By Adam Ives, governance and executive officer, NAHT The School Leaders’ Union | 6 min
In the second of this two-part blog series on governance and trade union renewal, Adam Ives, governance and executive officer at the NAHT – The School Leaders’ Union, discusses their approach to the rules revision process and the implementation of a manual of processes and procedures (MoPP)
As I laid out in my first blog, the NAHT recognised that there was an opportunity for change through a rules revision process, not just to reactively respond to the immediate challenges of regulation, but also to look at what frameworks best supported a more proactive approach to rules revision.
In exploring best practice within the trade union movement and wider civil society we focused on the ILO's ‘Triple-A governance’ model. Triple-A governance provides an effective lens for understanding how rules revision can catalyse broader renewal. This framework centres on three capacities that are foundational to effective strategic governance:
Anticipation – The capacity to understand and give voice to the dynamics within the union’s internal structures and wider environment.
Agility – The capacity to question the ‘done way’ and to open structures, decision-making, and attitudes to innovative approaches.
Adaptation – The capacity to swiftly and meaningfully turn challenges into concrete actions or strategies, and to reflect this in the democratic structures of the union itself.
Our rules revision at NAHT was guided by these principles. We recognised that sound governance must enable the union to anticipate challenges before they become crises, respond with agility when circumstances change rapidly, and adapt structures based on evidence and experience.
In practical terms, we examined each governance element through these lenses, asking whether it enhanced or inhibited our anticipatory capabilities, agility, and adaptive capacity. This approach transformed a technical exercise into an opportunity for meaningful renewal.
Rules revision as a democratic exercise
Through a considered review rooted in ambition to support and reflect the growth and strengths of a union, the rules revision process can move from a bureaucratic necessity to fundamentally democratic. A systematic review within a democratic structure creates space for deeper conversations about representation, voice, and power. This process does not have to be the end of those discussions and can support a wider harmonisation of union identity and values.
A key aspect of our revision process was reimagining how rules communicate with members. Historically, union rulebooks have been written in legalistic language, impenetrable to ordinary members and activists, reinforcing a disconnect between governance and membership. Recognising the tensions of an over-bureaucratic constitution, we moved to a modernised and minimalist model that instead moved procedure to an operational handbook that created space to be extensive and exhaustive; what we dubbed the “Manual of Policies and Procedures (MoPP)”.
At NAHT, we prioritised clarity and accessibility in our new Constitution and MoPP, recognising that democratic participation begins with understanding. When members can readily comprehend their union's governance framework, they're more likely to engage with and trust the democratic process.
At NAHT, this manifested in several key ways:
Broad participation
Early, strategic engagement with key stakeholders proved essential to our success. We identified members with particular interest in governance procedures and incorporated them into the consultation process from the beginning. Rather than seeing ‘rules enthusiasts’ as obstacles, we recognised their expertise and concerns as valuable inputs that strengthened our final framework.
However, in recognising that there will be enthusiasts it also demanded creating space for members who are not as engaged with the union bureaucracy: the process was communicated clearly, guidance was provided in plain English and opportunities for engagement were supported in a manner that meant the rules reflected the membership as a whole. This approach built broader ownership of the process and ensured that it remained relevant to members regardless of their level of participation or activism.
Enhanced transparency
Creating the Manual of Policies and Procedures opened the door to a lengthier document that could codify practice and provide absolute clarity to procedure both within the old rules and where it had previously not been provided. In creating the MoPP it meant opening the conversation to broader discussions about areas within the union’s procedures or democracy that had not necessarily fit within a traditional rulebook. Creating a ‘one-truth’ document with organisation visibility ensures members can more easily navigate the peripheries of a union’s constitution when they become relevant, and can challenge areas that need refinement or further development.
Creating a ‘living instrument’
Acknowledging the historic challenges of the old rulebook, the MoPP created a more dynamic approach to governance. The MoPP exists as a ‘constitutional instrument’ that can be updated at any time by the National Executive. Through trusting the procedural governance of the union chiefly to the governing body it creates space for regular review, deeper deliberation on the structuring of governance, and a greater degree of proactivity to the challenges the union faces. To balance this change in relationship between the National Executive and AGM there was the mandate for an annual review reported to the AGM, which maintained a line of accountability whilst also refining the strategic stewardship responsibilities of the National Executive.
Through this process we hoped to create a positive cycle: as governance becomes more visible and accessible, engagement then increases; as engagement increases decisions then become more representative and accountable. This exercise reminded members of the existing rules, processes, and structures, reaffirming the intentionality behind what remained and opening a dialogue to what else could be possible beyond the new constitutional foundation.
On reflection
For other unions contemplating similar processes, I would emphasise that rules revision should never be approached as merely a technical exercise. It represents an opportunity to renew democratic vitality and acts as a site to enhance the union’s institutional resilience and strategic capability.
The investment in good governance pays dividends through enhanced legitimacy, more effective decision-making, and ultimately greater power to deliver wins for members. Trade union governance is about stewarding a union’s democratic health and strategic adaptability. When approached with this mindset, rules revision becomes not a bureaucratic chore but a catalyst for meaningful renewal.
