aso emerging thinking about board governance pat bradshaw, schulich school of business
TRANSCRIPT
ASO
Emerging Thinking About Board Governance
Emerging Thinking About Board Governance
Pat Bradshaw, Schulich School of Business
AgendaAgenda
9:00 to 9:30 Arrivals, coffee and networking
9:30 to 9:45 Welcome, Agenda, Objectives and Ground Rules
9:45 to 10:30 Check-ins and Sharing of Current Leadership Hot Topics
10:30 to 11:00 Presentation by Pat Bradshaw on Governance
11:00 to 11:30 Small Group Discussions
11:30 to 11:45 Sharing of Key Insights
11:45 to 12:00 Wrap-up and Check-outs
ASO
ASO
ObjectivesObjectives
1. Networking, support and fun!
2. Overview of board models and emerging thinking about governance
3. Reflections about implications of the models for your board and for the sector
ASO
Responsibilities of the BoardResponsibilities of the Board• Mission Protection
• Strategic Planning and Stewardship
• Resource Development and Fund Raising
• Human Resources and Hiring and Evaluation of the ED/CEO
• Community Relations, Environmental Scanning and Outreach
• Accountability/ Fiduciary Responsibilities
• Self Assessment and Board Evaluation
• Ambassadorial and Legitimating
ASO
What is “Governance”?What is “Governance”?
• Governance is one of the most frequently used and least understood terms in use today
• We act on the assumption that it is important but are we confusing leadership, management and governance?
ASO
Chait, Ryan and TaylorChait, Ryan and Taylor• Governance as Leadership - Three Modes
Type 1
Fiduciary
Type 2 Generative
Type 3
Strategic
ASO
Bradshaw’s DefinitionsBradshaw’s Definitions
• Governance and Leadership are defined as follows and they are different “functions” that must be performed somewhere in the organization
– Leadership - Creating the compelling vision or story for the organization
– Management - Implementing the Vision
– Governance - “Loyal Opposition” and challenging the vision
• http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm?ci_id=6608&la_id=1
ASO
What Researchers KnowWhat Researchers Know
• Correlation between board and organizational effectiveness
• The governance function is important• Nonprofits go through predictable life cycles and
stages of governance• There is a power dynamics between board and staff• There is no normative best model• Search for new models and metaphors• Power of a contingency framework
ASO
Wood’s Life Cycle ModelWood’s Life Cycle Model
• Founding Period
• Super-Managing Phase
• Corporate Phase
• Ratifying Phase
ASO
Carver ModelCarver Model
• Role of the board is trustee not volunteer-helper or watchdog-controller
• Focus on the vision and not become short-term, reactive and swamped in details
• Set guidelines or policies and clearly differentiate roles of board and staff
• Set the ends and the means
ASO
Typology of Power RelationsTypology of Power Relations
• Rubber Stamp/CEO Dominated
• Fractionalized
• Chair Dominated
• Disorganized
• Alternative/ Power Sharing
ASO
A Contingency PerspectiveA Contingency Perspective
• Choice of an Ideal Governance Model depends on:– Environment– Decision Maker’s World View– Structure/ Power Relations– Strategy– Technology– Organizational Culture
ASO
Stable Turbulent
Simple
Complex
Policy Governance
Configuration
Entrepreneurial Governance
Configuration
Constituency or Federated
Governance Configuration
Emergent Cellular
Governance Configuration
Typology of Governance Configurations
ASO
Policy Governance Configuration of Board Characteristics and ProcessesPolicy Governance Configuration of Board Characteristics and Processes
• more formalization (e.g. clear agendas, policies well established)
• more formal committees (e.g. fixed structures with clear mandates)
• clarity of roles and responsibilities between board and staff• larger size• more homogeneity of board members• more bureaucratic and hierarchical• traditional/ mainstream ideology (e.g. taken for granted
assumptions about legitimacy of existing power relationships and little focused on change)
• proactive and long term strategic planning processes, board tends to approve rather than participate in creation of the plan, defender strategy
ASO
Entrepreneurial Board ConfigurationEntrepreneurial Board Configuration
• less formalization (e.g. fewer policies and less bureaucracy)
• less bureaucratic and more action oriented and “business like”
• fewer committees• smaller size• less clarity of roles and responsibilities (e.g. overlap
of board and staff roles)• more focus on efficiency and getting the work done• more centralized• more emergent strategic planning processes with
board and staff participation, more prospector approach to strategy
ASO
Constituency ConfigurationConstituency Configuration
• more formalization (e.g. clear agendas, policies well established)
• more formal committees (e.g. fixed structures with clear mandates)
• clarity of roles and responsibilities between board and staff• more diverse membership (e.g. elected representatives from
membership, constituency representation etc.)• larger size• more conflict about the mission and the need to represent
various constituents • more decentralization • proactive strategic planning processes
ASO
Emergent Cellular ConfigurationEmergent Cellular Configuration• less formalization e.g. informal board practices• fewer fixed committees and more fluid with task
forces and temporary committees• more diverse membership (attempt to be inclusive
of multiple stakeholders and constituents)• more alternative or non-mainstream ideologies (e.g.
feminist, anti-oppression and social justice)• smaller board size• more decentralized and less hierarchical• emergent strategic planning processes and board
staff and sometimes community impact into the process
ASO
Contingency Model/ “It All Depends”Contingency Model/ “It All Depends”
• Environment• stable----------------------• Power Relations• centralized---------------• Values/Ideology• traditional-----------------• Strategy• proactive------------------• Structure• Hierarchical--------------
• ------------turbulent
• ------------decentralized
• ------------alternative
• ------------emergent
• ------------heterarchy
ASO
David Renz Reframing GovernanceDavid Renz Reframing Governance
• Seeing emergence of new governance models at new levels
• Systems perspective• Focus on Community
Needs• Interorganizational
alliances and networks of relationships
ASO
Results of a National Survey of Diversity on Canadian Nonprofit
Boards
Results of a National Survey of Diversity on Canadian Nonprofit
Boards
Patricia Bradshaw &
Christopher Fredette
ASO
Context of the StudyContext of the Study• According to the 2001 census, 28% of the total population was born outside
of Canada, which is the highest level in 70 years (Badets, 2003).
• An aging population, declining birth rates and global competition for talent pose a threat to organizations looking to attract top talent to lead them to future success (Parris, Cowan & Huggett, 2006).
• The Conference Board of Canada predicts that members of visible minorities will comprise approximately 20 percent of the population and approximately 18 percent of the workforce by 2016 (Antunes et. al, 2006).
• Literature is largely normative and speculative with many creative suggestions for enhancing diversity and empirical work is largely fragmented and contested.
ASO
SampleSample
• National Survey of Canadian nonprofit organizations
• Membership of Imagine Canada with 30% response rate (n = 236)
• Respondent was ED/CEO or Board Chair• Large organizations (mean budget $981,426)• Average age 42 years• Median number of full time staff of 11 • Mostly located in Ontario• 26% in health and 25% in social welfare
ASO
Women hold almost 44% of seats on boards
Composition of the Boards
ASO
Executive Director Ethnic Origin/Visible Minority Status
ASO
Functional inclusion - goal-driven and purposeful strategies for increased inclusion of individuals identified as from diverse or traditionally marginalized communities.
Social inclusion – participation in the interpersonal dynamics and cultural fabric of the board based on meaningful relational connections and authentic engagement as whole-members of the board, avoiding marginalization and alienation.
ASO
Inclusion
ASO
Board Policies Addressing Inclusion
Creating board policies related to recruitment and retention based on differences such as race, ethnicity, physical ability, sexual orientation and/or gender for example
Printed board policies related to discrimination and anti-oppression
Practices to Enhance Inclusion
Including diversity considerations during board self-assessments
Incorporating issues of diversity in the board's work plans and in its strategic plans
Attempting to reflect the demographic characteristics of clients, community, or members in the board compositionMaking the Business Case for Diversity and communicating it to build support for diversity
Recruitment Practices to Attract Diversity
Advertising for board members in ethno-specific publications
Partnering with ethno-cultural organizations to make them aware of available positions and to help identify qualified candidates
Building links to services that search for or match you with qualified board members
Board Structure Creating a Diversity Committee tasked with making the board more inclusiveUsing Board Committees as a training context for members of diverse communities so they are well prepared to join the board
Approaches to Functional Inclusion
Social InclusionSocial Inclusion• mentorship and coaching, orientation practices and other group
building processes such as retreats and workshops
• holding meetings at times and in locations where everyone could attend (e.g. in locations with elevators in order to be accessible to those with physical disabilities, with signing for the deaf, or on days that accommodate religious holidays)
• food served accommodated dietary restrictions and cultural preferences of different members.
• sensitivity to use of humour and ensuring that conversations about sports teams and summer cottages not marginalizing or silencing people or exhibiting unconscious privilege
• strong and welcoming organizational culture was depicted as another way of increasing feelings of inclusion
ASO
ASO
Nested Governance: Preliminary ThoughtsNested Governance: Preliminary Thoughts
Pat Bradshaw
Schulich School of Business,
York University, Toronto
Latest Academic Thinking about GovernanceLatest Academic Thinking about Governance
• “Boards are Dead….Long Live Governance”
• Governance is a set of Functions that can be separated from the structure of the autonomous and independent board
• Latest research is on complex governance structures, such as federations and other nested configurations, but we are in early stages of that research
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Nested GovernanceNested Governance
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Challenges - System Blindness Challenges - System Blindness
– spatial blindness--where we see the part but not the whole
– temporal blindness--where we see the present but not the past
– relational blindness--where we miss the reoccurring patterns of relationship between groups
– process blindness--where we miss the common patterns of social behavior occurring within a group.
» From Barry Oshry
Complex Governance StructuresComplex Governance Structures
• Central organization with semi-autonomous local organizations that affiliate together
• History is important (formed by collaboration of autonomous local organizations or through the differentiation of a single, central organization)
• Combine the potential for flexibility and overall effectiveness – with tensions!“To the extent that organizations have decentralized and relatively autonomous decision centers, they can adapt to environmental changes quickly, in accordance with local needs and pressures. On the other hand with centralized organizations, once they do recognize environmental pressures require changes, the rate of change may be much faster.”
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Existing Thinking – No Normative Ideal Model!Existing Thinking – No Normative Ideal Model!• Denis Young and Associates
– Nested governance structures are complex, tension filled and challenging
– They fall into more than one structural configuration and there is a role for Strategic Choices regarding which form is selected given the external environment
– Contingency variables that are related to effectiveness include:
• Leadership• Organizational Identity• Structure• Strategy• History• Mission/Objectives
Mapping Types of Multi – Organizations (Cornforth, 2010)
Mapping Types of Multi – Organizations (Cornforth, 2010)
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Central Control
Local Control
StandardizedNon-Standardized
Federation
Confederation
Unitary CorporationCorporation with Subsidiaries
“Franchise”Trade AssociationUmbrella BodyNetworks/Alliances
David Brown – Architecture David Brown – Architecture
Federations Confederations
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Assessing StructuresAssessing Structures
• Flexibility and responsiveness to local needs
• Democratic decision making, inclusive and able to accommodate conflict amongst constituents
• Balanced participation from different regions• Overall Impact (Networking, Convening,
Information Sharing, Advocacy, Brokering, Service Provision)
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Across Level Processes to ConsiderAcross Level Processes to Consider• Clarification of the Mission (often embedded
duality with conflict or an integrating metaphor)• Processes to Share Governance via Clarifying
Roles & Responsibilities• Accountability• Brand Safeguarding• Mechanisms for Association and for Disassociation • Conflict Resolution• Communication processes (Board to Board and
Board to Staff and Staff to Staff)• Resource Sharing
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Emerging Governance Research Facilitating – Directing - DisengagingEmerging Governance Research Facilitating – Directing - Disengaging
• Staffing Considerations – staff who can transitions and translate the mission
• Orchestrating Communications – use of technology, meetings, and groups/boards
• Standard setting – unifying rules and procedures
• Unifying Rhetoric – common vision and limits to local discourses
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion
Nested Governance – Paradoxical?Nested Governance – Paradoxical?
June 2011MS Society Board Discussion