I. The Peculiar Contradiction

There's something rather peculiar about the world of work, isn't there? We spend the vast majority of our waking lives in organizations that claim to serve the public good, to make the world better, to advance causes we care about deeply. And yet, inside these very organizations, we often reproduce precisely the hierarchies and power imbalances we claim to oppose in the wider world. It's a strange contradiction, when you think about it. A nonprofit fighting for democracy abroad, run like a dictatorship at home. An organization advocating for economic justice, where workers have no say in how resources are allocated. We've normalized this disconnect to such an extent that we barely notice it anymore.


But there's been a quiet revolution brewing, particularly over the last decade or so, that asks a rather simple question: What if the people doing the work were also the people governing the organization? What if, instead of having power concentrated in the hands of an executive director or a distant board, we distributed that power among the workers themselves? This is the essential insight behind what we call Worker Self-Directed Nonprofits, or WSDNPs for short.



II. What We're Actually Talking About

Now, before we go any further, let me be clear about what we're talking about here. A WSDNP isn't simply a workplace where people feel empowered or where management occasionally asks for input. No, this is something far more radical. In a worker self-directed nonprofit, the staff collectively hold genuine governance authority over the organization's key decisions. They determine the mission, the strategies, how resources get allocated, what the operational policies should be. The traditional nonprofit board still exists, because the law requires it, but its role shifts dramatically. Instead of directing operations, the board becomes something more like a legal guardian, ensuring compliance and fiduciary responsibility while the workers actually run the show.


This model emerged from an interesting confluence of two traditions that don't often meet. On one hand, you have the worker cooperative movement in the business sector, where workers collectively own and govern their enterprises. On the other, you have the nonprofit sector, which has always been mission-driven and focused on social benefit, but which has typically retained very traditional, hierarchical internal structures. WSDNPs represent a kind of marriage between these two worlds. They combine the democratic, participatory ethos of cooperatives with the mission-driven nature of nonprofits. It's profit not for private gain, but social mission with internal democracy.



III. How This Came to Be

The formalization of this model really took off in the early 2010s, largely thanks to organizations like the Sustainable Economies Law Center in Oakland, California. SELC didn't just practice this model themselves; they documented their processes, created toolkits, and actively promoted wider adoption. They recognized something important: if you're an organization advocating for economic democracy in the world, there's a certain integrity in practicing that democracy within your own walls. It's the organizational equivalent of, well, practicing what you preach.



IV. The Lived Reality

Let me walk you through what this actually looks like in practice, because the theory is one thing, but the lived reality is quite another. Decision-making in these organizations typically happens through collective or distributed processes. Many use consensus or consent-based methods, drawing on sociocratic principles. Some divide decision rights into specific domains or working groups, because let's be honest, not everyone needs to weigh in on every single decision. That would be madness. The key is that major strategic decisions, resource allocation, policy directions—these are made collectively by the people doing the work, not imposed from above.


The board's role in all this is fascinating, because it has to navigate a rather delicate balance. Legally, in the United States at least, a nonprofit must have a board that's ultimately responsible for the organization's compliance with its charitable mission. But in a WSDNP, the board essentially becomes what you might call a "rubber stamp board"—though that sounds more pejorative than it really is. The board maintains legal oversight, steps in if there are serious compliance issues, but otherwise supports and ratifies the decisions that workers have already made collectively. It's a bit like constitutional monarchy, if you will. The board retains formal authority but rarely exercises it.



V. The Path Forward (And Its Obstacles)

Now, implementing such a model isn't exactly straightforward. It requires a genuine commitment from leadership to actually cede operational authority, which goes against every instinct most executives have been trained to follow. You have to redesign organizational structures, rewrite policies, completely rethink governance frameworks. Workers need training in things they probably never expected to deal with: facilitation skills, financial literacy, strategic planning, consent-based decision-making. You need board members who understand and actively support this model, rather than ones who'll constantly try to reassert traditional authority. And you need clear, well-documented processes for how decisions get made, who's involved in what types of decisions, and how conflicts get resolved when they inevitably arise.


Because let's not romanticize this. Conflict doesn't disappear just because you've democratized the workplace. In some ways, it becomes more visible, more present, because you've removed the traditional mechanism for resolving disputes: someone at the top making a final decision. Many WSDNPs embed conflict resolution processes right into their structure—restorative practices, mediation procedures, designated conflict support teams. It's recognition that democracy requires infrastructure, not just good intentions.



VI. Weighing the Trade-offs

The advantages of this model, when it works well, are rather compelling. Workers feel genuine agency and investment in the mission. There's a beautiful alignment between what the organization advocates externally and how it operates internally. Knowledge and responsibility get distributed, which creates organizational resilience. And staff retention tends to be remarkably high, because people generally don't leave jobs where they have real voice and real power.


But we should be clear-eyed about the disadvantages as well. Collective decision-making is slower than having one person decide. There's simply no way around that. There's a learning curve, often a steep one, as workers develop governance skills they've never needed before. Without clear processes, you can get decision fatigue, where people become overwhelmed by constant participation requirements. And there's legal complexity in maintaining compliance while fundamentally shifting where operational authority lives.



VII. Making It Work (Or Not)

The challenges are real and concrete. Governance can become inefficient if decision rights aren't clearly defined. Boards sometimes resist their diminished role, particularly if they weren't chosen with this model in mind. Staff can feel unprepared for governance responsibilities they never signed up for. External funders might be skeptical, wondering if this democratic experiment will actually deliver results.


But here's what's interesting: these challenges aren't insurmountable. They require thoughtful mitigation strategies, certainly. Clarify and document decision domains. Educate and recruit aligned board members early. Invest in structured, ongoing training. Communicate clearly with funders about how worker self-direction actually supports mission achievement. These are solvable problems, not fatal flaws.



VIII. Stories from the Field

SELC itself provides a compelling case study. All staff collectively govern through working groups and shared decision-making. The board handles fiduciary and legal compliance, but operational power rests with workers. What SELC learned, and what they've shared generously with others, is that self-direction demands significant investment in communication and conflict resolution skills. It requires maintaining clarity about mission, otherwise you risk decision paralysis. But when done well, it creates an organization that embodies its values at every level.


Another example is Pacem in Terris in Delaware, a peacebuilding organization that transitioned to worker self-direction precisely to align more authentically with its mission. Their experience suggests that smaller nonprofits might find this model more naturally adaptable. Having clear but lightweight governance frameworks helps avoid overburdening limited staff.


IX. Beyond Nonprofits?

There's an intriguing question lurking here about whether this model could extend beyond nonprofits. The core principles—democratic worker governance, distributed authority, mission-driven focus—could theoretically be adapted to mission-driven businesses. Social enterprises, benefit corporations, these might be natural homes for WSDNP-inspired governance. Worker cooperatives already embody many of these elements, but a hybrid model could offer something new: deeply democratic, mission-oriented enterprises that balance sustainability with worker empowerment.


Imagine a public benefit corporation structured with worker self-directed governance. It would be a curious thing: maintaining legal corporate status while distributing power democratically among workers, balancing mission with financial sustainability and worker voice. It's an experiment worth conducting, I think.



X. The Unglamorous Infrastructure of Democracy

But let's return to the nonprofit context, because there are important legal considerations we can't ignore. Nonprofits must maintain legally accountable boards responsible for fiduciary duties, annual filings, ensuring the organization serves its public purpose. This creates a dual system where the board legally "owns" the nonprofit but operational power rests with workers. It requires carefully written bylaws, operating agreements, board resolutions—all the unglamorous infrastructure that makes the beautiful idea actually work. Organizations must ensure compliance with employment laws, wage and hour rules, nonprofit-specific regulations. Democracy requires paperwork, it turns out.



XI. Lessons Learned

What emerges from all this is a set of best practices that organizations considering this path would do well to follow. Document governance agreements clearly—vagueness is the enemy of democracy. Invest heavily in facilitation skills, because efficient collective decision-making is a learned art. Align board recruitment with your model from the start; don't try to convert a traditional board mid-stream. Embrace iterative development; treat your governance systems as living frameworks that evolve. And embed conflict support structures early, before crisis forces the issue.




XII. Whether It's Worth It

There's something deeply appealing about this model, isn't there? It addresses a fundamental tension in how we organize work, particularly work meant to serve the common good. It asks us to take seriously the idea that those who do the work might be best positioned to govern it. It challenges the assumption that hierarchy is the only way to get things done efficiently. And it offers a path toward organizations that don't just advocate for their values, but actually embody them.


Of course, it's not for everyone. Some organizations genuinely need rapid decision-making capacity that collective governance would hinder. Some workers genuinely don't want the additional responsibility of governance. And some missions require forms of expertise or authority that democratic processes might struggle to accommodate.


But for those organizations where it fits—where the mission aligns with democratic values, where workers are willing to take on governance responsibilities, where stakeholders are patient enough to let collective processes unfold—worker self-directed nonprofits offer something rare in modern organizational life: the possibility of aligning what we do with how we do it, of practicing in our work lives the democracy we claim to value in our political lives.

And that, perhaps, is worth the extra meetings, the slower decisions, the learning curves, and all the messy complexity that comes with actually trying to govern ourselves.