Limiting MEANS

BTMAD 05


The board needs control because it is accountable for all organizational activity. Yet the board needs to be free from operational matters because it is has little time to get its job done. Some boards grant the Executive Director freedom from board intrusion and are guilty of rubber stamping. Others seek to control many details and are guilty of meddling. The cure is freedom through limits (policies).

Many boards are enticed by staff operations. They seek to manage the Means (activities and methods) and lose focus on Ends (goals and purposes). Means are important to the board and they must be effective. The board has 3 stakes in staff Means: effectiveness, approvability, and ethical/prudence.

The effectiveness question is, “Does it work?” Means are best assessed by focusing on Ends; did they accomplish what was intended? The telling test on approvability is for the board to ask, “Does it disapprove the action?” If the board restricts itself to defining what it disapproves, then the staff is free to find the best manner to achieve the Ends – instead of restricting their actions, it opens the path to many ways to accomplish a goal.

Telling staff how to do a task automatically eliminates other methods. Telling staff how not to do it leaves open all other methods that will accomplish the goal.

Apart from being prudent and ethical, the activities of the staff below the Executive Director are not the business of the board. The board speaks prescriptively about Ends. With regards to staff Means, the board should be silent except to state what it will not accept. The total message the board sends to staff consists of what Ends (outputs) are to be achieved and what may not be done in the process of achievement. Board thought is proactive and general rather than reactive and specific. The task is to create a workable set of policies that constrain or limit executive / staff latitude.

Following is an example of the first and broadest staff Means policy: “The Executive Director may neither cause nor allow any organizational practice that is imprudent or unethical.” This statement is expanded until the board feels comfortable. The policy provides an anchor in board values and limits staff actions. Staff must be given a free hand to what they know how to do, but should not be stranded by the board’s failure to define boundaries.

Having prohibited only unethical and imprudent behavior, the board might be worried this is too broad. Any practice that fits within a reasonable interpretation of this range would be considered acceptable. A “reasonable” range is that determined by the board to be a conscientious person’s reading of the policy. If the board feels it does not pass this test, then the constraint on staff must be further defined and narrowed.

The most common worry areas are finance, personnel, and budget. Addressing these subjects further should be done after the board has agreed on what is unacceptable. The board then sends a clear message about what must be avoided. This will enable the board to establish a monitoring system because it has then established clear criteria against which to measure performance.

These limitations are messages to the Executive Director, not the staff. The staff reports to the Executive Director. The Executive Director reports to the Board. The Executive Director is empowered to do whatever is required, as long as it is in accord with Board Ends and not limited by a board policy.