What_is_Policy_Governance

" Policy Governance brings great clarity to the roles of the superintendency and board members ... it lays out a roadmap for establishing clear goals and direction for the superintendent and, thus, the district. And, most importantly, it is, by far, the strongest model to ensure accountability."

Peg Portscheller, Professional Development Associate
Center for Performance Assessment

What is Policy Governance^®?

John Carver introduced his Policy Governance® model in the late 1980's with the publication of his first book, Boards That Make a Difference. The model is built on a set of 10 basic, mostly traditional principles that long have been recognized as characterizing what good boards do. Carver recognized the difficulty that boards have in actually practicing those principles, and created this model to enable boards to effectively lead, direct, inspire and control organizations through a set of very carefully crafted policy statements based on those principles.

What is Coherent Governance?

Coherent Governance is The Aspen Group International's own governance design. It is influenced by Carver's work, but it varies from Policy Governance® in some important ways. Those differences are more fully described below.

The thing about models:

Models are just that: models. They offer a framework for board and organizational behavior. But in order to fulfill their promise, they must be put to practical use. These two models allow boards to lead and govern, not "manage the manager."

The Policy Governance® model

Abandoning the traditional practice of "approvals," the Policy Governance board sets policy and rigorously monitors organizational performance for compliance. Unlike traditional boards, the Policy Governance board usually manages to effectively lead the organization with a policy manual that includes not more than 40 policies--total. The policies are grouped into four categories:

ENDS: Defined organizational products and outcomes for specified owners or clients. Ends policies clearly state the "bottom line" the organization is expected to achieve over time: What Results? For Whom? At What Cost?

EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS: Clear limits and controls on operational decisions. EL policies prohibit actions and decisions the board would find unacceptable, defining the boundaries within which the CEO and staff may operate. Stated in the negative, these "10 Commandments" articulate the actions and decisions that limit CEO authority. By limiting administrative choices, they offer freedom to the CEO to make any choice not precluded by board policy.

The Policy Governance board is expected to remove itself from a short-term focus on internal operations and to delegate this important function to its CEO. The concept is this: the board, through EL policy, controls the day-to-day operational decisions without making them or without helping the CEO make them through the traditional approval process.

GOVERNANCE PROCESS: The board defines its own work, and how it will be carried out. GP policies clearly state the expectations the board has for itself, for members, and for any board committees. Included are policies defining the role of the board and the chair, policies stipulating expected behaviors of board members, and other topics related strictly to the board and how it will conduct its work.

GOVERNANCE/MANAGEMENT CONNECTION: These policies specify the job description of the CEO and the responsibility and authority delegated to the CEO. Policies define a process and timeline for CEO evaluation, and establish accountability of the CEO to the board as a whole, not to individuals.

For our public school board clients, we have adapted the Policy Governance model to make it apply more effectively to the special circumstances and concerns of school boards. We consider ourselves to be "purists" in terms of maintaining the integrity of the model, but we also recognize that school boards operate in a very different environment from other types of boards. Our policy templates include policies on topics not found in the work of most other consultants, making the final product for school boards much more encompassing and thorough.

The Coherent Governance model

During more than a decade of working with boards of all types in the Policy Governance® model, we continued to hear over and over concerns about the same issues: the perception that the PG model is too "rigid" in its application; the "double-negative language" of the Executive Limitations policies ("The CEO may not fail to..."), and others. While there may be solid counter arguments to these points, we finally realized that in order to serve the real needs of public boards especially, they should have an option that more fully addresses the full breadth of issues they face at the operational level. And we concluded that the more "user-friendly" a model can be, the more likely it is to be implemented effectively--and sustained over time.

The Coherent Governance model also is built around four different but interrelated types of policies, each serving a very distinct purpose:

RESULTS: Results policies describe the outcomes expected to be achieved by the clients served by the organization. The Results policies are the CEO's and the organization's performance targets, and also form the basis for judging organizational and CEO success.

OPERATIONAL EXPECTATIONS : The board wants to remove itself from preoccupation with the day-to-day operation of the organization, but yet it has concerns about those operational matters that it must express in some fashion. These OE policies allow the board either to direct that certain conditions exist or actions occur, or prohibit those conditions and actions that it would find unacceptable. Each OE policy has two components, one stated positively ("do this"), the other negatively ("don't do this"). Thus the "double negative" language inherent to Policy Governance® is avoided.

The CEO is encumbered to comply with the board's stated values about operational conditions and actions, but after having done so, then is freed to make other decisions without the board's approval. And for the board, these policies allow the board to control operational decision-making without the accountability-confusing ritual of approving CEO recommendations.

BOARD/CEO RELATIONS: These policies define the degree of authority conveyed by the board to the CEO, and also stipulate how the CEO will be evaluated. Essentially, the CEO's performance and the organization's performance are identical: if the organization succeeds in operating according to the board's stated values, and if it produces the outcomes for clients specified by the board in policy, the CEO has succeeded, and would be evaluated accordingly.

GOVERNANCE CULTURE: The board has a culture. In traditional governing environments, we aren't quite sure what caused it to be what it is. In Coherent Governance, the board will deliberately and carefully craft a set of policies that, in sum, establish a culture for good governance. Separate policies will define the board's job, the behavioral norms expected of members, and other facets of good board performance.

Why consider either of these models?

If one believes that there is any relationship whatsoever between what happens in the boardroom and what happens at the operational level of the organizations for which the board is responsible, no board can afford to do its job in any manner other than excellent. For a poorly-performing board to expect the organization to perform any better is fantasy. Boards are obligated to perform at the highest level--and then demand similar performance from the organization they govern.

Successful implementation makes these promises:

Role confusion between board and CEO will be eliminated forever.
The board will add value to the organization it governs by focusing on the Results that are to be achieved and maintaining direct interface with stakeholders.
The CEO and staff will be free to do their jobs without the board's approving, reviewing, or redoing day-to-day decisions.
The board's bulky, unwieldly policy manual--which almost always is focused more on operations than governance concerns--will be replaced with very clear, dynamic and inclusive governing policies.

If our board adopts either Policy Governance® or Coherent Governance, is successful implementation assured?

Our experienced consultation and training offers all the practical and theoretical tools a board should need to effectively implement either Policy Governance or Coherent Governance. However, both models can fail. In the final analysis, it is your board that is responsible for its own behavior and commitment, and no third party consultant can compensate for some of the reasons for failure. We have seen these contributors to the models' failure:

º Lack of committment to the model,

º Impatience with the challenge to do different work well;

º CEOs' inability to assume the required authority and accountability;

º Dwelling on the model itself, rather than using it as a tool ;

º Allowing members with a different agenda to sidetrack the board.

Doing anything new and different requires commitment, patience and willingness to give up old habits and customs in favor of the promise of better, more fulfilling work. The result is worth the cost.