6 Key Practices for Each Board https://chrisonet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/lightstock_455924_medium_tgc-copy-300x128.jpg

6 Key Practices for Each Board

It’s simple to lose accountability on the high.

In most church buildings, nonprofits, and firms, a pastor or govt director or CEO or president heads up the operations. The employees report back to him.

In a lot of these organizations, the chief additionally influences the board—she or he experiences on how issues are going, provides plans for the long run, and even recommends new board members.

With out cautious consideration, a pacesetter can start to function with none significant accountability. If he loses sight of the group’s objectives, no one redirects him. If her marriage falters, nobody is aware of about it. With no direct line from employees to board, a CEO’s incompetency or inappropriate conduct with these below him can proceed indefinitely.

With no direct line from employees to board, a CEO’s incompetency or inappropriate conduct with these below him can proceed indefinitely.

TGC requested a longtime senior pastor, a chair of a seminary board, and a university president—a number of the greatest of their fields—how they assume biblically about authority, how they preserve leaders accountable, and what to do if issues go sideways.

Rent a pacesetter who desires accountability.

“Unless the CEO/senior pastor/executive director wants to be held accountable, it’s basically impossible,” stated Sandy Willson, who spent 22 years because the senior pastor of Second Presbyterian Church in Memphis. “He’s the one who controls information. He has the microphone all the time. If he doesn’t cede power to those around him, it’s probably never going to happen.”

When Willson got here to Second Presbyterian, he gave the church leaders authority to fireside him. When Gordon Smith, writer of Institutional Intelligence: Learn how to Construct an Efficient Group, turned president at Ambrose College, he requested that each board assembly embody an “in camera” session—the place he leaves the room—even when for lower than an hour.

“Things that need to be said don’t get said because I’m in the room,” he stated. “Those sessions can be unsettling because I know who they’re talking about. But if you don’t want to be talked about, don’t go into executive leadership.”

Residing below authority is a non secular self-discipline.

Residing below authority is a non secular self-discipline, Smith stated. “Even the apostle Paul—who could not have been more convinced that he was supposed to preach the gospel to the Gentiles—still went to the Jewish council in the book of Acts. He said, ‘Here’s what’s happening,’ and then deferred to them. Even Peter, when he went to Cornelius, came back to Jerusalem and accounted for his actions. He didn’t say, ‘Excuse me, who do you think you are? Jesus is building his church on me.’ He deferred to them.”

Working below authority “is deeply part of the fabric of New Testament shared life,” Smith stated. That’s no much less true at this time.

Create accountability that strengthens a pacesetter’s authority.

In January, Smith seen that one in every of his vice presidents wasn’t working successfully. He instructed his board chair, with whom he meets commonly, about his doubts.

“How will you decide what to do?” Ken Stankievech requested him.

“I’ll monitor it over the next month and then make a decision,” Smith promised. And he did. He determined that the particular person wasn’t a great match for the job. After which he did nothing, as a result of letting somebody go is “awkward and uncomfortable and the worst.”

A month later, Stankievech requested Smith about it: “Is he effective?”

“No,” Smith stated.

“What are you going to do about it?” Stankievech pressed.

In April, Smith let the particular person go.

“Ken held me accountable to do what I needed to be done but was avoiding,” he stated.

Boards also can catch what a pacesetter misses—“We all have blind spots,” stated Smith—and might lend sensible recommendation from their areas of experience. However maybe the largest method accountability lends authority is probably the most counterintuitive: by preserving an in depth eye on the chief.

Repeatedly ask intimate/exhausting questions.

At Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), chancellor Ligon Duncan meets together with his board twice a 12 months and his govt committee month-to-month. On high of that, he meets with a small group of three board members virtually each month.

They ask in regards to the pressures he’s experiencing contained in the establishment and in his private life. They ask about his marriage and kids. They ask in regards to the weight of his schedule. They pray for him. They counsel him.

Maybe the largest method accountability lends authority is probably the most counterintuitive: by preserving an in depth eye on the chief.

Smith additionally has a four-person govt committee—“More than that is too many. How would they even do that?”—however they meet yearly. He deliberately offers a full replace on his non secular practices and the rhythms of his life—together with sabbath relaxation. In month-to-month conferences together with his board chair, nothing is off limits, together with the standard of his marriage. (“The potential damage to this organization is so high if my wife and I are not in a good place,” Smith stated. “My marriage is a public issue.”)

If a board doesn’t ask these questions immediately, it ought to be certain somebody is asking them, Willson stated. They’ll discover out, “Who are your close friends? How often do you get together? Is there someone to ask you if you’re viewing porn or having marital issues? What will your friend do if you’re in trouble morally or spiritually?”

What would your employees do?

Hold communication open between the employees and the board.

Each few years, Second Presbyterian did a “360 review” of Willson, which implies they requested three or 4 of his employees how he was doing.

“You want to do that collaboratively with the CEO,” stated Willson, who supplied names of those that labored carefully with him and urged them to be candid. “That way you don’t go behind his back.”

At Ambrose, when board members come twice a 12 months for his or her conferences, they attend “listening posts” arrange round campus.

“I need to not be defensive, because I know people are going to express concerns,” he stated. “But I want my board to be excited about the students. I want them to believe in this faculty. I want them to feel the force of leadership in my provost and have high confidence in my CFO. That doesn’t happen if they don’t talk to them.”

‘The potential damage to this organization is so high if my wife and I are not in a good place,’ Smith stated. ‘My marriage is a public issue.’


His board members are cautious to not ask, “What don’t you like about this place?” however as an alternative, “What’s encouraging you?” and “What’s furrowing your brow?”

If there are issues about Smith, they’ll come up at these periods.

Board members need to be skilled to obtain these, Willson stated. They should ask if the complaint-bringer has talked to his or her supervisor. If the issue is extra severe, maybe it must go to human sources. Or if it’s extra severe but, maybe the board wants to debate it with the president.

“The job [of board members] is not to solve the problem, but to get it into the right courtroom,” Willson stated.

Board members should be held accountable additionally.

Each RTS board member is both an elder or deacon in his native church.

“I’ve been on boards of nonprofits where most of the members weren’t under the authority of the church,” Ridgway stated. “That was always an issue. Where’s their accountability?”

However at Second Presbyterian, the session members had been the local-church authority.

“The board has to do the work,” Willson stated. “They have to come to meetings. They have to participate. If they don’t, they have to go. How can you fire a CEO if you can’t fire yourself?”

Board members ought to actually consider themselves and one another yearly, he stated. (Over time, Second Presbyterian has let some elders go.) “We’re all dying to the mission.”

How will you hearth a CEO when you can’t hearth your self?

Whereas longevity can typically work in opposition to accountability—assume “good ol’ boy” networks—it may well additionally work for it.

At RTS, board members signal on for six-year phrases however are anticipated to serve for all times. (The common tenure is greater than 20 years.) That anticipated longevity deters the board from fast band-aids and prompts members to consider long-term options which are higher for the establishment, Ridgway stated. “Time is critical to building unity and trust.”

“We’ve worked together for so long that we can be truthful and plain-spoken without being offensive,” he stated. “And there’s such a commitment to the mission that if someone is the minority in a vote, we can let it go because of the unity and the fellowship, and because everyone has the same interests at heart.”

That deep unity is Trinitarian. “We don’t all think alike or have the same perspectives,” Ridgway stated. “We disagree. We have expertise in different areas. But we’re all of one mind [regarding the direction of RTS].”

Nurture a wholesome relationship between chief and board chair.

“I pray a lot for my wife and my kids and my grandkids and my pastor,” Ridgway stated. “But I pray as much for Ligon Duncan as anyone.”

He meets Duncan each month for breakfast. “I don’t want to be a doting chairman, so I give him space,” Ridgway stated. “But he’s the CEO. We have his back.”

Main a corporation successfully is not possible with no good working relationship between the CEO and the board chair, Smith stated. “I have to be confident he can do his job—or I can’t do mine.”

Not too long ago, a school member instructed Smith he can loosen up, figuring out that he and Stankievech have a wholesome relationship.

That’s solely true “if the board chair doesn’t try to be the president, and if the president genuinely wants to be accountable,” Smith stated. In different phrases, the board chair isn’t operating every thing with the president as a yes-man; neither is the president making each resolution with the board chair providing solely uncritical help.

Order out of chaos

“So many times when executive leaders go sideways, it’s because power has gone to their heads,” Smith stated. “And then you have boards with egg on their face, saying, ‘We never asked the hard questions.’”

As a result of it’s “almost impossible” so as to add accountability constructions to a present state of affairs, creating pointers occurs greatest throughout occasions of transition, corresponding to when a brand new chief is employed, he stated.

Do not forget that “everyone is ‘fearfully and wonderfully’ made differently,” Ridgway stated. “We all bring our own warts and family systems and issues to the table, so the dynamic is always unique between a board and a CEO.”

Two of the most effective issues a board can do is to have an interest and engaged within the work, and to make sure a powerful accountability course of.

The procedures “aren’t set up to limit your capacity to lead, but to assure your effectiveness as a leader,” Smith stated. “It’s a spiritual practice for the health of the organization. It’s part of what it means to be in community.”

Faulty governance “hurts the body,” Willson stated. “Let’s serve these people well. If you are out of order and have chaos, then they are in chaos.”

6 Key Practices for Each Board