Governance Is Not A Magic Elixir
While it always makes sense for an organization to improve and upgrade its efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance, and there are often times when making changes or addressing governance needs may go a long way in that direction, too many organizations today appear to be changing their governance in hopes of turning around certain issues or challenges that they face.
It is essential to understand that while governance may address certain issues, it may not address many other challenges and obstacles facing a group.
Governance is merely one of several factors that impact an organization's ability to enhance its sustainability.
Far too many groups have been convinced to buy into the concept of some specific type of governance as the one that they need! While there is often merit to the suggestions, far too often, these changes are often adopted without a full examination of the heritage and realities of that group.
It is extremely rare that any organization fits into the one - size - fits - all governance philosophy.
For several years, one of the most popular and comprehensive governance models was the one created by George Carver, and often informally referred to as Carver Governance.
In fact, this type of governance is the only one that may use the expression, policy governance, in its description or explanation.
While many organizations have successfully implemented this governance model, others have faced obstacles towards successful implementation, not because of any fault of the model, but rather because it assumes and requires certain commitments and actions on the part of the leadership, etc.
, of that organization.
1.
This governance model places strategic planning, goals and direction, at the hands of the Board, and leaves implementation in the hands of one individual (an Executive Director, Association Director, etc.
).
Therefore, the initial need is that the Board is both capable and knowledgeable.
Since far too few organizations properly train either their volunteer leadership or paid staff, it is entirely possible that the Board members may not be capable of this needed type of planning.
2.
The Board must be motivated, visionary and willing to work.
How many Boards have you noticed, especially in the small to medium sized non - profit segment, that possess these traits? The reality is often that the members are involved in their full - time endeavors, and while often meaning well, often do not fully follow through, nor are they cognizant of the needs of the group.
3.
The Executive Director must be both capable and honest.
The issue and challenge here is that the selection process is often a non - exact science, and that individual may or may not turn out to be the best suited person for these duties.
There is also the issue of expense and size of staff, and whether the organization has the resources to properly fulfill the staffing needs required.
Who has trained this Director, and how can one be assured that he or she is capable, ready and prepared? In addition, since so much autonomy is placed on this one person, what contingency planning has been put into place? Proponents of the model often answer that the reporting requirements and requirement to fulfill the ends is the safety net, but that is only true when the staff can pick up the slack, and when the Board fully does its due diligence.
If the Director turns out to be dishonest, obviously the challenges are exacerbated! 4.
The Board must be able and willing to terminate an Executive Director if the ends are not met, while complying with all proper and legal human resource methods, etc.
Because Board members often befriend staff, this often becomes a sticky, and challenging scenario.
Pete Ashby stated, "Too many Boards spend far too long being updated by their CEO and Executive team on what they have been doing since the last Board meeting, and then being asked to approve proposals that have been 'pre - cooked' by the Executive team.
" While excellent governance programs have built - in controls, they don't truly help unless the organization is prepared and ready to use them.
The reality is that no matter which governance model, and no matter how excellent it may be, and how successfully it may have been implemented by other organizations, the eventual success of the model depends on the organization and its leadership.
It is essential to understand that while governance may address certain issues, it may not address many other challenges and obstacles facing a group.
Governance is merely one of several factors that impact an organization's ability to enhance its sustainability.
Far too many groups have been convinced to buy into the concept of some specific type of governance as the one that they need! While there is often merit to the suggestions, far too often, these changes are often adopted without a full examination of the heritage and realities of that group.
It is extremely rare that any organization fits into the one - size - fits - all governance philosophy.
For several years, one of the most popular and comprehensive governance models was the one created by George Carver, and often informally referred to as Carver Governance.
In fact, this type of governance is the only one that may use the expression, policy governance, in its description or explanation.
While many organizations have successfully implemented this governance model, others have faced obstacles towards successful implementation, not because of any fault of the model, but rather because it assumes and requires certain commitments and actions on the part of the leadership, etc.
, of that organization.
1.
This governance model places strategic planning, goals and direction, at the hands of the Board, and leaves implementation in the hands of one individual (an Executive Director, Association Director, etc.
).
Therefore, the initial need is that the Board is both capable and knowledgeable.
Since far too few organizations properly train either their volunteer leadership or paid staff, it is entirely possible that the Board members may not be capable of this needed type of planning.
2.
The Board must be motivated, visionary and willing to work.
How many Boards have you noticed, especially in the small to medium sized non - profit segment, that possess these traits? The reality is often that the members are involved in their full - time endeavors, and while often meaning well, often do not fully follow through, nor are they cognizant of the needs of the group.
3.
The Executive Director must be both capable and honest.
The issue and challenge here is that the selection process is often a non - exact science, and that individual may or may not turn out to be the best suited person for these duties.
There is also the issue of expense and size of staff, and whether the organization has the resources to properly fulfill the staffing needs required.
Who has trained this Director, and how can one be assured that he or she is capable, ready and prepared? In addition, since so much autonomy is placed on this one person, what contingency planning has been put into place? Proponents of the model often answer that the reporting requirements and requirement to fulfill the ends is the safety net, but that is only true when the staff can pick up the slack, and when the Board fully does its due diligence.
If the Director turns out to be dishonest, obviously the challenges are exacerbated! 4.
The Board must be able and willing to terminate an Executive Director if the ends are not met, while complying with all proper and legal human resource methods, etc.
Because Board members often befriend staff, this often becomes a sticky, and challenging scenario.
Pete Ashby stated, "Too many Boards spend far too long being updated by their CEO and Executive team on what they have been doing since the last Board meeting, and then being asked to approve proposals that have been 'pre - cooked' by the Executive team.
" While excellent governance programs have built - in controls, they don't truly help unless the organization is prepared and ready to use them.
The reality is that no matter which governance model, and no matter how excellent it may be, and how successfully it may have been implemented by other organizations, the eventual success of the model depends on the organization and its leadership.
