John A. Rose Consulting

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON SPECIFIC TERRITORIAL SUBGROUPS THEIR INTERSTITIAL RELATIONSHIPS; MANAGEMENT OF TERRITORIAL MARKING

2011-12-28T08:40:00.000-08:00

By John A. Rose, MPA

Criminal Justice Program Chair

Kaplan College

Southeast Indianapolis

January 2012

General Observation and Relationships

Relationships among those who live and work close together in groups are often very complicated. This is also true of groups residing in close proximity and within a larger society.

Studies of both imprisoned well as at large group members shows that complex rules of behavior govern the way members relate to each other. As well, their methods used to communicate with fellow group members are quite elaborate.

Members travel and work most effectively in a group and perform almost all other activities in the company of fellow members.

The group is the basic unit of social life. Groups may have only a few members or be quite large. Size varies and depends on many variables including the current numbers of the total population in an area, the abundance of opportunity, and social factors within the group itself.

Members may be related to each other by blood and family ties or affection as well a through the mutual aid they are willing to show one another.

Members range in age from early adolescence to mature adults.

Within groups are generally an elaborate hierarchy consisting of a leader (alpha male) and perhaps a female, a lower group consisting of “drones”, each with its own pecking order, a group of outcasts or followers, and a group of immature members who are in the process of learning as well as aspiring to learn.

On occasion, albeit rare, a member may leave his or her cluster to find available territory to set up and lead a new group or to find others with whom to associate.

Individual members play different roles in relation to the others in the group. Often, the leader, if not the oldest, is the member with the most experience in persevering, defending territory, and other important activities.

Members generally respect the leadership position and are willing to follow their leader. The leaders make decisions for the gang particularly when to leave an area or move from one place to another.

Members who are inferior to the leader - but who have a strong relationship with the leader - have special roles. Some of these “teacher’s pets” are permitted to "boss around” or dominate others because they have established themselves as having a special connection to the leader.

Others establish subordinate level of superiority because they are physically larger or have greater strength or power. A member with an aggressive and forceful personality often results in others allowing themselves to be dominated, this, a leaning toward being superior can also be based on personality.

Younger immature members do not occupy permanent positions within the hierarchy. They are a sort of member-in-training or a “wanna be” who still take orders from their superior members. However; individual relationships among these “wanna be’s” will change frequently. During their play and other activities, they are constantly testing one another to find out who will eventually be leader in their subordinate group.

Group members can be seen from an “Atavism” (return to the original habitat such as the caveman) point of view in that, even with the encroachment of the city and urban populations, they are not far removed from their wild roots with an instinctual urge or trait to stake a claim.

Territorial marking is a very common behavior among group members. This can be compared to spray painting walls, trees, trains, trucks, etc. Members mark their territories mainly to let others know that their area is already occupied or they are knowingly encroaching on other neighborhoods. If other rival group members go into an occupied territory, it usually leads to fights to defend the territory.

Unless attacking, a group’s territory will not overlap with other territories. Members may not mind a non-competitor travelling through their territory any more than you or I objecting to a bird resting on our house or a squirrel in our yard. However, presence of another rival member violates a sense of ownership.

In general, the majority society would rather not have this behavior of marking in their neighborhoods. Stopping the activity is problematic and requires teaching reinforcing the idea of where and when it is unacceptable to write, carve, letter, mark, spray, stain, paint, etch, hue, or engrave. As well, research suggests that the activity will cease once members are no longer in competition for resources which includes members of the opposite sex.

My mind considers inner-city murals which seem to go unmolested by gang members. So, it makes sense that reduction of territorial marking requires positive reinforcement. To that extent one must understand what “floats a member’s boat”. We need to consider that what is rewarding and pleasurable and present those incentives when there is a ceasing of marking territories or, at least, doing so at an appropriate time and place.

Increasing the number and frequency of observation opportunities, e.g., keeping a closer eye on the members is a useful strategy. It is best to catch a member in the act since punishment after the act is not very effective.

I have often seen volunteers removing graffiti from walls, businesses, and highway overpasses soon after it appears. Likewise, clean up is very important otherwise it serves as a signal that such actions are permissible. Simply masking the marking, such as painting over graffiti, may not be a good idea and could make the behavior worse. Any markings must be eradicated.

The frequency of territorial marking increases with stress such as competition, new groups, presence or absence of the opposite sex, resource availability, etc. If society can determine what and where the underlying problem may be, territorial marking behavior will be resolved much quicker.

Territorial marking is for dominance. Property owners and other stakeholders should strive to be in control and become the dominant leader.

Conclusion

Relationships are often very complicated among those living in close proximity among themselves and a larger society.

In sum, groups behave as predicted by Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. Michels’ theory on the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” suggests that efforts to organize invariably result in an oligarchy (small group exercising control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes).

This author has personally observed this behavior in the highest levels of government, among the largest and smallest proprietary and non-profit leadership, among the most virtuous affinity-based leaders, as well as in the behavior of gangs in the inner cities as well as suburbs.

Group members learn to organize, cooperate, and communicate in their own unique methods regardless whether in a captive or at-large environment. Members also learn their survival skills and other essentials from one another.

Being able to manage the group can be problematic. It pretty much boils down to proper surveillance, clean up of territorial markings, realigning leadership and control, resolving resource concerns, as well as identifying and exploring other underlying issues.

DISCLOSURE: The foregoing article was modified from various reference materials dealing with wolves and their pack behavior as well as articles on how to stop your domesticated dog from urinating in the house.

Minor grammar and word changes have been affected to replace “wolf pack” with “group” and “wolves” with “members”. When a specific age has been used with respect to wolves, it was converted to a recognized Human:Dog ratio. Other trivial modifications to effectuate this comparison were made however do not modify the theme of the articles.

THE NEW SCHOOL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

2011-12-05T22:59:00.001-08:00

THE NEW SCHOOL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
By
John A. Rose, MPA
Chairman, Criminal Justice Department
Kaplan College
Southeast Indianapolis, Indiana

John A. Rose is currently chair of the Criminal Justice Department with Kaplan College in Southeast Indianapolis. He has a Bachelors degree in Criminal justice and a Masters degree in Public Administration with emphasis on finance and policy; both from the University of California at Los Angeles. His law enforcement experience began in Los Angeles County with the City of Pasadena in 1967. He has worked in patrol, accident investigation, vice, narcotics, crimes against persons and property, domestic violence, and planning and research. He is an active member of the American College of Forensic Examiner's International (ACFEI). Having worked with group homes for dependent children and communities serving the elderly, Mr. Rose's life work can be summed up as a passion to teach and to protect, particularly the frail elderly and dependent children.

“It occurs to me that the emblems on our hats, and the badges on our chests, correspond eerily with the kill zones on a practice target such as those we see at the firing range.”

The Rule of Law

Because this article refers to the “Rule of Law”, we must define it properly. Scholars have spent centuries examining this issue. The rule of law is a concept older than the Western civilization. In classical Greece Aristotle wrote that "law should be the final sovereign; and personal rule, whether it be exercised by a single person or a body of persons, should be sovereign in only those matters which law is unable, owing to the difficulty of framing general rules for all contingencies." In sum, no one is above the law; not even any branch of government, be it federal, state, or local.

Am I from the “old school”?

I wonder if I am from what some would call, “the old school”. I entered the field of law enforcement in Los Angeles County on the heels of the Watts Riots in Los Angeles and just before the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration [LEAA] under the Federal Department of Justice was born. I came aboard just as scientific scrutiny was being brought to bear on many of the guiding assumptions of police work. The LEAA was abolished in 1982 because of a failure to appropriate funds.

It is hard to think of myself as “old school”. In my era, the LEAA's Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) helped thousands of officers pay for a college education. LEEP was a new idea under the LEAA which provided funds to develop criminal justice programs in colleges and universities across the nation.

Tools and Technology

I suppose we are all, at one time or another, the new school. I was the new breed of cop at a time when technological innovations, such as computers and modern communications devices, changed the ways in which police kept records and communicated with one another.

I thought I was in the new school when the “teletype” system of automated wants and warrants and communications through pneumatic tubes improved the way we could communicate quickly.

It appears, today anyway, I am of the old school since the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) contains nearly 30 million records and connects over a half million users in nearly 20,000 federal, state, and local agencies.

I thought I was in the new school when I discovered I could classify a fingerprint on paper and compare it with old booking forms manually sorted by that classification.

I am old school since today we can compare fingerprints over massive databases in just seconds and make comparisons within a national or even worldwide jurisdiction.

I thought I was of the new school because we could use the breathalyzer machine and even had one in the police station. This replaced a balloon that drivers suspected of being under the influence would blow up. We could even get blood drawn or urine samples at a local hospital and refer the specimen to a laboratory for analysis and comparative identification.

I have become old school because DNA typing now plays a central role in identification of suspects. Being able to quickly eliminate suspects saves police agencies much time and money. Where there would have to a suspect available for comparison in the old school, today there only needs to be a sample to make a positive comparison provided there has been a prior sample taken and stored. The FBI opened a national DNA database in 1998 consisting of databases from states but unified by common testing procedures as well as software designed by the FBI. So in this new school, it is now possible to compare a DNA sample from a suspect or crime scene in one state with all others in the system

Even the way crimes are reported has taken a dramatic change. Clearly I am of a former school. Even as I write this; a groundbreaking crime-fighting tool is about to be released: A Smartphone application (“app”) called M-Urgency. Using GPS, police will also be able to see exactly where the phone is that is sending a distress signal. By pushing one button, a local 911 center would receive audio and video from a cell phone. This app has been developed by researchers at the University of Maryland and is considered "the first of its kind in the world." In sum, the app is a virtual police guardian because the video and audible signals are transferred to responding officers through computers in police cars.

I thought I was the new school because I had a .38 caliber handgun, a shot gun, a pair of handcuffs, a straight baton, and CN (tear gas; whose use fell by the wayside because pepper spray works faster and disperses more quickly).

I guess I was old school. A called my son, a Deputy Sheriff in Los Angeles County, and asked him to describe to me what tools and equipment are at the immediate disposal of a Deputy Sheriff.

At his disposal are a 9mm Beretta, Model 92F, a semi-automatic handgun and at least 2 extra clips of 15 rounds, at least 2 sets of handcuffs, a handheld radio, Pepper Spray, a Taser Gun, and a baton; all on his gun belt. He has a choice of baton styles but must have a PR-24 side-handled baton) available for use. His flashlight can shine from here to the moon.

My son advises that “some old guys” still carry the old, straight, wooden baton in their trunks too. Even his gloves are more sophisticated, having soft Kevlar on the palm and hard-molded covering over the knuckles to protect him from scrapes and bruising when climbing trees, going over fences, and biting dogs.

He also has the trusty shotgun but he has a stun-bag for less-than-lethal projectiles (like hard bean-bags) and a "pepper-ball gun" which fires projectiles like paint-balls but with pepper, water, or a fluorescent marking dye. He also has available "spike-strips" which slide out into the road ahead of vehicles being pursued. Some deputies, generally sergeants, are authorized to carry AR-15 rifles in their vehicles and may deploy when needed.

My son also carries what is called a "ready bag"; basically a duffel bag or suitcase-like carrier for forms, papers, extra ammunition, more handcuffs, special occasion jackets, gloves, inclement weather gear, hats, changes of clothing, and a host of other potential necessities. Finally he must wear a department issues ballistic vest. What kind of father – or author - would I be if I did not tell you that, as he says, “No more John Wayne, like you dad”.

Just one example of today’s tools is a heat detector that can be pointed at a neighborhood from a helicopter to detect higher temperatures in houses where artificial lights are used to grow marijuana. Another example is the intelligent transportation system with traffic management technologies, including crash-avoidance systems, automated toll collection, and satellite-based position location.

These innovations give us pause to consider civil rights when they can be used to track the movement of anyone using private or public transportation as well as those who carry cellular phones. For instance, Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar who was wanted in connection with drug trafficking crimes was located through his cellular phone.

In another example, the Ionscan 400B is a machine that analyzes microscopic particles picked up by wiping a sterile cloth across a surface. Police in Utah have been using the Ionscan to wipe exterior doorknobs, and then, if illicit drugs show up, use the evidence found to obtain a search warrant. In three federal court rulings, Utah judges as well as judges in the Virgin Islands have split on the legality of doorknob tests. Whether or not this violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures seems to be headed for the US appeals courts and probably the Supreme Court.

Law Enforcement Styles

I thought I was of a new school that sought to employ zero-based budgeting as a daring new management practice, gave difficult written civil service examinations, and required significant physical agility and prowess of its successful applicants. There was a height and weight requirement and some of us had to strive to meet these qualifications.

I am the old school since today we dare to explore some fantastical ideas. For instance, and sadly in my opinion, the Chicago Police Department seriously considered scrapping the police entrance exam to bolster hiring, save millions of dollars on test development, and avoid costly legal issues that seemed to follow the examination process. This begs the question about what to do with the candidate that cannot pass a reading comprehension test.

In another example, the Dallas Police Department recently made changes to its hiring rules to relax standards related to drug use. Whereas, some limited past marijuana use was allowed, the new policy would allow the department to hire applicants who have used cocaine and heroin on an experimental basis in the distant past.

There is an age-old question if art imitates life or whether life imitates art. Likewise, should employment practices seek the very best of us or should it seek those who embrace the changing values of society?

I thought I was of the new school since we were asked to move away from the old “watchman” style of law enforcement and embrace “community policing”. The Watchman style can be viewed as the old Irish cop, walking his foot beat, who knew all his people, was welcome to the apple on the vendor’s cart, whose rules (like a Sheppard) were law and not to be broken.

In my era, law enforcement began a new phase in its evolution. In addition to protecting people from themselves and others, we struggled through new issues like Vietnam and civil rights issues and their resulting protests.

I am old school in the sense that local police today must serve and protect against potential terrorist threats with international roots.

The Political Mood

I was there in the 1970’s and 1980‘s when the political mood of the country seemed to turn conservative and crime control dominated the agenda of public safety. I watched as this agenda permitted experimenting with programs designed to control crime. The new science of law enforcement emerged with statistical evaluations of programs such as school resource officers, extra police patrols in hot spots, repeat offender units that monitor repeat offenders on the streets, regional collaborative efforts such as Los Angeles County’s Northeast Regional Burglary Investigation Team (NERBIT), formation of domestic violence teams, and the rethinking of unsuccessful programs which failed to reduce violent crime or disorder for more than a few days.

A Disciplined Group?

I thought I was the product of a new school of disciplined cops. We were, for the most part, disciplined during our on-duty shifts. Admittedly, we were a bit unruly amongst ourselves when off-duty. We confined our choir practices and private parties to the top of parking structures on early weekend mornings, wooded areas, and our own homes. I was not the worst-of-the-worse; but, as my old partners would testify - I think - I did enjoy my family in blue as we unwound at these gatherings.

In fairness, and since time immemorial, law enforcement personnel sometimes make poor use of their working tools. I thought I was part of the new school of police. We could emulate television by-the-book personalities of actors on programs like Dragnet, Adam 12, and the original Hawaii 5-0.

Whom can our new and yet-to-be cops emulate when they watch pseudo-accurate programming such as CSI, NCIS, 24, and Hawaii 5-0 just to name a few? These programs are well researched in terms of technology but abound with civil rights violations and instant gratifications.

Empirically, it seems there are fewer and fewer role models for the new breed to emulate. Perhaps the problems of less-than-best practices of law enforcement personnel are no larger than when I was considered of the new school. Perhaps the issue is just more widely communicated. More than ever before, the media is able to gather and disseminate information speedily and broadly. Police violations of the Rule of Law in a local area can now attract nationwide attention.

For instance, who was a Gallatin County Sheriff in Mississippi emulating when, in January of 2010, he solicited a murder for hire along with his wife and 20-year-old son. In the same month and year, who was a Dallas Texas police officer emulating when he sent nude photos of himself to a high school student during school hours? Who was a Minneapolis police SWAT team member emulating when he orchestrated the takeover-style robbery of a suburban bank? Who were a Tooele, Utah police lieutenant and his detective wife emulating in November of 2009 when driving while drunk and sexually harassing another couple?

“Only the tools have changed”

My idea of the old school was the era of the slightly overweight white haired Irish cop who thought nothing of taking an apple from the cart of the vendor assigned to his foot beat (an ethical question for CJ 101 students). In fact, the vendor would be unhappy if the cop did not take the apple. This was a time when one could be content being just a good cop. One was not demeaned or considered less than he or she was if there was no aspiration to be promoted or pursue college degrees.

Pride hasn’t changed. I remember as a police cadet driving my old Studebaker to work and trying to get my shoulder patch placed just above the window of my car so other drivers might see my police emblem but not the cadet patch. This was a time when we were proud to be among America’s finest.

This was a time when uniform police officers were required, when out of the car, to wear their hat (or a helmet if circumstances dictated). We were expected to be and act professional and honor the badge we wore over our hearts.

It occurs to me that the emblems on our hats and the badges on our chests correspond eerily with the kill zones on a practice target such as those we see at the firing range.

This bizarre analogy serves as an unchanging reminder – an axiom – that the emblems of authority can weigh one down so mightily that he or she becomes an easy target. The weight of these same emblems can force us to thrust our heads back, puff out our chests, and expose us to the greatest of harm.

Art should imitate life and not vice-versa. We don’t need to imitate the pseudo-accurate television actors and their frequent cocky puffed up attitudes, civil rights violations, and instant gratifications.

There is another aspect of law enforcement that should never change. Although law enforcement’s tools have changed, what has not is the fact that law enforcement agencies in this country are, or should be, defined by the communities they serve.

Conclusion and the Next School

There really is no new school. There is just the NEXT SCHOOL and this next school must adopt, use, and respect new technologies. It must include properly trained and appropriately compensated professional law enforcement personnel. The emphasis on training must not only be on strength and intelligence. It must address wisdom and the rule of law.

The next school and its management should honor every one of its members equally. This school must go (to borrow a phrase) back to the future where its personnel are defined by their communities.

The next school must learn to strike a balance between being so humble or so cocky that we endanger ourselves, threaten our lives, and endanger the public.

THE INFLUENCE OF OLIGARCHY IN GOVERNANCE

2010-07-03T03:45:00.000-07:00

As said in an earlier BLOG, I am writing a book. Having both served as a board member and worked for Boards of Directors of non-profit charitable organizations for nearly 30 years, having studied organizational theory and management, and after reading many books and articles on governance, seldom could I find anything beyond theory and the ideal.

This book, "CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS" will be unique with chapters having one or more "lessons" and either a discussion or a specific case study in support of the lesson.

As I shared earlier, I will summarize a chapter from time-to-time for the reader’s interest, edification, and to stimulate interest or discussion. A number of colleagues have contributed situations in support of these lessons. If, as a practicing executive reporting to a board of directors (proprietary or non-profit), or as a board member you wish inclusion, please don't hesitate to send me particulars of a situation or circumstance together with what you learned.

Unless with permission; I will not use a contributor's name or position, nor the name or position of any board member.

The following is a summary of Chapter XII of "CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS".

Lesson 17

Whoever says “organization” says “Oligarchy” [1]

Oligarchy: a small group of people who, together, control or govern an organization, often for their personal purposes.

Here we must become a bit academic. The subject deserves it. The revelation of oligarchy within boards of directors is so potentially inflammatory that some accurate reference is required (there is plenty). The use of Robert Michaels’ Political Parties written in 1911 is a particular treat.

Michaels was a French socialist and Sociologist. He postulated that, overtime; an institution would become more important than the mission of the organization.

It was Michaels who first said, “Whoever says organization says oligarchy”. His position, in sum, suggests that groups (like boards of directors) construct (intentionally or through charisma) smaller internal groups that may challenge the whole group’s mission.

Such a small, self-serving group of people, who achieved positions of power and responsibility, is allowed to govern the larger group. How they obtain, retain, and exercise such authority is less often by election than by the oligarchy’s strength, power, persuasion, charisma, or the weakness or lack of interest of the remaining members.

In some large organizations this absorption of authority can occur because governing members cannot assemble together every time a major decision is warranted. If not elected to do so, a small group will take the reins and responsibility of doing so.

Michaels suggested that leaders in this oligarchy would ultimately become captivated with personal status and, at the end of the day, support and advance ideas that represent their maintenance of personal standing rather than the mission of the organization they are supposed to serve.

This evolution of an oligarchy is not an absolute. Although difficult to do so, it can be prevented. It will behoove the CEO to watch for the emergence of those who believe themselves more essential than the mission itself and separated from those with whom they are to serve.

Case Study “The March of an Oligarchy”

The new CEO of a corporation was employed to replace a well-respected and pretty much laissez-faire-type CEO who had been in various responsible positions in the corporation for 30 years.

The board of directors advertised for a candidate who could provide proactive leadership, and claiming to desire change and progress. After presenting such a case for their ideal candidate, a small but powerful group within continued to cling to the “old ways”.

The new CEO, in open session, was applauded for his leadership; however, in private, vetoed by those board members who were of the oligarchy. Those not part of the oligarchy quietly acquiesced [the act of quiet acquiescence would itself be an interesting study].

The new CEO represented and proposed change. The majority commented positively, “We have gotten what we asked for”. The smaller oligarchy, those long-in-the-tooth veterans, and those who sought admission into the oligarchy, saw their influence waning to this newcomer. To that end, quiet one-on-one “advisory” conversations took place.

So, what now?

To avoid the negative effects of such an oligarchy, the CEO must do all he can to make sure that senior staff remain active in the organization.

1. Keep open lines of communication.

2. Be sure that responsible senior staff is involved in research and alternative formation.

3. Keep all your directors fully informed and involved in decision-making.

4. When a member asks a question in private, announce what a good question it is and answer it for all the members.

5. When a board member holds his question until the meeting, he has either not read the advance materials or is posturing for his peers. In this event, answer for all in attendance or, if you are unsure, advise the board that the question is certainly a good one and you will research the answer and communicate it with the next mailing, by e-mail, along with the minutes, or with the next agenda.

As long as there are open lines of communication and involvement of all responsible staff and board members, an oligarchy cannot easily develop.

[1] Robert Michaels’ “Political Organizations” Turin, Italy 1911

Summary of Chapter VIII. CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS by John A. Rose

2010-06-24T06:24:00.000-07:00

As said in an earlier BLOG, I am writing a book. Having both served as a board member and worked for Boards of Directors of non-profit charitable organizations for nearly 30 years, having studied organizational theory and management, and after reading many books and articles on governance, seldom could I find anything beyond theory and the ideal.
This book, "CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS" will be unique with chapters having one or more "lessons" and either a discussion or a specific case study in support of the lesson.

As I shared earlier, I will summarize a chapter from time-to-time for the reader’s interest, edification, and to stimulate interest or discussion. A number of colleagues have contributed situations in support of these lessons. If, as a practicing executive reporting to a board of directors (proprietary or non-profit), or as a board member you wish inclusion, please don't hesitate to send me particulars of a situation or circumstance together with what you learned.

Unless with permission; I will not use a contributor's name or position, nor the name or position of any board member.

The following is a summary of Chapter VIII of "CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS".

The lesson

A CEO must define and communicate- in written board policies - the term “Confidentiality”.

Background

Sometimes, just writing the word “confidential” can be an exciting flag and an invitation to let others know that there is a secret that cannot be told. Board members who cannot or will not honor the confidentiality of a matter do the corporation a serious disservice.

It is human nature to want to share a secret. Likewise, it is human nature to want others to entice or even compel a discreet revelation under the same promise of confidentiality. Although it may be human nature, it is just not professional to do so.

You will be required to share confidentialities with board members who would discipline you for doing otherwise. Yet, because it is human nature, and because we are all human, you can bet breaches of confidentiality will happen from time-to-time.

Case Study (subtitled, “Flushing out a mole”)

Confidential information distributed to board members by the CEO through U.S. mail as well as e-mail is coming back to the CEO through persons not affiliated with the board of directors and with surprising accuracy. In fact, on some occasions, a confidential document is shown to the CEO by an antagonist as a way to prove, in mocking fashion, his ability to obtain such information.

The CEO shared his observations with the Chairman who has shown he can be genuinely trusted. The chairman admonishes the directors; however, the leaks persist.

Actions Taken

There is little more irritating and perplexing than a “mole” serving on the board of directors. I hope no CEO must ever resort to the following method of flushing out a mole.

If you do, do so quietly but with uninvolved witnesses who are themselves trustworthy. Then, be very careful with the information you learn.

The action taken by the CEO in this circumstance was to report certain events to the Board of Directors which would usually require a confidential more detailed report.

With assistance from two trusted but uninvolved persons unrelated to the corporation, the CEO prepared 20 reports clearly marked, “confidential”. Each appeared to be an identical copy of an original report; however, one page of each report had a distinguishing mark embedded in a footnote reference. That distinguishing mark was indexed to each recipient. The report was mailed directly from the post office and with a witness in attendance.

Within the week, the corporation’s chief financial officer, who had not been included in the distribution, advised the CEO that he had received a copy of the confidential report mailed earlier. That copy was obtained from a person not affiliated with the directors, Mr. “CP”.

The CEO showed the chief financial officer the unique mark together with the index of unique marks and asked that officer to share what he had seen with CP.

Within two days, without any follow-up report by the CEO, the person whose name was indexed to the unique mark on the unauthorized copy resigned from the board of directors. CP wiped the smirk off his face.

As a side note, about 4 months later, during an open session of a board meeting, a member of the community made a comment and quoted a portion of that otherwise confidential report. That faux pas was drawn to the speaker’s attention and Mr. CP, who was present, abruptly left the meeting. The speaker, red-faced and irritated, abandoned the floor and left in pursuit of Mr. CP.

Sometimes, having made the point, it is just not necessary to say or write anymore on a topic.

GOVERNANCE MODELS AND CHANGE

2010-06-17T22:08:00.000-07:00

“It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be”. Isaac Asimov, a Soviet-born American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University

Introduction

In the world of “should” and “did”, all but the most disciplined of governing boards, tend to follow a hybrid of models. The model employed by a governing board evolves from those serving on the board, the influence of an oligarchy (small group of leaders), and the board’s expectations of senior management.

The models can be numerous but generally fall into one of several methods:

Modeling

More often referred to as the Patron Model, what I call the Father-Knows-Best-Model generally has little influence over the organization. This board is composed of members who are influential in their communities and wholly committed to the mission. Such boards are nominally in charge and usually participate in fund development and have the ability to make donations.

Some organizations try to avoid pyramidal organizational charts. In such a model there is generally a sharing of responsibility with no Executive Director. Decision-making is said to be by consensus with no member individual has power over another. This is an Operating Board; a single managing organization of board members who participate with key managers and others to include those served. It has a place and generally it is for small mission-driven volunteer-intensive non-profit charitable corporations.

An Advisory Board is a bit more active than the Father-Knows-Best Board. This board is obviously expected to advise the CEO. Often the CEO is part of the selection process for board members. Presumably chosen because they are wise, the board members are chosen because they have an expertise that benefits the organization, the ability to bring public confidence to the board through their name alone, and probably able to raise money.

By law, board members are liable for the conduct of the institution and an Advisory Board may not appreciate or understand its legal responsibilities. In this model, the CEO protects the board from the vicissitudes and inclemency of governance and liability.

Although hailed as being most democratic, it is probably the most difficult of all models to maintain because, as Robert Michels the German Sociologist observed in 1915, wherever there is buraucracy or organization, there is oligarchy.

When working well, the organization benefits from the involvement of those comprising the oligarchy. When not working well, there is less leadership and performance by the leaders, by whatever title. The work output is no bigger than the sum of its parts.

Under the perfect circumstances, this model could be the most efficient in which case it would be referred to as the BORG Model from the Star Trek television series. The BORG was a collective perfectly united in all things and ... resistance was futile.

Formerly hailed as the Ideal Model by most nonprofit organizations, and more often than not evolving rather than designed, is the Committee Model. The directors form standing and ad hoc committees with responsibilities similar, if not identical to, operational / functions. Examples are marketing, development, finance, planning, and other various programs.

This system often results in the board's committees assuming operational control over the main operations of the organization. This model pretty much flies in the face of the board that says it does not and would not “micro-manage”. It is the epitome of micro-management. The board becomes the organization’s management team and ultimately assumes both governance and operational duties.

Under this model, there is significant risk that the directors, trustees, or governors by whatever name will devolve. It will delegate little to the management team except diminutive responsibilities. It will come to believe that the job of the governor is to not only to make policy and provide finances, they are also to make all decisions whether policy related or operational in nature. In sum, the members, or at least its oligarchy, become arrogant.

Consistency is security and this model will, given time and circumstances, result in the lack of consistency. Staff will become dissatisfied. Board members egos will become bruised. Board members will be displeased with their key managers, employees will feel unsupported. Productivity and planning will either go backward or stop.

Under this model, key managers are directly supervised in their operational responsibilities. If the management is considered extremely professional, there will be frustration as to the development and implementation of plans, curriculum, and organizational programming. In order for this system to work to the benefit of the organization, the staff management team must be heard, their ideas considered, and they must be willing to be supervised by the governors who design plans that they expect to be implemented fully and successfully. Management will need both responsibility and commensurate authority.

This model, strictly implemented, will not work with a professional management team. Its implementation will lead to a formal or informal evaluation of the board and its relationship with the Executive Director, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Executive, or management leader by any title.

In sum, this model fosters and ultimately requires micro-management by a governing board. The deliverable becomes a frustrated and divided board, a small oligarchy in close control of operations, and an unhappy management leader whose head is generally the first to fall.

So What Now?

It is not enough to define these types of management without calling for something better. At what point is introspection in order? What is better?
Let’s get philosophical. Organizations are like organisms. The Board is like the organization’s brain. The CEO is an organization’s heart and pumps resources throughout the system. Department heads are like arteries which regulate the flow of these resources. Employees are corpuscles and deliver the nutrients throughout the system with a regular flow.

This analogy is useful to answer questions such as how to diagnose governance ailments.

Since, like organisms over time, poor governance evolves, a governing board should be constantly reviewing and evaluating itself. If it has not done so, it should ask candid questions of itself just as though it were an organism:

• Are we happy? Are board members unhappy with how they conduct themselves both professionally and personally?

• Can we see the problem? Are board problems identifiable and do they resemble any of the symptoms described earlier, e.g., unhappy members, unhappy management, inattentive or frustrated staff, poor morale, role ambiguity?

• Are we able to cope? Is the board involved in something different, unique, or something it has not done in many years?

• Are we bleeding? Organizations, like organisms can hemorrhage. Is the organization losing good talent, particularly among its management team and / or board members?

• Have we lost our confidence? This is self-explanatory. Is the board able to support this mission? If not, is the mission the problem or is the problem among the board members. We have already made the analogy that the board is like the brain of an organism. By extension then, remember that a brain replaces itself one cell at a time. It does not lend itself to transplant like a CEO which represents an organization’s heart. This explains why CEO’s heads fall first rather than entire board.

As with an organism, change is difficult. It takes real bravery to make a needed change. Not only must the board, in an “all-for-one and one-for-all” manner, admit wrong and error; the board must implement some kind of model that is workable. The board must talk to itself and be honest. There can be no sycophant answers here.

• As part of a meaningful evaluation and introspection, the board must agree on its purpose.

• Its values – the things it find most important – should be documented, discussed, redrafted, and discussed again.

• The board should examine its wallet. How much money is available? What are the restrictions on capital? How much are we willing to spend? What does it REALLY cost to operate our business?

• How do we measure our success?

• How do the individual board members feel about governance?

• In discussing the difference between the models discussed as well as others (and there are as many as there are individual board members) they must define if they wish to micro-manage or do they want to remain at the policy and finance level?

• The board should examine and measure its trust in their executive and whether an absence of trust is due to the fact they may have micro-managed their professional. The measurement of trust must not be personal but based upon effectiveness, efficiency, and, above all, ethical conduct.

• Are board members attending meetings? How does the board hold one another accountable?

• Is the committee structure really necessary? There should be a quick analysis. Is management better or best able to handle the committee’s work within allowable parameters? If not, can management be trained and then expected to do so? Are the board’s committees' doppelgangers of staff?

• Do board members vote the party line or do they differ? How are differences and disagreements managed? Is consensus expected and encouraged?

• How effective is our current board recruitment method in getting excellent board members? Do we get the chairman’s friends? Is there a needs analysis before selecting new board members?

• Lastly, should the management team, or at least the chief executive, be involved in this evaluation and introspection? If the board’s answer is “no”, then the board has answered an all important question about whether they trust the executive. If the CEO is efficient, effective, amicable, and – above all - ethical, the board has also answered the question as to whether it is a micro-managing model.

Conclusion

Sadly, there is no perfect model. There are, however, perfect agreements. At the end of meaningful evaluation and introspection, the ideal model for a particular enterprise should be advanced.

Members who do not want to work within the design should voluntarily depart. Executives who find the governance model not to their liking should do the same.

At the end of the process, the board should be happy. They will know their role and without ambiguity.

Board members and staff will have the security that the promise of consistency can offer.

The board will be confident in itself and its mission and values. They will understand their mission, what it costs, and how to measure its success.

The board will have a level of confidence and trust in their executive and the executive will likewise have trust and confidence in the board and the members' expertise. The executive will not be confused about his or her role.

The end result is the Sensitive Model. It has been refined and sensitized around the needs of the organization. The best of the former can emerge. The worst of the former can be avoided. Those parts neither good nor bad, but which are part of the organizational culture (big, small, old, new, public, private, etc.) can be addressed, accepted, rejected, and embraced.

The sensitive model will vary from one application to another. No one model can define the ideal. Only a blend of the unique, together with that borrowed from other models, and re-visioning can a board of directors, like an organism, have an identity reserved for itself and its properity. The applied model becomes its fingerprint.

One thing is certain. I call it the Global Law of Governance.

“Unchecked, and without continuous quality control of itself, a governing board will begin an insidious insipient encroachment upon itself and its uniquely developed model of governance and then begins a parade of horribles for the organization”.

CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS

2010-06-12T06:19:00.000-07:00

My name is John A. Rose. I am President of John A. Rose Consulting.

Like so many others, I have considered writing a book. Not for money, although I like money. Not for prestige, although we all like to be known for something. Not for retribution, although I do like liberating experiences.

Having both served as a board member and worked for Boards of Directors of non-profit charitable organizations for nearly 30 years, having studied organizational theory and management, and after reading many books and articles on governance, seldom could I find anything beyond theory and the ideal.

Not that theory and ideal are not worthy pursuits; life is anything but theory and ideal. "Should do" and "Did do" are two different things. A new, aspiring, or practiced executive needs advice, mentoring, and direction to navigate and avoid pitfalls inherent with working with and for Boards of Directors.

"CARE AND FEEDING OF BOARD MEMBERS" will be unique. Each chapter will have one or more "lessons" and either a discussion or a specific case study in support of the lesson. I am on Chapter 12 of this effort.

A number of colleagues have contributed situations in support of these lessons, or which yielded new lessons. If, as a practicing executive reporting to a board of directors (proprietary or non-profit), or as a board member, you wish inclusion, please don't hesitate to send me particulars of a situation or circumstance, and what you learned. Unless with permission, I will not use a contributor's name or position nor the name or position of any board member.

As was said in "Dragnet" years ago, "The names are changed to protect the innocent (and others)."

If there seems to be interest, and from time-to-time, I hope to BLOG a summary of some of these chapters.

I have worked for hundreds of board members, many of whom will see themselves in these BLOGS and the end product. This book will sell enough copies for me to at least purchase as gifts for those from whom I have learned the most.

At the end of the day, a new, aspiring, or current executive will have the opportunity to avoid certain pitfalls or take advantage of opportunities that will surely come his or her way.

Is anyone listening? Do BLOGS work? Would there be interest in such a book? Is there any interest in this subject?

We'll find out. I would appreciate any feedback or comment.

John A. Rose