| |
THE
BOARD FROM HELL (part 2)
Taken
from the Spring 2003 edition of the Zeitgeist Client Newsletter
It’s a sad commentary on our times that the response to last issue’s
first “Board from Hell”
article resonated so clearly with so many Zeitgeist readers. But that
it did insures that BFH will become a regular column.
Here’s our next few rants on the state of board governance gone
bad....
THE WEAK CHAIR.
At first glance, many CEOs would lick their lips at the thought of a
weak Board Chairman. After all, if the Chair isn’t directing traffic,
the CEO can pretty much run the show.
However, the Weak Chair Syndrome can present a significant downside.
For example:
The CEO has a successful track record. Bookings are up. Public opinion
of the organization is high. But, there are 4 members of the Board that
are listening to a malcontent on staff that has a bone to pick and claims
to have “the dirt” on the CEO.
At the same time, there are 14 members of the Board that know that this
staffer is no good and have already rejected the rogue faction’s
request to discuss personnel issues at the next Board meeting...twice.
It’s time for the Board Chair to take control.
But it’s a Weak Chair. One that wants to be everybody’s
friend. One that won’t take a stand. One that inevitably, through
inaction, causes the rogue faction to believe they can maneuver without
fear of consequence. They take matters into their own hands and go to
the media, plant a seed of doubt and elicit a story questioning the
effectiveness of (not just the CEO but) the entire organization.
Way to go, boys and girls.
But it’s not the rogue faction that should be blamed here. While
they clearly didn’t have the organization’s interests at
heart as they initiated their witch-hunt, it’s the Weak Chair’s
fault.
The successful organization demands strong leadership...which begins
with a strong Chair. In the absence of a strong leader, there has to
be, at the very least, a strong set of officers to pick up the slack.
And, it’s not just important for “Homeland Defense.”
Without strong leadership, the organization will be hard pressed to
advance tourism development strategies, be it strengthening the organization
or enhancing the infrastructure.
As governance guru John Carver opines in “Boards
That Make a Difference," the Nominating Committee
is the most important of all potential Board Committees. The reason
is clear: if it doesn’t seek out and land strong leadership, the
organization (and the destination) abdicates its responsibility to the
community and squanders its impact on an expectant industry.
THE “OVER-BOARD” COMMITTEE.
The Board that likes to appoint and populate Committees can be a huge
thorn for DMOs.
Don’t read this wrong. Committees are a crucial component for
a DMO that expects to be successful both at home and in the marketplace.
Just not Committees that contain Board members...and here’s why:
Boards of Directors exist to set direction and policy for an organization.
If it needs to study an issue in depth, it can appoint a sub-sect of
its members to do just that. But, for the most part, Boards should discuss
and decide issues as one.
But what about the committees that can bring great ideas and competitive
intelligence to the sales and marketing processes of a DMO staff? Such
committees can provide incredible value to the organization on a number
of fronts.
Beyond suggesting great ideas and voicing important support for programs
that the staff is contemplating, advisory committees provide an opportunity
for member and/or industry partners to feel connected to their DMO.
Advisory Committees also provide a wonderful feeder system for future
Board candidates.
So, the Committee from Hell? It’s the one that is appointed by
the Board to review and “advise” on the new Marketing campaign.
The committee that is Chaired by a Board member. And, not just any Board
member...but a hotelier that is thinking only of themselves, and not
the destination as a whole.
The result? It’s not an “Advisory” Committee anymore.
In fact, it’s not a committee. It’s the Board member’s
private support system.
And, the staff is just as conflicted. Are they receiving a “suggestion”
from the Committee...or a thinly veiled “expectation” from
the Board member? If it’s the latter, this is exactly why Board
involvement on advisory committees is so dangerous. Boards (and Board
members) should not be directing staff programming.
Board members on Board Committees? Si.
Board members on advisory committees? No way, Jose.
|
|
