John Carver's book, Boards That Make A Difference, could easily be called "the PBG Bible." Originally published in 1997, BTMAD explains the PBG model in great detail. It's a valuable tool for any church trying to implement PBG and therefore, worthy of many conversations at PBG church!In chapter one, Carver diagnoses "What Goes Wrong" with many boards. See if any of these observations sound familiar. . .
"Time on the trivial. Items of trivial scope or import receive disproportionate attention compared with matters of greater scope or importance. . .
Short-term bias. The "time horizon" about which a board should make decisions is more distant at the governing level than anywhere else in the organization. Yet we find boards dealing mainly with the near term and, even more dysfunctionally, with the past. Last month's financial statement gets more attention than an agency's strategic position.
Reactive stance. Boards consistently find themselves reacting to staff initiatives rather than acting proactively. Proposals for staff action and recommendations for board action so often come from staff that some boards would cease to function if called upon to create their own agendas.
Reviewing, rehashing, redoing. Some boards spend most of their time going over what their staffs have already done. . .
Leaky accountability. . . Having established a CEO position, the board members continue to relate in their official capacity with other staff, either giving them directions or judging their performance.
Diffuse authority. It is rare to find a board-executive partnership wherein each party's authority has been clarified. A vast gray area exists. When a matter lies in this uncertain area, the safe executive response is to take it to the board. Instead of using this opportunity to clarify to whom the decision belongs, the board simply approves or disapproves. The event has been settled, but authority remains as unclear as it was before."
Does any of that sound like your church's board?
A lot of this sounds familar. One question though, the one about a reactive board - as a director of camp that reports to an 11 member board of director, I am not sure I want them to take the lead in proposals. Sure it would be nice, but they only meet in person three times a year. Would they be able spend meaningful time coming up proposals? Do I want to spend my time reacting to board proposals? Don't get me wrong, I value my boards input, but I get paid to do this, they are volunteers.
ReplyDeleteGood question, Chip! And one that many boards wrestle with.
ReplyDeleteHere's my follow-up question: has your board given you any big-picture direction as to what your specific proposals should be designed to achieve? In my church, we call these "desired outcomes." These are set by the board, not me. My job is to develop specific proposals (we call them "ministry plans") that are designed to achieve their desired outcomes.
I think that's what Carver has in mind here. The problem he's addressing is that many boards do not give any strategic direction to their executive leader. They simply respond to each proposal without any clarity about what they're trying to achieve as an organization.
Without clarity from the Board about outcomes, it's pretty hard to be very effective. I've also seen in my personal experience that board members don't find a lot of satisfaction in serving on a board like that.