Q. Regarding Proposed Motion 2, if the World Board term of office changes to be two three-year terms, how do we ensure continuity and mitigate the risk of a complete turnover of Board members?
A. We recognise that any change to the size of the World Board must work well for Regions as well as for the global Movement as a whole.
A smaller Board is designed to strengthen strategic leadership and improve how the Board works as a team. For Regions, this can mean clearer decision-making, more focused governance, and a World Board that is better able to respond to regional priorities. Crucially, the five Regional Chairs remain full Trustees, so regional voices are not reduced. In fact, they will make up a slightly larger proportion of the overall Board, ensuring that regional perspectives continue to be central to global decision-making.
With fewer Elected Trustee seats overall, the nomination process becomes more competitive. It will be even more important to ensure that the pool of candidates reflects the diversity of our Movement — including different regions, ages, experiences, skills and backgrounds. This is something the Nominations Committee and Member Organisations will need to continue to prioritise.
Regional representativeness is protected through the continued presence of the Regional Chairs, and the Governance Review has reinforced the importance of strong collaboration between the World Board and Regional Committees. The intention behind this Proposed Motion is not to reduce regional influence, but to create a Board that can work more effectively while keeping regional voices at its heart.
Q. Regarding Proposed Motion 2, the rationale cites general governance trends favouring smaller boards. What WAGGGS-specific evidence shows that the current Board size is ineffective? What are measurable examples where Board size directly prevented effective decision-making? How will WAGGGS realistically maintain diversity in age, geography, expertise, with fewer elected trustees?
A. Global governance good practice (including an external review by NCVO), WAGGGS World Board self-assessments over several triennia, and feedback from our recent Governance Review consultations (including with current and former World Board members) have all identified challenges linked to Board size. These include impact on team cohesion, the capacity of the Chair’s Team and senior staff to engage effectively with all Board members, and the timeliness and effectiveness of decision-making.
Within WAGGGS specifically, several consistent patterns illustrate how the current World Board size can constrain effectiveness:
Prolonged decision-making timelines, with patterns of agenda items being curtailed or deferred due to limited time in meetings.
Variable participation in discussions, reflecting the practical challenges of large-group meetings where it is harder to maintain focus and ensure meaningful contributions from all members. For example, with 17 Board members, if each speaks for just two minutes on a single agenda item, over 30 minutes is used before discussion and responses begin—limiting the Board’s ability to fully engage with all its diverse perspectives.
Challenges maintaining consistent engagement and shared accountability across a globally distributed group, including meeting attendance and meaningful role allocation.
High coordination and management demands for senior staff and the Chair’s Team, which reduce agility in responding to emerging issues.
Based on this evidence, the World Board believes that reducing its size from 17 to 13 strikes the right balance – maintaining a representative, diverse and inclusive trustee board, while strengthening accountability, enabling time for deeper, more strategic discussion and real collective ownership and leadership. We believe this is the appropriate size to enable us to meet our future needs and respond in an agile way to future challenges.
Representation, diversity, and youth participation remain at the heart of WAGGGS. As Elected Trustees will continue to be chosen democratically at World Conference, the World Board is confident that Member Organisations will continue to nominate and elect candidates who reflect the Movement’s global diversity in age, geography, and expertise. In addition, maintaining Regional Chairs on the World Board guarantees representation from across all our five Regions. In addition to the World Board, there are also around 60-70 volunteers on the Board’s nine Sub- Committees, who play a valuable role in bringing Member perspectives to decision-making and make significant contributions to our governance at WAGGGS. The World Board is committed to continuing to promote diversity in all forms amongst its sub-Committees too, following on from Motion 8 at the 38th World Conference.
Q. Regarding Motion No. 2, what are the positive and negative impacts for the Regions in relation to this Motion? Particularly in terms of representativeness.
A. A smaller Board is designed to strengthen strategic leadership and improve how the Board works as a team. For Regions, this can mean clearer decision‑making, more focused governance, and a Board that is better able to respond to regional priorities. Crucially, the five Regional Chairs remain full Trustees, so regional voices are not reduced. In fact, they will make up a slightly larger proportion of the overall Board, ensuring that regional perspectives continue to be central to global decision‑making.
We acknowledge that we will need to continue to ensure that the pool of candidates reflects the diversity of our Movement — including different regions, ages, experiences, skills and backgrounds. This is something the Nominations Committee and Member Organisations will need to continue to prioritise.
Regional representativeness is protected through the continued presence of the Regional Chairs, and the Governance Review has reinforced the importance of strong collaboration between the World Board and Regional Committees. The intention behind this motion is not to reduce regional influence, but to create a Board that can work more effectively while keeping regional voices at its heart.
Q. Does the proposed change in size come with any intended changes to the mode of operation or the allocation of work within the World Board? If so, in what way? If not, how do you plan to address the risk of increased workload, overburdening and burnout among trustees?
We are concerned that a smaller World Board may be less resilient in the event of unexpected absences among the trustees (e.g. due to health-related or personal reasons). How do you plan to mitigate this risk?
A. Our intention is not to ask fewer people to do more, but to create a Board that is structured to work more strategically, with clearer roles, better support and a clearer shared distribution of responsibility. One of the challenges with the current larger Board is there are not always enough significant roles for all trustees, leading to unequal work distribution and responsibilities. Also, with a board of this size, there is sometimes a sense of separation between the whole Board and the Chair's Team, who often need to function like a smaller executive to pragmatically drive work forward.
Building on our recent Board review and as part of our continual improvement approach, we are intending to strengthen how the Board organises its work in future, to support its effectiveness and help manage workload sustainably. In particular, we will be moving towards a clearer portfolio approach, with each Trustee strategically overseeing defined areas of responsibility, working in partnership with a member of the Senior Management Team. This will improve ownership, reduce duplication, and ensure that every Trustee has a meaningful but manageable leadership role. Specifically, Regional Chairs will not be expected to take on extra roles or responsibilities, as we recognise they already have significant responsibilities as a trustee and in leading their Regional Committees.
Alongside these changes, we have already started to take steps to ensure manageable workloads for our trustees, which will continue to be developed in future:
Sharper prioritisation of Board agendas and meeting time, with a focus on strategic decision-making;
- More effective use of Board sub-committees and working groups, enabling deeper work to happen in these groups that have specific expertise;
- Strengthened scheme of delegation and clarity of the governance/management boundary, so the World Board is not drawn into operational detail.
- Improved induction, role clarity and ongoing development, helping all trustees to contribute confidently
- Regular workload reviews, with the Chair and CE monitoring pressure points and taking action as needed
We do not believe a Board of 13 will be less resilient. Evidence from many global governance bodies, including the King Report (South Africa), the Charity Commission for England and Wales, and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, suggest board sizes of around 8–12 members for non-profit boards. This approach is reflected in practice across international organisations and was also highlighted in the recent external review of the World Board, undertaken by the UK’s National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
We already have in place mechanisms to ensure that sufficient cover can be provided in the case of unexpected absences, for example having two Vice Chairs of the World Board, who do not have fixed portfolios and can step in at short notice for specific projects or tasks, as well as ensuring every functional sub-committee has two World Board members on it and all strategic projects are co-led with a member of staff.
We have carefully considered the optimum size of the World Board to ensure there is representation, diversity and sufficient capacity to fulfil the responsibilities the Board has, even if there are some unexpected absences, whilst still being able to operate effectively and cohesively.
The Board will continue to operate as a strategic Board, with all trustees sharing responsibility for strategic leadership and oversight. World Board members are not ordinarily involved in day-to-day operational work, which also reduces risks of overload and burnout.
Q. Motions 1 and 2 both discuss the composition of the World Board. How do you intend to implement the effects of both motions, if are adopted? Specifically, how many trustees would be elected to the World Board at the 39th World Conference – 4 or 6?
A. Following consultation with our lawyers and building on our Governance review recommendations and the external review of the World Board, the implementation plans for Proposed Motion 1 and 2 are set out in WoCo Document 6B. A summary is included below:
Proposed Motion 2:
We are proposing that this change take effect for the World Board members elected at the 39th World Conference, with the change being transitioned over two election cycles, reducing to 15 World Board members (five Regional Chairs, six continuing Elected Trustees and four new Elected Trustees) in 2026 and then 13 World Board members (five Regional Chairs, eight Elected Trustees) in 2029.
Proposed Motion 2 will be voted on at the World Conference before the election of World Board members, ensuring all candidates and MOs have full clarity about the number of World Board members being elected before the elections take place. If Proposed Motion 2 is adopted, four candidates would be elected at the 39th World Conference.
If Proposed Motion 2 is not adopted, six candidates would be elected at the 39th World Conference.