Political Science

The purpose of any organisation is derived from the intentions of the owners. However, the task of providing a definition of what a nonprofit or governmental organisation desires is a rather multifaceted endeavour in comparison to providing a definition for the intended monetary value for the equity corporation. As opposed to nonprofit or governmental organisation, it is imperative for an equity corporation to adequately manage the market even though its board is not compelled to speak for the market in the extent that nonprofit and governmental boards must. Even boards that have been emancipated from the  market surrogate  burden have expressed the massive challenges of governing. Governing boards have been far from being vehicles of emblematic efficiency even in the best of circumstances (Herman  Til, 1989). Regardless of the legal position they occupy, a shared characteristic of the current boards is their failure to function. The boards  decline appears to be a universal phenomenon. To some extent, the boards have failed to protect the interests of those whom they represent. This is evidenced by the various cases of corporate scandals that dogged Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, and WorldCom (Sonnenfeld, 2002). The events are a clear indication that a great percentage of boards are not completely performing what they are legally, morally, and ethically mandated to do.

It is ironic that this critical area has largely been abandoned. While other realms of management function has been critically assessed and exhaustively analysed, the board s responsibility and how it varies from management has largely been neglected. The available literature on the subject is brief and evidently lacks any actual depth of new ideas. It is worrying that the board s job when seen against the backdrop of its intrinsic importance has not been exhaustively studied. As a result, the job of the board has neither benefited from the wider exchange of practical experience nor the depth of study that has been witnessed in other corporate activities.

Despite years of improvement, much change has not been realised. Boards have largely been seen to be irrelevant. The reality is that boards are in most cases self-perpetuating, being more interested in the maintenance of power rather than responding to the wishes of the shareholders. A large percentage of boards are mainly involved with overlooking rather than overseeing. Even though possessing ultimate organisational power, there is little study and development of the governing board. The irony is that there is inadequate job design for leadership where the opportunity is greatest. The increased attention to the codes of governance within the corporate world that started in the final decade of the twentieth century serves to indict the existing governance practice and thought. It is against this backdrop of governing boards in general that I wish to handle the boards of nonprofit organisations and propose how their performance can be improved amid the stated concerns. It is no surprise that such boards experience difficulty since their flaws include those found in profit boards together with those that are distinctively a consequence of their artificial market situation and a complex delineation of purpose. It is not surprising that the governance of nonprofit enterprises presents a wide array of flaws if the governance of the more rational, modern business corporations is not without blemishes.

The majority of board defects that appear to be cosmetic blemishes are suggestive of more basic flaws. In numerous instances, they are indications of a problem. The main concern is that the boards are given the wrong job. It is just as important to attack the superficial flaws as invoking the usual admonitions of sticking to policy, letting the chief executive to manage and to avoid rubber-stamping. However, it is more instructive to establish a healthier framework of governance concepts. An effective framing of governance challenge can transcend the mere elimination of common problems and offer an earning in which the boards become strategic leaders (Useem, 2006).

Various recommendations have been advanced for ailing board practices even though they have fallen short of yielding positive results despite being quite rational (see Sonnenfeld 2002 Prybil et al., 2008 Orlikoff  Totten, 2009). In most cases, they have cleared some of the jumble and the most outstanding inefficiencies in board operation. However, since most of these literatures were not founded in complete conceptual model, the recommendations have in most cases been gradual, anecdotal wisdom. Most of them are structural in nature (Sonnenfeld, 2002). In order to coherently apply wisdom, there is a need to tailor a paradigm to the special conditions of governance.

Against the backdrop of these issues, I have construed various principles in order to address the unique circumstances of governing boards. Their adaptation transcends a mere collection of relevant suggestions it is basically a reorganised governance paradigm. Governance as largely practised is a mishmash of historical accidents and uncoordinated elements formulated by intelligent minds. However, it is gravely flawed having not emanated from a coherent sense of entirety.

Based on the above, the following recommendations may be useful in improving the effectiveness and performance of board.

The need for a governance framework that captures and supports vision in the basic position. There is a tendency of administrative systems to result in great attention being focused on particulars. While this may be commendable, it can dominate the broader scope of purpose. In this regard, there is need to systematically encourage broader thinking and to dream.

The governing board being the guardian of organizational values must explicitly address these basic values. As such, it must adapt a framework that ensures that it focuses on values.

There is also a need to force an external focus. Since organisations seem to be internally focused, there is a need to adopt a governance model that guarantees external responsiveness. Therefore, instead of being concerned with internal matters of organisational mechanics, the board will be more focused on needs.

The board must advance an organising system that is driven by outcome. The decisions and functions of the organisation must be thoroughly tested against the standard of purpose. This will ensure that the board establishes a mission in terms of outcome and enforce it as the central organising focus.
The board must also separate large matters from small ones. There is a general consensus among board members that weighty matters deserve to be given priority. However, there is no consensus on how to identify a large item. In this regard, it is of utmost importance to adopt a model that may aid in differentiating the size of issues.

Since strategic leadership calls for long-term viewpoint, it is imperative for the board to adopt a scheme that furthers forward thinking. This should enable the board to push much of its thinking into the future.

Boards should lead as opposed to reacting to issues. As such, there is need to facilitate pro-activity in order to enable boards to move away from presiding over momentum. This will ensure that that the board is more involved with creating rather than in approving.

The richness and diversity in the composition and opinion of the board should also be optimised while at the same time assimilating the variety into a single voice. However, the challenge presented by the inclusion of various populations on nonprofit boards is acknowledged. The ideal of demographic diversity in the board is widely endorsed by nonprofit organizations.

There is need for a description of how the board relates with the relevant constituencies. Boards are usually trustees in either moral or political sense and are to some extent accountable to staff, neighbours, and consumers.

It is also important to determine the kind of information that is needed. In this regard, it is critical to make precise distinctions concerning the nature of information that is required to govern. Nonprofit board members are entirely dependent on the chief executive on the information about the organization. Therefore, it is important to determine the type, quantity, and forms of information that the board should have. It has been found that nonprofit executives have adopted a strategy of sending highly detailed reports and background papers to the board. Since the majority of board members do not have the time and the disposition to read all the materials, they are likely to approve courses of action without actual consideration of the information that is relevant to the course of action.

All these points suggest the importance of serious examination of the structure, fundamental practices and composition of the board as a key to improving its effectiveness and performance. Other studies have also supported these recommendations (Prybil et al., 2008).