Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Emerging Thinking About Board Governance
ASO Emerging Thinking About Board Governance Pat Bradshaw, Schulich School of Business
2
Agenda 9:00 to 9:30 Arrivals, coffee and networking
ASO Agenda 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
3
Objectives 1. Networking, support and fun!
ASO Objectives 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
4
Responsibilities of the Board
ASO Responsibilities 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
5
ASO 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?
6
Chait, Ryan and Taylor Governance as Leadership - Three Modes Type 1
ASO Chait, Ryan and Taylor Governance as Leadership - Three Modes Type 1 Fiduciary Type 3 Strategic Type 2 Generative
7
Bradshaw’s Definitions
ASO Bradshaw’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
8
ASO What 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 After Case Study
9
Wood’s Life Cycle Model
ASO Wood’s Life Cycle Model Founding Period Super-Managing Phase Corporate Phase Ratifying Phase
10
ASO Carver 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
11
Typology of Power Relations
ASO Typology of Power Relations Rubber Stamp/CEO Dominated Fractionalized Chair Dominated Disorganized Alternative/ Power Sharing
12
A Contingency Perspective
ASO A Contingency Perspective Choice of an Ideal Governance Model depends on: Environment Decision Maker’s World View Structure/ Power Relations Strategy Technology Organizational Culture
13
Typology of Governance Configurations
ASO Typology of Governance Configurations Hybrid Stable Turbulent Simple Complex Policy Governance Configuration Entrepreneurial Governance Configuration Constituency or Federated Governance Configuration Emergent Cellular Governance Configuration
14
Policy Governance Configuration of Board Characteristics and Processes
ASO Policy 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
15
Entrepreneurial Board Configuration
ASO Entrepreneurial 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
16
Constituency Configuration
ASO Constituency 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
17
Emergent Cellular Configuration
ASO Emergent 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
18
Contingency Model/ “It All Depends”
ASO Contingency Model/ “It All Depends” Environment stable Power Relations centralized Values/Ideology traditional Strategy proactive Structure Hierarchical turbulent decentralized alternative emergent heterarchy
19
David Renz Reframing Governance
ASO David Renz Reframing Governance Seeing emergence of new governance models at new levels Systems perspective Focus on Community Needs Interorganizational alliances and networks of relationships
20
Results of a National Survey of Diversity on Canadian Nonprofit Boards
ASO Results of a National Survey of Diversity on Canadian Nonprofit Boards Patricia Bradshaw & Christopher Fredette
21
ASO Context 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.
22
Sample Median number of full time staff of 11
ASO Sample 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
23
Composition of the Boards
ASO Composition of the Boards Women hold almost 44% of seats on boards
24
Executive Director Ethnic Origin/ Visible Minority Status
ASO Executive Director Ethnic Origin/ Visible Minority Status
25
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.
26
ASO Inclusion
27
Approaches to Functional Inclusion
ASO Approaches to Functional Inclusion 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 composition Making 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 inclusive Using Board Committees as a training context for members of diverse communities so they are well prepared to join the board
28
ASO Social 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
29
ASO
30
Nested Governance: Preliminary Thoughts
Pat Bradshaw Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto
31
Latest Academic Thinking about Governance
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Latest 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
32
MS Society Board Discussion
June 2011 Nested Governance
33
Challenges - System Blindness
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 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
34
Complex Governance Structures
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Complex 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.”
35
Existing Thinking – No Normative Ideal Model!
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 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
36
Mapping Types of Multi – Organizations (Cornforth, 2010)
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Mapping Types of Multi – Organizations (Cornforth, 2010) Central Control Federation Unitary Corporation Corporation with Subsidiaries Confederation Non-Standardized Standardized Trade Association Umbrella Body Networks/Alliances “Franchise” Local Control
37
David Brown – Architecture
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 David Brown – Architecture Confederations Federations
38
Assessing Structures Flexibility and responsiveness to local needs
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Assessing 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)
39
Across Level Processes to Consider
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Across 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
40
Emerging Governance Research Facilitating – Directing - Disengaging
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Emerging 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
41
Nested Governance – Paradoxical?
MS Society Board Discussion June 2011 Nested Governance – Paradoxical?
Similar presentations
