When I was the director of Wycliffe Bible Translators, my working relationship with the board of trustees wasn’t always smooth.
However, I was always very grateful for the work that the trustees did. It was their job to ensure that Wycliffe was meeting its goals, was in good organisational health and wasn’t doing anything illegal. These are heavy responsibilities. If some of us on the Wycliffe staff had decided to rob the charity or to engage in some illegal financial transactions; the trustees would have been held responsible. They brought checks and balances and a wealth of outside experience to ensure that we stayed on the straight and narrow; and they did a great job.
Sadly, boards of trustees don’t always do such a great job. The recent high profile cases of Kids Company and Barnabas Trust are sad examples of where trustees, for one reason or another, have not kept adequate control of the charities they were responsible for. To be fair to the trustees of both of these organisations, they were dealing with charismatic and powerful founders of the organisations, a situation which can often prove difficult.
However, it is another aspect of the trustees’ role that I want to briefly focus on. Effectively, the trustees need to ensure that the charity is well placed to fulfil its purpose on into the future. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, the world in which British missionary agencies operate has changed massively and agencies are going to need to change the way they operate in the next few years (or try this post).
If you don’t believe me, then let me repeat this quote from respected missionary scholar David Smith:
“What is clear by now is that both the concept of mission as a one-way movement from Christendom to the un-evangelised world, and the structures devised at the close of the eighteenth century to facilitate that movement, have been overtaken by a historical developments that render them increasingly irrelevant and redundant.”
The problem is, that the changes we need to see are of such a magnitude that they lie outside of the responsibilities of the day-to-day leadership of the agencies. In fact, most agency leaders that I talk to are so busy trying to keep the show on the road, that they don’t have the luxury to think through some of the big changes that may need to be made in the short-medium future. This is where boards come in; we need mission boards who are engaging with the way in which the world Christian scene has changed and with the way that the church in the UK is changing and who are prepared to grasp the nettle of major organisational change. I don’t know what these changes should be; they will be different from organisation to organisation, but I do know that they will need the input and sanction of charity trustees if they are to happen.
37 replies on “Trustees”
Phil Prior liked this on Facebook.
Tim Herbert liked this on Facebook.
Paul Bailie liked this on Facebook.
Thanks Eddie. Can really relate to this post
Tim Davy liked this on Facebook.
Jon Barnes liked this on Facebook.
A very timely and significant post. Have had the privilege of working with some excellent ECM trustees over the years. Their role in keeping the director accountable is vital but no less important than ensuring organisational (r)evolution in the strange new world of mission. Do you think the essentially conservative nature of charity trustees (legal responsibility, charity law, age etc.) makes this second task more difficult?
Hard to be a cautious visionary!
I reckon that there are two broad themes that make the forward looking aspect of trustee work more difficult. Firstly, there is a huge amount to be done in terms of accountability (and the rules keep changing) so that trustees have limited time for anything else. Secondly, trustees tend to be more comfortable with the whole accountability/regulation area and less so with missiology and shifts in Christian demographics. Like the rest of us, when pressed for time, they default to their areas of comfort.
That has a bearing on who we elect to be in those positions.
Mary Pearce it’s also a function of who is available. Getting people who have the time to commit to board work is a challenge for many agencies.
Andy Buie liked this on Facebook.
Tony Watkins liked this on Facebook.
Evi Rodemann liked this on Facebook.
Jim Memory liked this on Facebook.
Food for thought!!!
One of the challenges is that the risks of not doing compliance well can push trustees into getting overly involved in managing the agency, leaving them less time to strategise. #Sleepwalkingintoobsolecencewithduediligence
Paul Davies liked this on Facebook.
Nev McCormack liked this on Facebook.
Valerie Anderson liked this on Facebook.
Maik Gibson liked this on Facebook.
I love this hashtag by @SyzygyMissions about my latest blog post #Sleepwalkingintoobsolecencewithduediligence
https://t.co/yKb14tjdnS
Ed Lauber liked this on Facebook.
Martin Lee liked this on Facebook.
Jane Showell-Rogers liked this on Facebook.
It’s a timely reminder for me too. Next week one of the Boards I serve on will be reflecting on what our identity and purpose should be.
I’m not sure that the view of boards as policemen and agency leaders are overworked managers does justice to either.
I also doubt whether impartial/outside boards have the inside business knowledge to revise the vision of an agency. Agency leaders may not be able to keep up with the world as it changes; boards can do so even less.
Policy Governance may be a good idea, but realistically even for setting Ends boards will need to work closely with the agency leaders.
This piece has nothing to do with policy governance, which is a US concept that doesn’t fit well with UK charity law. It’s written out of my own experience and from many conversations with agency leaders. Yes, the board needs to work with the leadership; but until boards grasp the magnitude of the issues that agencies are facing in the UK, the agencies will not make the major shifts that are needed.
No disagreement there. But still, two issues remain:
I don’t think executives are too busy to see the wider picture. If they are, they should change jobs.
And, what will help boards to focus on the bigger picture?
Let me nuance things a little to keep you happy. In some cases, directors do have the luxury of dreaming big dreams and thinking of the future, but they don’t have the time or the liberty to work these things through. If mission agencies in the UK (and that is the only context I know anything about) are to make the changes they need to make, then directors need to be both freed up from the tyranny of maintaining the status quo and given the liberty to make the sort of drastic changes that are required. However, in the UK context, both of these require that the board give their support and assent; something that can’t happen until boards start to seriously engage with the issues I’ve been raising. However, as Jim points out above, board (again in the UK) tend to be very conservative, partly due to their legal role and partly due to their demographics.
What can be done to get boards involved? Well, all I can do is bang on about it in a public forum, which is read by some board members. This is something I may end up looking at in my day-job, too, but this isn’t the place to talk about that.
“conservative, legal, demographics…” Ah yes, not just in the UK. Even in the US, boards tend to see themselves as guardians of the sacred flame, and of course they have legal obligations, and the demographics of boards don’t generally favor the young rebel. IOW, it amounts to an at best cautiously conservative group…
RT @kouya: I love this hashtag by @SyzygyMissions about my latest blog post #Sleepwalkingintoobsolecencewithduediligence
https://t.co/yKb14…
Categorising the SIL Board agenda according to the three types of governance identified in the book “Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards” by Chait, Ryan and Taylor has been helpful. At our last Board meeting we spent a whole day on generative governance, i.e. the big picture.
Just a couple of comments; US non-profit boards don’t have the same legal framework as UK boards of trustees. Also, most of the boards that I am aware of only meet for part of a day at a time. The idea of spending a whole day discussing one issue is a luxury that we would rarely see in my world.
Catherine Young liked this on Facebook.
Junior Perkinses liked this on Facebook.
Ray Porter liked this on Facebook.