We have learned many lessons in that time, making and correcting mistakes, taking the time to reflect, and to revisit, relearn, and recommit to foundational principles. Here are eight lessons that we have found helpful in exercising our governance responsibilities for long-term success:
| 1. Be wary of assumptions. 2. Change our mindset. 3. It’s all or nothing. 4. Don’t forget board capacity. | 5. Trust the process. 6. Allow enough time. 7. Put in the work. 8. Grow institutional memory |
The first three lessons are:
1. Be wary of assumptions
Our board has learned this lesson many times in many ways. It is really a collection of lessons about the need to be wary of first impressions that can lead to erroneous assumptions. Examples include assumptions about innovative ideas and the enthusiasm they generate, old board policies superseded by new policies, the need for new board member commitment, and the desire for consensus.
a. Assumption: Innovation is always good
Over the years, various new ideas have bounced into view and captured our imagination. E.g. strategic plans that energized community member and staff stakeholders; school schedule redesign that we tried for a decade before we realized there were no lasting impacts; technology and online learning in recent decades. For us, the ‘new thing’ in 2003 was policy governance, with its clarification of roles and rigorous monitoring for accountability.
But investing in one initiative after another can be counter-productive if we always go for the next ‘new thing.’ Organizations need the time to learn and implement new practices. If they keep changing, people tend to quit, go crazy or just ignore the changes. This problem has been labelled “policy churn” by education reformer Rick Hess. On the other hand, sticking with a well-grounded change can have long-term benefits.
Any ‘new thing’ tends to follow a cycle as it plays out. We learned about policy governance in 2001, then underwent training in 2002 and adopted the model in 2003. We were so excited about this new thing that we wanted to share it with others right away, with articles and presentations at both state and national conferences.
But our declaration of success was premature. We had not yet verified its benefits. With a weak commitment in time or effort, it would be easy to declare success, move on to the next new idea and never gain any long-term benefits.
b. Assumption: Enthusiasm lasts
I used to think that enthusiasm is good because it excites and gives us a surge in energy. But following that surge, like a sugar high, we can expect a let-down. When enthusiasm wanes, we relax, go through the motions, and let complacency kick in.
Now I think that to overcome this we must periodically return to first principles, renewing our commitment to the meaningful work we originally set out to do. Renewal and recommitment are necessary to keep this model working the way it should.
My friend Bob Hughes, with nearly 40 years of board service, has seen this infatuation with “new things” and the enthusiasm they inspire many times. Living in the Puget Sound region, he refers to them as whale sightings. You get excited when a whale breaches, but long periods of still water make you forget about the last whale, and you attention turns elsewhere. Then a new whale surfaces, and you get excited all over again.
c. Assumption: Ignore old policies
Carver advocates in Reinventing Your Board that we only operate with one active policy set. We learned early on to ignore our entire 300+ pages of traditional board policies and instead focus on 30+ pages of policy governance policies. As a result, we handed over that previous policy set to our CEO, with the expectation that she would keep, rewrite, or delete them as she determined most appropriate.
There were, however, some old policies that provided instructions for conducting board business. Just this year we took another look and realized we are still following those instructions, although we have never monitored them.
Now I think that we should selectively retain and include relevant productive procedures in our governance process policies, perhaps only monitoring some on a multi-year basis rather than annually. We are reviewing how to do this.
d. Assumption: New members need to commit
I used to think that the occasion of swearing in new board members was good for the new board member; it provided an opportunity to publicly commit to their responsibilities and service to our community of owners.
Now I think that all board members should periodically and collectively renew their commitment. We can do this by jointly taking the same oath of office every time we gain a new colleague. Renewing and refreshing our shared commitments strengthens the board.
e. Assumption: Consensus decision-making is best
I used to think of consensus as something necessary for the best decisions, because consensus avoids barging ahead if questions remain unanswered, ensures all voices are heard, and therefore protects against the “tyranny of the majority,” Listening to all voices can certainly uncover flaws in a board majority’s thinking, and avoid the dangers of groupthink.
Now I think that consensus has its downside. Board members whose behaviors are dysfunctional are empowered by consensus. We should never grant any of our members veto power over the will of the majority. That just replaces tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority.
Bottom line: if the desire for consensus leads to inaction or poor decision-making, be willing to use Robert’s Rules of Order: “Call the question,” take a vote, exercise majority voice, and move on.
2. Change our board mindset
I used to think that the policy governance difference was that we changed our approach to board work. It certainly did that. Now I think that before we can effectively use this new approach to the board’s job, we have to change our mindset about the nature and purpose of board work, the role of the executive, the purpose of monitoring, and many other things. Some ways that we do this:
a. Focus the Board’s work
Both effective schools literature and policy governance theory tell us there is often but not always a difference between what the board can control, and what matters. Here is a suggested “mindset” exercise:
Think of all the things the board can assert control over. In education they include what some have called the “Killer B’s” –business items such as buildings, buses, books, budget, and bonds. They are all certainly within the board’s authority. But how much do they ultimately matter in the long run?
Then think of all those things that matter to student learning, the bottom line for a school system. The sweet spot for a board is the board’s governing performance, which has been shown (in schools research) to impact desired results for students.
b. Look at how we spend our time
If we want to find out what someone values, we should examine how they spend their time. It is not only important what we do in meetings, but how we do it. Research recently conducted in Louisiana found certain board member behaviors that are readily observable in meetings correlate strongly with student performance on state tests. Policy governance not only establishes protocols for board meeting behavior but also helps identify the content of our meeting agendas. An audit of our meetings reveals that although we still attend to many operational (means) issues when required by law, most of those issues are handled expeditiously via the consent or required approvals agenda. We spend significant amounts of meeting time learning as a board, monitoring or self-monitoring, and reviewing/updating policy.
c. Change our thinking about strategic planning.
Traditional strategic planning focuses mostly on means. When we adopted policy governance, we had to rethink our idea of strategic planning. We had developed a very good long-range plan, with a stable mission statement, clear long-term goals for student learning, and values to which we were committed.
But strategic planning fell short when it went on to supplement the long-range plan with operational strategies and action plans to guide mid-term and short-term operational decision-making. Inevitably the strategic planning team’s work failed to provide useful operational guidance to the CEO for running the district. As soon as this part of the strategic plan was written, it tended to be out of date, overcome by events that were within the CEO’s scope to handle – so she managed as the situation required, not according to a pre-written plan. Our very detailed plan sat on the shelf. The two perspectives (strategic and operational) seemed disconnected. And rightly so, when we consider PG principles.
d. Focus on roles
With policy governance we address the strategic plan issues by breaking down traditional strategic planning into board-reserved and superintendent-delegated business. The board documents its model-consistent strategic goals/values/priorities in ends and means policies. It leaves operational decision-making to the CEO, who now is unencumbered by an action plan written by a stakeholder committee made up of “the usual suspects” of traditional strategic planning methodology. Now the CEO has the authority needed to manage operations and make timely decisions.
Through monitoring of ends and means policies the board retains overall control (from a policy perspective) over both strategic and operational work, but avoids perpetuating the false notion that it is making or approving operational plans about tasks (the means) needed to run the organization. It guides those decisions, not by action plans, but through values written in executive limits policy.
We now have a strategic planning document that, while published as a single document, is in fact a combined product of two authors, board and CEO: The Board directs the Ends and the CEO directs strategies – the means toward those Ends.
3. It’s all or nothing
Carver admonishes us not to adopt policy governance in piecemeal fashion. He correctly insists on adopting the model as a coherent system rather than picking and choosing what suits our fancy. There are numerous reasons for this.
a. Understanding may differ
I used to think that once policy governance principles were explained and its system of setting policies, monitoring for ends and means, and responding to monitoring had begun, everyone involved would understand the model in the same way. But then I observed board and CEO disagreement about their roles; I witnessed one CEO selectively introduce only policies guiding board member behavior, ignoring the rest of the model.
Now I think that each person ‘sees’ things from their own point of view, sometimes guided by self-interest, sometimes influenced by convenient ‘amnesia’ when it comes to remembering board intent or judging CEO interpretation and compliance. The degree to which participants deeply understand how the system works is a critical factor. PG is a coherent set of principles, but it is also complex and requires time and professional development for people to learn to use the system. I now more fully appreciate Carver’s caution about not implementing the model as a complete system.
b. Too little board control – need to impose limits on the executive
I used to think that board-CEO relationship policies drew a clear enough line between the board (decides on ends) and the CEO (decides on means). I reconsidered this when I learned of situations in which CEOs of newly PG-trained boards insisted that staff means decisions by definition belong to the CEO, without board involvement.
Now I think that the board involves itself in a model-consistent way when it defines roles and authority in its board-CEO relationship policies and fine-tunes guidance for each staff means area when it writes executive limits, then monitors those limits for compliance. Principle #6 (describing staff means policy) offers guidance, but board decisions written in each policy draw the line between board-retained and CEO-delegated authority.
c. Too much board control – need to self-impose board restraint
I used to think that executive limits settled questions about the line between what a board directs and what its CEO controls. Then I encountered a board that monitored staff means so relentlessly and in such detail that it undermined the CEO’s freedom to interpret policy. This board obsessed, not about ends, but about the means. It ignored its own policy describing how it would honor any reasonable CEO decision. It obsessed over the details in staff means monitoring reports, and constantly redrew the line. It in effect used monitoring as a way to micromanage, and consequently failed to monitor ends for several years.
Now I think that the line between board and CEO decision-making requires not only the careful writing of policies, but faithful, thorough and effective monitoring in alignment with its own policies and the principles in the PG framework.
NEXT: Lessons 4 (Don’t forget board capacity) and 5 (Trust the process)