Hi Stephen,
If that isn't the case and staff are trying to communicate with the Board directly a lot, it is smoke pointing to a burning fire somewhere.
I seem to be missing something. Did I say anything contrary to that?
Hi Marc,
Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the behest of the
board or not?
Under most circumstances, I would consider turnover to be a subject of concern primarily for HR (Boryana) and the ED (Lila). If there's an undesirable increase in turnover (remember that some churn is normal, especially in the first several months to a year of new management), I would expect HR and the ED to be aware of it and to take steps to address it. I would anticipate the Board being aware of this situation, but ordinarily I wouldn't consider it to be a governance issue on the same level as the removal of a board member, the transparency of board deliberations, or the possible improper withholding of financial documents from a board member. All of the latter three are items which I think could reasonably be included in the scope of an external review.
That said, I've emailed Boryana to ask her for some statistics about turnover and about whether there will be another employee survey. If there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that dissatisfaction would be helpful to know. I hesitate to say that this is a Board-level issue unless there is evidence that shows dissatisfaction *and* links that dissatisfaction to the Board. Generally I would expect HR and ED to have turnover on their radar and to address it with little need for involvement from the Board. On the other hand, if the ED is part of the problem (I hope not), then I would expect the Board to address that. Generally I would treat the subject of turnover as a management issue rather than a Board-level governance issue, although I concede the possibility that evidence might emerge that does elevate turnover to a Board-level issue.
Pine