|
Feb. 2007
On
the Development of Monitoring Reports
I
have written previously about the power, even the
transformative and enabling power, of good ends
monitoring for both the board and the CEO. Policy
Governance does not work without monitoring. (Neither
does any kind of governance a board may be doing,
but the average board is usually unaware of that fact.
Receiving reports, even from board committees, is not
monitoring in the Policy Governance sense of assuring
accountability.) The better the monitoring, the better
the governance within the Policy Governance model.
I
believe that the development of monitoring reports
should be participatory within the organization,
especially regarding ends. Monitoring reports are
not something done at the last minute as a necessary
evil to satisfy a demand of the board. Doing the
reasonable interpretations well should result in
organizational ownership. Be participatory. For example,
using a retreat venue would be one alternative. The ends
reasonable interpretations, for example, become key to
the strategic planning process. Hence, all strategic
planning in a Policy Governance context begins with
good, thorough reasonable interpretations of the ends
policies, a good candidate for a retreat or a “catch
ball” approach to development. By the time the process
is completed the entire organization, top to bottom,
should have become knowledgeable of the ends and each
person's particular role in accomplishing them.
In
fact, Peter Block, in his book Stewardship,
argues for the enabling and personal growing power,
within the organization, of handing the job of
accomplishing results or purposes (ends) downward by
having each person do, & be responsible for their
portion of accomplishing the ends (while avoiding
parental prescriptive supervision). He characterizes
this as the delegation or assignment of stewardship. I
think that is good way to think about it. Each level
stewards its portion of the ends. Thus, each level must
do its own interpretation (and then the execution) for
the portion they are stewarding. This empowerment grows
people Block argues.
In
doing the data/evidence section, CEOs should think of
the data section as providing the data or evidence that
"makes the case" - is convincing enough for a reasonable
person. If how things are is compliant with your
reasonable interpretation, you are happy and can sleep
at night. If not, you've got the basis for fixing it.
Don't attempt to game your board by biasing the evidence
in any way. The board will eventually figure out what
you are doing, and trust in management will be seriously
damaged. Trust is management's most valuable commodity
with its board. It is very difficult to regain.
CEOs
should keep in mind that it is (primarily) their
monitoring reports that will be used by the board to
judge their performance (which is commensurate with
organizational performance). Inadequate or poorly done
monitoring reports, poor ability to judge performance,
as the board will discover. Rich information in the
monitoring reports, good information to judge
performance (which almost always helps the CEO
favorably).
There are several good basic explanatory guides and
writings concerning monitoring reports to assure board
policy compliance. Of course, my model is always Policy
Governance®. We have monitoring report
development guidelines for boards available. There is a
Carver Guide published on evaluating the CEO. The one I
now provide is based on work originally done by Mark
Goehring, General Manager of CDS Foods in Canada, as
monitoring report development instructions for his
staff, which we have elaborated upon. It is very
practical, follows good monitoring principles and has
work pages that staff can use. (Call or write me for a
copy.) |
&name-wsha.gif)