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 Coherent Governance?

Coherent Governance is The Aspen Group International's own governance design. It is influenced heavily by John Carver's work, but it varies from his Policy Governance® model in some important ways. We believe it is the most comprehensive and practical governance model available for public and not-for-profit boards, the primary audience for which it was created. Below are some of the specific features of Coherent Governance that define its utility for public and not-for-profit boards.

The thing about models:

Models are just that: models. They offer a framework for board and organizational behavior. We view governance models to be operating sysems that frame the board's work and allow the board to perform that work in some rational fashion. But in order to fulfill their promise, models must be put to practical use. Coherent Governance allows boards to lead and govern, not "manage the manager."

The Coherent Governance model

During decades of working with boards of all types, we came to realize that in order to serve the real needs of public boards especially, they should rely on a governance model that 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.

Abandoning the traditional practice of administrative approvals, the Coherent Governance board sets policy and rigorously monitors organizational performance for compliance with its operational policies and reasonable progress on its results policies. Unlike traditional boards, Coherent Governance boards manage to effectively lead very complex organizations with a policy manual that includes not more than 35 to 40 policies--total.

The Coherent Governance model 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"). The result is clear direction from the board to the CEO.

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. In fact, Coherent Governance promises to eliminate forever any disclarity about who is responsible for what.

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 the Coherent Governance model?

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 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 Coherent Governance. However, implementation attempts 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 model's failure:

º Lack of commitment 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.