Dear Friend and Community Member,
What does leadership look like at a governance level? Is it management? What is the difference between leadership and management, and how does one or the other fit into the role of a governance team? I’d like to compare my ideas to yours on this topic to explore what the ideal trustee—and board—would look like. For the sake of illustration, I’ll use oversimplified statements and omit much of the grey areas that regularly arise in governance. If the foundational concepts are understood, grey areas are relatively easy to deal with when they come up.
Let’s start with management. What is it? Management is most often defined as the allocation and supervision of resources to accomplish a goal or set of goals, which are defined by the organization’s or department’s purpose. It involves scheduling, controlling costs, productivity management, quality control, process review, functional oversight, just to name a few.
Managers are often “in the weeds”, so to speak. They are immersed in details like deadlines, targets, man-hours, and measuring progress. Their focus is on the tactical approaches that go into supporting the organization’s purpose. Tactics include things like daily programming, working toward short term goals, and ensuring that the support systems are in place that the organization needs to fulfill its purpose. A manager’s focus is on implementation and execution. In other words, ensuring that the mission-critical tasks are being performed.
Managers are critical in ensuring that an organization fulfills its purpose, but who determines what that purpose is? The quick and simple answer: leadership.
So who is a leader? Simply put, a leader is the one(s) who creates meaningful movement. They create vision from a number of inputs. In our case, these inputs would be the community, the institution, and the framework of laws that create the basis and boundaries of the system being governed. Even the definition of governance (from Merriam-Webster Dictionary <link>) forces one to remove themselves from management activities: “the act or process of governing or overseeing the control and direction of something (such as a country or an organization).” Let’s look at that a little more closely.
How does a governance team “oversee the control or direction” of an institution? First, the direction has to be established and understood by all. That is called casting a vision. A bad vision or lack of vision causes an organization to stagnate. As the world changes, stagnation leads to irrelevance and, ultimately, the failure of the organization. A good vision establishes a clear direction, but is broad enough to allow room for adaptation when challenges arise or when the world changes. A good vision is inspiring—not because it is obviously the best idea ever, but because it is rooted in the community’s stated needs and would fulfill them effectively in the context of the institution’s purpose. An institution doing that is nothing short of inspiring. In our district’s case, the vision is captured in our Vision Statement and the Four Core Objectives.
Now that “overseeing the direction” is clear, let’s look at the “overseeing the control”. Overseeing the control of an organization or institution requires having its direction already clearly defined. The manager’s job is to manage and control operations within the established direction; governance’s job is to oversee whether that management is producing the desired results. So, how does one oversee management and control? It’s simple, although not always easy: the direction needs to have milestones defined, and progress toward those milestones is monitored and measured. The most effective, practical, and transparent way to do this is to have a strategic plan. This allows comparison between where the district was, where it is at now, and where it is going. That means that budgets and staff need to be overseen to ensure that resources are supporting progression toward the vision in an efficient, effective, and legal manner, and that various checkpoints are in place to monitor that progress. The governance team’s focus must be on the big picture, and its time horizon is long-term (minimum four years into the future according to Idaho law <link>). Otherwise, they are failing.
Finally, the way that a governance team controls outcomes is systemic, meaning they create and modify the system parameters rather than control any specific situation. This includes setting cohesive policies, budgets, and system-wide programs that align the organization with the vision. Specific situations belong to management to control. However, if undesirable situations continually arise, they may be doing so due to systemic gaps or loopholes in the system. In those cases, the system needs to be re-examined to produce consistently desirable outcomes.
Summary: I hope that this breakdown offers you some insight into a board’s proper role. Management is typically shorter-term and tactical in nature. Leadership is focused on a big-picture vision rooted in the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people the institution exists to serve.
I'd encourage you to observe your various boards and commissions to see who is in the governance mindset, and who might need some constructive feedback. If you’re unsure of where an elected or appointed official’s mindset is, ask them. Their job is to make the community’s collective will the centerpiece of their institution, and your job is to make sure that your will is clear. And it is my job to help you understand the ins and outs of governance.
Until next time,
Brad Howlett
It can be murky, but when everyone knows and accepts their role, they typically become a highly effective board. Roles are probably the most murky concept in boardsmanship, and one of most pivotal when understood.
Where it gets murky, of course, is that managers also lead and boards also oversee. As co-pilots they need to know their lanes but also how to partner effectively.