CCP 06-24-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . The Policy Governance@ Model Page 6 of 16 expectations have been met. monitoring that is fair and incisive can only occur after clearly stated and clearly assigned board expectations. Using the Ends/Means Distinction The point was made earlier in this paper that the board is accountable that the organization works. Clearly, the word "works" must be defined; defining it establishes the board's expectations for the organizations, the performance that will constitute success. The board need not control everything. but it must control the definition of success. It is possible to control too much, just as it is possible to control too little. It is possible to think you are in control when you are not. The zeal of a conscientious board can lead to micromanagement. The confidence of a trusting board can lead to rubber stamping. Defining success is a matter of controlling for success, not for everything. How can a board control all it must, rather than all it can? Boards have had a very hard time knowing what to control and how to control it. Policy Governance provides a key conceptual distinction that enables the board to resolve this quandary. The task is to demand organizational achievement in a way that empowers the staff, leaving to their creativity and innovation as much latitude as possible. This is a question of what and how to control, but it is equally a question of how much authority can be safely given away. We argue that the best guide for the board is to give away as much as possible. short of jeopardizing its own accountability for the total. What is there to control? In any organization, there are uncountable numbers of issues, practices. and circumstances being decided daily by someone. The Policy Governance model posits that all of these decisions can be classified as those that define organizational purpose, and those that don't. But the model calls for a very narrow and careful definition of purpose: it consists of what (1) results . for which (2) recipients at what (3) worth. Let us define these more fully: Some decisions directly describe the intended consumer results of the organization. for example, reading skills, family harmony, knowledge, or shelter from the elements. Some decisions directly describe the intended recipients of such results, such as adolescents. persons with severe burns, or low income families. Some describe the worth of the intended results, such as in dollar cost or priority against other results. In Policy Governance, this triad of decisions is called "ends."' Ends are always about the changes for persons to be made outside the organization, along with their cost or priority. Ends never describe the organization itself or its activities. For example, the professional and technical activities in which the organization engages are not ends. In a school, for example, which students should acquire what knowledge at what cost are ends issues. Ends are about the organization's impact on the world (much like cost-benefit) that justify its existence. Any decision that is not an ends decision is a "means" decision. In that same school, the choice of reading program, teachers' credentials. and classroom arrangement are means issues. Most decisions in an organization are means decisions; some are very important means. But even if a decision is extremely important, even if it is required by law, even if it is critical to survival, unless it passes the ends test (designation of consumer results, which consumers, or the worth of consumer results), it is not an ends decision. Hence, means include personnel matters, financial planning, purchasing. programs, services and curricula, and even governance itself. No organization was ever formed so it could be well governed, have good personnel policies, a fine budget, sound purchasing practices, or even nicely planned services. programs or curricula. The ends/means distinction is critical. Many boards claiming to use the model routinely confuse the Policy Governance meaning of ends and means. thereby sacrificing much of the benefit the model can give. For example, means is not synonymous with "administration" as some have misinterpreted (Herman and Heimovies, 1991. p. 44). Ends is not synonymous with "strategic plan," as others have misinterpreted (Murray. 1994). The ends/means distinction is not comparable to any other distinction http://www.earvergovernancc.eom/model.htm 6/12/2002