Studies have identified a wide range of business processes and practices that can improve governance effectiveness, including properly constituted policies, effective meeting procedures, use of standing committees, processes for budgeting, planning and performance monitoring, selecting a principal, recruiting members and orienting and training board members. Attention to the board’s culture is also recommended. These areas of board process are examined below.
2.6.7.1 Policies
Well-run boards document key operational processes and policy decisions in written policies. Carver’s (1991, 1997) widely used model places policies at the centre of governance: the board’s authority rests in formally documented policies and decisions approved at properly constituted meetings. General areas of policy include the school’s mission, governance processes, the role of school staff and the limits of acceptable staff behaviour (ethics and prudence; Carver & Carver, 2001). Policies ensure both the board and CEO are clear about their roles and criteria for evaluation. In a governance approach, it is important to emphasise that policies exist only to further the board’s work towards the organisations’ mission, not as ends in themselves as bureaucratic boards may assume.
2.6.7.2 Meeting Procedures
Boards are more effective when they follow good meeting procedures. A survey of 1,980 US non-profit board members and senior executives found a strong correlation between meeting practices and effectiveness in other areas of governance (Puyvelde et al., 2018). Key principles from this study included
… making sure that board meetings (a) are well run and start and end on time, (b) focus on strategy and organizational policy, and (c) allow adequate time for board members to ask questions and explore issues. In addition, board members need to be well prepared for meetings, and receive the information necessary to make informed decisions (p. 1307).
Resolve’s (2011) Governance Operations Survey of Australian non-profit board members found significant departures from these principles; for example, meetings
regularly ran over time (38 per cent of respondents) and boards often distributed board papers less than three days before the meeting (23 per cent). Nearly a quarter of surveyed members did not enjoy board meetings (24 per cent). Even such simple practices as adhering to the agenda can improve member satisfaction (Hart-Johns (2006).
2.6.7.3 Documentation
Important board policies and processes should be formally documented but non- profit boards are often run very informally (Mueller, 2015). The degree of documentation recommended tends to reflect an author’s emphasis on formal policy; for example, Carver (2006) proposes extensive policy documentation but Andringa and Engstrom (2002) suggest “it is possible to capture every ongoing policy the board will ever need in about 15 pages” (p. 5). It is likely small schools’ boards will start off relatively informally but should give documentation high priority since, as Carver in particular emphasised, a board’s authority rests in written statements not verbal or assumed understandings.
2.6.7.4 Standing Committees
A board should consider using standing committees when key functions requiring detailed consideration can be efficiently delegated to a small subgroup of members. Eadie (2007) considered standing committees essential to non-profit boards, particularly for strategic planning and monitoring performance of the board and CEO. Financial oversight is another common use.
2.6.7.5 Human Resources: Training and Development, Recruitment, Induction
Another important area involves the board’s human resource (HR) processes, including training and development of members and recruitment and selection of the school principal and board members. Jansen and Kilpatrick (2006) examined boards of 32 top-performing corporate organisations in the US and highlighted processes for selecting the CEO and developing leadership skills among board members, committee chairs and the CEO as vital contributors to board effectiveness. Although training involves time and financial cost the best-run boards invested in member development, regardless of the model of governance they used.
In independent schools and other non-profit organisations, board members are usually volunteers, often with full-time jobs and family responsibilities. This increases the need for training but reduces the time available for it (Resnick, 1999). The present study examines how boards deal with this important dilemma.
Resolve’s (2011) Governance Operations Survey of Australian non-profit boards found 92 per cent had difficulty finding new board members, making recruitment of suitable members the most important single area for improvement. Similar conclusions have been reported in other studies (e.g., Johnson & Poklington, 2004; Bush & Gamage, 2001; Jansen and Kilpatrick, 2006; McDonnell, n.d.). As schools grow, this challenge intensifies because specific qualifications—in business, finance, law or information technology, for example—become crucial to effective governance and operational oversight (Kreutzer, 2009). Moreover, school boards often have mandatory limits on the length of service, making recruitment processes even more important.
When recruiting new staff, boards should have an induction and orientation process explaining the school’s context and mission, the board and principal’s roles, expectations of members, key areas of policy, meeting procedures, accountabilities and ethical requirements amongst other topics. Well-run boards often present these in a board handbook.
2.6.7.6 Culture and Teamwork
Culture refers to a social group’s values and customary ways of doing things (Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria, 2016; Johnson et al., 2017). For example, a culture can be formal or informal and hierarchical or collaborative (Buse et al., 2016; Drogendijk & Holm, 2015; Mueller, 2015).
As with any formal group, a board’s culture—the implicit assumptions, values and rules governing members’ behaviour—plays a key role in its effectiveness. Hart- Johns (2006) described her experiences of serving on six boards with diverse cultures, noting the dangers of certain collective behaviours such as avoiding long- term challenges or losing strategic vision during times of enforced change. She emphasised the need to mediate the influence of strong personalities, promote high- level rather than operational thinking and foster creativity rather than a bureaucratic
mindset. Ferkins et al.’s (2009) study of NZ sporting associations similarly suggested that a board’s culture should support its long-term strategic outlook.
A related concern for non-profit boards is teamwork (Hart-Johns, 2006). Non-profit boards face complex challenges in satisfying multiple stakeholders and advancing missions based on a service ethos, unlike corporate boards focused on profits or shareholder returns. Such challenges call for dialogue among members with different perspectives and expertise, which is strongly facilitated by a teamwork ethos in the board. Belbin (1992), an authority on teamwork, contrasted solo leaders with team leaders, those who encourage shared rather than individual power. Team leadership encourages board members to work collaboratively, increasing board unity and problem-solving capability while reducing tension, conflict and miscommunication. Conversely, members can have too much sharing. Leslie (2010) warns non-profit boards to be on the lookout for ‘groupthink’, where members
place allegiance to fellow board members ahead of the non-profit’s best interests [and as a result] undermine social norms that facilitate sound governance procedures…. [Groupthink] blinds directors to conflicts of interest, and may also induce directors to refrain from adequately monitoring ongoing business relationships with board members (p.1)
Another important part of maintaining a healthy culture in organisations is managing tensions in the board relationships. Leslie (2010) asserts that the board Chair has a vital role in shaping the culture. She argues the Chair must adopt processes where tensions are appropriately managed. She states the board chair has a key role in ensuring members work harmoniously yet challenge each other in a positive way when appropriate. She also believes members of high status may seek to dominate discussions. The Chair has an important role when chairing meetings to not let high status members dominate meetings or remain beyond challenge. She argues, therefore, that the actions of chairs within the board processes are vital in creating a positive culture.
Similarly, Forbes and Milliken (1999) highlight “because boards are large, episodic, and interdependent, they are particularly vulnerable to "process losses" - the interaction difficulties that prevent groups from achieving their full potential” (p.
492). They highlight that while board processes of a high standard are essential to board effectiveness, even the best of board processes can be negatively impacted by group dynamics, intra-group conflict issues and other relational issues (see section 2.6.5.5)
2.6.7.7 Board Monitoring and Self-Evaluation
Self-review is critical to developing governance given its complex and challenging nature and widespread misunderstanding of it among non-profit boards. Even when governance has been developed, self-monitoring remains vital to ensuring the board adequately oversees the school’s accountabilities and progress towards long-term goals (Carol et al., 1986; Gann, 2017; Panel on the Non-Profit Sector, 2015). For example, board self-evaluation has been found to improve students’ academic success (Goodman et al., 1997). Under a governance approach, boards would regularly examine all the GEFs identified here: their strategic focus, model of governance, role in the school, relationships with stakeholders and staff, relationships among board members, competences for governance and the school’s environmental context.
There is some debate about whether the board should be evaluated as a whole or whether individual members should be evaluated as well, perhaps by the chair or an external reviewer (Land, 2002). It appears the ‘board only’ model is more common, but this leaves a board with the problem of managing rather than ‘carrying’ underperforming members (Land, 2002). It is possible volunteers on independent school boards would find personal review threatening, particularly if the reviewer lacked interpersonal skills and used a judgemental rather than coaching or developmental approach.
Ingram (2009) suggested that boards go through developmental cycles that regularly bring a need for renewal or major overhaul of their approach to governance. Regular self-review can help determine where a board sits in this cycle. This may particularly help smaller schools as they change and develop through growth phases, but also applies to large schools responding to changes in their environment and resources.
2.6.7.8 The Chair’s Role
A final important topic involves the critical role of the chairperson (Harrison, Murray, & Cornforth 2013, 2014; Puyvelde et al., 2018). Boards that give the chair a clear role are likely to have better processes and govern more effectively (Bush & Gamage, 2001). However, recruiting chairs with appropriate skills can be a significant challenge in non-profit organisations (Harrison, Murray, & Cornforth 2013, 2014), especially small ones. Training should therefore be a priority for board chairs new to the role.
2.6.7.9 Policies and Processes Are Not an End in Themselves
In her study of independent alternative Australian schools, Payne (2004) found that as schools grew their boards focused more on business practices and efficiency, including the development of policies and procedures. It is important to reiterate that board policies and processes exist only to further the board’s accountability and oversight roles (Carver & Carver, 2001; Walkley, 2012). A practitioner’s manual for non-profit governance compares two hypothetical boards, both with good processes but differing in strategic thinking (BoardSource, 2010). Board A runs smoothly and has good overall oversight, while Board B’s meetings are more contentious and livelier, occasionally delving into management issues but mostly examining
… the big questions about performance, future funding, organisational perceptions, value–laden concerns.… Board B devotes time to what matters most for the organisation and its development. Board A … is much more dependent on management for strategic early warnings and actions to be taken. (p. 190)
Thus, good processes alone do not guarantee good governance. BoardSource argues that board members should be intentional, focusing on “future-oriented inquiry” (p. 190) and seeing processes only as a means to long-term mission fulfilment.
However, non-profit boards often lack good business processes (Zhu, Wang & Bart, 2016; Bush & Gamage, 2001; Resolve, 2011; Robinson & Ward, 2005; Robinson et al., 2003). Governing is a more complex activity than managing, especially in non- profits which tend to have a broad range of stakeholders and a complex service- oriented (rather than profit-driven) mission. Boards seeking to adopt governance will therefore often need to substantially improve their processes.