In 2001 Jim Collins, an American consultant, became a star in management circles with his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…And Others Don’t. In it he compares a business to a bus and the leader to the bus driver. Today, people often say that business success is dependent on getting the right people on the bus.
A similar metaphor can help us in understanding the work of non-profit governance. As you will see though, it has a different twist.
Richard Chait, William Ryan and Barbara Taylor wrote about the fiduciary, strategic and generative modes of governance in their 2005 book Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards.[1]Governance as Leadership is published by BoardSource and John Wiley & Sons More a framework than a model, this work has changed how many think and talk about non-profit governance. It has moved discussion away from a focus on structures and responsibilities, and the work of the board alone, towards a perspective on governance involving specific functions and broader involvement. Most people grasp the fiduciary and strategic pieces, but the generative element of governance is a more elusive concept.[2]There are dozens of non-profit governance resources available online that grapple with the “Governance as Leadership” framework and generative governance in particular. For a useful … Continue reading
I hope the bus metaphor I am about to describe will help.
Organizational metaphors
A metaphor is a figure of speech that is used to make a comparison between two things that aren’t alike but do have something in common. Metaphors stretch our imagination in a way that can create powerful insights even though they sometimes run the risk of distorting reality.
Gareth Morgan, now age 74, is a distinguished research professor at York University in Toronto. He is the best known authority on the value of metaphors in seeking more understanding of, and creatively dealing with, organizational issues. His argument is that there are different lenses for viewing organizations and that metaphors are a tool for helping us see some of their hidden attributes.
In Morgan’s view, there are seven metaphors including the organization as machine, as organism, and as brain. These are explored in his 1986 in his book Images of Organization.[3]For an overview of Morgan’s eight metaphors I would recommend Dr. Kathy Milhauser’s 8 minute YouTube video on Organizational Metaphors. Milhauser is a Professor of Management at Concordia … Continue reading This book is a classic among those who study and teach in the field of management.
Governance as a bus
So here we go.
If you think of your non-profit organization as a bus, the fiduciary mode of governance has the board and executive director (or CEO) in looking at the past (out the back window) and present (what’s underneath, perhaps the engine). The strategic mode involves everyone running to the front of the bus to look out the window to see where it is going and perhaps decide to alter the route.
But what of the generative mode? What would you guess?
The generative mode requires the organization’s leadership to get off the bus, to start walking and looking around and talking with people in the community.
Surprised? Should this image of governance action only be taken figuratively? No.
I did not come up with his metaphor. I credit it to Keith Seel, former Director of the Institute for Nonprofit Studies, which is now the Institute for Community Prosperity, at Mount Royal University in Calgary. Keith moved to become Dean of Foundational Learning at Bow Valley College, also in Calgary. The metaphor was born in the caldron of his own governance work with non-profits and school boards a decade ago.
Looking out the back window
Chait, Ryan and Taylor’s use of the term fiduciary is meant to cover the things most non-profit boards do as their primary job – overseeing the current work of the organization. It involves looking at what is current or recent. In terms of the bus it involves ensuring that the wheels are turning and the engine is running, that it is running efficiently. This includes setting and evaluating policies that set operational boundaries or common practice standards. The authors include as well the work of approving the budget, fundraising, program evaluation, and even the task of evaluating the executive director.
The fiduciary mode is familiar territory for most boards because board meetings and orderly agendas lend themselves to reporting and approving behaviour. This mode also provides comfort because it fits well with the board’s duty to pay attention to the organization’s legal and financial responsibilities.
Fiduciary work can easily keep a board busy all of the time. However, it is work that can be hard to relate to the organization’s mission and therefore can feel more dutiful than fulfilling. Because it lends itself to necessary but routine practices, as a governance structure it is not unlike Morgan’s “machine organization”.
Looking out the front window
The strategic mode of governance relates to the strategic role of leadership and, for many in the sector, the exercise of strategic planning. This mode of working calls on a broader group, certainly the board and executive director, to scan the environment, assess where the organization is going and to make choices as to its future direction.
Keith Seel reminded me that every organizational bus will have its own “front window”, their own kind of vehicle, and own approach to being driven or piloted. Nevertheless, working strategically requires decisions about organizational destinations and routes. Some would argue too that strategic work requires conscious choices made with an awareness of where the organization is not going.
Strategic planning can benefit from information from outside the organization, often provided by external stakeholders. Does the metaphor work for stakeholder involvement? It does if it means inviting those with a stake in its mission to get on bus with you. In this sense constituents, clients, staff and even funders, are on your bus and helping by looking out your front window.
Most leadership teams find it difficult to think and act strategically on a regular basis. This is because standard board meetings and agendas do not support this mode of working. Working strategically is often episodic, especially where it involves the creation of a formal 3-year or 5-year plan. Approving a strategic plan usually means turning its implementation into fiduciary activity, board meetings focused on overseeing the accomplishment of specific strategic objectives.
What types of things should non-profits pay attention to as they strategically weave their bus through the streets of the community, region or even the world? Might they discover a need to alter course or maybe even the destination?
Many would agree, I think, that not all strategic questions are destination-related. They can include:
- How effective are we in what we do?
- How are we distinguishing ourselves from others in our field?
- Should we discontinue certain services and/or take on new roles?
- In what ways is our current structure working for us?
- What might make us a better place to work?
- What are our funders thinking about these days?
- Who are potential organizational partners?
Getting off the bus
It is the generative mode of governance that represents Chait, Ryan and Taylor’s unique contribution. They chose the term generative because its roots are in the idea of genesis, the kind of thinking that was present when the organization was founded. Generative work precedes strategic work and strategic work precedes fiduciary work.
Generative work effectively opens up the organization’s mission to scrutiny. It may be more closely attuned to the organization’s vision of the future than its current role. Generative work is about considering, anew perhaps, what problems in wider environment or field need to be addressed.[4]Although a number of sources have grappled with the generative governance idea, I often find myself returning to the authors themselves. See for instance, Bill Ryan’s interview by Mandy Salls … Continue reading Gareth Morgan’s organism metaphor fits to some degree here if one sees the organization as part of a larger community eco-system.[5]A broader vision of the community as an eco-system is somewhat captured in the concept of Community Engagement Governance developed by Judy Frieiwirth, Beth Kanter and others in the U.S.A
Chait, Ryan and Taylor tell us, generative work is about “sense making”, “problem framing” and “thinking retrospectively”. It only occurs at the boundary between the organization and the community. They suggest that generative governance is what is needed when any of the following “landmarks” are present:[6]Ibid, pages 107 & 110
- There is considerable ambiguity in the field about what is happening
- When an action that may be taken will be highly significant to many people both inside and outside our organization
- When the stakes are high for the future of our organization because it raises questions of organizational values or identity
- Where there is conflict or confusion in the community and no consensus in sight
- Where a proposed action cannot be readily reversed. In other words, our organization must take a big risk, leap into the unknown.
The idea of “getting off the bus” is not just a figurative one. Generative thinking may require us to move and think outside the confines of our organizations and their programs. Chait, Ryan and Taylor themselves use the analogy of seeing what comes into focus as a result of “meander(ing) through a city or countryside to learn about a foreign culture”.[7]Ibid, p, 113
Generative work, it seems to me, requires curiosity. But it does not require the expertise or problem solving ability that we generally associate with governance work. Off the bus, board members and staff could find themselves on an equal footing. Perhaps though, their ability to see and listen might not be the same.[8]One could debate the ability of non-profit board members and staff to learn from walking around in their community. Being naive in this mode might be a board member asset. Staff, to the extent their … Continue reading
So, the boardroom may not be fertile territory for exploratory generative work. Seeing your organization’s bus in a broader field of view is very different than seeing the field from the familiarity of your own bus.[9]I am reminded here of Donald Schon’s 1983 book, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. A critical skill in reflecting, he reminds us, is to see situations with … Continue reading. Generative work, it seems to me, starts with stepping off the bus.
Moving away from the bus
I often suggest that governing groups set aside fiduciary and strategic work once and awhile and try something else. The idea of spending time on an activity unrelated to the normal work of the board is enigmatic. Dissonance is almost certain to result.
Perhaps, if there is no bus to constrain us, one might at least start with board gatherings that are not business meetings. Governance sessions, for example, might look at the state of the field the non-profit is in. Such sessions could be open to others not just the the board and executive director. Consider inviting outside guests.[10]My August 2017 post Guests in the Boardroom may offer some ideas for opening up governance work
How else might we enable leaders to do some thinking outside the comfort and familiarity of the boardroom? Other explorations could include attending community events that bring one’s own and related fields of work together. A non-profit might even organize and host its own community gathering. Developing a little generative curiosity will require leaders to loosen their grip on their organizational agendas and the protection of their sovereignty.
Governance as intentional work
I am certainly not alone in encouraging non-profit leaders to use the terms: fiduciary, strategic and generative to describe what “mode” they are working in, or need to do more work in. Good governance certainly involves a lot of work keeping the bus running and some at the front looking at where it is headed.
At times it may be beneficial for the leadership to get off the bus, perhaps even leave the boardroom and set out even a small mission of discovery. Can “getting off the bus” exercises be created? What might they look like? Any help extending the metaphor, or a story that captures what getting off the bus might involve, would be welcome.
<< >>
The photo above is of a bus diorama, one of many created by modellers and historians in the UK and beyond. This is from the Gloucestershire Transport History web site. It one of a series of images of the Mellor Brothers: Layby Diorama. Thanks kindly to Paul and David Mellor and to Alan Drewett, the site’s webmaster, for permission to use it.
References
I’ve always found the governance as a bus analogy very useful both for myself as a visual learner and for engaging Directors to consider both the Board and the organizations state and style. Thanks Grant for helping provide excellent Director orientation material!
Rosslyn Bentley
Executive Director
Woolwich Community Health Centre
St. Jacobs, Ontario
The evidence that a metaphor is helpful is its use after many years. I recall when I first started to do research on governance – about the time that Carver, and the team of Chait, Ryan and Taylor were first publishing their perspectives on who a board worked or “ought” to work for. What was surprising to me then and continues to be so, is that that work initially described just the instrumental side of governance; the tasks one ought to do as a governor and as a board collectively. There was no description of what the context of governance was – it really matters what organization you are in, what it does, who it does it for, who governors are, etc.
I noted in my own experience on boards that on the evening of a board meeting two things took place. First, there was the long, often inefficient board meeting where a few people spoke and the agenda worked through. Second, after that board meeting, came the “parking lot” meetings where people tried to figure out what did or did not happen, formed alliances, spoke for or against certain people or actions, and deepened relationships between themselves that were not possible inside the board meeting proper. This, meeting after the meeting, highlighted, what was to me, a dissatisfaction with the whole meeting-based process of governance. People long for meaningful engagement and it was clear that though governors volunteered because the truly ‘wanted to help’, they were given almost no chance to do that because of the suffocating intrumentalism of the board meeting – tasks for tasks sake.
The early work of Chait, Ryan, and Taylor on post-secondary boards highlighted two types of governance: fiduciary and strategic. They pointed out that board work was highly “unnatural” in that we expected people to work effectively collectively without the slightest attention to building the team… nor did boards ever seem to leave the set of tasks set forth in their fiduciary responsibilities. When Chait, Ryan and Taylor (2005) introduced generative governance, things for me clicked into place.
I was driving behind a school bus and saw the press of faces looking backwards at the cars and drivers behind. The kids gestured, made faces, and emoted about what they saw. I saw in those kids the same behaviours that I had seen in boards focused on gazing backwards, on audits and reports of what was, thoughtless about where they were going or when they would get there. Of course, there is the driver of the bus who knew where they were going, navigated the external environment safely and basically was in charge. It was so clear to me that the bus was a really good description of how boards worked. But who decided on using what type of transportation to make the journey? Stepping back and asking how would you ‘best’ get to where you wanted to go was the task of planners and system administrators. Together, though, each of those roles is mirrored in governance… and the metaphor was born.
When I first started using it, board members just understood and could grasp their different roles and why each – not just one – was vitally important.
It is wonderful to read Grant’s article and realize that the metaphor still works to help governors grasp the breadth and depth of their role. Governance is for the truly engaged. When done well, it changes both organizations and the communities they care about.
Keith Seel
Dean, School Of Foundational Learning
Bow Valley College
Calgary, Alberta
Extending the Metaphor?
A recent board discussion experience of mine using the metaphor reminds me that one ought not get carried away trying to apply it to the role of the board itself. It is tempting to want to see the board as the bus driver. This does not work. The metaphor is just about what an organization’s leaders are paying attention to and about the perspective they inevitably get from working from inside the bus rather than from outside.
Non-profit boards do not tend to accumulate much collective wisdom and as such are usually in no position to seriously steer an organization. Despite their legal responsibilities, the exercise of which requires stewardship more than expertise, a board might want to see itself more as a facilitator and enquirer (not inquirer). Good questions are really important. Boards need not have answers and indeed they may want to be suspicious of their own.
A definition of a faciliator is one who helps a group of people to work together better, keep them focused on their common objectives, and help them plan how to acheve these objectives. To the extent that boards are of strategic or generative value it is in their ability to offer, but more likely to cultivate, an interest in “outside” perspectives.
Grant MacDonald
September 2020