By Phoebe So originally published in LinkedIn, December 17, 2025

Have you ever watched a values-driven organization tear itself apart, not in spite of its principles, but because of them?    

I recently came across Felicia Willow's provocative article about organizational dynamics in values-driven nonprofits. She tackles something we rarely discuss openly: how mission-driven organizations can become paralyzed when staff turn their advocacy skills inward during crises, creating what she calls "weaponized values."    

The piece is a challenging read—you can feel the author's frustration from lived experience. While reading, I found myself both nodding in recognition and questioning how universal these patterns really are.    

What Resonated.    

Willow's core insight struck me deeply. "Accountability strengthens values rather than weakens them. Boundaries are not a betrayal of mission. They are what keep the mission alive."    

She also astutely points out that "When rights-led organisations fall into difficulty, often due to a combination of inadequate leadership, unclear governance and financial pressures, and a failure to hold behaviour to account, they create the perfect conditions for a group of staff to weaponise values and turn their focus inward." This systemic view is crucial—these dynamics don't emerge in a vacuum.    

I would add another layer to this analysis: Management in nonprofits often consists of passionate and successful activists, educators, social workers, and scholars who were compelled to rise to leadership roles despite lacking the resources to build their capability to steward organizations and their people. This is especially true for small and medium-sized organizations where resources are scarce. They're thrust into leadership not because they're trained managers or trustees, but because they care deeply and someone needs to do it.

This connects directly to something feminists have been exploring in Transformative Feminist Leadership (TFL) discussions about the diamond framework of Value, Principle, Purpose, and Practice. Leadership here is not only about leaders of a group or organization, but also about our quality and capacity to lead our lives in alignment with our values and politics, and lead the transformation we want to see in people, communities, and society.    

‍
Too often, we treat values as abstract ideals rather than lived practices that require structure and accountability to thrive.    

The Asian Contexts.    

But here's where my experience diverges, and I'm curious if others in Asia see similar patterns.    

In my observation, we face different but equally complex challenges:    

• Boards that lack accountability mechanisms entirely
• "Collective accountability" that becomes diffused responsibility where no one truly owns outcomes or is held accountable
• Mission-driven professionals in leadership roles without leadership development resources and support
• Lack shared understanding of our values and how they translate into everyday practices
• Toxic clique culture and silencing behaviors that undermine psychological safety, preventing healthy and constructive dialogue about organizational challenges
• Legitimate staff grievances that escalate into organizational crises, not because they're weaponized, but because they're ignored, mishandled, or met with procedural injustice.

The result? Trust erodes, reputations suffer, and team morale collapses. But the root cause isn't always ideological. Sometimes it's simply poor governance systems failing to handle conflicts timely and constructively.    

The Uncomfortable Questions.    

Willow asks why we don't hold staff accountable for organizational culture the way we do leaders. It's an uncomfortable but necessary question. In many Asian nonprofit contexts, I wonder if we have the opposite problem. Deeply ingrained hierarchical, "face-saving" cultures where challenging upward is already difficult, making the "weaponization" of values less likely but the silencing of legitimate concerns and avoidance of open conversations more common.    

The comments on Willow's article suggest the issue around shared accountability resonates globally, even if the specific manifestations differ by contexts. What's clear is that we need more honest conversations about:    

• How accountability and values reinforce rather than contradict each other
• The difference between necessary challenge and destructive conflict
• Building governance systems that can handle disagreement and grievances constructively
• Creating learning cultures where both leaders, staff and members share responsibility for organizational health, focusing on learning rather than accusations

A deeper discussion is needed. How do we build organizations that honor their values through practice, not just proclamation? How do we create accountability without authoritarianism, boundaries without betraying our mission?    

What's your experience? Have you seen these dynamics play out in your organization or sector?    

‍