Are You Failing the Mirror Test?

Why EDI starts with governance.

Opening reflection

A board member I know recently resigned.

They had been recruited for their skills and experience, not to tick a diversity box. But when new funding requirements surfaced that explicitly required racial diversity on the board, everything shifted. What had previously been private conversations about potentially stepping down to support the organisation strategically became a public board discussion where their value felt reduced to their race.

The conversation did not focus on what expertise the organisation might lose or how to recruit someone who could bring comparable value. Instead, it moved quickly to debates about “diversity of thought,” alongside an emphasis on fiduciary responsibility, with little space given to what meaningful representation actually requires.

Raising board diversity carried risk. It surfaced blind spots around the table and exposed how limited the shared understanding of representation really was. No alternatives were explored. No one else offered to step aside. What became apparent was this: organisations can want diversity in principle while operating in ways that make diverse contributions difficult in practice.

That resignation reflected a pattern I have seen many times since. Diverse board members are often brought in to challenge the status quo, yet the way boards operate can make sustained challenge hard to land.

The shared theme

Consider the mirror test. Do your governance structures reflect what you genuinely value, or do they simply reflect what you say you value?

Much culture work focuses on representation. Diversity is measured through numbers, inclusion through surveys, equity through pay gap data. Yet when critical decisions are made about strategy, resources, or direction, influence often sits with the same voices it always has.

This is rarely about intent. More often, it reflects governance structures that have remained unchanged for decades. Boards can look diverse on paper while operating through cultures that prioritise familiarity, seniority, or confidence over challenge and contribution. Leadership teams may champion inclusion in principle while relying on habits and hierarchies that limit whose voices shape outcomes.

Culture and governance cannot be separated. Governance sets the formal structures. Culture determines how those structures are used. One cannot shift without attention to the other.

This invites a different set of questions. What if inclusion were understood not as who is present, but as who participates, who is listened to, and who can influence decisions? What if boards examined how power moves in practice, not just how it is described in policy?

Many organisations are trying to achieve inclusion by layering new strategies onto existing systems. It is well intentioned, but often ineffective. Without attention to how decisions are actually made, inclusion risks becoming symbolic rather than lived. Responsibility cannot sit with one committee or individual. It has to be shared across the board.

Learning from practice

Through governance and leadership work across the sport sector, a recurring theme emerges. Organisations invest time and energy in broadening representation, yet find that existing ways of working quietly limit the impact of those changes.

This can show up in small but significant ways. Meetings that follow rigid formats where newer voices struggle to find space. Decision-making that happens informally, outside formal structures. Chairs and senior leaders relying on trusted relationships rather than actively drawing out different perspectives.

In some cases, boards look transformed on paper but find that newer trustees take longer than expected to influence agendas or shape priorities. This is rarely about capability or commitment. More often, it reflects unspoken norms, unclear processes, or assumptions about how things have always been done.

When meeting papers arrive late, decision-making processes are not clearly documented, or expectations are implicit rather than explicit, it is harder for anyone new to fully participate. Over time, that can leave people feeling present but not powerful.

What is becoming clearer across the sector is that inclusive governance is not about adding voices to unchanged systems. Progress happens when organisations examine how meetings are run, how authority is exercised, how accountability works, and whether their structures genuinely support their purpose. The focus shifts from representation alone to participation, influence, and impact.

What needs to change

Governance and culture are intertwined. Governance provides the formal framework of roles, processes, and responsibilities. Culture shapes how that framework operates day to day, including whose voices carry weight, how challenge is received, and what behaviours are reinforced.

This means being willing to ask reflective, sometimes uncomfortable questions.

Does the board reflect the communities it serves, and if not, what sits behind that? How are appointments made, and by whom? How are new ideas handled in practice? Do decision-making processes invite challenge or quietly neutralise it?

Answering these questions requires more than honesty. It requires action. That might involve adjusting meeting structures to better support discussion and challenge. It might involve clarifying roles, documenting decisions in accessible language, or creating clearer expectations about shared responsibility and accountability.

At Affleck & Co., we are interested in governance that enables contribution, not just compliance. Where diversity statistics align with structures that allow different perspectives to shape decisions and outcomes. The sector does not lack ambition. The opportunity lies in aligning governance practice with stated values.

Connecting the dots

This governance lens sits alongside Affleck & Co.’s broader work on leadership, culture, and inclusion. When organisations engage with us, the focus is not on judgement but on understanding. How decisions are made. How power operates. How leadership behaviours reinforce or undermine stated intentions.

We support organisations to reflect on their own systems, to surface assumptions, and to create conditions where challenge is constructive and contribution is shared. The aim is not perfection, but alignment between values and practice.

Closing reflection

Governance is never neutral. It reveals what is prioritised, whose voices matter, and how decisions are shaped.

So the mirror test remains. Does your board enable meaningful challenge, or simply absorb it? Does inclusion influence outcomes, or sit alongside them? Are different voices able to shape decisions, or only witness them?

This is not about aspiration. It is about alignment. Passing the mirror test depends on a willingness to look honestly at how things really work, and to close the gap between intention and reality.

Collective Conversation piece written by Senior Consultant, Leah Brown,.