As Boards who have begun using Policy Governance® begin to tackle their most important job—specifying the Ends of the organization—they also struggle with how to obtain the information needed to make Ends decisions. Since Ends are determined on behalf of the "moral owners" of the organization, how does a board ensure that it is truly informed regarding the needs of those owners? Boards in the "public" sector, whether elected, appointed, or voluntary, generally have an "ownership" that might be described as the "general public." Membership organizations (unless they are regulatory bodies) usually have an ownership of "members." In both cases, the challenge is similar - how to "connect" with the owners in a meaningful way.
The following ideas are not intended to be "the definitive answer," but I hope that they may trigger some discussion as your board considers ways to more effectively link with "owners."
Motivation and Timing
Ask for ownership input early enough in the process of Ends development that appropriate changes can be made based on that input. Be aware of subtle ways in which your invitation to the owners to provide input is actually designed to limit the impact of such input (Dowling1). Be open to criticism. Be willing to revise Ends that are not on target. Recognize that the ownership's trust and support depend on meaningful involvement and influence. Is the intent of connecting with owners merely to "be seen" to be allowing ownership input, when in reality the desire is to limit the ability of the owners to effectively influence a desired decision, or is the intent to give due consideration to owners' views when making a decision?
Goal Clarity
Be clear regarding what you want from owners that you involve in the process. Many boards design a variety of "committees" intended to help them link with the owners. The principle here is the same as the principle for any committee: if you don't clearly specify what "product" you expect from the committee, they are likely to spend much energy with little result, trying to figure out just what it is that you want from them. "If realistic goals cannot be specified early in the process, little in the way of substantive participation follows." Lack of clarity about goals can lead to concentration on procedural rather than substantive matters, and result in "dropping-out" of participants who feel that they have no impact. "This often produces precisely what providers have sought, a paper consumer majority but an operative provider majority…" (Metsch and Veney1). If boards truly desire ownership participation, then they must spend the time to clearly define the goals.
Selection Alternatives and Methods
The method or techniques used for obtaining input should be dependent on the goals. No one method has been shown to be the "best," as the development of methodologies for obtaining ownership input is still in its early stages. Focus groups, needs assessments, public hearings, surveys, public forums, and town-hall meetings are some of the more common methods.
Be sure that when you structure a vehicle for "ownership" input, that you are truly getting "ownership," rather than "stakeholder" input. Stakeholder input should also be obtained for fully informed decision-making, but it should not be confused with ownership input. Several studies (Piette, Lomas1) bear out the fact that when participation is intensive, those of higher socio-economic status are better placed to bear those costs, and thus tend to be over-represented. Lomas and Veenstra1 conclude that "we should not … pretend that current consultation technologies really attract the general public … they continue to be dominated by stakeholders of one sort or another."
One area in which the literature is nearly silent relates to ways in which decision-making bodies with accountability to the "general public" might hear from the "unheard voices"—the marginalized of society. Is there a way of "going to them" rather than expecting them to "come to the decision-makers"? Aronson1 notes that consumers of health and social services in particular tend to be in a relatively powerless position, because many are from already disadvantaged and marginalized groups. They have little experience in expressing themselves in a formal public context, are further threatened by class and culture barriers such as having to attend meetings in hotels and speak into microphones, and from experience have little reason to believe that they can make a difference. Beresford suggests tailoring opportunities to participants' time and interests, rather than taking an "all or nothing" approach. This may be a starting-point for examining ways to obtain the input of such groups. Carver1 argues that boards have a moral accountability to ensure that they are effectively serving all of their constituents, not only the "squeaky wheels."
Measures of Community Involvement
Bracht and Tsouros1 note that an important outcome of community and citizen involvement is a sense of community ownership. In other words, the "owners" actually feel as if they are owners. They suggest a number of measurements of such involvement:
Opportunity for and level of decision-making or advising
Amount and duration of time devoted to goal activities
Representativeness of citizen and leader groups formed
Degree of local ownership perceived and/or achieved
Satisfaction with the processes of participation, and
Achievement and long term maintenance of effort.
1Email The Governance Coach to request a list of references cited in this article.
This article may be reprinted without charge under the following conditions:
The author retains full copyright.
The byline is included with the article as it appears
Credits include the following statement: "Policy Governance® is a registered service mark of Dr. John Carver. Used with permission."
The Governance Coach™ is advised of the reprint and a copy of the publication in which the article appears is provided to The Governance Coach™