Dec. 13, 2004


Comments

 
 
 
  • I think the final comment makes sense. In my view, Strategic Planning should be episodic along a developmental continuim - hence the need for dialogue. The current problems with Corporate Goverance arise because the roles of Board and Staff become distorted. This, unfortunately, is all too evident in the Credit Union Movement. The Board is the embodiment of the organisation that is created to serve the membership. The staff are the real people that execute the business. For example, when CEO's start appointing Boards, the relationships and hence the roles become distorted. Accountability is lost. It would be nice if there was a formulaic solution, in the meantime, Good Corporate Goverance will remain an art form.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • can not find office
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • The Carver Model needs more champions. Too many CU Boards have no clue how far off track they are, how little they're getting from CEO's they pay big bucks to, and how exciting it will be to put their efforts into more important things. One reason seems to be left-brain dominance among directors -- want to get into details and are not too happy with pure visioning or strategic issues because of the lag-time for feedback.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Thanks - very helpful to see how this is being used in the field.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Very timely article for me as a chairman and for our new ceo.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Policy Governance® is the only conceptually complete system of governance of which I am aware. The Carver model will be the perfect vehicle to further define appropriate benefit for what group and at what relative value or priorities that would clearly distinguish one credit union from another. More precisely than setting direction for the credit union, “ends” describes the intended benefit for the desired recipient and the priorities among competing forces. If the board has not effectively described the ends to distinguish the organization from similar credit unions or has not set sufficient limits on the conduct or means of the delegated staff, that is not the fault of the model, it is the need of the board to set as a strategic priority to get to work doing just that using the model to make it possible. The board is accountable to the membership for an entire credit union’s conduct, achievement, values, and destiny; a board has no choice but to exercise unambiguous control. Policy Governance is the tool to make that work effective. It works with organizations of all sizes, purposes and scope.
    Glen Peterson
     
     
     
  • Policy Governance® is the only conceptually complete system of governance. This is a good article that points to the value added of a board doing what it should for the Credit Union. If the board has not gone far enough to make distinct the ends of its own credit union or to satisfactorily limit the means allowable, it is not the fault of the model, but the board has not completed it work. This is part of the genius of the model: It works with organizations of all sizes, purposes and scope. The board can define any of those.
    Glen Peterson
     
     
     
 
Advertisement