January 28, 2008                                                                                                                            Vol. 4  No. 2

"I've got over 100 young men in this program, and I can't possibly keep tabs on what they all do when I'm not around.  So it's important to recognize that when it comes to the 'character' of these young men, we'd best be recruiting it...cause we sure aren't going to build it once they're on board.  They better be bringing it with them since they've had 18 or 19 years to get it right."

 

Not a bad approach if you are recruiting a management team to run the show themselves and/or second guess those who do.  But you should be recruiting a "governance" team that speaks with one voice and steers clear of operational matters.

5.   Understanding and acceptance of the distinction between governance and management

1.      The board tends to over-rely on particular members for particular issues. An individual board member is then almost compelled to get involved in operational issues or second guessing of the school administration because he/she possesses a special expertise.  This not only makes administrative staff overly subject to the advice/influence of individual board members (rather than the board as a whole) but also leads to cloudy accountability when a board member becomes directly involved in operational matters and decisions.  You can't hold the chef accountable for the meal if you've been "helping out" in the kitchen! 

2.      When a board decision is necessary on the matter at hand, and a particular board member has been involved beforehand, two possibilities emerge…both problematic.  That member surely has a strong opinion on the matter and must often choose between zealous support or second-guessing. This is also the reason we do not recommend board members sit on any school related "committee" (unless required by outside authority).  All board members should be expected and welcomed to participate equally at the decision-making level without any predisposition on the issue at hand.  Let committees recommend things to the board when appropriate, and let the board make decisions without having any prior conflict-of-involvement.

3.      Also, when board members sit on any “mixed member” committee it creates an immediate imbalance of influence.  Board members are board members, first and always.  Other committee members will often over-defer to the board member (after all, the member will be “voting” on things later) and/or feel less ownership in the process and the recommendation.  The board member also may end up in conflict if the committee recommends something the board member doesn’t support (after all, the member will be voting).

 

4.      Another unfortunate result of recruiting for "expertise" is that board members may begin to feel compartmentalized.  In other words, a particular member feels they are on the board for a particular set of issues and feel less qualified or comfortable on other issues.  The other side of that coin is that all other board members feel they must always defer to the member with a special expertise, thus feeling less involved and accountable for any necessary decisions.  This scenario therefore tends to promote decision making that is not equally "owned" by all board members, and that is contrary to the best interest of a true governing body and the absolute need for all members to support the decision.

 

This is not at all to say that individual expertise is unwelcome.  It can be quite valuable when kept in proper perspective. It can then contribute to better decision making by the board as a whole rather than  to creation of a disjointed, super-management squad that defers to individual members and thus provides direction and/or interference to management  from as many potential sources as there are board members.  No one can well serve so many bosses, especially when they are dabbling in management rather than leading through good governance.  So we suggest a board seek members who seem to best meet the 4 criteria listed above and then take full cooperative advantage of whatever expertise comes with such individuals.

 

We must also recognize there sometimes is need for a “committee of the board” to engage in what we can call pre-board work…helping to allow the full board make a more informed decision.  In those instances we simply recommend the committee be comprised exclusively of board members.  That committee, in turn, may seek advice/expertise from other sources at it proceeds. If a board member happens to have expertise on the topic, they may well be the perfect choice to chair the committee.

 

In all of this, we suggest the board steer clear of seeking separate advice (e.g. advisory committees) on administrative matters.  Instead, boards should allow their school administration to exercise decision-making authority on such matters (whenever possible).  When appropriate, the school administration should then seek advice from other internal and external sources prior to making its own decisions.  The role for the board might be to ensure the school administration demonstrates that it does just that.  The board should let the managers manage, but then hold them accountable for results! 

 

When a board itself truly has need for special expertise, the school administration should be expected to ensure such expertise is made available to the board from an appropriate source.  That source might well be a community member or parent who has knowledge to share with the board in an advisory capacity, and this is also a great way to make good use of your community resources.

 

On a final note, how does a board do its best to find and select good candidates for potential appointment?  Rather than the usual approach of just having candidates attend a board meeting, introduce themselves and answer a few harmless questions, we suggest the board president and perhaps another member meet with the candidate(s) well beforehand.  That informal session should be used to determine (to the extent possible) if the candidate seems to be a good fit for the board based on the 5 criteria.  Of course there is no magic or scientific way to figure that out, but a healthy discussion with the prospective member can go a long way. What we're suggesting is that the discussion can directly and indirectly address the basic expectations of the board (the 5 criteria), with special emphasis on the  board's "governance" role and the need to let management managers while holding them accountable. It does little good to get into the details of organizational meetings, budget formats etc. and find out later the candidate did not accept ownership of the board's basic philosophy, especially when they were never told what it was!