It is often easier to identify patriarchal structures in the institutions we oppose than the organisations we belong to. We challenge, critique and demand better from others but when similar patterns of concentrated power and decision making, rigid hierarchies and lack of accountability and transparency appear inside an organisation that campaigns against patriarchy, they can become surprisingly difficult to acknowledge and call it as it is. I’ve learned that just because an organisation challenges patriarchy publicly, does not mean that they practise feminist leadership internally and that’s why these organisations run the risk of reproducing the same structures they openly commit to dismantling.
Patriarchal structures within organisations are reproduced through arrangements that concentrate authority, restrict information and make some people more answerable than others. Speaking in the context of membership based organisations, an organisation may claim to act in the interests of its members while major decisions remain confined to a small circle. Members may not be consulted before priorities change, partnerships are formed or commitments are made in their name. They often learn about decisions after the fact – sometimes not at all. A membership structure is not automatically democratic. If members cannot meaningfully influence direction, ask questions or access information (especially when requested), membership risks becoming symbolic rather than participatory.
Financial transparency is part of this democratic responsibility. Members should understand how funds are raised, what resources are available, who authorises spending and how financial choices reflect collective priorities. This is not to say that every person manages every transaction, but it means that those entrusted with resources and making these decisions are answerable to the people on whose behalf the organisation exists. When financial information is concentrated among a few, questions are discouraged or reporting is vague, power becomes harder to examine and misuse becomes easier to conceal.
A patriarchal organisational culture can also take the form of silence. Organisational silence is not always created by refusing people the opportunity to speak. Sometimes, people are permitted to raise concerns, but the manner in which they do so becomes the focus rather than the substance of what they have raised. Questions about governance, financial accountability, decision-making or members’ rights and negative experiences can quickly be reframed as unprofessional, disruptive and inappropriate. This redirects attention away from whether the organisation has provided the information being requested and towards whether the way in which the person raised the concerns was ‘correct’. Overtime, members learn that questioning power carriers a social cost, while those exercising power remain free from the responsibility of answering.
Power here, as we know, is complex. People who benefit from a system are not first in line to dismantle it. Why would someone challenge arrangements that protect their position, control over information or influence over decisions? Good intentions are not an accountability mechanism and structures must make power visible, contestable and shareable.
This is why I advocate strongly for feminist leadership practices. Feminist leadership begins from a different understanding of leadership itself. Feminist leadership is an ethical and political practice concerned with how power is held, shared and transformed. It asks leaders, of any gender, to be conscious of their power, open to challenge and willing to create conditions in which others can exercise agency. If an organisation claims to value equality, participation, decolonisation, care and accountability, then those values must move from the ideological into the material and be translated into procedures, budgets, meeting practices, reporting relationships and consequences. A feminist leadership asks leaders to remain accountable even when questions are uncomfortable, publicly raised or inconvenient. A membership organisation cannot describe itself as member-led while treating governance information as something controlled by a small circle or requiring members to pursue answers privately and individually. If a question concerns the rights, resources or governance of the membership, then the membership has a legitimate interest in both the question and its answer.
Shared power is central. I spoke about this in the context of youth leadership in my International Youth Day article. Feminist decision-making requires people to be involved early enough to define the question, not merely asked to react to a decision that is almost complete. Members need clear opportunities to propose priorities, contribute to strategy, vote where appropriate and receive timely and clear explanations of decisions. Leadership bodies should document how decisions are made and communicate not only the outcome but also the reasoning, responsibilities and next steps.
Feminist leadership also treats care as an organisational responsibility and not invisible labour performed by the same people. It pays attention to workload, compensation, accessibility, safety and the emotional cost of holding an institution together. Care means addressing conflict without humiliation, listening without retaliation and recognising that people should not have to sacrifice their wellbeing to demonstrate commitment to a cause.
Importantly, accountability must travel upward. Too often, accountability is demanded from staff, members and communities while those at the top are not held to the same standard. Board and senior leaders should be accountable for more than outputs and reports. They must be answerable for how they use authority, communicate decisions, manage conflicts of interest, respond to complaints and share resources.
The first step in challenging patriarchal structures in organisations that challenge patriarchy is to stop denying that they exist.
Organisations committed to gender justice are not immune from top-down approaches, secrecy, exclusion or abuse of power. In some cases, their progressive reputation can make internal problems harder to name because people fear damaging the cause. But refusing to acknowledge hypocrisy does not protect the mission. It protects the structure producing the harm.
The next step is to build and enforce accountability into the institution. This means clear mandates and term limits, transparent financial reporting, meaningful member participation, documented decisions, accessible pathways, conflict of interest rules, independent review where necessary and consequences that apply to everyone. These mechanisms are how an organisation can ensure that accountability does not depend solely on those in power choosing to do the right thing. (I’ve been reading Michael Flood’s works on male allyship and accountability in organisations working with men and boys if you wish to read further).
Feminist leadership does not require perfection. It requires reflexivity: the willingness to examine how our practices may contradict our politics, to listen when harm is named, to repair what can be repaired and to change the conditions that allowed the harm to occur. It understands leadership not as control over others but as a responsibility to a collective.
An organisation cannot credibly ask society to dismantle patriarchal structures while refusing to examine its own. The principles we advocate must be lived in how we make decisions, share information, manage resources and hold even our most powerful leaders accountable. Dismantling patriarchy cannot only happen outside our organisations – it must also take place within them.