According to Proverbs, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Holy Bible Proverbs 15:22-23). A Board of Trustees is “the steering device for complex organizations- with the potential to guide them down right or wrong paths” (Bowen 2008, 3). In an education system such as a university, there are multiple qualities of which contribute to an effective board of trustees. Aspects of the board include contextual, educational, interpersonal, analytical, political, and strategic dimensions. When each dimension works together in a positive way, the board of trustees will be successful in the goals they attempt to accomplish (Chait 1993, 2).

The contextual dimension of a board of trustees deals with how well the board understands and adapts to the culture of the university. Within this dimension there are key elements which are required for a successful board of trustees. For example, an effective board is able to “appreciate and adapt to the distinctive characteristics of an academic environment” (Chait 1993, 10). There are many elements to an academic environment. The most important elements include multiple and immeasurable goals which are sometimes contradictory, an emphasis on shared governance and collegiality, and an unusual degree of independence within faculty.

The way that trustees react to these concepts of an academic environment differs between effective and ineffective boards. Another sign of success within the contextual dimension is that the actions of the board are guided by the institution’s mission. The overall goals of a college are typically embodied in a mission statement, which provides guidance and a sense of direction to all members of the campus community (Chait 1993, 13). In an interview with William C. Bonaudi, president of Big Bend Community College, Bonaudi states, “A fundamental responsibility of my job is to set a vision for the college based on the mission as outlined by our trustees” (Venue Magazine 2012, 5). Not only must the board of trustees establish a mission, but also share a clear understanding of the mission and be fully committed to making decisions which will promote and abide by it. According to Nonprofit Board Answer Book, the “mission is the reason you exist as an organization” (Andringa 2002, 22).

Effective boards realize the importance of the mission and committing to it, while ineffective boards do not. The third sign of an effective contextual dimension is that the board’s decisions and actions reflect and reinforce institutional values (Chait 1993, 17). The board of trustees needs to be trusted because it has a substantial amount of control over the university’s reputation, financial assets, physical plant, and human resources. The Effective Board of Trustees states that “the most precious asset entrusted to the board may be the institution’s values and beliefs” (Chait 1993,17). A successful board is aware of the institutional values and is likely to apply that knowledge to the decisions at hand. Before making a decision, a board of trustees should ask, “What will this decision communicate about our college’s principles and priorities? Will the board’s action reflect and reinforce our institution’s espoused values, or will we appear to be inconsistent or even hypocritical?” (Chait 1993, 24). If these questions are considered, the board will most likely make smart decisions and will not sacrifice the amount of trust that they receive.

When observing an affective and influential board of trustees, the educational dimension also plays an important role in determining success. A successful board makes sure to provide each member with the necessary information about the board’s roles, responsibilities, and performance. This is illustrated in a strong board that consistently creates opportunities for trustee education. An affective college board does not rely on orientation or information packets, but lets the president take on the role as teacher.

Many opportunities can be used to educate the trustees, such as individual conversations with the board chair, a “tutorial” with the treasurer, classroom visits, and educational and social functions with faculty leaders (Chait 1993, 28). A strong board of trustees will also engage in self reflection and seek feedback on its performance. In an article on corporate boards, Alderfer stated that a key factor of effective board is the presence of “an active mechanism for the board to review its own structure and process” (Alderfer 1986, 50). In this situation, “process” is described as the way the board does its business (Chait 1993, 29). An example of engaging in self reflection is when a board’s president asks reflective questions, encouraging trustees to also pose questions about the board’s performance. Affective boards will take time to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and learn from their mistakes. A study shows that “when asked to describe the greatest mistake the board had made in the past two or three years, there was a clear pattern of difference among the trustee’s responses” (McCall 1988, 88).

The least affective boards who were asked this question were least likely to identify any key mistakes. The president of a college with an inadequate board answered this question by saying, “Honestly and truthfully, I can’t think of any mistake my board has made” (Chait 1993, 33). Average, middle-range boards answered with examples of usually minor mistakes, and could rarely recite a lesson they had learned from their mistake. The responses from members who were part of a positively effective board were much different. Almost everyone described a significant mistake and many volunteered an explanation of the lessons that they learned (Chait 1993, 33).

The interpersonal dimension of a board of trustees addresses the development of the board as a group. One of the ways a board can contribute to its sense of community is to create a sense of inclusiveness among the trustees. If one or more of the trustees feels excluded from an “inner” circle, it makes it much more difficult to develop and progress as a group. Informal interaction often leads to getting to know one another better, on a more personal level. Making inclusiveness a goal “builds confidence that the board and the organization are committed to serving their constituency” (Andringa 2002,104). By discovering a fellow trustee’s background, interests, personality, and perspectives, the board is greatly benefitted. For example, when somebody is remembered as thoughtful and selfless at a social event or at a restaurant for dinner, their proposition at a board meeting is more like to be approached with open minds.

A successful board also sets goals for itself. Just like any other type of group or even a sports team, trustees are more motivated when sharing a common goal. When the goal is met, pride is increased within the group which draws the members closer to one another. The goals of affective boards are often process goals or goals related to substantive matters. Process goals are “actions that would improve the board’s ability to function affectively, either internally or in its dealings with critical constituencies” (Chait 1993, 48). An example of this type of goal would be, “to be sure we make every opportunity for every board member to get his or her ideas on the table, whether they’re reluctant to speak or not” (Chait 1993, 48). A goal related to substantive matters would be a goal such as the commitment to complete a development campaign. Also, a successful board prepares members for leadership positions on the board. Although it is important to focus on the board as a group, it is also beneficial to recognize those with leadership skills and prepare them to possibly lead the group in the future. Within boards, there is a “critical need for the chairperson and the president most notably to accept responsibility for the board’s internal dynamics” (Chait 1993, 51).

A board is most affective when a leader, such as the president, can accept these responsibilities yet the group can still ensure equality and fairness. William G. Bowen claims that “A properly functioning board provides checks and balances by adding layers of judgment and protection against abuse of power, self-dealing, favoritism, and just plain foolishness” (Bowen 2008, 20). This is why it is important to recognize and prepare future leaders, so these negative things can be avoided without having to rely solely on the checks and balances of the rest of the group.

A board of trustees can also be determined as effective or ineffective based on the analytical dimension of the group. This dimension addresses a board’s analytical skills, which is the group’s “capacity to dissect complex problems and to draw upon multiple perspectives to synthesize appropriate responses” (Chait 1993, 59). A group with an effective analytical dimension realizes that most of the questions and issues that the board faces are complex and need to be examined from multiple perspectives. Different viewpoints are so crucial to the success of the board because “where and how we look determines what we see” (Chait 1993, 60). Taken alone, a single viewpoint sheds light on only a portion of a problem that the board is faced with. Because boards consist of multiple people, personalities, and opinions, there are multiple views which all contribute to examining the issue at hand.

Successful boards take advantage of this diversity, while inefficient boards only place importance on one or two viewpoints. According to Nonprofit Board Answer Book, “One of the most important reasons a board should strive for diversity, we believe, is to gain a variety of views. Otherwise, why should a board be larger than three or four people?” (Andringa 2002, 104). A board of trustees with an impactful analytical dimension “tolerates ambiguity, pursues information, and encourages debate” (Chait 1993, 60). The many ambiguities of college systems can often arouse frustration within trustees. A successful board needs to be patient with ambiguity, compared to those who are uncomfortable with ambiguity and prefer only “clear-cut” problems and solutions. When dealing with unclear problems, an effective board’s first step will most likely be to actively search for additional information. Inadequate boards too often skip this step in order to reach a speedy decision. Not only does a successful board pursue more information, they pursue diverse information from multiple viewpoints. In a less effective board, more information and diverse viewpoints only confuses matters. Debate is another portion of the analytical dimension. Effective boards “encourage lively debate as well as broad participation” (Chait 1993, 69). On the contrary, the less effective boards are more likely to rush through an agenda and simply accept and applause all reports presented. It is crucial for the success of any board of trustees that the members realize that discussion is necessary to understand issues and the influences behind them, to seek alternatives, and to challenge ideas (Chait 1993, 69).

The political dimension of a board of trustees deals with the group’s ability to develop and maintain positive relationships with important constituencies. To achieve this, the board members need to respect the integrity of the governance process, communicate directly with their constituencies, and attempt to minimize conflict and situations that have negative outcomes for either the constituencies or board of trustees. The Effective Board of Trustees states that “colleges and universities are political systems” (Chait 1993, 77). This means that the academic organization is a complex social structure, and there are many pressures and forms of power, all of which effect policy execution and decision making. Many college presidents appropriately describe their role as “most like that of a mayor, a distinctly political position” (Cohen 1974, 62). Respecting the integrity of the governance process is illustrated when a board is aware of the distinctive characteristics of academic politics. For example, the trustees are aware that in academic politics, decision-making moves slowly and requires discussion with multiple people from multiple constituencies. However, in a weak board, trustees often cannot identify any unique aspects of academic governance (Chait 1993, 80). Key constituencies of an academic board include the president of the university, the faculty, the students, the alumni, and the community; all of which the board of trustees is “responsible” for (Chait 1993, 81). Because of the important connection between the board and the constituencies, an effective board of trustees must realize their duty to maintain and develop these relationships.

The Board Book explains that boards of universities are often sensitive to the likely response of alumni to decisions the board makes, and must also be aware of the views of key legislatures. Also, when it comes to decision making the board often remembers the interests of a principle donor, but this is more a matter of respect than of obligation (Bowen 2008, 42). To improve the quality of information and discussion, and to smooth the political process, there must be communication with essential constituencies. Effective boards will almost always attempt to minimize instead of overcome resistance, which decreases conflict and negative situations between the board and constituencies (Chait 1993, 86).

The last dimension of a board of trustees is the strategic dimension, which addresses the board’s ability to envision and shape institutional direction. To fulfill this role in an effective way, a board must focus on clarifying institutional priorities and ensuring a “strategic approach to the organization’s future” (Chait 1993, 95). Strategic planning is defined as “a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it” (Olsen 1982, 4).According to Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, “Strategic planning can help leaders and managers of public and nonprofit organizations think, learn, and act strategically” (Bryson 2004, 1). When asked to list the board’s priorities for the next couple years, trustees of weak boards admitted that the priorities were “trivial or unknown”. However, the stronger boards were able to identify priorities and even processes to pursue crucial issues (Chait 1993, 97). An effective board is able to anticipate problems and act before the issues become major problems. Successful boards illustrate strategic leadership by seeking information and data which enables questions to be addressed about the future of the board and university. This leads to the anticipation of problems and provides opportunities to act before these problems develop (Chait 1993, 100).

There are six different dimensions of an educational board of trustees, and when they all work together in a positive way a board is more likely to become successful in achieving its set goals. The six aspects are the contextual, educational, interpersonal, analytical, political, and strategic dimensions. When comparing effective and ineffective boards, such as the authors of The Effective Board of Trustees did, it is concluded that there were clear differences in how effective and ineffective boards addressed each of these dimensions. When each dimension is exercised effectively, the board is more likely to be successful in achieving its goals.

Saturday, 11-Feb-2012 14:19

Bibliography
Andringa, Robert C., and Ted W. Engstrom. Nonprofit Board Answer Book: Practical Guide for Board Members and Chief Executives. Washington, DC: Board Source, 2002. Print.

Bowen, William G. The Board Book: An Insider's Guide for Directors and Trustees. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2008. Print.

Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2004. Print.

“Celebrating our Past, Investing in our Future” Venue Magazine. February 2012. 4. Print.

Chait, Richard, Thomas P. Holland, and Barbara E. Taylor. The Effective Board of Trustees. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1993. Print.

Cohen, Michael D., and James G. March. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President,. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Print.

Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Print.

McCall, M., Lombardo, M., and Morrison, A. The Lesson of Experience: How Successful Executives develop on the Job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 1988. Print.

Olsen, John B., and Douglas C. Eadie. The Game Plan: Governance with Foresight. Washington, DC: Council of State Planning Agencies, 1982. Print.

Editorial Policy

Correspondence to the student authors of this website may be sent to this e-mail address. Make sure your subject includes the name of the author and the article you are referring to along with it's URL. Article copyright is held by their author.

Submissions of original new materials may be made electronically by PDF as long as significant authorship is by undergraduates enrolled in a non-profit educational institution. All materials are peer reviewed by a group of undergraduates.

Editorial articles, lecture presentations, and basic FAQs are marked as such on this website. These articles generally have open copyright and may be used in academic, non-profit settings as long as the author is given full attribution.

The Thin Tweed Line, ©2012 by Steve N. Jackson