“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”: Arthur Schopenhauer

The biggest disappointment when reading Tim Plumptre’s piece, Two kinds of obstacles identified in original research (CF August 31), is not that he takes issue with Dr. John Carver’s Policy Governance model, but that his criticism fails to address the actual principles which comprise the model. Instead, Plumptre suggests that good governance can be created by picking and choosing from a smorgasbord of flexible concepts.

Plumptre and his organization, the Institute on Governance (IOG), should be commended for carrying out research in the vast uncharted waters of board governance. At the same time, he should not find his own preliminary research results about the universal claims of Policy Governance “disturbing” or surprising when, according to the IOG website, “our research was inspired by our belief that one model of governance could not possibly accommodate the great diversity of organizations within the non-profit sector.” Clearly, these were the results that were being sought!

Policy Governance critics sometimes disparage the model simply based on its widespread applicability to boards of all types and sizes. No model can possibly work for all boards, they argue, because every board is different. And yet a very wide variety of types of boards can and do use the model. Why? Because it was purposely designed to allow infinite flexibility in its application. Any board - large or small, public or private, with or without paid staff, with or without committees - can adopt and use Policy Governance with great success.

Consistency enables flexibility

The flexibility of Policy Governance in its application is made possible by the strength, coherency and logical consistency of its principles. Antoine de Saint Exupery said that “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Likewise, Carver’s intention when building the model was to require as few rules as possible. The result, of course, is that the rules that do remain are very important ones.

Much like the support beams of a house, Policy Governance principles provide the strong framework required to accommodate myriad purposes and activities. The alternative - “flexible concepts” - could be likened to rubber beams, having dubious utility, strength or potential.

Naturally, the fact that someone could invent a governance model that is simultaneously flexible and strong confounds many. It’s new. It’s different. Just like the concept of democracy a few centuries ago (and still today in many parts of the world), Policy Governance doesn’t look like anything we have ever seen before, and it challenges much that we have come to accept - or to tolerate - as standard practice. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that some organizations have found the transition process difficult.

Then again, no one should ever promise that good governance, or the job of a board member, is easy. Most worthy achievements in human life do require great effort, especially when collaboration is required among a group of people, like a board of directors.

Much work remains to be done in the field of governance research. And Carver is quick to acknowledge that one day, someone will design another coherent model that will challenge or improve upon Policy Governance. Progress in these endeavours, however, is more likely if we can move the debate beyond superficial observations and anecdotal evidence, to deeper, more substantial questions about principles, human nature, and the social order.