Archive for the ‘Ends’ Category

Policy Governance and Tone at the Top – When Nonprofits Fail

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Nonprofits are failing at a high rate (e.g., Flanagan, 2012; Nonprofit Trends, 2014). Despite strategic planning and fund development, supporting resources are not available to many nonprofit organizations. You and I may be familiar with the relentless begging of most nonprofits. Yet, if the organization’s mission is compelling and the business model is sound, why do nonprofits have problems attracting resources? If organizational leadership (i.e, the board of directors) cannot determine the underlying cause of business failure, then the problem may be the process of decision-making or making judgment. Are decisions based on intuition or reasoning? Can Policy Governance provide boundaries for rational or reasoned decision-making that underlie better business outcomes for nonprofits?

Yes, IF the board is committed to using their policies and following PG principles. John Carver provided a framework of governance that can help a board define its job and the job of management. PG is built on what are comfortable and known – organizational values. Organizational values are expressed in policy and policies are organized around the work that needs to be done. However, PG is far more than creating a new set of policies. The PG model goes beyond the boardroom and applies it to everyone in the organization that touches the population or consumers served. PG means that everyone in the organization has a commitment to achieving the desired future state or Ends. Everyone in the organization is aligned with organizational values and constantly seeking better ways of attaining the Ends. That alignment and commitment is what attracts resources to an organization.

In my 23-year career of either working for boards or counseling them, I’ve never seen Policy Governance® (PG) fail. Conversely, what fails is the board process. Board process refers to the culture of interactions in the boardroom. Policy Governance creates a framework for sound decision-making and robust assessment for making judgments. What it doesn’t do is dictate culture or how a board should interact. Think about it. Ground rules in any social interaction make a difference but they don’t work if people don’t commit to them or follow them. PG also takes practice, practice, practice. PG is powerful. But a board needs the skill that comes through practice to use it to its fullest effect.

PG works. But only if the board has the will to make it so.

See Flanagan (2012)
See also Nonprofit Trends (2014)
See Carver & Charney (2004) The Board Member’s Playbook

Corporate accountability – blah, blah, blah

Monday, May 13th, 2013

This morning, The Xylem Group had a very interesting teleconference. We discussed the debates and dialogs going on over corporate governance, the focus on profits, doing more with less, and accountability. Accountability to whom? That’s the big question.

Friday, The New York Times reported the average carbon dioxide reading surpassed 400 parts per million at Mauna Loa on Hawaii. Carbon dioxide is the heat-trapping gas that scientists believe is responsible for global climate change. The operative word is “average”. Readings have exceeded 400 PPM before, but now the readings of 400 PPM have reached an average daily level. Many countries (with the notable exceptions of the U.S. and China) have adopted a maximum target level of 450 PPM. At that point, we’re likely to experience some major changes that we humans may not be able to adapt to very well. If the scientists are right, without some major limiting efforts we will reach that level within 25 years.

Our children and our grandchildren will be living through the effects of global climate change. What will they see?

Rising temperatures mean significant climate change and implications for fundamentals like water and crop production. People can live without a lot of things, but not without food and water for very long. How will humans cope with long-term droughts in major crop-producing areas throughout the globe? The UN says that nearly 1 in 10 people don’t have clean water. Despite reduced birth rates in the developed nations, the population continues to grow. With over 7 billion people on the planet, the demand for fresh water continues to grow. Shortages of water mean shortfalls in crop production. In areas that are already suffering from dearth of water development projects and lack of food (where we already see major conflicts and human suffering connected with a winner-take-all mentality), how will the additional stress impact those people?

Rising sea levels will put billions of people in harm’s way. Where will they go?

How will all of this change global economics?

My colleague Robert Ballantyne has long been pointing to the unbridled power of our global corporations and lack of accountability. In a recent tweet, he said “Our systems of government, money, and corporations were developed when unlimited growth seemed possible. Those systems are obsolete.” Similarly, I have long lamented the “taking” mentality of financial institutions. John Bogle created my awareness of this issue. When you consider the amount of money that the financial sector takes out of our economy and never puts back (it is called asset management), what is the value of digital wealth? You can’t eat it and you certainly can’t drink it. With all of that power, the state that empowers creation of corporations requires some body of people (the board) to be accountable. What’s missing with many of our corporations is clarity about accountability, don’t you think? If (for example) a corporation board believes their only accountability is to the bottom line profits (shareholder ROI), what might be sacrificed in that pursuit? We see it happening all too frequently (JP Morgan Chase, Wal-Mart, Enron, garment industry and Bangaladesh).

Same is true for non-profits. In their non-ending quest for money (there is never enough), often the boards fail to recognize how resources could be better leveraged or possibilities for partnerships/collaborations. In other words, constantly focusing on the means does not ensure successful achievement of the Ends. In the larger scheme, how many more people could be served with better quality and at a reasonable cost to society (the commons) if boards took a holistic view of their existence/accountability?

Maybe a different dialog about accountability can start small with cities or municipalities, but it needs to start somewhere. Without incentive to change, nothing will change. A protest here, a shareholder reaction there, none of it is working.

Protests and government penalties? It’s like water off a duck’s butt.

I love the settlement the major banks made with our US government. The average homeowner who was wrongly or illegally evicted from their home will receive $300 on average. Oh, and by the way. The checks bounced. Great. Was that fair compensation for uprooting a family and forcing them to rely on relatives, friends, and the community to help?

As much as financial institutions want to blame the homeowners for poor financial judgment in taking out loans they couldn’t afford, it’s no wonder those same institutions believe it’s okay to shift the blame for their own lack of lending judgment to the rest of us. Oh, and yes, they made us responsible for the consequences, too. Notice how their fingers are pointing everywhere else? No accountability here! Dear banks: when you point at someone else, remember that three fingers are pointing back at you.

What is the board’s responsibility for a fair economic and environmental exchange? Is it fair for Wall Street to hoard billions and banking institutions to lend only to those who have demonstrated economic success? I’m not against people having money. I’m for the idea of creating institutional accountability for what is taken out of our resources (yours, mine, everyone’s). I’ll close with one of Robert’s tweets, “We, humans, have the power of change and transformation. We now need to create the organizational skills to be responsible stewards.”

Governance is a new word to many

Friday, January 29th, 2010

An acquaintance asked me yesterday what I do. “I work with board and executive leaders on a system of governance that helps them get rid of time-wasters and makes the most of the talent in the organization.” My acquaintance said that governance was a new term to her.

For those who are new to the concept, Tom Friedman offered an excellent quote in his New York Times Op-Ed column of January 5, 2010. The quote is “from Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical cultures, and the author of the book ‘How.’ ‘You have to enlist and inspire people in a set of values. People need to be governed both from the outside, through compliance with rules, and from the inside, inspired by shared values.’”

Sound like good governance to you?

So, what’s stopping you from practicing it? The problem I’ve encountered is that too often, bright and capable peoples’ skills and talents are wasted in board meetings discussing whether or not to purchase new office furniture or how many pieces of collateral were distributed at the last fundraiser. Discussions like these are about looking backward rather than creating a vision for the future. Discussions like these enervate, rather than inspire.

Are you tired of operating in a model of scarcity (not enough time, not enough money, not enough people…) and ready to move toward a model of abundance (stop focusing on the past, getting rid of the time-wasters and envisioning what you can achieve)?

Policy Governance® offers a system for governing boards to ensure that they are complying with outside rules and allows them to spend more time discussing what inspires the organization. Policy Governance gets the board beyond what is to what can be.

On board service

Sunday, June 22nd, 2008

Dear Association Executive:

Recently on the American Society of Association Executive’s (ASAE) Executive Section listserv, there have been many questions about how to get the board out of the minutiae in order to find time to work on strategic direction or Ends policy. The board’s focus on the day-to-day is not their fault (entirely.) Board members want to to a good job. But most have learned the traditional approach of board service — showing up at meetings, approving staff work and debating whether or not the office can afford a new copier.

When your board is busy with staff reports, committee reports and working on day-to-day operations, they don’t have the time to focus on strategy or governing. Board members come to your meetings with dozens of other competing priorities and thinking about their own business or family decisions. Once they get to your meeting, the agenda is full of operational (staff) reports or decisions. Is it any wonder board members default into operational mode?

Hildy Gottlieb at Help4Nonprofits.com says it’s like running a ship. You, dear Association Executive, are the captain. You manage the crew, read the charts, navigate and ensure the safety of crew, ship and cargo. You make sure the cargo is delivered. The board’s role is representing the owners of the ship. The board decides what kind of ship, what cargo it will haul, where that cargo will go, to what customers and at what cost. They monitor performance based on how well you deliver. Too often, the board thinks they’re supposed to be captains. When you have nothing but captains on a ship, you have anarchy! (Plus, you sacrifice some much needed crew.)

The board’s job isn’t to run the organization. That’s what they hired you (the captain) to do. The board actually has its own job and it’s not an “extension” of yours. Their job (and their added value) is to represent the owners of the organization (people who expect certain outcomes or results.) This can be the community at large or a specific, defined group of stakeholders such as a neighborhood or micro business owners. In other words, they represent a subset of the community and sit at the board table on behalf of those who are not there. They are representatives.

My point is that, most board members don’t know that their job is representing and governing on behalf of those they represent.

if board members don’t know what their constituents think, how can they represent them? How do stakeholders have a voice in where your organization is headed? How does the board know unless they ask? Their job is to provide that vital link to the owners or stakeholders or their constituency.

Most board members don’t have a clue that that’s what they’re supposed to do. And, that’s what makes your job more difficult.

John Carver (author of Boards that Make a Difference) describes a traditional nonprofit board of directors as a group of competent individuals who get together to do incompetent things. Nonprofit board members tend to think that a nonprofit is a different animal than a for-profit. This perception is to the detriment of the organization. A nonprofit is an artificial entity created for the purpose of some pursuit — a corporation. The law gives corporations a great deal of power. For-profit corporations recognize this.

For some reason, nonprofits seem to think they have little or no power. Nonprofits have as much power as the board believes they have.

A board\'s job is to add value to the organization -- not run it
You can unleash that power by helping your board see a vision of what they can become when they’re not busy swabbing the decks and running the crew. Good board members are hard to find and harder to keep. Let’s not drive them away with mind-numbing operational matters.

Very sincerely,

Sherry

Is It Time to Assess Your Environment?

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

Assessing Organizational Ends Starts with Questions – Not Answers

In his book “Good to Great”, Jim Collins offers this wisdom for CEO’s:

“Leading from good to great does not mean coming up with the answers and then motivating everyone to follow your messianic vision. It means having the humility to grasp the fact that you do not yet understand enough to have the answers and then to ask the questions that will lead to the best possible insights.”

This wisdom applies equally to a Board of Directors.

Boards need to be a disciplined as they expect their staff to be in gathering information. Good information gathering starts by crafting the right questions prior to conducting an environmental scan to assess whether your organization is meeting the needs of the community.

An environmental scan should insure that a board’s Ends consider the needs, concerns and demands within the community it serves. An organization should exist to create change. It should be the change itself that drive the Ends.

External Environmental Scans

The “value add” of a board as trustees of the owners is to be the link with the external environment and bring that information to the organization. This linkage needs to be regular and periodic. The information gathered will help a board assess whether or not its Ends are relevant and current.

Just as a for-profit corporation conducts an environmental scan to assist with the strategic planning process, a governing board should periodically conduct an environmental scan and ask questions for which it doesn’t already have the answers.

Open meetings, focus groups, surveys, and presentations from third party experts are all dynamic ways to gather information. In addition, a board could consider:

• Board-to-board meetings

• Researching community needs assessments and demographic data

• Breakfast or lunch meetings with groups in the community (one of my clients found this to be so successful that it launched a new entity of like-minded organizations who have similar funding needs)

• Open forums

• Town hall meetings

• One-on-one meetings with community leaders

• Board committees to gather intelligence