Caroline Oliver of Caroline Oliver Communications, in an article on governance models, has once again risen to the defence of the Carver Policy Governance Model. (Charity Channel, March 30, and Canadian FundRaiser, May 15).

Few dispute that promotion of the Carver model has contributed enormously to the general discourse on governance. Carver’s work, like most theory, stands on the shoulders of others – in his case, such as Cyril Houle, who earlier identified the staff/work, management/administration, board/policy pyramid.

Many of its elements have been particularly enlightening for the boards that have adopted or adapted this model…particularly the “board-ends and management-means” distinction: the board focus on policy rather than operational matters; the importance of board solidarity (speaking with one voice); the CEO as a board’s only employee (but not exactly); and the clear line of accountability from staff to CEO, from the CEO to the whole board, and from the board to the organization’s “owners”.

Private, public and voluntary sector boards across North America have tried, with varied degrees of success, to implement this model or adapt it to their own organization’s needs and context. Some report success…some more in adaptation than in rigid application.

Many others have expressed frustration, saying that it is too complex to understand and implement, requires too much time and training, creates too much distance between the board and organization and erodes board control and accountability. Carver, in response, maintains that his model is suited to any type or size of organization and will benefit those in which it is properly (ie fully) implemented.

On the other hand, there has been significant concern that promotion of a one-size-fits-all model, rigorously applied, has drawn attention away from alternative models that may be more suitable for many voluntary organizations.

This is especially true of smaller organizations with limited resources to sustain a rigorous application of the model and where relationships among the board, staff, volunteers and consumers may need to be more collaborative. Indeed, such collaboration is increasingly recognized as a key factor in the success of any organization.

Carver’s proposition that the board should conduct its work somewhat independently of the CEO can create serious structural tensions. Chief among these is the principal/agent paradox in which the board bears legal responsibility for the organization but does not, in most cases, have the same knowledge, resources or time as the executive director and staff to be able to plan and direct the organization or monitor its performance independently.

The Primer for Directors of Not-For-Profit Corporations (CCP/Imagine Canada and Industry Canada) adds an additional caution that “models of board governance which advocate that directors limit themselves to policy matters only and leave responsibility for administration and day-to-day matters with the executive staff of the corporation” do not absolve the directors of their obligations under Canadian law to report on and account for the operation of the organization.

The debate about the policy governance model was an important backdrop to my decision to search for alternative governance models or board types, and to place these within a coherent framework that would allow boards to decide which governance approach or set of practices might be more, or most, appropriate for their organization.

Oliver seems to have misunderstood my work on governance models in suggesting that I “had to quickly revert to board types, an entirely different notion”. In fact, I suggested that a board typology might be more helpful to the average nonprofit board than a typology of governance models, and that even more helpful to such boards would be a guide to best or recommended governance practices that research has suggested relate to high-performance boards and organizational effectiveness. These are simply two alternative lenses through which to view board performance.

Since no single model has a monopoly on governance practices, and research has established only correlative, rather than causal, relationships between such practices and organizational effectiveness, it is in my opinion incumbent on those who claim expertise in governance to suggest recommended practices rather than a rigid, universal prescription.

In fact, Nobbie and Brudney’s research (Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2003) suggests that the particular governance model matters less than the fact that a board is paying serious attention to its governance practices with a view to self-improvement.

No single approach to governance has proven suitable for every organization. The factors discussed in my work are important considerations both in understanding what drives boards to adopt certain practices and what practices might be appropriate for a particular organization at a particular stage of its evolution.

General insights can be derived from an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of specific models. But no matter which model or approach an organization uses, if it is to be effective, it must be adapted to the specific circumstances of the organization. Moreover, trust, mutual respect, honest communications and collaborative relationships are essential to the board/CEO partnership, regardless of formal structures and policies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there are certain governance best or recommended practices that cut across governance models or board types and that adoption or adaptation of these to particular organizational circumstances is more important than debate about which theoretical model a board should employ.

Carver claims to have developed the only complete, universal theory of modern governance. This contention evokes the words of Yogi Berra, folk philosopher and one-time New York Yankees baseball catcher, who said: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice…but in practice there is.”