35 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Governance as Leadership, September 6, 2005
This review is from: Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (Hardcover)
I found this book to be a breath of fresh air. It offers a new way of looking at nonprofit boards, in a relatively short, easy to read manner. There is a wealth of information designed to help nonprofit boards of directors become more effective. Unfortunately, existing approaches have been less than successful with most boards. This book identifies the problem as one of purpose rather than performance.
The book identifies three modes that boards of directors can operate in: the traditional fiduciary mode, the strategic mode and the generative mode. The authors emphasize the importance of encouraging board members to engage in generative thinking. Engaging board members in this way makes their work more meaningful and satisfying, while at the same time benefiting the organization through more creative, committed leadership. It suggests signs to look for to identify opportunities for generative thinking.
Another interesting new concept discussed in the book is considering directors as a form of "working capital". This is further broken down into intellectual capital, reputational capital, political capital and social capital. Again, this new framework for looking at what board members have to offer increases the opportunities for them to make meaningful contributions to the organization.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Governance as Leadership, July 3, 2008
This review is from: Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (Hardcover)
Sounds,looks and feels like a stuffy book. But wait, it reads like a spy novel; it is filled with current scenarios, practical insight, new ideas and wisdom to help your board service be a fulfilling use of your time. If you are a board member or work with volunteer boards, this is worth a read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sensible Foolishness, October 8, 2010
This review is from: Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (Hardcover)
There are four basic scenarios for nonprofit boards and three types of governance. Please keep reading--there will be a test at the end of our class.
"Governance by Fiat" is the first scenario, say the three co-authors of Governance as Leadership. That's when trustees displace executives. Here the board does staff work. Sometimes the staff is incompetent so the board jumps in. Often the board enjoys staff work. Either way, it's dysfunctional.
"Governance by Default" is the second scenario. Here both the trustees and the nonprofit executives disengage. No one has their eye on the governance ball--and the important work of governance is minimized. Left undone, it's a train wreck waiting to happen.
"Leadership as Governance" sounds good, but it's cockeyed. Here the nonprofit staff displace the trustees. The CEO and/or senior team make decisions that should be in the governance arena. This happens frequently with founder-led organizations and "good old boy" boards. Often, the organization appears to be operating smoothly. Internally, this dysfunction never ends well. Sooner or later, someone will pay.
The fourth scenario is the healthy one, what the authors call "Type III Governance." Here the trustees and executives collaborate. Each understands their appropriate roles, but unlike most boards, the staff affirms the board members when they upgrade to "generative thinking."
So what's "generative thinking?" The authors use a variety of definitions to explain this cognitive process of excelling boards: sense-making, reflective practice, framing organizations, personal knowledge, etc. I liked "sensible foolishness" the best.
Generative thinking goes beyond "fiduciary governance" (Type I) and beyond "strategic governance" (Type II). This "Type III" approach typically involves three steps: 1) Noticing cues and clues: different people can take the same data and arrive at different meanings; 2) Choosing and using frames: understanding the "fuzzy front end" of a product development process, for example; and 3) Thinking retrospectively: the counter-intuitive high value of "dwelling on the past" to understand patterns that might impact the future.
"Generative thinking is essential to governing," the authors point out. As long as governing means what most people think it means--setting the goals and direction of an organization and holding management accountable for progress toward these goals--then generative thinking has to be essential to governing. Generative thinking is where goal-setting and direction-setting originate. The contributions boards make to mission-setting, strategy-development, and problem solving certainly shape organizations. But it is cues and frames, along with retrospective thinking, that enable the sense-making on which these other processes depend."
Yikes! Think about this final zinger from the authors: "And a closer examination of nonprofits suggests something else: Although generative work is essential to governing, boards do very little of it."
Here's the quiz:
Of the four board scenarios, where is your board? Scenario 1: Governance by Fiat; Scenario 2: Governance as Leadership; Scenario 3: Governance by Default; or Scenario 4: Leadership as Governance? Where do you want to be in 18 to 36 months?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
