We invited governance expert Alli Marshall back to share her thoughts. Alli may be new to the CREB® environment, but this is a Calgarian who has a proven track record supporting non-profits across Canada in effective and strategic governance teamwork, and in strategy, planning and governance for non-profits. For more information and to join her newsletter: www.strix.ca/newsletter

Hello again CREB^® community – thank you for the invitation to return for another "what the heck is governance" chat.

Because heck yes – governance has gotten way too complicated. Governance should be a source of stability and strength for associations. Too often, confusion turns it into a weakness instead. 

Last time we talked about the Board's "why": Directors are stewards of CREB^®'s future. They serve so that CREB^® thrives, not just survives.

Thanks to your comments, we also clarified something important: Duty of Loyalty means Directors must act in the best interests of the corporation. Members always matter – but legally, a Director's duty is to CREB^® itself.

Today let's tackle two more words that can be barriers to Boards: "good governance."

"Good governance" sounds great – who wouldn't want that?

But in my research with Directors and CEOs across Canada, "good governance" means something different to everyone. It's so fuzzy that many Directors can't define it – they just know it's the thing their Board is supposed to be doing.

Here's the practical translation: when people say "governance Board" or "good governance Board" today, what they are trying to point to is a Board that seeks to employ a Strategic Governing Approach.

Where most Boards start: Operational Governing Approach

Most not-for-profit Boards begin here. There's no real separation between Board and management – often because there's no management yet. The Board is the organization, doing the day-to-day work (hence the other name "hands on" governance).

Where Boards grow to: Strategic Governing Approach

As organizations mature, the Board needs to shift – to add more value at a higher level, and work through the CEO more efficiently. This is also where Duty of Care kicks in: volunteer/honoraria Directors simply don't have the time or expertise to be in the weeds of daily operations.

So, a Strategic Governing Approach is "nose in/hearts in and hands off." There's clear delegation to the CEO, and the Board keeps its focus on the most material issues relating to strategy, impact, and risk.

The in-between stages

Some Boards sit between these two points. A Transitional Governing Approach shows up mid-transformation towards Strategic Governance. And a Hybrid Governing Approach may be a deliberate choice for resource-limited organizations whose Boards still need to help to do the work.

High-performance governance teamwork begins here

Just as high-performing teams are crystal clear about the game they are playing, high-performing Boards are just as clear about their governing approach.

As fiduciaries, Directors are responsible for the Board's own performance – which means knowing the intended governing approach, knowing why it fits the organization's size and context, and always working to close gaps between aspiration and practice.

In today's complex business environment, a Strategic Governing Approach that is effectively practised is a massive force multiplier. But, as for any high-performing team – it only works when everyone knows – and owns – their lane.

If you have any suggestions for governance topics for this series of article that we should cover, email President & CEO Alan Tennant at alan.tennant@creb.ca.