| |
The
Board from Hell
Taken
from the Summer 2002 edition of the Zeitgeist Client Newsletter
As Destination Marketing Organizations grow, they invariably become
more visible in the communities they serve. With this visibility often
comes an increased interest from community members to serve on DMO Boards.
A decade ago, many DMOs complained that they couldn't get the best and
the brightest to serve on their Boards. The folks with the brains and
the juice tended to gravitate toward more traditional economic development
boards, such as Chambers of Commerce and Economic Development Councils.
But many of the community leaders we once coveted have now retired,
leaving a new brand of Board candidate in their wake. This is just one
of the danger zones that we'll feature over the next few issues in "The
Board from Hell."
TODAY'S YOUNG TURKS
In a galaxy that now seems far, far away, there used to be a brand of
community leader that volunteered their time for the greater good. Sure,
it looked good on their resume and it afforded them some interesting
networking opportunities...but that wasn't their primary reason for
involvement.
Instead,
it was the deep sense of community that their parents (and the time)
had instilled within them. The "we're in this together" mentality
that evolved from the World War II generation. Today's community leaders
come cut from a different cloth. The "up yours" 60s, the "whatever"
70s and the "my, me, mine" 80s have produced a new breed of
Board members that don't play as well together and are singularly focused
on the bottom-line (both the organization's and their own).
It's an impatient, sometimes cut-throat Board that now peers at the
DMO CEO across the conference table. "What have you done for me
LATELY," is a much more common meetings mantra than yesterday's
"How can we create the future."
We're not saying that this is wrong. Demanding greater accountability
is actually a good thing for today's DMO. But the CEO that utilizes
traditional tactics or expectations with this new brand of Board will
find the sledding to be treacherous. And those that attempt to mold
these new-style Boards to the "way it was" will fail. It's
not the Board that must change but the CEO.
The knowledge that these Boards want results should power the CEO to
produce compelling, easy to read reports that outline key measurements.
Report on unique web visitors and visitor center stats if you must,
but today's Board wants impact. Reporting 6 conventions totalling 2,800
room nights is better. Reporting that these events will produce an economic
impact of $500,000 and room tax receipts of $10,500 is even better.
Because this new breed wants to see ROI. Because their bosses over the
years have demanded ROI. It's all they know...and what they now expect
as they emulate what they think their predecessors expected.
THE APPOINTED BOARD
While not necessarily the result of a changing culture in community
leaders, the DMO world seems increasingly plagued with Boards that are
predominantly appointed by others.
The "why" behind such a governance structure is easy: control.
Whether it is as innocent as a government believing that it has a fiduciary
responsibility to monitor the expenditures of public tax revenues or
as sinister as a Mayor wanting to pack the Board with friends that got
her elected, the result is rarely positive.
This should be simple. Board members that are appointed do not represent
the good of the organization or the destination. Board members that
are appointed represent the appointers. Thus, the appointed Board often
struggles to do "the right thing."
If it is the innocent belief that the organization must be monitored,
that can be best accomplished through a well-crafted contract for services.
In fact, like rock-scissors-paper, a good contract beats having your
appointee do your bidding...because sometimes they goof and don't vote
the way they've been told.
If it's nothing but a power thing, everybody involved needs a hobby.
Unless there is the ability to make money on DMO decisions (which would
be a conflict of interest), there should be no more motivation for one
to serve than to benefit the community at-large.
A few appointments are a good thing. One could even say desirable. They
can create informational liaisons with key governmental units and community
organizations, resulting in stronger co-operative relationships and
a furthering of joint goals. But, once a Board slips past the 50% level
in its appointments, it has effectively lost the ability to insure that
the Board is leading the organization.
In the Next Board From Hell:
The Weak Chair and the Plague of the Overbearing Committee.
|
|
