Context
“TerraCivis” (fictional name) is a national federation comprising 80 local associations engaged in ecological transition and social justice.
Its founding principles:
- Collegial governance
- Decision-making by majority vote
- Grassroots citizen mobilization
- Constructive cooperation with public, private, and institutional actors
Over the past two years, amid accelerating environmental and social crises, the association has been experiencing new dynamics:
- New generations of activists are joining, driven by the urgency to act.
- These new members expect faster action, more direct communication (social networks, digital platforms), and more fluid participation.
- Digital tools enable rapid organization of campaigns, sometimes bypassing traditional collegial processes.
- Some local groups are experimenting with more “agile” formats (action prototyping workshops, temporary working groups).
The tipping point
During an annual General Assembly:
- Divergences emerged between local groups regarding decision-making timelines: some wanted to launch actions in “accelerated mode” without waiting for federal validation cycles.
- The governance of new digital platforms became a debated issue: how to integrate these tools without weakening the collegial structure?
- Questions arose about the respective roles of the Federal Coordination Council and emerging action circles.
Risks identified by the Executive Board:
- Fragmentation of the federation into sub-groups with inconsistent practices.
- Erosion of trust in the shared democratic model.
- Generational tensions regarding modes of action.
The choice: consciously supporting the evolution
The Board chose to adopt the SecureChange approach to:
- Clarify what the federation absolutely wishes to preserve (its invariants).
- Identify areas open to evolution.
- Equip governance to embrace diverse rhythms and practices.
Concrete application of SecureChange
Clarifying what we want to preserve (Compass 1)
A federal workshop involving the Board, local group representatives, and members of emerging circles was conducted.
Identified invariants:
- Respect for collegial governance
- Decision-making by majority vote on federal orientations
- Inclusion of all voices, regardless of seniority or activist profile
- Respect for the association’s historical values (ecology, social justice, non-violence)
- Cross-generational and inter-group cooperation
Building simple points of vigilance (Compass 2)
Examples chosen:
To preserve democratic governance:
- Decisions committing the federation must be validated by federal consent.
To ensure inclusion of all voices:
- Cross-generational dialogue spaces are organized ahead of General Assemblies.
To maintain coherence of practices:
- New digital tools are collectively evaluated before being integrated into official processes.
To guarantee cross-generational cooperation:
- Cross-mentoring (senior/new activists) is established for strategic projects.
Positioning leadership as guardians (Compass 3)
The Board and the Federal Coordination Council position themselves not as “controllers” but as guardians of the democratic framework.
They support the emergence of new practices as long as they respect the invariants.
Examples of integrated technical or structural evolutions:
- Adoption of “sprint mode” working groups to prepare rapid campaigns, with final validation at the federal level.
- Implementation of a collaborative platform for transparent tracking of local and national initiatives.
Continuous reevaluation (Compasses 4 and 5)
The Board set up:
- A quarterly review process for points of vigilance
- A semi-annual review for the invariants
Example of a point of vigilance adjustment:
Initial point:
- “All campaign decisions must be validated at the General Assembly.”
Revised point:
- “Urgent local campaigns may be launched provided the Board is transparently informed and the campaign does not contradict orientations validated by the General Assembly.”
Example of an invariant evolution:
Initial invariant:
- “Decision-making by majority vote on any initiative.”
Revised invariant:
- “Decision-making by majority vote on federal orientations, and by consent of the concerned circles for local or thematic initiatives.”
This evolution maintained the spirit of the democratic model while acknowledging the diversity of action levels.
Results after 6 months
- Unity of the federation preserved
- Strong adherence of new members to the clarified model
- Acceleration of projects without loss of democratic coherence
- Reduction of generational tensions thanks to new dialogue spaces
- Strengthened trust in federal governance
Testimonial
“SecureChange allowed us to make our democratic model more resilient, more welcoming to new energies, without losing our common foundation.”
— Member of the TerraCivis Federal Coordination Council
Conclusion
This case illustrates that the SecureChange approach is fully applicable to associative contexts and organizations with democratic governance.
It enables deep transitions, cultural and practice evolutions — without compromising foundational values.
Note to the reader
This case study illustrates the general approach presented in the Secure Change Manifesto.
It does not include all observable, measurable criteria and detailed governance mechanisms, which are explained in the Principles.
To explore further, we invite you to visit the Secure Change Principles page.
Ready to explore?
→ Discover our guiding compasses
→ Explore our key principles
→ See case studies in action