Let me share with you the findings of a governance benchmarking study by the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) Foundation, which was published in its book, entitled What Makes High-Performing Boards: Effective Governance Practices in Member-Serving Organizations, cowritten by Beth Gazley and Ashley Bowers. While the publication came out some time back, the findings are still relevant and applicable in the context of Philippine associations.
According to the report, the highest-performing boards had the following attributes:
Strategic focus. High-performing boards were twice as likely to invest substantial board meeting time to strategic considerations. Fully 99 percent of these boards were operating under an organizational strategic plan—and the plan was more likely to be one the board had worked jointly with staff to develop, rather than allowing staff to drive the planning. The result is striking: the top-performing boards also had healthier membership and budget growth and their leadership was more stable; their CEOs were less likely to report intentions to leave the organization.
Commitment to assessment and skills development. These boards were twice as likely to set board-level performance goals for themselves, almost twice as likely to invest in board-development activities, such as mentoring and training, and twice as likely to engage in formal or informal board self-assessment.
Effective recruitment processes. They were also more likely to recruit new board members broadly, by, for example, soliciting nominations from outside the board rather than depending on CEO nominations. They were more likely to screen prospective board members and to hold competitive elections rather than voting for a single slate. The result? Their CEOs were half as likely to report challenges finding board members who had the qualifications they needed and half as likely to report problems keeping the board members they wanted.
High participation levels. Once these board members were recruited, the CEOs at top-performing associations were half as likely to report board meetings that failed to make a quorum or to report that board members had left office before their terms were up. These may seem like minor issues, but they weaken leadership, complicate governance processes for staff and other board members, slow down board decision-making and create a culture of weak accountability.
In many instances, the differences between high and low performers were subtle. For example, low-performing boards were no more likely than high-performing boards to have policies on term limits, to screen board members, or to impose diversity requirements on board membership. There are no easy fixes. Rather, the margin of excellence appears to rest in the ability of some boards to connect the dots. They learn to use board structural considerations not as a crutch or excuse but as a vehicle for asking the tough questions and engaging in a deeper level of introspection that leads to an effective understanding of what works well for them.
I believe these attributes of high-performing boards can encourage associations here to reflect upon how to enhance their board process and practice and how to maximize their boards’ contribution to the growth and sustainability of their organizations.
****
The column contributor, Octavio “Bobby” Peralta, is concurrently the secretary-general of the Association of Development Financing Institutions in Asia and the Pacific (ADFIAP) and the CEO and founder of the Philippine Council of Associations and Association Executives (PCAAE). PCAAE is holding the Associations Summit 5 (AS5) on November 22 and 23, at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC), which is expected to draw over 200 association professionals here and abroad. The two-day event is supported by ADFIAP, the Tourism Promotions Board and the PICC.
E-mail inquiries@adfiap.org for more details on AS5.
1 comment