Module 2. Governance and running a small organisation

Guiding question

What is the smallest structure that lets you make good decisions and be taken seriously?

Before the live session

Work through this module before the session (about 50 minutes) and bring your questions to the live session.

What we cover

Boards for small organisations: four or five members is usually right. Choose them for what they add — think tank experience, finance, law, communications, access to funders — not just for their name. If you are the subject expert, you need what you are missing, not more subject experts.
Separating the three jobs: strategic oversight, management and doing the work. In founder-led organisations, these sit with the same two or three people; the session looks at how to start pulling them apart without adding cost.
People: staffing models when you cannot afford staff: associates, young researchers, partnerships, consultancy alongside public-good work. A formal research associate category shows capacity and gives credibility without payroll.
Policies: write the ones you are required to have or genuinely need. We go through the short list that matters at this size.
Deciding what to take on: simple rules for accepting or declining work, so that requests do not quietly set your agenda.

In this module

Reading 1. Build a think tank: the Who? questions (about 30 minutes)
Reading 2. Strategic governance and management (about 10 minutes)
Reading 3. Setting up a think tank: leaders, people and governance (about 5 minutes)
Further reading
Live session
Task for the week
Quiz
Recording

Reading 1. Build a think tank: the Who? questions

This chapter covers the people around a think tank: who governs it, who leads it, who it engages and who works for it. For a small organisation, the most relevant parts are the sections on board functions and composition, the leader’s responsibilities and challenges, and staffing options such as associates, young researchers and consultants. Read them with your current board and team in mind, since the task asks you to map both.

From Build a think tank: A guide for policy entrepreneurs (On Think Tanks), chapter the Who? questions.

The sections on who will fund and support the think tank are in Module 3.

These questions will help you:

Understand the different roles that a board can play for a think tank and the different types that exist.
Know the challenges that a think tank leader faces and the different skills he or she needs to deal with them.
Reflect on how the think tank will engage with its audience and begin mapping the best ways to do so.
Appreciate the skills that a think tank’s researchers need to have, how to define the staff you will need, and how you will hire them.
Know that there are different types of funding streams available and begin a reflection of what would be the best for your organisation based on what you want to achieve.
Identify who can support your organisation with access to different resources.

Who will govern it? (And how?)

The governance of a think tank refers to its organisational arrangement and how decision-making processes take place. It involves the rules and norms of the interactions within the organisation that affect how different parts are brought together. These rules affect the nature and style of an organisation’s management.

This is a who, and partly a how question, as you would need to decide who will govern the organisation and how big decisions are going to be made. Will the think tank be governed by a board, an assembly of members, or directly by the executive director? The answer to these questions will be related to your business model and the type of organisation that you decide to create.

Specific think tank models call for different governance structures. For instance, organisations affiliated to universities should follow the rules of their hosts; network-based organisations need to ensure that their members are represented; and political party think tanks tend to be influenced by the party that created them.

Coming up with your own governance model will depend on several factors, but most importantly:

National laws about the type of organisation you will be legally creating.
Your business model.
Your relationship with other organisations.

Despite some diversity, all governance arrangements should consider the following (Mendizabal, 2016):

A board or governing body responsible for overarching decisions and the long-term vision (independent from management).
Executive direction: a competent manager at the centre of the organisation.
Senior managers/decision makers with oversight over three main aspects of the think tank’s work: research, communications and management.
Institutional structures that bring people, teams and roles together. If you want to have a lean and flexible organisation that can act quickly, you shouldn’t make the governance too top-heavy: avoid having several boards (e.g. management, advisory, etc.) as this will make governance cumbersome and expensive (Moncada & Mendizabal, 2013).

Box 19. Good governance as one of the basis of good management

Good governance underpins good management and good management is fundamental for the think tank to deliver its mission. We tend to think that to be a successful think tank you need lots of good researchers, but that’s only part of the story: you need good governance and good management.

Good governance and management affect the think tank’s capacity to:

Engage with funders and take advantage of their support

Manage funds effectively

Ensure their independence from interest groups

Learn from their successes and mistakes

Attract the best talent at all levels of the organisation

Address internal and external shocks

So without appropriate governance arrangements and management competencies, think tanks are unlikely to deliver sustainable funding strategies, high quality research and effective communications.

Board functions

A strong and independent board of directors is a key aspect of a successful think tank. The main function of a board is to ensure that the organisation stays on the right track to deliver its mission and has the necessary resources to carry out its work. It is important to outline the functions that a board might have from the start, to ensure that you are making the most of it (Moncada & Mendizabal, 2013).

Some of the key functions of boards include:

Supporting fundraising.
Accessing networks.
Overseeing strategy.
Helping in the hiring of senior management.
Encouraging innovation.
Monitoring compliance with the mission, vision, values, bylaws, and policies of the organisation.
Ensuring the technical and financial sustainability of the organisation.
Reviewing and approving the strategic plan, the operating plan, and annual budget.
Appointing and evaluating the executive director.

Who should be on your board?

A good board is made up of members with invested interests in the polity and the issues that the think tank will focus on, but who also possess a mix of skills that the think tank director will make good use of: access to the right networks, contact with the public and private sector, communication and media skills, strong research and research management skills, human resources experience, financial planning and fundraising expertise, legal expertise, and so on.

The exact balance will depend on the think tanks’ goals and needs. But you should remember that VIPs may not be the best board members – especially not as you work to create and launch an organisation. Your board members must be committed to the project and be able to offer their time to support you (Moncada & Mendizabal, 2013).

Box 20: An organisation’s governance should evolve with it: Grupo Faro

Case based on Belletini, O. (2014), Strengthening Grupo FARO’s Board of Directors.

The founders of Grupo Faro created an advisory council when it was first established in 2004. The members of the council were reputable scholars from different countries who, by being part of it, transferred their personal legitimacy to the nascent organisation. The council’s main role was to suggest the topics and objectives that the organisation should pursue; they provided access to their networks and even came to meetings with potential donors. However, as the organisation grew in size and complexity, more professional support was needed. So, in 2012 they reformed their statute and established a board of directors with the legally recognised competence to govern the organisation. This board had members from diverse professional, political, religious, and cultural backgrounds and added value in a more structured way to different aspects of the organisation.

Institutional structure

There are different options available in terms of institutional structures. You should choose the structure that best suits your objectives and resources – including the people who will work there and the expectations of your funders.

For example, a typical academic think tank, one that is born out of a university department or founded by academics in search of a less bureaucratic vehicle to undertake practical research, will be less keen on a corporate-style management board than a group of consultants or corporate-style entrepreneurs looking for greater rigour in their policy advice.

Box 21: Deciding on an institutional structure for a think tank in Timor Leste

Adapted from Yeo, S., Echt, L. (2018b), Setting up a think tank: Lessons from Timor-Leste (Part 2: alternative institutional structures)

In 2017, the Asia Foundation asked On Think Tanks to assess the prospects for establishing a public policy institute in Timor-Leste. Based on an analysis of the context Stephen Yeo and Leandro Echt (2018a) reached the conclusion that creating a large organisation with full-time staff would not be the best approach. This was mainly because qualified researchers were scarce in Timor Leste, and the few that did exist were sought after by the government (which offered better salaries). Also, a large organisation would be difficult to fund. Their suggested option was a lightweight organisation, with a small core team that relied on a pool of financial resources that could be used to commission policy analysis as needed. Given the context, and especially the small demand for knowledge, this lightweight institution could be sufficient for Timor-Leste and could provide all the research and analysis that the country needs (and can use). And later on the organisation could evolve and grow with the demand for research and analysis. Echt and Yeo recommended setting up an institute ‘at the network end of the continuum, with a director, a small secretariat of administrative staff and a pool of funds to commission research by Timorese or international researchers.’ The success of the network model, in this case, depended on whether the director or senior management had experience in commissioning policy research (e.g. the skills to frame a policy research project and set its terms of reference), as well as contacts in the academic and policy community to recruit from (an active and strong advisory group could also assist in this).

The recommendation also clarified, that although the institute should begin as a network, it should not necessarily remain one, relying solely on external international expertise. The institute should work to develop local capacity and promote the use and need for evidence to inform public policies in the country.

Who will lead the think tank?

Although there are several ways to understand leadership, in this section we are referring to the senior operating person who is responsible for ensuring the day-to-day running of the organisation: the executive director. We will reflect on the key responsibilities this role undertakes, the mix of skills (profile) that an executive director should have, and the key challenges that most executive directors face.

Key responsibilities

Executive directors are key to think tanks being successful, having credibility and achieving impact. They are responsible for key roles and functions that range from day-to-day management to more strategic tasks. Although specific functions vary between organisations, there are five key responsibilities that executive directors fulfil:

Providing strategic direction: delineating what the organisation’s mission is and drawing a strategy for how to achieve it. Strategic direction also entails being able to identify, anticipate and react to changes in the organisation, external or internal (e.g. new parties in power, COVID-19, shrinking funding).
Management of operations: the executive director is ultimately responsible for a variety of supervisory tasks to ensure that the organisation runs smoothly. This includes general administrative issues, human resource management (strategy, hiring and line management of senior staff), managing and overseeing finances, engagement with the board, and project management and/or monitoring.
Providing intellectual leadership and ensuring research quality: think tank leaders should provide intellectual leadership to ensure that the organisation produces high-quality research that is credible and relevant to high-quality policymakers. This involves functions that range from establishing and maintaining the relevance and credibility of the organisation, to research management and quality assurance, and even mentoring others.
Fundraising and ensuring the availability of resources: leaders manage existing funding sources while actively working to attract new ones, and ensuring that the organisation has the funds that it requires to operate. This is not to say that executive directors are the only ones undertaking fundraising activities, as researchers in many organisations actively and successfully fundraise, but it is the responsibility of the executive director to ensure the coordination of fundraising activities so that there are enough funds to take the organisation towards its goals.
Representing the organisation, establishing partnerships, and building networks: executive directors regularly interact with a wide range of stakeholders, such as funders, policymakers, their own staff, the board of directors, external partners or the media. They engage with them for different purposes: establishing alliances, advocacy, advice-giving (or receiving it as well), dissemination and outreach, discussing proposals, exploring funding opportunities, examining key issues, informal conversation, etc. The executive director is the main representative of the think tank; they serve as a spokesperson, are in charge of establishing and maintaining partnerships, enhance the profile of the organisation and engage with policymakers, media and other key stakeholders.

The first three functions are more internal to the organisation, while the last two are outward-focused. It is important for directors to be able to balance these two aspects of the role. For instance, focusing too strongly on the internal issues may limit time dedicated to obtaining the resources and external validation that the staff needs to function. Striking a balance is difficult and, more often than not, executive directors feel that they are spread thin. It is important to also establish a good team (see Who will work on it?) and work with the board when necessary (see Who will govern it?)

Box 22. Undertaking research

Although many think tank leaders want to devote time to their own research, the reality is that the day-to-day running of the organisation leaves them no time to do so. We have found that this related to the think tank’s model, but also to the stage it is at. But it is important to bear in mind that executive directors seldom have the time to devote to their own research work, and if this is something that you want to do you will have to establish the structures and support to do so.

Profile

Even though there are a mix of skills and characteristics that are needed for the job, the profile, personal characteristics, or background that a think tank leader should have vary greatly between organisations and are also a function of the context. According to a typology of policy entrepreneurship developed by Simon Maxwell, think tank leaders, and policy entrepreneurs in general, need to combine a set of certain key skills and characteristics (the strength and mix of each will vary, though):

Communication skills: the leader should be a good storyteller who can confidently navigate different audiences and engage with each to achieve the organisation’s goals.
Interpersonal skills: the executive director should be a good networker who has strong public relations skills and is well connected in order to fulfil some of the most important responsibilities of the think tank. Responsibilities include representing the organisation, raising funds and mobilising and empowering people to deliver the organisation’s mission.
Management skills: the leader should be an engineer who is involved ‘on the ground’. They need to supervise day-to-day operations while being active in high-level meetings. Academic expertise may provide legitimacy about policy issues, but management skills will make it possible to deliver the mission. Good management practice suggests that directors should give leeway to their teams and help them gain recognition in their fields. It is also important to keep an eye on younger researchers and plan and prepare progression of staff. Finally, leaders should also be able to think about business models, identify and solve problems, translate policy problems into research projects, and anticipate and manage change within the organisation.
Political savviness: this means being a fixer – someone who is knowledgeable, authoritative and recognised by their peers on particular issues so that they can convince decision makers and other audiences on how to approach them.
Commitment to the organisation: although not part of Simon Maxwell’s typology, a commitment to the think tank project and being willing to devote at least five years to get it established would be a requirement for the leader of a new organisation. Being dedicated to success will help deal with the many challenges that come with leading a think tank.

Watch this video as Simon Maxwell explains key skills for think tankers.

It is interesting to reflect on how your profile will influence your think tank’s activities and whether you need to seek complementary roles to balance your profile, or work with people with similar orientations. This will depend on the type of think tank you wish to develop and your policy impact aims.

Finally, in terms of knowledge and expertise, the following are important:

A nuanced understanding of think tanks and/or of evidence-informed policy.
Knowledge of the context in which the think tank will operate, including policymaking processes.
Knowledge of the topics that the think tank will focus on.
Being capable of mobilising resources.

Challenges

As a think tank leader, you are likely to face many challenges, and identifying them could help you prepare in advance. These challenges can be summarised into personal and organisational categories.

Personal challenges:

Juggling too many functions: think tank leaders are responsible for many tasks that range from overseeing day-to-day operations and conducting research to meeting with funders or talking to the media. Some leaders eventually find themselves spread too thin and lacking the time or knowledge to deal with everything. It is thus important to ensure that there is support available, be it team members, external services or board members, to help deal with the many responsibilities.
Personal characteristics: in some cases, leaders, or think tank staff in general, experience challenges in how they are perceived by others. Unfortunately, there is prejudice and/or discrimination in the sector and sometimes leaders of a particular gender, race or age experience pushback from others they engage with. This is not intended to deter anyone from any position; on the contrary, we should work as a sector to ensure this does not continue to happen.
Learning to manage a think tank: many think tank leaders have been trained as researchers rather than as ‘managers’ so they find they have to learn new functions on the job. They must prepare in advance for the management tasks that they will need to undertake (or appoint someone with those skills). This guide is a good place to start (see the resources sections for more tools on management).

Organisational challenges:

Securing funding: establishing a sustainable funding base is a perennial challenge for think tank leaders and one of the main issues that keeps them up at night.
Establishing and maintaining the credibility and relevance of the organisation: think tanks need to be perceived as credible sources of information if they want to participate in the policy process. They should be attractive to funders and engage with reputable networks. Therefore, think tank leaders need to ensure that their products and services meet the rigour and quality necessary to be credible and that their strategic vision allows the organisation to stay relevant.
Recruiting and retaining staff: think tank leaders face this challenge in two ways. One is when there are not enough qualified researchers in a particular country, and the other is when there are competent researchers but not enough funds to attract and keep them.
Building the field: in some countries, think tanks are relatively new or not necessarily known by policymakers, the media and other stakeholders, so directors and founders have had to create a demand for their ideas and services.

Being a pioneer means having to build a legitimate space in the policymaking arena and showing why the services offered by a think tank are useful.

Box 24: Challenges faced when funding a think tank: CPPR in India

D. Dhanuraj is the founder and chairman of the Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR) in India. Read the full interview here.

“These were some of the challenges I faced:

Setting up systems and processes relevant for think tanks

Updating and keeping interest in topics of the institutions

Training researchers and preparing them for bigger assignments

Wearing the hat of a social entrepreneur and also of an academic

Becoming involved in educational work while continuing networking activities satisfactorily Think tanks in India are still fairly new. The culture is evolving. Unlike their counterparts in the western world, think tanks in India have limited patronage.

This raises challenges on the sustainability front. The governments should be open to the role of the think tanks and acknowledge them, since the government is the ultimate beneficiary. The economic growth of the country may help think tanks in the long-run as more funds and philanthropists may start supporting the work done by these organisations. Freedom of expression is another essential factor that needs to be guaranteed for think tanks to be able to meet their objectives.”

Box 25: Challenges of a regional think tank: Task Justice Network Africa

Alvin Mosioma is the executive director and co-founder of Tax Justice Network Africa, which is a pan-African organisation.

“As a leader, running an organisation that operates across different regions means that you are thinly spread. Working in all these different areas requires intense concentration. Fundraising and developing strategic partnership are huge work. In all these different tasks you end up finding yourself thinly spread. For instance, the role implies many engagements, such as speaking engagements, meetings people expect you to attend, calls you need to have, etc. That is a challenge I am a ‘Jack of all trades’. I am doing organisation management, I am doing strategy, I am doing board-related issues, I am working with funders, thinking about the next steps of our strategies. I have to engage in all these different tasks as head of the organisation because I am the face of the organisation and that means I am thinly spread.

As an organisation, I think that the biggest challenge we face is that we are a regional organisation working at different levels, but also, we are membership driven. So, there are tough choices you have to make about how involved you are in country-level activities, in regional or global processes which put a lot of pressure on the organisation, in terms of where we should be allocating our resources.” As a regional network you want to be able to address the different constituencies and that can be resource-intense, but then, you are struggling as a small organisation to harness all those resources.

As an institution, we started with the unique position of being the only regional civil society network that is working on tax, but because of this the expectation for us to respond to all tax issues across the continent is bigger than the size of our organisation and the resources we have. Another related challenge is language, because we operate in the continent and we are multilingual – anglophone, francophone, lusophone, etc.”

Who will engage with it?

Think tanks need an audience to fulfil their missions. When exploring your context, you should identify your main audience and who will be interested in what you have to say. Identifying who will listen to your think tank relates to the question of what it will aim to influence, the policy debates you aim to contribute to, and the policy level you wish to influence (national, local, etc.).

Start by identifying who is interested in the issues your think tank is working on; who are you aiming to influence and who can support you in that process (e.g. media, funders, NGOs and opinion makers)? Remember that your audiences are not only policymakers, civil society and the media. Other thinktankers and donors (to name a few) also play a role. There are many tools available to help you in this process – but don’t get overly focused on an exhaustive process at the beginning.

The question of who will listen to you is also relevant to your research uptake strategy. It is important to involve or consider your various audiences throughout the whole process to ensure that the research is relevant to their needs and interests. A good suggestion is to approach your audiences and ask them directly:

How do you prefer to access new ideas and knowledge?
How could think tanks communicate better with you?
What examples can you share of good and bad experiences with think tanks?

Their answers will help plan your engagement with your audience. For example, a Peruvian journalist told us that ‘accessibility and credibility of the sources is very important’. When a source works well then it is very likely they will go back to it (Mendizabal, 2013i) Audience development is a useful concept to understand when thinking about who will listen to a newly formed think tank. Grant-Salmon (2014) describes it like this: ‘audience development is about developing our communications with existing and new audiences, not just increasing the number of people we are talking to. By understanding and gaining knowledge about existing and potential audiences, we can develop relationships in order to communicate relevant, timely, simple messages of value. And by understanding our audiences we can build up trust and credibility so that they seek our help. We can also avoid trying to communicate with audiences who are not interested in our work.’ Finally, remember that not all audiences need to be convinced that your policy recommendations must be acted on. Some may need convincing that they should support your ideas while others may need to be supported in developing and communicating their own arguments.

Box 26: Tools for stakeholder mapping

Here is a selection of tools that could be useful for analysing and mapping stakeholders:

GIZ (2010), Youth development stakeholder analysis: A handout for practitioners.

Schiffer, E. (2007), Net-map toolbox: Influence mapping of social networks.

IIED (2005), Stakeholder power analysis.

Brouwer,H., Hiemstra, W. and Martin, P. (2011), Using stakeholder and power analysis and BCPs in multi-stakeholder processes.

Overseas Development Institute (2010), Planning tools: Stakeholder analysis.

Engaging with stakeholders and counterparts

Datta (2018) offers advice for setting up your team and establishing key relationships in order to participate in projects that help counterparts and policymakers use evidence.

Ensure your team has the ‘right’ people and organisations: Aim for a small team of 3–4 people including: an insider with deep knowledge of the policy issue and understanding of the context; someone with facilitation skills and the networks to engage with policymakers; someone with technical skills; and a team leader who coordinates the members and brings together the technical and political dimensions of the project.
Make the most of prior connections and shared experiences: To foster strong relationships it is important that there are expectations that something ‘good’ will happen. Having some prior contacts and shared experiences can accelerate this process.
Base your team close to the ‘action’: The team should be as rooted as close to the ‘action’ as possible and be made up of national staff. When bringing in foreign team members, immersion in the context for long periods of time is essential for them to build good relationships with key actors.
Establish ‘good’ team working practices: Make sure your team members communicate regularly and that they feel comfortable talking and listening in equal measure.
Work with high-capacity institutions for short-term change: Your counterparts will be more likely to use your support if they have high levels of capacity to begin with. This doesn’t mean that you avoid institutions with lower levels of capacity, just that doing so will require a longer-term approach.
Work with an evidence-to-policy entrepreneur: Try to find an ‘evidence champion’ to work with, ideally someone based in a government institution. This should be someone interested in putting ‘evidence on the map’ within the institution and who can manoeuvre departmental process and provide the contact details of other people to speak to.
Negotiate the role you play in relation to your counterpart: When working with partners in government, you have to decide with them how much emphasis should be placed on getting results versus capacity development. If there is a results approach you may take a more hands-on approach (managing the overall process). If the focus is on capacity building, your team may take a more reflecting approach by limiting inputs to observations.
Listen to the needs of your counterpart but don’t set out to meet all their demands: Your counterpart has deep knowledge of the local context, but there is value in what you have to offer, so it is important to have discussions that consider different perspectives and to see each other as partners or collaborators.
Identify and coordinate with existing in-country policy support or evidence-related initiatives: There may be other teams who are supporting policymakers to use evidence. If this is the case, try to find ways to work together, as you may find that your work is complementary.
Consider setting up an advisory group: A steering group may help ensure that the work produced between you and your counterparts is relevant beyond the actors you work with. It can also pressure your counterparts to ensure a rigorous engagement with the process. For this advisory group you can approach institutions with a cross-government mandate or representatives of other policy support initiatives.
Formalise the relationship between the delivery team and your government counterpart: Consider revising the memorandum of understanding that often underpin agreements between government institutions and external actors if there are areas that you would like to see changed, such as confidentiality or intellectual property clauses.

Box 27. Partnership toolkits

These two partnership toolkits provide advice on how to build successful partnerships through structured approaches that will help you identify the type of partnership needed and the kind of agreements you will need to reach.

NESTA (2019), Partnership toolkit.

Sterne, R.; Heaney, D. and Britton, B (2009), The partnership toolbox.

Who will work for it?

A good team is the flowerbed on which your organisation will grow and flourish. New organisations can be pulled in many directions and you could be tempted to enrol a bigger team that you can afford (or manage). Or you might end up with a team whose skills are not what your organisation needs. It is thus very important to set up a team focusing on your aims, business model and budget.

A think tank’s core team should involve a leader, a researcher (who may be the leader), a communicator and an administrator, although much of a new think tank’s administrative work may be carried out by the rest of the team and some of it can even be outsourced. A good suggestion is to aim to keep initial costs low and build-in flexibility to the organisation. There are several options available to build in staffing flexibility and avoid full employment contracts at the beginning. For instance, working with consultants or associates using short-term contracts, developing partnerships with organisations with research or communications capacity, and so on (Mendizabal, 2016).

Another aspect to consider is the availability of researchers in your context, given that in some environments and countries, the offer of trained researchers is either scarce or very expensive (Yeo, 2013). An option to get around this is to hire young talent and train them (see section below for more on this). Another option is to develop policies that incentivise researchers to stay. For example, in order to stop high levels of turnover, Grupo Faro introduced a human resources reform in 2012 that introduced more certainty to staff members’ career paths. This was achieved by changing contractual terms, creating a human resources guide, developing a performance evaluation process and creating team-building opportunities (Echt and Cahyo Edi, 2015). At the Center for Global Development, the key to hiring and retaining staff is to give them plenty of freedom and responsibility so that they can shine and develop their careers (MacDonald and Moss 2014).

Researchers’ skills

As mentioned before, the type of skills that your staff needs will vary depending on your aims, business models and the type of activities you’re aiming to do. Despite the variability of skills for different roles, think tank researchers nowadays should all have these three basic skills: research (this is a requisite); management (at least to manage a research project and raise and manage funds); and communication.

Researchers need to have good interpersonal communication skills. They should be able to communicate their arguments to their peers, and adequately engage in debate. They should be able to edit their own texts to suit the audiences that they are trying to reach, know all the communication channels available and plan to use different kinds depending on their audiences. They do not need to know how to operate all of them, but should be proficient enough to know which should be used for what purpose and audience (Mendizabal, 2015c). In terms of research team structures, Struyk (2012) explains that think tanks choose from one of two extremes: teams or solo stars. The solo star model requires the presence of recognised and influential researchers who work on their own (or supported by research assistants). The team model requires a team of researchers who work together.

How will you hire your team?

Hiring at the early stages can offer opportunities and challenges. You may attract young and driven think tankers who fit perfectly into the organisation’s business model; but you may also find it hard to attract more experienced staff who may not want to commit to a new venture.

To address this, you should make sure you start by developing clear job descriptions for each of the core roles. This will ensure that young think tankers have clear guidelines and that more experienced applicants can relate to what you expect from them. If you choose to work through a partnership, hosted by a university for instance, then take advantage of their networks to find the right candidates.

While senior leadership positions may go to individuals who are known to you already – through personal and professional networks – it is advisable to hire using objective and transparent processes.

If the business model you are pursuing is not common, then you could use tasks during the interview process to ensure that you hire the right people. You may ask them to write a policy brief, prepare and deliver a presentation, produce a concept note for a new funder, etc. This will give you a better sense of the strengths and skills of the candidates.

If your budget is limited and you want to keep the organisation lean, you can work with research associates. As they are probably employed somewhere else they can bring their credibility and expertise to the organisation, but bear in mind that this makes planning and coordination a bit trickier (Mendizabal, 2016).

Box 28. Attracting and retaining top researchers in Africa

Cheikh Oumar Ba, executive director of the Initiative of Prospective Agricole et Rurale in Senegal.

“Attracting and retaining top people is a constant challenge. We live in a competitive setting in this globalised world and mobility has to be factored in. For example, we had an excellent economist working with us once but after a year, he left for a job with the World Bank. However, all in all, we’re doing well at staff retention. We pay good salaries, not quite as much as the UN does, but we’re definitely paying good market rates. We also try to provide a positive working environment.

Sometimes donors balk at paying full market rates for local researchers. We recently put in a tender that had an international team of researchers from various countries, worldwide, and the client complained about the price tag of the African researchers on the team and asked us to lower their rates. We refused. You have to remember, we all went to the same universities, we have the same degrees. In the end, the client paid up.”

Young talent

Another suggestion is to combine senior researchers with young, up and coming research officers and assistants. Some of the best work in think tanks is often done by young researchers interested in developing their careers (Mendizabal, 2016). Both parties gain a lot from this arrangement. A think tank can access relatively cheap (and good) labour, and in return train and develop the skills of young think tankers. Working as an assistant provides young researchers with an opportunity to specialise in particular fields, strengthen their research skills, become familiar/proficient in new research methods, develop relationships with senior and prominent researchers, become immersed in environments dedicated to producing and communicating research, working in challenging and interesting environments, and engaging and networking with different actors (Boyco 2015a, 2015b).

Consultants

Think tanks often need to hire consultants to supplement the work they do. This can be to increase the expertise of a team on a topic for a particular project or to work independently on a project. Hiring a consultant can be risky: ‘a poor-quality product creates a major problem for the think tank which then has to work with the consultant on significant corrections or organise a re-do’ (Struyk 2018). Struyk recommends that think tanks follow these steps to ensure that the consultant’s work is efficient:

Thoroughly prepare a comprehensive terms of reference document.
Be careful in the selection of the consultant.
Estimate and negotiate the consultant’s payment.
Actively monitor and follow up with the consultant about the progress, especially when the task is spread over several months.
Be rigorous in the quality control of the products received.

Box 29. CGDs model for staff

Based on Mendizabal, E. (2015), People with competence, freedom, and responsibility are the key to success and MacDonald and Moss (2014), Building a think-and-do tank: A dozen lessons from the first dozen years of the Center for Global Development (CGD).

CGD has an interesting model that works well for organisations built around senior researchers (with their own interests and personal agendas). Their main approach on staff is:

Hire great people and give them plenty of freedom and responsibility. They argue that think tanks are about the people, and that recruiting the best requires both a compelling mission and a great work environment with competitive compensation.

Organisations have a clear list of characteristics they search for in their staff (besides expertise and knowledge) that include creativity, kindness and even a sense of humour. They aim to attract not only established researchers but early career ones as well. They place their success to attract top individuals in the freedom, and responsibility for their own work, that they offer.

When hiring senior fellows, they look for people with institutional experience in large organisations and who know how the policy process works. Their junior staff members are recent graduates (bachelor’s or master’s degrees) with little to no work experience; their turnover is of two to three years, and this constant influx of fresh minds ensures them energy and novel ideas. And this also has led to the development of CDG alumni, which they cultivate through various means. Their model also includes non-resident fellows who are tenured faculty at top universities, and visiting fellows that tend to be policymakers who use the centre as a space to learn, reflect and write

Box 30: The importance of your team: The experience of CIPPEC

Nicolás Ducote is a co-founder and former executive director and general director of CIPPEC– Argentina. Read the full interview here.

“The first piece of advice I would give is that they have to work in a team: none of the issues we’ve discussed can be done alone. CIPPEC’s virtue is that when we decided to found it, we went out and looked for ten or twelve people who were willing to work with us on that enterprise. That team has to be complementary: an individual who wants to begin a think tank project has to ask themselves about how to find human resources to fill the needs that every think tank has. How to get people who want to communicate, that want to raise funds, that want to study issues and propose a public policy agenda.

It’s also important to have people who worry about the institutional dimension: investing time in thinking about processes to make decisions, developing an institutional memory, being transparent, etc. In the first year, as soon as the first two cents came in, we thought about accountability, which spoke of a vocation for certain processes, and not just a search for results. Thirdly, worrying that people who begin with the institution stay enough time: there are learning curves, the best performance of any of us in the disciplines that we work in doesn’t come in the first or second year, but usually it’s about five to ten year cycles, and if you have high rotation in important positions, the organisation suffers. CIPPEC managed to keep its area directors long enough to carry out orderly transitions.”

Reading 2. Strategic governance and management

This School for Thinktankers background note defines governance and management, describes three types of boards (corporate, membership and secondary) with their pros and cons, and explains how think tanks organise and line-manage research teams. Use Figure 5 to place your own governing body and to think about what it is missing.

From the School for Thinktankers background notes (On Think Tanks, 2025). Note 4: Strategic governance and management.

Definitions

The governance and management of think tanks and policy research organisations is a complex matter. There are many aspects to consider; for example, the context in which a think tank operates and the business models that it operates under. And while there isn’t a one-size-fits-all model, there certainly are some lessons that organisations in all contexts can benefit from.

Although governance and management concerns are often at the top of the list of challenges for any think tank leader, few efforts are aimed at strengthening them; rather, think tanks (and funders) often pay greater attention to fundraising, research quality and communications. Governance and management issues are not usually considered until a big crisis arises – usually because of not having invested in these areas before or not noticing the symptoms early enough. Without an appropriate governance arrangement and management competencies, think tanks are unlikely to be able to deliver sustainable funding strategies, high-quality research, and effective communications.

What forms of governance and management exist? How do they affect a think tank’s work? How can they drive high-quality research and policy influence? This note provides an outline of the topic and suggests several resources to engage with the issue further.

What does governance and management involve?

The governance of a think tank refers to its organisational arrangement and how decision-making processes take place. It involves the rules and norms of the interactions within the organisation that affect how different parts are brought together. Management, on the other hand, involves the practical aspects of the organisation’s functioning: team and project management, staffing, line management and so on (Mendizabal, 2014).

A think tank’s set-up can mark the difference between success and failure – a proliferation of outputs and success in influencing policy is only temporary if the internal structure of an organisation is not strong. For instance, think tanks need a strong, competent and committed board to steer them through choppy waters. A weak board will miss the tide; it will not be able to support its director (it may not even be able to appoint the most appropriate director), won’t be able to invest in long-term initiatives or in new skills for future challenges. Even a well-funded and very visible organisation is at risk if it has a weak board.

This note will address two crucial elements of governance and management: boards and management for research.

Think tank boards

To address the characteristics of each type of board, one must first acknowledge that there are different kinds of think tanks: from independent civil society think tanks established as non-profit organisations, through governmentally created or state-or party-sponsored think tanks, to policy research institutes located in or affiliated with a university and corporate-created or business-affiliated think tanks. The nature of each think tank can say a great deal about its governance structure. For example, state-sponsored think tanks most probably will not have, nor need, the same type of board that an independent civil society think tank or a political party think tank has. Think tanks can also have secondary boards such as advisory boards or management committees. Think tanks with a strong academic foundation might not need an advisory board, but others may use them to gain academic credentials.

Several factors such as the legal, economic, political and social context of a nation can also influence the way a think tank’s board is set up.

On Think Tanks identifies three main types of boards (Mendizabal, 2014): corporate boards, membership boards, and secondary boards.

Corporate boards: A corporate board of directors is in charge of mainly two tasks: defining and maintaining the think tank’s original goals and values, and determining and ensuring its finances. According to Struyk (2012), a corporate board’s role has three aspects: legal, functional and symbolic. In that sense, they share similarities with boards in for-profit organisations. They can also be referred to as legal boards, as their responsibility for the finances and appropriate functioning of the think tanks they govern is determined by their country’s legislation.

This type of board of directors usually has the responsibility of appointing an executive director, who in turn has the responsibility of appointing and overseeing the staff and all the think tank’s day-to-day activities. The Overseas Development Institute in the UK and Grupo FARO in Ecuador have corporate boards.

Membership boards: Some think tanks establish assemblies consisting of all associates of the organisation, usually its researchers and founding members. This assembly is the highest governing body and periodically meets and chooses an executive council, either from within the members or from the outside.

The assembly then delegates many executive responsibilities to the executive council, which acts as a management committee in charge of the organisation’s day-to-day activities. In some cases, the executive council appoints an executive director and in other cases it chooses one from among its own ranks. The Instituto de Estudios Peruanos in Peru has a membership board.

The membership board is often referred to as a political body, as the leaders are elected by the members rather than interviewed for a job.

It is possible for both models to be combined, dividing ‘political’ responsibilities (membership boards) from ‘executive’ ones (corporate boards).

Secondary boards: Think tanks may have a board of directors, either corporate or membership, and a second body that supports it. They may, for instance, have a management committee made up of members of the board in the form of a sub-committee to advise and monitor the executive director, or in some cases even be in charge of managing the think tank. Secondary boards differ from the board of directors because they have a more day-to-day role in the organisation’s activities.

There are also advisory boards. These are usually made up of highly specialised individuals who have experience in an issue that the think tank wants advice on (for example, the public sector or academia). These boards give guidance, for example, on the types of research that the organisation should undertake. Unlike the board of directors, advisory boards do not have fiduciary responsibility and so are not responsible for the institution’s audit or the state of its finances. Advisory boards that are comprised of eminent scholars and professionals may even add prestige to the organisation.

Figure 5. The pros and cons of different boards
	Corporate	Membership	Secondary
Pros	Clear roles and responsibilities; independence from staff; external (professional) help and support	Well acquainted with the think tank; promotes ownership; decisions ‘stick’	Can address specific needs; flexible; external (professional) help and support: skills and funds
Cons	Can be too removed from the think tank; hard to manage; risk in third-party affiliations	Hard to balance individual researchers’ interests; decisions take time; hard to bring in external (professional) help	Can add to complexity and cost; low accountability

Management for research teams

Management overlaps with governance in that it reflects the nature of the organisational arrangement that the think tank has established for itself. It is affected by, and affects, for example, the presence of a senior management board, middle-management roles (for example, department or programme leaders), and the degree of responsibility awarded to the executive director.

This section discusses management for research, i.e., the roles and responsibilities that research teams may be awarded, including line management considerations. Management for research involves at least two key elements: research team structures (how the think tank organises its research teams and how the teams themselves are organised) and line management within research teams and projects.

Research team structures: According to Struyk (2012), think tanks can choose from one of two extremes: team or solo star. The ‘solo star’ model is based on the presence of notable and influential researchers who work on their own with the support of research assistants; the team model is very much what it sounds like – research conducted by teams.

Each model has consequences on the kind of work the think tank is able to deliver. The solo star model is likely to involve shorter or single research projects, while the team model is likely to involve longer-term and larger-scale programmes. In practice, think tanks organise their research teams in various ways. Four approaches have been identified:

Associates on short-term contracts from the think tank.
Researchers working on their own policy research agendas with or without thematic coordination and with the support of assistants and associates.
A central and permanent pool of researchers with specialist senior researchers who focus on one or more policy research agendas or projects.
Research teams, departments or areas organised by discipline or policy issue with clear line management.

The choice of model, according to Struyk, is likely to be influenced by several factors, including the type and size of projects, variability of the workload, flexibility of the staff, tax and social fund consequences, and institutional reputation.

Similarly, think tanks that group their researchers in teams may prefer to organise them along disciplinary or policy lines. For instance, some think tanks have departments that reflect the disciplinary background of their researchers: economics, political science, natural resources, etc. Others prefer departments focused on policy issues or challenges: housing reform, corruption, urban poverty, etc.

Line management: Line management arrangements and processes are crucial to guarantee the effective functioning of teams and think tanks. They refer to the chain of command and relations of hierarchy within a think tank and a team. Even in circumstances in which researchers act rather independently from each other or from the organisation, or in horizontal business models, a minimum degree of leadership and line management are necessary.

Line management should focus on the most effective allocation of human resources to deliver the organisation’s mission, on supporting those resources, and on enhancing their capabilities. Good practice and literature on the subject suggest some of the following considerations in developing appropriate line management arrangements to lead and support teams and projects:

Guidelines at the Overseas Development Institute suggested that no manager should line manage more than five people.
Line management roles should be adequately resourced with enough time allocated to managers to work with and support their teams.
Line management choices should not be driven by seniority imperatives but by the most effective use of talent to deliver project, programme and organisational objectives. Often senior and experienced researchers can play important roles as members of a team, and not necessarily as their leaders.
Line management tools such as staff performance assessments should be used, primarily, to support staff development and overall team performance rather than for accountability purposes.
Depending on the composition of teams, line management arrangements could include multiple management hierarchies. For example, a young researcher could be line managed by the leaders of more than one project (in a solo star model) and, similarly, a communications officer could be line managed by a research programme leader and the head of communications.

Reading 3. Setting up a think tank: leaders, people and governance

These sections of the article add three practical points to the readings above: what to look for in the person or small group who leads a new think tank, the three wish lists every think tank needs early on (board members, researchers and funders), and how digital tools can replace the cost of an office.

From Setting up a think tank: step by step, by Enrique Mendizabal (On Think Tanks). Its sections on staffing and governance arrangements are covered in Reading 1; other sections are in Modules 1 and 4.

Find a leader (or leaders)

If you are not him or her (you may be a concerned citizen, a philanthropist, a policymaker in need of new advice, a foreign donor, etc.), you will need to find someone (or a small group) to take the lead. Setting up a think tank will not be easy, and it is likely to take some time. A good leader, in this context, is someone who, at the very least:

‘Gets’ think tanks -isn’t just a subject matter expert but is also a good communicator, networker, and manager; or at least has an appreciation for all four.
Has good networks -which do not have to be all encompassing. Might be enough if they have good networks in academia or in politics. But they have to be able to offer access to the right people (even if the intention is to start small).
Must have imagination -to think about alternative business models, to find the problems (and articulate them) that nobody else has found, to translate policy problems into research projects, etc.
Who can mobilise resources -sure, money, but mostly people to join him or her.
Is ready to commit to a significant period of work- at least 5 years of work -think tanks are not set up over night.

Also, Advice to Think Tank Startup: do not do it alone.

Don’t forget 3 key lists

All think tanks will need:

Board members: not just subject matter experts, but also people who know about think tanks and about the various aspects of their work: management, communications, fundraising, etc. I would recommend avoiding people who won’t be able to dedicate enough time to support the think tank -big names are not enough.
Researchers, particularly a pool of possible research associates who you will not have to employ but can appeal to for support with fundraising, contacts, etc.
Funders: ideally domestic (don’t rely too much on foreign funders) and committed to the values of the centre.

Early on, it is worth thinking about a wish list of these three. You can start by talking to them about your project (not necessarily asking for money) to get their feedback and eventual support.

Go digital and save on office costs

A decent office could cost about USD 1,000 plus utilities in a city like Lima (where I am writing this from). This is what a young but very competent research assistant would cost, too. What would be more useful for the think tank? People. People are always more important than offices.

It is possible to run a think tank remotely. Laptops and public wifi make it possible for teams to meet in coffee places and work together on a project. Space for public meetings can be rented, and associates of the think tank may offer it for free in their own institutions.

There is no need for servers; Dropbox or Google Drive will do for intranets, Google Apps can sort out all email needs, and there are lots of other tools that can be used to manage teams, store and share documents, deal with finances and taxes, etc.

Communications, of course, can be entirely digital, both in relation to the team as well as with the think tank’s audiences. And even research can be supported by digital tools.

This is all part of a discussion blog I wrote for an idea for a Think Tank Hub.

Live session

Wednesday 18 November, 15:00–17:00 CET
Facilitated by Enrique Mendizabal

Session link: https://meet.google.com/zbq-gueh-hvt

Task for the week

A board and roles map: your governing group against six skill areas, two named gaps, and what you will do about them.

Submit your task in Google Classroom within a week of the session (45–60 minutes). The facilitator will comment on it there.

Task due: 24 November

Quiz

When you finish the module, take the five-question quiz in Google Classroom (about 10 minutes). It is marked automatically.

Quiz due: 24 November

Recording

The recording and slides of the live session will be posted here after the session.