The Greatest Challenge to Implementing Policy Governance®

When it comes to losing weight, I have listened to enough advice, watched too many infomercials, researched a dozen diets, bought a pharmacy worth of pills and if I had all the money I spent on fitness fees I could have bought a gym. All these have met with minimal success. But I digress.

Many organizations have initiated the use of Policy Governance^® with limited success. As a trained Policy Governance consultant I’d like to tell you that the challenge is in finding the right consultant – and I am the one. However my experience is that consultants get too much credit for success and too much blame for failure. While having a competent and experienced consultant to walk your organization through the implementation process is vital, it is not the greatest challenge to success.   

There are ten basic principles that serve as the foundation for Policy Governance, which suggests that it is not overly complicated. However, like those easy-to-assemble, no-special-tools required items we have purchased, it is essential that you use all ten pieces and don’t arbitrarily decide that one or two of the pieces aren’t important.  Just because you don’t think it is necessary, doesn’t mean it isn’t; it’s likely there for a reason. The Policy Governance pieces are sequential and integrated - and they make sense.

Policy Governance is not ambiguous.  Once a board gets its collective head around the idea of Ends and Means, there is not a lot (read not any) room for ambiguity. Ends describe the end results for the identified recipients and the attending cost-benefit. Ends are the out there; they will be or they will have rather than the programmatic we will do or we will provide. The concept of Ends is not the Policy Governance term for a mission statement. If the mission statement of your organization contains “we” words, it will invariably summarize the Means of your organization, rather than its Ends.

Once you have the idea of Ends locked in, the concept of Means will be easy to grasp: it is simply anything that is not an End. Items such as programs, budgets, strategic plans and HR are all Means which are used directly or indirectly to see that the Ends are accomplished. There is no overlap between Ends and Means; it is either one or the other. We won’t confuse Ends with being the high level important stuff and Means as the menial details and then have to figure out what is important.

A second area where Policy Governance removes any ambiguity is the role of the board in relation to the role of the CEO. The board establishes policies based on its values. These policies will include how it does its job, including how it relates to the CEO. It will clearly state its Ends and then limit the Means which are unacceptable for the CEO to use. The board will do this in its Executive Limitation policies.

A third area of clarity in the Policy Governance model is the understanding of authority. Someone or a body (often called a board) has the responsibility and authority to make sure the organization accomplishes the right results for the right people at the right cost and does so legally, ethically and prudently.  This is a concept we are used to. I own my house so I get to decide paint colors and plant locations. (Actually my wife has both the authority and the expertise, but you get my point.) I get to decide who comes into my house and who I keep out. I am also the one who will be sued if someone slips on an icy sidewalk or trips on a broken step.  In the same way a board has the authority and the responsibility for the successful, legal, prudent and ethical running of an organization.  

Policy Governance is unmistakably clear about delegation. The board states it policies at the broadest level and then adds clarity until it is satisfied that any reasonable interpretation of the policy will be acceptable. It is through these policies that it delegates its authority to the CEO. The CEO will know precisely what the expectations are in terms of organizational accomplishments any Means the board would find unacceptable even if the Ends were accomplished.

So if there is minimal complexity and virtually no ambiguity it would seem the implementation of Policy Governance should be rather easy. This brings us back to our original question: what is the greatest challenge a board will face.

The answer is the same as the challenge to losing weight. Discipline!

If we understand resiliency as the capacity of a body (like a board), when it is bent out of shape to go back to its original shape, boards epitomize resiliency.

One of the ways a board will “bounce back” is by dipping back into Means. It understood that the CEO was responsible for any Means used except the ones prohibited by the board. However having been bent that way, if it does not tenaciously exercise self-discipline, it will find itself insidiously talking about Means.  “Before you hired that new department head, did you look at any internal candidates?”  The implicate message is that the board member asking the question thought a certain internal individual would have been a suitable candidate. “I noticed in the budget that you have significantly increased the cost of marketing. Based on where we are as an organization, are you sure that would be money well spent?”  That question sounds ominously rhetorical. It will likely be (and rightfully) interpreted by the CEO as I can’t believe you would spend this much money on marketing.

Another way it demonstrates its resilience is by looking at any important organizational issue as an End. Surely nothing is more important to the success of an organization than the development of a good strategic plan and as such a strategic plan must be an End. With that in mind it goes on a two day retreat to develop its strategic plan for the next three years. It has now moved from defining what results the organization needs to produce to how those results will be produced.  By this time it has wandered off the governance road and into the operational pasture.  The only question left to be answered is how far it will drive into the pasture before it gets hung up.

Policy Governance aficionados can bend the opposite way. It’s easy; Ends are the responsibility of the board and Means are the responsibility of the CEO. This is a new way for the board to abdicate its responsibility. A Policy Governance board needs to be concerned about Means; just not the way it used to be. It needs to prohibit any Means that could be used that would be unacceptable, even if it worked.  

The importance of regular and rigorous monitoring is critical. If a board offers tacit or casual acceptance of a monitoring report, it has just demonstrated a lack of self-discipline. We’re supposed to get monitoring reports and we’re getting them, so we’re doing Policy Governance, is not Policy Governance. It requires discipline on the part of each member of the board to carefully review a Monitoring Report prior to a board meeting. 

You want to make sure the CEO has the right policy. Sometimes after a board has changed a policy, the CEO will cut and paste the old policy and provide a Monitoring Report using that outdated policy. 

Self-discipline includes looking carefully at a report to make sure the data addresses the policy. Sometimes data is incomplete or extraneous. 

Discipline is also required to carefully look at an interpretation to see if it is reasonable, Reasonable doesn’t mean it is the way you would have interpreted the policy or reflects your personal preference; only that a reasonable person could interpret it that way.  Policies are not bread crumbs intended to lead the CEO to the destination the board wants. They are clearly worded instructions which will allow the board to accept any reasonable interpretation. 

These are a few examples of how boards need to exercise self-discipline. We could talk about the need for a board to speak as one or the discipline required to regularly and intentionally connect with its owners. 

So you want to implement Policy Governance? It’s not complicated, it’s not ambiguous and you don’t need the ongoing services of a personal trainer. Your diligent self-discipline will keep you healthy and ensure you aren’t carrying any excess governance flab.

The source document for Policy Governance^® can be found at www.carvergovernance.com

 

Lemon Meringue and a Hybrid Version of Policy Governance®

I’m not overly fond of pie but I like the filling, unless it’s rhubarb which I think must taste like vegetated battery acid. Lemon meringue on the other hand is to die for. The part I don’t like is the crust. I have tried to imagine some food described as crust that might taste good, but I haven’t been able.

My 91 year old mother-in-law still bakes pies, including lemon meringue. The pies she makes are supposed to be different – adjectives such as flaky and moist are used to disguise the crusty sensation of crust. However she came up with a creative way of getting her special son-in-law to enjoy lemon meringue pie. When the rest of the family is sentenced to eating the cardboard with the lemon meringue, she makes me a special pie without the crust. She serves it in a dish the way pie should be served – and yes it is to die for.

I have tried in vain to point out to Lorna that her mother has learned the secret to baking good pies. Lorna continues to point out that what I am served is not lemon meringue pie, but rather lemon meringue pudding. She contends that it is the filling inside the crust that makes it a pie.

Organizational leaders often tell me they are using a hybrid version of Policy Governance.  What they are really saying is that they are using some of the Policy Governance filling and dumping it into their own bowl. Like me they leave out the stuff they have a hard time swallowing and while they may enjoy the taste, they are not having Policy Governance. In the same way that pie is pie when there is a crust and the filling is put inside the crust, Policy Governance is only Policy Governance when all the ingredients are included and integrated in the designated way.

So if you like the sensation of the filling without the crust, keep eating. However take to heart the words of my wife: don’t call it pie when it isn’t pie.

Bill Gothard Has Been Tackled - No Piling On

 It is against the rules of football to pile on. Once a player is tackled and there is obviously no chance of the ball being advanced, jumping on top of the pile of tacklers who have collectively smothered the ball carrier is against the rules. How much more should that rule apply to those of us who are part of the Kingdom. In fact one could argue it should not be a rule but a response of mercy and a response to grace.

In the last few days news has broken that Bill Gothard, founder of what was formally known as Basic Youth Conflicts has been put on "administrative leave" pending "completion of (a) review." This action by the Board of the Institute of Basic Life Principles has resulted from a number of allegations of sexual harassment.

For a few years an organization called Recovering Grace www.recoveringgrace.org has dedicated itself to helping people whose lives have been negatively impacted by the Institute of Basic Life Principles and the Advanced Training Institute. The founders of this organization identify themselves as some who have been directly impacted by the teachings of Gothard. While it began as an initiative to expose the theological gaps in his thinking, it has resulted in women coming forward and alleging how they were sexually harassed by him.

This blog is not intended to serve as a dissertation on his theology. Gothard has defended his interpretation and application of Scripture while theologians such as Ronald Allen as well as articles within the Recovering Grace website have critiqued it. Nor is it my intention to comment on the litany of stories that put words to the fear, frustration and confusion of teenage girls who have served him over the years. However to diminish their stories, question their timing, challenge their process or attack their motivation only adds to the pain they have already experienced.

Over four hundred years ago Sir Francis Bacon stated that "what a man prefers to be true, that he is most likely to believe”. That axiom still applies to us today.  Information that aligns with my perspective only serves to reinforce what I already believe, while at the same time I cynically undermine the news that contradicts my facts.

If you have been blessed by the teachings of Bill Gothard, don’t diminish the concerns of the women who have come forward with their allegations of harassment.

If you have found his teachings to be legalistic and theologically inconsistent with the overall teachings of Scripture, avoid piling on. He’s already been tackled.

The Difference Bwtween Cost and Value

Winters in Manitoba are hard on everything, including the paving stones around my gate. The heaving and shifting created by the frost made it so my gate would not close and thus re- levelling was necessary. This would be a task taking a few hours for anyone with a modicum of patience – which I don’t have. So I called the paving company that had installed the paving stones some five years earlier to see what it would cost to do the job. The sales rep came by and set the price at $188 everything in, which I considered a reasonable price considering the value I place my sanity and sanctity. It was a small job I was told and they would do it when they had a crew in the area. 

Some weeks later while I was in my basement office, my wife let me know that the paving company was here and they were working on the paving stones. I came upstairs just as they were sweeping the last of the sand between the stones and cleaning up to leave. We estimated they were there no more than about twenty minutes. 

Was I ripped off? The answer depends on my perspective. If I based it on an hourly figure it was well in excess of $500 per hour. But what if I look at the completed job from a value perspective rather than a cost per hour perspective?  I wanted the job done well - which they did; I didn’t want the personal frustration of doing it myself and I wanted it done for the price we had agreed to. Would I have felt better if they had taken two hours? Possibly, but they would not have a better job done. So in the end I should have no complaint.

Recently a client requested a proposal for my consulting services. In the course of conversation the client asked how much time I estimated it would take to complete the services. The client was asking a cost question. In response I invited them to consider a value question; what was it worth to their organization if I was to complete the services to their satisfaction.

Hourly rates for consulting services are usually a lose-lose proposition. The client has no way to determine how many hours it actually takes and so they can be left wondering if they were overcharged. As a consultant I am constantly aware of the time I spend lose the satisfaction of providing the best service for the client, regardless of the time it takes.

A potential client called me to discuss a huge problem in their organization. This problem was affecting each of their various branches in a number of countries throughout the world. He talked about the potential fallout if the problem was not solved. So I posed the question:. “If I could solve your problem for $50,000 would you consider that good value for the money spent?” Without blinking he said they would have no problem finding the money and paying the fee. (The fee was a small fraction of that amount because I could do it for much less and still be paid well.) The key of both the client and me is value. Their value is having the issue resolved for a cost reflective of that value. My value is providing the service in a manner that satisfies the client and a fee reflective of my time and expertise. 

A good deal is when we have determined the value of something before we look at the price tag. We need to beware of knowing the price without considering the value.