It seems to me that the BHS is unusual, as charities go. If you think about what it says it does, the main thread of work could be described as defining a standard of practice, determining the curriculum and means of education/training, selling/delivering the education/training, controlling the qualifications and venues for delivery. Other “threads†of work include influencing / taking some level of action in welfare, safety, and access, and influencing local, regional, national, and international conditions & legislation. First observation, that’s a broad range. Second observation, since the work crosses the boundary from charity / unpaid volunteers to commercial / professionals, there are inherent conflicts of interest to be considered. Third observation, while the image is very strong, the BHS approach is not the "only way". Some would say it is still rooted and primarily shaped by the military / command and control paradigm.
The BHS is a hybrid membership/charity/professional organisation. Perhaps this is like the “chartered†institutions, e.g. Institute of Chartered Surveyors or Accountants - I am not sure. I have heard that the concept of “chartered†institutions has been under review, like the case of the law society.
As the new Board members get their feet under the table and a permanent new Chair is selected, I hope that the unique challenges of the nature of the BHS are considered fully and that the need for transparency, two-way communication, and involvement in decision making are accepted. Without that acceptance and actions, increasing focus on the “business†and the “brand†are likely to exacerbate members’ concerns that the charity is being used as an engine to drive the growth of the professionals.