I love my chair

 The point at which the relationship between a Board chair and the CEO breaks down is hardly the most appropriate time to begin negotiating the ground rules for an effective relationship. At that point, finding a solution tends to be hampered by the mutual desire to apportion blame. So, let’s wind the clock back...

 Imagine you’re in a position (hopefully like the one you’re in now) where a healthy, or at least workable, relationship exists between you and your chair (or vice versa depending on who is doing the reading). What is your relationship built upon? Chemistry? Well, you’re lucky in one sense, but possibly on thin ice as people come and go and the chemistry might not be so successful next time round. Tolerance? Well as long as it’s mutual then this is a basis on which improvements can be achieved. There will obviously be times when chairs and the CEOs disagree. Indeed, you need a framework that will allow this to happen without it becoming personal. To ensure that such disagreements don’t become personal, there are some good practices to adopt to ensure they can be properly resolved. Here’s a short checklist:

Pre-appointment.

Just because a candidate is hugely talented, respected, experienced, etc. does not make them an automatic shoe-in for the post of CEO or chair. How often have successful organisations been undermined because the new arrival has come with a fantastic set of plans and ideas that are the complete antithesis of what the organisation needs to sustain its development?

Inappropriate appointments tend to occur when the board fails to understand and communicate the strategic direction of the organisation and the essential characteristics the successful candidate must possess. This risks a costly clash of interests if a new CEO or chair subsequently finds their ideas for taking the organisation forward are at odds with the expectations of everybody else. This usually manifests itself in a breakdown of relations between chair and CEO. Either way, both parties must know why they’ve been appointed, what they are expected to deliver, and must satisfy everyone that they’re committed and able to doing just that. Appointing professional recruitment agencies could prove to be a wise investment. They will help to clarify the ideal candidate the board seeks and communicate it effectively, well beyond the standard list of responsibilities.

Resolve policy differences privately

Set up a practice of meeting with your chair/CEO to go through the agreed agenda before a board meeting, to share your views on each of the items. If you differ then you have a chance to resolve it, or at least acknowledge differences, beforehand. This will give you a better opportunity to understand where you’re both coming from and establish common ground that there may not be time for during the board meeting itself.

Communicate

One of the best chairs I ever had used to insist that I accompany each set of board papers with a one to three page summary of the main issues and a list of the key questions the board needed to address. The deal was, the chair would then ensure discussions were properly focused and not allowed to go off at a tangent. This, coupled with the pre-board meeting with the chair, created a sense that, while we could both have our differences, in public we were on the same side when it came to mixing it with the rest of the world!

Areas of authority

Trustees and CEOs should have clearly defined areas of authority which are properly communicated and respected. This should include trustees, including the chair, recognising that they cannot make inappropriate requests directly to members of staff. This can undermine a CEO’s authority and is a common cause of friction between chairs and CEOs.

Trustees must understand their responsibilities as trustees and recognise that it is not their job to interfere in management responsibilities, i.e. in the doing of the job. Easier said than done perhaps! Enshrine this in all induction policies – and even part of the job description. This can be a particularly sensitive area for smaller arts organisations where trustees also act as volunteers. The creation of a reciprocal agreement between chairs and CEOs, based on their mutual commitments to each other, is often a useful document to institute. (If you’d like a sample document, please e-mail me.)

Having a structure which sets the way chairs and CEOs interact creates a set of rules which both parties agree to abide by, and use to strengthen their relationship. Then, if someone does overstep the mark, you at least have the means to establish the fact, allowing a transgression to be acknowledged before it becomes an annoying and debilitating habit. And finally, if you have a tendency to sound off when you get angry, don’t! The damage this can do to your working relationship is reflected in the old maxim: When you’re angry, you’ll make the best speech you’ll ever regret.