Simple, but it’s not easy if board members haven’t all shared the same educational experience around the role of board, and good governance principles. Usually everyone comes to the board table with very different ideas of what boards should, and shouldn’t do, and what governance excellence actually looks like.
When boards don’t use shared principles, everyone suffers. Common symptoms range from frustration or conflict around the board table or between board and staff, a lack of engagement, focus, or direction, and extend all the way to ethics violations, financial jeopardy, and corporate failure.
These problems are avoidable! We all deserve high-performing boards that are effective, ethical, and accountable.
Effective and Engaging Way to Learn About Policy Governance Online
Boards struggle to fit high quality governance training into their meeting agendas and budgets.
That’s where Brown Dog Consulting comes in. To see your board members, CEO, staff be able to understand and apply good governance principles, take our new online course. The Board EXCELerator has everything you expect from Brown Dog: it’s engaging. It’s clear. And it’s different.
You and your board want amazing results, and we want to help you make that happen. Contact us today to get started.
SELF-INTEREST: Don’t be accountable to anyone. When you join a board or governing body of any type, make it clear that you are there purely for your own interest, and not to be accountable to anyone else, especially not to legal/moral owners, citizens, members, shareholders, etc.
AVOID ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES: While role clarity might work for sports teams, nobody is paying you $10 million/year to be a board member (probably), and so there is no need to “stay in your lane” or be clear about who does what. Your contribution happens by doing whatever you like. (See rule #1).
DELETE ALL POLICIES: For the S.A.D. Governance Model to work, it’s critical to delete all policies and to avoid writing anything down. As soon as a policy is written down, someone will probably expect something to get done, or want to check for “compliance.” (See also rules #1 and #2).
Seriously, though, we have always found that one thing guaranteed to be more challenging than good governance is bad governance. If you are witnessing bad (or S.A.D.) governance in action, and want the benefits of Policy Governance, set up a call with us today.
Both the Board and the CEO/staff make decisions relating to Ends and means. The board makes Ends decisions when it creates Ends policies, and makes means decisions when it creates Executive Limitations policies (i.e., about means the CEO/staff should not use or allow, even if they would be effective in achieving the Ends.)
The CEO/staff make Ends decisions when interpreting Ends policies, as well as when planning, achieving, and reporting accomplishments. The CEO/staff also make means decisions while carrying out day-to-day activities within the boundaries set by Executive Limitations.
Video transcript:
When it comes to accountability, clarity saves time. One way that Policy Governance principles enable clarity is in the distinction between Ends and means.
Ends policies describe a benefit, who experiences that benefit, and its worth or relative priority.
Means are everything else, and break down into means used by the board, and means used at the operational level.
Here’s an example of what an Ends policy at the global or broadest level might look like, showing the beneficiaries in red, the benefit in blue, and the worth in green. This language might be specified further in subsequent, lower levels of this policy.
Ends decisions are made on both the board and the operational sides. The board starts the process by creating Ends policies, and once the board is comfortable delegating any reasonable interpretation of the Ends, the CEO and staff take it from there.
Similarly with operational means decisions. The board creates Executive Limitations policies to start, and then the CEO and staff interpret and act in compliance with these boundaries.
So you can see, the board makes the upper level Ends and Executive Limitations (policy) decisions (shown in the blue oval), and then the CEO interprets and applies the policies (shown in the green oval). As such, both the board and the CEO make both Ends and means decisions.
Another Critical Step: Monitoring
There is one more critical step — the board will assess monitoring reports from the CEO to ensure that their interpretations of board policies are reasonable, and that evidence shows compliance or accomplishment.
Policy Governance includes ten principles, and they all work together to create a practical, logical system.
Originally published in Govern Update, April 2019.
“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” – Robert K. Greenleaf
Customer service is a very well-known concept in management and organizational life, and it is widely acknowledged that serving customers well leads to increased loyalty, progress, and/or profit. A primary challenge for board members, however, is to understand and embrace the concept of “owner service,” whether those owners are members, a community, shareholders, or people sharing an interest in an organization’s purpose.
Boards using Policy Governance principles learn that governance is founded on the principle of owner-accountability, i.e., boards are accountable to legal or moral owners for ensuring that the organization achieves what it should. This principle means in turn that boards must engage in dialogue with owners to discern what relevant results look like, or what difference in the world the organization exists to make.
The fact that boards must engage with owners in this manner, combined with the board’s leadership position within the organization, requires boards to focus on owner service much moreso than what we typically know as customer service.
By serving owners effectively, boards help to create long-term sustainability for the organization and better Ends focus and achievement. Boards that embrace the power of owner-accountability also cultivate a more informed ownership and inspire future leaders.
Once a board has clearly determined who its legal or moral owners are, it can then turn its attention to owner service, a function that will be ongoing for as long as the organization exists. Five keys to fulfilling this role are:
Listening: Boards engage in conversations with owners to know what their values are, and in particular, explore owner values with respect to Ends as opposed to customer-level issues which are addressed by operational leaders. To unearth these values, the big challenge lies in designing questions that will stimulate thoughts and ideas about the difference in the world the organization exists to create rather than how the organization delivers programs, products, and services.
Getting smarter: All boards have a lot of collective wisdom ⏤ AND can benefit from getting even smarter. The key is in knowing what to get smarter about, and when it comes to owner service, that can mean understanding more about emerging political / economic / social / technological trends, legal matters, governance, the operational environment, etc.
Translating owner values into Ends: Once boards have engaged with owners ⏤ and therefore become a “little smarter” ⏤ their challenge is to ensure that board policies (especially Ends) actually reflect the values of owners, as well as the values of the board members themselves.
Monitoring Ends accomplishment: Of course, having relevant Ends policies is a very important thing; making sure those Ends have been reasonably interpreted and achieved is another. So boards must ensure that they monitor Ends achievement on a regular basis (usually once per year, perhaps more).
Communicating: While the first function of owner service is to listen, board service to owners also includes communication back to owners about key decisions made by the board and the progress the organization is making. Many boards fulfill this function at least annually via an annual general meeting/report. Boards also use ongoing communication via a website, newsletter, or other means.
And…the cycle repeats.
While boards using Policy Governance principles understand the importance and processes for owner service, they cannot usually expect all owners to fully appreciate the distinction between owner service and customer service. Ideally, by applying all Policy Governance principles, boards can ensure that customers or clients are being fairly and well-treated on the operational side of the organization, while board members focus their own efforts on being true and effective servant-leaders to the ownership interest.
One of the most unique features of the Policy Governance system is the Executive Limitations principle, which states:
“The board defines in writing its expectations about the means of the operational organization. However, rather than prescribing board-chosen means — which would enable the CEO to escape accountability for attaining Ends — these policies define limits on operational means, thereby placing boundaries on the authority granted to the CEO. In effect, the board describes those means that would be unacceptable even if they were to work. These are Executive Limitations policies.” (Carver, John, and Miriam Carver. A Carver Policy Governance Guide, the Policy Governance Model and the Role of the Board Member. John Wiley & Sons, 2009.)
This principle is often misunderstood or mischaracterized by people stating that the boundary-creating nature of Executive Limitations equates to being “negative,” when in fact the exact opposite is true. CEOs and staff people working with Policy Governance boards truly appreciate the freedom to operate inside clear boundaries, and often can’t imagine working in any other way.
The top five benefits of using Executive Limitations policies are:
5. Fewer policies are needed.
Because boards need only put off-limits those actions and situations that would be considered unacceptable even if they were effective in achieving the Ends — rather than prescribing all the steps or operational decisions the CEO and staff need to take — far fewer policies need to be created. Having fewer policies enables easier compliance, and allows more time and resources for achieving results. As we always like to say, “less is more”!
4. Board values are more clear.
Boardroom conversations about Executive Limitations policies lead to values-based decisions, and not the generation of long lists of operational tasks and ideas that might or might not be effective. Instead, the board expresses its values about ethics and the level of risk it is willing to tolerate while the Ends are being achieved, (a process also referred to as “Risk Governance”). Once these values are expressed in written policy, it is easier for staff to not only understand what actions and decisions are off-limits — including unforeseen situations — but also why.
3. Lines of accountability are preserved.
By putting certain means and situations off-limits, accountability for the outcomes of operational decisions more clearly rests with the CEO. Consider the situation if a board were to clearly prescribe or recommend multiple steps and actions the CEO must take. If those steps do not work in achieving the Ends, who is accountable? The board because it prescribed the steps in the first place, or the CEO for following the board’s instructions? Executive Limitations contribute to role clarity, and much less confusion or frustration around who is accountable for what.
2. Staff are empowered.
Working within clearly established boundaries instead of continually asking the board for approval (the “Mother-May-I?” approach) enables much more creative freedom and motivation for staff. Studies have shown that happy, empowered, and creative staff will perform at a much better level than those who are micromanaged or subject to constantly shifting expectations. (See: What Happens When You Empower Employees Rather Than Micromanage Them?).
1. Achieve more results, more quickly.
All of these advantages combined mean that organizations can be more efficient. Ends and Executive Limitations policies work hand-in-hand to ensure that the right results happen inside boundaries set by the board. Instead of having to choose between Results vs. Compliance, boards and organizations that use Policy Governance principles can have both, and save resources at the same time.
What if board members want to give advice?
CEOs can always seek advice from anyone they like, including board members! The distinction that must be respected is the difference between advice and direction. A CEO is free to ignore advice from one or more board members, but they cannot ignore the direction set by the board as a whole.
Board members who only want to provide advice or to act as management consultants for the CEO (as opposed to governing the organization) could find much more satisfaction by resigning from the board and seeking an Advisory Board role or some other position that requires their managerial experience, skills, and expertise.
Lastly, Executive Limitations are just one of four categories of policy used by Policy Governance boards, and the only one with this boundary-setting or “proscriptive” feature. For more information about what Policy Governance principles are and how they work in practice, take the Board EXCELerator, our online board education program.
To check out many of the policy examples quickly shown in this video, visit the Policy Examples page.
Note: Credit for developing examples of policies consistent with Policy Governance principles is due to John Carver and Miriam Carver, the co-Authoritative Sources for Policy Governance.
See also: Reinventing Your Board: A Step-By-Step Guide to Implementing Policy Governance. Co-authored with Miriam Carver. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997; 2nd edition, 2006.
For most of us, calling people out can be a little awkward, and something we’d really rather not do. Especially when those people are our colleagues, friends, or our boss.
Imagine, for example, you’re a CEO, and you witness one or more board members saying or doing something that is clearly wrong or at odds with board policy.
If you don’t have a good governance system in place, you’re in an awkward position. Do you say something, and risk being judged or even punished for calling out the board member? Or do you avoid saying anything and allow the behaviour to continue?
A huge advantage of Policy Governance is any time a course correction is needed, you can remain very matter-of-fact and avoid personal attacks. All you do is refer to the relevant board policy, and ask if behaviours need to change or if the policy itself needs to be amended or deleted.
Remember, policies express the values of the board, and can be changed at any time. They carry far more weight than just one person’s opinion, and the board as a whole is responsible for following its own rules. Whether you’re a CEO or a board member – or even an owner – drawing the board’s attention to the policies it has in place is not controversial; it’s doing everyone a favour.
Policy Governance boards hiring a new CEO must get a clear understanding from the outset about the candidates’ familiarity and experience with the Policy Governance system. Hiring a CEO who has provided the board with false assurances on this question could jeopardize not only all of the hard work and investment the board has put into this system, but the operational capacity of the organization as well.
If a board member were to ask a CEO candidate, “How familiar are you with the Policy Governance system?,” the CEO candidate’s answer would usually be either:
Answer #1: “I understand it very well,” or,
Answer #2: “I don’t know much (or anything) about it,” or, “I am not sure how much I know about it.”
If the CEO candidate provides Answer #2, the follow-up question is, “Are you committed to learning about what Policy Governance is, why, and how we use it?” Given that, to date, very few CEO candidates actually have real experience working within the Policy Governance system, the board should consider a willingness to learn as a favourable response.
If, however, the CEO replies that they understand Policy Governance very well, the board must check for evidence of that knowledge and/or experience.
Questions about Policy Governance Training/Theory
Checking on a candidate’s understanding of Policy Governance theory is quite simple. Questions could include:
Did they attend the Policy Governance Academy?
Did they attend the two-day Policy Governance workshop delivered by John and Miriam Carver? (Note: both the Policy Governance Academy and the two-day Carver workshops are no longer available).
Have they taken another in-person workshop or online course delivered by a qualified Policy Governance Academy attendee or PGP certificate holder? What was the length of the course(s)? Did the course/workshop include knowledge testing?
If someone were to say, “Policy Governance gives too much power to the CEO,” would they agree or disagree with that statement, and why?
What would they say are the top three advantages for boards and organizations using Policy Governance?
Questions about PG Experience/Implementation
Questions and scenarios to use to gauge a candidate’s practical experience using Policy Governance could include:
Have you previously worked within an organization that used Policy Governance? Which one(s)?
(If “Yes” to Question 1) What was your role, and what did you learn about PG principles in action?
Have you ever written or contributed to a monitoring report for submission to a PG board? If “yes,” for which policy(ies), and what was that process like?
Have you ever worked with a qualified PG coach or facilitator? Who was it, and how would you describe that experience?
If you ever had a challenging time working with a Policy Governance board, what would you do?
Here is an example of one of our Executive Limitations policies. Just brainstorming here, what might be elements that would go into your interpretation of this policy?
Here is an example of a monitoring report. What do you notice? Do the interpretations look reasonable to you? Why or why not?
If at any time one or more board members were calling you and repeatedly making requests that would take your time away from other work, what would you do?
If you ever witnessed one or more board members behaving unethically in some way, what would you do?
Are there any PG principles that you would want to apply at the staff/operational level as well? Which ones, and how?
To ensure your board and staff understand Policy Governance principles, take the Board EXCELerator, our online board education program, or contact us for more information about workshops and coaching.
A client recently shared with us that his organization has grown over 1200% in the past several years and this growth would not have been possible without Policy Governance.
We’ve heard a similar refrain from many others, including board members and CEOs saying they would never again serve on or for a board that is not using Policy Governance. Life is too short for governance dysfunction!
Pulling the Plug on Policy Governance
That said, we have witnessed some organizations inexplicably decide to pull the plug, which — unless legally bound to use Policy Governance — is every board’s right to do.
In almost 25 years we’ve never heard any sound rationale for giving up on these principles from someone who actually understood what Policy Governance is. In the absence of logical reasons for ditching the system, what other factors might be at play? We speculate as follows:
Money: A board member or CEO wants the unfettered ability to steer jobs and contracts to friends, or to pursue a hidden agenda or use the organization for personal benefit. See also: Spurious Influences Derail Delegation.
Laziness or apathy: Good governance doesn’t happen by accident; it takes learning, time, energy, and people taking personal responsibility for their commitments. Sometimes board members have a change of priorities in their lives, or simply stop caring, but then continue to linger instead of resigning from the board.
Ego, Power, and Fear: A dominating or aggressive personality takes over, and people are bullied or become afraid to speak up or to refer to the policies and values meant to underlie all decisions. (See also: Money.) Principled people and rule followers are Kryptonite to bullies, but sometimes these good people give up in search of peace.
In any case, let’s say your board has a new set of board members and/or a new CEO, and despite not knowing what Policy Governance actually is or how it works, they are determined to remove the board’s governance system and to replace it with their own ideas, the S.A.D. Governance Model, or myriad practices proposed by a law firm or traditional governance consulting company. Here are five steps the board could take.
Five Steps to Uninstall Policy Governance
Step One: Pass a board resolution to formally cease the application of Policy Governance principles. For example, “John moves, seconded by Paul, that the board will no longer govern using the Policy Governance system.”
Step Two: Pass a board resolution to declare that all board policies (including all Ends, Executive Limitations, Board-Management Delegation, and Governance Process policies) are no longer in effect. These policies — if developed consistently with Policy Governance principles — have many Policy Governance concepts baked into them, e.g., monitoring, accountability, ownership linkage, clarity of delegation, etc.
While they will no longer be in effect, be sure to archive these policies in case a future board wants to return to using Policy Governance and needs a starting point for developing its new board policy manual. If the board still wants some policies on the books, or hires an outside firm to create a traditional “Policies & Procedures Manual,” it can now start fresh without any confusion around whether the board is still using Policy Governance and its old policies, or not.
Step Three: Speaking of confusion, it is critical that all references to using Policy Governance be removed from the organization’s website or any publicly available documents. It would be highly deceptive to legal/moral owners, the media, regulators and governmental agencies, other stakeholders, and to Policy Governance consultants, students, writers, and researchers, if an organization claims it uses Policy Governance but, in fact, does not. Further, the board should be transparent about wanting to try something completely different.
Step Four: Ensure the board and organization have legal counsel.
Step Five: Buckle Up! Interesting times await.
In Case it Needs Mentioning…
Brown Dog Consulting does not recommend uninstalling Policy Governance. It is far easier, less costly, and better for results-oriented organizations to get qualified training on how this system works, and to access advice, coaching, tools, and resources that help with implementation. Policy Governance is a set of principles, not practices or specific rules, and so boards have a lot of flexibility in how they apply the principles.
As we often say, one thing guaranteed to be more challenging than good governance … is bad governance.
This article by Susan Mogensen was originally published in Board Leadership No. 131 Jan-Feb 2014, Wiley Periodicals Inc.
Like electricity, accountability is something we always expect to be present, but don’t think about or appreciate much until it is suddenly gone. Along with good governance and transparency, public cries for greater accountability spike in volume after every failure, scandal, bankruptcy or horrific mistake made by the companies and institutions operating all around us.
Unfortunately, because calls for greater accountability seem to emerge only once everyone notices that it is ‘Missing in Action,’ we end up with a guilt-by-association relationship between accountability and blame. No wonder, then, that friendly banter about the joy of accountability does not typically dominate cocktail party conversation.
If we understand accountability better and know the conditions that nurture it, we can devise ways to optimize its existence in organizations.
Certainly in the domain of board governance, accountability frequently earns honorable mention as a key tenet. Those of us who use the Policy Governance® system1. emphasize the need for boards to be accountable to a legal and/or moral ownership, and for the CEO to be accountable to the board. Indeed, the accountability chain is defined as running “from staff, to chief executive, to board, to owners.”
As the proverb says, however, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the same applies to organizational accountability chains. What is needed, then, is a more complete understanding of what accountability is, and what variables cause it to be strengthened or weakened, so that we can diagnose and prevent problems before they occur. If we understand accountability better and know the conditions that nurture it, we can devise ways to optimize its existence in organizations.
Dictionary definitions of accountability include “being responsible to someone or for some action; answerable,” and “subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable,” and an “obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.” With being accountable so frequently equated with being responsible, one might be forgiven for thinking they are the same.
John Carver, however, has distinguished between accountability and responsibility by saying that accountability is aggregated responsibility, so that while one person might be directly responsible for a task or outcome, another person might be considered accountable for a whole series of aggregated responsibilities.
If accountability is like the mother of one or more responsibility children, then it would be helpful to more fully understand the concept of responsibility. Of course, some dictionaries then define responsibility as accountability, while one says “the state of being the person who caused something to happen, a duty or task that you are required or expected to do, something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc.”
Responsibility vs Accountability
Another way of thinking about responsibility is to consider the communications channel as described in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). The communications channels features a sender and a receiver, and a path or communications medium between the two. This conceptual model is used to describe how communication works, and what must be present (or absent) for communication between two parties to work effectively.
Similarly, we can use this idea to illustrate the concept of responsibility, since responsibility is really just the product of a communication between two people or parties where one party is expressing an expectation of some action or outcome from the other party.
For responsibility to be present between two persons or parties, there must be some implicit or explicit agreement that Party B should do what Party A wants. Furthermore, Party A should have some authority in this moment, and Party B should be empowered to actually do the task. Without (a) agreement and (b) empowerment, there can be no responsibility.
Now, if accountability is aggregated responsibility, then perhaps it looks like this:
Certainly, responsible parties can also be in an authoritative position for others, and multiple combinations of connections between people are possible. In fact, most organizations with more than a few staff members would feature multiple connection points between people having authority and responsibility, with each person participating in any number of responsibility and accountability channels.
If accountability can be said to comprise a flow of expectations and results between multiple people, perhaps the comparison to electricity is useful in a closer examination of how accountability works. Those who study electricity quickly learn Ohm’s Law, which states that electric current (flow of electrical charge, measured in amps) is proportional to voltage (electric pressure, measured in volts) and inversely proportional to resistance (the opposition to passage of electric current through a conductor, measured in ohms).
The Electrical Nature of Accountability
Ohm’s Law is typically represented by the following triangle, where E represents voltage, I represents current, and R represents resistance.
If accountability can be likened to a current of expectations expressed and fulfilled, continually flowing through organizations, I propose a conceptual formula — not unlike Ohm’s Law — that seeks to enhance our understanding of accountability. The three concepts in this formula are:
Accountability (similar to current)
Resistance Factor (similar to resistance)
Authoritative Integrity (similar to voltage)
with the equation being:
The Resistance Factor in Organizations
Let me explain what I mean by each of these variables. I will start with the Resistance Factor. In electricity, there is always some degree of resistance in the conductor; Wikipedia states, “the electrical resistance of an electrical conductor is the opposition to the passage of an electric current through that conductor.”
Similarly, a kind of resistance is also at play when gauging a person’s ability to perform. This resistance to optimum performance is dependent on two main factors: a person’s will to actually do what is required, and his or her capacity to do the task. Capacity includes skills, financial and/or human resources, tools, time and anything that needed to complete the task or project. In some cases people have great access to resources, but limited will. In other cases they might have a great deal of will, but scarce resources.
This Performance Probability can be depicted using a matrix:
If the product of a person’s ‘Will’ and ‘Capacity’ is a Performance Probability, the Resistance Factor is expressed as the inverse, or 1/Will X Capacity. In other words, the higher the Performance Probability, the lower the Resistance Factor. All tasks to be completed will have at least some Resistance Factor attached to them because any one person’s time, energy and access to resources is limited, and the maximum probability for getting something done is 100%, or a factor of 1.
The Key to Overcoming Resistance
Turning to explaining the Authoritative Integrity variable I need to introduce the concept of “voltage.” Voltage is defined as the force that propels the current against the resistance, or the potential energy that makes electrical current flow in a circuit. For instance, we see this “potential energy” in a body of water that is held back by a dam before a sudden drop in elevation.
When it comes to organizations, a comparable concept to voltage is Authoritative Integrity, a legitimately based source of power that generates action. Checking for Authoritative Integrity is like checking to see if one’s organization is fully “plugged in” — ultimately to the moral or legal ownership — and that there are no “shorts” or gaps in the connections between authoritative and empowered parties, providing “continuity in the circuit.”
Consider, for example, a will expressed by an organization’s ownership, which, using the Policy Governance system, is translated into an element of board policy, which is then reasonably interpreted by a CEO, with elements of that interpretation subsequently achieved by managers and staff. Authoritative Integrity provides the force or pressure in the system to make things happen.
Conversely, one can see the diminishment of Authoritative Integrity whenever policies, procedures, plans and actions bear little or no resemblance to the values expressed by the ownership and the policies set by the board of directors. A manager who turns a blind eye while workers break the rules would be diminishing the Authoritative Integrity available to the system, and subsequently true accountability would also be reduced.
Ensuring Boards are “Plugged In”
To optimize the degree of Authoritative Integrity available to the system, it helps to borrow principles or concepts from Policy Governance. If, for example, each instruction from an Authoritative Party (one who has legitimately sourced power to delegate) to an Empowered Party (one who has the will and capacity to accept the delegation) were to (1) specify an outcome, (2) provide parameters of prudence, ethics and legality, (3) allow the Empowered Party room to make “any reasonable interpretation” of both (1) and (2), and (4) check to ensure that the outcome matches the expectation, then alignment throughout the organization should occur, while still maintaining flexibility and creativity.
Now we can see how each variable in this equation affects the others. When the Resistance Factor is somewhat high (e.g., in the case of low willingness or scarce resources or both), accountability can still be achieved if Authoritative Integrity is high. If Authoritative Integrity is low, then accountability is likely to be low. When the Resistance Factor is low, higher accountability is enabled. Ultimately, to maximize accountability, the components of Performance Probability (will and capacity) must be taken into account, along with a check to ensure that Authoritative Integrity is high.
Notes:
1. Policy Governance® is an internationally registered service mark of John Carver. Registration is only to ensure accurate description of the model rather than for financial gain. The model is available free to all with no royalties or licence fees for its use. The authoritative website for Policy Governance is www.carvergovernance.com.
Policy Governance is a way to make sure organizations achieve the right results and avoid jeopardy. It helps everyone save time, avoid common problems, and focus on relevant outcomes.
PG has ten principles that every board or group of people with authority can apply however they like. The key to success is knowing what these ten principles are, and how they work as a system.
These principles deal with:
Owner-Accountability: To whom is the board accountable?
Board Position: Where does the board stand in relationship to the owners, CEO, staff, and why?
Group Authority: Do board members act as a group, or as individuals?
Ends: Who benefits, in what way, and at what worth?
Board Means: How does the board organize all its rules for itself, and deal with its relationship with the CEO?
Executive Limitations: How do we protect the organization from undue risk without micromanaging?
Policy Sizes: How do we say something about everything in as few words as possible?
Clarity of Delegation: What’s important when delegating?
Any reasonable interpretation: How do policies translate into real results on the ground?
Monitoring: How does the board know that all its policies are being followed?
BOSTON, Jan. 18, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Boards of directors trying to recruit members who understand the governance role now have a new tool for their succession plan, the Board EXCELerator: Candidate Edition.
“Candidates for election or appointment to a board of directors need to know what the governing job entails before they join the board,” explains Brown Dog Consulting President, Susan Mogensen.
Recruitment continues to be a challenge for boards of all kinds, and many boards struggle when new directors aren’t prepared for the role.
“People often assume they know what the job of a board member is, only to find out too late that it’s not what they thought it was. The Board EXCELerator: Candidate Edition prepares them for what to expect, and saves boards a lot of time before and after the recruitment process,” Susan says.
The Board EXCELerator: Candidate Edition is an engaging online mini-course that takes less than an hour to complete. Course participants learn the highlights of Policy Governance, the differences between governance and management, the core functions of a high-performing board, and the variety of ways in which boards can benefit from certain skills and interests.
The mini-course even includes a list of reasons why someone might not be well-suited to serve on a governing board. “Governance and Nomination Committee members have been telling us that they need a way to screen out candidates who aren’t really interested in the servant-leadership role. Now they have it,” Susan adds.
For more information on how to incorporate the Board EXCELerator: Candidate Edition into your board’s succession plan, visit browndogconsulting.com.
Susan Mogensen 
October 11, 2023
