Boards are under growing pressure to take public positions on contested social and political issues. The assumption driving that pressure is familiar: silence signals complicity, and organizations that remain quiet are failing the communities they serve. Some boards respond by issuing statements. Others withdraw invitations, remove language from their websites, or distance themselves from voices that have become controversial. 

What I want to examine is what happens next—because in many cases, the decision to act does not resolve the tension. It relocates it. Organizations that move quickly to take a side on a genuinely contested issue often find themselves facing a different set of consequences than the ones they were trying to avoid. They have traded one form of pressure for another, and in doing so, they have communicated something to the people whose perspectives were not reflected in the decision: this organization is not entirely yours. 

This is a consequence of governing an organization that warrants more careful consideration. 

One distinction I find consistently useful in these situations is the difference between organizational values and organizational positions. Values are enduring—a commitment to human dignity, to inclusion, to integrity. Positions are contextual stances on specific, often deeply contested, questions. An organization can hold its values clearly and publicly without resolving every controversial question those values touch. That is what it means to govern responsibly when your community holds more than one view. 

So what does that look like in practice? Three recommendations for boards navigating these situations:

1. Distinguish between values and positions, explicitly

Before reaching a decision on a controversial issue, boards should be able to clearly articulate the organization’s core values separately from any position on the specific political question at hand. Doing so is a governance responsibility that requires a level of internal clarity many boards have not yet developed.

2. Build the conditions for honest internal dialogue proactively

Boards that navigate contested issues well are rarely doing so for the first time under pressure. 

They have already established the norms—psychological safety, genuine curiosity, openness to disagreement—that allow a difficult conversation to occur without fracturing relationships with communities. That foundation is built through everyday governance work, and not during periods of crisis.

3. Treat reactive decisions as a warning sign

When a board responds quickly to a contested issue because of external pressure, it risks making a decision before fully understanding the issue. Urgency and nuance are rarely compatible, and decisions made under pressure tend to reflect the demands of the moment rather than the considered values of the organization. 

The boards that serve their communities best are not necessarily the ones that always get it right. They are the ones that have done the work—that have taken the time to understand the full complexity of an issue, to hear from the range of voices within their community, and to act from a place of genuine deliberation rather than the expectations of the loudest voice in the room. 

Mante Molepo is the founder and CEO of Mante Molepo Consulting where she advises nonprofits on board governance and organizational diversity, equity, and inclusion. Mante has spent over 20 years working within the nonprofit sector, from settlement organizations to legal, healthcare and educational institutions. As an award winning leader, Mante serves on the Board of Governors of the Ottawa Hospital, the Residence Corporation, as well as a national women’s legal organization. She is a founding member and former Chair of Parents for Diversity, a former representative of the Ontario Bar Association Council, and a former Director of Amnesty International Canada, EcoEquitable, and the Parkdale Food Centre.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of CharityVillage.com or any other individual or entity with whom the authors or website may be affiliated. CharityVillage.com is not liable for any content that may be considered offensive, inappropriate, defamatory, or inaccurate or in breach of third-party rights of privacy, copyright, or trademark.