Getting to good governance isn't easy. Many nonprofit organizations have a general sense that governance matters, but have trouble moving from their existing approach to a better one. Why?

Over the last two years, the Institute On Governance, a nonprofit think tank based in Ottawa, studied governance in the voluntary sector, seeking answers to two questions: what stands in the way of improving governance, and what strategies for improvement are most likely to succeed?

Some answers revealed through this research won't surprise anyone familiar with the sector. For voluntary organizations, the pathway to better governance is cluttered with the usual barriers: insufficient time, resources, and expertise, and too many immediate pressures.

But the research revealed other impediments directly related to governance. These hurdles are of two kinds: those which have to do with ideas or concepts, and those which are simply practical problems.

Why is it important?

In the domain of ideas, many organizations have only a dim idea of why governance matters to them. They don't perceive the connection between good governance and their ability to achieve the goals that really matter to them: better care for homeless people, a successful artistic production, or improved recreational facilities for their community. For them, governance remains a “back-burner” issue - worth considering sometime, but never a high priority.

Further, many organizations don't have a clear concept of what good governance is. It's hard to reach a goal if you have difficulty recognizing it.

Related to this was a somewhat disturbing preliminary finding of our research (not as yet fully documented). This was a fairly strong indication that claims made on behalf of the “policy governance” or “Carver” model of good governance may be seriously over-inflated.

Some organizations in search of a clearer understanding of governance have been attracted to this set of ideas. First articulated in 1990, these ideas are modestly promoted on the Carver website (www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm) as “the world's only complete, universal theory of governance - a conceptually coherent paradigm of principles and concepts (not of structure).”

My way or the highway?

This model is highly prescriptive. It says that all boards of directors have to lead their organization, setting basic directions and policies. Execution (only) is the job of staff.

Rules are important: rules that govern the board-staff relationship, that define what the CEO or executive director is not permitted to do (“executive limitations”), and that dictate the board's role, which is to deal with broad strategic decisions with longterm applicability. The board's domain is “governance”; board members are not expected to collaborate with staff on more operational tasks, nor is the board encouraged to form committees.

Some aspects of these ideas have their merits, but our research indicates that the claims to universality made by their proponents - the notion that they are applicable to any kind of organization - simply cannot be sustained. The model is not universal, and its ideas are not a formula that will lead to the best governance results for any kind or size of organization in the sector.

Indeed, the model may work rather better in theory than in practice. Many organizations which have tried to adopt this approach appear to have had great difficulty making it work. Some board members and executive directors or CEOs we spoke with found the model too rigid. Others indicated that it didn't seem to fit their organization. They tried to adopt it but had to modify it to make it work. But when this model is modified to any degree it's no longer valid - that is, proponents of the model maintain that it has to be adopted in its entirety.

Needed: flexible concepts

So one of the hurdles encountered by voluntary sector organizations seemed to be a need for guiding ideas or concepts related to better governance that are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the diversity of the sector.

To learn more about this aspect of governance, and how we have tried to address this problem, visit the Institute's web site, especially the section on “board governance” and models at http://www.iog.ca/boardgovernance/html/mod_the.html.)

Another hurdle revealed by our research was the difficulty encountered by organizations in assessing the merits of their current approach to governance. To move forward, you need to know where you stand at present. So we devised a simple self-assessment tool called the Quick Check. The tool is better suited to organizations with a few staff than to those entirely run by volunteers, but it's free, and available on the Institute's website, http://www.iog.ca/boardgovernance/html/ass.html.

Governance gremlins abound

Beyond the realm of ideas and concepts, we found no shortage of practical problems that are symptomatic of weak governance, or that block improvement. We decided to call them “governance gremlins” because they appear in so many forms. Examples include:

• Deadwood: directors who show up for board meetings but seldom contribute anything
• Conflicts of interest or factionalism among board members
• Board members who don't understand their role, or who want to contribute more, but don't know how
• Excessive CEO “ownership” - Board “irrelevance”
• Directors reluctant to help with fundraising
• Poor communication with important stakeholders
• Interference in management, either by board members or by over-zealous funders
• Inadequately prepared, unproductive board meetings

The list goes on and on. How to deal with such problems?

Organizations wishing to improve their governance have a choice: they can try to effect improvements systematically, or an issue-by-issue basis.

The systematic approach requires an organization to take stock broadly of its current governance situation. What's working, what's not, and where do the root causes lie - in people, policies, bylaws, historical practices that have become conventions, or a combination of these?

Need to make real investment

This strategy requires intellectual investment. The board and CEO may need to learn about different approaches to governance and to reflect together on the governance architecture appropriate to their particular organization. Good governance is not a matter of applying a cookie cutter.

This approach produces enduring results, but its disadvantage is that it takes persistence, energy and commitment. Timing is important, too - an organization's ability to move forward in this way will depend on circumstances. Often, an outside consultant or facilitator can be helpful in guiding reflection.

Organizations lacking the inclination or capability to take the systematic track may still wish to tackle some of the specific governance gremlins plaguing them. In deciding how to take on a gremlin, these ideas may be helpful:

• Network. There is a lot of useful experience to be tapped among colleagues who have served on boards or as CEOs of other organizations. One of them may have addressed your particular problem. Conferences or workshops are good opportunities for building useful relationships.
• If there's an umbrella organization or national office for your organization, speak to its personnel.
• Check out the Internet. There are more and more sites with information on governance.
• Visit your local bookstore. New books on governance in the voluntary sector have been appearing. Many have lots of practical advice.

Remember to try to identify the sources of your problems, not just the symptoms. If you have deadwood on your board, you can get rid of these persons (with some effort) and replace them … but why is the deadwood there? Have you looked at your nomination procedures and criteria for new board members?

One other research finding is key. Governance reform seldom seems to take place unless one or both of the following conditions exist:

First, there must be a leader, someone who thinks governance matters, and who is willing to invest the time and personal capital to bring change about. Governance is about power, and power does not change easily.

Board chair should take point

The individual best placed to play this role is the board chair. This is the pivot point of governance, able to influence or control most key levers - what task forces or committees are to be struck, what policies will be proposed to the board, who will lead the key committees and who will sit on them, how nominations for new members will be handled, what the board's agenda will be in the coming year, how meetings will be run.

If the chair is unwilling or unable to lead an attack on governance issues, then the leader must be someone who has the confidence of the chair, otherwise few results are likely to be achieved.

Leadership apart, the circumstances have to favour change, and people have to recognize this. Many governance reforms occur in crisis situations: a confrontation with the CEO, a serious financial deficit, a disagreement with a key stakeholder. Sometimes, it seems that only a crisis can move governance from the back to the front burner.

A crisis is seldom the best time for thoughtful decision-making. If you believe governance is important, you may wish to consider where it should sit in the list of priorities facing your organization, so you can get rid of those gremlins, or formulate a systematic plan for improvement, before a crisis comes along.