What's Wrong Here?

From a report entitled "Enhancing Governance and Accountability Capacity", prepared for the Ministry in 2005 by Deloitte, comes the following interesting quote:

Key Process - Executive Performance Assessment

Board responsibility for the selection, evaluation and compensation of the
CEO/president is viewed as one of a board’s most critical responsibilities. In “best practice” models, CEO assessment is undertaken by a committee of the board, using a defined performance assessment tool. The scope and breadth of the process is dependent, but at its most fulsome includes some form of “360” review, and assessment of both qualitative (typically financial) and quantitative goals (leadership, communications, etc.). The literature of governance generally suggests that this is one area where boards are not performing to the highest standard ...

Wow what a surprise that one is! I hope our BoG keeps their responsibilities in mind over the next year or two, recognising that they "are not performing to the highest standard"! I would personally welcome a 360 review for a CEO that measures "leadership, communications, etc."

Here's another quote from the same document:

When the board member population is analyzed based on an internal/external split and the degree of constraint experienced, internal members experienced a slightly higher degree of constraint than did external members (although, overall, both groups expressed minimal constraint on all dimensions). Those areas where internal members reported a 10% or greater variance than was the case with external board members included:
• human resources management related to the president;
• stakeholder communication;
• governance practices and accountability;
• knowledge and understanding of the postsecondary environment; and,
• financial and information management.

Please note particularly that the internal versus external members of the Boards of Governors have a 10% or more variance in feeling "constrained" re H/R management related to the president, knowledge and understanding of the post-secondary environment and financial and information management. I would consider a 10% difference significant in terms of the real understanding of the BoGs on these issues. I would also bet that if this survey were to be redone today (post-strike) that the 10%+ difference between internal and external board members would be much larger. Remember too, that most members of the BoGs are external and cannot be expected to really understand what is happening at the "shop floor" level.

So what does this mean? To me, it means that a significant number of the external BoG members are neither aware of nor permitted access to the realities of the college situation. I do not blame the external members. This report also makes it clear that they have limited time to devote to their position, and in addition we (internal) folk know that they are not necessarily provided with adequate information on specific situations. That view is backed up by our current BoG faculty rep, who has commented both recently and in the past that those internal members who would present an alternative to the rosy view presented to the BoG are either stopped from providing information in open sessions or are, when they try to do so, channeled into sub-committees (where their views are buried or disparaged by other internal members on the subcommittee), or who are so discouraged by the lack of understanding of the outside members (who are basically appointed by the top management) that they just give up trying to get action on what is important to faculty and staff.

It became clear to many faculty during the strike that there is a large disconnect between the "shop floor" experience and what the BoG's understand as the situation. Let me be clear here: many of us, prior to the strike, thought that our experiences were the "exception". We figured that perhaps we were among a minority who sensed that, when it came to financial allocations, for example, that our department, division or our college was the exception. We now know that this is common across the college and the system (granted it is expressed in different ways based on the unique situations.) But ...

Those BoG's who simply rally around the flag at this time, instead of asking for a clear financial and strategic review of their colleges' allocation of resources and their colleges' communications and their colleges' "leadership" can -- in my view -- be compared to those who rally around GWB and declare that all is well and that all those WMDs that were found did indeed justify an invasion of Iraq. Our Boards of Governors need to know the "shop floor" reality.

Re the "slightly higher" quote (above) ... I would point out that when KPIs (key performance indicators), on which programs in colleges are judged, are analysed, a 10% variance between programs may indeed cause a program to be cancelled, so with due respect to Deloitte (who, by the way, were paid by Ministry, I consider a 10% difference to be significant. And the committee itself, please note...

was co-chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Postsecondary
Education and the Chair of the Executive Committee of the ACAATO Board of
Directors. In addition to the co-chairs, the committee included:
• three college governors;
• a college president;
• a vice-president administration/board secretary;
• two representatives from the CCAC;
• the Director of the Colleges Branch; and,
• a representative from the Ministry of Finance.

A Working Group Secretariat comprised of a project coordinator and a
representative from ACAATO, CCAC and MTCU assisted the Committee.

Do you see any faculty? Do you see any support staff? Hmmmmm ... disconnect!

I hope it is understandable why I question their assertion that a 10% or greater difference reflects "minimal constraint". But of course I am prejudiced ipso facto. I only work there. I am not a governor, a president, a VPA, a CCAC or a ministry type. Sorry about that. Just my opinion.