• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Is your board a lean mean meeting machine? If not, maybe its time to change. Rick Bond explains how.
A regular, and, I may say, highly enjoyable element of my work is the facilitation of away-days or retreats for boards of arts organisations. Agendas vary, ranging from an appreciation of roles, responsibilities and their implications, to a few hours of glorious blue-sky brainstorming. Although no two days are ever the same, I have noticed a couple of factors that tend to improve the quality of the outcomes. The first is the inclusion of senior management personnel in the mix. This helps to ensure decisions emerge from balanced perspectives. The second is the calibre of the board and its ability to work as an effective team. A high-performance board is much more likely to facilitate sustainable growth and higher standards, spending less time on administration and crisis management.

High-performance boards dont just happen; they evolve through investing time in discovering how best the different board members can work together in steering their organisation. Allow me therefore, to take you on a whistle-stop tour of the key aspects of board performance. It would be disingenuous, even if possible, to tell you exactly what to do that depends on your organisation and the aspirations of your board. I can, however, set out the key aspects of governance involved and suggest a system to enable a board to review and improve its overall performance.

The performance of the board will be determined by its ability to manage ten key aspects of governance spanning knowledge and awareness, capacity, systems and dynamics. You may find it helpful to devise your own series of questions to initiate discussion. This usually proves to be an interesting and useful exercise in itself, as it tends to reveal something about individual aspirations and concerns. The following may be a useful starting point:

1. The roles, responsibilities and compliance of the board
Have board members seen the Memorandum and Articles of Association and do they know what these documents are for? Has the board discussed with management the potential risks inherent within its strategy, or has it left risk strategy to management?

2. The clarity of strategic direction
Is the governing document reviewed from time to time to ensure its provisions remain appropriate and practicable? Does the board take time out periodically to envision what the organisation should be like in the future? Has a corporate plan been prepared setting out the charitys policy and plan for the next three to five years, with clearly defined goals? How clear is each trustee on the strategy for going forward? Does the board feel that the company is getting a return on the time being spent on corporate policy/affairs, or does it feel that the time invested in this is not very productive? Does the board go out of its way to learn about the trust, the activities it promotes and the benefits it can offer the community? How well has the board bought into the organisations strategy?

3. The skills and experience of board members
Are new trustees provided with copies of the governing document, annual report and accounts, and other important information? Do trustees individually feel they get something out of board meetings, or are they a chore and a burden? Has the board discussed succession in depth or is it waiting until succession issues occur? Do trustees receive appropriate training? Will trustees who dont add real value to the board be developed or replaced with more able people?

4. The overall contribution the board makes
Is sufficient time given for discussion in the boardroom? Do some board members make a greater commitment to its affairs than others?

5. The board and the chief executive
Is the dynamic between the chair and the chief executive adversarial or constructive? Does the chief executive feel comfortable presenting and discussing bad news and uncertainties with the board?

6. The performance of committees
Are there written terms of reference for sub-committees approved by the trustees?

7. Information supplied to the board
Does the board receive accurate, sufficient information in appropriate time? Is information presented in a way that leads to useful insights that facilitate discussion? Does the board explicitly monitor financial health and operating performance? Does the board receive all information on matters to be discussed at least five days before meeting?

8. The performance of the board as a team
Are new trustees properly appointed in accordance with the governing document? Have the trustees acted on feedback that emerged from real and constructive self-evaluation? Do all trustees freely speak their minds on key points? Does the board focus on what is right rather than who is wrong?

9. The boards decision-making
Does the board consistently bring dialogue on critical topics to a clear closure, with consensus, or is dialogue fragmented?

10. The conduct of board meetings
Do trustees meet regularly? Are the meetings properly convened and adequately attended, and do they start on time? Are full minutes taken of the proceedings? Are there written terms of reference for sub-committees approved by the trustees? Have board meetings focused on the most important issues as defined jointly by the board, the committee chairs and management? Or have they wandered into minutiae or off on tangents?

Once you have completed your own list of questions, set them up as a questionnaire that allows people to score answers on a four-point scale. Weaknesses, particularly areas of shared concern or significant differences of opinion are those meriting further discussion. Equally worthy of discussion are critical strengths, if only to maintain morale and understand exactly what it is that is responsible for such a positive performance, to ensure it is not forgotten!

An away-day presents an ideal opportunity to explore the perceptions revealed in the questionnaire and a facilitator can manage discussions around potentially sensitive issues while drawing participants towards a consensus view and assisting in prioritising any subsequent actions required. Time invested in welding a board into an effective team is always valuable but make sure that the agenda also includes a good lunch! n

Rick Bond is the Director of The Complete Works (UK) Ltd, specialising in facilitating management insights, solutions and training for arts and cultural organisations.
t: 01598 710698;
e: rick@thecompleteworks.org.uk;
w: http://www.thecompleteworks.org.uk