Title

Round table Governance and leadership in the non-profit sector

Authors

1. Petra Rakoczi, Food For All Cornwall CIC, Director, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper examines the historical dominance of trustee‑led governance in the UK non‑profit sector, a model originating in early charity law such as the Statute of Charitable Uses (1601). Trustee led governance are encompasses hierarchical, top‑down decision‑making structures that persist today.

In response to evolving public expectations, regulatory developments, and increasing organisational complexity, many charities are now exploring more inclusive and participatory governance approaches that broaden decision‑making beyond small, centralised boards.

Drawing on contemporary research into the round table governance, this paper proposes a participatory governance model that emphasises equal voice, innovation, collaborative decision‑making and the integration of diverse perspectives.

Evidence from participatory governance studies suggests that such models can enhance psychological safety, organisational commitment and trust, while reducing the risks associated with concentrated authority.

The paper argues that a hybrid model combining legal accountability of trustees with structured participatory processes offers a credible and forward‑looking framework for building fairer, more inclusive and resilient non‑profit organisations

Keywords

Community Participatory governance Leadership community development governance charity sector community sector management and leadership democracy round table

PDF

Conclusion

Participatory governance reflects a growing alignment with contemporary values such as inclusivity, intergenerational collaboration, innovative talent acquisition, and transparency toward both internal and external stakeholders. These qualities make it increasingly attractive for modern non‑profit organisations seeking to remain relevant in a rapidly changing social landscape. However, the same characteristics that make participatory models desirable also introduce practical challenges. Broader involvement in decision‑making increases the likelihood of open conflict, intensifies time pressures, and can slow organisational responsiveness. For participatory governance to function effectively, organisations often require a hybrid approach that introduces facilitative leadership and structured communication processes to prevent personal conflicts from escalating in group settings.

Traditional governance holds an extensive legacy of leadership and organisational management. Early charitable structures closely resembled those found in today’s public sector bodies, reflecting hierarchical arrangements that have been refined over centuries. As a result, traditional governance benefits from well‑established practices, accumulated institutional knowledge, and regulatory familiarity. In contrast, modern participatory governance remains relatively new and in some respects still operates in a pilot phase, with fewer long-term models to draw upon.

However, participatory governance does not seek to replace traditional trustee‑led systems but rather to complement and to bring new structural reform and changes in policies and procedures. Traditional governance offers stability, legal accountability, and a wealth of leadership expertise, while participatory approaches provide progression, innovation, and responsiveness to societal expectations. When combined, these approaches create a more balanced and resilient governance model.

Integrating traditional leadership structures with consensus‑based decision‑making demonstrates an organisation’s commitment to continuous development and adaptive practice. Such hybrid models support experimentation with new governance approaches while maintaining a secure framework for accountability. They can also expand workforce versatility by attracting graduate talent, surfacing natural leaders within the organisation, and building cultures of shared responsibility. By blending the strengths of both governance traditions, organisations can position themselves as dynamic, progressive, and aligned with modern expectations while preserving the stability necessary for long‑term impact.

Reference

1. Agbodzakey, J. (2024) Consensus in Collaborative Governance, in Collaborative Governance Primer. SpringerBriefs in Political Science, pp. 91–101. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-57373-6_9 Charity Commission for England and Wales (2026) What we do. GOV.UK.Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission Charity Digital (2025) Everything you need to know about the Charity Commission. Available at: https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/what-is-the-charity-commission-11492 House of Lords (2017) Stronger charities for a stronger society. UK Parliament. publication.parliament.uk Kim, J.S. (2022) ‘An empirical analysis of participatory decision making’, Sustainability, 14, 12392. National Archives (1995) Records of the Charity Commission since 1960. The National Archives. Quarterdeck (2023) Democratic Leadership: Harnessing Collective Intelligence in Modern Organisations. Available at: https://quarterdeck.co.uk/articles/which-leadership-style-is-a-democratic-leadership-form Shekhar, A., Saurombe, M.D. & Joseph, R. (2025) ‘Participatory HR‑led wellbeing training’, Frontiers in Organisational Psychology, 3, 1624518. Tocqueville, A. de (2025) Civil society as the foundation of democracy. PolSci Institute. Springer Nature (2020) ‘Does employee participation matter?’, Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29, pp. 1397–1425. Wang, Q., Hou, H. & Li, Z. (2022) ‘Participative leadership: A literature review’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 924357. Whelan, J. (2024) Consensus‑Decision Making within Groups and Organizations. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/decision-making-within-groups-organizations-james-whelan-8snee Woldring, H.E.S. (2026) ‘State and civil society in the political philosophy of Alexis de Tocqueville’, Voluntas. Cambridge University Press

Author Contribution

The author, Petra Rakoczi, contributed fully to the conception, research design, literature review, data analysis, writing, and final editing of this paper. All interpretations, theoretical developments, and conclusions presented are solely the author’s own work. No external collaborators or co‑authors were involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The study was conducted independently without financial support from any institution, organisation, donor, or grant body.

Software Information

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest relating to the research, writing, or publication of this paper. No financial, organisational, or personal interests have influenced the analysis, arguments, or conclusions presented in this work.

Acknowledge

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Food For All Cornwall CIC for its continued commitment to community support, social inclusion, and equitable local development. Although this research was conducted independently, the organisation’s values and day‑to‑day work in fostering fairness, participation, and compassion within Cornwall have been a strong source of inspiration. The author is grateful for the supportive environment that encourages reflective practice, progressive leadership, and innovation in community‑rooted governance.

Data availability