Being the leader of any organization is never easy. On one level, leading an organization requires an ability to source from across the organization those elements that can be synthesized into a clear and compelling vision for where the organization is heading. In parallel with defining a vision, a leader must inspire a cultural framework that combines a commitment to performance and belonging that support the never-ending journey towards the organization’s vision.
Thinking about leadership in this way makes it easy for an article — like this story about a Superintendent from a major urban city school district who recently resigned — to grab my attention.
Despite the fair amount of detail shared in the story, there’s no way I or anyone other than this leader and her board members can speak to the details that may have led to the Superintendent’s departure. However, whenever I read about a situation like this, I reflect on how I’ve always viewed the relationship between an organization’s leader and their board. I believe that there’s a simple set of ideas that are fundamental to ensuring a strong partnership can be developed between a leader and their board.
First, it’s good to remember that the board hires (and therefore has the authority to fire) the CEO. The CEO’s boss is the board and that’s the simple fact even if nobody around the table specifically utters this reality, or if a formal “performance review” process is never put in place. (On this latter point, there’s a wide range of how CEOs might think about performance reviews. Simply put, don’t expect a formal performance review like those the rest of your team navigates one to two times a year. Think of every board meeting as your performance review.)
Second, the CEO runs the company, not the board. By “run” I’m talking about the CEO’s responsibility to play point in developing the company’s plan. This plan includes the organization’s vision, mission, and values, as well as a cogent set of goals and that development of a corresponding strategic operating plan that further defines where the organization is heading. Any time a board finds itself doing this work (other than providing feedback and perspective on the plan developed by the CEO and her/his team), something’s out of whack. Either the board (or specific members) have stepped outside the scope of their role, or the CEO is not doing their job.
Finally, how should an organization’s leader and board address any disconnect — either in the form of how a CEO and the board see the organization’s future path, the results to date versus this plan, or both? These questions about assessment speak to why it’s vital that a leader and the board establish clear commitments to objectivity, trust, and communication.
Objectivity is about looking at the goals that the company has set out and assessing how the CEO and board feel about whether the company has achieved these goals. For example, either a revenue goal was achieved or it wasn’t. Either a product was developed and launched in the timeframe committed to or it wasn’t. There’s no room for subjectivity in how a CEO and board view performance versus plan. When an organization doesn’t achieve its goals when measured objectively, the elements of trust and communication serve to strengthen the partnership between a leader and their board.
Trust defines the quality of the the relationship that exists between the organization’s leader and her/his board. Do the board members trust the CEO to craft a vision and strategic path for the company? Do the board members trust the CEO to build the team and instill a culture that gives the company the best chance to succeed? Do the board members trust the CEO to “field command” and adjust course when the environment surrounding the company adversely impacts the organization’s plan, and therefore requires that changes be considered. (I have no doubt that here have been many examples of this scenario playing out between leaders and boards in 2020.) And what about trust in the other direction? It’s crucial for the leader to trust that their board members will be there with support, ideas, experience, and a willingness to leverage their networks when the company needs it? Further, the leader must trust that the board will be open-minded and supportive of changes that she/he proposes when new realities come into view that alter the plan of record.
Communication is about staying connected and sharing feedback with each other, especially as an organization’s “actuals vs. plan” play out. Board meetings are the key setting for this, but so too are conversations and updates between board meetings. The best CEOs communicate when needed — always mindful that the board doesn’t need play-by-play updates of what’s going on at the company. At the same time, the best board members know how many moving parts an organization’s leader is juggling at any given time and therefore appreciate that there’s an optimal cadence to communication with the CEO.
It’s indeed sad to see a leader resign from an organization particularly when, based on what’s shared publicly, I get the sense that something was amiss between the leader and the board. Perhaps the undercurrent that created the departure could have been avoided if the CEO and board where better aligned around their respective roles and responsibilities. Even with such alignment, however, departures can still occur if objectivity, trust, and/or communication don’t underpin how leaders and boards partner.
Originally published on Medium on November 23, 2020. This Substack version is maintained as the canonical archive.