[Foundation-l] governance
daniwo59 at aol.com
daniwo59 at aol.com
Tue Apr 10 21:23:45 UTC 2007
Florence,
I do not understand the entirety of your essay. It is rambling and in many
places disjointed. I also think it fails to distinguish between key terms which
shoudl be distinguished, like CEO and ED, or Board of Trustees and Board of
Executives. These are used interchangably, but there are real differences
between them, and only when these differences are fully understood, can the
Board decide what it is (Board of Trustees or Board of Executives) and what it
is looking for (a CEO or an ED).
I also think that there is a significant level of distrust, which permeates
the action points of this proposal. The List of "What ifs ... " immediately
jumps to mind. If the right decision is made in appointing a CEO/ED, this is
moot. As for the solutions: 1. To tell him (her) the whole story--it would be
incumbent on a new CEO/ED to learn this from all parties, not just from the
Board. Someone who has to be told the whole story is not appropriate; nor is it
appropriate for the Board to keeps facts from such a person. 2. "To set up
limits to give him freedom, without letting him wild in the open" -- I have no
idea what this statement means (do you limit the freedom of the ED? To what
degree? How would that be different from the current micromanaging?)
As for the problems with this model, you are suggesting exactly what Carver
cautions against--partial implementation. "Many board members and executive
directors or CEOs interviewed in the research that informed the development of
this web site said they found the policy governance model to be too rigid.
Others indicated that they tried to adopt it but had to modify it to make it
work — and when this model is modified to any degree it is no longer the Carver
model. (_http://www.iog.ca/boardgovernance/html/mod_ove_pol_mor_cri.html_
(http://www.iog.ca/boardgovernance/html/mod_ove_pol_mor_cri.html) ) The text
goes on to say "Carver insists that the model works best when adopted in its
entirety and that its failure can only be attributed to incomplete or improper
implementation." (Ibid.). IN contrast, you write, " am willing to try to
implement something in relation to that governance policy model, even if it does
not fit exactly the model; at least we would have tried." This is precisely
what Carver would claim leads to potential dysfunction.
Nor does this model allow for a genuine "leader" figure to emerge, yet Jimmy
is one such leader figure, and it stands to reason that others will emerge
over time. Finally it requires excellence of all Board members, which may be
unattainable in a rotating (i.e., elected) Board, where the criteria for
inclusion may not be fully understood by the electors or even the candidates
themselves.
Finally, I do not understand the role of an interim CEO/ED. Been there, done
that. Is that step really necessary under the circumstances? How will this
model address what you call the dissatisfaction of the staff, especially when
there is no CEO/ED in place to move it forward? How do you perceive it as
reinstilling trust in the Board.
All in all, I think that this proposal is a huge step forward. On the other
hand, I can't help wonder if this is just a panacea intended to resolve a
festering problem, much like claiming that hiring a CEO/ED is the solution to
all of the Foundation's problems.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list