their thoughts, even if they are in means mode. Later we can begin looking beyond the means to determining the difference they want the organization to make. In formulating ends, they need to begin talk- ing to their community and each other about the right things. They can’t just talk about such surface-level things as cus- tomer service and whether this or that customer complained about getting bad advice or bad service. They need to start a dialogue with the community in which they ask, “Are you being changed by this organization? Are children benefiting because of this or that service?” Unless the board makes the effort to inform the public and get everyone thinking about the big picture, most people in the com- munity will continue to think of their organization in terms of nitty-gritty problems and small complaints.

meetings. Who attends them, and how are they structured?

The meetings are open to board mem- bers and staff at organizations whose boards are implementing the model, and they are facilitated by me and other facili- tators. We also welcome people from boards who may be interested in the model and want to find out more about it. Typically, 12 to 20 people attend. Meetings are strictly structured. First we introduce the attendees; then the facilita- tor will do a general presentation on the topic, which is chosen at the end of the previous month’s meeting. Let’s say the topic is monitoring. We will formally go around the room and ask people to describe briefly how they are handling monitoring. Participants may talk about some things that are working well for their board, or they may ask for help and advice from the group. Sometimes we break into groups to talk about various topics-other topics might be CEO evalu- ations, distinguishing customers from owners, or development of ends policies. Then all come back together to report.

Whose idea was it to start these meetings originally? What did people want them to achieve?

put together the proposal to bring Policy

LetS talk about the Carver Connection

In late 1996 the group that originally

GUEST PRESENTATION

Teresa Durham talks about her role in helping boards in Battle Creek implement Policy Governance

Helping Boards Help Each Other

NE OF THE KEYS to the success of the effort to bring Policy Governance to Battle Creek is 0 the use of volunteer trainers to assist boards as they implement the model. Teresa Durham has worked as a trainer for four years, helping boards make the transition to Policy Goilernance. Also, with the help of fellow trainers, Teresa facilitates monthly Carver Connection meetings at which boards can get together, share ideas, and learn to help each other. RecentlyBoard Leadership spoke with Teresa about her work, what it involves, and why it is so valuable.

Teresa, could you first briefly describe your background and how you became involved in this project?

In my current position at Kellogg Community College, in the Division of Lifelong Learning, I am responsible for developing and coordinating all kinds of programs for youths and seniors in the community. I am also responsible for exploring ways that the college as an institution can better partner with community groups, so I sit on a number of boards of community groups where it’s good for the college to have a pres- ence. So when I heard through the Nonprofit Alliance, where the adminis- tration of the Policy Governance project is housed, that it was looking for volun- teers to receive training, I applied. I had also done a lot of work in facilitation and community service, so my back- ground fit nicely.

After seven of us were selected for this job, John and Miriam Carver came to Battle Creek to give us a training in the model that was specially designed to help us act as resources for boards that were implementing Policy Governance. Let me emphasize that we did not undergo the M y qualifymg consultant training in the model, which would require that we

go to the special week-long Policy Governance Academy.

Could you describe your work with boards? How many have you worked with? What kinds of problems or chal- lenges did they confront?

I’ve worked with three boards, and for one especially it was a struggle to move out of strategic planning mode. The board was used to setting goals and spending a lot of time working out the means for reaching them. Focusing on what ends a board wants the organiza- tion to achieve is an unfamiliar activity for most boards and was particularly hard for this one.

gled with the “word-smithing” as they developed their ends policies. It’s very hard to shift from the language of means (for example, “We will provide these people with this service”) to more results- oriented language (which requires identi- fymg the ultimate result of the service rather than the service itself). We have found, as facilitators, that to help boards get beyond this initial block, it is useful to tell them not to worry too much ini- tially about the words and how they are crafted. To start getting their ideas on the table, we encourage them to just blurt out

All of the boards I worked with strug-

(continued on back page)

M A R . - A P R . 1 9 9 9 7

Guest Presentation (continued from page 7)

Governance to Battle Creek decided to hold a luncheon for all of the boards implementing the model. The organizers wanted to check in and see how things were going and give the various boards the opportunity to compare their experi- ences with the model. The idea was to encourage the boards to meet each other and feel comfortable calling on each other for help and support. All the partic- ipants found that meeting so helpful that they decided to have them on a regular basis. So we have met for lunch once a month ever since, with the organizations taking turns providing space and food.

Have the nieetings.fnlfilled their pur- pose?Are boards trulygetting help?

Definitely. At the last meeting, for example, the topic was how a Policy Governance board handles committees. Someone piped up that “Carver doesn’t allow committees.” The others were able to correct this misconception and explain how committees can fit into the Policy Governance framework; the importance of being very clear about whose committee it is, the board’s or the staffs; and so on.

il/lirictm Carver observed that these kinds of meetings can be etiormously helpfid, but only ifthe participaizis are rigorous in paying atteiition to the Policy Governance precepts. Otlierioise, there is a danger of spreading inaccurare iilforiiiatioiz.

Well, that is always a concern, not just in Caner Connection meetings but in meetings of any board that is using Policy Governance. The key is to go back to the model, to use the resources we have, the books and guides, to make sure we are on the right track. Clearly, is it my role to be vigilant about this. Also, some of the boards I work with have implemented what they call the “Carver cop”-a desig- nated resident expert on the model who can check whether the board is truly fol- lowing the model. If board members stari getting off track at a meeting, this person can say, for example, “Hold on-is this an issue for the board or staff?”

Why is it important, it7 your opinion, that people implementing the model get together arid talk?

Meeting regularly can help boards maintain the discipline they need to implement the model correctly and truly see its benefits. Beyond that, however,

the connections boards make with each other at these meetings are valuable in ways that are impossible to foresee. Recently, for example, one of the boards, the Leila Arboretum, sought the advice of the Zoological Society about mounting a capital campaign. The Arboretum board knew from the monthly meetings that the Zoological Society had recently done a capital campaign to fund a major expansion. The Arboretum was inter- ested in lcarning how the zoo had approached the campaign in light of its ends policies. The zoo was able to pro- vide insights on how to link the cam- paign to ends in such a way that the community would understand the significance of the campaign.

It’s funny how unusual it is for boards to talk to each other about their work, because there is so much value in simply sharing ideas and experiences, whether you are using Policy Governance or not. Boards discover they have commonali- ties. They discover they offer services that perhaps their organizations could collab- orate on. Meeting regularly gives boards the opportunity to share the big-picture stuff and say, “Look, we have the same ends-how can we work together?” 0

Personal Note [continuedfiomfiont page)

Small wonder that boards formulate their job with so much management content, are so ready to have managers tell them what to talk about by setting agendas, and so readily accept an obliga- tion to help managers manage. Small wonder that boards interact far more with their staffs than with the people they represent. Small wonder that when board roles and responsibilities are dis- cussed, these are mostly, if not totally, related to the board-staff relationship.

If you see no problem with the forego- ing list, you are caught in the conceptual trap of perceiving governance as an extension of management.

Through the Policy Governance model, I have emphasized that governance excel- lence is attainable only if we can embrace a new premise: rather than an upward extension of management, governance is a downward extension of ownership.

So the question is not ”What functions of management should the board over- see?” The question is “What are the wishes of owners concerning what is owned?” This clearly establishes governance as a part of the concept of ownership, not a part of the concept of management. Governance is concerned not so much with what the organization does as what it is for. Thus the primary relationship of the board is not with the staff but with the ownership. It is not enough for a board that conceives of itself as a “superman- ager” to start attending to the owners. The board must reinvent itself as a micro- cosm of ownership.

The board that satisfies its obligation to the ownership will struggle mightily to find out what the owners value, defining those values adequately, and crafting writ- ten documents that competently combine owners’ wishes, current realities, and future possibilities. The board will not struggle with or even concern itself with salary schedule, equipment replacement,

organization chart, or budget lines. Owners’ values include what results in the world are worth how much, as well as which constraints of ethics and probity should be observed even if they interfere with results. As long as these values are realized, management might as well be magic, for it is not a board concern.

Yet boards, when they have been deemed effective at all, have typically been effective in areas more akin to man- agement than to capturing owners’ val- ues. And most published material has reinforced this mistaken focus of boards’ jobs. Inspect your own board’s practices. If your board concerns itself more with management than with the results and constraints an informed ownership would want out of management, it is not a Policy Governance board.

I’ll leave you with this: governance is the careful design of an ownership func- tion, not of a management function, no

2 8 x r- OD matter how conscientiously or skillfully

performed. a : 8 B O A R D L E A D E R S H I P