Two excellent items in the New York Times on December 10 describe one of the enduring tensions inherent in institutional governance, though neither purports to be about governance at all (yet both end up being exactly that). Stanley Fish, noted academic administrator at several universities during his distinguished career, comments on three recent lectures given by Noam Chomsky (ostensibly a linguist, but really so much more), noting that in the third lecture, Chomsky makes a case for democracy, as broadly and deeply defined as possible, in organizational leadership (and, one would suppose, governance). To Chomsky, as relayed via Fish, democracy is the antidote to the oligarchic tendencies he sees lurking inside Madisonian notions of democracy through representational leadership. In Chomsky's ideal world, one cannot have too much democracy.By extension, them, one might suppose that Chomsky’s ideal governing board would be one where members are democratically chosen, meetings are wide, wide open, and leadership changes frequently to limit the influence any one member gains over the others. Such an approach has been tried by public school boards in the United States with fairly dismal results: tyranny of the majority, however slim, over the minority; hijacking by special interests with political agendas; vicious campaigns for membership; etc. By contrast, the model of a self-perpetuating board focused almost exclusively on the long-term and strategic interests of the institution better suits independent schools, despite its (small in practice) potential for oligarchy.The second piece, BlackjackTopWhy Machiavelli Still Matters, by John Scott and Robert Zaretsky, points to the dark side of winning and keeping power in human organizations:

"... we still believe a leader should be virtuous: generous and merciful, honest and faithful."Yet Machiavelli teaches that in a world where so many are not good, you must learn to be able to not be good. The virtues taught in our secular and religious schools are incompatible with the virtues one must practice to safeguard those same institutions. The power of the lion and the cleverness of the fox: These are the qualities a leader must harness to preserve the republic."

Hmmm. Two visions of how groups are best governed: Chomsky's hyper-democracy and Machiavelli's power and cleverness. Given human nature--given as it is to moments of incredible altruism and collaboration interspersed with greed and avarice--maybe the best way to lead a board is with an enlightened Machiavellian style.