Cultivating Group Responsibility: The Mandate in Governing Style Policy

1
Cultivating Group Responsibility The Mandate in
Governing Style Policy

• Presented by
• Susan S. Stratton, MEd, CAE
• Partners in Policy Governance

2
Board Holism a principle of Policy Governance

• The boards authority is a group authority rather
  than a collection of individuals opinions.
• The board makes authoritative decisions directed
  toward management and toward itself, its
  individual members, and committees only as a
  total group.

3
Typical Governing Style Policy

• The board will govern with an emphasis on
• (a) outward vision rather than an internal
  preoccupation,
• (b) encouragement of diversity in viewpoints,
• (c) strategic leadership more than administrative
  detail,
• (d) clear distinction of board and chief
  executive roles,
• (e) collective rather than individual decisions,
• (f) future rather than past or present, and
• (g) proactivity rather than reactivity.
• On any issue, the Board must insure that
  all divergent views are considered in making
  decisions, yet must resolve into a single
  organizational position.

• Accordingly
• The board will cultivate a sense of group
  responsibility.
• The board, not the staff, will be responsible for
  excellence in governing.
• The board will be the initiator of policy, not
  merely a reactor to staff initiatives.
• The board may use the expertise of individual
  members to enhance the ability of the board as a
  body, rather than to substitute the individual
  judgments for the board's values.

4
What Number Did You Draw?

• Orientation
• Chairman Role
• Board Environment as a Safe Environment
• Agenda Construction
• Committee Work
• Thinking Together as a Collective Body
• Workload on Board
• Think about how the session content might apply
  to these basic board functions.

5
(No Transcript)
6
Advancing the Groups Development

• The Board must work its way to Stage 5
  Collaboration.
• Board could empower a Board Development Task
  Force to assure appropriate training to move the
  board from one stage to the next.

7
How Does Your Board Manage Agreement?

• Stage 2-3 Issue
• The Abilene Paradox (Jerry B. Harvey, PhD)
• All parties agree individually, in private
• They fail to communicate their agreement
• Take action that directly contrary with their
  agreement
• Failure to manage agreement results in anger,
  frustration, blaming, scapegoating.
• Does not need conflict management intervention
  this needs an intervention to manage agreement!

8
Why Are We Going to Abilene?

• Action anxiety Thinking about what really needs
  to be done makes people intensely anxious.
• Negative fantasies about consequences of speaking
  up
• Belief of group tyranny
• A convenient excuse that releases us
  psychologically from the responsibility of
  directly acting to solve problems.
• Facing the real risk of action
• All actions have consequences that may be worse
  than the evils of the present. People would
  rather run the risk of going to Abilene than end
  up somewhere worse.
• Fear of separation, alienation and loneliness as
  a consequence of speaking your truth.
• Our unwillingness to take such risks virtually
  ensures the separation and loneliness we fear.

9
Why Do Groups Like Taking the Trip?

• People like clean, no-risk solutions and prefer
  mechanical and technological solutions
• Preferred over principled, values-based
  thinking.
• A belief in group tyranny results in individual
  conformity.
• If trips to Abilene are on your agenda, the whole
  board is colluding together to board the bus!
• Conclusion
• Cultivating group responsibility in Policy
  Governance demands a preference for principled,
  values-based thinking and the expression of that
  in the Boards process.
• Real or perceived group tyranny must be addressed
  in a Policy Governance board. It silences owner
  voices.

10
Solutions Toward Avoiding Abilene

• Before you vote, ask yourself, Is this a
  decision I can live with and support?
• Consider the question, What if the opposite were
  true?
• Any member can bring forward an owning up
  process before the whole group and be open to
  consequent feedback.
• This process lets everyone know that the
  confronter is concerned that the organization
  may be making a decision that is contrary to the
  desires of any of its members.
• The confronter owns up to his/her own concerns
  and then asks where the rest of the group stands.
• Although I have previously said things to the
  contrary, I dont like this I am concerned that
  because of previous statements I may end up
  misleading you and that we may end up misleading
  one another.Thats why I need to know where the
  rest of you stand. Do you really think this is
  the right decision for us?

11
The Whole Is Contained in Each of Its Parts
12
Natural LawThe Whole is Contained in Each of
Its Parts

• Responsible Ownership Responsible Board
  Responsible Board Member
• The Board Chair is no longer expected to be the
  hero. First among equals is significantly
  different than the traditional model of Board
  Chair.
• As first among equals, the Board Chairs focus
  must be on
• Developing a mature, cohesive shared-responsibilit
  y Board.
• Establishing mutual influence among the Board and
  between Board members.
• Articulating policy, assuring ownership and full
  commitment to the Boards policy.
• Internalizing policy requires concerted effort of
  all members, including the Chair.
• Policy comes alive when the Board routinely uses
  it to make tough choices about important issues
  and to guide their behavior.

13
1. To Build Shared Responsibility

• Understand that conflict is necessary to build
  shared responsibility.
• Conflict and closeness are on the same continuum.
• The group needs to grapple with core issues.
• Questions of real risk bring forward the
  principled, values-based contributions.
• Tough self-examination is the basis for
  individual and collective learning.
• Board self-assessment is critical to advancing
  development toward the collaborative stage of the
  group where individual and collective learning
  take place.

14
Cultivating Group ResponsibilityTakes Individual
Responsibility

• Reflect and consider the context in which a
  current dilemma arises and open ourselves to
• new options,
• the thinking underlying our assumptions,
• and not to go for simple closure.

15
Responsible Board member Responsible Ownership

• Board members have to take new initiatives in
  identifying and contributing solutions
• When the Board Chair is blocking the full
  contribution of board membership, the responsible
  Board member will try to figure out how to move
  the whole system.
• Work to improve meetings
• Urge that policy development should be the focus
  or invoke relevant policy when making decisions
• Urge the board to be more open about relevant
  data
• Confront colleagues who are not contributing
• Directly point out to the board chair undesirable
  consequences of his/her current behavior

16
Dialogue Requires Us Individually to

• Respect each other
• Suspend our reactions and judgment,
• Listen respectfully to others,
• Reflect on our own underlying assumptions to get
  to deeper questions that frame the issue, and
  ultimately allow for a generative process where
  new insights and unprecedented possibilities are
  able to emerge.
• Voice what needs to be spoken.
• From William Isaacs, Dialogue The Art of
  Thinking Together

17
Respecting

• Holding a space open for the other.
• I see you as legitimate.
• Sawa bono
• We accept that the other has something to teach
  us.
• Treat the other as a mystery you can never fully
  comprehend.
• Respecting leads to inquiry about the experience
  of the other.
• Treating the experience that informs them as
  legitimate.
• Loss of respect
• when you look for a way to change the other.
• Let me help you see the error of your ways.

18
Suspending

• Suspend OUR opinion and certainty
• Loosen our grip and gain perspective
• Absence of suspending certainty
• What makes you so sure you are right?
• Mind the gap!
• Put on hold the impulse to fix, correct,
  problem-solve.

19
Listening

• Listen to the net of thought listen to the
  spaces
• Listen to the negative space
• Listen to disconfirm what you know.
• Listen and notice your resistance to the message
  of the other.
• Share your dilemmas about your own resistance.

20
Voicing

• What needs to be spoken now?
• Whose voice is speaking now?
• What voice is speaking now?
• Underdeveloped voice quiet
• Over inflated voice domineering chatter

21
Thinking Together
Adapted from William Isaacs, Dialogue The Art of
Thinking Together
Stage 5
Stage 4
Stage 3
22
2. Establishing Mutual Influence

• Each board member must balance being influential
  with being influenceable.
• To allow oneself to be influenceable, one must
  master the art of suspending your opinion and
  listening actively.
• When mutual influence is present, then generative
  dialogue can take place.

23
Becoming A Sustainable Change Agent When the
Board Chair Isnt

• Ask the CGO questions.
• Are you really committed to Policy Governance?
  Are you satisfied with the way we now operate?
• Demonstrate understanding and sympathy for the
  CGOs ambivalence.
• Acknowledge that it is hard to move forward
  without more experience, but going backwards will
  create problems for everyone.
• Inquire about inconsistent behavior.
• Board members can give specific examples of
  behavior that is inconsistent with Governance
  Process policy.
• Show the consequences of blocking conflict.
• Point out how premature closure of discussion
  prevents the best decision from being made in
  some instances.

• Demonstrate your own enthusiasm.
• When you feel positive, say so. It helps to have
  someone say that the new way is attractive and
  worth doing.
• Push resistant colleagues.
• Board members can support sustaining Policy
  Governance practice by challenging those who drag
  their feet, hold back, or try to sabotage
  collaborative work. The CGO should not be the
  only one who champions Policy Governance.
• Suggest data collection.
• When all else fails, suggest conducting a survey
  or activity that would provide data about the
  Boards effectiveness. That could provide the
  basis for an open dialogue of how all the members
  could improve performance and allow deeper
  exploration.

24
Supportive Confrontation

• Choose the most appropriate approach, but always
  start with 1.
• This is the effect of your behavior on me.
• Always frame your concern in terms of I not
  you.
• Your behavior is not meeting your apparent goals
  or intentions.
• Your behavior may meet your goals, but it is
  very costly to you.
• In what ways am I part of the problem?

25
3. Assuring Ownership and Full Commitment to the
Boards Policy

• Internalizing policy requires concerted effort of
  all members, including the Chair.
• Assign policy ownership to each board member to
  filter governance process or to call forward when
  asking What have we already said
• All communication to and among the board could be
  attached to a policy mandate.
• Board chair could always give the policy context
  of what we are doing.
• Policy comes alive when the Board routinely uses
  it to make tough choices about important issues
  and to guide their behavior.
• Do not abandon or suspend Policy Governance
  policy for special discussions.

26
Your Interpretation of Cultivating Group
Responsibility?

• Implications for
• Orientation
• Chairman Role
• Board Environment as a Safe Environment
• Agenda Construction
• Committee Work
• Thinking Together as a Collective Body
• Workload on Board

27
Implications for Orientation

• How do you orient and include new members from
  the get go?
• It is no longer acceptable for the rookies to
  spend the first year in silence.
• The group loses a valuable and unique voice
• The beginners mind is a great gift to PG
  Boards
• Generation Xers will not stand for waiting and
  learning in silence.
• Education before the first meeting may be a key
  to shortening the learning curve.
• Conducting your annual agenda planning at the
  point of new members seating new members.

28
Implications for CGO Role

• The CGO assures the integrity of the board's
  process and, secondarily, occasionally represents
  the board to outside parties.
• The Board chair role is as first among equals.
• A Board chair who acts as a dominant figure
  during the meeting may not be fulfilling the role
  appropriately.
• The Board chair role is no longer running the
  meeting, but rather facilitating the process
  assuring integrity to the Boards Governing Style
  policies.
• As first among equals, the Board Chairs focus
  must be on
• Developing a mature, cohesive shared-responsibilit
  y Board.
• Establishing mutual influence among the Board and
  between Board members.
• Articulating policy, assuring ownership and full
  commitment to the Boards policy.
• Internalizing policy requires concerted effort of
  all members, including the Chair.
• Policy comes alive when the Board routinely uses
  it to make tough choices about important issues
  and to guide their behavior.

29
What is Collective Decision-Making?

• Collective Decision-Making is based in thinking
  together and being mutually influenceable.
• Must be based in reflective and generative
  thinking, not defensiveness.
• Identify your perspective or the experience that
  informs your opinion. State your viewpoint.
• Suspend your viewpoint and listen to other
  perspectives, considering each in the context of
  the dilemma and deliberation.
• Inquire when anothers view is different than
  yours to understand where you may be missing key
  information. Do not advocate your opinion keep
  it suspended.
• Identify where there is agreement and where there
  is disagreement.
• Consider alternatives that would bridge the
  disagreement.
• Consider a third alternative that would bridge
  the gaps in agreement.

30
Implications for Board Environment as a Safe
Environment

• The board will allow no officer, individual or
  committee of the board to hinder or be an excuse
  for not fulfilling its commitments.
• Developing Shared Responsibility
• How do you bring it up when you dont agree with
  the flow?
• Facilitate a balanced discussion pro con until
  both sides are fairly presented.
• How do you bring it up when someone is bringing
  up a tangential thread?
• How do you bring it up when someone starts
  focusing on specific means or instructing staff
  other than the CEO?
• How do you bring it up when you have been
  offended in the process of fulfilling on this
  policy?
• Consider using the methods of supportive
  confrontation.
• Consider addressing the ambivalence of the Board
  Chair or the member who is out of integrity with
  the governing style policies.
• Consider orchestrating the dialogue to assure
  well-rounded perspectives are presented, i.e.
  wisdom, big picture, caring and nurturing of the
  whole community, introspection (from Iroquois
  practice of community dialogue)

31
Implications

• For agenda construction
• Before each meeting ends, review what needs to be
  on the next agenda and whether there are new
  issues to address.
• A Board committee could design the agendas with
  the input of the whole.
• For committee work
• Board Committees are Intelligence Gatherers, not
  project managers or decision-makers.

32
Implications for Workload on Board

• Who should be driving the Board? Staff or Board?
  
• How do you assure that the Board takes
  responsibility for itself within the philosophy
  of Policy Governance?
• Should staff provide
• Clerical support?
• Research?
• Suggested Policy Language?
• Leadership in Committee Meetings?
• Ownership Linkage Projects?