< Back RIP RBG: The Thin, Strong String That Ties Women Together Jennie Boden Sep 21, 2020 Our foremothers paved the way for us; now we pave the way for the women now coming of age. This was written by the author Saturday morning, after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I’ve been thinking about all of the stories of the strong women in my family today. This day. The day after Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. I come from a line of very strong women. My grandmother, Ora, died when I was very small, but I’ve seen pictures of her. She was tall, broad and her hands were well worn. My mother and her sisters used to talk about her with fear and awe and love in the same breath. When Ora was raising her family, which included my mother and her two sisters, a cousin who was developmentally disabled and “the boarders” as my mother used to call them. It was the Great Depression, and she did whatever it took. Sometimes that meant moving from abandoned house to abandoned house, where they would crawl in through an open basement window or maybe it was a window that my grandfather, whom everyone called Hap, broke. Yes, they were squatters. But, if you listened to the Hathaway girls, as my mother and her sisters were known, it was all a great adventure. When the Hathaway girls grew up, they had babies. Lots of them. There were a few boys sprinkled in here and there, although not in my family’s case where four daughters were born. Our family has always been female-centric. My mother’s strength and certitude about who she was and how she would move through the world as a woman was formed during her childhood—coming home after school to find the family had moved one day from the house on Magnolia Street to one a block over on Maybrick—and later as a 20-year old mother when her first-born daughter, still an infant, came very close to dying. Toward the end of her life, she cared for my father as dementia took him and their love story faded slowly and painfully. As the country mourns the passing of Justice Ginsburg and honors her legacy, I’ve been thinking about all of the women who have come before us in all of our families, in all of our circles, in all of our workplaces, and in all of our communities. All of the women who have made us who we are. All of the women who have made things possible for us that we never knew were once impossible. I’ve been thinking about the thin—but strong—string that ties all of us together as women. I’ve been thinking about the paving they did for us. And the paving that we must do now for others. And about the paving that I will continue to do in memory of my grandmother, Ora, my mother, Katie, and the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Previous Next

< Back Taking Action On Credit Unions’ No. 1 Director Recruitment Priority: Diversity. Jennie Boden Sep 21, 2020 The credit union and women’s movements are clearly doing something right. But we still have a long way to go. The day after Kamala Harris was picked by Joe Biden as his running mate, I was talking with a colleague of mine about his choice. I have to note that the colleague in question is a woman, and she is about 10 years younger than me. She was lamenting that everyone in the media was focusing on the fact that Ms. Harris was a woman and, of course, a woman of color. From her point of view, as someone from a younger generation, why should this be the news? She sees Ms. Harris as a qualified, strong candidate for the position, regardless of her sex or ethnicity. In my colleague’s mind, of course she would have been in serious contention for the job. It started me thinking about what my sister would say as someone who is 10 years older than me. She was in college in the ’70s, and I remember her then with long, straight hair, playing sad Joni Mitchell songs on her stereo and challenging my father, the minister, on nearly everything he said. She would bring with her the perspective of history: knowledge of the years when women struggled to have a voice in their marriages, let alone a seat in the boardroom, and of the racial struggles that plagued even my small hometown in rural Pennsylvania when she was in love with an African-American boy in high school. Then my mind moved on to my niece. She is 10 years younger than my colleague . She’s a graduate of Stanford University, recently married to man whose parents immigrated from India, and studying to be a doctor at one of the best medical schools in the country—maybe the world (University of California-San Francisco). Now, at this point, it should be noted that I write from a point of great advantage, and the cast of characters in this article also enjoy great advantages. We all hail from stable families, where shelter, food and love were plenty. We are all well-educated. We are all white. So, what does this have to do with credit unions? And, specifically, with governance, since that’s my area of specialty? My biggest fear in all of the focus on DEI is that it will remain a discussion point and not become a point of action for us all. - Jennie Boden I had two thoughts immediately after the conversation with my colleague and my ensuing reflections about my sister and niece. The first was around the notion of board renewal. We talk about the topic all the time at Quantum Governance, and we’re finding that credit union boards are increasingly talking about it, too. It used to be that credit union board members would join the board and stay for years—for decades, even. I’ve had a client who had two board members who served until they died in their 80s or 90s. Others explained odd behavior by noting that a few of their board members were displaying early signs of dementia. And so, the first rule of board renewal is that you must renew, for the health of your board. It’s the board’s responsibility to ensure that you do. The guiding principle for board renewal is to find a healthy balance of historical continuity and renewal. I celebrate that my colleague just assumes that Kamala Harris is right for the job of vice president and that my niece sees a horizon as wide as possible for herself and all those around her. (And I also imagine what will be available, once they are grown, to my great-nieces.) But, it’s also critical for all of us, as women, to realize from whence we’ve come. My sister’s perspective is valuable, too. She reminded me recently that when she was growing up, girls were shut out completely from sports in high school, and today we have a woman coaching in the NFL. How far we have come, but still, how far we have to go… Ensure that your board is balancing these perspectives—all of them. Historical continuity will give you important points of view on the past, and renewal will open future possibilities the likes of which you’ve never conceived. The second thought that came to mind following the conversation with my colleague arose directly from the research that we published in The State of Credit Union Governance, 2020 report. For the first time ever, we found that demographic diversity was the No. 1 recruiting priority among credit union board members and leaders, surpassing financial literacy for the first time. Source: The State of Credit Union Governance, 2020 We also reported the news that the average credit union boards have nine members, three of which (36%) are women! On its face, this may not seem significant, but it is. In comparison, a 2018 study by Deloitte and The Alliance for Board Diversity of America of Fortune 100 companies found that women held only 25% of their board seats. And in 2018, CUNA found that 52% of credit union CEOs are female, compared to only 5% in commercial banks and 6% in Fortune 500 companies. And it’s not just among the small credit unions: At credit unions with between $1 billion and $3 billion in assets, more than 14% of the CEOs were female, compared to just more than 3% of bank CEOs. As a movement (both a credit union and a women’s movement), we’re clearly doing something right. But we still have a long way to go. It seems that today, everyone is talking about “DEI” or diversity, equity and inclusion. (Note that Quantum Governance believes the appropriate order is “ EDI ,” given that the notion of equity is a broader concept that underlies both diversity and inclusion.) It’s a most worthy discussion, and it’s been a long time coming. My biggest fear in all of the focus on DEI is that it will remain a discussion point and not become a point of action for us all. But clearly, we know how to do this. We’ve started to make true inroads in terms of integrating women into the boardrooms and C-suites of America—at least among our credit unions. Be sure not to let up on that focus. Rather, let’s add to it. While we can celebrate the gains made for women, we’ve not moved the needle one bit on increasing the number of visible minorities in the credit union boardroom or C-suite, and that’s just as important. In fact, remember, demographic diversity is now the No. 1 recruiting priority among credit union board members and leaders. How much richer would your board be if 50% of its members were women? If you had true diversity in terms of ethnic and racial background? In terms of age and tenure? In terms of skills and experience? How much more stirring would the conversations in your boardroom be if you were truly open to listening to everyone’s voices? Previous Next

< Back Understanding the Importance of Ethics Michael Daigneault and Jennie Boden Nov 28, 2017 Principled leadership is a vital part of any cooperative’s DNA. For many years, my focus was on ethics – particularly organizational ethics. As an undergraduate at Georgetown University, I majored in philosophy and minored in psychology. My father thought it was imprudent to follow such a course of study, but I persisted. As such, I studied many of history’s greatest ethicists. I went on to law school, immersing myself in the study of law and justice. My favorite class was…yes, legal ethics. (Many of my law school colleagues were convinced something was seriously wrong with me at this point.) I then decided to double down and became the first person to receive a Masters in Law from Georgetown University Law Center with a concentration in Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility. I went on to found a consulting practice called “Ethics, Inc.” and then served as President of the Ethics Resource Center – the nation’s oldest, independent ethics center. I even had a license plate for my car that read “Ethics 1.” It’s safe to say, ethics was a really big part of my personal and professional life! And then…my central focus shifted. Over the course of my early career, I witnessed ethical lapses in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations that were attributed (by their senior leadership) to the actions or decisions of a “rogue employee” or “bad person” in their midst. Occasionally this was the case, but often it wasn’t the whole story. In helping many institutions in their quest to address the difficult ethical questions or situations that confronted them, I came to realize that many of their so-called “ethical challenges” were actually – at their root – issues of governance. As a result, in 2012 I️ and my wife, Alessandra, created a new limited liability low-profit firm dedicated to the public good firm – Quantum Governance, L3C – that reflects a substantially broader governance and leadership focus. (And yes, I also have a new license plate – which now reads “QNTM GOV.”) “A fish rots from the head down.” It’s a cliché, yes, but it’s a cliché because it’s repeated so often; and it’s repeated so often because it’s so often true. What I have continually observed over the years is a failure of genuine leadership at the Board or senior management level. These failings frequently resulted in organizational cultures that ignored (or even encouraged) unethical or unprincipled decisions. The likely causes were as varied as the organizations I came into contact with…a lack of clarity around tradition-bound leadership roles and responsibilities…too much authority in just a few individual’s hands…lip service by leaders to an ideal – and then actions to the contrary…the absence of proper boundaries…a lack of transparency and – yes – sometimes a systemic failure by leadership to set forth the ethical standards (and then clearly communicate, model and reinforce them) that are a vital part of a sustainable organization’s DNA. To govern is to steer, direct and influence or persuade from a position of authority. It includes at the very least both the Board and the Management team, and it addresses both their formal (directional and policy setting) and their informal (influence and persuasion) forms of authority. Ultimately, governance deals with the legitimate distribution of authority throughout a system – whether a country, corporation or nonprofit. As such, does governance include ethics? Yes! But just because you’re getting your “governance house in order” doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re paying sufficient attention to your ethics culture, standards and practices and that you’re regularly working to instill them throughout your credit union. At Quantum Governance, we are ever-mindful that there are a lot of things resting on the shoulders of today’s volunteer and staff-led credit union leadership, but we are growing more convinced that a first-in-class ethics program should be among them. Previous Next

< Back On Being the Female Chair Leading a Predominately Male Board Gisele Manole Aug 25, 2022 Two female board leaders share their experiences and advice for promoting good governance—especially, but not only, as representatives of a minority demographic. Being in a leadership role—as a credit union board chair, for example—can be lonely at times. Sitting in the chair’s seat certainly puts you in a place of distinction. After all, you have been selected from among your fellow directors to lead them in their leadership role. So, consider the task of leading when you are from a traditionally underrepresented demographic—and say, for the purposes of this conversation, you are a woman leading a predominantly male board. I recently had the chance to connect with two women who shared with me some leadership advice for other women facing just this situation. What they said wasn’t at all what I expected. I anticipated hearing their perspective on having to do it better, faster and smarter than their male counterparts. But instead, their words struck a more nuanced and universal tone that stretched beyond gender differences. Don’t Wait to Be Invited A former CUES board member, Gerrianne “Winky” Burks can count herself among the trailblazers in the industry. After a 40-year career at $4.3 billion Northwest Federal Credit Union , Herndon, Virginia, the last five of which she served as CEO, she currently serves as the board chair. Burks’ advice is this: “Don’t wait to be invited to participate on a board or committee. You may be in the minority as a woman, but you bring a perspective that holds real value. “It’s so different now than when I started out,” Burks observes. “Now there is greater value placed on having a different perspective from the rest of the group. “I followed a male board chair, and frankly, I just did things a little differently than he did,” she adds. “Our communication styles, for example: My meetings may run a little longer, because I really want to hear from everyone in the room. I feel that is important. Neither style is better than the other, and the credit union has benefited from our different styles for many years.” Change Things Just Enough CUES member Janet Burgett Martin, board chair of $625 million Copper State Credit Union in Phoenix, has spent the last two years in the role of chair and recommends changing things up too. “For those new to the board chair position, I highly recommend you change the agenda so that the board understands that there’s new leadership.” Martin shares that she added a “mission moment” at the beginning of board meetings to recognize individual staff accomplishments. “This could be a member letter thanking an employee for excellent service or an award an employee received. It starts our meeting off on a positive note for both the board and staff in attendance.” When faced with assumptions or stereotyping, Martin recommends dealing with those challenges head-on when they first present themselves. Don’t wait to see if the presumption affirms itself, she advises. Find your voice and address it immediately and directly. “In my experience, when you make your expectations clear, presumptions correct themselves quickly. I am very direct but I also lead with compassion and enthusiasm,” she says. Both Burks and Martin stress the notion of being authentic. Burks says that while it may seem obvious, “[The other directors] don’t know what you know. I think that women have gotten much more comfortable in presenting their own thoughts. I pay attention to our board meetings being a place where everyone’s thoughts and ideas are invited.” While Martin encourages all board members to participate to make meetings more productive, she says “[I] always put it upon myself to be prepared by studying the full packet.” Participation requires preparation, and strong leaders model behaviors that they expect from others, she says. Add Your Takeaways to This Starter List As more and more women engage in credit union board service and rise to leadership roles within the industry, their collective learning will continue to grow. Here are some takeaways for developing leaders. Contribute your own advice in the comments section below. Don’t wait to be invited. Share your thoughts and perspectives now! Change things up and be intentional about it. Be authentic and clear in your expectations. And then hold your colleagues to them. Be prepared and model the commitment and behaviors you expect from your colleagues. Previous Next

< Back More Listening, Less Mansplaining Jennie Boden Mar 22, 2022 In the boardroom and everywhere, it's important to hear all voices. I was recently facilitating a retreat for one of our credit union clients when one of the board members—a male board member—started going toe-to-toe with me on the subject of good governance. Really? I thought to myself. Okay, let’s go . I’ve been a professional in the national not-for-profit sector, focusing on governance, strategy and C-suite management issues, for almost 30 years. And I’ve been working specifically in the area of credit union governance for almost a decade. I’ve probably interviewed more credit union board members than, well, most everyone, and I’m an author of The State of Credit Union Governance studies published by CUES and Quantum Governance. I help assess and review governance data from 50 or 60 credit unions every year … every year . Now, I’m not trying to boast. But I am saying that I know my way around a discussion on credit union governance. Apparently, however, my male client knew more. The term mansplaining is relatively new—it first appeared in a Los Angeles Times piece in 2008—but the concept, of course, is not. The phenomenon of mansplaining is so common that it even now appears in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and is officially defined as “when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he’s talking to does.” For many women, mansplaining is a frustrating, recurring part of their professional lives, regardless of their position or tenure. While some may be tempted to call mansplaining a mere annoyance—or invoke gendered stereotypes that women are “too sensitive”—the impact of mansplaining behavior goes much deeper than words. In the boardroom, it can be a clear signal that a board member’s expertise is discounted and, according to the Society for Human Resources Management , it can even affect the way board members are nominated and selected for committees or leadership roles. Mansplaining in the Credit Union Boardroom So, why is this particularly relevant among credit unions? We know that credit unions have made significant progress in diversifying their boardrooms, especially as compared to other sectors: 36% of credit union board members are women, whereas women hold only 25% of board seats in Fortune 100 companies, according to a 2018 report by Deloitte and The Alliance for Board Diversity of America. Yet, even at 36%, women are still significantly underrepresented in our credit union boardrooms, which remain male- (and white-) dominated spaces. Much more work remains to be done to improve gender diversity in the boardroom to ensure that boards truly reflect the communities they serve. As most women know, mansplaining happens everywhere: It begins on the playground and carries through to the boardroom. But it doesn’t stop there. In fact, the concept of mansplaining is so universal that in 2016, a union in Sweden temporarily set up a hotline for workers to report incidents of mansplaining and seek counsel from professors, authors and other gender experts on strategies for dealing with this condescending behavior! Even the BBC offers a flow chart to help readers identify mansplaining even when they may not realize it’s happening to them! As we encourage boards to reflect on and improve their own diversity, we know that many credit unions will recruit new directors who don’t necessarily have banking or accounting backgrounds, but who are bright, driven leaders in their fields. They are strategic thinkers who are ready to learn more about what the credit union does. This diversity—both in terms of gender and racial background and also professional expertise—undoubtedly helps advance a credit union’s service to its members not only by ensuring a strong “ear to the ground” but also by deliberately crafting a leadership group that brings diverse experiences, skills and viewpoints all to strengthen the decisions made in the boardroom. Board members with prior sector experience will, naturally, lead in helping their new colleagues develop a greater understanding of the credit union and their responsibilities as board members. In fact, we encourage it. In offering guidance, however, it’s important to remember that your support should be offered in a way that’s conducive to learning and recognizes your new colleagues’ own talents and expertise versus sharing your own knowledge in a way that is condescending, meant to intimidate and discredit. Board members of all tenures and backgrounds should approach their role with what David Smith , an associate professor of practice at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, calls “healthy doses of humility and a learning orientation.” Smith also notes that a “prove it again” bias that women often experience “questions their competency by having them continually prove that they have the experience and ability to perform. Most men do not experience this bias as it is usually assumed that they are competent, and they are advanced more often on potential.” While this observation is based on his experience in the U.S. Navy, a credit union boardroom—a similarly male-dominated space—can also encourage these dynamics. How to Move Past Mansplaining How do we recognize and move past the mansplaining we observe in the boardroom? Smith’s research found that what women most appreciated in male mentors and allies was their capacity to listen—which Smith summarizes as “generous listening with an intent to understand and not fix her or fix her problem.” Recognizing the root impulse for this is also important: “As it turns out, many of us as leaders are socialized to be problem-solvers. We listen to a colleague until we discern the problem and then tell them how to fix it.” (Read more on this from Smith in “ More Listening, Less ‘Mansplaining’ Make Men Better Allies to Women Co-Workers .”) In the credit union boardroom, where we find various levels of expertise in accounting or banking, but a steadfast desire to learn, this is equally important for male colleagues to internalize. What are some other key strategies for creating inclusive, welcoming, and respectful spaces? Arin N. Reeves, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan offers a few suggestions : Create and use agendas for meetings to define intentions, decrease interruptions and offer clarity on who should be speaking and why. Adopt a “take turns” approach in meetings; it will provide additional structure around who should be speaking and offer all participants an opportunity to give their perspective. Separate “divergent thinking” (unstructured brainstorming and idea generation) from “convergent thinking” (idea analysis and decision-making) to prevent unwanted interruptions and allow for women’s voices to be included as an active part of the leadership and decision-making process. Speak up! We can all recognize the symptoms of “mansplaining,” and if we can respectfully call out and encourage reflection about this behavior, we can create more respectful, productive and effective board and committee meetings. We all know that there are challenges to recruiting board members. Don’t make the mistake of not fully appreciating or realizing the full potential of your board members by silencing those voices that will help to further the vision and mission of your organization. Previous Next

< Back Who's on Your Board Today? Tomorrow? Michael Daigneault and Jennie Boden Mar 27, 2018 The State of Credit Union Governance, 2018 report finds credit unions are more certain of their current mix of directors than they are about the future composition of their boards. Here’s what this means for board renewal. Data from our new report, The State of CU Governance, 2018 , find that the majority of credit unions feel pretty good about who’s currently on their boards—but are much less sure about the future.Almost three-quarters of survey respondents (74 percent) of respondents report that their boards are “effective” or “very effective” at having the right mix of skills/experience to accomplish [their] governance roles and responsibilities. But remarkably, almost half of all of the survey respondents (46 percent) describe their effectiveness in “attracting the right people to serve on the board” in the future as only “adequate,” or “ineffective” or “very ineffective.” Figure 1: Attracting the Right People to Serve on the Board - Overall Our experience is that your collective worries about attracting the right folks to serve on your credit union’s board are well-founded—and things may get worse before they get better! The number of board members available to serve in the coming years is likely to shrink. Using generational definitions from Pew , the Boomer generation (born 1946–1964) consists of 76 million people and is shrinking. Generation X (born 1965 – 1980) is estimated to be only around 55 million people, causing a significant lack of potential board members for a good number of years until the much larger millennial generation (born after 1980) begins to peak. This means that you and your board colleagues will be competing more and more for fewer and fewer potential board members. In his book, Generations: The Challenge of a Lifetime for Your Nonprofit , Peter C. Brinckerhoff notes that both members of Generation X and millennials typically volunteer for different reasons and in different ways than members of the Boomer generation. Brinckerhoff goes on to say that members of the Boomer generation historically committed to volunteerism in support of institutions, whereas younger generations volunteer in support of people and issues rather than organizations. They often prefer discrete projects rather than large commitments, and they can experience all that volunteerism has to offer without having to be commit to regular “face-time,” all of which goes against traditional board service. So, how do you attract, and then keep, the ever-elusive millennial? Here are a few do’s and don’ts to consider as you work to refresh your board’s membership: DO: Talk about your credit union’s mission. Millennials are often cause- or mission-driven, but ensure that you’re talking to them in language they understand, using today’s technology. Mix your credit union’s business with passion. Ensure that your board meetings are not all business. While addressing the business of the day is important, see that you are also addressing the broader, strategic impact that your credit union is having (see point No. 1, above). Bring them on in multiples. That is, don’t just add one millennial at a time to your board or its committees; add a number of them so that they don’t feel like a token (see point No. 1, below). DON’T: Treat them as tokens. It seems like everyone is talking about adding a millennial to their boards. Ensure you have a meaningful role for them to fill on your board and its committees (see also point #3 above). Under-estimate their abilities & skills. They have a lot to contribute; ensure that you are listening and learning from them. Think of them as “kids.” While for many board members, they may be the same age as your kids, they are not your kids. Treat them with the professional respect that they are due. Previous Next

< Back A Quality CEO-Board Relationship Michael Daigneault Jul 26, 2016 Fostering A Healthy Balance The CEO of an organization we’ve been working with recently resigned. Unfortunately, a good deal of finger pointing followed. Some suggested a lack of strategic focus. Others questioned her leadership qualities. And there was the inevitable discussion of “fit” or “chemistry.” This outcome ultimately came down to the relationship between the CEO and the board. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen this set of circumstances. In fact, a member of our team has resisted taking on a chief staff position for this very reason—because the relationship between a CEO and the board can either make or break effective organizational leadership. As such, we spend a great deal of our time at Quantum Governance talking about the importance of building a constructive partnership between the CEO and the board. But what does that really mean? We can start with the basic definition of these words. Constructive, as defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is “serving a useful purpose; tending to build up.” Partnership refers to “taking part in an undertaking with another or others, especially in a business or company with shared risks and profits.” There’s a lot of meaning embedded in those definitions, but let’s just call out a few of the most important words: “useful purpose,” “tending to build up,” “undertaking with another” and “shared.” When we ask board members what their most important role is vis-à-vis their CEO, a common response is “to hire and fire.” That’s a very limited view of the relationship. Yes, recruiting and dismissing the CEO are formal powers vested in a board. And, yes, these decisions are among the most important a board typically makes. But these formal powers do not speak to the quality of the relationship, whether it is constructive and how it functions as a partnership between the board and the CEO. Yet, therein lies the real key to leadership success in the vast majority of credit unions. The constructive partnership model is not a luxury but a necessity. Both the board and the CEO are needed at the table. There are times when the board must firmly lead, as when setting overarching credit union policy, for example. And there are times when it makes sense for the board to get out of the way and let the CEO and his or her management team do what they do best—run the day-to-day operations of the credit union. But there are very real instances where you both need to work—and here’s that term again—in constructive partnership. For example, who sets the strategic vision for the credit union—the board or the CEO? Or do you do it together, through dialogue and in discussion? Would your board hold a strategic planning session without your CEO? Would your CEO put a new five-year strategic plan in place without the board? Certainly not. We have seen instances in which credit unions have been largely driven by the board. In these situations, the CEO is often frustrated and describes feeling like “my hands are tied.” There is a fair amount of turnover at the senior levels of these organizations. On the other side of the coin, in organizations where the CEO is firmly in charge and forges forward without board input, directors are disengaged and describe feeling like a rubber stamp, following the whim and will of the CEO and his or her management team. Neither extreme benefits the credit union. All this talk of constructive partnership does not imply that the board should not address CEO performance issues. That is a key board responsibility—and a process that may require more attention at many credit unions: Nearly two-thirds of all board members we’ve surveyed wouldn’t describe their method of assessing their CEO’s performance as very effective. Ultimately, one of the most important roles you play as a director is to find a way to support and hold your CEO accountable, joining him or her in the undertaking the leadership of your credit union in genuine constructive partnership, sharing the responsibility to deliver on the expectations of your members in helping them fulfill their financial life dreams. Previous Next

< Back When It Comes to Board Meetings... Michael Daigneault Jan 27, 2015 We can do better. For more years than I sometimes care to admit, I’ve traveled the country consulting with credit union boards of directors and CEOs. One of the questions that frequently arises in our discussions is: How can we make our board meetings better? Better is certainly an aspirational – but also amazingly ambiguous – term. I’ve learned it can mean remarkably different things to different credit union leaders. For example, in the context of board meetings, I have been told better means: more strategic discussions, shorter meetings, a more engaging experience, an opportunity to hear everyone’s voice, more efficient meetings, fewer – but longer – meetings, meetings that produce more effective decisions, a more robust accountability culture, meetings giving clearer direction to staff and meetings producing greater consensus. These are all well intended, but also all over the map! It makes me wonder what’s really happening at many monthly credit union board meetings? Is this what the agenda looks like at your credit union’s board meeting? The chair calls the meeting to order and offers a brief set of general remarks or report. There’s then a CEO report, often followed by financial, staff and committee reports. There’s little time for genuine dialogue or discussion. Indeed, the agenda is often centered on telling the board various types of information – reinforcing the board’s role as overseers or fiduciaries. Old School Meetings Historically, most credit union board meetings have largely emphasized the board’s formal role. A routine (even rote) agenda has been frequently use to move efficiently (often thought of as “quickly”) from one report, informational item or policy issue to another. Board members were on hand to receive information or data, provide the required fiduciary oversight and make quick or final decisions when necessary. Many such decisions tended to be made immediately or even in advance of the board meeting. Tough questions – or even meaningful dialogue – were often viewed as hindering or even obstructing the meeting. In today’s credit union environment, however, this board meeting paradigm does not work particularly well. I often wonder if a critical mass of credit union boards even know they’re likely stuck in an outdated way of conducting their meetings? Why do I ask? Because the board meeting of the future looks remarkably different from the board meeting of the past. New School Meetings Yes, the chair still opens the meeting and offers some remarks, but now he or she notes unique elements for the meeting’s success. It’s the chair’s responsibility to help his or her colleagues focus, and set a tone that invites meaningful exchange. Such items as routine reports, informational items, administrative changes, minor alterations to policy and the like can often be included in a “ consent agenda ” and approved with a simple vote. Likewise, a thoughtful dashboard presented by the CEO can be used to efficiently and effectively highlight the critical indicators of your credit union’s efforts. After asking any needed clarification questions of the CEO or senior team, you and your director colleagues are then able to transition to the other central agenda items for the day: one or more strategic or educational discussions designed to help your credit union move forward. What would the members of your board do if, aside from the chair’s remarks, a consent agenda and an effective dashboard review, there was a significant strategic question posed for consideration and discussion, and you had more than an hour in which to really discuss it? How do you think your board colleagues would respond to such an experiment? Would they be open to the possibility or change? I strongly suggest you consider evolving your board agendas from emphasizing the formal role of your board to focusing on the board’s influential and persuasive role as well. Vary the agenda items and include open spaces for dialogue and deliberation where questions can be posed and collective learning can take place. Chairs, develop agendas that encourage strategic questions and dialogue from your colleagues. CEOs, you can help by identifying real strategic questions facing the credit union. In partnership with the chair, highlight such questions by building an agenda item around them. While I do not suggest that credit union volunteers or executives lessen their focus on fiduciary oversight, I do suggest they can meet smarter and more effectively. Namely, that board meetings focused predominantly on information or data exchange are not enough. I urge them to remember that vision, strategy and effective governance are among the board’s central responsibilities. The structure and culture of board meetings can greatly assist—or impede—such vital responsibilities. Previous Next

< Back Why Directors Are Chess Pieces, Not Checkers Jennie Boden and Dr. Alexander Stein of Dolus Advisors Jan 25, 2022 Every director should be ‘chair material’—even if they wouldn’t make a good chair. We worked with $6.5 billion Hudson Valley Credit Union , Poughkeepsie, New York, on an extensive board renewal project. During that effort, the CU’s nominations subcommittee decided that every candidate on its slate of nominees should be “skilled enough to be board chair” or “chair material.” But what does that really mean? Does it imply that you should only recruit people to your board who have the intelligence, experience, qualities, hard and human skills that indicate this individual could readily assume being chair of your board? Does it suggest you should raise the level of expectation that you and your colleagues on the nominations committee—indeed on your board—have for yourselves in terms of the type and the caliber of individuals you recruit and nominate to your board and supervisory or audit committee? Our answer to both questions would be a resounding, “Yes!” What it doesn’t mean is that anyone or everyone on your board should actually become chair of your board. Remember, board members are more like chess pieces than checkers. They each come with their own unique skills, attributes and experiences. While you want to ensure that you are only recruiting individuals of the highest caliber, not everyone is cut out to be a board chair. Some people are natural leaders and make excellent chairs. Others, while still amazing leaders, are more comfortable in positions with less authority and better suited for serving as vice chair or other important roles. Still others have a razor-sharp mind for numbers (a great treasurer, for example), but might be challenged when it comes to building consensus or running an efficient meeting—both requisite skills for any good chair. So, remember, when you’re recruiting for new board members, ask yourselves these questions: Does this person embody the most desired skills, attributes and characteristics? Is he or she good enough for our board? Will he or she elevate the level of our discussions? But, when you’re identifying your future chair, also consider these: Is this person a consensus-builder? Can they facilitate difficult decisions? Build a strategic agenda that delivers effective outcomes? Are they a leader who will inspire followers? In other words, choose your chess pieces wisely, and deploy them strategically. Alexander Stein, Ph.D . , is founder of Dolus Advisors , a consultancy that helps leaders address psychologically complex organizational challenges. Previous Next

< Back The Concept of ‘Constructive Partnership’ Caitlin Hatch and Michael Daigneault Dec 23, 2019 Collaboration, more than control, fuels today’s high-performing boards. The Quantum Governance team has had the opportunity to work with a great many credit unions throughout the U.S. and Canada—often with the core objective of improving the working relationship between the board and the CEO (including the members of the senior management team that report directly to the CEO). Frequently we are asked, “Is there an approach towards credit union governance we should adopt to best achieve this vital goal?” For most, we recommend adopting the framework of a “constructive partnership” between the board and the CEO/senior management team. One of our clients recently challenged us to define what we mean by a constructive partnership and put it in writing. This blog is the result of that thoughtful challenge. Origins of the Concept of ‘Constructive Partnership’ The concept of a constructive partnership was first developed by Richard Chait, Ph.D., a nonprofit governance expert at Harvard University. In his book Governance as Leadership , Chait suggests the best way to frame the relationship between a board and CEO is by focusing primarily on effective collaboration, rather than on effective control (as is the case with the Carver model of “policy governance”). The ways in which the board and management are effectively collaborating, fostering a leadership culture of trust, executing fiduciary oversight, crafting strategy together, offering mutual support and—yes—holding each other accountable to further the organization’s mission is what we (and Dr. Chait) mean by a constructive partnership. The Central Question The central question that the constructive partnership governance framework attempts to answer is this: “How can the board and the CEO (along with the senior management team) work together most effectively while still observing their respective areas of authority to achieve the credit union’s vision and mission?” The keys to success are in effective teamwork, genuine collaboration and mutual accountability, with both the board and CEO creating maximum value to move the strategic goals of the credit union forward. Within the constructive partnership between boards and management, boards retain the primary legal responsibility for governance—the proper exercise of ultimate authority—of their organization. Boards also exercise organizational oversight and ultimate policy setting. They properly delegate to the CEO and the senior management team the responsibility for managing operations, personnel and day-to-day organizational resources. As the BoardSource publication The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards notes: While respecting this division of labor, exceptional Boards become allies with the CEO in pursuit of the mission. They understand that they and the chief executive bring essential, complementary ingredients to the governance partnership that, when combined, are greater than the sum of their parts. Exceptional boards recognize they cannot govern well without the CEO’s collaboration and that the CEO cannot lead the organization to its full potential without the board’s unflagging support. This central governance “partnership relationship” was further developed by the work of Ram Charan—co-author of Boards That Lead and probably the leading governance expert in the world today. Charan’s framework emerges from the central question: When is it appropriate for a board to “(1) take charge, (2) partner or (3) [delegate]”? Similar to Chait, the focus of Charan’s work is that the board and the CEO should work strategically and collaboratively as a team for the good of an organization and its mission. There are, according to Charan, appropriate situations where (1) it is the board that should take charge and lead, such as in the choice of the next CEO. There are also circumstances in which (2) the board and senior management should thoughtfully and consciously work to actively partner with each other, such as in the creation of an organization’s vision, mission and strategy. Lastly, there are significant areas in which (3) the board should delegate appropriate management authority to the CEO and his or her team, such as in nearly all tactical, personnel, operational and execution matters. One way to think about the strong partnership focus of this framework is to reflect upon how a doubles tennis team works together. Consider Venus and Serena Williams, each superb individual tennis players, but also exceptional as a doubles team. When they are playing together, each must work to perform individually, but also bring out the best in her partner, so that the team can overcome any and all challenges it faces. The benefits of a constructive partnership model emerge even more clearly when one considers the alternatives. What if the board alone took on the responsibility of determining the credit union’s strategy? Then the CEO/senior leadership team would not be able to contribute their expertise, and they would be significantly challenged to fully understand and effectively implement the board's identified strategic goals. On the other hand, if the CEO and the senior management team developed the strategic goals without the board’s input, they would subvert one of the central roles of a credit union board—being meaningfully involved in helping to set the direction of a credit union. They could also potentially take the credit union too far down a path not supported by the board, creating significant conflict at the leadership level. The constructive partnership model calls for the board to take a strong partnership role as a strategic thought leader and visionary, in true collaborative partnership with the CEO and his or her team. Together, they must work effectively to determine the best path forward for the credit union, its members and the communities where the credit union operates. As such, the two must work closely together to consistently foster the quality of the board’s composition, knowledge and discussions to ensure the entire leadership team can be effective partners to move the vision and mission of the credit union forward. Caitlin Hatch previously served as a senior consultant with Quantum Governance and has worked with credit unions for the past eight years, focusing on governance and strategic planning. Prior to that, she served for 25 years as general counsel and corporate secretary for the largest anthracite coal company in the United States. Previous Next

< Back The Origin Of Civility Michael Daigneault Mar 22, 2016 Be sure to disagree in an agreeable way. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the word civility. And unless you live under a rock, you can likely understand why . Frankly there’s a significant lack of it in the public sector. It concerns me, and my guess is that it concerns you, no matter what your party affiliation. What does this lack of civility mean for us as a country? For how we will govern ourselves in the future? What lessons are we teaching our children? What lessons are we learning ourselves? Surprisingly enough, this same word – civility – has been surfacing more and more as we think about our work with credit unions and others in the nonprofit sector. Because I’m a life-long learner, I decided to take myself back to school on the notion of civility itself. The word’s origins stretch back to the late 14th century, when the French used the word “civilite” to denote the “status of a citizen,” and the English translated the word as “courtesy.” But it is the Latin derivative of the word that surprised and delighted me the most – “civitatem” was defined as both “the art of governing” and “courteousness.” Isn’t that perfect? Isn’t that what we all need on our boards – a little more focus on the “art of governing” and more “courteousness?” I won’t bore you with a long list of boards behaving badly, but I would like to share with you a few examples that we’ve experienced recently. We’ve: seen board members texting each other, under the table, in the middle of board meetings; interviewed board members who said they felt like they “had a target on their back”; witnessed others interrupting their colleagues and shouting to get their points across during the middle of meetings; and heard staff describe conversations where board members are approaching them to get the “dirt” on their CEO’s performance. I’m not suggesting behavior like this is rampant or that it exists on all boards, nor am I suggesting that a normal amount of give and take, or even conflict on a board isn’t healthy. It is. In fact, boards that experience absolutely no conflict, or those that are in complete harmony, are just as dysfunctional as boards that are always in conflict (see the graphic at the beginning of this article). There is a balance. Just like in a good marriage, an appropriate degree of conflict is necessary. You just need to be sure that you’re disagreeing in an agreeable way. But even if your board is the healthiest board in the world, our research indicates that there is still room for improvement…for greater civility…to sharpen your focus on the “art of governance.” One in five board members that we surveyed for the 2016 Quantum Governance Compendium reported that their board is doing a less-than-effective job at building a leadership culture of trust, and that same survey reports that less than 25 percent said that they are very effective at asking the hard questions that need to be asked. So, then, what does that mean? Look around you. One in five of your colleagues isn’t feeling the love; a high level of trust is not resonating at the board level. And only one in four of your colleagues thinks that you’re asking the right questions in the boardroom. I know. This post sounds like it’s full of doom and gloom. That certainly wasn’t my intent. But it is a wake-up call. Increase the civility in your boardroom – in the Latin sense of the word. Be more courteous. Sharpen your focus on the “art of governance,” while you push yourselves to have the hard conversations that leading a credit union in today’s competitive environment demands. I am not suggesting that you practice the “art of governance” at the risk of foregoing your responsibilities as a board member or that you should stifle your dissenting opinions to keep the peace. The “art of governance” is not about being nice and passive in your boardrooms. But, don’t confuse strong leadership with being discourteous, unprofessional or disrespectful. The true art of governance is about being in the middle of the bell curve, with a good and healthy balance of open and challenging discourse in an environment where everyone plays respectfully in the proverbial sandbox. Previous Next

< Back Are Women Better Leaders? Jennie Boden Sep 24, 2021 They are when they act with humility, self-awareness, self-control, moral sensitivity and kindness. I just finished an interview with the female CEO of a fairly large credit union. I love conducting interviews. It’s my favorite part of my job, and luckily, I get to conduct a lot of them. As president of consulting services at Quantum Governance , I’ve probably interviewed thousands of credit union board members, supervisory and audit committee members, CEOs and members of senior management. And each time, I learn a lot. During this interview, the CEO was talking about adding her opinion in the boardroom on a sensitive topic. She stopped mid-sentence and stared off into space for a minute. (We were, of course, on Zoom.) I pushed her just a bit, inviting her return: “What are you thinking?” I asked. “I’m wondering how much I can say, how much I should say,” she replied. “What’s the right balance for me to share in the boardroom?” I paused before I spoke. “I can’t imagine a male CEO ever pausing, even for a minute, to ask himself that important question,” I said. And I do think it’s an important question. There’s a lot of data out there that suggests that women are currently better leaders than men. For example, this article in The Washington Post reported that countries led by women “suffered far lower death rates” than those led by men during the first wave of COVID-19. A study by Pew Research Center found that while most Americans find few differences between women and men in terms of leadership, women are perceived as more compassionate, empathetic leaders. A recent Forbes article reported on Gallup data that suggests that “in 1953, 66% of Americans preferred a male boss—today the figure is 23%.” The author of the Forbes article, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, asks the million-dollar question: 'If women have more potential for leadership, then why are they still the minority group among leaders?' - Jennie Boden via X (formerly Twitter) That same Forbes article also cited studies demonstrating that among the central qualities that “make leaders more effective, women tend to outperform men. For example, humility, self-awareness, self-control, moral sensitivity, social skills, emotional intelligence, kindness, a prosocial and moral orientation are all more likely to be found in women than men.” And that’s what the CEO I was interviewing was demonstrating as she paused and considered her next steps: skills that make leaders more effective, such as humility, self-awareness, self-control, moral sensitivity, social skills, emotional intelligence. Yet women often don’t get much credit for applying their winning leadership characteristics in the boardroom or in executive roles. The author of the Forbes article, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, asks the million-dollar question: “If women have more potential for leadership, then why are they still the minority group among leaders?” Charmorro-Premuzic answers his own question by saying that employment choices are made more based on “ style rather than substance , so we pick individuals for leadership on the basis of their confidence rather than competence, charisma rather than humility, and narcissism rather than integrity. … The typical leader is not known for their humility or competence, but arrogance and incompetence.” Now, clearly, this isn’t always true. Some boards value humility more than charisma when recruiting new directors or hiring a CEO. And I’ve met many male CEOs and C-suite executives (within the credit union community and outside of it) who fully embody substance over style. I’m lucky to say that I work for one. And of course, men, too, can demonstrate self-awareness, self-control, emotional intelligence and all of the rest. Yet female leaders with substance, humility and competence still have a harder road to top roles. Chamorro-Premuzic suggests that this has to do with maintaining the status quo. I think he’s right. But even if it’s just a little bit true—this maintenance of the status quo, we all need to work together to shift this paradigm and begin to value even more substance over style and humility more than charisma. -Jennie Boden, via X (formerly Twitter) Fortunately, some significant inroads are being made in the credit union community. CUNA recently reported that 52% of credit union CEOs are female, compared to only 3% of bank CEOs, 5% of top leaders in commercial banks and 6% of chief execs in Fortune 500 companies. And having a substantial representation of women in the top job is not just common among the smallest credit unions anymore: At credit unions with between $1 and $3 billion in assets, more than 14% of the CEOs are female. Great. Good for us. Truly, that’s good for our community. But even if it’s just a little bit true—this maintenance of the status quo—we all need to work together to shift this paradigm and begin to value even more substance over style and humility more than charisma. Because we want our credit unions—as they pursue their mission to be people helping people—to be led by the best possible leaders. Previous Next