ChessSL Governance Education Series — Towards AGM May 2026
A chess ecosystem doesn’t fail only because people don’t work hard. More often, it struggles because effort is not organised into a clear system. When roles are unclear, decisions are concentrated in a few hands, and accountability is weak, the same problems repeat: delays, confusion, frustration, and loss of trust.
This second article focuses on the most basic building block of good governance in Sri Lankan chess: clear roles, clear rules, and clear accountability. It is not about personalities. It is about designing a system that works reliably, so the sport can grow through collective effort, not individual control.
Community feedback (1 minute):
Your feedback will shape the next article: Transparency, Finance & Procurement.
1) When everything depends on one or two people
A common governance weakness in many organisations is over-centralisation. Decisions and work end up being handled by one or two individuals, even when there are committees and office-bearers.
At first, it may look efficient, things “move” because one person pushes them. But over time, the costs become obvious:
- Bottlenecks: everything waits for one approval or one person’s availability
- Delays and inconsistency: decisions vary depending on who is present
- Burnout: the same people get exhausted, and quality drops
- Weak institutions: the organisation becomes dependent on individuals instead of systems
A strong federation or association should be built so that it continues to function even when any one person steps away. That is the difference between a “person-led” structure and an institution-led structure.
2) The real problem is not lack of effort – it’s lack of teamwork design
Many governance disputes come from one underlying gap: the organisation does not work as a team.
This shows up in several ways:
- Work is not delegated meaningfully
- Others are not empowered to act
- Responsibilities are unclear or overlap
- people bypass roles and “do others’ work” to gain attention
- Credit is not given to those who actually deliver
- opinions are ignored, and decisions become closed-circle thinking
When that culture grows, people stop feeling ownership. They shift from “our chess” to “their chess.” That is when volunteer energy and district engagement slowly decline.
3) Role clarity: everyone must know what their job is
In chess governance, there are typically many stakeholders and positions: office-bearers, committees, district representatives, tournament organisers, school bodies, coaches, and arbiters.
When people do not clearly understand:
- what their role includes,
- what it does not include,
- what decisions they can make,
- who they report to,
- and what timelines they must follow,
The system becomes vulnerable to conflict and confusion.
Role clarity is not about controlling people. It is about reducing friction. When roles are defined properly:
- Decisions become faster
- Responsibilities become visible
- Work is distributed fairly
- Performance can be measured and improved
4) Delegation is not a weakness; it is a governance strength
A major symptom of weak governance is the belief that:
- “others cannot do the work,” or
- “only a few people can be trusted,” or
- “If I don’t do it, it won’t happen.”
This mindset might feel safe in the short term, but it damages the institution in the long term. Good governance requires empowerment, giving others real responsibility and the authority to act within their defined role.
Empowerment includes:
- clear delegation of tasks and decision rights
- access to information needed to complete tasks
- timelines and reporting expectations
- recognition for contributions
When people are empowered, the organisation becomes stronger because it is not dependent on a few individuals.
5) Recognition matters: it protects teamwork
Chess organisations often rely on voluntary or low-paid work. In such environments, recognition is not a soft issue; it is a governance issue.
When people feel that:
- Their work is ignored,
- Their contribution is taken by others,
- or their effort is not respected,
They step back. And when good people step back, the system becomes even more centralised. That creates a cycle:
centralization → low empowerment → low participation → more centralization
Healthy institutions break this cycle by:
- recording who did what,
- acknowledging contributions publicly,
- and ensuring that credit is fairly shared.
6) Accountability: Who owns the “whole picture”?
Even if work is delegated, there must still be accountability for overall delivery.
A frequent governance weakness is that everyone handles small tasks, but no one owns:
- The full calendar delivery
- The full tournament ecosystem
- The full communication chain
- The full finance/reporting timeline
- The full selection timeline and appeal process
This creates “responsibility gaps.” Things fall between roles. Then the blame starts. In good governance, accountability is designed so that:
- Each task has an owner
- Each owner has deadlines
- Progress is reviewed regularly
- Delays have explanations and fixes
- The system learns and improves
Accountability is not punishment. It is ownership.
7) Why does this lead to short-term thinking and personal goals
When governance is centralised, and teamwork is weak, the institution naturally shifts into:
- Short-term decisions
- “Quick wins” for visibility
- Bypassing processes
- Personal attention incentives
- Reduced collective planning
This is not always because of bad intentions. Sometimes it happens because the system rewards visibility over delivery. That is why a proper governance structure must reward:
- Collaboration
- Consistency
- Fairness
- Transparency
- And measurable outcomes
What good governance looks like in practice (simple standards)
To strengthen roles, rules, and accountability, a chess organisation should aim for minimum standards like:
- Written role descriptions (who does what)
- Clear decision pathways (who can decide what, and how)
- Functional committees with real authority and reporting
- Meeting minutes and decision logs (so work and reasons are recorded)
- Delegation rules (so responsibilities don’t collapse into one person)
- Recognition culture (so contributors stay engaged)
- Accountability rhythm (monthly reporting on key deliverables)
Conclusion
Sri Lankan chess cannot grow on personality-driven administration. It needs a system where responsibilities are distributed, decisions are transparent, teamwork is respected, and accountability is built into the structure.
When roles are clear, people feel ownership. When people feel ownership, collaboration becomes possible. And when collaboration becomes normal, governance improves, without drama, without confusion, and without over-dependence on a few individuals.
That is how chess becomes a stronger institution, not just a series of events.
Community feedback (1 minute):
Your feedback will shape the next article: Transparency, Finance & Procurement.
