|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||
Essentials in
Board
Preliminary Report of the Governance and Management Task Force
A proposal to restructure the governance, strategic planning and operational systems of the Society.
Updated: 6/6/2003 9:36:00 AM
Governance Management Task Force Report
June 4, 2003
Report Contents
1. Foreword and comments from the GMTF - Page 3
2. Establishment of the GMTF – Page 4
a. Recent historical context
b. Charge to the GMTF
c. Phase two suggestions
3. Research and analysis of current management structure and current industry thinking about governing and managing nonprofit organizations – Pages 5 - 7
a. Research and information gathering
b. Governance issues in nonprofit boards
c. Review of major findings
d. Guiding principles for change
4. Conclusions and recommendations – Pages 8 - 22
a. Conclusions and recommendations for the Society level
b. Conclusions and recommendations for the district level
c. Conclusions and recommendations for the chapter level
d. Other conclusions and recommendations
5. Proposed transition plans - Pages 23 - 26
a. For the Society level
b. For the district level
c. For the chapter level
6. Appendixes - Pages 27 - 31
a. Bibliography
b. Flow chart for work-planning process
c. Flow chart for reporting process
d. Organizational chart showing the operations team
e. Phase II outline of activities and outcomes
I. Foreword
The members of the Governance Management Task Force (GMTF) are profoundly grateful to the authors of the 4/24/95 Management Study Team report. Central to the work done by the Management Study Team (MST) were Dean Atlee Snyder’s words:
The first key word … is unity—a unity of purpose and the unity of a single organization headed by an International Board. We are not a commonwealth or confederation of independent parts—whether those parts be geographical segments or special interest groups, or subsidiaries within the Society.
These words apply to our organization as surely today as they did in 1991.
The interdependence of the various parts of our Society has become clearer to us as we examined the strengths and weaknesses of our organization today compared to other, similar and successful organizations like Rotary and Kiwanis. As we built, revised, added, and discarded various models based on our reading, discussions, and outside interviews, we became particularly aware of our need for these key and indispensable attributes:
• A continuing organizational focus on the mutually-agreed leadership purpose to materially improve the value of the member’s barbershop experience
• A capacity for achieving the results we set out to produce—Peter Drucker calls it effectiveness
• A common trust, cooperation, and commitment for mutual success in the pursuit of our organizational mission: alignment at all levels of the organization to this common mission
• Where there is alignment to a single common mission and purpose, there are specific and critical roles for each element in the organization. These roles become interdependent; when one role gets out of balance the others suffer in their effectiveness.
Without these four elements in place and functioning effectively we will be significantly hampered to realize the improvements envisioned in this report.
The recommendations of the MST tested our leaders’ dedication with some sweeping changes, most of which have substantially improved the capabilities of our Society’s governance and management structure. Not all of the changes have had the desired impact, however. We have been careful throughout our deliberations to differentiate between what is not working in our organization because of structural or design issues on the one hand, and personnel or implementation issues on the other. With the wisdom of hindsight, we can now see some structural issues that made sense in other organizations but have not worked in our environment. Further, some of the objectives of the MST design have not been achieved due to implementation problems. We address both structure and process in this report.
The members of the GMTF want to thank the Society Board and Roger Lewis, 2002-2003 Society President, not only for the opportunity to undertake this journey but also for the wisdom and courageous leadership to undertake a study of this scope. Were it not for the breadth of the charge and the freedom we have been allowed, the quality of this report could certainly have been considerably diminished.
Al Bonney (Chair), Larry Clemons, Hank Hammer, Tim Hanrahan, Jim Warner
Rob Hopkins (Board Liaison), Frank Santarelli (Staff Liaison)
II. Establishment of the Governance and Management Task Force
Following the November 2002 Society Board meeting, President Roger Lewis appointed a task force with the following charge:
Guided by the Society vision and with recognition that the success of our Society is fundamentally dependent upon success in the chapters, review and evaluate the current governance and management processes, and also the architectural structures, of the Society at the chapter, district, and Society levels and make recommendations for changes, as appropriate, to the Society Board according to the following schedule: (1) district, regional or other midlevel structure by June 1, 2003; (2) chapter-level and Society-level structures by January 1, 2004. In particular, the task force should consider recommending changes that would lead to improvements in accountability, support for chapters, unity of purpose, empowerment of leaders and staff, and the members’ musical experiences.
This charge is a natural extension of the Management Study Team work done in 1995 because that report recognized, as does this one, that the organization requires regular and ongoing review of its structure as a natural and healthy approach to insuring the organization remains flexible and responsive to the challenges it faces and the ever-evolving needs of its members.
This report fulfulls the basic charge from the board for the June and January requirements. We have recommended a Phase II follow-up in the appendix.
III. Research and Analysis of Current Management Structure and Current
Industry Thinking about Governing and Managing Nonprofit Organizations
The Task Force Process and Methodology
The GMTF had its first meeting at the midwinter convention in Albuquerque, and made its first status report to the Society Board at that convention. A budget was approved and work began in earnest.
We began by seeking opinions of what was right and wrong with the existing organization by sending a short questionnaire requesting narrative input from all staff, Society committee chairs, Society Board members, and district presidents:
Considering the structure we use to run the business of the Society today, what are your views on the following:
• What parts of the structure ARE working and shouldn’t be changed?
• What parts of the structure (as opposed to poor communications or people not doing the job) are NOT working and should be changed?
• What elements are missing from our current structure that should be added?
The voluminous responses turned out not to be actionable due to the high degree of personalized input and lack of consistency. In the end the survey helped us to focus more clearly on the task and set us off on several more productive tracks.
We first met on February 15-16 in San Antonio at Larry Clemon’s house, where we convened for thirteen hours between Friday evening and Sunday morning. We made a list of those assumptions that we believed had to be a part of any volunteer organization no matter what the format or structure. We made a list of the attributes that should be reflected in any ideal volunteer organization. We began building model organizations based on these assumptions. Starting with the one we have, we developed some modifications, and imagined several significantly different ones.
By the end of the meeting we had ideas about possible future structures based on our assumptions, and we were ready to test our thinking. We located a Barbershopper in Savannah who had considerable education and experience in survey design, implementation, and interpretation. Ron Bucknam volunteered to become a consultant to the GMTF and proved to be an excellent resource. By early April we had completed and tested the final survey, and we sent the survey to 140 men who currently hold and had held positions as Society Board members, committee chairmen, Society staff, and district presidents for the past three years. Additionally we included current district executive vice presidents and the Harmony Foundation staff and Board of Trustees. The purpose of the survey was very specific: to test the acceptance of our assumptions among the target audience of senior Society leaders.
The responses to the survey clearly broke down into three categories: overwhelming support, strong support, and mild support. None of the assumptions was rejected outright. In our quest to create a model that would receive the broadest possible support, we determined to retain items with strong and overwhelming support, and to seek alternatives to the mildly supported items.
The other outcome from the February meeting was a set of additional actions that we recognized would be required if we were to bring forward not only a model that would be acceptable to the broadest constituency but also one that represented the best thinking on governance and management of nonprofit organizations from around the country. We embarked on several strategies:
1. We identified organizations that looked like ours, specifically Rotary International and Kiwanis International. Both organizations have largely volunteer workers, relatively small paid staff, and a mission that is actualized through clubs in the communities they serve. We wanted to know much more about how they organized their governance and management structures and what elements of their structures they considered to be vital to their success. Reports on these interviews are available from the GMTF. Both organizations had the same vital elements for success:
a. Get the right people into the big jobs—this may be tough, but it sure solves a lot of problems
b. Succession planning at every level deserves considerable emphasis—even mandated in the structural organization and bylaws
c. Training of volunteer officers at every level is a top priority for both organizations; both have skilled training officers in the districts to insure good and effective training happens regularly
d. Face-to-face contact at the chapter level by district/division-level officers to express support, collect first-hand evidence of progress and effectiveness at the chapter level, and keep the organization functioning with common expectations and in a common direction
e. Insuring that the organization remains grass-roots driven and that all activities coming from “above” have acceptance and credibility by the rank and file before they ever get rolled out.
2. We identified some seminars that might have input for us and participated in one of them sponsored by the American Association of Association Executives and the Center for Association Leadership in Washington, DC. More significantly, we consulted books by recognized experts in the area of nonprofit organizations. The full bibliography is included in the appendix of this report, but the key references were:
a. Boards That Make a Difference: a New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations by John Carver focuses on policy governance. We found his proven processes to be very applicable to the leadership role that we believe our Board of Directors must bring to the organization.
b. Peter Drucker’s book Managing The Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices discusses several issues of sound management in nonprofit organizations that we believe are critical to any effective organization and are particularly applicable to our Society.
c. An American Society of Association Executives seminar featured a presentation by John Brandt, the Publisher of CEO magazine, on “Building High Performance Organizations.” Several of his principles are represented in our final recommendations.
d. Douglas Eadie’s book Boards That Work was a prime resource for the MST and the value of this book continued to guide us in creative and productive directions.
Between the February meeting and our last meeting on May 10 in San Antonio (again enjoying the excellent hospitality and attention at Clemons Hideaway and Resort) we began a series of weekly conference calls. We held six two-hour calls, which enabled us to expand our consideration of proven tools and systems that might apply to our situation. By early May we were in a position to start assembling and working through the details of this report.
The original charge requested that we consider the district or mid-level organization first and then get into the chapter and Society Board levels. Ultimately, this proved to be impossible because of the interdependence of each level on the other. Consequently, our work has spanned the structure of the entire organization at one time. Time, however, proved too short to adequately consider all of the details, so in the second phase of our work we will consider issues such as committee roles and objectives, training of Society leaders, and chapter-level resources and positions. A complete listing of the phase II activities and objectives is in the appendix.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions Regarding Society Governance, Leadership, and Management
Society Board Function
The GMTF carefully considered the Society Board as it exists today—its strengths and weaknesses, its accomplishments and challenges. The current Society Board, including its subordinate groups—the Board Management Council, the Planning and Program Development Group and the Operations Group—is strong and has demonstrated a willingness to tackle the following responsibilities of a nonprofit board as set forth by Douglas Eadie in Boards That Work:
It would be fair to say that the Board has grown in its ability to fashion a strategic framework and establish key performance targets but has been less successful in formulating policy and ensuring that the Society is performing effectively and efficiently.
Despite its obvious strengths and accomplishments, the current Society Board mirrors problems that are common to nonprofit boards when it focuses on:
In short, the Board is too often placed in the position of being reactive rather than proactive. There is also a perception that the Board frequently concentrates too heavily on operational details.
Society Board Elections
The GMTF presumes that all Society members desire to have the very best men on the Society Board. That goal is not well-served by an election process that limits the election of a Board member to a single district House of Delegates whose members have little understanding of the role and responsibilities of a Society Board member.
Society Board Member Training
The Society has not provided adequate training for Board members, many of whom bring skills developed as district managers that are not the skills required for being a successful Society Board member.
The Board has been unsuccessful in providing leadership that inspires members, chapters, and districts to rally around a unified mission and vision. The first task of a leader, writes Peter Drucker, is to “make sure that everybody sees the mission, hears it, lives it.” Moreover, in The Leadership Challenge, James Kouzes and Barry Posner state:
Challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart: these are the practices that emerge from personal-best leadership cases. But they paint only a partial picture. The portrayal can be complete and vivid only when constituents see their own views represented, because leadership is a reciprocal process between those who choose to lead and those who choose to follow.
Society Committees/District Relationships
The Society Board establishes committees to carry out work-plan tasks that follow the Society Board’s strategic guidance and to train and work with their counterpart district vice presidents. Unfortunately, many committees have not been able to reach their potential because they have been overwhelmed with too many work-plan tasks without clear priorities being established. This has also been complicated by poor relationships and interfaces with some district vice presidents. Communications and reporting from district vice presidents to Society committee chairmen have been a perennial problem and district vice presidents have often complained about the work plans that were unilaterally created by the committees. Despite many attempts to bridge the difficulties, they remain essentially unsolved.
The Society has no current structure for the committees, staff, and district officers to talk together in a collaborative way to solve the operational problems of the Society. Consequently, there is no shared commitment to the Board’s strategic objectives and ultimate goals, and not all volunteers have committed themselves to the desired end results. Hence, it is apparent that the current operational structure is not working and needs to be replaced.
In summary, the GMTF perceives that a strong, but not extraordinary, Board exists but the structure does not allow Board members to be as successful as they could be. Further, the GMTF believes that the following recommendations will better enable Society leaders to provide the kind of leadership described above.
Recommendations Regarding Society Governance, Leadership, and Management
Society Board Function
John Carver’s book, Boards That Make a Difference, provides a vision for how a nonprofit board can be extraordinary. If Board members could be freed from mundane, everyday management issues, they could provide leadership for the vision, mission, and higher-level strategies that are worthy of the best and brightest minds in our Society.
The model that the GMTF formulated aims to:
The importance of the first of these aims—having alignment throughout the Society for its vision and mission—cannot be overestimated. A clear and thorough alignment will be insured by persuading leaders and managers at all levels that the Society is headed in the right direction to its “North Star.” It is a fundamental responsibility of the Board, and without it no governance and management structure will be successful. As Peter Drucker points out:
A mission statement has to be operational, otherwise it’s just good intentions. A mission statement has to focus on what the institution really tries to do and then do it so that everybody in the organization can say; this is my contribution to the goal.
The Society’s vision and mission provide the basis for developing policies, which can be thought of as values and perspectives. The goal of our proposed model is for the Board to move away from detailed and event-specific governance toward values and valuing, thereby producing a powerful shift in Board leadership.
The Society Board will create four categories of policies:
1. Ends to be achieved: economically justifiable, properly chosen, well-targeted results
2. Executive limitations: principles of prudence and ethics that limit the choice of staff practices
3. Board-executive relationship: defining the role of the chief operations officer (COO—the Executive Director), delegating to the COO, and assessing the COO performance
4. Board process: how the Board represents the member and provides strategic leadership for the Society.
The last three of these four remain stable; once those policies are established, the Board will focus its attention on ends policies. This requires extensive study, discussion, brainstorming, evaluation, and creative thinking to discover answers to our ongoing challenges. Given that Board members are moral trustees for the membership, a lot of Board members’ energies will be spent on linkage to the member: public forums, personal contact, focus groups, telephone surveys (including those by third parties), and other means to establish the concerns, needs, and desires of the membership. With this knowledge, Board members are then prepared to engage in policy discussions based on the values of our members. The Board keeps the strategic framework updated (including the Society’s vision, mission, and broad goals), identifies strategic issues and action strategies to address them, and establishes annual performance targets and budgets.
Most resolutions in Board meetings will be motions to amend or create policy. Further, the policies must be created by the Board as a whole. Therefore, Board committees, when appropriate, should only do work that prepares possible policy options and their ramifications for the entire Board to consider (“pre-Board work”), not work in which the group acts as a substitute for the Board.
The current Board Management Council, Operations Group, and Planning and Program Development Group are unnecessary in the new structure. The Board decides what committees are required and the Society President then appoints them. Society officers will be responsible for the effective and efficient running of the Board and the entire Board will be responsible for the long-term development of plans and programs.
Similarly, the GMTF views the Society Treasurer position as no longer necessary. This is not an unkind reflection on the fine men who have served in that capacity but rather is an acknowledg-ment that the Society Board must adopt appropriate budget policies and hold the Society’s Executive Director and his staff accountable for fiscal matters. The GMTF believes it would be highly desirable for future Boards to appoint a Finance Committee to perform the oversight function now performed by the Society Treasurer. The designee of the Executive Director, currently the Director of Finance and Administration for the Society, may fulfill the corporate treasurer requirement. This would not be a Board member position but would be subject to the corporation laws of the State of Wisconsin.
Extensive discussion of policy issues would be very difficult with a Board membership of sixteen, our current structure. As the GMTF developed the requirements for the membership and size of our Board, we concluded:
• There is a need to have diversity on the Board along with a reasonable geographical distribution so that members throughout the Society believe that the Board understands any special issues concerning their geographical area
• The selection of Board members should not be restricted to a single district and that it is best done by people who clearly understand the role and responsibility of a Board member—namely, the Board itself
• It is crucial to have substantial input from the district in the Board-member election process
• The overriding objective should be to have the best and brightest men available for this highly complex and difficult work
• Board size must enable flexibility and creativity, and provide ease of communications within the Board.
Thus, the GMTF has determined the need for a more unified, smaller Board that will focus on governance and leadership.
Society Board Elections
The eight members from the current paired districts will be selected by a process that requires each of the paired districts’ nominating committees assist the Society Nominating Committee in determining the best candidates from both of the paired districts. In a given year, each district nominating committee of the appropriate paired districts will recommend at least two candidates to the Society Nominating Committee. The latter group may also independently consider “at-large” candidates from the paired districts. All three nominating committees, those from the paired districts and the Society Nominating Committee, ultimately must agree on a minimum of two nominees. The Society Board will elect one of them by majority vote. There will be no nominations from the floor. Each nominee will have an opportunity to present written materials for consideration and make a very brief oral presentation to the Board prior to the election.
Except for Society officers, each Society Board member represents, but is not an advocate for, the concerns and perspectives of his paired districts. He is a member of the leadership teams in both districts and uses his experience and capabilities to help the districts achieve success. He acts as a representative of the Society Board to his districts to encourage effective leadership succession and to create enthusiasm about the Society’s future direction. Moreover, he provides to the Society Board insights as to the strengths and weaknesses of the governance and management structure from his perspective as a member of two district leadership teams. The paired-district Society Board member’s goal is to become a key player in his paired districts’ efforts to serve their members and chapters.
Society Committees and the Board interface with operational units
The GMTF has further determined that the Society should create a separate management-level working group that would perform the function of serving the chapters and delivering the services and resources.
• Create and carry out operational plans that further the long-term strategic goals of the Society Board
• Be accountable for results that indicate progress toward achieving those goals
• Consist of the following personnel chaired by the Society Executive Director: district presidents, functional committee chairmen and their staff liaisons, and a Harmony Foundation representative.
Society committees, staff, and districts will have primary responsibility for writing their own work plans based on the strategic guidance and goals established by the Society Board. Each committee and district will develop five-to-seven specific results that it believes will pave the way for success in their district. By allowing the districts to create their own work plans and determine the results they desire, they will be able to hold themselves accountable for their actions, thereby substantially increasing their chances for success. Moreover, to the extent that staff, districts, and committees can focus on the things that they determine are most important, more will be accomplished. The particular strategies, activities, and means to be employed to achieve the desired ends are left to those who are responsible for achieving the results. Hence, committee chairmen, district presidents, and the Society’s Executive Director are accountable for the results they commit to achieve in any given year.
Through the OT, the GMTF envisions a tighter connection between the Board's directives (goals and desired measurements) and the operators where the actual work is accomplished.
The OT will receive written strategic guidance from the Society Board late in the spring of each year for the purpose of initiating the planning process for the following year. It is recommended that the Society Board emphasize five-to-seven strategic, measurable goals that might make a material improvement in the individual member’s barbershop experience. The Board will also provide the measure by which success will be evaluated.
Members of the OT will review the strategic guidance and identify their responsibility for portions of the desired results. At the international convention, the OT will meet and discuss what the strategic guidance means, what will be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, what resources are available and what might need to be created, how the goals differ from the previous year, and what needs to be done differently to achieve these objectives. The OT will identify effective management and operational strategies, allocate resources, and facilitate cooperative relationships and activities between and among districts, Society staff, and Society committees. This planning meeting would be a highly collaborative, creative, and team-focused event—enabling new ideas and participation that have not been possible in recent years. In short, the OT’s creative discussion at the international convention provides the basis for the district president or committee chair to return to his team and develop the plans for the five-to-seven measurable goals that contribute to the Society Board’s strategic guidance. Likewise, the Society staff will create the work plan items it intends to follow to achieve its goals. Society committees and staff have the responsibility to create and make readily available those resources and services that the OT believes will help the chapters and districts.
Each district, Society committee, and the staff will, at a Board-specified date in the fall, provide to the Society Board a statement of goals and an executive summary of the means by which the goals will be attained. Should the goals require significant Society resources (money or manpower), they must be submitted prior to the Budget Review Committee meeting in accordance with a Board-approved deadline. However, given a two-year planning cycle, it is unlikely that there would be many such last-minute requests for manpower or money. The Society Board will review and, ultimately, approve the goals (not the means). It is understood that the Society Board will normally accept specific district goals unless they are at variance with reality or depart significantly from the original planning guidance. If necessary, the Board may enter into discussions with a district or Society committee or staff unit to revise one or more goals. By mid-October, all work plans and budgets should be final and district leadership teams may proceed with training and operational details to help insure success in the coming year.
Every quarter, each district president and each Society committee will prepare and distribute to the OT a one-page statement that reports the progress toward achieving the five-to-seven goals that it had established for that calendar year. The Society staff will likewise prepare and distribute, through the Executive Director, its summary statement detailing progress toward the goals it had established for that calendar year. These reports will be the basis for discussion at subsequent meetings of the OT.
In addition to the meeting at the international convention, the OT will meet at the midwinter convention and, as well, have two interspersed conference call meetings at appropriate times during the year. The agenda for these meetings will be created by an OT planning subcommittee (event planning team). All OT members will receive a Power Point presentation in advance of each meeting, where the visuals are used not only to provide information but also to focus discussion concerning:
• Significant successes that were achieved and how the OT can learn from them
• Problems that were encountered
• Resource redirection or revision to improve results
• Modifications necessary to improve future results.
The Executive Director will be responsible for conference-call logistics, including the preparation and distribution of a Power Point presentation of all relevant data. The OT can recommend to the Executive Director ways to redirect budget resources and the Executive Director, acting within policy constraints created by the Board, can then make decisions about redirecting funds without going over budget.
The GMTF expects that the Society Board may authorize a professional consultant to co-facilitate the first meeting of the OT and then, perhaps, “shadow” the Executive Director in the second meeting in order to maximize the meeting results.
The results of each quarterly meeting will be the report to the Society Board, replacing the “Board book” as we know it today. The report will consist of the aggregated results from all the districts, committees, and staff, and include the minutes of the meeting that state the key decisions for:
• Sharing details of successes
• Redeployment of resources to specific problem areas
• Action agreements for activity in the next quarter (and a review/critique of actions from the last quarter)
• Significant innovation or alternative strategies necessary due to lack of progress.
The Society Board needs to know whether its strategies are working or not and if the guidance it has provided to the OT is realistic or practical. If positive results are not forthcoming, the Society Board has the opportunity to re-evaluate aspects of the strategic guidance, the goals, or the resources available to accomplish the goals.
The Board, with this information, will have up-to-date, actionable, succinct, and clearly measurable indicators on how the organization is progressing towards the goals it established for the year. In particular, the report will give the Board information that will allow them to research alternative strategies for those that are not working.
A graphic of the work-plan process and the reporting process is found in the appendix.
Conclusions Regarding District Governance, Leadership, and Management
District Structures
The Society’s districts have the potential to be highly effective product-delivery systems for the services and resources that can support and assist their chapters in being successful. They do not always effectively fulfill that role now.
In the current district structure, management operations are split by the Society functional committees working with their district vice president counterparts and by the district leadership team independently working together. Three critical elements have been missing:
1. Good communication and working relationships between Society committees and their respective district vice presidents
2. Self-determination that yields commitment through “buy-in” to the Society work plan
3. A close working relationship with the chapters on a regular basis.
It would seem that in some districts, the lack of a good and consistent working relationship with chapters is a result of the district leadership team not working together with the chapters, but rather depending on the CSLT vice president and, in particular, the chapter counselors, allowing them to shoulder that responsibility. Many district officers have felt overburdened with work-plan tasks created by Society committees and with quarterly reports on those tasks. District vice presidents and presidents have complained about the lack of “buy-in” to these tasks as opposed to those that the district leadership created for itself.
The lack of a satisfactory relationship with chapters has led a few districts to consider changing the structure of their boards. In the view of the GMTF, however, the effectiveness of district boards, just as with the Society Board, has been undermined by the board’s combined responsibilities for both governance and leadership as well as operational management. Moreover, strong succession planning has not been a consideration in some districts and as a result their leadership has not been consistently effective.
A few districts have indicated a keen interest in revising their district boards in order to better serve their memberships. This interest led the GMTF to consider the extent to which all district boards should have the same structure. We concluded that there should be far more flexibility in board structure than is currently allowed. However, given this flexibility, districts should insure that their plans for revising their board structure differentiate between two separate functions: governance, which is the job of the board, and operations, which are not. The GMTF believes that the standard district bylaws should be altered to allow the districts flexibility in the size and membership of their boards, and that the districts should recognize that there are two distinct roles for district structures:
1. Leadership and governance—the responsibility of the district board of directors
2. Operations—the responsibility of the district operations team, consisting of appointed functional committee chairs, division managers or vice presidents, and others as appropriate.
Recommendations Regarding District Governance, Leadership, and Management
1. By 2005 (earlier if desired by the district), each district must have a board that consists of a president, executive vice president, immediate past president, secretary and any number of board members at large. Regarding board responsibilities, board members at large wear no other hat (even though they may hold another functional position in the management structure, such as district treasurer).
2. By 2005, each district should have an appointed operations team whose composition is left to each district. The responsibility of this team is to deliver the services and resources to the chapters as well as complete the district’s goals that contribute to the Society Board’s strategic guidance.
District board of directors: leadership and governance
The district board is responsible for planning and stewarding resources for the membership. The board is a group of officers and at-large members elected by the member chapters. Each board must have at least a president, immediate past president, secretary and, owing to the need for succession planning, a president’s intended successor: executive vice president. The district may choose to elect other board members at large but they have no other function even though they may hold another position in the management structure. Thus, the district leadership and governance functions may be managed by a small and flexible group. The GMTF encourages the districts to keep their boards small, with no more members than necessary to perform the stated functions. Further, the district board must be cautious that their responsibilities do not overlap the important management prerogatives of the functional chairmen and that a clear line of authority and responsibility is maintained.
The GMTF proposes that the district president’s term of office, currently a maximum of two one-year terms, remain unchanged. Other officers and board members at large have no term limits.
The district board, like the Society Board, should only deal with governance and leadership issues. The district board should establish key district performance targets, formulate district policies, and insure its membership that the district is performing effectively and efficiently. The district board also needs to establish long-term district goals. The district board should not deal with operational matters. Consequently, division/geographical managers as well as functional committee chairmen should not necessarily nor automatically be on the district board. No particular operations position should be on the board. If any operations person is, it should only be because he can provide expertise on governance and leadership issues, quite apart from his management operations responsibilities.
District Operations Team
While it is certainly true that any organization requires excellent governance and leadership, ultimately it is the functional areas delivering services and resources to the chapters that enable them to grow and succeed. Nothing is more important than an effective program that directly addresses the needs of the chapter. Based on research into other, similar organizations, the GMTF believes that there are some structural considerations and operating processes that the districts need to consider. Each district should create a separate district operations team that is comprised of those men who have the ultimate responsibility and capability for delivering the services and resources to the chapters.
The creation of a district operations team will establish a set of meetings, reports, and a planning cycle that would be separate from the board’s governance function. Two advantages are:
1. Actual board meetings would be shorter or might be accomplished through a conference call, thereby eliminating a face-to-face meeting
2. The district operations team would, under the new Society-level work planning and reporting structure, be responsible to itself for its work plans and reporting on its progress. Only the specific five-to-seven goals would require reports to go out of the district.
The district operations team will develop work plans to provide for the ongoing requirements of the district and to accomplish the district mission by conducting four primary functions:
1. Delivering the resources and services that will support the chapters to have more effective weekly chapter meetings and experiences
2. Sponsoring and producing stimulating events
3. Supporting and enabling more and better performances by member ensembles
4. Supporting and enabling quartet activities by all members who seek this outlet.
All chapter counselors, geographical managers, and functional committee chairmen will be part of the district operations team. The functional chairmen will be appointed by the district president and serve terms as long as it suits the incumbent and the district president. Operations Team members’ sole responsibility will be to deliver their particular services and resources to the chapters and the members. If the district wishes to have any or all of these men on the board, they should be elected as members at large, separate from their appointment as chapter counselors, geographical managers, or committee chairs. This adds more flexibility to the system by keeping the management operations appointed function separate from the more formal, elected governance function.
The GMTF recommends that each district use trained chapter counselors to provide resources to small groups of chapters. Phase two of the GMTF study will define additional job expectations, which will exceed the current chapter counselor responsibilities. The chapter counselor position will be expanded to incorporate area activities. Providing close, regular, trusted, and capable coordination among small groups of chapters is an important element if the Society is going to achieve its overall mission. These chapter counselors would presumably report to division managers in large districts, or perhaps to the district president in small districts. They would:
• Encourage inter-chapter activity among the chapters in their group
• Visit the chapters with some regularity, helping the chapters address those problems they want to fix and providing services and resources to enhance their ability to give their members a satisfying and fun barbershop experience every week. Certainly, regular phone contact would be required if visits were a problem.
• Communicate with the district operations team about the chapter successes and problems in their group.
The precise structure of the district operations team is not of as much concern as the district’s ability to carry out its mission. The numbers of individuals a district chooses to carry out its mission is a local decision. The length of service and limitations within which these men must accomplish their duties, is also a local decision. Each district must have a structure that will provide the following fundamental success factors to their chapters and ultimately their membership:
• Chorus director development
• Contest and judging
• Continuing effective communications and relations with each chapter in the district
• Event planning
• Marketing (internal and external)
• Membership growth and retention
• Musical growth and improvement
• Quartet development and encouragement
• Sound and effective training for all leaders at every level of the district
• Sound financial management and planning
• Young men in harmony and youth outreach.
District work plans will be developed in accordance with the Society Board’s strategic initiatives. Districts are expected, through their participation on the Society Operations Team, to embrace their role in achieving these initiatives for the Society. Reporting from the district to the Society Board will be through the Society OT using the system outlined for that part of the structure. No other recurring reporting will be required from the districts.
The GMTF recommends that all districts continue their existing five-year and annual planning processes. While the district will be responsible for five-to-seven goals in support of the Society’s unified mission, it is expected that there will be other district-specific goals that the districts will want to accomplish because they are “right” for their districts given their particular priorities and needs. The districts will not make reports to the Society Board on the district-specific initiatives. Nor will they report on the specific action plans that support the five-to-seven Society-focused goals. The only reporting is centered on the actual results achieved against the stated Society goals.
While budget approval is the prerogative of the district’s board and the House of Delegates or Council of Chapter Presidents (see below), we propose that the district operations team be key players in developing the annual work plan and the body responsible for creating the annual operating budget, insuring that adequate resources are available to the functional areas to deliver the resources and services to the chapters. Budget management throughout the year should also to be the responsibility of this group.
Train Men to Be Successful
Training at every level of the district and chapter organization is a vital consideration if we are to expect our leaders to be successful. A district leader generally does not comes to his job equipped with all the skills and tools necessary to be effective. It is a vital responsibility of the organization to provide the training and ongoing educational opportunities to help leaders and operations managers become successful. The GMTF will suggest more on this topic in phase two, after coordination with the current CSLT committee.
The GMTF vision of such training is that:
• District training officers (DTO) will be selected in every district, reporting to the district president
• Society staff and committees will be assisting in this training
• Funding to train all district officers and functional chairs will be included in every district budget
• A formal curriculum for this training along with supporting materials will be developed to help the district training officer
• The DTO will determine the particular needs for his district with assistance from the Society CSLT Committee.
The current district CSLT function would evolve into a more concentrated officer training function, covering both chapter and district leadership training. The phase-two section of the GMTF efforts will deal with this complex evolution as well as required changes in the COTS program.
Council of Chapter Presidents
In most districts, the value of the House of Delegates meetings is questionable, having been frequently reduced to rubber-stamping of board reports and proposals. The GMTF therefore recommends that each district consider forming a Council of Chapter Presidents to replace the traditional House of Delegates. The Chapter Presidents’ Council would meet from time to time to share successes, concerns, and discuss opportunities for interaction. More thoughts and recommendations about this body will be provided in the phase two efforts of the GMTF. It is envisioned that this group could bring district management and chapter management even closer together while adding the benefit of more inter-chapter sharing of information and resources. Camaraderie is enhanced and the entire barbershopping experience may be expanded through this tool. Some districts may wish to organize this group on a divisional basis. The net effect will certainly enhance the opportunities to make the chapters more successful in their abilities to deliver a fun and satisfying barbershop experience.
Conclusions Regarding the Chapter Organizational Structure
Basic Issues
The chapter is clearly the most important element in our Society’s structure because it is in the chapter that our membership enjoys most of their barbershopping experiences. Indeed, if the Society’s mission is to be realized, it will happen in the weekly chapter meetings. The most significant measure of our collective governance, leadership, and operational management effectiveness will be found in the degree to which chapters successfully deliver a barbershop experience that their members find stimulating, rewarding, and satisfying so that they return for another meeting each following week. While the events that the Society, districts, and divisions sponsor are another important outlet for fulfilling the Society’s mission of adding value to the member’s barbershop experience, most of our resources of time and money will be focused on supporting chapter administrative and musical leaders make their chapters all they want to be.
Except for the Society Events and Contest and Judging Committees, the functional committees at the Society and district levels are designed with the sole purpose in mind of supporting and enabling successful chapter meetings, performances, and quartet activities. The GMTF is recommending additional functions, such as expanded chapter counselor functions and district-level training officers. The chapter counselors will provide personalized support to solve problems and focus resources on challenges that our chapters choose to face. Training officers will provide more effective and ongoing training to help create more successful chapter leaders.
Chapter officers
There has been considerable consternation in many chapters owing to a belief that the proposals of the Management Study Team included elimination of the Program Vice President position. In fact, that position was not eliminated, but rather became optional. Considering the importance of the quality of chapter meetings and the need to make them a consistent delivery system for betterment of the member’s barbershop experience, it would make sense that every chapter consider incorporating this function. Additional chapter leadership positions also make sense, depending upon the size of the chapter. The GMTF will provide recommendations in phase two of our report.
The GMTF is not recommending any mandated structural changes to the chapter organization. The modifications that are being contemplated are not changes that any chapter will have to make unless it believes it will improve its ability to be successful. Chapter officers may be as few as a president, secretary, and treasurer (secretary and treasurer may even be combined into one position). These officers must be elected and will comprise the board of directors. The GMTF believes that the chapter board should also include the immediate past president and a designated successor to the president, frequently called the executive vice president. This succession planning is not considered mandatory. However, most successful chapters, regardless of size, have clearly realized a significant benefit when the successor to the president is identified a full year before he takes office. Training will be made available for executive vice presidents to enhance their readiness when it is their turn to lead their chapters.
Chapters are free to add any number of other functions to their organization, either elected or appointed. In phase two, the GMTF intends to investigate the re-writing and expansion of the chapter management guide, using our highly successful The Music Leadership Team Manual as a model. The return to manuals for the individual chapter vice president positions is also a consideration as well as the rewrite of the position descriptions in the Society Operations Manual.
V. Proposed Transition Plans
The GMTF plans to complete its study and submit its final report to the Society Board no later than January 1, 2004. Based on the recommendations in this report, the GMTF proposes the following transition plan. Additional transition plans will be proposed, as appropriate, in the final report.
Save a PDF
Save original
Email Story
Print Story
 |