Rigorous Debate

When a board sets out to begin its job of writing the organizations values and perspectives (policies) it must be willing to engage in rigorous debate. The people on the board must not be so polite that they hold back in articulating passionately the values that they think the organization must stand for. The more the board members feel their ownership in the organization the better. But even with a deep sense of personal ownership, individual board members can feel intimidated. Perhaps the other board members are close personal friends and they don't want to upset their relationship. The relational dynamic between board members is just an example of any number of reasons why a board member will not speak up, but if they don't, then they are not doing their job and should resign the board. The process of rigorous debate must be seen as normal and even vital to the organizations success in the long run. The power of the boards voice is that it is unified - the board speaks as one voice or not at all. If the lead executive and the staff do not have a clear mandate from the board, then their work will be hindered. The debate process is what brings the divergent views into a single powerful and united voice-- i.e., a clearly articulated policy.

A Strong Leader Still Required

When some hear about a governing concept concept such as: "the board speaks as one voice or not at all," they can start to think that the organization is being led by a committee from top to bottom. That is a real misconception. What allows a single leader, the CEO, the president, Senior Pastor, Executive Director, (or what ever title is given to the top executive) to have great decision making power is that the realm of his or her authority is clearly defined. The very highest decisions of the organization are made as a group by the governing board. These decisions are so important, so high level and affect the very nature of the organization, that they cannot be entrusted to just one person. For example, you would not delegate to one person the power to change the purpose of the organization. However, a vision of what the organization can be under the board defined overarching purpose and how we can get there are fully delegated to the leader. The leader then is free to assemble the staff and take whatever steps are required to bring the organization to the fulfillment of that vision. And it certainly takes a strong and gifted leader to make that vision a reality.

ENDS and MEANS

Policy Governance makes a big deal about separating ENDS and MEANS. While this at first seems to be a lot of effort by the board, even feeling sometimes like wasting time splitting hairs, in the long run it is critical to creating an empowered and creative organization. When the lead executive and his or her staff understand what decisions are theirs to make, it creates a great sense of empowerment. It creates within the staff an attitude of "go until I say stop" (a limitation), rather than an attitude of "stop until I say go." In the past, I've seen extremely talented individuals reduced to nothing more than glorified secretaries always waiting around for their next instruction from above. Many times, those instructions were augmented by long periods of silence which resulted in staff doing nothing, thus wasting huge potential. The main reason why they did nothing was because of fear of overstepping their boundaries. It was safer to do nothing than to do something that might not be in their realm to decide. Clarifying these boundaries is what a true governing board needs to spend their time doing. It may seem tedious, but it pays great dividends by releasing the great potential of the staff.

What's a Board to Do?

Being involved with many boards over the years, I've realised that one of the most important things that is often overlooked is the job of the board. Usually, they just jump right in and start doing something. The problem is that while board members have good intentions, they are often not doing the most important things. A governing board must be sure that they are spending their time doing what others in the organization cannot do. My experience has been that most non profit boards that I have been a part of in the past were more of an accountability group to the staff and/or a fund-raising group for the staff. While these are noble efforts, it is not the essence of what a board should do. A governing board should define the most important issues of both purpose and ethics. Purpose has to do with defining what the organization is for. Ethics has to do with keeping the organization out of any activities that would jeopardize the good name of the organization. When we break it down, these two functions are what a board must be focused on at all times. Where are we going, and are we getting there without losing our integrity.

Strengths Finders

OK, this is not about Policy Governance, but I finally took the Strength's Finder survey since everyone else around this office has got on this band wagon. The picture here is me holding up my results. I don't yet know the definition or application of these words that the survey spit back at me, but here is what it says I am. My top five characteristics are: Responsibility, Focus, Analytical, Discipline and Consistency. I hope this is all good and that it fits with what I do. If not, don't tell me because I am very happy with what I do.

Who are the Owners?

One of the things that makes governing a non profit entity like a Christian ministry more difficult than a for profit organization is that the ownership is much more illusive. In a for-profit venture, the owners are obvious, those who literally own some of the company, gernally through owning a certain number of shares of the company. The board devives their authority from these owners and the purpose of a profit company is always the same -- make money! In the non profit world, the owners are hard to identify because no one actually "owns" a non profit organization, it is a public trust, and for Christian organizations, Jesus owns them. However, there is still a moral ownership here on earth to which the board is accountable. Understanding the concept of a moral ownership is essential. The moral ownership is to whom the board is accountable and on who's behalf they govern. One of the steps in the process of Policy Governance is to identify this illusive moral ownership. As a board does this it is vital that they don't start thinking like a for-profit. For example, a board may identify its largest donor as a key owner, but this donor may not be a high level owner at all. Indeed owners invest, but money is only one form of investment. A group of high level owners may invest in other ways. As the owners are identified, then the board can more clearly ask the next question: "what do our owners say the organization is for?" That becomes the starting place for establishing the ENDS of the organization.

Why Policy Talk?

Actually, it is my colleagues (especially Joey Bonifacio from Manila) that really pushed me to start this blog. I must admit though, that I really am passionate about Policy Governance. Policy Governance is an invention by John Carver, hence some call Policy Governance simply the Carver Model. Our organization found out about the model a couple of years ago and have implemented it for our world-wide movement-- and I am so glad we did! I believe we have some of the best leaders you will find anywhere, but finding a system and process for them to govern a complex organization like ours has been challenging. Now we have a track to run on. Policy Governance gave us that track and now we are running like never before. This blog will talk about the model and allow others trying to understand it to comment and ask questions.