|
Here are six trends that are emerging in association
governance. Maybe some of them are right for your organization.
More boards are making the leap from managerial
or operational focus to "policy" or "strategic" governance.
Promoted by governance gurus such as John Carver and Glenn Tecker, this
approach to governance is proactive rather than reactive and focuses on
results. Success depends on a strong partnership between the Board and
the executive staff of the association. ASAE made this change three years
ago and has documented its evolution in Association Management magazine.
Carver and Tecker have both published widely about their approaches.
Although the average board size in ASAEs
survey has remained 27 since 1991, more associations seem to be recognizing
the problems inherent in large boards. From a process standpoint, it is
clearly easier for 12 people to agree on a course of action than for 30
people. In many cases, however, reducing the size of the board means dealing
with issues such as representation of certain constituencies never
an easy task. If your association creates avenues of two-way communications
for all its members, then having designated representatives for certain
groups becomes less critical and less controversial. Be aware, however,
that reducing Board size often meets with opposition, particularly in
professional societies and individual member organizations. Take your
time and educate your members. Alternatively, associations with large
boards are delegating more work to their executive committees to speed
up decision making.
To accommodate the compressed time of our elected
leaders, associations will continue to move away from bylaws-mandated
standing committees in favor of ad hoc task forces. One reason our volunteers
become disillusioned with committee service is that some of the tasks
they are given are, frankly, a waste of time. It is infinitely easier
to recruit a volunteer for a task force with a specific charge and a limited
service commitment. Once the job is completed, the task force disbands
and the members earn a sense of accomplishment.
As boards recognize that they need ongoing
attention for peak performance, nominating committees are becoming "leadership
development committees." Instead of just getting together to propose
a slate of nominees, these broader committees have the responsibility
to identify and nurture future leaders and to help the board assess and
improve its operations.
Boards facing complex issues can benefit from
an outside perspective. One innovative way to accomplish this is to add
a "public" member (that is, someone outside your industry or
profession) to the Board. The American Academy of Ophthalmology added
its first public board member (and non-physician) in 1992. According to
David Noonan, deputy executive vice president, the addition has been a
success. "No matter the sophistication of the leaders involved, group-think
enters all deliberative process. The inside outsider keeps
you looking at the big picture and often lends a cooling affect to an
otherwise hot issue," Noonan explained. "Public members help
keep you from taking everything too seriously. They do tend to see the
forest and the tree."
Those same volunteers who are frustrated by
cumbersome procedures will not hang around for ten or 12 years (or more)
to "earn" their place in the associations leadership.
One of the challenges for board development committees is to define an
appropriate leadership path that can be completed in a reasonable amount
of time. Whats "reasonable"? Well, its probably
not six years on the board then another four years moving through the
chairs. In some associations, there is only one chair, president-elect.
Comprehensive orientations, ongoing training and written policy manuals
provide Board members with the in-depth understanding of the association
that they formerly obtained only "on the job."
How can your association incorporate some of these
trends? Try using this article as a springboard for discussion at a board
or executive committee meeting.

|