Board Governance is the Nexus of Governance and Good Delegation

Good board governance must both achieve the fundamental purpose of governance and do it using principles of good delegation while doing it as a group. Not easy.

Wikipedia defines governance as (with little editing) the (authoritative) oversight means of  assuring, (commonly on behalf of others), that an organization produces a worthwhile pattern of good results while avoiding an undesirable pattern of bad circumstances. ...Not bad.

Good delegation includes such characteristics as 1.) providing sufficient freedom (assuming the knowledge, competence, & equipping) of the delegatee to accomplish the expected result, 2.) clarity of the delegated expectations, 3.) the genuine transfer of accountability (accountable for the delegated results/ends), the above resulting in empowerment and ownership of what is delegated, with 1.) coherence of the delegation process, the expectations, and accompanying authority (non-contradiction of authority, accountability, and instructions), 2.) clarity of the line between delegator and delegatee - the role boundaries of each, and 3.) the ability to achieve assurance of performance (results).

 Thus, board governance is the nexus of these — meeting the purpose of governance (direction and protection, as Jim Brown would say, with assurance) and conforming to good delegation at the same time.

Therefore, board governance is the assignment, with one voice, on behalf of a vested constituency, coherent expectations of good for intended recipients (results or ends), while stipulating the avoidance of undesired actions or consequences, and checking, and, using delegation principles of genuine empowerment with genuine transfer of accountability, clarity of expectations and roles, and an assurance mechanism.

Bad board governance violates one or more of these principles.

Tired Chairman Syndrome - Resulting in Lack of Initiative and Leadership

I trained a multimillion dollar ministry board in Texas in Policy Governance a few years ago, and the board and CEO had responded well. I had taught, explained, and facilitated the board’s first year of planning its annual agenda - The board decided what it wanted to accomplish with mileposts for each board meeting and the board’s final or main objective for the year. After the first meeting was to have happened I called both the CEO and the Chair and asked what had been accomplished. It turned out that the chair had done nothing to accomplish what was needed for that board’s milepost other than preside over routine reports. Exactly the same thing happened for the next, and the next board meetings—all the way to the end of the year! About half way through the year the CEO expressed his disappointment and exasperation to me with this very bright chair who just couldn’t take initiative and execute.

When the Chair left that initial planning board meeting knowing his responsibilities, he seemed knowledgeable and up for it. But when he got home and occupied in his profession he never quite got around to carrying out his part of the bargain. The CEO and staff stood ready to help him but no leadership, no instructions, no requests, no guidance; nothing. He, too, had come up through years of passive governance and waiting for someone else to lead, even craft the agenda, (the CEO), and his inertia and procrastination were revealed when he had to truly lead his board. Perhaps to be kind he needed serious time and project management training.