Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards

Citation

Shields, T. (2007), "Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 191-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710726895

Of the four seminal questions posed by the authors of Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards, board members, researchers and consultants may find the last question the most hopeful. “Why is it” the authors ask, “that there has been such a continuous flow of new ideas that have changed prevailing views about organizations and leadership, but no substantial re‐conceptualization of nonprofit governance, only more guidance and exhortation to do better the work that boards are traditionally expected to do?” (p. xvi). Chait, Ryan and Taylor answer that question and others, and in the process offer a provocative analysis of how nonprofit boards can govern differently. Richard P. Chait, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education, William P. Ryan, a research fellow at the Hauser Centre for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University, and Barbara E. Taylor, a researcher and consultant to nonprofit organizations and former vice‐president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges bring a solid repertoire of experience and research to the topic. This is the latest offering from these authors, who in the past fifteen years, have published several books and articles on nonprofit governance, individually and in co‐authorship.

Much of the research in the nonprofit sector focuses attention on issues related to the structural and functional performance of boards and their directors. Existing nonprofit board literature is replete with prescriptive lists and templates that are designed to address these issues. Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards provides interesting insights into the obstacles associated with effective governance and argues that these obstacles are not the sole reason for nonprofit governance problems.

The first chapters in the text highlight some of the recognized issues that nonprofit boards of directors face, such as time constraints, copious amounts of information, financial concerns, pressures from the public to do more and be more accountable, and for many, a sense of not making a difference. They suggest the improvement of board processes and structures alone will not reconcile these issues. Board performance, they suggest, is impacted most not by a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, but by a lack of clarity about purpose. The authors contend that there is more to governing than the stewardship of funds and the management strategic issues, and that true governance requires board members to lead. “Leaders are expected to shape agendas, not impose priorities; to allocate attention, not dictate results; and to define problems, not mandate solutions.” (p. 3).

The book's central chapters define and describe three types of governance work for boards of directors. Types one and two, fiduciary governance work and strategic governance work will be familiar to anyone in the field. Type three, called generative governance, invites board members to develop a deep and abiding understanding of their organization and to exercise their authority and leadership where it counts most – at the foundational, strategic, generative phases of planning and problem solving, prior to decisions and actions. People in all leadership positions need to be thinkers, and in governance positions, the need for skilled critical thinking is clear. Leaders, by definition, are engaged in deep thought about the situations in which they assume responsibility, yet this activity on boards is often eclipsed by other tasks.

The authors contend that boards can improve their governance practices by adopting a shift in how they conceptualize them. They argue that meeting strategic and fiduciary duties related to governance is essential and that it is important to capitalize on directors' individual skills and experiences to address these issues. However, by reframing the concept of governance to include generative governance, the focus of board discussions becomes one of asking hard questions, seeking creative solutions, taking the time to consider alternative positions, and engaging in both retrospective and reflective thinking. This generative approach becomes central to the board's modus operandi.

Generative governance allows for different environmental, strategic and political realities and encourages boards to focus less on structure, to be more than bystanders, and to avoid “governance by default”. As the center of the organization's authority and legitimacy, boards carry an obligation to enact their governance role in ways that are critical, meaningful and purposeful. Generative governance helps them to do this. However, the authors contend that board members allow themselves to be constrained by the numerous contingencies that affect their governance duties, and most do not take the time or put forth the effort to examine and reflect on the role of governance and the potential of the board.

The final chapters of the book provide practical and useful steps for boards and senior staff to take together. The authors identify four types of assets that board members offer, intellectual, reputational, political and social, and discuss how board members can use these assets to support the governance activities of their organization. The last chapter offers ways that boards might begin to integrate the governance as leadership concept into their own work.

The book is significant in that it offers a different perspective on nonprofit governance for board members and managers to consider. It may enhance board governance activities by opening a dialogue about what board leadership means. Further, it may focus greater attention on the need to re‐conceptualize governance in the nonprofit sector. Finally, it sheds new light on the importance of leadership at the board table and offers insights into how to enact that leadership. Generative governance will require some flexibility and a rethinking of board activities to make time and space for the creativity the authors describe but it may just be worth the work.