Thought of the fortnight: ‘What approaches have you used for governance reviews that have worked well?’

“I’ve used various approaches to governance reviews, and my main reflection is that every approach has its season and then you need to move on. Variety is important, as it keeps the approach fresh and maintains the engagement of those individuals who will have been involved in reviews before. So, mix up the methods and the people leading the review rather than try to adopt a fixed pattern.”

“I have contributed to peer-led governance reviews and benefited from them – i.e. where an AHUA colleague (individually or as part of a small panel) leads or participates in the governance review of another institution. As long as terms of reference are suitably focussed and the need for strict confidentiality is respected, I’ve found this to be a really valuable and efficient approach for light-touch review processes.”

“We alternate between reviews that focus on domestic arrangements (meeting scheduling, paper layout, venue preferences, reporting structures etc) and more thorny deeper dives into aspects of governance culture, behaviours and purpose.” This approach helps us avoid the perpetual reinvention of major governance structures and use the ‘downtime’ between major governance changes to fine-tune infrastructure and basics. There have been times when we are reviewing the changes before they have had a chance to settle in.”

“Think carefully about how and when to bring objective challenge into a review. Some questions are better probed by someone really objective and unconnected while other times it should be an existing leader who asks the questions (the Secretary, the VC, the Chair etc) and owns the agenda,”

“One of the most high-impact reviews we ever did was entirely paper-based. A forensic review of a full annual cycle of agenda and papers, minutes, attendance records, policies, committee member records etc. It really identified the issues not covered that maybe should have been. Imbalances with lengthy discussions on subject X and surface-level review of subject Y, the members who dominated discussions or shy away from them etc. We wouldn’t do this every time as there needs to be a cycle that captures people’s views and experiences and training needs and board style but I would recommend occasionally using the (comparatively efficient and high impact) desk-based review every few years.”

“ In my experience, it’s what you do with the review outcomes that’s more important than the review process itself. We sometimes use review outcomes for workshops, new training programs, changing our governance structure or cycle of business or to inform performance reviews for board members. Other times the outcomes are much more subtle and discreet.”

“There are loads of governance consultants out there charging various amounts and with various approaches. Some better than others. As with any consultancy, the magic is in the brief you give them. Be really clear about the aspects of governance you are focussing on, the money you have to spend (this will dictate the review methodology) and talk about the reason you are using a consultancy. Is it to bring candour and objectivity to the recommendations. Perhaps it is to gather evidence from elsewhere in the sector or outside the sector. Maybe it’s to secure some capacity you don’t have?”