|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The Policy Governance@ Model
<br />
<br />Page 2 of 16
<br />
<br />The Policy Governance model is, at the same time, the most well-known modern theory of
<br />governance worldwide and in many cases the least understood. It applies to governing boards of all
<br />types-nonprofit. governmental, and business-and in all settings, for it is assembled from universal
<br />principles of governance. In this article, we will focus exclusively on its use in nonprofit boards,
<br />though many descriptions of its application in business (for example, Carver, 2000a. 2000c) and
<br />government (for example, Carver. 1996a, 1997d, 2000b, 2001) are available elsewhere.
<br />
<br />Governing boards have been known in one form or another for centuries. Yet throughout those
<br />many years there has been a baffling failure to develop a coherent or universally applicable
<br />understanding of just what a board is for. While comparatively little thought has been given to
<br />developing governance theory and models, we have seen management of nonprofit organizations
<br />transform itself over and over again. Managers have moved through PERT, CPM, MBO, TOM, and
<br />many more approaches in a continual effort to improve effectiveness. Embarrassingly, however,
<br />boards do largely what they have always done.
<br />
<br />We do not intend to demean the intent, energy, and commitment of board members. There are
<br />today many large and well known organizations that exist only because a dedicated group of
<br />activists served as both board and staff when the organization was a "kitchen table" enterprise.
<br />Board members are usually intelligent and experienced persons as individuals..Yet boards. as
<br />Qroups. are mediocre. "Effective governance by a board of trustees is a relatively rare and unnatural
<br />act. . . . trustees are often little more than hi h owered well-intentioned people en a ed in low-
<br />level "diviti,,~" (Chait. Holland, and Taylor, 1996, p. 1). "There is one mg a oards have in
<br />common. . . . They do not function" (Drucker, 1974, p. 628). "Ninety-five percent (of boards) are not
<br />fully doing what they are legally, morally, and ethically supposed to do" (Geneen, 1984. p.28).
<br />"Boards have been largely irrelevant throughout most of the twentieth century" (Gillies, 1992. p. 3).
<br />Boards tend to be. in fact, incompetent groups of competent individual;;.
<br />
<br />An extraterrestrial observer of board behavior could be forgiven for concluding that boards exist for
<br />several Questionable reasons. They seem to exist to help the staff, to lend their prestige to
<br />, organizations, to rubber stamp management desires, to give board members an opportunity to be
<br />unappointed department heads, to be sure staffs get the funds they want, to micromanage
<br />organizations, to protect lower staff from management. and sometimes even to gain some
<br />advantage for board members as special customers of their organizations. or to give board
<br />members a prestigious addition to their resumes.
<br />
<br />But these observations-accurate though they frequently are-simply underscore the disclarity of
<br />the board's rightful job. Despite the confusion of past and current board practices. we begin in this
<br />article with the assertion that there is one central reason to have a board: Simply put_ the board
<br />exists (usually on someone else's behalf) to be accountable that its organization works. The board is
<br />where all authority resides until some is given away (delegated) to others. This simple total
<br />authority-total accountability (within the law or other external authorities) is true of all boards that
<br />truly have governing authority.
<br />
<br />The Policy Governance model begins with this assertion, then proceeds to develop other universally
<br />applicable principles. The model does not propose a particular structure. A board's composition.
<br />history, and peculiar circumstances will dictate different structural arrangements even when using
<br />the same principles. Polic Governance is a s stem of such rinci les, desiQned to be internallv
<br />consistent, externally applieab e, and-to the oreat relief of those mncerned with governance
<br />inteority~loaical. Logical and consistent principles demand major changes in governance as we
<br />know it. because these principles are applied to subject matter that has for many years been
<br />characterized by a hodgepodge of practices, whims of individuals, and capricious decision making.
<br />
<br />Such a change is a paradigm shift, not merely a set of incremental improvements to the status QUO.
<br />Paradigm shifts are difficult to cope with. since they often render previous experience unhelpful; they
<br />demand a significant level of discipline to be put into effect. But if there is sufficient discipline to use
<br />the Policy Governance model in its entirety. board leadership and the accountability of organizations
<br />ca n be tra nsform ed.
<br />
<br />It is important that we underscore this point Using parts of a system can result in inadequate or
<br />
<br />http://www.carvergovernanee.com/model.htm
<br />
<br />6112/2002
<br />
|