Tamsin Stirling reflects on how different ways of running board meetings can achieve better results.
The tyranny of packed agendas can lead to little time for thinking in board meetings. How can we make the space to get the best out of board members?
My personal experience is that the best thinking board members do is often outside of board meetings – in away/strategy days or the informal conversations that take place when they mingle over a coffee. When I was chair of Bron Afon, we pondered about how to get this thinking back into board meetings. We managed this on a few occasions by giving space on a board agenda for substantive discussion on a particular issue, with the board considering principles, thinking about what we wanted to achieve in the medium to long-term and giving time for the different worldviews around the board table to be expressed in a meaningful way.
So I was interested when I read in United Welsh’s annual report[i] that, as part of a governance improvement programme, the board ‘changed the way it works focussing more on overall strategy and conducting generative discussions with the Executive Team on emerging issues.’ Outgoing chief executive Anthony Whittaker told me that they had taken a number of practical steps to make this happen. Removing ‘for information’ items from board agendas, reducing the length of board papers, changing levels of delegated authority and splitting board meetings between ‘business’ and ‘creative’.
The board meets monthly and on a quarterly basis, makes space on its agenda for more creative discussions on issues such as potential new areas of business, developments in technology and changes to the environment in which United Welsh works. After 12 months of this approach, feedback from United Welsh board members has been positive, in particular noting more interesting board discussions. Interestingly, amongst the most recently recruited Board members at United Welsh are younger people in their twenties and thirties and the organisation enables board members to join meetings electronically.
I had also been told about the concept of thinking environment[ii] by Gofal chief executive Ewan Hilton. Gofal’s board had stated clearly that it wished to be in at the beginning of strategic issues; thinking environment enables this. It is a very different way of running meetings, deliberately aimed at every board member contributing in a detailed way to the discussion and based on active and respectful listening and equality – everyone’s thinking is seen as equal.
Gofal’s board meetings now comprise minutes, matters arising and two, or at the most three, substantive issues. An agreed question on an issue is discussed in pairs, with each person having five minutes to talk without being interrupted. When the board comes back together, the conversation and thinking continues. A recent board meeting considered the strategic risks facing the organisation, with the discussion informing the development of a proposed risk map which will come to a future board meeting.
The Gofal board has not been using this approach for long and some board members are still getting used to it. The majority of feedback is very positive, with board members saying that they feel more engaged, more like a team and a sense that a governance ‘powerhouse’ is developing. However, for one or two members, the jury is still out.
Another idea for generating more free thinking by board members is walking meetings or parts of meetings – giving board members a specific issue or question to discuss in pairs or threes during their walk and structuring feedback once they are back at the board table[iii].
The concept of the mindful board is a useful one to consider in this context: ‘The mindful board deliberates, discerns, and acts in a mindful way through critical decisions and episodes’[iv]. The mindful board commits to ‘leadership by the group, expanded consciousness, and fearless engagement’.
All these approaches require an input from the senior management team that is very different from well-polished papers recommending a particular way forward. There might be no papers at all, very short papers that ask questions, perhaps deliberately provocative questions, or, with thinking environment, board members work during the meeting with senior management to agree the wording of the question that they are going to discuss.
These approaches also require different and skilled input from the chair of the board, both before and during meetings. And while they require board members to be highly engaged, they provide an environment in which this is much more likely than with the traditional approach of critiquing (or not) papers prepared by senior management who have already done their thinking.
If we recruit board members for their varied perspectives and experience, then we should make best use of these human assets during board meetings. Maybe the extent to which this is done should form part of value for money judgements?
Thank-you to Anthony Whittaker at United Welsh, Ewan Hilton at Gofal, Gayna Jones and Alison Inman for their input and for helping me think.
Tamsin Stirling can be contacted at tamsin.stirling@dial.pipex.com and on Twitter @TamsinStirling1
[i] http://www.unitedwelsh.com/publications-annual-reports
[ii] http://www.timetothink.com/thinking-environment/
[iii] http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/walking_meeting/
[iv] http://www.strategy-business.com/article/The-Mindful-Board?gko=97a18