In the Loop: Internal Communication Is Essential to Good Governance
In any number of orchestras that I have visited recently, it has become clear to me that a big problem, and one not talked about as much as it should be, is communication. I don't mean public relations. I mean internal communication inside the organization.
It starts at the board level; the tone for any orchestral organization is set by the board and its leadership. When I hear board members tell me that they don't know what is going on in their own organization -- that a small handful of "leaders" make all the decisions, and they are expected to rubber-stamp them -- to me that is the sign of an unhealthy organization. And I'm sorry to say that there are more of those than you might think.
Clearly not every decision, large and small, can be discussed and vetted with a complete board. And clearly there's a difference between management and governance; there are operational decisions that do not require board involvement, and big-picture ones that do. Also clear is the fact that certain personnel issues require a confidentiality that's only possible when discussion is confined to a small group of people - board officers or the executive committee, along with the executive and/or music director. It is important that board members recognize this truism. To be blunt and give a direct example: No orchestra can hold a serious discussion with the full board about whether to renew the contract of a music director. The chances that such a conversation, and its details (accurate and distorted), would become public are much too great. But issues like this are the exception, not the rule.
Most big-picture issues must be matters for board consideration. A good board chair will work hard to ensure that the board holds meetings that are truly substantive and has conversations that matter -- conversations about those big-picture issues. There is usually a large intellectual capital resident in the board, a resource that should be brought to big problems and issues. That is what governance is all about. When a crisis comes up that takes the board by surprise, board members are apt to blame management for not keeping them in the loop. I, instead, would blame the board - for permitting an ongoing operation over which it did not exercise appropriate oversight.
Fully engaging the board and its membership is hard work, both for the board chair and for the executive director; it involves preparation and the providing of information on a consistent basis and at a thorough level. But not only is it the right thing to do from the perspective of governance, it is manifestly of value to the organization. First, it brings the intelligence of board members to the fore in solving or preventing problems, or in creatively directing the organization's future. Second, trustees who are fully engaged are more generous with their own contributions, and more willing to be aggressive in fund raising.
There is a large difference between for-profit and not-for-profit boards. Read Jim Collins's Good to Great and the Social Sectors if you want to fully understand this. Or read Governance as Leadership: Reframing the World of Nonprofit Boards by Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, and Barbara E. Taylor for an even more in-depth look at how ideal nonprofit boards work. Governance as Leadership should in fact be required reading by all board chairs. The model it presents must be adjusted somewhat for small orchestras where the board does some of the work that would be handled by staff in larger orchestras, but the general principles in this book are applicable across all sizes and scopes of nonprofit organizations. If those principles were absorbed into the culture of orchestras, it would be a very good thing. The situation of board members feeling out of the loop is one that I would like to run into far less often than I do.
Clearly not every decision, large and small, can be discussed and vetted with a complete board. And clearly there's a difference between management and governance; there are operational decisions that do not require board involvement, and big-picture ones that do. Also clear is the fact that certain personnel issues require a confidentiality that's only possible when discussion is confined to a small group of people - board officers or the executive committee, along with the executive and/or music director. It is important that board members recognize this truism. To be blunt and give a direct example: No orchestra can hold a serious discussion with the full board about whether to renew the contract of a music director. The chances that such a conversation, and its details (accurate and distorted), would become public are much too great. But issues like this are the exception, not the rule.
Most big-picture issues must be matters for board consideration. A good board chair will work hard to ensure that the board holds meetings that are truly substantive and has conversations that matter -- conversations about those big-picture issues. There is usually a large intellectual capital resident in the board, a resource that should be brought to big problems and issues. That is what governance is all about. When a crisis comes up that takes the board by surprise, board members are apt to blame management for not keeping them in the loop. I, instead, would blame the board - for permitting an ongoing operation over which it did not exercise appropriate oversight.
Fully engaging the board and its membership is hard work, both for the board chair and for the executive director; it involves preparation and the providing of information on a consistent basis and at a thorough level. But not only is it the right thing to do from the perspective of governance, it is manifestly of value to the organization. First, it brings the intelligence of board members to the fore in solving or preventing problems, or in creatively directing the organization's future. Second, trustees who are fully engaged are more generous with their own contributions, and more willing to be aggressive in fund raising.
There is a large difference between for-profit and not-for-profit boards. Read Jim Collins's Good to Great and the Social Sectors if you want to fully understand this. Or read Governance as Leadership: Reframing the World of Nonprofit Boards by Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, and Barbara E. Taylor for an even more in-depth look at how ideal nonprofit boards work. Governance as Leadership should in fact be required reading by all board chairs. The model it presents must be adjusted somewhat for small orchestras where the board does some of the work that would be handled by staff in larger orchestras, but the general principles in this book are applicable across all sizes and scopes of nonprofit organizations. If those principles were absorbed into the culture of orchestras, it would be a very good thing. The situation of board members feeling out of the loop is one that I would like to run into far less often than I do.
2 Comments