Culture in an organization is comprised of shared values, goals, norms and processes. One overarching theme uncovered in studying organizational culture is that leadership creates and reinforces culture. A traditional organization operates in a hierarchical model with an authoritarian culture that seems to foster privacy or secrecy. An open culture is the foundation for creating a high performance organization. An open culture within an organization fosters transparency and accountability to its customers and the public. If management doesn’t have a culture of open communication, then that culture suffers.

One of the best practices of high performance organizations is for leadership to nurture a culture that allows for people to question openly and have honest dialogue. A leader’s beliefs and values create the direction and the boundaries that people need to perform well. In “Good to Great” (2001) Jim Collins asserts, “good-to-great companies built a consistent system with clear constraints, but they also gave people freedom and responsibility within the framework of that system.” This is Policy Governance in a nutshell.

When organizational leaders have an authoritarian culture where people are afraid to question decisions, diverse viewpoints cannot be heard. When people can raise objections when they think they need to, it paves the way to better decision-making. If an organization follows Policy Governance principles, it will find that Policy Governance creates a “safe” way to have meaningful dialogue around an issue (instead of a personality), and largely, reduces organizational barriers to having the dialogue in the first place.

Warren Bennis is a professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. Bennis cited by Koestenbaum, Keys, and Weirich says, “Exemplary leaders create a climate of candor throughout their organizations. They remove the organizational barriers — and the fear — that cause people to keep bad news from the boss. They understand that those closest to customers usually have the solutions but can do little unless a climate of candor allows problems to be discussed.”

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.

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

WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT GOVERNANCE?

We Need “New” Solutions

People seem to believe that the status quo still isn’t working because they are still looking for “new” solutions. I’ve been in the nonprofit world for over 17 years and the same problems keep coming up. The spectrum runs from “my board is micromanaging” to “my board members are disengaged.” CEOs continually tell me about the need for their boards to become future-focused as opposed to functionally operational boards. Why, after all these years, are CEO’s still seeking solutions these problems when a perfectly good one has been there all along? It’s called Policy Governance®.

Muddle is an Acceptable Way of Life

Most boards and CEO’s don’t have a good grasp of governance. Governance is not management although nonprofit boards have a tendency to think of themselves as “uber managers.” Among those who are aware of Policy Governance®, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about what Policy Governance is and is not.

(Download a concise description of Policy Governance — go to http://www.policygovernanceassociation.org/index.html and click on the #3 Quick Link.)

The term governance is used very broadly in the nonprofit world. CEO’s tend to become focused on tactics to manage board behavior – instead of seeking a system or process of governing. That’s why CEO’s are as frustrated with board politics, meddling, micromanagement* rubber stamping, etc. as ever. One CEO summed up this frustration by saying: “We’re kidding ourselves if we think we can set up a process [that is sustainable.] Living in chaos is normal.”

Reflections from a PG Perspective

As Policy Governance professionals it’s clear we have a lot of “undoing” to do. We need to overcome the perception that Policy Governance is a “cookie cutter” approach which causes it to be dismissed out of hand without any dialog on how it can lead to eliminating the chaos and creating an effective board of directors. In part, my fellow consultants and I think this is due to the perception that a model is a die-stamped, rigid structure.It’s unfortunate that the term governance is being used as a generic term to describe everything from organizational development to operations and web content management.

The term governance is used so generically, this is going to be a tough one for Policy Governance. It may be like trying to preserve a brand name like Kleenex and differentiate it from other tissues, but is worth some discussion. Give me your thoughts.

*(for a great article on micromanagement go to:http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Bd_MicroManage_Art.htm