Malcolm John is the founder of Action for Trustee Racial Diversity, and currently a trustee of three charities; Association of Chairs, British American Drama Academy, and the Charles Dickens Museum.
A Question of Balance – the theatrically titled, excellent booklet produced a few years ago by the Association of Chairs – aims to help chairs explore and strengthen the relationship they have with their CEO. The booklet puts effective governance at the heart of that relationship. However, I wouldn’t be surprised at the number of CEOs with concerns as to whether the current model of charity governance – going back several hundred years – is appropriate enough to ensure that the roles of both individuals are sufficiently well balanced to ensure the organisation’s mission and impact are maintained.
The ACEVOFest event, where I presented earlier this year, largely acknowledged that organisational culture impacted significantly on the effectiveness of governance. However, there seemed also to be a recognition that – culture notwithstanding – open and honest discussions on improving governance between the dynamic duo of chair and CEO (with due recognition to the Association of chairs and of course, Marvel Comic’s Batman and Robin!) would be a quick organisational win.
From my experience on nine trustee boards to date, not enough space is made or time given for what should be a really important and productive discussion. Other than the – often tokenistic recognition, if at all – given through the annual individual and collective board appraisal or the one to one’s between the chair and CEO.
As the founder of the organisation Action for Trustee Racial Diversity, whose mission is to increase the underrepresentation of Black and Asian individuals on charity boards, I believe there are quick governance wins to be had by chairs (and co-chairs) and CEOs making small but big impact adjustments to how board meetings are run. I’m confident that these changes will make a significant difference to the perception of the role of trustees by aspiring trustees from Black and Asian backgrounds. Four key areas I highlighted in my ACEVOFest presentation were language, paperwork, the role of the chair, and board inclusive practices.
So, a few thoughts:
Language
Language does matter but…don’t sacrifice seeking perfection on the language of diversity to the detriment or deferment of necessary action. Talk to EDI specialists about acceptable and inclusive language.
Proof check your language for legalese, Latin based words ( i.e. nominations, remuneration) or Latin words or phrases (gravitas, ex-officio, ex-gratia, Mems and Arts) or acronyms (the oft used catch all “AoB” – just put the issue on the agenda proper!). Such vocabulary is unlikely to enthuse or give aspiring young Black and Asian trustees the confidence that trusteeship is a world they’d like to engage with.
Action for Trustee Racial Diversity is currently seeking charity registration this year. There are lots of guidance and templates to hopefully see us through to a satisfactory conclusion. But I wonder, for instance, whether the language of the governing documents, which charities are required to produce, needs to be as archaic and legalese as it currently is, often requiring a degree in linguistics to interpret! That might also explain why so few trustees are familiar with the detail of their governing document.
Paperwork
I won’t say too much about the volumes of board papers which I’ve often approached with dread during those five working days, if lucky, between their being emailed and the date of the next board meeting. Nor will I touch on the bane of many CEOs – the formality and detail of the board minutes. Scope there for sensible dynamic duo conversations!
The chair’s role
I’m pretty evangelical in repeating my mantra that diversity and inclusion starts at the top. I’m excited by our recent initiative – the Black and Asian Future Chairs’ Academy.(BAFCA) – aimed at developing a pipeline of Black and Asian chairs and co-chairs. There has been a great response to it both from Black and Asian aspiring chairs and also existing chairs of all ethnicities keen to act as mentors. However, it’s worth pointing out that many of the aspiring Black and Asian chairs are not older, male or retired like the traditional mould of chairs, and very many might be in full time jobs and/or with childcare responsibilities . So whilst they’re keen to step into a chair role at some stage, they would need to see a change in the demands of time and commitment on chairs to be able to take on the role effectively and efficiently, when their circumstances allow.
Co-chairing and collective chairing (the role being divided between several trustees) are “no-brainer” solutions. I’m delighted to see an increasing number of charities appointing co-chairs. We are practising what we preach and have just appointed two brilliant co-chairs to our prospective new charity – Board Racial Diversity UK.
Co-chairing shares the considerable, often lonely challenge of chairing organisations of any size. It brings two minds and two complementary perspectives to support the CEO and lead the board of trustees. It enables a younger and less experienced individual from a Black and Asian background or with lived experience to take on a chair role and draw on the mentoring capacity and experience of the other co-chair.
I’m pleased to reference the recent research report The future charity chair | Bayes Business School which Action for Trustee Racial Diversity was involved with. It highlights the challenges to developing a pipeline of future charity chairs, and more significantly, the crucial role of chairs in shifting current governance practice to further equity, diversity and inclusion.
More inclusive board practices
Of course, the issues for aspiring chairs from Black and Asian backgrounds apply similarly to trustees from those backgrounds. So a few more thoughts.
Charities which are genuine about hearing more diverse voices on their boards should be thinking perhaps of
- staggering the times of meetings to accommodate the varying circumstances of trustees.
- providing additional briefing to trustees who for personal or professional reasons aren’t able to attend every board meeting.
- exploring less traditional ways of involving and using the skills and expertise of trustees who for the same reasons find it difficult to attend every board meeting.
Accountability without knowledge
My final reflection is around what constitutes proportionate and authentic accountability. So, I’ll just pose three questions.
One, is the current practice of a group of volunteers – however committed to the cause – who only meet four or five times a year, or a few times more if they’re involved in sub-committees or working groups, robust enough for the level of accountability invested in them?
Two, would paid board roles give more assurance – and bring more diversity – to the governance function? As background, more than 2,000 charities pay their trustees, according to an analysis by Civil Society Media of Charity Commission annual returns. This represents 1.6 percent of all charities. Paying trustees becomes much more commonplace as charities get bigger. The survey found that 7.4 percent of charities with annual incomes over £5m paid their trustees. This argues room for change in this area!
Three, should the CEO and their management team play a broadly equal role with board trustees in the business of governance?
I hope my reflections spark your own internal discussions.
