What is my job? A question for Board members

I don't currently serve on a Board for any organizations, nor do I work for one. However, for much of adult life (certainly since 1985), I was intimately involved in Boards. I was both an employee for a Board, and in many cases served on Boards of other organizations either where I lived or in my professional life.

Actually, it was during that board service that I met Eli Mina. Eli is the current professional Parliamentarian employed by the the American Library Association. But, he is more than just a Parliamentarian. He helps groups to work effectively together, and is an insightful observer of organizational dynamics.

I subscribe to his e-newsletter, and would highly recommend it. There are also some great resources on his web site: http://www.elimina.com/

In the most recent newsletter he has this:

A corporate board member asked me this question: "Isn't my primary duty to the shareholders, to ensure their investments are protected and their dividends are maximized?" A similar question was raised by an elected municipal official: "Isn't my duty to vote as per the wishes of the citizens who elected me?" A third example is a Member of Parliament who, ahead of a vote on a contentious issue, said: "I have to go back to my riding [i.e. district] and find out how my constituents want me to vote."

I looked around on his web site and did not find this article (there is other great stuff...). The second paragraph is key. It is the concept that so many in governance on the larger scale seem to forget:

The above examples reflect a widespread misconception that the primary duty of elected officials is to please their constituents. In fact, the primary duty of elected officials is not to one constituency or another, but to the organization as a whole.

As a Board member, or representative, your job while acting on the Board is to consider the good of the organization as a whole. I just think what Congress could accomplish if they were to act this way. Now, this still let's people disagree about the idea, but would mean that the discourse would be different.

Here are a couple of the concluding paragraphs:

And what about that Member of Parliament? His/her duty is to the country as a whole and not exclusively to constituents back home. Basing one's vote solely on their preference would politicize the process (i.e.: develop perceptions that political leaders will do anything to appease voters in order to boost their re-election prospects). It may ultimately be unfair to the country as a whole.
The above comments mean that elected decision makers who perform their roles correctly (i.e.: placing the organization's interests ahead of narrow interests) can become targets of harsh criticisms by their constituents: "You did not keep your campaign promises" or "You capitulated and did not stand up for us" or "You can be sure we'll campaign against you at the next election." Being punished and chastised for doing your job correctly is not fun. This can make it feel very lonely in elected positions.

How can elected officials do their jobs correctly while coping with abuse and personal attacks? The typical advice is to develop a "thick skin" and not be swayed by criticism that may arise from widespread misconceptions about the roles of elected officials.

Can this problem be addressed differently? Yes, possibly by educating constituents, electors and shareholders, and by making them aware of the complexity of the work of elected officials and the fact that their duty to the organization as a whole must come first.
In an optimal setting, constituents will adjust their expectations and abandon the culture of personal entitlement. Given the prominence of the culture of entitlement, eradicating it would require sustained educational efforts by elected leaders. Such efforts would be a good investment that will strengthen the foundation and the backbone of your organization or community.

While ALA Council and the EB get bashed in some circles, I have seen much more of a move towards the healthier behavior of considering what is good for the organization rather than what helps the individual.

Parliamentary Procedure - Redux

For those who doubted any part of my last post, here is a photo of a section of one of my book shelves.

Parliamentary Procedure

I have not written about this topic for a bit, but a recent incident has prompted me.

I am a little bit of a "process junkie" and have been from way back. Maybe it was growing up in a large family (I have seven younger brothers and sisters). It definitely comes from my father. He was active in local "affairs." At various times he was on the Board of Health, served on state associations related to that, and had been elected to the Town Meeting. [Aside: in New England, some of the larger towns, rather than having a Town Meeting where everyone gets to speak and vote, there is a Representative Town Meeting, where  people run, and are elected to represent a district. The town I grew up in is one such town. There were about 20 (or more) people from each of the 6 precincts who served on the Town Meeting. My father was one.]

Next to his chair, there was a book case (of course), and among the things in the book case were a couple of editions of Roberts Rules of Order, as well as Cushing's Manual.(Here is the Roberts web site, as well as the Wikipedia article. here is the Amazon link to the latest edition of Cushing, mine is older!) He would take me to the Town Meeting, and I got to sit in the audience. Before and after, he would explain some of the intricacies of what was going on. (Well, also at the "smoking break.") I have to believe, that learning about this at my father's knee, is part of what has given me my love of process.

Well, on to my most recent experience. A library user came up to the desk looking for Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. I had never hear of it, but sure enough, the library owns it -- two copies, actually, one in Reference, and one in our circulating collection. She wanted to make some copies, so I directed her to the machines. In a little bit, she was back.

She could not find what she wanted. I took a look in the index, for a moment or two I was stymied. But then I remembered some of my lessons from ALA's wonderful Parliamentarian, Eli Mina. I thought, "how would Eli express this question as a parliamentary one." That was just what I needed. I looked in a different part of the index, flipped to the page, and there was exactly what she was looking for.

After she left, I took a closer look at the book. Now, everyone knows, well at least refers, to Roberts Rules of Order, but there are others. Actually the American Library Association uses the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure edited by Alice Stugis (4th edition). Over my years of service, I became familiar with the 3rd and 4th editions under the tutelage of two different parliamentarians.

When I opened Mason's, there is an introduction which includes a list of ten "principles that govern procedure in group decision making." What a revelation! One of the headers after the listing of principles is "Principles are easier than rules to remember and apply." I guess that if I had been paying closer attention to Eli Mina, I would have realized that. It is how he operates. That and there is a principle of fairness to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

The next time I chat (in person or electronically) with Eli Mina, one of the things we will talk about is the principles and why Mason's does not have as much "traction" as a parliamentary guide. Hey, I will admit it. This is the kind of geeky stuff that I find fun. One of the joys of my service on ALA Council was in finding a number of other kindred spirits.

This post was written over a couple days. I scheduled it to post on December 7. That is an important day to me. The "date that will live in infamy" was my father's 15th birthday. If he had lived, he would have been 86. This can be a little bit of a tribute who someone who died way too young for my liking. He was 48 when he died in 1975. I was 21.

Majority rules or Majority Rules!

ALA-Anaheim 2012 is now over. Just before the conference, I received an email from the ALA Parliamentarian (Eli Mina) not in that role, but in his "day job" role as a professional parliamentarian. First, you can find his web site here. If you are interested in group dynamics and in procedure, Eli has some great words of wisdom.

In his recent e-newsletter he had the following to say:

"Is the Majority Always Right?"

At a recent workshop, a newly elected municipal official said this: "A wise person taught me that, with a Council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish. "

On the surface, this seems like good practical advice. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a fundamental principle of decision making is: The majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the proposal is defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are "the only thing that matters." Right? Not so. Something significant is missing.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed, possibly leading to bad decisions that the majority may live to regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it may end up making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, emotion, and loud and aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end (getting enough votes) justifies the means, which may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they'll vote. On the other hand, with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to everyone, and treat "minorities" as partners in decision-making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With knowledge-based democracies, the people with the most relevant information and the most astute analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning, inquiry and excellence in decision-making.

Ultimately, democracies that are primarily focused on the number of votes are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for the affected organizations.

Looking at this from another angle: Democratic decision-making bodies often use rules of order in meetings. The core premise should be that rules (relating to quorum, voting, motions, amendments, etc.) should be used as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. Rules should advance knowledge-based decision-making, rather than manipulate the flow of a meeting and overpower minorities. A flawed proposal should not win solely because its advocates are capable of using rules to advance it. And a good proposal should not be defeated solely because its proponents do not know how to use the rules to pass it.

So, is the majority always right? Is four the most important number on a Council of seven? Only if the four have knowledge on their side; only if members come to meetings with open minds and are prepared to learn from the discussions; and only if the meeting environment is kept safe. Yes, the numbers are important, but they should be backed by objectivity and knowledge.

Sign up for his newsletters, buy his books. If you are in that kind of position, hire him. He is good. I am not being paid to say any of this, and if it were not true I would not say it.