I’ve been thinking a lot about boards lately. I was one of five petitioners in an unsuccessful school board recall effort. (If you are interested in knowing the details, this opinion piece lays out the data.) It would have been nice to win, but I take it as a win that so many people who’ve never thought about governance are paying attention and asking good questions.
Governance isn’t exactly a water-cooler topic. For many of us, governance (usually experienced through government) feels distant. Many of us don’t receive SNAP benefits or navigate the military or prison systems. We experience governance when something isn’t working: a healthcare system fails, a road is riddled with potholes, or, in our case, a public school system needs ethical, accountable leadership.
I certainly had to explain the fundamentals of governance to many over the course of my recall experience. [My favorite definition is: Governance is the structure used by a group of people to make decisions, maintain accountability, and lead on what matters.] It’s the accountability piece that so many find hard. This lack of prior experience with governance reminds me that nonprofits have a role to play in orienting new board members to effective governance and what it means for their role and responsibilities.
Of all the lessons I’ve gathered related to governance these weeks, the one I keep thinking about is this:
A governance model is only as good as its ability to weather and learn from the stress tests that will inevitably arise. A board is only as effective as its ability to design a decision-making structure that upholds its duties and allows it to learn from what didn’t work.
A stress test, in this case, is a process used to evaluate how well an organization can withstand and respond to extreme or challenging circumstances. A lot of nonprofit boards are concerned about what the new administration will bring in 2025. We may again be facing “unprecedented” experiences that force us to change how we work.
Plausible stress tests include:
- You experience a significant financial deficit that forces hard conversations about programs and facilities.
- You experience a significant increase in demand for services due to economic strife, an experience our food bank colleagues know all too well.
- You are doing important civil rights work, the Senate passes the “Nonprofit killer” bill, and your nonprofit may lose its tax-exempt status for political reasons.
- What would you add to this list of possible scenarios?
To evaluate and plan around these stress tests, you might ask:
- What would the impact of this situation be?
- How ready are you?
- We can you do now to get ready?
- What do you need to practice or learn more about?
- What can you learn from others who have experience this or something like it?
Ultimately you need a way of governing that allows you the latitude to explore these questions. In my opinion, it probably won’t be a branded governance model like the Carver Policy Governance Model or the even more restrictive version used by the Seattle School Board, “Student Outcome Focused Governance.” (Someday I’ll write a blog post on feminist governance models that aren’t named or branded and just get the work done.)
Our boards are not fixed structures immune to the passage of time or the pressures of the world around us. They are living systems capable of evolving and learning. The key lies in our willingness to prepare for, adapt, and embrace change as a core strength.
The Dalai Lama gave us a reflection on change in a 2005 New York Times opinion piece about science and religion:
“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”
If a religion can change, so can our boards. By doing so, we will expand our search for the truth and ensure that we make an enduring difference.