Whats going on at the APS?

Across three different professions; psychology, medicine, and social work, we have recently seen boardroom chaos. Infighting in member groups is hardly unheard of, but I have never seen it so public and so simultaneous.

In psychology, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) lost its President, Vice President, and a former President to simultaneous resignation today.
In medicine, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has seen mass board resignations, with its President-Elect in open conflict with the board.
In social work, the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) entered its board election season with legal proceedings against candidates and a public dispute about whether management had interfered in the democratic process.

Different professions, different triggers, but a strikingly similar pattern: leadership instability, contested authority, and members feeling either angry or simply disengaging.

What’s Driving the Instability?

Board are complex places, and one of the first rules of board club is that “you don’t speak about board club”. Even today, I will not tell you the decisions I last took on the APS board despite it being over 5 years ago. I wont tell you what i voted for, and who was against me and how we compromised, and I trust that the other directors wont either. This level of trust is essential to allow compromise, and understanding. But looking in from the outside as a member it can just look baffling

So without knowing any of the specifics of these three situations, there are at least 4 things potentially going on that may be driving this simultaneous health member crisis.

1. The Charity–Member Tension

These organisations are structured as charities, which ties them to legal obligations about public benefit. At the same time, they are funded primarily by members, who expect strong advocacy and value for money. When public-benefit priorities pull one way and member needs pull the other, it is often boards that fracture first. Board members instinctively want to advocate for members, while the legal and financial people often have a better understanding of the wider public obligations.

2. Generational Shifts

Older governance traditions prize stability, hierarchy, and careful process. Younger members tend to demand transparency, rapid responsiveness, and genuine voice. As our professions age, we are seeing a power transfer from the older “boomer” generation to the younger “Millenial” generation as gen X has largely stayed out of things. The friction between these two expectations may be showing up in boardrooms.

Once upon a time, professional disagreements stayed behind closed doors. Now, a single email or board decision can be circulating on LinkedIn or Facebook within hours. Transparency can be healthy, but it also hardens positions and turns procedural issues into public spectacle. But of course, its not just the speed, it’s the divisiveness. As each of us is pushed further into our algorithmic echo chambers where we believe that everyone agrees with us, finding common ground can feel harder.

4. Multiple Identities, One Organisation

Each peak body wears three hats at once:

Learned society (research, journals, conferences).
Industrial advocate (reimbursement, workloads, recognition).
Regulator by proxy, although in nearly all cases these functions have fallen by the wayside to be taken over by AHPRA.

5. Marketisation and Member Value

Colleges and associations once held monopoly control over professional development. Today, cheaper alternatives abound, and government reforms open the door to outside providers. Members naturally ask why they are paying high fees. The financial pressure translates into governance stress when members start leaving and the societies are asked to do more with less.

6. Constant reform

I don’t know what the issues are for physicians and social workes, but psychologists have been living with the seemingly endless spectre of Medicare and NDIS reviews for over a decade, and now new codes of conduct, new standards and new training pathways. Members are experiencing reform fatigue and on many cases wrongly attribute these reforms to their member society, because they used to be the regulator.

A Sector-Wide Strain

Taken together, these challenges suggest something deeper than bad luck. Professional bodies across the country are straining to meet the needs of their members. These members want voice, value, and transparency. Boards are tasked with stability, compliance, and fiduciary responsibility. Executives are caught between the two.

It is a recipe for resignations, stalemates, and at times very public rows.

The Way Forward

These organisations matter. They advocate for fair working conditions, and speak to government on behalf of their professions. When their governance falters, it is not just an internal embarrassment it risks eroding public trust in the professions themselves.

Normally when I write a piece like this, I like to end on a positive “if only we could all …” note. But in this one I genuinely dont know what the answer is, and the rightful secrecy of board processes makes it hard to be even speculate. But 3 major member societies having these dramas all at once id beyond the odds of chance.