Interesting advice. Can you be more explicit about why you’ve included each activity in each category?
Like, for the third category you say ‘Tasks undertaken by Board members can reduce the Board’s independence and impede governance’ - but what qualifies as a ‘task’, why does it reduce independence for the board to do it, why does it impede governance, and why is either of those effects necessarily (or in expectation) bad?
Similar questions on the first category: how do you differentiate between ‘important strategic decisions’ and ‘tasks’ or ‘advice strongly recommended by the board’? Why is it better for the trustees to evaluate performance than the staff?
Also, what advice would you give to
a) a small charity that doesn’t have sufficient funding to hire a CEO?
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)
Basically anything that involves actually delivering the organization’s goal. It’s probably easier to define as everything that’s 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 don’t have a system of governance that has been shown repeatedly to lead to better organizational performance.
how do you differentiate between ‘important strategic decisions’ and ‘tasks’ or ‘advice strongly recommended by the board’
In terms of ‘important strategic decisions’ vs. ‘tasks’, there’s no black and white rule about what decisions are strategic vs. what decisions are tactical. For example, “should we double in size?” is a board-level decision, whereas “should we apply for this grant equivalent to 1% of our annual income?” 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
I’m saying the board[2] must evaluate performance as one of its core duties. I’m 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 doesn’t 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 “Wherever practical”, 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.
I’m referring to “the board” rather than “the trustees” because I think it’s 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 don’t see documentation for it either in your comment or the original post. Can you share what evidence you’re basing this on?
Interesting advice. Can you be more explicit about why you’ve included each activity in each category?
Like, for the third category you say ‘Tasks undertaken by Board members can reduce the Board’s independence and impede governance’ - but what qualifies as a ‘task’, why does it reduce independence for the board to do it, why does it impede governance, and why is either of those effects necessarily (or in expectation) bad?
Similar questions on the first category: how do you differentiate between ‘important strategic decisions’ and ‘tasks’ or ‘advice strongly recommended by the board’? Why is it better for the trustees to evaluate performance than the staff?
Also, what advice would you give to
a) a small charity that doesn’t have sufficient funding to hire a CEO?
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)
Basically anything that involves actually delivering the organization’s goal. It’s probably easier to define as everything that’s 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 don’t have a system of governance that has been shown repeatedly to lead to better organizational performance.
In terms of ‘important strategic decisions’ vs. ‘tasks’, there’s no black and white rule about what decisions are strategic vs. what decisions are tactical. For example, “should we double in size?” is a board-level decision, whereas “should we apply for this grant equivalent to 1% of our annual income?” 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.
I’m saying the board[2] must evaluate performance as one of its core duties. I’m 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 “Wherever practical”, 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
I’m referring to “the board” rather than “the trustees” because I think it’s important to stress that it is a collective body not simply a group of people.
This is a pretty strong empirical claim, and I don’t see documentation for it either in your comment or the original post. Can you share what evidence you’re basing this on?
Thanks Grayden. V useful answers! Though re this
Can you cite some evidence for this?