Policy Governance

Last updated

Policy Governance, informally known as the Carver model, is a system for organizational governance. Policy Governance defines and guides appropriate relationships between an organization's owners, board of directors, and chief executive.

Contents

The Policy Governance approach was first developed in the 1970s by John Carver who has registered the term as a service mark in order to control accurate description of the model. [1] The model is available for all to use without royalties or license fees and has been adopted by commercial, nonprofit, and public sector organizations.

Principles of Policy Governance

There are ten Principles of Policy Governance. [2]

  1. The trust in trusteeship.
  2. The Board speaks with one voice or not at all.
  3. Board decisions should predominantly be policy decisions.
  4. Board should formulate policy by determining the broadest values before progressing to more narrow ones.
  5. A board should define and delegate, rather than react and ratify.
  6. Ends determination is the pivotal duty of governance.
  7. The board's best control over staff means is to limit, not prescribe.
  8. A board must explicitly design its own products and process.
  9. A board must forge a linkage with management that is both empowering and safe.
  10. Performance of the CEO must be monitored rigorously, but only against policy criteria.

Principles 1-3 define an organization's ownership, the board's responsibility to it, and the board's authority. Principles 4-7 specify that the board defines in writing policies identifying the benefits that should come about from the organization, how the board should conduct itself, and how staff behavior is to be proscribed. Principles 8-10 deal with the board's delegation and monitoring.

In general, if a board applies ALL of the principles of Policy Governance in its process and decision-making, then the board is likely practicing the model. If a board applies fewer than all the principles, it weakens or destroys the model's effectiveness as a system. [3] : 38–39 

Claims for the model

Authors of the Policy Governance model say it is a paradigm shift from the traditional practice of governance and that it provides a clear differentiation between governance and management responsibilities in organizations. [4] : 2–3  [5] : 65–67  [6] : 12 

Policy Governance begins with a definition of governance as "Seeing to it that the organization achieves what it should and avoids unacceptable situations." From this definition, board governance is at an arm's length from operations.

The board's primary relationship is with the organization's 'ownership'. As a result, governance is a downward extension of ownership rather than an upward extension of management. In this space, the board, as a single entity, assumes a governance position that is the link between ownership and the operational organization. That governance position is a commanding authority. The board exists to exercise that commanding authority and to properly empower others. "Proper empowerment" means to define the results to be achieved by the organization (Ends), and define what would be considered unacceptable in terms of ethics and prudence (Executive Limitations). The board delegates the job of achieving its Ends within the parameters defined in policy to the CEO. To complete the delegation, the board rigorously monitors performance to policy to uphold accountability of the CEO.

In Policy Governance, the board has three primary jobs: Ownership Linkage - connecting with owners to learn their values about ends that are desired and means that would be unacceptable; Policy Development - writing those values as guidance for organization and for the board itself; and Assurance of Organizational Performance - monitoring to ensure the organization demonstrates reasonable progress toward desired ends and reasonable compliance with policy guiding means. The board's focus is at the broadest level of policy informed by the ownership's values. When writing policy, the board goes into as much detail as needed, and stops making policy when it can accept any reasonable interpretation of its policy language.

Experts in the model argue boards should govern with an emphasis on (a) outward vision rather than an internal preoccupation, (b) encouragement of diversity in viewpoints, (c) strategic leadership more than administrative detail, (d) clear distinction of board and chief executive roles, (e) collective rather than individual decisions, (f) future rather than past or present, and (g) proactivity rather than reactivity.

Templates of policies are provided in the literature [3] : 233–255  [7] : 141–175  [8] : 255–277  and by those trained in the model in order to illustrate what model-consistent policies might look like. However these templates are not themselves the model and their use does not substitute for a board developing its own policies using the model's principles. Each policy that a board adopts should be an organizational value statement that reflects the shared values of that organization's ownership.

Many people confuse modification of policy language so that it fits their organization with changing the model itself. Model-consistent practice is assessed by considering whether board performance aligns with the model's principles, not by reviewing the policy language that is adopted.

Criticism of the model

Industry Canada in the Primer For Directors of Not-For-Profit Corporations expressed concern about Policy Governance. They argue that “Some models of board governance—notably originating in the United States—advocate that directors limit themselves to policy matters only and leave responsibility for administration and day-to-day matters with the executive staff of the corporation. This limited role for directors does not reflect the obligations that are legally imposed upon directors.” [9] : 64 

Hugh Kelly QC of the Canadian legal firm Miller Thomson LLP responded directly to this criticism concluding that: “The board of a Canadian charitable corporation that adopts Policy Governance has performed 'due diligence', and fulfilled all legal obligations imposed upon its directors. On a comparative basis, such boards and directors are far ahead of most corporations, even those in the world of commerce, in observing their legal and moral obligations.” [10] : 9 

Others have expressed concern that the Policy Governance model may not be as universally applicable as suggested by Carver and that the model has a tendency to break down during times of crisis. [11] Addressing the universality concern, proponents of Policy Governance argue that, because the model is rooted in the generic purpose and nature of board authority rather than current practice of the specifics of any industry, at the level of its fundamental principles Policy Governance is indeed applicable to all governing boards. [7] : 10  Proponents also argue that at times of crisis, holding onto the precepts of Policy Governance is in fact key to organizational survival and that rehearsing the use of the system in light of various scenarios can help build an organization's resilience to risk. [7] : 110  [12]

Two more widely accepted criticisms are that the model demands a level of precision that boards can find hard to achieve—even though it is usually no more than they demand of their staff—and without care, that the model's use can deteriorate over time and its protections fail to function. Many proponents point to the challenges presented by board member turnover and the need, as with any other professional discipline, for boards to continuously invest in their own training and support. [3] : 222–229  [4] : 178–187  [5] : 161–190 

Some authors and users of the model may misinterpret the distinction between 'ends' and 'means' to require a strict separation of responsibility between the board, which should focus exclusively on 'ends', and management, which should focus on the 'means' by which to achieve those ends. [13] [14] This interpretation is not supported by a close reading of the Policy Governance model. Carver states: "because the board is accountable for everything, it is accountable for means as well. Accordingly, it must exercise control over both ends and means, so having the ends/means distinction does not in itself relieve boards from any responsibility". [15]

Another, related, misinterpretation is a belief that boards following Carver's model should not involve themselves with detailed understanding and/or monitoring of the organization's activities. [14] This belief is based on Carver's caution against excessive intrusion into the operational details. However, Carver is clear that boards remain accountable to their owners for all operational details and must therefore control them—the question is how to make this practical. As a way to avoid excessive intrusion, he advises the use of 'nested sets' of expectations, in progressively more narrow policy language, in order to define its meaning with greater precision until: "At some point, the board will have narrowed its words to the point that it can accept any reasonable interpretation of those words. Now the board has reached the point of delegation". [15]

Because a board has ultimate power over the organization, to include all its operations, some critics point out that a board should not delegate any of its authority, because it ignores major areas of its responsibility if it "hands over" part of its power to the CEO. This criticism points out that delegation, the granting of authority to the CEO, can become an "abdication" of the board's responsibility to control all organizational actions. Delegation can become an abdication if it occurs without adequate supervision. Delegation accompanied by careful monitoring to ensure it achieves the results intended is an exercise of the "due diligence" expected of the board.

Further criticism relates to the failure of some boards to follow their own policies. Following policies that guide the board in its own governance process, and its relationship with the CEO, is an act of self-discipline by which the board imposes checks and balances on its own power. These self-limiting policies protect staff from board actions that might get in the way of successful organizational performance. They also protect the CEO, and the board itself, from possible actions of individual board members. A board may give a false sense that it is acting in the best interests of the organization while ignoring its own policies, and therefore promotes a "veil" of legitimacy behind which it acts in capricious ways. Such a board distracts itself from the real job boards should be doing. Ultimately, whether a board remains true to its own policies is a matter for the board itself to determine. Carver notes this concern when he acknowledges that Policy Governance will not make "a bad board good."

See also

Some organizations mentioning use of Policy Governance or the Carver Model:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of directors</span> Type of governing body for an organisation

A board of directors is an executive committee that supervises the activities of a business, a nonprofit organization, or a government agency.

A chief financial officer (CFO), also known as, is an officer of a company or organization who is assigned the primary responsibility for making decisions for the company for projects and its finances . The CFO thus has ultimate authority over the finance unit and is the chief financial spokesperson for the organization.

Corporate governance refers to the mechanisms, processes, practices, and relations by which corporations are controlled and operated by their boards of directors, managers, shareholders, and stakeholders.

Information technology (IT)governance is a subset discipline of corporate governance, focused on information technology (IT) and its performance and risk management. The interest in IT governance is due to the ongoing need within organizations to focus value creation efforts on an organization's strategic objectives and to better manage the performance of those responsible for creating this value in the best interest of all stakeholders. It has evolved from The Principles of Scientific Management, Total Quality Management and ISO 9001 Quality Management System.

An audit committee is a committee of an organisation's board of directors which is responsible for oversight of the financial reporting process, selection of the independent auditor, and receipt of audit results both internal and external.

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) is an organization that develops guidelines for businesses to evaluate internal controls, risk management, and fraud deterrence. In 1992, COSO published the Internal Control – Integrated Framework, commonly used by businesses in the United States to design, implement, and conduct systems of internal control over financial reporting and assessing their effectiveness.

Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes. Internal auditing might achieve this goal by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes. With commitment to integrity and accountability, internal auditing provides value to governing bodies and senior management as an objective source of independent advice. Professionals called internal auditors are employed by organizations to perform the internal auditing activity.

Project governance is the management framework within which project decisions are made. Project governance is a critical element of any project since the accountabilities and responsibilities associated with an organization's business as usual activities are laid down in its organizational governance arrangements; seldom does an equivalent framework exist to govern the development of its capital investments (projects). For instance, the organization chart provides a good indication of who in the organization is responsible for any particular operational activity the organization conducts. But unless an organization has specifically developed a project governance policy, no such chart is likely to exist for project development activity.

John Carver is an author noted for his development of the policy model for boards of directors called Policy Governance. Carver says his model is the only systematic theory of boards. He is an adjunct professor of nonprofit organizations in the Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at the University of Georgia School of Social Work.

SOA Governance is a set of processes used for activities related to exercising control over services in a service-oriented architecture (SOA). One viewpoint, from IBM and others, is that SOA governance is an extension (subset) of IT governance which itself is an extension of corporate governance. The implicit assumption in this view is that services created using SOA are just one more type of IT asset in need of governance, with the corollary that SOA governance does not apply to IT assets that are "not SOA". A contrasting viewpoint, expressed by blogger Dave Oliver and others, is that service orientation provides a broad organising principle for all aspects of IT in an organisation — including IT governance. Hence SOA governance is nothing but IT governance informed by SOA principles.

Governance in higher education is the means by which institutions for higher education are formally organized and managed. Simply, university governance is the way in which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly differentiated throughout the world, but the different models nonetheless share a common heritage. Internationally, tertiary education includes private not-for-profit, private for-profit, and public institutions governed by differentiated structures of management.

Internal control, as defined by accounting and auditing, is a process for assuring of an organization's objectives in operational effectiveness and efficiency, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with laws, regulations and policies. A broad concept, internal control involves everything that controls risks to an organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Association of Corporate Directors</span> American professional association

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is an independent, not-for-profit, section 501(c)(3) founded in 1977 and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. NACD's membership includes more than 1,750 corporate boards as well as several thousand individual members, for a total of more than 24,000 members. Membership is open to individual board members and corporate boards of public, private, and nonprofit organizations from both the United States and overseas.

An advisory board is a body that provides non-binding strategic advice to the management of a corporation, organization, or foundation. The informal nature of an advisory board gives greater flexibility in structure and management compared to the board of directors. Unlike the board of directors, the advisory board does not have authority to vote on corporate matters or bear legal fiduciary responsibilities. Many new or small businesses choose to have advisory boards in order to benefit from the knowledge of others, without the expense or formality of the board of directors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UK Corporate Governance Code</span> UK company law

The UK Corporate Governance code, formerly known as the Combined Code is a part of UK company law with a set of principles of good corporate governance aimed at companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. It is overseen by the Financial Reporting Council and its importance derives from the Financial Conduct Authority's Listing Rules. The Listing Rules themselves are given statutory authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and require that public listed companies disclose how they have complied with the code, and explain where they have not applied the code – in what the code refers to as 'comply or explain'. Private companies are also encouraged to conform; however there is no requirement for disclosure of compliance in private company accounts. The Code adopts a principles-based approach in the sense that it provides general guidelines of best practice. This contrasts with a rules-based approach which rigidly defines exact provisions that must be adhered to. In 2017, it was announced that the Financial Reporting Council would amend the Code to require companies to "comply or explain" with a requirement to have elected employee representatives on company boards.

Information governance, or IG, is the overall strategy for information at an organization. Information governance balances the risk that information presents with the value that information provides. Information governance helps with legal compliance, operational transparency, and reducing expenditures associated with legal discovery. An organization can establish a consistent and logical framework for employees to handle data through their information governance policies and procedures. These policies guide proper behavior regarding how organizations and their employees handle information whether it is physically or electronically.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges</span> Nonprofit organization in Washington D.C., United States

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) U.S. higher education association established in 1921. AGB serves approximately 2,000 colleges, universities, and institutionally related foundations. The association provides research, publications, programming, and consulting services to support higher education governance. AGB is located in Washington, D.C.

The Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) is primarily an institute of, for and by corporate directors established in the Philippines. It is made up mainly of individuals and reputational agents committed to the professional practice of corporate directorship in line with global principles of modern corporate governance.

Civilian oversight, sometimes referred to as civilian review or citizen oversight, is a form of civilian participation in reviewing government activities, most commonly accusations of police misconduct. Members of civilian oversight boards are generally not employed by the government entity which they are reviewing. These groups are tasked with direct involvement in the citizen complaints process and develop solutions to improve government accountability. Responsibilities of civilian oversight groups can vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction and their ability to become influential. Oversight should not simply criticize but should improve government through citizen support for government responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and overall efficiency.

Fund governance refers to a system of checks and balances and work performed by the governing body (board) of an investment fund to ensure that the fund is operated not only in accordance with law, but also in the best interests of the fund and its investors. The objective of fund governance is to uphold the regulatory principles commonly known as the four pillars of investor protection that are typically promulgated through the investment fund regulation applicable in the jurisdiction of the fund. These principles vary by jurisdiction and in the US, the 1940 Act generally ensure that: (i) The investment fund will be managed in accordance with the fund's investment objectives, (ii) The assets of the investment fund will be kept safe, (iii) When investors redeem they will get their pro rata share of the investment fund's assets, (iv) The investment fund will be managed for the benefit of the fund's shareholders and not its service providers.

References

  1. ↑ CarverGovernance.com "Why is Policy Governance a registered service mark?"
  2. ↑ "Basic Principles of Policy Governance". Americans for the Arts. 2019-05-15. Retrieved 2023-02-09.
  3. 1 2 3 Carver, John; Miriam Carver (2006). Reinventing your board : a step-by-step guide to implementing policy governance (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
  4. 1 2 Oliver, Caroline (2009). Getting Started with Policy Governance: Bringing Purpose, Integrity and Efficiency to Your Board. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  5. 1 2 Mike Conduff; Susan Edsall; Carol Gabanna; Randee Loucks; Denise Paskiewicz; Catherine Raso; Linda Stier (1999). Caroline Oliver (ed.). The Policy Governance Fieldbook: Practical Lessons, Tips, and Tools from the Experiences of Real-World Boards (1st ed.). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass. ISBN   978-0787943660.
  6. ↑ Saskatchewan School Boards Association (2010). "A Pathway to Effective Board Policy Governance, Module 5" (PDF).
  7. 1 2 3 Carver, John; Caroline Oliver (2002). Corporate Boards That Create Value: Governing Company Performance from the Boardroom. Jossey Bass.
  8. ↑ Carver, Miriam; Charney, Bill (2004). The Board Member's Playbook: Using Policy Governance to Solve Problems, Make Decisions, and Build a Stronger Board. Jossey Bass.
  9. ↑ Peter Broder, ed. (2002). Primer for Directors of Not-for-Profit Corporations. Industry Canada. ISBN   0-662-32550-8 . Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  10. ↑ Kelly, H.M. (July 2003). "Carver Policy Governance in Canada" (PDF). Miller Thomson LLP Charities and Not-For-Profit Newsletter: 7–9.
  11. ↑ "Goverance | Anthony Piscitelli". www.voteanthony.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-24.
  12. ↑ Oliver, Caroline, ed. (2002). "When Crisis Strikes" (PDF). Governing Excellence: The Voice of the International Policy Governance Association. 2002 (4): 3.
  13. ↑ "Policy governance reviewed". 4 June 2010.
  14. 1 2 "Our Oneota Coop: Critique of Policy Governance". 7 February 2009.
  15. 1 2 "The Policy Governance® Model".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.