VIEWPOINT
Readers' Views
This issue we are giving readers the
opportunity to express their views.
If you have views about any of the
articles and content in The Canadian Association
e-zine, direct your correspondence to the Editor at admin@axi.ca.
Read on!
Wayne Amundson, Editor
Re: Governing With Competitors!
(March, 2003)
Dear Editor,
Everything you touched on in the article
on governance by a board which is in competition for the
same piece of the pie is certainly the way things are
supposed to be. But reality rules! In the
construction trades in Ontario, the competition is
not only between the members of the board (and the
members of the association), but with their non-union
competitors. In between the two are the various
unions with whom the trades bargain collective
agreements. These agreements can be amended by
various methods, including enabling clauses and
stabilization funds. These are the realities we have to
deal with on a daily basis. Much as we'd like to crack
the whip and say "you can't do that!" we
have to have some way of addressing the non-union
competition. The process of collective bargaining
in the construction trades is unique and offers a whole
other set of "standards" when provincial law
will not permit double-breasting. As usual,
construction is a unique case!
Name Withheld On Request
Re: Policy-based Governance: If It's
So Great, Why Isn't Everyone Using It? (March, 2003)
Dear Editor,
I was interested to see Carol
Humphries’ article about "policy-based
governance" in the March issue of 'The Canadian
Association' - an AXI publication of which I am a
serious fan!
After quoting John Carver describing
Policy Governance®, Carol says "Others of us just
refer to directing the organisation with policies and
general separation of what happens in the operations
part of the organization compared with what happens at
the board table". I am not sure what
Carol is saying here. Is she saying that
Policy Governance® can be explained this way, or is she
saying that this is a way of explaining alternatives to
Policy Governance®?
If she is saying that Policy Governance®
can be described this way, I disagree for all the
aspects of Policy Governance® 's design that make it an
effective tool for governance are missing from this
description. See my own description
below which attempts to cover the key aspects.
If, on the other hand, Carol is saying
that there are alternatives to Policy Governance® that
allow a board to direct with policies and separate what
happens in the operations part of the organization
compared with what happens at the board table, I want to
know more. In particular I want to know how those
alternatives enable boards to accomplish the following:
-
comprehensive coverage of all known
and unknown potential issues of board concern within
a manageable number of policy statements
-
clarity about what should and should
not come to the board table
-
policy compliance
Policy Governance® enables boards to
accomplish all these things and, although I look for
alternatives all the time, I haven't yet found anything
that matches it.
Yours truly,
Caroline Oliver
www.carolineoliver.com
Caroline Oliver is the Chair of the
International Policy Governance Association.
Author Carol Humphries responds:
Many of the organizations that purport to govern
according to the "Carver model" differ in
significant ways from the Policy Governance® model as it
was developed by John Carver. I feel that there is value
in differentiating between those who are true to the
model and those who are not. The use of the term
policy-based governance was intended to encompass not
only those who have adopted the Policy Governance® model
in its pure form but also those who have not, but do use
policies to directing the organisation and who subscribe
to a general separation of what happens in the
operations part of the organization compared with what
happens at the board table. I assume that as Chair
of the IPGA, Ms. Oliver will agree that the latter group
should not be referred to as adopting Policy Governance®
when, in fact, they have only adopted aspects of the
model. Hence, my use of the term policy-based
governance.
Re: Policy-based Governance: If It's
So Great, Why Isn't Everyone Using It? (March, 2003)
Dear Editor,
I think there is one overriding reason
why boards don't embrace policy governance. There is a
great difficulty in explaining policy governance in
simple terms to boards so that they can buy in.
Carver's description of policy
governance sells the sizzle, when boards are interested
in the steak.
Also, it has been my experience that
policy governance seems to be presented as an all or
nothing situation. That is, for it to work, it must be
wholly embraced. If it were presented as a goal with
transitional steps, I believe there would be greater
acceptance.
H. James
Duncan, CAE
Executive
Director
Canadian
Chiropractic Association
Toronto ON
Re:
Policy-based Governance: If It's So Great, Why Isn't
Everyone Using It? (March, 2003)
Dear
Editor,
I
just
read your article on Governance and certainly agree with
you on why more associations aren't doing it. I would
add one more reason - The incumbent CEO doesn't support
or encourage the use of governance and the reality in a
lot of organizations is that the CEO has a lot of
influence on how boards work. One of the reasons that
CEO's aren't encouraging their boards I believe is the
issue of accountability and it's here my skeptic nature
shows. If we don't have to make any decisions we can't
be held accountable and can always point our finger back
at the board when questioned about a decision. For
example I have known CEO's who would tell you
"always keep a committee between yourself and the
board". In other words bring your recommendations
for change to a committee, let the committee take
ownership and present it to the board and so who is
accountable.
Our
board adopted the Governance Policy approach 9 years ago
and there is a stronger sense of accountability than
before. I would not want to work for a board who has not
adopted the governance policy.
Jim
Lott
Executive
Director
Community Living Owen Sound & District
Owen Sound ON
Sidebar: Policy
Governance in a Tiny Nutshell - Caroline Oliver
Policy Governance® is a system that any
board can use for owner-accountable governance while
allowing the fullest possible delegation to others.
Policy Governance captures board expertise in specially
formatted and succinct controls covering all possible
owner concerns.
Boards using Policy Governance:
1) Always make
big decisions before smaller ones.
2) Separate ends
(desired organizational results and their relative worth
for owners) from means (all other matters).
3) Separate
essential board means from means that can be delegated.
4) Clearly
delegate authority for all non-board action through one
or more persons.
5) Create Ends
policies which instruct delegate(s) about what to
achieve, for whom with what relative worth.
6) Create
Executive Limitations policies which prohibit delegate(s)
from using unacceptable means.
7) Give
delegate(s) the power to take actions and make decisions
within any reasonable interpretation of board policies.
8) Establish a
rigorous reporting schedule.
9) Continually
evaluate performance (their own and others’) against
board policies.
10) Never, never consider any issue
without first examining what they have already said in
policy!
Policy Governance® is a registered
service mark of John Carver. Used with permission.
|
