Spend less time, be more productive: from changing board structures to consolidating committees, associations are looking at ways to streamline governance.

"GIVE US QUALITY NOT QUANTITY," is the demand that many a time-challenged board member would echo. As volunteer leaders challenge organizations to best use their time and expertise, many associations are taking seriously the mandate to streamline governance.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"The interest in streamlining governance reflects dissatisfaction with current governance structures and board practices," points out Nancy Axelrod, principal, Nonprofit Leadership Services, Washington, D.C., and content leader for The Center for Association Leadership's "Exceptional Governance" program. She continues, "Some association leaders feel that structural flaws such as weak board committees or irrelevant board meetings are to blame. Others complain that the structure is fine; it's the execution that needs improvement."

In execution, Axelrod includes the kinds of people who should serve on the board and their capacity to work as a high-performing team, as well as whether a culture of trust, mutual respect, and candor exists in the boardroom. In her work, she has observed several governance change triggers. Among them: "the need to move from a representative to a competency-based board, from a certifying to a strategic board, and from a board composed of individuals who represent their particular segment of the profession or industry to a board that serves the overall interests of the organization."

At the same time that streamlining governance can help address organizational needs, doing so can also help answer the questions foremost in the minds of board members: Why am I here, and what do you want me to do? "When board members are asked to devote most of their time at board meetings to listening to staff reports and financial reviews, they are not leveraging the knowledge, skills, and perspectives they bring to their work," says Axelrod. "Another paradox is that the strong tradition of inclusion and consensus in many associations can result in dragged-out decision making, duplication of effort, and role confusion among board members, staff, and volunteers."

So how can all stakeholders work together to initiate and implement the streamlining of governance: "While the [chief staff executive] is absolutely crucial to envisioning and executing a governance change, a brilliant plan is a hallucination without strong collaboration from volunteer leaders," explains Axelrod. "In particular, the board chair and the CEO should be prepared to work as a leadership team to

* identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current governance structure;

* pinpoint the real change drivers;

* clarify the outcomes that will constitute success at the end;

* determine how to engage the board, the staff, and members, as well as other key stakeholders in the change process; and

* develop a plan of action to execute, monitor, and communicate the process."

Axelrod continues, "Since most governance change usually takes time, and board officers and members change, the challenge is to keep the ball rolling as new players join the team."

Here are three real-world examples of associations that have successfully implemented governance changes.

Modifying the board

Where: American Rental Association, Moline, Illinois 

Who: Christine L. Wehrman, Executive Vice President and CEO, and David Wilcox II, Owner, General Rental Center, Frankfort, Kentucky, and Past Board President

Board bio: 18 directors (five-member executive committee)

Wehrman: The need to examine our governance structure surfaced during the development of our strategic plan. When I came to ARA in 2000, it had been a long time since the association had evaluated governance comprehensively. We needed to take a look at our process and then ask ourselves several difficult questions, including "Is our association structured in a manner to best meet the needs of our members--for today and tomorrow?"

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The result of that analysis and the work that followed was the restructuring of our board and executive committee. One major change we made was to eliminate our director-at-large position, which was filled each year by a past director, and replace it with a seat on the board for one additional associate member. This important segment of our membership now has two seats on the board and a greater voice in the association, which has strengthened our value to them because they feel more engaged.

Throughout our streamlining process, staff and volunteers were equal partners. Although staff had not been involved in previous strategic development, I knew that staff would be a vital part of providing input on the front end and that they would be crucial to successfully implementing the plan. Therefore, it was important for them to understand the process and be regarded as a valuable resource during the plan development. I was fortunate to have a stellar volunteer leader who was not afraid to make and lead change.

Streamlining governance is not easy. But if you put the effort in, you will get results, and the benefit to members is well worth the effort. Since the strategic plan adoption and the commitment by our board and staff to implement it, our board meetings have evolved from sedate to dynamic. Our directors and officers are engaged and feel valued. They have a greater realization of the impact of their contributions and feel a sense of fulfillment from their service.

Wilcox: Before Chris's arrival, our association had only two CEOs in 40 years. We had fallen into the trap of doing things the same way because that's the way they had always been done. It was following the CEO transition that we appointed a strategic planning committee consisting of volunteers and staff. As a result of that committee's work and the subsequent adoption of our strategic plan, the board set out to examine our governance structure.

One of the most important changes we made was to reduce the number of officer positions from four to three. As a part of our governance work, we defined the roles and responsibilities of each officer and director. Crucial to the decision to eliminate one officer position was the fact that said position did not have responsibilities unique from the other officer positions. Although the position was a good training ground, the responsibilities were duplicative. Before we made the change, being an officer was a four-year commitment, and our officer pool was shrinking. Eliminating a position decreased the commitment to three years and spurred more interest from past directors to serve as officers.

As we made these changes, I reassured the board that we had done our homework and that the executive committee was comfortable with the proposed changes and how they fit in with our long-range plan. I also reassured members that nothing detrimental was happening to their member services. However, these types of changes are not easy to communicate broadly to members, and they were not always embraced with open arms. Ultimately, the whole board was convinced and served as ambassadors for the changes in our governance because we kept the lines of communication open and asked for their input every step of the way.

Our job as board members is to provide oversight for the association, to make informed decisions, and to look to the future. We are now in a much better position to fulfill that role because of the changes that we have made. I highly recommend that boards examine their governance structures as they evaluate how to best serve their memberships.

Setting a strategic agenda

Where: Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, St. Paul 

Who: Mary Detloff, CAE, Executive Director

Board bio: 14 directors (eight-member executive committee)

Our board restructured its agendas to closely follow our strategic plan goals. We have been using our restructured agenda format for nearly two years now. We use it for both our executive committee meetings, which are held monthly, and our board of directors meetings, which are held quarterly.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The response to the new agendas has been very positive. Our new structure helps prioritize the information that is constantly coming down the pike. It has helped the board and executive committee to stay on track and make sure our current activities are truly going back to the core of advancing the vision and mission of our organization, which is to improve and enhance the lives of engineers and the engineering profession.

Restructuring our board meeting agendas has really helped us to keep the association aligned to the mission, vision, and goals set forth in our strategic plan. It's very easy to get sidetracked with all of the great ideas and potential activities that get put in front of us, both as board members and as staff. Organizing our agendas by strategic plan goals keeps our strategic plan in front of us as a truly living document and keeps our organization focused.

Consolidating committees

Where: National Business Incubation Association, Athens, Ohio 

Who: Dinah Adkins, President and CEO

Board bio: 15 directors (five-member executive committee)

We consolidated our committees about five years ago. We went from 11 standing committees to four: executive, nominating, audit, and membership. We also set up short-term task forces on an as-needed basis. For a 15-member board, we just had too many committees. People were serving on multiple committees, which was tiring as well as counterproductive.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Many board members were being asked to serve in areas in which they did not have expertise. As a result, they just rubberstamped what the staff was already doing. One example of this was our education and publications committee. Because we already had significant professional staff expertise in these areas, the meetings ended up being a waste of time for both staff and the committee members. Volunteer leaders were not being asked for the strategic contributions that only they could provide.

With the consolidation of our committees, we now use task forces, which meet as needed, to address specific issues. For instance, in 2000 when our organization experienced tremendous growth, we put an operations task force in place to help us deal with that growth. It remained in place for two years. At the other end of the spectrum is our policy and procedures task force, which will meet and make its recommendations within four months.

The response to working on task forces as opposed to standing committees has been very positive. We have better attendance at meetings, and board members are able to make a real contribution. Board members would rather be involved in an effort where there is a true need. They want to offer their expertise and thoughtfulness--not just meet regularly.

Edited by Apryl Motley

Apryl Motley is senior editor of ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT. E-mail: [e-mail].