Taming the Governance Tiger.

Rethinking governance used to mean reducing the numbers involved in leadership. But no longer--today's enlightened association leaders realize that simply reducing the number of board members, committees, and meetings isn't enough. Now, associations are asking tough questions such as, "What's the best way for our members to be represented?" and "How can we ensure that we're being led by the best candidates for the job?"

The answers are leading to bold changes, some of which have been described in the two-part series "Toward Better Governance," published in ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT's August and October issues--work based on the book The Will to Govern Well: Knowledge, Trust, and Nimbleness (2002, ASAE), by Glenn Tecker, Jean Frankel, and Paul D. Meyer, CAE. As these sources confirm, associations are addressing the need to identify and train, tomorrow's leaders--as opposed to relying on current practices that often result in leadership appointments based on "whose turn it is."

Take the National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA), Chicago, for instance. The association has reduced its board from 87 members to 28; created the National Council of States to bring grassroots issues, trends, and areas of interest and concern to the national level; and reduced the number of standing committees from 16 to 7. More importantly, the new nominating and leadership development committee is charged, in part, with recruiting and evaluating candidates for leadership positions. Length of service is no longer a determining factor in one's appointment to a national position.

Similarly, the nominating team at the American Society of Interior Designers, Washington, D.C., makes its choices based on candidates' potential to be the society's president one day. Possibilities for board positions are screened based on a list of leadership criteria that's been developed during the past decade. Characteristics include such diverse skills as being a big-picture person, having a nimble and flexible mind, being a change agent, and showing integrity. Use of the leadership criteria filter sends a message to members: National leadership is based on competency, not years of service or a charismatic personality.

Though board member competence is also important to the Iowa Medical Society, West Des Moines, it has added a twist to its governance restructuring. Traditionally, physicians in Iowa have been represented within the association by geography: county medical societies sent delegates to the annual business meeting each year. But lackluster attendance at the meeting forced the association to rethink the composition of the house of delegates. And rather than trying to understand physicians' needs based on where they practice, the association realized that its members are multifaceted. The association now lets its members choose which group will represent them at the annual meeting each year, offering members input that they've never had before--and choosing delegates based on characteristics other than simply their addresses.

Read on to find out more about how these three groups solved the same problem: how to tame the structure tiger in a way that recognized the uniqueness of each association and its members, while enabling each organization to enhance its effectiveness, streamline its governance structure, and ensure its members are represented in the best way possible.

No More Governance by ZIP Code: Letting members decide on how they'd like to be represented sparks renewed participation.

Michael Abrams 

Dr. John Tyrrell looked forward to it every year. He put it on his calendar, planned his family vacations and his call schedule so as not to conflict with it, and considered it one of the enjoyable social and educational activities of his year: the Iowa Medical Society Annual Meeting. Every April, he drove the 172 miles from Manchester to Des Moines to proudly represent the 13 physicians of Delaware County at the meeting, debating the resolutions with their interests in mind, and networking with his contacts across the state in the process.

On the other hand, another excellent physician from Des Moines couldn't even tell you what month the IMS Annual Meeting is held, and he finds no reason to take advantage of the program, the free children's activities, the dinner and dance, or the big-name, high-priced speaker. He's busy with work and family, and the very last thing he feels he needs is one more meeting to attend. These mixed responses were part of the reason that the society eventually would make some governance changes.

Since 1850, The Iowa Medical Society has had a rich history of serving Iowa physicians and their patients. Across the years, we've enjoyed relatively strong membership penetration (approximately 70 percent), a solid reputation for advocacy in the state capitol, and good relations with the major health systems as well as individual physician members.

But since 1850, little had changed with our governance structure. In 1997, we decided to take a fresh look at our governance as part of a broad strategic planning initiative, when we first began to look at changing the way our governance is constructed, we reviewed some statistics that made us realize how critically important it was for us to do something:

1. Sixty-six of the 99 Iowa counties sent zero delegates to our annual house of delegates meeting. That meant that two thirds of our counties were not represented.

2. Only 11 Iowa counties sent their full complement of delegates to our house of delegates.

3. while the delegates in attendance were outstanding, and deeply committed to the profession and to the organization, many other leaders in Iowa health care found other things to do that weekend.

In our case, these signs described a patient who was seriously ill and in need of an invasive procedure. We knew the diagnosis, but the appropriate treatment was elusive.

Our president appointed a 17-member task force to review the situation and recommend action. The members of the task force were carefully selected to represent not only some of the current leadership of the IMS, but also leaders in Iowa medicine who had no relationship to our organization other than the fact that they were members.

The task force met with a professional strategic planning facilitator during four weekends and their product was unanimously adopted by the IMS house of delegates. While their recommendations extended beyond the governance changes, those changes had a real impact on the way our society works today.

Out with the old...

Under the old system, our house of delegates was made up almost entirely of delegates elected by their county medical society. And while many county medical societies in Iowa provided tremendous value for Iowa physicians, many others had become dormant. So a pattern had developed: you got asked by your local peers to represent them at the IMS Annual Meeting, and instead you stayed home. Two thirds of the county medical societies sent no one, and only 10 percent sent their full delegations.

The house of delegates wasn't the only component of our governance structure that needed attention. A 15-member judicial council existed to approve membership in the society, settle bylaws interpretation disputes, and resolve grievances. Judicial councilors were elected by districts, and did their work diligently. The problem was that their role was not rewarding to them, and they found little importance associated with their work. In fact, one of the biggest proponents for ridding our governance structure of the judicial council was the chair of the judicial council: a family physician from Sioux City. She wanted to participate in the leadership of the organization, but found judicial council service unfulfilling.

Finally, a seven-member board of trustees was elected to do the heavy lifting: they met 10 times per year, approved the budget, gave guidance on policy, met with outside entities, and did all of the things associated with high leadership. They were the seven elected officers of the association, which many organizations call the "executive committee."

...and in with the new

The strategic planning task force decided to recommend a governance structure that was more reflective of Iowa medicine. To identify what that structure might be, they imagined a female pathologist in Sioux City, affiliated with a major health system. If she had her way, would she want her voice in our house of delegates to be heard as a Sioux City physician, a pathologist, a female physician, or as a member of her health system? The task force chose to let her decide for herself. Rather than simply being represented geographically, if this physician believed that pathologists needed a stronger voice in the IMS, she would be able to empower pathologists; if she believed that Sioux City physicians needed to be heard, she would have the ability to empower them. In short, she could use her voice by voting to allocate delegates to the house of delegates to represent the dynamic that she felt most needed representation.

As a result of these discussions, a balloting process was recommended and approved. Under the new system, we allow groups to petition the reconstructed IMS board of directors for status as a "representative group." A representative group, theoretically, can be any grouping of members: a specialty society, a county medical society, a clinic, an ethnic group, and so on. Today, we have 26 groups who have requested status as a representative group and been approved: groups such as the Iowa Orthopedic Society, McFarland Clinic (a major physician group in Iowa), and the Iowa Academy of Family Physicians.

When dues bills are distributed, they are accompanied by a ballot. Members may vote for one representative group on the ballot. After a pre-set deadline date has passed, the ballots are reviewed and delegates are allocated to each representative group based on their ballot success.

Each of Iowa's county medical societies are given a single delegate, and they must earn additional delegates based on the number of physicians who cast their ballot and indicate that they wish to be represented through their county medical society, rather than other competing representative groups. Interestingly, only two county medical societies have earned fewer delegates than they actually sent to the house of delegates under the previous structure.

In addition to the newly constructed house of delegates, our judicial council and board of trustees were both eliminated, and a new board of directors and executive committee installed in their place.

The board of directors now consists of 17 physicians as follows:

1. Six who are elected by their districts.

2. Six who are elected at-large: this mechanism allows us to elect physicians to the board who might have a great deal to contribute to the conversation of the board, but who would not take the time to navigate the district political waters to join the leadership.

3. The three presidents (president, immediate past president, and president-elect).

4. The speaker of our house of delegates.

5. A member of the delegation to our national organization's house of delegates (the American Medical Association).

Importantly, the board is equipped with full policy-making powers. The only thing the board cannot do is amend the bylaws or elect officers, as these two activities are reserved for our house of delegates.

The five-member executive committee now consists of the three presidents, the board chair, and the secretary-treasurer (the latter two being elected by the board of directors). The executive committee works hard to stay away from the big public policy discussions, and instead focuses on matters of fiduciary importance to the organization. They consider major transactions, approve the investment policy statement, and approve the budget and other operational activities.

Is this a better mousetrap?

The Iowa Medical Society created a different governing structure, but is it really better? Like many important changes, it will take a considerable amount of time before the impact of the change can be definitively judged. We asked ourselves several questions when we began this process (see sidebar "Are You Ready for Reinvention?") and some of our answers give us reason to think that the new structure is, in fact, working better.

* Representative group delegates have been more likely than county medical society delegates to show up at our Annual House of Delegates. During the 2002 annual meeting, 73 percent of the delegates serving for representative groups attended the gathering, while only 47 percent of county medical society delegates attended. This could be an indicator that, if your balloted group has asked you to serve, you feel a deeper obligation than if your geographic society requests service. After all, you have voted to promote that group's voice, and they have selected you to be their representative.

* Board service is fulfilling. Our organization ensures that at least 80 percent of the board's time is spent discussing issues of strategic importance to Iowa physicians and their patients. We involve them in discussions of the weighty topics facing our profession, and they view their participation in these discussions as a significant way of contributing to medicine. Attendance at board meetings is sustained at a very high level (between 82 percent and 95 percent).

We set out to build a governance structure that allows Dr. Tyrrell to continue to drive down from Manchester and enjoy our annual meeting, but that also makes his peer who doesn't attend feel well-represented. For now, the patient appears to have weathered the procedure well, and the long-term prognosis is excellent.

Are You Ready For Reinvention?

The Iowa Medical Society, West Des Moines, recently revamped the way that members are represented in its governance structure. The experience spotlights three questions you should ask yourself as you go about reinventing your governance structure:

1. Does the governance structure accurately reflect the actual conversation taking place across your industry's landscape?

When you look across your boardroom or your house of delegates gathering, take a moment to notice who is present and who is absent. Is the board table populated with industry leaders? Is there demographic diversity? Is service within your governance structure viewed as a duty to be performed just prior to (or even following) retirement, or can you find a place in your organization's leadership at the beginning of your career or during mid-career? None of these questions should be ignored.

Seasoned veterans bring a perspective that rookies have not gained. Likewise, the newcomers and mid-career members have perspectives that the veterans will not be able to offer.

2. Does the governance structure allow the association to take a leadership position when critical issues emerge?

Succinctly put: Is it nimble? There is, of course, tension between being ultimately nimble and applying proper and thorough consideration to important decisions. The balance is important to respect.

3. Are board and other governance service rewarding to the participants?

At least 80 percent of the board's time should be spent discussing matters of strategic importance to the membership, according to Glenn Tecker, president and CEO, Tecker Consultants, Trenton, New Jersey. There are obviously other issues that must be addressed by the organization's leaders. Is there a mechanism for addressing those necessary but non-strategic, "mechanical" issues, so that your board's time is protected? What are your leaders thinking as they drive home? Are they thinking "That was a stimulating meeting; I always look forward to seeing my peers and discussing these issues," or "What bet did I lose to get on this board, and how do I bow out of the rest of my term without hurting their feelings?"

If you answer "yes" to the preceeding questions, you'll have no trouble attracting credible industry leaders to your governance structures, and that will have a great impact on membership.

Michael Abrams is executive vice president, Iowa Medical Society, West Des Moines, E-mail: [e-mail].

Leadership by design trimming a behemoth-size board into one that's spare and skillful.

MICHAEL C. ALIN 

How organizations are governed and how leaders are selected has great impact on the way that opportunities and threats to an organization and its constituents are addressed. For the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), Washington, D.C., the search for effective decision making has led to a governance structure that includes an 11-person board of directors that is primarily competency-based, with officers and at-large members who--with two exceptions--do not have special constituencies.

Was it always this way? Not by a long shot. It's been a long process getting there as well. And it was the threat of a crisis as far back as the 1980s that motivated ASID's leadership to assess the need for governance change. Specifically, leaders were struggling both with the need to raise competency standards for a relatively young profession and the question of whether ASID should be an inclusive association representing all interior designers regardless of areas of practice. Ultimately, the leadership opted for inclusiveness and thus a greater opportunity for fiscal health through increased membership dues. This discussion opened the door for debate on the need for additional changes--and led to an evolution in ASID's governance structure.

When I joined ASID in late 1990 as deputy executive director, the ASID board was composed of 65 members, who insisted on meeting around a hollow, square board table. My first two board meetings were conducted in ballroom-size spaces, with microphones next to each member's seat. You needed opera glasses to see everyone clearly. And that was only a small part of the picture.

The board consisted of 49 board members representing chapters, 10 regional directors, and six officers. Since they had no strategic plan to serve as a guidepost, the board spent most of its time debating minutiae such as the merits of someone's life membership application. And to top everything off, the day before the board meeting, the 18-person executive committee met all day to review and pass along the very same items that the board discussed in its formal sessions.

Broad changes

So how did ASID transition from governance by behemoth to leadership by a spare, competency-based board? Two key steps made it possible--actions that ASID's leadership had concluded, as early as the late 1980s, were necessary to reduce the cumbersome structure and conduct business more efficiently.

Develop a strategic planning process. With the advice of outside consultants, ASID's leadership concluded that a strategic plan would enable the organization to respond to changes occurring within the interior design profession--and would support individual members' design practices through well-defined objectives and relevant programs and services. ASID could no longer afford to have each new leader come into office with an agenda that had little connection to those of their predecessors. That business model resulted in millions of dollars wasted each year when new ventures were scrapped before completion by a new leadership group with other ideas.

On the heels of creating a strategic plan came the decision to reduce the size of the board, which was approved and took effect in late 1991. Although this new board was reduced to 28 people, it was still constituency-based. And with 20 members from respective electoral districts, five officers, and an executive committee of eight, varying loyalties continued to divide board members. For example, chapters in each electoral district retained the earlier perception that their board representatives were at the table to vote as they were instructed rather than to vote on behalf of all members. In addition, the executive committee still met before each board meeting to set and review the board agenda, and the five officers met by conference call more frequently to discuss issues as they arose between board meetings.

While this new structure was still cumbersome, through training and consistent facilitation support from an outside consultant, ASID resolved to stick to its strategic plan objectives: to deliver programs and services that reflected what its members needed to be successful interior design practitioners--now and in the future. And despite strong egos, there was usually consensus among the board that its role was to create, implement, and nurture programs and services with a longer shelf life than the term of office of the current board chair or that of individual board members.

Create an appropriate balance of input.

Part of ASID's board evolution involves the changing nature of how volunteers and full-time staff interact. In the past, other than the executive director and director of finance who each sat at the board table as ex officio board members, staff were to be seen and not heard. The new dynamic has the goal of establishing a healthy tension between the staff and volunteers. Trust must be displayed as well as a healthy respect for the perspective each brings to the table. While the board determines policy, it does not do so in a vacuum. It conducts environmental scanning, both of the broader world outside of interior design and within the world in which interior designers work and compete for clients. Staff now serve as advisers to volunteers when scanning is being conducted and when policy is being determined. When a strategic plan is created, staff take the lead roles in recommending the best implementation steps needed to carry out board policy as expressed through strategic goals and objectives. Members serve as advisers to staff in this process and throughout each fiscal year as tasks (both programs and services) are being completed. I'll also note that staff are not interior designers. My predecessor demonstrated to the board that the society would function more effectively if its staff was composed of professionals in the specialties that supported ASID's strategic plan--e.g., marketing, education, and government and public affairs. While associations may differ on this point, for ASID, this approach has worked well.

Fine tuning 

By 1995, despite strategic plan initiatives, board downsizing, and revised volunteer-staff interactions, it was apparent that there were still some wrinkles to work out with ASID's governance. The volunteer leaders who had implemented the governance changes recommended in the late 1980s had the foresight to suggest that the society reconstitute a leadership task force in the mid-1990s to evaluate how well the governance and strategic planning models were working. This led to a year of deliberations and a set of recommendations that created today's ASID governance structure.

ASID made the decision in 1996 to reduce the size of the board again and to virtually do away with constituency-based board members. A leadership task force of board members recommended that the board be downsized to a corporate board of 11, a significant reduction in number based on the fact that the vast majority of members, even if they have the time to volunteer, would rather leave governance to others.

The task force's recommendations, which included other changes in addition to the size and composition of the board, were reviewed by the national board of directors, with the proposed changes then sent to chapter leaders for feedback. After reviewing that feedback, the task force then made its final recommendations, which were shared at an opening meeting during which chapter leaders could again comment. The final task force recommendations were then voted on by the national board at its meeting.

Predictably, criticism was levied by some who aspired to leadership and saw that the opportunities were being significantly reduced. It quickly died down, however, once the governance changes were implemented and proved to be effective. It's true that some members who might have otherwise been selected for national board or committee assignments have not been selected to serve. However, those who have been selected have commented that they and their colleagues are part of a more focused and sophisticated team that is addressing the most critical needs of members.

The new, smaller board of 11 members became operational in September 1997 and remains the model today. There are three officers, six at-large members, one volunteer representative from the volunteer/staff team responsible for chapter health, and a representative from ASID's industry partner companies. There is no executive committee. The nominating process was redefined, and this smaller board is elected through a single slate of candidates voted on by ASID's Professional Member category. In addition, the 1995-1996 task force recommended career path guidelines leading to eligibility to serve on the board; other than the industry representative and the volunteer representatives from the team responsible for chapter health, all at large members are nominated based on their potential to be the society's president one day. Even though the chapter and industry representatives to the board have a specific responsibility to a segment of the membership, all 11 members, including these 2, are responsible to all 32,000 ASID members (interior design practitioners, interior design students, and industry partners) rather than strictly representing only a given constituency.

Across time, the nominating committee has created a list of leadership criteria (see sidebar "Qualities of the Ideal Leader") through which to evaluate all eligible members who are identified or who have expressed a desire to serve on the board. Use of this leadership-criteria filter by the nominating committee sends a strong and positive message to all members that the organization's national leadership is selected based on a set of skills far different than simply years of service or a pleasant personality. In practice, this has provided opportunities for younger members, some who have not come up through the chapter leadership ranks, to share their expertise by serving on national councils, committees, and task forces. This has helped to broaden the pool of qualified members who may one day serve on the national board of directors as ASID's president.

For example, even the president--who may be the external spokesperson for ASID and serve as the chair of the board--does not bring his or her personal agenda to the board's deliberations or have a voice that is stronger than any other board member. And when the board is working on the next iteration of the strategic plan (a rolling three-year document with a one-year budget), the president-elect sits as the chair because this position is responsible for strategic planning. This means that the president-elect is chairing board meetings almost 50 percent of the time when the board meets in person.For example, even the president--who may be the external spokesperson for ASID and serve as the chair of the board--does not bring his or her personal agenda to the board's deliberations or have a voice that is stronger than any other board member. And when the board is working on the next iteration of the strategic plan (a rolling three-year document with a one-year budget), the president-elect sits as the chair because this position is responsible for strategic planning. This means that the president-elect is chairing board meetings almost 50 percent of the time when the board meets in person.

Current results and concerns

The ASID board meets five times a year. Each meeting is between a day and a half and two days, with the day before set aside for disciplinary committee hearings involving business practice and ethical issues. About 75--80 percent of the board's in-person time is spent in strategic thinking and planning, with the remaining time used to handle business matters that are not adequately addressed in the society's bylaws or policies. Nine staff directors sit at the board table with volunteers. Although staff members do not vote, they are expected to participate in the discussions at hand. While there is no set schedule for phone or online board conference calls, these calls occur as needed when matters require the board to take action between in-person meetings. And, in general, technology has made it quite easy to share information among board members, committee members, and staff during periods of time between in person board meetings. As far as board business goes, even when there ar e contentious issues, the board stays focused on its central charge--conducting its meetings with a high regard for the best interests of ASID's members. Consequently, board members are aware that not everyone will agree with every board decision, but it is operating as a team with 11 equal voices.

Despite the progress that we've made in organizational governance, we still have some challenges. The first relates to the state of association chapters with regard to governance. ASID has worked diligently to refocus its chapters on the need to plan strategically. We provide a strategic planning template based on the national board's deliberations, and for years we provided trained volunteers to work with the chapters to facilitate their strategic planning. While I believe that many of ASID's chapters are better prepared to support member needs than ever before, I am still concerned that there is too much focus on the process of governance rather than on the delivery of programs and services. This is clearly an issue to consider if you are planning governance changes.

The other issue is ensuring that the pool of potential board members does not shrink precipitously because the society has reduced some of its leadership track options. In streamlining governance across the years, ASID not only reduced the size of the board twice but also reduced or eliminated many of the standing committees it formerly had in place. It is incumbent on the leadership to provide alternative opportunities for capable volunteers who would make excellent board members and officers to shine by demonstrating their skills.

Along those lines, one of the key decisions ASID has made to adjust for today's governance--and one that will serve other component organizations well--is to recognize that to serve as a chapter president should not, in and of itself, be a requirement to become a national board member.

Although it is not easy to speculate on what ASID might be like if these governance changes had not been made, I believe that many of the programs and services that strategic planning has identified during the past 10 years might not have come about. Had ASID retained larger boards of directors, personality and personal preference might characterize how programs and services came into being. And, while I believe that intuition has an important role in decision making, I do not believe that major decisions can be made merely "from the gut" by one or a few leaders who are vying for position among one another. A well-functioning board includes listening to one's constituents. At the same time, broader member feedback and research are critical elements of effective governance--and of operating strategically.

Qualities of The Ideal Leader

During the past 10 years, the national nominating committee of the American Society of Interior Designers, Washington, D.C., has selected board members based on a broad range of leadership skills. The list below represents what the committee calls its leadership filters by which it screens potential board members.

* Sees the big picture

* Is a nonbiased person who acts with an open mind

* Has a nimble, flexible mind

* Is an approachable person

* Demonstrates inclusivity and respect for peers

* Shows empathy 

* Is a change agent

* Displays an identifiable presence

* Can think on his or her feet

* Maintains intellectual composure 

* Is an effective communicator

* Can be a savvy marketer

* Maintains a positive, upbeat attitude

* Is a team player

* Respects staff

* Displays passion for ASID

* Has the ability to delegate

* Maintains personal integrity

Michael C. Aim is executive director, American Society of Interior Designers, Washington, D.C. E-mail: [e-mail].

Century-Mark Makeover

Sweeping aside a governance structure that stands in the way of progress.

BY PAMELA J. GROTZ

The National Congress of Parents and Teachers--a powerful voice for children, relevant resource for parents, and a strong advocate for public education--was founded in 1897. The organization, now the National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA) headquartered in Chicago, also maintains a governmental office in Washington, D.C. This 501(c) (3), individual member organization has 6.2 million members, with 54 state congresses (including all 50 states, District of Columbia, Department of Defense Schools in Europe and the Pacific Rim, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), and more than 26,000 local units.

In 1997, change, flexibility, and meeting members' needs and expectations were the watchwords on everyone's mind. The articles and case studies touting "highly successful organizations" all focused on evaluation and assessment. The National PTA was 100 years old and it was time for a hard look at our organization. We began the laborious process of developing a long-range, strategic plan.

Moving the process forward

Two years later, in June 1999, after several revisions, National PTA's 87-member board of directors adopted a strategic plan. One of the key objectives of the plan called for "a more nimble, responsive governance structure. National PTA believed it needed to be able to make decisions more quickly and efficiently to keep pace with today's business climate. There was evidence that the organization needed to be more active with, and responsive to, its membership. The prevailing opinion was that the current structure was a barrier to those outcomes.

In support of the strategic plan, a task force (consisting of six board officers, five state presidents, and six staff) was appointed in June 1999 to develop a new governance structure. The restructure proposal put before the board of directors nine months later was a radical change. The proposal called for

* reducing the board from 87 members (54 of whom were presidents of the state congresses and constituted a majority of the voting board) to 21 members;

* creating a deliberative body representative of the grassroots membership to bring issues, trends, and areas of interest and concern to the national level; and

* reducing standing committees from 16 (all of whom were board members) to 6, with most of the committee members coming from the PTA membership at large.

After much communication, discussion, and deliberation, in September 2000 the 87-member board of directors moved to draft a revised set of bylaws reflecting a new structure of 26 board members, creating the National Council of States (NCS), and reducing standing committees to 6. National PTA bylaws required all revisions and amendments be brought to the annual meeting for adoption by two thirds of the voting convention delegates. In June 2001, 2,000 delegates to National PTA's annual meeting amended the plan to a board of 28 members, created the National Council of States, and reduced the number of standing committees to seven. The revised bylaws were adopted and were to take effect immediately.

The nominating committee met within an hour of the adoption of the revised bylaws, and brought forward a new slate reflecting the new positions and structure. Officers, board members, NCS members, and committees were elected and/or appointed.

In addition to the board of directors, the NCS was created to bring issues and trends from the grassroots level to the board. The NCS is made up of 66 members as follows:

* one member of their choosing from each of the 54 state congresses for a term defined by the state;

* 10 at-large members who are elected by members of NCS for a two-year term; and

* president and president-elect who serve as chair and vice-chair.

Providing a progress report

National PTA is one year into the new structure and quite frankly, still working through the transition. Not only was the structure of the board changed, but also the way that the organization goes about its work. Shifts have been required in several areas.

1. Setting policy versus implementing policy. Prior to the restructuring, the board and committees (which were composed completely of board members) not only recommended and set policy, but in many cases did most of the work involved to implement those policies. They were quite invested in day-to-day management and decision making. The new board has, and continues to work diligently to remove itself from day-to-day management and to become a policy-setting board, with oversight responsibilities for implementation. It's a difficult transition, but the board is committed to making this come to fruition.

2. Identifying future leaders. Another rather dramatic change for National PTA was the creation of the nominating and leadership development committee. This committee replaced the prior nominating committee, the only responsibility of which was to nominate a slate of officers every two years. This new committee, elected by the convention delegates for three-year staggered terms, has the responsibility to

* identify characteristics and skills of potential leaders to meet the needs of the organization;

* recruit, screen, evaluate, and nominate qualified candidates for leadership positions;

* recommend continuing education that enhances leadership development for the organization;

* advise the president on committee member selection; and

* maintain a database of qualified individuals for leadership roles within the organization.

National PTA leaders are encouraged to send to the committee names of individuals who they believe have leadership potential. These individuals may have been identified through work in the field, attendance at educational seminars, working at the state level, or through partnerships with other organizations and corporations. The potential leaders are then contacted to gather information on their skills and attributes, references, and level of interest in serving in a leadership role at the national level. Potential leaders are put through a screening process, and all of this information is kept in the database for future reference and referral when positions are vacated or up for appointment or election.

3. Committing to professional development. The organization has also made a commitment to ongoing professional development for all current and potential leaders. This is accomplished through training, educational opportunities, resources, and retreats. This commitment is an integral part of increasing the pool of future leaders and enhancing the skills and leadership capabilities of those currently serving within the governance structure. Leaders are provided with up-to-date best practices and strategies to help them govern with the skills and competence necessary to guide the organization.

4. Cautions and caveats. The old saying of "no pain, no gain" is true when it comes to change. It is not comfortable, often frustrating, and never moves as fast as the world around us seems to be moving. However, the lesson National PTA has learned is that people who are committed, and given thorough, research-based information and the appropriate amount of time to absorb the issues and information at hand, make good decisions.

For any others considering a restructure of your governing entities:

* make sure you are restructuring for the right reasons; don't change just for change's sake or because it's what's hot at the moment;

* muster as much patience as possible--and then find some more;

* ensure that those involved in the process have all the information they need to make good decisions;

* communicate, communicate, communicate (there is no such thing as too much communication);

* continually step back and see the big picture and your end goal, especially when the frame within which you are working seems to shrink and the vision begins to get caught up in minutiae; and

* do not write any of your new structure, process, strategies, rules, bylaws, or procedures in stone--a year or two later they are most likely going to need some fine tuning.

The change process used by National PTA may seem laborious, and snails'-paced, but the members had buy in, the leaders are committed, and there is renewed energy in ensuring this 100-plus-year organization is relevant, responsive, and continually moving towards the future. And with our new governance structure in place, we believe we're poised to take full advantage of that future.

Pamela J. Grotz is executive director of National Parent Teacher Association, Chicago. E-mail: [e-mail].