Advertisement
In community schemes and residential estates across South Africa, and in fact the world, the board of directors or trustees of a sectional title scheme are often referred to as ‘the guardians of the guardians’.
They are supposed to be the final layer of oversight responsible for protecting value, sustaining infrastructure and safeguarding the integrity of the community. Even when the assets are well-maintained, the brand itself can suffer from the effects of poor governance.
Yet, despite this critical mandate, many boards remain vulnerable. It is not always their fault either. They are often under-skilled, under-supported, and unprepared for the increasingly complex environment in which estates now operate. Sadly, a large majority of boards often face both external and internal threats that they are not prepared for, nor have paid for.
In research conducted between 2020 and 2022, spanning multiple jurisdictions and 250 international boards represented by either full or partial participation, a simple but powerful truth was highlighted: the resilience of an estate depends on the resilience of its board. And that resilience is built not on goodwill or availability, but on competency, balance, and strategic composition.
South African estates today face challenges far more sophisticated than traditional governance handbooks ever anticipated. Boards must increasingly navigate what can be described as a form of irregular warfare in community governance — subtle, often invisible, pressures that disrupt decision-making and erode institutional integrity.
These include:
- legislative overload;
- misinformation and factional narratives;
- budgetary pressures;
- procedural manipulation;
- legal theatre;
- data and IT vulnerabilities;
- informational fog and organisational capture.
IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, RESILIENCE IS NO LONGER OPTIONAL.
IT IS ESSENTIAL.
To understand what differentiates successful boards from those that fail, my research used primary qualitative methodology and homogeneity purposive sampling, targeting respondents who are actively involved in or directly affected by board composition and competency in the industry. The data pool included board members, executive management, and chairpersons, 56% from management roles and 44% from boards, across South Africa, the United States, Australia, Ireland, and Dubai.
The findings were striking. Participants were asked to rank the three categories of competencies required for an effective board:
- functional competencies (law, finance, governance knowledge);
- personal competencies (ethics, accountability, confidence);
- social competencies (leadership, communication, teamwork).
The results revealed near-equal weighting:
1. Functional: 34.5%
2. Personal: 33.6%
3. Social: 31.9%
In simple terms, it shows that all participants agreed: technical expertise alone is not enough. A board stacked with accountants and attorneys can still fail if members lack ethics, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal maturity. In fact, every board in the study that lacked social and personal competencies failed 100% of the time. What is striking is that this is the opinion of the participants, unbiased and self reflecting; they knew and were brave enough to be transparent. If there is not a balance of competencies, the board is set up for failure.
Advertisement
Perhaps the most concerning finding was how board members came to be elected. When asked how they and their peers were elected, the results showed a shocking mirror of the truth we have all seen in a development:
1. 41% were elected for competency (as perceived)
2. 40% simply because they were available
3. 19% due to popularity
This means that in 59% of all cases, board composition was based on factors unrelated to the actual competencies required to run a multimillion-rand community organisation. How could this be good for the industry?
- 78% of participants have served on a board that felt they failed their community in some way;
- 93% attributed that failure to a lack of balanced competencies.
THIS IS NOT MISFORTUNE. IT IS STRUCTURAL MISALIGNMENT.
Across all responses, the ideal mix of competencies formed a consistent pattern. When participants ranked the top 15 competencies required for success, the top five revealed a 40/40/20 balance between functional, personal, and social capacities. The highest-ranked competencies were:
1. financial (functional)
2. ethical (personal)
3. accountable (personal)
4. legal (functional)
5. leadership (social)
Notably, ethics outranked legal knowledge. Accountability outranked technical expertise, and leadership outranked decisiveness. What is clear from the research is that successful boards are not built on technical skills alone; they are built on character, courage, and collaboration. Resilience begins with the right people. To borrow Jim Collins’ timeless metaphor: ‘It’s not only about getting the right people on the bus. It’s about getting the right people in the right seats.’
In community schemes, this means more than simply electing volunteers. It demands a deliberate approach to recruiting individuals who bring ethical grounding, technical expertise, and interpersonal maturity. Then we also need to ensure that they serve in roles that match their strengths. The success of the estate depends on it.
The data makes one thing clear: resilient boards are not born, they are built.
To build them, estates must shift from passive, voluntary nomination to structured, competency-based recruitment. I have advocated for psychometric or behavioural screening for nominees, and hold firm that, if you are willing to test an employee, why not the person that employs them or controls the bank?
Another solution that has slowly started to be incorporated by some communities is a competency-based nomination framework — identifying which competencies are required and actively asking for nominees who fit those competencies. This requires clear role descriptions and expectations. It would naturally extend into objective verification of credentials and expertise to further ensure that the required competencies are obtained.
Borrowing from corporate and listed environments, the best solution remains co-opting specialists to fill competency gaps. It would require the MOI to allow non-members to be directors. The reality is that these specialists would naturally require remuneration of some sort, and our industry has not yet taken that leap. This moves boards away from ‘who was available’ and toward becoming robust governance teams equipped for modern estate challenges. Introducing independent and remunerated non-executive directors (NEDs) or leadership in governance roles remains one of the easiest ways to ensure competency and objectively led boards.
As estates transition from housing developments into highly complex regulated entities, their boards increasingly resemble the governance structures of mid-sized enterprises. They manage assets worth hundreds of millions and in some cases operational budgets comparable to those of large businesses. Legal, environmental, and security risks are significant, and the political environment is loaded with stakeholder groups and often conflicting interests. Yet many boards still operate with the informality of volunteer committees. A resilient estate needs a resilient board, one that blends professional competencies with personal integrity and social intelligence.
If South Africa’s estates are to thrive over the next decade, boards must evolve. The sustainability, harmony, and financial health of an estate are not accidents; they are the direct result of who sits around the board table. In a world of escalating complexity, irregular pressures, and growing regulatory demands, estates cannot afford boards built on convenience or popularity. They need boards built on resilience — resilience built on competency.
Estate leadership is not a hobby. It is a profession. And it requires professional competency — competency balanced across functional, personal, and social dimensions. Balanced boards don’t just perform better, they actually survive and thrive.
Research was conducted in participation and approval by the Ethics Committee of Cardiff Metropolitan University.
