Steve Dill Senior Vice President ACSI, USA Traditional board model ◦ Multiple committees, involvement in management issues, often a lack of clarity between governance and management roles and responsibilities. ◦ Key reference (among others): Governing Boards ( C.Houle, 1989) Carver Policy Governance ◦ Policy Categories: (1) Ends, (2) Executive Limitations, (3) Board/CEO linkage, and (4) Governance ◦ Key reference: Boards That Make A Difference ( J.Carver, 1997) Generative Leadership ◦ Policy roles for boards: (1) Fiduciary, (2) Strategic, (3) Generative ◦ Key reference: Governance as Leadership ( Chait, Ryan,Taylor, 2005) Modified Carver Models for Christian schools: ◦ Mission-Directed Governance: Leading the Christian School with Vision, Unity and Accountability ( L.Stob, 2011) ◦ Community Governance: A Framework for Building Healthy Christian Organisations ( Bartlett & Campey, 2008) “For profit” enterprises have shareholders expecting a financial return, but Christian organizations have different parameters: Christian (schools) serve a community of “Moral Owners” who have come together to support a specific kingdom ministry. Christian schools operate as a Christian community, relying heavily on relationships to hold them together. Christian schools have a vision and mission that relates to serving others Thus ….a relationship driven model is needed… Community Governance Model (Bartlett and Campey) Contact Community ◦ local (or national, international)region served Connected Community ◦ Christian community that potentially connects to the core mission/vision/values Core Community ◦ The actual existing Christian school community – board, faculty/staff, parents, students, donors A Christ Centric framework – ◦ An organism (I Cor.12) rather than an organization ◦ Emphasis on relationships within a Covenant community. ◦ Missional focus (not closed or inward focused) Core values – biblical foundations & convictions Mission (Core Purpose) – why we exist Vision (Preferred future; B&C use “Mission”) Key Board role: keep the core community accountable to Values/Mission/Vision Governance is “steering” – more about “authority to” than “authority over” (government) In good governance, boards make …. ◦ Decisions that define expectations (policy making) ◦ Decisions that delegate authority (primarily to Head of School) ◦ Decisions to review or verify performance (via reporting and accountability from the CEO and to the moral owners) Governance vs. Management ◦ Both are about leadership – but there is a different focus in these two zones Governance ◦ Focused on present and the future ◦ Focused primarily with leadership questions ◦ Vision oriented ◦ Seeks to establish and monitor policy ◦ Predominately proactive ◦ Focus to initiate ◦ Sets the agenda Management ◦ Focuses on the past and the present ◦ Focused primarily with management questions ◦ Task and detail oriented ◦ Seeks to establish and carry out policy ◦ Predominately reactive ◦ Tends to administer ◦ Follows the agenda Bartlett and Campey, p.28 Fiduciary governance mode: ◦ Focus: stewardship of tangible assets ◦ Typical: listen to reports, ask questions of management, mechanical votes, may be more “bored” than a “board”. Strategic governance mode: ◦ Partnership with management in strategic planning ◦ Emphasis on performance rather than “conformance” Generative governance ◦ Strategy flows from insight, intuition, scenario discussion, improvisation (not structured planning per se, but good planning can inspire generative thinking) Fiduciary & Strategic Mode Management defines the issues Board structure follows administrative structures Board meetings are process driven Function follows form Protocol rarely varies Management transmits lots of information from few sources Generative Mode Board and management think together Board structure reflects organizational priorities Board meetings are content driven Form follows function Protocol often varies Board and management discuss key data from multiple sources ‘In generative thinking, issues will be framed by the board noticing cues and clues, choosing and using frames, thinking retrospectively and making sense from what is observed.” Bartlett and Campey, p.30 Moral owners ◦ Key ownership group that the board is elected from and accountable to; starts with the group of people who originally responded to the call from God to start the school ◦ Can articulate the “why” of the school; committed to the core values, mission and vision; the “heart” of the community. ◦ Healthy Christian schools are always recruiting new moral owners to join the cause Board ◦ Elected/appointed to represent the moral owners and fulfill governance responsibilities ◦ Appointing new board members – critical element to long term success and sustainability (must come from the Core community) ◦ Board committees – standing vs. ad hoc ◦ Board evaluation Personnel (Employees) ◦ Christian commitment is THE critical component Beneficiaries ◦ Who we serve – Discipleship vs. Evangelistic Models “Why” sustainers “Who” sustainers “What” sustainers “How sustainers” ◦ Problem: decline in number of moral owners ◦ Membership process, By-laws, Statement of Faith, Annual Meeting, effective marketing and communication ◦ Problem: disconnect between board and moral owners ◦ Constitution, Annual Meeting, updates to moral owners, clear policies, handbooks ◦ Problem: dysfunctional boards; poor board/head of school relationship; ineffective head of school ◦ Consistent, thoughtful performance reviews (board and head), job descriptions, employment contracts, policy handbook, board reporting ◦ Problem: unhealthy organizational practice; weak board/executive leadership ◦ Clear concise policy consistently practiced; ongoing recruitment of key leaders “The problem in many Christian organizations is that they are not safe places relationally.” (Bartlett and Campley, p.65) Focus must be on the central core: core values, mission and vision Characteristics of an effective board: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ The board’s role is clear and distinct from staff. The board has a governance focus. Board members understand their roles. The board links with “moral owners”. The Head of School is the one agent of the board. Responsible for achieving mission focused goals Clear parameters and role clarity Policies are organized into a board handbook. The board chair “manages” the board. Board committees serve board needs and speak to the board, not for the board. Board meetings are well planned Board members are selected and well oriented. The board accepts responsibility for improving itself. The board and Head of School have a clear strategic planning process that results in an ongoing appropriate plan for the future.