I have commented before on boards messing things up, and how invariably they do the same thing. They involve themselves in the running of tthe school, or in other words they insert themselves into operational matters. Boards have three responsibilities or roles only : they set overall strategic goals and direction: they approve the budget, especially long-term (ie strategic) and infrastructure; and they hire and supervise the Director. Anything else is problematic, and a slippery slope to disaster.
This does not apply only to schools. Events at Michigan State University (MSU) culminated last month in the resignation of the institution's President. In this case, who did what, when, and to whom is unclear but what is apparent is that a dispute arose over where to draw the line between governance and interference, labelled here as "micromanagement".
The Board has every right to demand its sole employee, here the University's President, to implement its strategy, here connected to Title IX matters. If the Board's strategic goals are not realised within a specified period and budget constraints, then it should implement its disciplinary processes which might ultimately result in contract termination.
However, it should not insert itself into the President's actions and activities. I understand that this is an exceedingly fine path to tread, but as we see here the alternative is a very public airing of dirty laundry, institutional reputational damage, uncertainty and loss of confidence and so on.
And as we have seen at school level, future candidates for the CEO position will be weaker, of lower quality, and types who "fit in". Not a receipe for success.
**Please leave your comments and questions below.**
Further Reading
React to Michigan State President Stanley's resignation. Here's what they're saying
No comments :
Post a Comment