as far as I’m concerned its my money that is paying for that legal expertise. I want instead to feel my money is making a difference so I’d far rather support a very small, possibly badly structured project that is making a genuine difference in the way that its beneficiaries feel suits them best. What I don’t have from either organisation currently is any indication of whether their beneficiaries actually want the services they provide and find them useful – besides of course the very expensive campaign literature the big organisation produces – which would be funded by your donation