6. Allow enough time
The board needs to allow time for coherent governance to achieve results.
a. Results take time
Once we launched our own governance model we felt like we had arrived. We didn’t yet understand the need for ongoing development of our model’s potential. Angela Duckworth, in her influential book “Grit” cautions that enthusiasm is commonplace, but what counts is what endures. This applies to coherent governance as well.
In retrospect, we now realize that our early state and national presentations on this innovation were premature. Our message would have been more effectively delivered if we had waited for the results of our efforts to appear. This is a common feature of such conference sessions. Presentations are more often a celebration of “launch” and a premature declaration of success than they are evidence-based reports with measurable results.
b. Take the long view
Optimists with a ‘can do’ attitude tend to believe that we can fix things quickly. Our board has gradually learned that this is not always true.
Although a ‘can do’ attitude is great, real solutions to complex problems take time, sometimes a lot of time, to yield measurable results. In education…
- It might take a classroom teacher 1-2 years for new teaching strategies to positively impact student learning.
- For principals it may take 2-3 years after taking charge.
- For superintendents, it may take 4-5 years for systemwide impact.
- And for boards, I now think it takes 5-10 years.
c. Short-lived innovations
Every time a board launches a new initiative, it should ask the question: Do we declare success (as our board did in 2005) immediately after initiating the change? When we lack an understanding of the governance time frame, we tend to do exactly that – then let ourselves become susceptible to the temptation to move on to the next new thing before seeing any evidence from the last one in terms of results achieved.
d. Go slow to go fast
I used to think that preparing to launch this model is a process we should get through quickly, as implied by the commonly used term ‘blitz.’ Our own preparation for launch was slow – it took us two years – but our slow pace assured the full engagement of all board members (not only those eager to make the switch but also those who are more slow to adopt big changes) and added to our collective commitment when we finally launched.
Now I think of the saying “GO SLOW TO GO FAST” – Having spent more time deliberating and debating our foundation of ownership values, we were strongly committed to making our system work. We appreciate the value of that commitment in enabling us to remain steadfast in ‘working’ the model through our entire first year.
e. Innovations that endure
After years of experience, we can say with justification that our model, with its steady, coherent mindset and approach, has achieved significant results, despite turnover in 4 out of the 5 board positions and changeover of our CEO. What has made our innovation endure is that we have stuck with what works: governing with a stable and long-term vision, clarity of roles, intentional delegation accompanied by rigorous and ongoing monitoring for accountability, allowing operational management to take place without interference, and resisting the urge to move on to the ‘next new thing.’
7. Put in the work
As a board we must do the necessary work that only a board can do. This includes the routines of the monitoring cycle.
a. Set it and forget it
I used to think that with such a systematic process, once we had our model in place, and began to trust that process, the system would practically run itself.
Not too many years ago, inventor and TV pitchman Ron Popeil sold his Showtime Rotisserie with the claim that you can just “Set it, and forget it!” Board work is one of many endeavours that cannot be effectively done by just setting it (our board routines) and forgetting it. The lesson here is that we must commit to the ongoing hard work of governing if we are to be effective. To quote a bit of Cold War wisdom, “Trust but verify!”
Yes, the coherent governance model is systematic (there is a process we must follow) but once we establish this model we must be conscientious about doing the work of the board. We cannot forget it.
b. Policy Monitoring Cycle
Lack of attention to monitoring has been a challenge at times. The board has done it regularly scheduled monitoring on its agendas, but has not always performed monitoring thoughtfully or thoroughly]
We have learned that board work requires an ongoing commitment to the hard work of governing. Monitoring includes the following cyclic process:
- Setting expectations – CG boards do this in written policy
- Doing the work (or letting staff do their work) – Empowering the staff to do its job
- Collecting data for comparison with expectations – Monitoring performance
- Comparing data with pre-written expectations – Making judgments about the comparison
- Requiring that the CEO take necessary action to bring the organization into compliance, and considering adjustments as needed in board policy language; then
- Repeating the cycle
c. A cycle of monitoring cycles
Our hard work became a continuing cycle of such accountability cycles, remaining alert for small improvements that can make a significant difference over time.
- Monitor one Results policy at a time
- Monitoring one significant means policy (or group of related policies) at a time)
- Continue this cycle for all Results and Means policies
d. Cookin’ lasts, kissin’ don’t
The laborious, often unglamorous work that policy governance requires reminds me of a plaque that my aunt used to display in her kitchen, which said “Cookin’ lasts, kissin’ don’t.” For coherent governance its value is in the cookin’ (laborious routines) rather than the kissin’ (exciting and/or entertaining public events.)
8. Grow institutional memory
Santayana warned us that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Developing and growing institutional memory helps us avoid mistakes of the past and capitalize on learning while pursuing a desired future for the board and the organization.
a. The Value of Institutional Memory
I used to think that boards get better and better the longer they practice their craft. But there is a problem when we consider institutional memory (the board’s collective accumulation of knowledge and skills) and the learning that comes with experience – mistakes made, corrective actions taken, finding out what works and what doesn’t work.
b. Memory Limitations
Some limitations on institutional memory with which boards struggle include:
- Turnover of members. When the sum total of a board’s memory depends on the personal memory of individual members, every time a new member joins the board the board’s knowledge and training is diminished.
- Time. Loss of memory is a natural human process, notably occurring with the passage of time.
- ‘Amnesia’. A process that gets in the way of learning that lasts is sometimes referred to as ‘amnesia’ when accuracy is affected by personal interest.
- Seniority. The board should not become over-dependent on its most senior members with regard to institutional memory.
c. Documentation and Transparency
Institutional memory goes beyond the sum total of individual board members’ memory, but it must be created and maintained. Documentation and transparency are complementary tools supporting institutional memory.
Because coherent governance boards have a self-imposed requirement to document in written policy all directions to staff, and because coherent governance boards document their monitoring decisions about progress toward results and compliance with means policy, they are more likely to grow and sustain institutional memory.
The natural processes of human memory are reinforced when the board documents lessons learned through experience, good and bad.
A commitment to transparency promotes equal access to such documented board memory by all board members, new and old.
The Journey Never Ends.
Our journey toward governance effectiveness never really ends. Rather than a fixed ending, we should recognize that the highest levels of effective governance might be achieved in some respects and for some finite time periods, in reality we cannot expect (as has been said by Charlotte Danielson, in her work on teaching responsibilities) to “live there.” As a logical consequence, the more realistic desired end state for boards is ongoing board development and continuous improvement in performance of the task of governing, and because of board performance, continuous improvement in the organization’s performance.
I used to think we could get there (a steady state of board excellence) with a lot of work. Now I think we will never get ‘there’ but are on a continuous journey toward board effectiveness that leads to organizational effectiveness.
BACK: To Part 2 (Lessons 4-5)
BACK: To Part 1 (Lessons 1-3)