Maybe, just maybe, the American Red Cross is starting to understand the dilemma of underperforming boards. Red Cross board governance has been a particularly sore issue in the aftermath of 9/11 and Katrina failures. Yesterday, however, Red Cross announced substantial governance changes including reducing its board from 50 to 20 members by 2012. Boards over 20 (or so) people are generally too large, unwieldy and seem to create an environment where members are not really expected to roll up their sleeves and get to work.
Board members with money, well-known names and organizational titles are essential, of course. However, non-profit boards must add to this business-as-usual approach by also giving thought to the balance and diversity of experience, creativity, opinion and skills needed to engage in what Harvard professor Richard Chait calls "generative thinking." Chait tells us that non-profit boards display three forms of governance: fiduciary, strategic and generative. Most boards play useful fiduciary roles. According to Chait, however, boards must also engage strategically and, at their best, in truly generative ways by providing lucid, insightful and creative widsom about the organization's place and opportunity in the world.
Board members with money, well-known names and organizational titles are essential, of course. However, non-profit boards must add to this business-as-usual approach by also giving thought to the balance and diversity of experience, creativity, opinion and skills needed to engage in what Harvard professor Richard Chait calls "generative thinking." Chait tells us that non-profit boards display three forms of governance: fiduciary, strategic and generative. Most boards play useful fiduciary roles. According to Chait, however, boards must also engage strategically and, at their best, in truly generative ways by providing lucid, insightful and creative widsom about the organization's place and opportunity in the world.