Motives Matter

Almost the entire compendium of nonprofit governance scholarship presumes that an individual trustee's motivation is mostly about preserving the institution as a community asset.  There is room for other motives, too, such as affinity for the mission, status, social networking, personal interest in the institution’s programs and services, a sense of obligation, etc.  But, the assumption underlying most governance models is that the major reason members serve has to do with institutional endurance and preservation.

I don’t think this is true in most cases for independent and international school trustees, as underscored by an overheard board member's comment recently that he couldn’t imagine a reason to be on the board beyond interest in one’s own children.  While it would be difficult if not impossible to zero-out interest in one’s own children as a driving motive for parent trustees, my thesis is that as it rises in proportion to other motives, it becomes harder and harder for board members to stay focused on good governance.  It’s not that they can’t think long-term or strategically, it’s that short-term operations are why they are there in the first place.  Then, we governance consultants come along and ask them to check that interest at the board room door.

I don’t think this problem exists in the same way with museums, private universities, etc.  Sure, there are trustees who are there for malevolent or personal reasons: to oust the president, beef up the football program, climb the social ladder, etc.  But for the most part, I think board membership is about institutional preservation and advancement for most trustees.  Not so at our schools.

I don’t mean to suggest that motive is an either/or thing; that one can either be motivated by institutional sustainability or interest in one’s children.  Rather, I think is is a hydraulic, where one motive rises and declines in rough proportion to the other.  Both can be present in a functional, productive board member—the ideal ratio is probably 70/30 or so.  My point is that the governance model we know works best is derived with the institutional motive in mind, not the one about personal interest.  

Board turnover, accelerated in international schools by relatively brief expatriate diplomatic or corporate postings, only exacerbates the problem.  The practice of electing board members through a vote of the parents, common in international schools and less so in U.S. independent ones, is another accelerant  in the same way that it bedevils so many public school districts in the United States (though self-perpetuating boards, too, struggle with the hydraulic).  

Perhaps every board should adopt a purpose statement; that is, a clear policy clarification of why the board exists.  

“The purpose of the XYZ Board of Trustees is principally to ensure the long-term advancement and sustainability of the institution as an educational asset in its community.  The board monitors current activities at the school to ensure first that they are consistent with the school’s mission, second that they are of exceptional quality, and third that they reflect well on the institution.  Otherwise, board members look ahead, thinking about how better to advance XYZ through the decades ahead.  As a rule, the board does not concern itself with day-to-day operations at the school; those are the purpose for and province of administration by the head of school.”

A purpose statement won't fix the problem completely, any more than criminal law eliminates burglary, but, when members' behaviors diverge from those consistent with the statement, there will be a meaningful rationale for intervention by the chair or committee on trustees.  Beyond this, the board chair could periodically remind members about the importance of the institutional advancement purpose.  The committee on trustees could monitor the level of discourse at board meetings to ensure that it stays for the most part around a 70/30 ratio.  And members who seem unable to see beyond, say, their own child’s experience with the sports program should be counseled.


Previous
Previous

In praise of the liberal arts

Next
Next

Nut case parents or key customers? The choice is yours.