Governance in transition: lessons from credit union mergers
Across BC, many credit unions are navigating mergers. These are significant undertakings, requiring careful integration of systems, people, processes, and culture.
Understandably, much of the focus goes to the culture shift required of the organization itself.
How do we bring teams together?
How do we create a shared identity people feel proud of?
How do we ensure we’re not carrying forward unhelpful tensions or duplicating legacy ways of doing things?
When this work is neglected, the consequences tend to surface later. Projects slow down. Cultural differences harden. Small misunderstandings turn into persistent friction. So organizations invest early in change management, integration planning, and team alignment—knowing that thoughtful attention now will help avoid problems later.
What receives far less attention is the board—and yet, when two credit unions merge, the board is merging too.
You may end up with a board largely composed of directors from the larger organization, with several from the smaller one joining in. The selection process may or may not have been based on building an optimal mix of skills and lived experience for the future-state board. Directors will bring different histories, loyalties, governance norms, and unstated assumptions about risk, pace, and the role of the board itself.
In many cases, boards continue operating with their existing habits. The same meeting structures, informal dynamics, and unspoken expectations.
In a period of significant change—a merger, a leadership transition, growth, or a strategic reset—it’s worth pausing to ask not only whether management is ready, but whether the board is.
A few questions to think about:
Is our board clear on what will need to change about how it operates—not just what’s changing within the organization?
Are we still working with the same board habits, assumptions, and dynamics that made sense five years ago (or longer!)?
Do we have the right balance of challenge and support for the executive team during this transition?
Are board meetings helping management think more clearly—or making the work harder?
Have we talked explicitly about what this period of change will require of the board?
Each of these questions is practical. None of them require dramatic intervention. But together, they point to something important: the board’s effectiveness during a merger is not automatic.
In transition, a board that hasn’t examined its culture and ways of working can show up in slowed decision-making, increased tension at the table, or additional strain on management capacity at exactly the moment clarity is most needed.
But the good news is that a board that takes time early to clarify how it will operate together can prevent avoidable friction later. It can strengthen its partnership with the executive team and model the cohesion the organization is working to build across the whole enterprise
If this feels relevant at your board table, I’m always open to a conversation. You can reach me at shona@mcglashan.ca.
Shona McGlashan is a Fellow of the Chartered Governance Institute. She As principal at McGlashan Consulting, she works with boards and executive teams on board effectiveness, culture, EDI, and leadership. She lives and works on the the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú 7mesh (Squamish), and Səl ̓ ı́ lwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.