WORKING WITH A FICTITIOUS BOARD, management homework help

User Generated

Vpnehf911

Business Finance

Description

Option 2: Working With a Fictitious Board

If you decide that you cannot work with a real board but would like to participate in the course project by working with an artificial board, we have uploaded the information you need to meet the demands of the Board Effectiveness Assessment Reflection assignment.

Step 1: Review the background information to the organization and board of two artificial nonprofit organizations, Food for All and End of Life, and choose one to work with. Open the following document to access the background information for the Food for All and End of Life organizations:

Background Information to the organization and board of two artificial organizations.pdf

Step 2: Next, download the survey results of the board of the organization you are working with. Open the following documents to access survey results for the Food For All and End of Life boards:

Food For All Survey Report.pdf


End of Life Survey Report.pdf

Step 3: Drawing from the information you downloaded about the board and organization, submit a four to five page (1.5 spaced) document that includes the following:

  • An introduction to the BEAR that describes the purpose of the assignment and how it is organized.
  • Summarize the results of the board’s effectiveness assessment, including: Perceptions of the board’s overall effectiveness; top 10 governance strengths and challenges, and board effectiveness in the nine dimensions assessed. Use Tables and figures to communicate results to the board.
  • Generate a set of keywords based on your findings (e.g. fundraising, recruitment, composition, bylaws, committees, culture, leadership etc). Using keywords, review the literature and discuss why the issues exist in your board. Identify a set of practical recommendations to improve board effectiveness from a review of the literature. From your review of the literature, what “treatments” or “practices” and other useful suggestions based on the knowledge and expertise you have gained would improve your board’s effectiveness?
  • Create an implementation plan for the board that describes the practice recommendations in priority along within a suggested timeline for making changes over an 18-month period.
  • Protect the identities of the people and organization you are working with by using fictitious names or initials.
  • Cite references in the document in APA style.

Review criterialess 

Peer Review Grading Policy:

The BEAR assignment will be peer-reviewed and graded based on the following evaluation criteria:

  • Presented a summary of the board’s performance in a logical and coherent manner.
  • Reviewed the literature and discussed the significance of the findings for the board and organization;
  • Provided a clear, well organized presentation of practices to improve governance effectiveness that directly relate to the findings presented;
  • Made reference to the literature that is relevant to the findings and practical recommendations made
  • Recommendations for change prioritized.
  • Priorities communicated within a timeline that shows what and when the board should implement recommendations.
  • Cited references in APA style.
  • Protected the identity of people, the board, and organization.

Note: Please review the Introduction to Peer Learning and Evaluation before reviewing BEAR assignments. Please make allowances for those for whom English is a second language.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

The Governance of Nonprofit Organizations Professors Harrison and Murray January 30, 2015 Practical Application Semester Project: Option 2 These notes are for those course participants who are registered for the Coursera Verified Certificate designation and who therefore must complete all course assignments AND/OR those who simply wish to undertake assignments to enhance their learning. There are two practical application options for this course. Option 1 requires that you work with an actual nonprofit organization of your choice and is described elsewhere. Option 2 allows you to apply your learning to an artificial nonprofit organization created by the course developers, Profs. Harrison and Murray. The following notes apply to Option 2. For this option, you will be provided with raw data obtained from two unnamed nonprofit organizations drawn from our research database of hundreds of nonprofits that have taken the Board Performance Self-Assessment Survey at www.boardcheckup.com. This raw data consists of background information on the organization and board along with two reports of survey results after board members and others that related to the board completed it. Nonprofit Organization A: End of Life Organizational Characteristics o End of Life is a Hospice organization that has existed for 31 years o It has a staff of nine employees and a network of over 300 volunteers. o It runs a thrift store, which employs two people and brings in a significant amount of the organization’s revenue. o In addition to providing end of life care to individuals with advanced illnesses, it also provides a number of grief and other counseling services to family and friends of the deceased. They offer one-on-one visits, end of life vigils, canine therapy, children’s grievance counseling, and other types of support for people dealing with death and illness. o It has an operating budget of about $500,000 per year, and is largely dependent on volunteers to provide much of its services. o About one fifth of their annual funds come from the thrift store. Other major sources of income come from government funding, contracts with local health providers for volunteers and counseling services, and general fundraising from private gifts and donations. o End of Life Care places its clients in a nearby Community Hospital, allowing them to have access to comfortable living facilities close to home. Board  Characteristics   o The  Executive  Director  describes  the  board  as  actively  involved  in  the  work  the organization  does,  although  in  different  ways.    She  clarified  that  the  board  is  not involved  in  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  running  of  the  organization,  but  that  the  board  members  are divided  into  working  groups  that  work  on  special  projects,  like  building  the  residence program,  writing  policy,  evaluating  programs,  as  well  as  monitoring  general  governance issues  involving  financial  and  strategic  decisions. o There  are  members  from  the  community  who  are  included  in  some  of  the  working groups  as  well.    The  ED  reports  that  the  Board  is  very  effective  and  is  willing  to  work very  hard  to  support  and  improve  the  organization. o The  Board  meets  monthly.    Meetings  are  generally  well  attended,  and  it  is  rare  that  any member  misses  a  meeting.    Meetings  tend  to  be  short,  about  two  hours,  unless  there  is also  a  working  group  meeting  or  some  other  unusual  event  occurring  at  the  same  time. o The  ED  is  the  main  link  between  staff  and  Board,  reporting  to  the  Board  at  each  meeting, reviewing  major  operations  and  financial  events.    According  to  their  past  minutes,  she  is an  active  participant  in  the  meetings,  answering  questions  and  providing  information for  the  Board.    However,  the  Board  does  not  get  involved  in  direct  service  delivery, general  management  or  personnel  issues,  or  minor  decision-­‐making. o The  Board  Chair  has  been  with  the  organization  for  three  years.    The  ED  reports  that she  has  a  very  candid  and  supportive  relationship  with  the  Chair,  and  that  finds  him  to be  extremely  dedicated  to  the  success  of  the  organization. Challenges  Facing  the  Organization   o The  organization  has  faced  some  challenges  in  the  past  because  it  has  had  a  high turnover  rate  of  Executive  Directors  in  recent  years.    The  ED  has  been  with  the organization  for  one  year,  and  previous  EDs  had  short  tenures  as  well.    This  instability has  led  to  some  stagnation  in  the  organization,  where  projects  and  improvements  were put  on  hold  due  to  a  lack  of  leadership. o The  current  ED  is  certainly  taking  an  active  leadership  role  with  the  Board,  and  it  looks as  though  new  programs  and  projects  are  in  the  works.    However,  the  size  of  the  Board might  be  considered  by  some  to  be  small  for  an  organization  of  this  size,  with  only  eight members.    The  ED  mentioned  that  she  is  looking  forward  to  filling  two  or  more  spaces on  the  Board,  and  that  they  are  in  need  of  fundraising  and  communications  experts.    She believes  a  small  board  can  be  a  drawback  for  the  organization,  especially  if  they  are missing  some  key  roles. o Other  challenges  include  the  need  for  active  communication  with  the  larger  community to  make  it  aware  of  the  services  the  organization  provides.    The  ED  spent  a  significant amount  of  time  explaining  the  different  services  they  provide,  as  well  as  detailing  the importance  of  grief  support  services,  and  how  those  kinds  of  skills  will  benefit  the community  in  the  long-­‐term.    Hospice  organizations  often  run  into  misconceptions about  their  services  because  many  people  believe  that  they  only  provide  services  for the  dying.    However,  the  ED  is  quick  to  point  out  that  much  of  their  work  focuses  on aiding  the  living,  helping  people  to  live  and  die  with  dignity  and  comfort,  and  teaching grief  management  for  adults  and  children.    They  also  work  to  distinguish  themselves from  the  Community  Hospital,  because  their  relationship  can  cause  some  confusion. o Despite  these  challenges,  End  of  Life  Care  has  many  opportunities  for  growth  and development.    A  new  walking  bereavement  program  has  been  implemented  within  the past  year,  and  the  ED  mentioned  several  other  opportunities  for  growth,  including  a branding  and  communications  strategy,  a  capital  project,  and  staff  development   opportunities.       o During  a  recent  Board  meeting,  a  consultant  gave  a  detailed  presentation  on  program creation  and  implementation,  which  illustrates  that  the  organization  is  interested  in smart  growth.    In  all,  this  organization  appears  to  be  rebounding  from  a  period  of instability  by  embracing  its  new  Executive  Director  and  moving  forward  with  new  ideas and  plans. Nonprofit Organization B: Food For All Background Information Organizational Mission and Vision • Food for All is a 31-year-old coalition of over 50 food pantries. • There are 7 paid staff members and one volunteer. • The mission is “to address hunger through food pantries operated by member organizations.” To fulfill that mission, the Coalition provides support to member food pantries through funding, and delivery, food drives, volunteers, and support for participating pantries' staff and volunteers. • The vision is to create “A dynamic network of well stocked food pantries nourishing hungry neighbors.” • The cost of membership in the Coalition is free. • There are a number of criteria that must be met to become a member. These include: being a registered non-profit organization, serving a minimum annual and monthly amount of food, regular operating hours, adherence to sanitary regulations, submission of monthly statistics, attendance at monthly coalition meetings (for education and information), and provision of organizational support when possible. Organizational Characteristics • • Food for All is in alliance of a number of smaller local organizations, which have their own internal cultures and governing/managing bodies. The priorities of this organization coincide with these objectives. As indicated in the organization's by-laws they are: o To work together, in a spirit of cooperation, to do together what no one of us could do alone; o To support the efforts and services of member pantries and other emergency food providers and hunger organizations; o To provide documentation of hunger and nutritional issues; encouraging emergency food providers; and o To work cooperatively and network with each other and other local service providers; o To increase access and participation in food and nutrition programs and self help projects; o To provide information and technical assistance for self help projects which may alleviate the need for emergency food; and o To foster community awareness of hunger. Board Characteristics • • • • • The board of this organization has seventeen members, three of whom are required to be affiliated with a member feeding program as specified in the by-laws. The board members' term of office is three years, with a required one-year absence between terms. There are currently five standing committees: the executive committee, a governance committee, a nominating committee, a personnel committee, and a finance committee. The Board governs and oversees operations through committees established along functional/management lines such as personnel and finance similar to a traditional type board. The Executive Director now carries substantial influence over policy making and is given freedom of direction and managing to achieve the objectives established by the board similar to other results based boards. Challenges, Threats, and Opportunities • • • • • There is a constant need for communication and consensus among many moving parts and often there are cultural clashes between organizations despite their common mission and goals. The Board faces a unique opportunity to improve their governance model by strengthening good governance practices that further the work of the coalition and their membership. The challenges are to balance the board's engagement in governance with the pull of becoming mired in management and operations matters. The Board's relationship with their Executive Director is at times complicated; There is a need to strike a balance between how the executive director and the board. There is a lack of clarity about involvement of the ED in developing policy and managing the organization. FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Introduction It is important to emphasize that the purpose of the Self-Assessment exercise is NOT to suggest that mistakes have been made or that people are at fault in some way. They are intended to suggest issues that need further exploration in the same way that medical tests provide doctors with information on how to improve your health. This instrument measures the extent to which the respondents perceived the board as effective in each of five general areas in which board performance might be changed. The areas are: • The clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in carrying out its basic due diligence responsibilities— those of policy setting, planning, fiscal and legal oversight, risk mitigation and performance assessment. • The adequacy of the board’s formal structures and operating processes—size, committee structure and meeting effectiveness; • The suitability of the make-up of the board’s membership and the quality of the orientation and development of board members; • The degree of support provided by the informal culture of the board (shared, taken-for-granted ways of thinking and acting that members might not be conscious of). • The effectiveness of the leadership provided by the board chair and the organization’s CEO. Note that if a significant number of board members “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat” that an item applies to their board, this merely suggests a need to investigate further to establish whether a serious problem actually exists or not. Sometimes what is seen to be a problem turns out to be due to a misperception or lack of knowledge of the situation which can be easily corrected through better communication. It is also the case that not all boards are the same and a problem in one may not be much of a problem in another. However, genuinely serious problems may well be identified and it is these that you should focus on. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Results Response Rate The number of completed questionnaires received was: 15 This translates into a response rate of 67 % based on the total number of people you said would be asked to complete the questionnaire. If the response rate to the questionnaire is lower than 50%, the validity of the results could be questionable. When only a small number participate it is less possible to generalize about what the full group thinks. This should be pointed out when discussing results with the whole board. Number of items answered as "Not Sure" Percentage of respondents who checked "Not Sure" for 20 or more items: 0.0% Checking an item as "Not Sure" indicates that the respondent was either quite new to the board and didn’t have a sense of how it works yet, or had not received adequate orientation to being a board member or to working with the board. If 25% or more of all those responding to the questionnaire have 20 or more items checked as ‘Not Sure’ a red warning button appears beside the number. This indicates a need for a major board development effort. This effort should include both board members AND those whose work relates to the board in any way. A formal board orientation program in which the topics covered by the questionnaire are discussed can go a long way toward creating a team with a common understanding of how the board works. Overall Score The total score for the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ) is calculated as follows: An “agree strongly” answer is scored 1; “agree somewhat”—2; “disagree somewhat”—3; “disagree strongly”—4. “Not Sure” is scored 0. Adding together the scores for all items and dividing them by the number of respondents provides an average total score for your board. In general, the higher the total average score, the greater the probability that the board is carrying out its governance function well. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS The Average Total Score for this board is: 181.74 Interpretation: 222 – 272: Very likely to be a highly effective board. Only minor ‘tune ups’ needed to maintain high performance. 171 – 221: A moderately effective board. May need to make some changes and undergo further development. 120 – 170: A board that is probably facing a number of major challenges in many areas. A large scale effort at reform should be undertaken. 68 – 119: A board that is probably experiencing extremely serious difficulties in carrying out its role in the governance function. Wholesale efforts to change in all the dimensions of board effectiveness are likely necessary. Top 10 strengths in board performance These are the questions that had the highest “Total Average Scores”. That is, they are seen by most as being well performed, needing little change. To get a clearer picture of the strengths in board performance, try reading the statements below in a positive, rather than negative light. For example, " the board seems to be unclear about what its role and to be" would read, "the board is clear about what its role ought to be". • As far as I know the relationship between the CEO and board chair is quite formal. • The CEO seems to be trying to dominate or control the board too much. • There seems to be a lack of trust between the CEO and the board. • The information that the CEO provides the board to help it make decisions is sometimes inadequate or too slanted. • The board chair is a bit too passive and disorganized in his/her leadership style. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS • The board chair’s meeting leadership skills are not as strong as they could be. • There is too much unconstructive arguing among some members during meetings. • As far as I know the CEO rarely consults with individual board members for informal advice or assistance. • Individual board members with skills and knowledge that might be of use to the organization are rarely approached. • There is a kind of inner group that seems to run things on the board and those who are not part of it sometimes feel left out. Note that there may be more than ten items in the list if items shared the same total average score. Top 10 (based on total average scores) greatest challenges for effective board performance These are the questions that had the lowest “Total Average Scores”. That is, they are the items identified as challenges to board effectiveness that should be discussed: • Finding high quality board members is a problem for us. • There is not enough “new blood” coming on to the board to bring it fresh energy and ideas. • The board does not regularly and systematically assess its own performance and change itself if it thinks it can improve. • The board has not approved an overall strategy for fundraising. • The board has problems engaging in fundraising activities. • We don’t have a board policy manual or we have one which is badly in need of revision. • The board seems confused about its role in fundraising for the organization. • We don’t do a very good job of orienting and training new board members. • Board members are unclear about their legal liabilities and what protection they have against them. • Board had not developed a clear well-researched strategic plan that sets out the broad goals and establishes priorities for the organization. • The board does not ensure that an analysis is done of serious risks that the organization might face. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Note that there may be more than ten items in the list if items shared the same total average score. Scores for the Component Parts of Board Effectiveness Of greater importance than the overall score on the BPSAQ is the scores obtained in the various topic areas that make it up. These groupings of questions represent the various dimensions of board effectiveness. It is possible for a board to score well in some of these but have challenges in others. It is therefore critical that the areas of possible weakness be identified and special emphasis be placed on discussing them. Note: The first number below refers to the average score for all those responding to the questions. The color beside the number indicates how serious the situation might be for that area of board effectiveness. = A very serious problem = A moderately serious problem = Few serious problems A red or yellow light will indicate not all respondent perceived the items in the same way. In order to ensure confidentiality, it is not possible to show here the extent to which the perceptions of board members differed from those of non-board members. However, in discussing degree of difference level, it is very important to raise the matter of the extent to which it represents differences in the perceptions of these two groups. One of the most serious problems of governance occurs when board members and members of the management team or others they deal with have widely differing expectations of one another. Clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in meeting basic due diligence responsibilities Total Average score: 13.82 Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS These items represent how much clarity there is about what the board should be responsible for and the proper role of the board. It is important here to look especially at how the perceptions of board members differ from those of members of the management team. 15 – 20: The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be 10 – 15: The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be, but some differences exist that may need some work. 5 – 10: The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity regarding its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. This is a high priority problem that requires considerable attention. Board responsibilities for planning and policy oversight Total Average score: 20.94 28 – 36: The board is seen as quite clear about its role in planning for the organization’s future and feels it is doing a good job of it. 20 – 28: The board may be doing a moderately good job of carrying out its planning function but there are some areas that need work. 11 – 20: Many major problems are seen as existing for the board in grappling with its role in planning. Board’s role in performance assessment Total Average Score: 12.58 15 – 20 The board feels it is doing a very good job of tracking how well the organization is doing. 10 – 15 The board feels it is doing a moderately good job in this area but needs some work. 5 – 10 Major problems are seen to exist for the board in carrying out its planning function. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Board’s role in fundraising Total Average Score: 5.46 9 – 12: The board is seen as quite clear about its role in fundraising and is doing a good job of it. 6 – 9: The board is seen as either uncertain about its role in fundraising or there are problems in the way it carries out that role. 3 – 6: There appear to be major problems for the board in dealing with its role in fundraising. Issues related to the formal structure of the board Total Average Score: 27.17 33 – 44 The board is seen as having very satisfactory structural arrangements. 21 – 33 The board is seen as having a moderately satisfactory structure but with some problems that need addressing. 11 – 21 The board is seen as having many major problems with it structural arrangements. Issues Related to Board Meetings Total Average Score: 33.09 33 – 44: The board’s meetings are seen as running very effectively. 21 – 33: The board’s meetings are seen as moderately effective but with some problems that need to be addressed. 11 – 21: The board is seen as having many major problems with the way its meetings are being run. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Issues related to the composition of the board and board development Total Average Score: 11.49 19 – 24: The board’s composition and level of development is seen as satisfactory. 13 – 19: The board’s composition and level of development is seen as moderately satisfactory but with some problems that need to be addressed. 6 – 13: The board is seen as experiencing major problems with how it is made up and the quality of orientation and training provided to its members. Issues related to the informal culture of the board Average score: 16.99 21 – 28: The board is seen as having an informal culture that contributes well to its effectiveness. 14 – 21: The board is seen as having an informal culture that moderately contributes to its effectiveness but there are some cultural issues that need to be addressed. 7 - 14: The board is seen as having a seriously dysfunctional informal culture. Board leadership issues Average score: 39.68 33 – 44: The board is seen as having strong and effective leadership from its chair and CEO. 21 – 33: The board is seen as having moderately effective leadership but with some problems in that area that need to be addressed. 11 – 21: The board is seen as experiencing many serious leadership problems. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS Where Do You Go From Here? The results of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire summarized above will give you some ideas about possible difficulties that could be keeping your board from performing at its best as well as provide a benchmark for measuring improvement effects. How these results are used will determine how valuable they might be in helping to make the governance function of your organization as effective as it can be. Here are some suggestions for processing the information generated from your board performance assessment report. 1. If possible, create a small "Board Self-Assessment Implementation Task Force” to take the lead in this final phase of reviewing results. (Alternatively, this job could be taken on by an existing board committee such as a Governance or Executive Committee). 2. This committee should choose a chair -- possibly the person who acted as Project Coordinator in getting the questionnaire completed. 3. It should review the findings and discuss the best way to present them to the board as a whole. 4. A special board meeting, or retreat, should be organized to review the findings. If possible, all those who were originally asked to participate should be invited, e.g. in addition to board members, ask top managers, senior volunteers, etc. 5. The special board meeting should proceed as follows: A. The Chair of the meeting should begin by reviewing the reasons for engaging in this self assessment exercise and go on to make the following points: • The discussion should not take the form of blaming anyone for any of the issues identified. • It is possible that some problems, on further discussion, will be found to be simply the result of lack of knowledge or experience on the part of some participants. These can be corrected by better communications. • When there is a strong consensus that certain issues are real problems it is important not to jump to conclusions about why they exist or what should be done about them. Instead, they should be carefully analyzed. We therefore recommend that this special board meeting not be used to make decisions but only to seek consensus on issues and Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS identify possible solutions. The Task Force would promise to take this input and return later with well thought out formal recommendations for change, if needed. B. Discuss the significance of the results obtained in each of the topic areas covered in this Final Report. Response rate Total score The 10 things we do best The 10 things we do the least well Results for each of the nine distinct elements of board effectiveness. C. If the group is large enough, consider breaking into smaller groups to discuss the following questions, otherwise pose them in a plenary format: • • • What are the issues that the most need working on in terms of importance and immediacy? For each of the top priority issues, why do they exist? (The meeting should be reminded that the reasons may not always be simple. For example, if there is strong agreement that board meetings are too long, this could be for many reasons: a failure to establish and enforce time limits for agenda items, board members being unprepared, poorly prepared committee reports, too much time spent on routine leaving important policy issues until late in the meeting, etc.) What positive, future-oriented changes might be made to end the problems? 6. The Implementation Task Force should take the input provided at the special board meeting and use it to prepare a series of recommendations for change along with supporting arguments for them. These would be brought to a formal meeting of the board for discussion and approval. 7. Finally, responsibility for tracking the outcomes of these changes should be allocated to a person or committee who will report at the end of a year on the degree of improvement in the governance process. This should signal the beginning of a process of board self-evaluation that occurs every year. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Introduction It is important to emphasize that the purpose of the Self-Assessment exercise is NOT to suggest that mistakes have been made or that people are at fault in some way. They are intended to suggest issues that need further exploration in the same way that medical tests provide doctors with information on how to improve your health. This instrument measures the extent to which the respondents perceived the board as effective in each of five general areas in which board performance might be changed. The areas are: • The clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in carrying out its basic due diligence responsibilities—those of policy setting, planning, fiscal and legal oversight, risk mitigation and performance assessment. • The adequacy of the board’s formal structures and operating processes—size, committee structure and meeting effectiveness; • The suitability of the make-up of the board’s membership and the quality of the orientation and development of board members; • The degree of support provided by the informal culture of the board (shared, taken-forgranted ways of thinking and acting that members might not be conscious of). • The effectiveness of the leadership provided by the board chair and the organization’s CEO. Note that if a significant number of board members “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat” that an item applies to their board, this merely suggests a need to investigate further to establish whether a serious problem actually exists or not. Sometimes what is seen to be a problem turns out to be due to a misperception or lack of knowledge of the situation which can be easily corrected through better communication. It is also the case that not all boards are the same and a problem in one may not be much of a problem in another. However, genuinely serious problems may well be identified and it is these that you should focus on. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 1 Results BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Response Rate The number of completed questionnaires received was: 10 This translates into a response rate of 80 % based on the total number of people you said would be asked to complete the questionnaire. If the response rate to the questionnaire is lower than 50%, the validity of the results could be questionable. When only a small number participate it is less possible to generalize about what the full group thinks. This should be pointed out when discussing results with the whole board. Number of items answered as "Not Sure" Percentage of respondents who checked "Not Sure" for 20 or more items: 0.0% Checking an item as "Not Sure" indicates that the respondent was either quite new to the board and didn’t have a sense of how it works yet, or had not received adequate orientation to being a board member or to working with the board. If 25% or more of all those responding to the questionnaire have 20 or more items checked as ‘Not Sure’ a red warning button appears beside the number. This indicates a need for a major board development effort. This effort should include both board members AND those that relate to the board in any way. A formal board orientation program in which the topics covered by the questionnaire are discussed can go a long way toward creating a team with a common understanding of how the board works. Overall Score The total score for the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ) is calculated as follows: An “agree strongly” answer is scored 1; “agree somewhat”—2; “disagree somewhat”—3; “disagree strongly”—4. “Not Sure” is scored 0. Adding together the scores for Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 2 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD all items and dividing them by the number of respondents provides an average total score for your board. In general, the higher the total average score, the greater the probability that the board is carrying out its governance function well. 1. Total Average Score for Board Effectiveness—207/272 222 – 272 Very likely to be a highly effective board. Only minor ‘tune ups’ needed to maintain high performance. 171 – 221 A moderately effective board. May need to make some changes and undergo further development. 120 – 170 A board that is probably facing a number of major challenges in many areas. A large-scale effort at reform should be undertaken. 68 – 119 A board that is probably experiencing extremely serious difficulties in carrying out its role in the governance function. Wholesale efforts to change in all the dimensions of board effectiveness are likely necessary. 2. Board Challenges—top Issues for the board (lowest scores). These are the items in the survey that had the highest “Average Scores”. That is, they were the items respondents generally disagreed with. The items below are seen as being well performed compared to the average scores of other items. To get a clearer picture of the strengths in board performance, the statements below are presented with positive wording, rather than in their original form, which were worded as “challenges”. 1. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - Finding high quality new board members is a problem for us. 2. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - There is not enough ongoing development and training for regular board members. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 3 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD 3. Board responsibilities for planning - The board rarely holds creative thinking sessions aimed at trying to find new ways the organization could develop. 4. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - The diversity of publics with an interest in this organization is not well represented in the make-up of the board. 5. The board’s role in fund raising - The board has problems engaging in actual fundraising activities. 6. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - We do not pay enough attention to making sure we get the mix of skills and backgrounds we need in the 7. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - We don’t do a very good job of orienting and training new board members. 8. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members - Looking at the board as a whole there is not enough new blood coming on to it to bring fresh energy and ideas. 9. Issues Related to the Informal Culture of the Board - Little effort is made to help board members get to know one another and develop a team spirit as a group. 10. Issues Related to the Board’s Formal Structures and Operating Processes - The formal structure of the board - We don’t have a board policy manual or we have one that is badly in need of updating. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 4 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD 3. Perceived Board Strengths—bottom Issues-- (highest scores). Try to think of these as nonissues (reframe the items below in a positive light). E.g. the board is not too large and cumbersome; acts as an effective decision-making body. 1. The board’s role in performance assessment - The board does not do a very good job of ensuring that the organizations finances are being managed soundly. 2. Board meetings - There is too much unconstructive arguing among some members during meetings. 3. Board meetings - Meetings are run too informally for example with more than one person talking at once no time limits on discussions etc. 4. Board meetings - Meetings stick too much to formal rules of order so that thorough probing discussions are discouraged. 5. The board’s role in performance assessment - The board does not regularly and systematically carry out assessments of the CEO’s performance (e.g. Executive Director President etc.). 6. Board Leadership Issues - The board chair tends to be overly controlling. 7. Board Leadership Issues - As far as I know the relationship between the CEO and the board chair is quite formal; they don’t talk much off the record. 8. Board responsibilities for planning - The board has not developed a clear well-researched strategic plan that sets out broad goals and establishes priorities for the organization. 9. Board responsibilities for planning - Plans exist on paper but they don’t get implemented at the operational level i.e. other concerns drive what actually gets done. 10. Issues Related to the Board's Overall Role and Responsibilities - Basic board responsibilities - The Board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO or Executive Director) sometimes seem to have different ideas about the authority each should have. 4. Total Average Scores for Dimensions of Board Effectiveness –along with issues that were perceived as less and more problematic for the advisory board. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 5 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Note: The first number below refers to the average score for all those responding to the questions. The color beside the number indicates how serious the situation might be for that area of board effectiveness. A very serious problems A moderately serious problem Few serious problems Board Effectiveness Dimension #1: Basic Board Responsibilities Total average score: 14.60 These items represent how much clarity there is about what the board should be responsible for and the proper role of the board. It is important here to look especially at how the perceptions of board members differ from those of members of the management team. 15 – 20 The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. 10-15 The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be, but some differences exist that may need some work. 5-10 The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity regarding its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. This is a high priority problem that requires considerable attention. Board Effectiveness Dimension #2: Board Responsibilities for Planning Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 6 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Total average score: 26.68 28 – 36 The board is seen as quite clear about its role in planning for the organization’s future and feels it is doing a good job of it. 20-28 The board may be doing a moderately good job of carrying out its planning function but there are some areas that need work. 11-20 Many major problems are seen as existing for the board in grappling with its role in planning. Board Effectiveness Dimension #3: The Board’s Role in Performance Assessment Total Average Score: 17.20 15-20 The board feels it is doing a very good job of tracking how well the organization is doing. 10-15 The board feels it is doing a moderately good job in this area but needs some work. 5-10 Major problems are seen to exist for the board in carrying out its planning function. Board Effectiveness Dimension #4: The Board’s Role in Fundraising Total Average Score: 7.71 9-12 The board is seen as quite clear about its role in fund raising and is doing a good job of it. 6-9 The board is seen as either uncertain about its role in fund raising or there are problems in the way it carries out that role. 3-6 There appears to be major problems for the board in dealing with its role in fund raising. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 7 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Board Effectiveness Dimension #5: The Formal Structure of the Board Total Average Score: 34.82 33-44 The board is seen as having very satisfactory structural arrangements. 21-33 The board is seen as having a moderately satisfactory structure but with some problems that need addressing. 11-21 The board is seen as having many major problems with its structural arrangements. Board Effectiveness Dimension # 6: Board Meetings Total Average Score: 35.82 33-44 The board’s meetings are seen as running very effectively. 21-33 The board’s meetings are seen as moderately effective but with some problems that need to be addressed. 11-21 The board is seen as having many major problems with meetings. Board Effectiveness Dimension # 7: The Composition of the Board and Development of Board Members Total Average Score: 12.15 19-24 The board’s composition and level of development is seen as satisfactory. 13-19 The board’s composition and level of development is seen as moderately satisfactory but with some problems that need to be addressed. 6-13 The board is seen as experiencing major problems with how it is made up and the quality of orientation and training provided to its members. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 8 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD Board Effectiveness Dimension #8: The Informal Culture of the Board Average score: 20.08 21-28 The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. 14-21 The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be, but some differences exist that may need some work. 7-14 The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity regarding its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. This is a high priority problem that requires considerable attention. Board Effectiveness Dimension #9: Board Leadership Average score: 37.78 33-44 The board is seen as having strong and effective leadership from its chair and CEO. 21-33 The board is seen as having moderately effective leadership but with some problems in that area that need to be addressed. 11-21 The board is seen as experiencing many serious leadership problems. Where Do You Go From Here? The results of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire summarized above will give you some ideas about possible difficulties that could be keeping your board from performing at its best as well as provide a benchmark for measuring improvement effects. How these results are used will determine how valuable they might be in helping to make the governance function of your organization as effective as it can be. Here are some suggestions for processing the information generated from your board performance assessment report. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 9 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD 1. If possible, create a small "Board Self-Assessment Implementation Task Force” to take the lead in this final phase of reviewing results. (Alternatively, this job could be taken on by an existing board committee such as a Governance or Executive Committee). 2. This committee should choose a chair -- possibly the person who acted as Project Coordinator in getting the questionnaire completed. 3. It should review the findings and discuss the best way to present them to the board as a whole. 4. A special board meeting, or retreat, should be organized to review the findings. If possible, all those who were originally asked to participate should be invited, e.g. in addition to board members, ask top managers, senior volunteers, etc. 5. The special board meeting should proceed as follows: A. The Chair of the meeting should begin by reviewing the reasons for engaging in this self assessment exercise and go on to make the following points: • The discussion should not take the form of blaming anyone for any of the issues identified. • It is possible that some problems, on further discussion, will be found to be simply the result of lack of knowledge or experience on the part of some participants. These can be corrected by better communications. • When there is a strong consensus that certain issues are real problems it is important not to jump to conclusions about why they exist or what should be done about them. Instead, they should be carefully analyzed. We therefore recommend that this special board meeting not be used to make Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 10 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD decisions but only to seek consensus on issues and identify possible solutions. The Task Force would promise to take this input and return later with well thought out formal recommendations for change, if needed. B. Discuss the significance of the results obtained in each of the topic areas covered in this Final Report. • Response rate • Total score • The 10 things we do best • The 10 things we do the least well • Results for each of the nine distinct elements of board effectiveness. C. If the group is large enough, consider breaking into smaller groups to discuss the following questions, otherwise pose them in a plenary format: • What are the issues that the most need working on in terms of importance and immediacy? • For each of the top priority issues, why do they exist? (The meeting should be reminded that the reasons may not always be simple. For example, if there is strong agreement that board meetings are too long, this could be for many reasons: a failure to establish and enforce time limits for agenda items, board members being unprepared, poorly prepared committee reports, too much time spent on routine leaving important policy issues until late in the meeting, etc.) • What positive, future-oriented changes might be made to end the problems? 6. The Implementation Task Force should take the input provided at the special board meeting and use it to prepare a series of recommendations for change along with supporting arguments for them. These would be brought to a formal meeting of the board for discussion and approval. 7. Finally, responsibility for tracking the outcomes of these changes should be allocated to a person or Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 11 BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD committee who will report at the end of a year on the degree of improvement in the governance process. This should signal the beginning of a process of board self-evaluation that occurs every year. Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015 Page 12
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags