1. Paradoxes, watchdogs and sounding boards Mark Benton October 2017
NSLA board Friday
Paradoxes, watchdogs and sounding boards
Mark Benton
October 2017

2. Objectives for the session
Explore board governance approaches that add value to legal aid operations
Develop a common understanding of the governance tools available to the NSLA Commissioners that can and should be explored further
Identify next steps to explore those options
Rules?
More what you would call guidelines!

3. My takeaways from Thursday night are coming up…
And I am looking forward to hearing yours

4. passive
Deliberately engaged
intervening
Operating
certifying

5. The Ideal Board:
Brings deep wisdom and broad perspective to organizational strategy and critical issues
Is a sounding board and key advisor to the ED
Helps influence critical outside constituencies
Creates a solid front to the outside world during crises
Assists in managing succession
Safeguards and advances the organizational mandate
Holds management accountable
Is accountable to the public funders and stakeholders for the acts of the organization

6. Paradox
a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities
It was the best of times; it was the worst of times

7. Board paradoxes
Board is accountable but management is expert and has de facto control
Management controls board access to information but the board has to hold management accountable
Management is there everyday and the board meets periodically
Requiring staff to engage with the board distracts them from their daily business
Commissioners should be congenial team players but must avoid “group think”

8. 5 big things for boards Membership and selection
Board composition
Board leadership
Membership and selection
Commissioner performance
Leadership roles and structures
Information and processes
Culture and leader behaviour

9. Board composition Making sure the board has the right people
Define and map board competencies
Set priorities among them
Done jointly by the ED and the board
ED and board members recommend candidates
The responsibility of choosing candidates belongs to the board members responsible
PS they are likely to come from board member/ED networks

10. Being effective and being efficient at:
Information flow and getting the right stuff
Agendas (board process)-making the time for the right process
In camera meetings-no staff
Running meetings to get the maximum value from board member contributions
Addressing the inherent paradoxes in board governance to support the culture that adds the most value
Engaging in strategy

11. The board and strategy
Brings an outside perspective in a collaborative relationship with management
Offers input into management decision making on strategy
Reviews core strategic plans presented by management
Approves strategic plans when satisfied that risks and consequences are understood
Monitors progress on strategic plan execution

12. Good board members avoid:
Meddling and micromanagement
Engaging in power struggles at the board table or within the organization
Damaging the EDs reputation inside or outside the organization
Interfering with orderly executive succession
Favouritism in hiring and prejudice in firing the ED

13. Board values Independence and integrity Open Accountable
Action oriented
Mutual trust and respect

14. Independence and integrity
Spirit of inquiry
Constructive dissent
Discernment

15. Openness Candid sharing of opinions Broad participation
Respect for common sense and intuition

16. Accountability Shared leadership and responsibility Self-management
Peer management

17. Action orientation- no meandering discussions
Rules for resolving conflict
Development of collective intuition
Focus on priorities

18. Mutual Trust and Respect
Confidentiality inside the room
Solidarity outside the board room
Respect for expertise and diverse opinions
Active and respectful listening

19. Tools to shape board culture
Stimulate discussion by encouraging participation and soliciting dissenting views
Set a tone that eliminates the fear of asking a dumb question
Encourage persistence – commissioners should ask a second and third question if they are not satisfied with the first answer
Encourage dissent and avoid false consensus through constructive e contention
Build real consensus and ownership in the decision

20. more a gospel choir than a team?