Many non-profits are structured intuitively, whether as a result of incremental growth and snowballed add-on structures, by modelling themselves according to a like-minded entity or, in some cases, driven by the preferences of individual managers and departments. As a result, their operational models, accountability chains or division of roles and responsibilities oscillate between various known organisational models. One such example was a sizeable (ca. 3,000-employee) INGO that, in some processes, was internally structured like a holding company, in others almost as a franchise, in several functions more divisionally, and in some areas very hierarchically. This led to a degree of decision making confusion, broken accountability chains and natural divergent trends, in which strongly empowered individuals and local units (country offices, specific departments) developed sub-organisational identities, including their own visual identity, all within an organisational culture that was (and still is) highly innovative, responsible and collegial. The central management of the organisation was highly respected but, in practice, mostly exercised its managerial role on selected issues, reactively and often in a top-down manner when tensions arose, which was perceived as inconsistent with the generally friendly and open organisational culture. As the organisation grew, the divergent tendencies became stronger than the converging ones, resting largely on the organisational brand, sense of purpose and respect for the top leadership. One of YTL’s founders who had worked in the NGO twenty years prior, when it was still a rather small entity, was asked to facilitate an internal organisational change process, seen as independent but also credible enough to work with some very strong personalities within the organisation. The facilitated internal dialogue resulted in several governance changes that strengthened central managerial capacity, clarified important roles and responsibilities and accountability chains, broadened engagement and consultations, and addressed key decision-making bottlenecks, while also reinforcing converging processes (including a degree of centralisation through shared-service approaches or new communication channels). Following thorough reflection, the organisation decided not to write up an all-compassing organisational strategy, as this would have felt like a tokenistic meta-process given the heterogeneity of parts of its work. Instead, it embarked on updating its visual identity to forge organisational unity.