Basically anything that involves actually delivering the organizationās goal. Itās probably easier to define as everything thatās not governance or advice.
why does it reduce independence for the board to do it
If board members are doing it, then board members become part of the organization rather than separate from it.
why does it impede governance
The most important function of a board is to provide accountability for the CEO (and by extension the team below them). If they are involved in something, they cannot also provide external perspective.
why is either of those effects necessarily (or in expectation) bad?
It means you donāt have a system of governance that has been shown repeatedly to lead to better organizational performance.
how do you differentiate between āimportant strategic decisionsā and ātasksā or āadvice strongly recommended by the boardā
In terms of āimportant strategic decisionsā vs. ātasksā, thereās no black and white rule about what decisions are strategic vs. what decisions are tactical. For example, āshould we double in size?ā is a board-level decision, whereas āshould we apply for this grant equivalent to 1% of our annual income?ā is probably not. Each board needs to gauge where the balance is.
On the other hand, there is a big difference between decisions and advice. If the CEO chooses to ignore the advice, then they are accountable for the outcomes. Do also note that decisions are typically taken by the board collectively[1], whereas advice is frequently given by individual board members. An individual board members does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the whole board unless a decision has been taken.
Why is it better for the trustees to evaluate performance than the staff
Iām saying the board[2] must evaluate performance as one of its core duties. Iām not saying trustees are the ones collecting the data or doing the analysis.
Staff have a conflict of interest (they are paid to do something that may or may not be worthwhile) and lack independence (they are close to the action so their objective judgment may be impaired).
a) a small charity that doesnāt have sufficient funding to hire a CEO?
The advice above refers to organizations that have at least 1 member of staff (whether paid or unpaid).
b) a charity that has enough funding for a CEO, but far more work than that CEO can plausibly deal with, while having trustees who are willing to take some of the workload off them? (and no-one else who can credibly commit to doing so)
My advice refers to āWherever practicalā, i.e. having this set-up is not ideal and may impair the effectiveness of your board but is better than the organization not doing the work it needs to do.
Iām referring to āthe boardā rather than āthe trusteesā because I think itās important to stress that it is a collective body not simply a group of people.
a system of governance that has been shown repeatedly to lead to better organizational performance.
This is a pretty strong empirical claim, and I donāt see documentation for it either in your comment or the original post. Can you share what evidence youāre basing this on?
Basically anything that involves actually delivering the organizationās goal. Itās probably easier to define as everything thatās not governance or advice.
If board members are doing it, then board members become part of the organization rather than separate from it.
The most important function of a board is to provide accountability for the CEO (and by extension the team below them). If they are involved in something, they cannot also provide external perspective.
It means you donāt have a system of governance that has been shown repeatedly to lead to better organizational performance.
In terms of āimportant strategic decisionsā vs. ātasksā, thereās no black and white rule about what decisions are strategic vs. what decisions are tactical. For example, āshould we double in size?ā is a board-level decision, whereas āshould we apply for this grant equivalent to 1% of our annual income?ā is probably not. Each board needs to gauge where the balance is.
On the other hand, there is a big difference between decisions and advice. If the CEO chooses to ignore the advice, then they are accountable for the outcomes. Do also note that decisions are typically taken by the board collectively[1], whereas advice is frequently given by individual board members. An individual board members does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the whole board unless a decision has been taken.
Iām saying the board[2] must evaluate performance as one of its core duties. Iām not saying trustees are the ones collecting the data or doing the analysis.
Staff have a conflict of interest (they are paid to do something that may or may not be worthwhile) and lack independence (they are close to the action so their objective judgment may be impaired).
The advice above refers to organizations that have at least 1 member of staff (whether paid or unpaid).
My advice refers to āWherever practicalā, i.e. having this set-up is not ideal and may impair the effectiveness of your board but is better than the organization not doing the work it needs to do.
The exception is if the board has delegated some authority to the Chair or a committee
Iām referring to āthe boardā rather than āthe trusteesā because I think itās important to stress that it is a collective body not simply a group of people.
This is a pretty strong empirical claim, and I donāt see documentation for it either in your comment or the original post. Can you share what evidence youāre basing this on?
Thanks Grayden. V useful answers! Though re this
Can you cite some evidence for this?