Board ownership In this series on good governance, I have thus far stressed the critical role governance plays in the success or failure of any college and urged that boards get serious about assessing their effectiveness. Working from the assertion that good governance requires that the board itself must own the responsibility and make provision for high functioning, we examined the essential role of written policies addressing the board’s culture, conduct, and commitments; ways to optimize board composition and continuity; and the importance of a board committee empowered to assess and improve the board’s individual and collective performance. I say again, good governance begins with board ownership.

As we continue this extended series on good governance, we have moved from considering the why and how of board ownership of its performance to considering the importance of the board’s focus on ends rather than means. In introducing this segment, I described effective board engagement with ends as follows: They screen their agendas, prioritize their engagement, allocate their time, frame their issues, craft their policies, and limit their solutions in terms of ends rather than means. What constitutes board business anyway? Not everything is board business. Not everything deserves a board’s time or can profit from its involvement. Not even everything that might appear on a board meeting agenda. True, not a few boards have a tendency to wander off the reservation and meddle. Boards need to be reigned in from time to time. A good board chair knows when and how to do that.

The frame makes the picture It’s amazing what a good mat and frame can do for a piece of art. Choosing those things is an art in itself. The same applies to board policies. In this practical guidance for board governance series, I have thus far considered why and how the board must own its responsibility for good governance and suggested some practical ways by which the board may exercise its responsibilities. I suggested that boards must learn to frame their issues, craft their policies, and limit their solutions in terms of ends rather than means. In my last post, I offered two questions that are useful for filtering and framing matters that may arise: - Is this matter really a board issue? - How can we resolve this issue in terms of ends rather than means?

Let’s continue our consideration about how great institutions inevitably are anchored by great boards. I suggested previously that the path to improvement should begin with a frank assessment of how well your board is functioning. We can frame the central issues of high board functioning by means of three questions: - Do we have written policies addressing the board’s culture, conduct, and commitments? - Do we have a plan to optimize board composition and continuity? - Is there a board committee responsible to assess and improve the board’s individual and collective performance? Recent posts have focused on the first of those three questions. We now move to considering the second board ownership question: Do we have a plan to optimize board composition and continuity? Let’s take these issues in reverse order: continuity, and composition.

In my recent posts, I have been emphasizing that good governance requires that the board itself must own the responsibility and make provision for high functioning. Although the president can and should prompt and support the board in taking ownership, success in elevating governance effectiveness ultimately depends on the board itself. In previous posts, I have outlined proposals addressing the questions of board culture and commitment, continuity and composition. Next we turn to the mechanism necessary to ensure that these patterns and practices are consistently and effectively implemented: appointment and empowerment of a board development committee.

My work with scores of Christian higher education institutions over the past four decades has led me to conclude that there is an inextricable, direct relationship between board functioning and institutional flourishing. Show me any measure of institutional distress and I will inevitably discover roots of that dysfunction in significant governance flaws. Conversely, I believe the too-often overlooked secret to a mission-true, healthy, sustainable college begins and ends with its governing board.

Let’s continue with our consideration of good board governance. When we left off, we were discussing the first of three key board ownership questions: Do we have written policies addressing the board’s culture, conduct, and commitments? No guessing, no dodging A living and comprehensive board policy manual lays the groundwork in defining expectations concerning the board’s culture and appropriate categories (director, advisor, volunteer) for board member engagement. It should also delineate the specific commitments board members are being asked to make—and for which they will be held accountable as a condition for ongoing service. Once these expectations are adopted by the board and recorded in its handbook, they should form the basis of conversations with board prospects and board members eligible for reelection to subsequent terms.

This is the third installment in my series on good college governance. Thus far, I have emphasized the inescapably crucial role board governance plays in the success or failure of an institution and I have urged that the path to improvement should begin with a frank assessment of how well your board is functioning. That leads to my assertion that good governance requires that the board itself must own the responsibility and make provision for high functioning.

The two-question agenda One rather stark morsel of conventional board wisdom suggests that every board meeting should revolve around only two questions. First question: Should we fire the president? If the answer is, “No” then the second question should be: How can we help the president succeed? I do not recommend that boards literally implement the two-question agenda. But those questions do illustrate critically important principles relative to an effective board-CEO dynamic. I refer you once again to John Carver’s list of typical governance flaws . . .