University Business December 2006 - (Page 70)

One River, Not Two Streams That way, after you've built the fitness center, when someone comes It would have been better if there had been more attention paid to along and says we need a cineplex on campus, you're in a position what mattered most and less attention to what didn't matter quite where you've already thought about the general issue and not the so much. That means generally taking a longer-term perspective, specific issue. That, in a nutshell, is what generative work is. rather than a short-term perspective. The board could have been more sympathetic to the idea that what management needed from them was a forum to think aloud and to discuss issues that were Boards often avoid looking at governance if they look at it at all in emerging, rather than to just come with transactions that needed these terms. Is that an outgrowth of the fact that there is no genera- to be executed. tive thinking? Yes, another way to put it is that if boards cannot macro govern, they are going to micromanage. What executives need to do is to Even though you argue for increased involvement in administration- create those opportunities for a board to macro govern or to have board relations, you warn that a little bit of governance as leadership macro engagement as opposed to micro monitoring, is another way is worse than none at all. Can you explain what you mean by that? to put it. They are going to do something. And it's better for every- You don't want to focus on one mode to the exclusion of the others. one that they be in a position to help you think through whether What we meant to convey in that sentence was that it's dangerous if you got the questions right or help management decide what to trustees very intermittently and almost spastically assert themselves ponder and what to worry about, rather than react to just those upstream in the decision-making process, or get into it and then issues that management has chosen to worry about. It is about cre- get out of it. You don't want a board that says, Okay, once a year ating issue displacement. You want to get more value-added issues we'll really do generative work. Let's focus on what is going on in on the table and low-value issues off the table. the larger world of higher education, and let's do a lot of big picture thinking for an hour and then we'll all go back to work. That's very unsettling and uneven. The idea is to take the three perspectives It's interesting that there is that reluctance, because many higher and apply them to the lion's share of the board's work, and not to education trustees are themselves executives. separate them out and do them one by one in some sequence. To Exactly. It's what they do every day. When people ask us what is go back to my earlier example of building a new fitness center, the generative thinking, we ask them to tell us what they do at work. board shouldn't say, Oh, we'll just focus on the budget. It should Inevitably, what they tell us is the definition of generative think- instead be asking the question before the question: How did we get ing: What sense do we make of what is going on here? How do we to this point? Why did someone decide it was a good idea to build put cues and clues together? How do we take seemingly disparate a fitness center? Just because everyone else is doing it? What is that information and connect it into some kind of coherent story? No telling us? So, for the board to attack these issues every now and executive goes to work and says, Whatever is in my in box is what then in a very uneven and unpredictable way is the wrong approach. I'm going to do today. Yet board members go to board meetings You have this highly compartmentalized conversation about the and everything is predicated in a way that says, You're at the bot- larger context and making sense of the larger environment then tom of the decision-making stream. The last thing we need you to it's dropped for a year and picked up again the next year. There has do is approve the budget or the tactic for a strategy that we have to be continuity to it. already developed. And then they just go right for the budget. What is the source of that disconnect? Since most boards can't just wipe the governance slate clean and Part of it is that they are wearing bifocals instead of trifocals. They start again from scratch, how can they work with what they already see fiduciary and strategic work; they've been instructed and social- have? What can trustees do to improve their relations with execu- ized to do that work. Some executives would rather allow trustees tives, and vice versa? to manage if the president gets to govern, rather than let the board They can both do it in the same way: By agreeing on the most im- govern so the president can manage. We called the book Gover- portant questions that they need to address together. It's what the nance as Leadership, but there are executives who prefer leadership corporate governance sector calls the decision agenda: What are the as governance. They are willing to trade off and in a sense divert the decisions we have to make in the next year that are consequential board's attention. But a lot of it has to do with learning how to think or fateful for the institution? If we can agree on those, then man- about governance and governing that opens up a line of inquiry that agement can start to work on those issues. But you can begin to ask most boards haven't thought about. We're inviting trustees to start questions that don't presume tactical answers but help make sense to think of governance as having these three component parts. of the circumstances in which those questions will be answered. If you get the questions right, that's a huge start. It's what we call a fusion of thinking and not a division of labor. There has to be a You and your co-authors have served as both trustees and as admin- meeting of the minds about the issue before there is a meeting of istrators. If you think back to your administrator days, what would the board to act on the issue. have made your relationship with trustees more productive? 70 | December 2006 universitybusiness.com Trustees.indd 70 11/17/06 4:12:55 PM http://universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business December 2006

Table of Contents
College Index
Company Index
Advisory Board
Editor's Note
Behind the News
Viewpoint
Future Shock
Admissions
Financial Aid
On the Hill
EDUCAUSE 2006 Highlights
Technology Spending Survey '07
101 Smart Revenue Generators (and Money-Saving Ideas)
Parking: A Lot To Look At
Engaging Alumni Online
One River, Not Two Streams
Internet Technology
What's New
Calendar of Events
Direct Connect
End Note

University Business December 2006