IN HIS glowing tribute delivered on January 15, 2014, which I consider a must-read by those craving excellent prose laced with a sumptuous dose of West Indian flavour, Mr. Rafiq Khan bemoaned, “Terry (Holder) had to contend with a CBU Board forthcoming with directives to the Secretary-General but backsliding with resources.Yet he made the best with what he could muster, while becoming the convenient football for Board members who preened themselves on the presumption that by making demands, they had done their work.”
The foregoing statement has a familiar ring to many who have held responsibility for day-to-day management (including human and material resources), while being accountable to a Board as part of the governance architecture of certain organisations.
Further, the quote highlights the often undetected, counterproductive tendency by some members of policymaking bodies of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and even some public sector agencies, to display a propensity for misapplied dominion over persons appointed to manage.
I refer to members, inclusive of Chairpersons/Presidents of Committees of Management, Non-executive Boards, Councils, Project Steering Committees etc., who want to only exhibit these discouraging traits over Executive Secretaries, Executive Directors, Managers, Directors, Managing Directors, Chief Executive Officers, Project Managers and the like.
For simplicity, I would use designations from each distinctive grouping interchangeably. Note I am not focusing herein on private sector companies; they are a different kettle of fish.
I know of a prestigious private sector NGO where, a little over a decade ago, two brothers on the Committee of Management would ‘tag-team’ to bash a female executive secretary to tears, meeting after meeting. A reason for the prevalence of such behaviour by recalcitrant Board members is the wrongful assumption that they are co-managers, enjoined in performing managerial duties alongside the organisation’s Chief Executive.
In addition, these ‘powerhouses’ find it appealing to stroke their egos on the misguided wings of costly confusion conjured in their defining operational authority from policy responsibility.
On the other hand, there is also a tendency among some appointed operational managers to treat their policymaking bodies with disdain, by ignoring the importance of the latter’s prescribed role. In such cases, these actors have been functioning for a protracted period in the position; a fizzled fossilized fixture, with a predisposition to portray actions akin to a law unto themselves.
In this regard, I know of another private sector NGO whose (Managing) director was in the position for well over a decade. He had three vehicles assigned to him, and reported mainly to the Organisation’s chairman, a leading captain of industry. Sadly, serious illness forced him to step down. The Organisation is hardly heard of these days. It was, in essence, the persona of the Director that ‘carried’ the body.
In general, those Chairpersons/Board Members, and CEOs who flex their muscles are largely so empowered because of their connection to centres of power and/or the confidence reposed in them to get things done by those who have command over allocation of resources for the entity.
So, assuming it is agreed that the foregoing governance issues are counterproductive to the overall good, how do we improve on them?
I would suggest, as a start, newly elected/appointed Board Members, together with Executive Directors of NGOs undertake training courses facilitated by competent bodies in ‘Association Management’, to understand and accept the documented roles of Board and Manager, and how they should synchronize.
Additionally, I would suggest holding team-building sessions involving all the players, even for one day, at least once half-yearly; parties evaluating each other without acrimony should be an integral part of the bonding process.
Finally, where there are ‘square pegs’, or persons functioning beyond their level of competence, corrective action should be taken to ensure they are not a drain on the Organisation’s ability to take flight.
Derrick Cummings
