By Mark Thorne

President, Moscow Food Co-op

At the Moscow Food Co-op, all C policies (Board Process) and D policies (Board-Management Relationship) are currently monitored using categorical surveys sent out to each board member with either a “How much do you agree with the following statement?” scale or, “With this sub-policy, is the board in compliance or not in compliance?” For each global policy and sub-policy, there is a comment option where a board member can express their thoughts and can explain why they answered as they did.

I was surprised to learn from our board CBLD (Cooperative Board Leadership Development) consultant that this process of board self-evaluation was revolutionary in 2010, when Rose Marie Klee wrote up the process she and the Wheatsville Co-op board in Austin, Texas, had devised for “Making Ourselves Accountable” in Cooperative Grocer magazine. Thane explained that collecting data on their own performance helps a board to uphold a higher standard for monitoring their GM’s performance.

Moscow Food Co-op has been using that survey tool since I came on the board, and while to my mind it may work well for the “Board-Management Relationship” global policy and a select few of the sub-policies, it is grossly inadequate for most of our board’s self-monitoring.

Observations

Firstly, policy language is written so that there is room for thinking about and determining what is reasonable, not what is black and white. The policy on the board’s governance commitment illustrates this point beautifully:

To fulfill our governance commitment, the Board will govern in a manner consistent with the Four Pillars of Cooperative Governance (Teaming, Accountable Empowerment, Strategic Leadership, and Democracy). In order to do this, the Board will: 1. Prioritize taking whatever steps are needed to work together effectively. (Teaming)

This statement, sub-policy C1.1., does not define the steps we should take, but rather challenges us to consider the steps we have taken and determine whether they are appropriate and reasonable. By only using a binomial response survey, there is no room to understand even what steps have been taken, let alone whether we comply or not—and if not, how to improve.

Secondly, for new board members and those who are not familiar with the Policy Governance approach (which includes many of us), it is unlikely we can reasonably and effectively monitor our board process and board–management relations (C and D) policies using the survey method. Unless we as board members have some reasonable sense, or better yet, perfect knowledge, of the actions the board has taken in relation to its own work and its work with the general manager, there is absolutely no way we can, or should, be answering these monitoring questions.

The lack of perspective, knowledge, and information about our own actions can lead to frustrations: “I just don’t understand Policy Governance!” or “What is this even saying?”—which then leads to guessing, rubber stamping, or abstaining. We require the general manager to collect and evaluate data and information for both A and B policies, so we can accept her assessment of compliance or non-compliance and then ask for plans to deal with non-compliance issues. However, the board does not require this level of investigation and thought concerning its own C and D policies.

Lastly, frustration with this process leads to fragmentation and ineffectiveness of the board as a whole.

An alternative approach

By using a discussion approach to C and D policy monitoring, we can strengthen our understanding of the policies and the Policy Governance system and build cohesiveness within the board. How would this work?

Prior to the monitoring, board members will be assigned to collect information regarding the actions or lack of actions taken regarding each global policy or sub-policy. Preferably, information gathering will include teams comprising both members new to the board and those with prior board experience. In addition, the information-gathering team will discuss the language of the global policy or sub-policy in the framework of, “What would a reasonable person do?” The team can then make a recommendation to the board on whether we are in or out of compliance, and may state some ideas on how to resolve non-compliance.

In the board meetings when policy or sub-policies are monitored, teams will present their findings to the whole board. The board can then ask questions, make suggestions, and then vote, we hope from a more informed position, on the compliance status of the global policy or sub-policy.

Desired outcomes

A discussion-based approach can help all board members have a better understanding of not only the individual global and sub-policies but of our jobs, responsibilities, and limitations as board members. This approach can reduce frustration that comes from lack of understanding of the policies, and can build board cohesiveness.