What Darwin can teach us about real estate board evolution

When Charles Darwin stepped onto the Galapagos, he didn’t just tally different birds. He studied variation and selection over time. 

Finches with thick beaks cracked seeds none of their cousins could touch; slim beaks reached nectar that others couldn’t access. The insight wasn’t that birds grew bigger or tried harder. It was that form and function changed together; a new trait for a new reality. 

That is evolution.

But if those birds were boards, Darwin’s experience would have been very different. He’d find lots of motion: new logos, fresh committees, tech programs, even mergers. That’s growth, getting bigger, and adaptation, tweaking to survive. But would he see evolution, a durable change in governance DNA that shifts who holds power, how decisions are made, and how accountability works? 

I’d argue he would not.

Further, did the finches know that they’d evolved? 

Probably not; they were busy surviving. 

It took an observer to contrast what came before with what existed now and say, “This is different.” Boards can be the same: inside the system, small moves feel like progress; outside, the species looks unchanged. That is to say: it isn’t for the species to determine that it has evolved.

Survival of the fittest… bylaws

It is worth saying out loud that growth and adaptation are not bad. They often keep systems responsive in the short term. But evolution is different. It creates traits that survive turnover at the board table and do not depend on personalities. Those traits pass to the next generation. That is the bar if we care about what is better for the profession.

Boards exist to serve the profession, not to perpetuate themselves. By that measure, evolution is the work.

The habitat has changed (and no, a new logo isn’t camouflage)

The landscape is already nudging boards toward new traits. In Canada, the proposed settlement in the Sunderland and McFall class actions would have Re/Max adopt changes that include ending the practice of requiring its franchisees and their affiliated brokers and agents to join a defendant board or association or to follow the rules alleged to give rise to damages. 

The settlement requires court approval, but the signal is plain: assumptions about mandatory membership are no longer fixed. 

In the United States, the Phoenix Association of Realtors (PAR) offers a non-member MLS access path that uncouples platform access from traditional association membership. Following discussions with NAR in February of this year, PAR adjusted its program to comply with national bylaws while continuing non-member access to the Arizona Regional MLS (ARMLS), a practice NAR acknowledged has existed in Phoenix since the 1990s. ARMLS’ current rules also recognize both Realtor and non-member participants. 

The sky didn’t fall. It’s just another beak in a different habitat.

A different beak for a different feed

Darwin’s finches survived because their beaks evolved to fit their environment. Boards need the same kind of change. Four traits, carried forward across leadership cycles, would make boards measurably fitter and the profession stronger.

The first beak: member referendums

A trait matters only if it persists. Governance is the same. Structural decisions that bind the profession for years should not rest solely with a handful of directors. Binding member referendums make authority heritable. Mergers, long contracts, and bylaw rewrites that alter rights should go to the members with plain-language summaries of costs, benefits, and alternatives. In Ontario, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act already allows members to remove directors by ordinary resolution, which lowers the practical threshold of accountability. Building referendums into bylaws takes the next step and ensures power remains with the profession itself. Professional associations from credit unions to universities already use binding referendums for major structural questions. Realtors should expect no less

The upside here is ownership: members feel the system is theirs, not something done to them.

The second beak: sunset clauses

In nature, unhelpful traits fade. In boards, outdated contracts linger. Sunset clauses create selection pressure. Major policies and multi-year agreements should expire by default, five years at most, with shorter horizons for volatile technology. Renewal must be justified in daylight, with outcomes, costs, and alternatives on the table, and member consent where impact is significant. Sunset clauses aren’t radical; they exist in legislation, in corporate debt covenants, even in tech vendor licensing. Their purpose is simple: to force daylight reviews and prevent bad contracts from becoming permanent fixtures.

The upside is agility: boards stay nimble, avoid vendor lock-in, and keep only what still serves the profession.

The third beak: brokerage centrality

Finches didn’t evolve their beaks to beautify nests. They evolved them to reach food.

 Brokerages carry the regulatory burden and answer to provincial regulators for compliance and consumer protection. Boards do not. That reality suggests a different division of labour. Boards are strongest when they focus on the commons, advocacy, professional standards, and data integrity, while brokerages take the lead on training, tools, and culture. That’s not a cutback for boards; it’s alignment with where accountability already lives in regulation. When roles are clear, duplication fades and members see better value on both sides. 

The fourth beak: a share-capital lens

New traits must withstand pressure. For boards, that means scrutiny. 

Publish director attendance and voting records. Tie long-term contracts to measurable outcomes and report them in member-facing dashboards. Commission independent value audits and treat external critique as feedback for improvement. This is not demutualization or privatization (though I find myself drawn to the potential upside of these). Boards would remain not-for-profit. What I’m suggesting is importing the accountability norms share-capital corporations already live under: director attendance and voting records, contract performance tied to measurable outcomes, and independent audits. It’s not about changing the structure; it’s about raising the standard.

The upside is trust earned through proof rather than slogans.

Extinction events: board edition

How can members tell whether a board has evolved or merely adapted? 

Ask whether the change survives a leadership transition or vanishes when faces change. Ask whether power, accountability, and transparency moved toward members or retreated behind closed doors. Ask whether Realtors are tangibly stronger, faster, and more credible in their markets because of it. 

If the answers line up with durability, redistribution of power, and professional fitness, the beak has changed.

Duty over drift

Growth is impressive and adaptation is often necessary, but neither change what an organism is. Boards are not ends in themselves. They are stewards of a profession. The duty is to strengthen the environment in which Realtors thrive.

That duty is fulfilled when boards evolve. Member referendums embed consent. Sunset clauses stop dead weight from calcifying. Brokerage centrality aligns responsibility with accountability. A share-capital lens proves value in daylight.

The profession deserves boards that evolve as surely as Darwin’s finches did, reshaped to thrive in their environment and stronger for the generation that follows.