How to balance competing demands from tenants and the regulator

The temptation is to lean too heavily in one direction. Focus only on tenant satisfaction and you risk missing compliance deadlines, breaching standards and facing enforcement action.

Focus only on the regulator and you risk reducing tenants to a data set, delivering reports which do not consider the impacts on their lives. Neither extreme is acceptable.

The challenge for boards, then, is not either/or but both/and. To hold the right balance, every board member should be equipped with probing questions that ensure the executive team is not simply firefighting, but leading.

Here are four questions every board should ask their chief executive today.

1. What does being ‘tenant-centred’ actually mean in our organisation?

It is no longer good enough to conduct satisfaction surveys. Boards need assurance that feedback loops are continuous and that insights flow directly into strategy.

A confident executive will be able to point to changes in service delivery that are the result of tenant voices being heard in a way that goes beyond box-ticking.

2. How do we measure the quality of tenant relationships versus our regulatory performance?

Most boards receive detailed regulatory dashboards, but limited insight into the quality of tenant interactions. What metrics capture whether tenants feel genuinely heard and valued? Do boards appreciate the distinction between passive satisfaction and active engagement?

We strive to second-guess what the regulator wants to see and miss the cues that tell us what residents actually experience.

3. When regulatory needs conflict with our tenants’ preferences, how do we resolve them?

This happens more often than we’d like to admit: fire safety works that disrupt communities, planned maintenance schedules that ignore tenant convenience, or engagement processes that feel like the actions of automatons.

Our staff should be provided with not only good systems, but also clear guidance on how to manage these tensions, instead of wishfully hoping they don’t arise. 

4. How do we ensure our focus on regulation reinforces our purpose and mission?

The strongest organisations integrate both agendas. Compliance on safety, governance and viability should not be viewed as an administrative burden, but as a way of guaranteeing dignity, security and trust for residents. The executives need to be aware, and occasionly be reminded, that processes are only part of the story; for residents, it’s outcomes that really matter.

So, should the board pay more attention to tenants or the regulator? The answer is: neither should be neglected.

The questions posed here go beyond the realms of basic governance to positive stewardship. They are the means by which the board and executive team can steer the organisation on a sustainable course, navigating the respective interests of both residents and regulators. Asking them in open session signals to the executive team that the board’s role is not just to monitor passively, but to engage actively in the leadership of the organisation.

In my work with boards, I have seen how powerful the questions can be. The very act of posing them can shift priorities, challenge assumptions and sharpen focus on both regulation and tenants’ priorities.

Boards that lead in this way will not only meet their compliance obligations; they will help to shape a housing sector that is resilient, tenant-centred and trusted.

David Levenson, founder, Coaching Futures