Elements of organisational policy

 

Policy-making is not a ‘paint-by-numbers‘ process. Being clear about the structural elements of an organisational policy however, helps both policy writers and users to focus their attention on the purposes served and outcomes sought from working within the policy guidance.

This post follows on from my two previous posts on Organisational Policy, and is effectively part 3 in a series. Having offered distinctions between governance policies and operational policies in the first article, the second referred readers to toolkits and templates which could provide them with sets of boilerplate policies, for them to customise according to their needs. (See links below).

Most non-profit policy development is undertaken by committees of volunteers, who rarely have any background in writing documents of this kind. Relatively few associations and charities have policy staff who have been selected for their expertise in policy writing.

I find that non-profit organisations generally welcome guidance on what policies they may need to improve their governance and/or operations, and how to construct and implement these policies and procedures.

A compact and very helpful outline of one policy ‘framework’ is offered by the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute. While intended to aid Indigenous people to “design pathways into the future that maximise their self- determination through effective, legitimate governance”, it references “world-class governance practice” relevant for all non-profit bodies.

Source: https://toolkit.aigi.com.au/

The chart below offers a comparison of four examples of policy structure drawn from quite different sources:

• the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute
• The University of Melbourne Policy Library
• Nancy Campbell’s book Writing Effective Policies and Procedures: a step-by-step resource for clear communication (Amacom,1998), and
• the Institute of Community Directors’ Policy Bank.

Noteworthy common elements are highlighted in the chart. These suggest the essence of all organisational policies, regardless of sector or entity type, while allowing additional elements according to the nature and needs of the organisation concerned.

https://bitly.ws/3gDv2

Continuous Reflective Governance

 I’d like to amplify some points made in my previous post, which argued that directors need to continuously monitor their internal and external circumstances.

The header image above illustrates the point that reflective governance requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation to determine new and emerging priorities (the EDM Governance Model), and that the data being analysed includes information about the outcomes and impact of the actions you determined earlier. It also includes updated information about the context in which your work is now being undertaken.

The following more detailed version of this chart drills down into the external and internal dimensions in which that data and analysis arise. In this chart I selected one analysis tool for each dimension: the SOSTAC model for internal monitoring, and the STEEPLE model for external environmental scanning. You can choose whatever models you like from the many that have been developed over the years. This chart simply illustrates how the selected models define a collection of domains or categories in which you intend to collect and analyse data relevant to your strategy and operations.

While my previous post highlighted the need to look at both internal and external environments, this version also recognises that the three main aspects of governance relate to past (monitoring), present (evaluating) and future (directing) time perspectives.

The DIKW knowledge management model has also been included to make the points that directors need to apply sound evidence standards, and to ‘sort the signal from the noise’. Raw data without robust analysis may lead to poor decisions based on ‘false signals’. Data and information from both external and internal environments need to be distilled through your monitoring activities, to inform your analyses and decisions.

Future posts will look at some possible free or low-cost data sources for internal and external monitoring. These posts will seek to illustrate some ways in which non-profit boards can source reliable and relevant information to inform their decision-making and direction setting.

Governance ‘lines of sight’

 

To avoid oversights, directors need to ensure effective oversight.

How ironic is it that a key governance term can have opposite meanings depending on the context in which it is used? ‘Oversight‘ is one of the roles of board directors, meaning they oversee (monitor) the implementation of the strategy they developed, along with the organisation’s performance and conformance. When things go wrong however, a common reason is that there was an ‘oversight’; something important wasn’t noticed by a responsible person or persons.

Oversight is one of the four ‘lines of sight’ commonly mentioned when discussing the roles of the board, with hindsight, foresight and insight completing the quartet. A ‘Backgrounder’ published by the Ontario Institute on Governance (NFP Governance Leadership: Creating a Culture of Accessibility) features valuable material on these lines of sight, and pages 8-12 are recommended reading for all directors (and managers).

The chart below is an adaptation of one devised by Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, which was his take on the ‘analytics continuum’, or maturity model, popularised by Gartner.

My additions allocate the four lines of sight to the analytic modes, methods and activities, while also overlaying the board roles according to the EDM governance model (Evaluate, Direct and Monitor).

Not-for-profit directors new to the role can sometimes assume that their agenda pack contains everything they need to do their job. By referring to these more subtle models, they may discover there are other questions they should be asking, and that additional analysis may be required for the board to add value for the organisation.

https://cutt.ly/86LFfGC