Strong governance is the backbone of any successful global health or nonprofit alliance. As organizations grow in size and complexity, well-defined structures, clear roles, and efficient decision-making processes become essential. These elements not only enhance organizational performance but also build trust with partners, funders, and the communities served.
This guide brings together universally recognized governance principles drawn from the collective experience of global alliances. It is designed as a practical resource for any international health partnership, nonprofit network, or alliance aiming to improve internal accountability, collaboration, and impact.
Key Components of a Strong Governance Structure
A well-structured governance model forms the core of any alliance’s effectiveness. It creates the framework for leadership, decision-making, partner accountability, and resource management. These are the key components that global alliances and nonprofit partnerships should prioritize:
Board of Directors
The Board of Directors holds the highest level of decision-making authority within the alliance. Its responsibilities include setting strategic direction, approving program funding, monitoring partner performance, and supporting advocacy and fundraising efforts. Boards should focus on critical issues and delegate routine operational tasks to other governance bodies where possible.
According to best practices, an alliance Board should be designed to balance representation and functionality. The reviewed governance model recommended a 19-seat Board, comprising 7 permanent seats, 9 rotating seats, and 3 additional seats for essential partner groups. For example, in the referenced model, key global agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and the World Bank each held 2 permanent seats to reflect their significant roles and commitment.
The report also recommended combining the representation of Research Institutes and Technical Agencies into one seat to streamline decision-making while maintaining expert input. Another key governance improvement called for each Board representative to submit written constituency reports once every 12 to 18 months to keep all partners informed and engaged.
Vacancies should be filled promptly to prevent operational delays. Delays were noted during the review period, including an example where an NGO seat remained unfilled for several months, which temporarily limited the full representational effectiveness of the Board.
Executive Committee
An Executive Committee (EC) acts as a vital support structure to the Board. It enables quicker decision-making between full Board meetings and helps monitor alliance operations. The EC should have clearly defined boundaries of authority to prevent overlap with Board responsibilities.
The recommended structure proposes maintaining the existing membership of permanent Board members and developing/developed country representatives, while introducing two additional industry seats. One seat would represent the developed country industry and the other would represent the developing country industry. This adjustment was specifically suggested to enhance balance and ensure broader participation in strategic and operational discussions.
The EC is also encouraged to meet more frequently, with six meetings per year (either face-to-face or virtual) to ensure timely oversight and responsiveness.
Working Groups or Advisory Groups
Working Groups, also referred to as Secretariat Support Groups, provide technical expertise, partner coordination, and issue identification. Their primary role is to support the day-to-day operations and strategic planning of the alliance by preparing background documentation and highlighting operational concerns for the Executive Committee and Board.
The governance review strongly recommended maintaining a 10 to 12 member structure for Working Groups. This size allows for a sufficient range of skills and perspectives while still ensuring the group remains focused and productive. The composition should reflect a hybrid model that balances technical skills with broad partner representation.
Governance Processes That Drive Results
A strong governance structure must be supported by reliable processes that ensure smooth operations and meaningful decision-making. The most effective alliances follow structured methods that promote collaboration, transparency, and accountability. By refining agenda preparation, decision-making models, and performance evaluation practices, organizations can significantly improve their internal efficiency and overall impact.
Agenda Setting and Meeting Preparation
Clear agenda planning lays the groundwork for productive meetings. To prevent discussions from becoming disorganized or drifting into unrelated topics, limit agenda points to essential matters directly linked to the alliance’s strategic objectives. The board chair and executive secretary should collaborate to manage and prioritize topics effectively.
According to governance recommendations, the alliance should hold three full board meetings and six Executive Committee meetings annually to maintain consistent oversight. All relevant documents must be prepared and distributed to participants at least 10 days in advance of board meetings, with presenters submitting materials to the secretariat no later than 15 days prior.
Additionally, supplying a “Board book” to newly appointed board members ensures they are quickly brought up to speed on governance procedures, alliance goals, and current projects. These steps promote better-prepared discussions and reduce delays in decision-making.
Decision-Making Models
Decision-making should be guided by clear, standardized procedures to avoid misunderstandings or disputes. The preferred approach is consensus decision-making, which encourages open dialogue and fosters shared commitment among all partners. It is critical for the board chair to facilitate discussions in a way that draws contributions from every member and seeks agreement wherever possible.
If consensus cannot be reached, a no-objection voting system is recommended, where decisions move forward unless at least one-third of the participating members formally object. As a final option, when urgent action is required and other methods have failed, a simple majority vote may be conducted. While effective in breaking deadlocks, majority voting should be used sparingly to avoid creating divisions or weakening trust within the group.
Performance Evaluation
Establishing a formal performance evaluation system is essential for maintaining accountability and continuous improvement. Alliances should conduct reviews of their governance bodies, including the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and Secretariat Support Group, every 18 to 24 months. These evaluations assess how well each group fulfills its responsibilities and identify opportunities for better collaboration and outcomes.
Typically, an internal review committee leads the process, with the option to involve external advisors for additional insights if needed. The reviews should focus on measurable areas such as participation, quality of decision-making, adherence to meeting protocols, and partner engagement. By embedding regular performance assessments into the governance framework, alliances demonstrate a strong commitment to excellence and organizational growth.
Strategies to Ensure Partner Engagement
For any alliance or nonprofit network to succeed, it must foster meaningful engagement across its diverse partners. Strong participation, clear expectations, and equitable representation form the foundation of sustained collaboration. The governance review emphasized several critical strategies to eliminate disengagement and ensure that all partners feel heard and empowered to contribute.
Promote True Constituency Representation
The governance model recommended that each Board member actively represent the interests of their full constituency rather than just their individual organization. To formalize this accountability, it was suggested that Board representatives submit written constituency reports at least every 12 to 18 months. These reports help maintain transparency and enable Board members to communicate key concerns, updates, and collective positions of their group.
Constituency engagement reduces the risk of fragmented participation and strengthens the decision-making process by bringing forward a broader range of partner perspectives.
Prevent Two-Tiered Systems
The governance review raised concerns that certain permanent Board members were dominating temporary committees and decision-making bodies, which could unintentionally marginalize other partners. To address this, the report recommended establishing clear rotation policies and consultation mechanisms for special groups and ad-hoc committees.
By ensuring all Board members have fair opportunities to participate in working groups and sub-committees, alliances can avoid creating an exclusive “inner circle” and instead promote collaboration across the full spectrum of partners.
Encourage Clear Role Definitions Across Bodies
Ambiguity over roles and responsibilities was identified as a barrier to full partner engagement. The governance recommendations advised that the Board, Executive Committee, and Working Groups each have distinct mandates to minimize overlap and double work. This clarity allows each group to focus on its unique contribution to the alliance’s mission.
For example, the Independent Review Committee (IRC), widely viewed as highly effective, was encouraged to continue its role in evaluating country program proposals, while the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committees (ICCs) were recommended for expanded roles in supporting national planning, proposal development, and monitoring activities. These structures provide well-defined engagement points for partners at global and country levels.
Managing Transitions and Organizational Convergence
As global health alliances evolve, they often face structural changes, including mergers or integration of overlapping functions. The governance review provided valuable insights on how to manage these transitions effectively to reduce confusion, avoid duplication of efforts, and maintain continuity in decision-making and accountability.
Unifying Parallel Governance Structures
A major recommendation from the review was to manage the convergence of separate operational entities into a single, streamlined governance system. In the case studied, this involved merging the functions of an alliance secretariat with its associated funding body to eliminate duplication and increase efficiency. A key structural change recommended was to eliminate any separate funding body seat from the Board and Executive Committee, as the merged secretariat leadership would serve as the primary liaison between governance bodies.
This transition strengthened coordination and centralized oversight, making the Executive Secretary the pivotal figure responsible for Board meeting preparation, documentation, and improved alignment across all partner activities.
Expanding the Role of the Executive Secretary
With convergence, the Executive Secretary was advised to take on an enhanced leadership role. This included supporting resource mobilization efforts, acting as the primary point of contact for Board members, managing governance documentation, and helping coordinate partners’ contributions to the alliance’s work plan.
The recommendation emphasized that while partners remain autonomous organizations, the Executive Secretary plays an essential role in driving coherence and harmonization of activities under the shared strategic framework.
Lessons for Managing Future Convergence Efforts
The governance review also highlighted general principles to guide any future mergers or integration within alliances:
- Always ensure clarity of purpose and clearly define roles early in the process.
- Eliminate duplicative committee structures to reduce workload and avoid confusion.
- Assign a senior leader (such as the Executive Secretary) to manage the transition and ensure accountability.
- Maintain transparency with all partners throughout the process to build trust and commitment.
By following these principles, alliances can manage transitions smoothly while preserving partner engagement and improving operational effectiveness.
Planning for Future Financial Governance
As donor commitments and financial instruments evolve, alliances must proactively design governance structures that promote transparency, accountability, and responsible management of funds. The governance review offered specific recommendations for organizations preparing to implement or expand complex funding arrangements. These best practices can guide alliances of all sizes in structuring sound financial oversight systems.
Recommended Financial Governance Practices
Establish clear financial oversight bodies: Create a dedicated entity to manage donor commitments and fund disbursement. In the example studied, a separate financial body was recommended with a five-member Board of Directors comprising individuals with expertise in health, finance, auditing, and both donor and recipient country experience.
Avoid duplication of responsibilities: Clearly separate program governance from financial management. The financial body should not set program policy or conduct audits, which remain the responsibility of the main alliance and its funding partners.
Assign a defined role for the alliance secretariat: The secretariat should be tasked with preparing board documentation, receiving funding requests, and reporting back to the financial body on program implementation and fund utilization.
Prepare for increased reporting demands: Anticipate that introducing a financial intermediary may increase administrative workload. The secretariat should evaluate expected workload impacts early and recommend adjustments to optimize the roles of the Independent Review Committee (IRC), Inter-Agency Coordinating Committees (ICCs), and Working Groups as needed.
Maintain strong coordination between governance and financial bodies: Ensure that program and financial governance systems are tightly aligned to manage large-scale donor commitments while upholding organizational accountability and partner trust.
Conclusion
Effective governance isn’t just about structure, it’s about clarity, collaboration, and commitment. By adopting these best practices, alliances can streamline operations, build stronger relationships among partners, and ensure the responsible use of resources. Whether managing a small nonprofit or a global health initiative, these governance principles are timeless tools for long-term impact.