I've realized that my book opinions are subject to my stylistic tastes. Since Robinson writes in graceful prose, I'm more ammenable to her thoughts, especially in comparison to the condescending The Policy Governance Fieldbook. Robinson is able to inspire and I enjoy how intimate her book feels. In keeping with the mentality of my previous reviews (a personal memory aid for impressions and notes) this will be extremely boring for anyone who hasn't read the book, and still moderately boring for anyone who has.
Since Maureen Robinson offered her email in her "About the Author", I did in fact send some fan mail. I did not share any of the more critical thoughts below though. She's a women consultant, she probably gets uninvited criticism all the time.
This chapter was useful contextualizing for a novice like me. It justifies the existence of boards with the following arguments: to safeguard the trust of the owners, to represent diverse stakeholders (although I'm not convinced that one representative from each demographic would be effective in doing so), and for advocacy (although for the purposes of fundraising, which is SO weird. It will never not be weird to me).
This chapter could be read as a veiled criticism of Carver. If so, I've found it unsuccessful, especially since boards are striving for a "uniformly high level of competence".
Speaks to the phenomenon of treating an offer to be on a board as an apologetic favour. I liked the reframing! I need to start treating QM more like this. I enjoyed how this section talked about the legal componenent (something I had little knowledge of, but is fascinating!), duty of obedience (making sure the organization doesn't stray from its purpose), duty of care (diligence in monitoring) and duty of loyalty (acting in the stakeholders' best interests). Robinson talks about how artifically induced diversity on a board can be essential for the board's symbolic value. I feel diversity should be strived for because it enhances the competency of the board, rather than just its symbolic value, so I wasn't enamored with this argument.
In this section, I'm pretty sure Robinson used Bob's Rules as a nickname for Robert's Rules. Is that a crazy assumption? Is Bob's Rules a whole other set of rules? She introduced the empty vessel theory, which I hadn't heard of but I thought was clever. It's the idea that the contents of meetings are contrived to fill the time allotted to meetings, but it should be the other way around! I was also exposed to the "attempt to use rules to circumvent or trump an opponent" philosophy, which I have heard before but still don't understand. Rules were created to ensure a larger set of values remain in operation - if you trump an adversary with rules, then your adversary is breaching the rules and should stop doing that before continuing on with their point. There seems to be a fear of presuming accidental rule-breakers are malicious, but I imagine strong rule-abiders are also rarely malicious. Robinson, like Carver, is wary of making the board do menial work, but instead makes a distinction in importance (which in her definition is essentially ends), scale, and consequences. This seems reasonable to me, although there was a lack of insight on how these three criteria interact with each other. Robinson advocated for a consistent formation and reformation of committees, which I agreed with - you don't want to have a standing committee trying to fill time. As a last note, Robinson used the phrase "innocent of any thought" which I enjoyed.
This section was funny - Robinson was like, board members are financially illiterate, guys. We can't do maths. Please make your finances easier to understand. She stresses the importance of no stupid questions, which makes sense - as a board member, part of your duty of care is understanding what you approve. The fund raising part of this chapter was insane though. It makes the criteria of board members their social standing and wealth. Why are paid employees not doing this? Why force the board to spend time on this arduous task? Surely this drives away so many intelligent members!
Interesting, although I've heard this stuff before in other group dynamic analysis. I think being consciously aware of culture is half the battle. You want to be purposeful and reflective.
I didn't agree with this section, and I was disappointed in Robinson, who I had been finding so sympathetic! I just didn't understand her argument at all. I knew it was going to be a rough chapter at the mention of a tango metaphor and the phrase "an ability to communicate clearly, sometimes subtly, throughout the course of the dance". What if you created a clear distinction that did not rely on subtle tango dancing skills! This is my new metaphor for neurotypicals. Robinson says the relationship is complex and perplexing, with the question "who is in charge?" I didn't falter at answering: the board. What if we put the board in charge? I don't think the relationship needs to be perplexing. Robinson gets pretty close to cursing out policy governance with "governance versus management implies inherent opposition and creates artifical boundaries". I think authority can alleviate interpersonal tensions, and I'm not sure why the creation of boundaries is negative. Although a common complaint of Carver is that it cedes too much authority to the chair, giving the chair unfettered influence over the board is an even larger risk.
God, this chapter was dull. Super self-evident. I didn't need a governance consultant to tell me to make the time if I said yes to being on a board.
A bit of a weak note to end on - I found it repetitive and am not interested in recruitement. I do concede it's probably interesting to readers who are, you know, on actual boards and stuff.