Search Results

< Back Assessing Staff's Strategic Planning Path Jennie Boden Aug 2, 2017 The challenge is helping front-line credit union folks see the big picture. Should credit union staff members beyond the senior level be included in strategic planning? If yes, when and how will such involvement be most beneficial for a credit union? The diagram at right will help you consider the answer to this question. The board and senior management team should work in constructive partnership to set the credit union’s overarching vision, mission, culture (or values), strategic goals, objectives and metrics (see the items in the accompanying graphic in blue). Work plans (see items in red) are then developed and executed by the senior management team in partnership with the rest of the staff, based on the original work set forth on the vision, mission and culture. There are a few caveats, of course. The senior management team should be recused from some parts of the strategic planning process with the board when (a) the board anticipates that it may need to make a CEO change and wants to discuss it as a part of going in a “new strategic direction”; (b) the board discusses the possibility of restructuring the senior management team with just the CEO; and/or (c) there are important governance issues concerning the board, which could morph into a strategic effort focused on the board or governance-only issues, that they want to first discuss among themselves and (usually) with the CEO. Figure 1: Strategic Planning Elements Including more staff in the visioning process can, at times, be limiting, so the board and senior management team should consider whether this might be an issue. Staff can tend to think more along operational lines, and the purpose of strategic planning at the board and senior management team level is to think, to think big, and to think beyond what is happening today. However, some staff, especially individuals with specialized skill sets and knowledge, could be included at the board and senior management team level of planning, and all staff can and should be included in up-front brainstorming, research and data gathering. Additionally, they are vital to fully developing the more detailed operational work plans (the items in orange) that flow from the board-level strategic goals, objectives and metrics. Finally, they would need to be involved as a vital stakeholder group in the communications effort articulating the strategic planning efforts of leadership. After all, they will be asked to embrace and execute the plan. Previous Next

< Back Finding Balance in Board Meetings Gisele Manole Sep 13, 2024 Efficiency vs. Engagement In a recent conversation with a credit union board member, she expressed frustration over the increasingly automated and predictable nature of their monthly board meetings. This shift towards efficiency and expediency has left her questioning the necessity of her presence at all. This sentiment is a stark contrast to the past, where the primary complaint was the lack of focus and excessively long meetings. The Shift in Board Meeting Dynamics For many years, credit union board meetings were often critiqued for being too operational and detailed, often described as “chasing too many rabbits and catching none.” These meetings were lengthy and lacked substantive discussion. However, it seems that in the quest for efficiency, for some boards, the pendulum may have swung too far in the opposite direction, sacrificing curiosity and meaningful dialogue for expediency. Striking the Right Balance As with many things, the ideal approach lies somewhere in the middle. While asking questions is a sign of engagement, asking the wrong questions can indicate a lack of understanding of a director’s role. My colleague, Paul Dionne, recently wrote about achieving balanced, strategic-level dialogue while efficiently meeting fiduciary, legal, and regulatory obligations. The Traditional Role of Credit Union Board Meetings Historically, credit union board meetings have emphasized the formal role of the board. A routine agenda was often used to move from one report or policy issue to another. Board members were present to receive information, provide fiduciary oversight and make quick decisions when necessary. Many decisions were made immediately or at the beginning of the meeting, with strategic questions and generative dialogue often seen as obstacles to their progress. The Need for Generative Dialogue To foster a more engaging and productive board meeting, it’s essential to incorporate generative dialogue. This means creating space for strategic questions and discussions that go beyond routine reports and decisions. Encouraging curiosity and deeper engagement through thoughtful questions can lead to more meaningful outcomes and a stronger connection to the credit union’s mission. Perhaps not all questions need to be answered right away. Perhaps the best questions linger and fuel conversations for many meetings to come. If the question has a finite answer like yes or no, it’s likely operational in nature. What are some other helpful cues to guide strategic, board-level questions? Operational Indicators: Is it about the past or present? Is it about day-to-day operations? Is it about how you should get there? Strategic Indicators: Is it future-oriented? Is it central to your vision, mission or strategic goals? Is it about where you should go? Finding the right balance between efficiency and engagement in board meetings is crucial. While it’s important to maintain focus and avoid operational detail, it’s equally important to encourage strategic thinking and meaningful dialogue. Previous Next

< Back No Higher Calling Michael Daigneault Nov 25, 2014 The challenge of effective CEO evaluation It never fails—when I’m with a group of board members (which is very, very often) and I ask “What are your core responsibilities?” someone will always say, “to hire and fire the CEO.” And yes, I suppose at a very basic level this is true. Perhaps there is no more important decision a typical credit union board makes than in the hiring of a CEO. There is, of course, so much more to developing a successful relationship with a credit union CEO than in his or her hiring and firing. If you were to think back over your career and consider the best mentors you had—the ones who were able to elicit from you your finest moments as an employee—certainly you would consider their contributions to your career far beyond the moment they hired (or even fired) you. Indeed “CEO support and oversight” (not solely hiring and firing the CEO) is a key board responsibility that Quantum Governance focuses on. (The others are governance and leadership; performance and results; strategic thinking, learning and planning; budget and resources; membership and community outreach; and stewardship, ethics and financial integrity. On the whole, my colleagues and I sometimes worry that credit union directors spend too much time focusing on fiduciary and operational- related matters. Ideally, we would like to see you talk a bit more at the strategic level in the board room. However, one area where we do see a great deal of variability--and perhaps a greater need to focus at the fiduciary level—is in the assessment process of the CEO. What does an effective or “constructive partnership” between the board and your credit union’s CEO look like? That is, what kind of relationship do you have—and will you forge in the future—with your CEO? What are the appropriate operational and strategic boundaries? How, in the big picture, can you help your CEO be even more effective? What goals should you set for your CEO? Should your CEO’s goals be the same as the goals of the credit union as a whole—or should there be goals unique to him or her? Ultimately, what type of process is appropriate to provide an effective CEO assessment? There are real challenges in the answers to these vital questions. In Quantum Governance’s work, we assess credit union boards nationally, and less than 30 percent of board members we’ve surveyed think they effectively establish performance goals for their CEO. And only slightly more (35 percent) think they are effective in holding their CEOs accountable for such goals when they have been established. If my math is correct, that means only about 10 percent of credit union boards perceive they are effectively holding their CEOs accountable to an agreed-upon set of performance goals! To maintain a truly effective constructive partnership with your CEO, a board must thoughtfully and collectively work to build, foster, maintain and improve the relationship. A regular and genuinely valuable assessment process of the CEO is vital. It can provide: a more objective and comprehensive analysis of your CEO performance, a higher degree of focus on key credit union goals, efforts, and initiatives, an in-depth look at important leadership strengths – as well as challenges, a means for your credit union’s leadership to get “un-stuck,” a way to reframe key governance, leadership and strategy issues, baseline data to measure future efforts and progress, and new ideas, insights and ways to move the credit union forward. And yet, sadly our surveys show that a third or more of credit union board members feel they are doing an “ineffective” or only “adequate job” of using a quality process that allows all board members to provide input on the CEO’s evaluation. Such a process is a vital element in maintaining a good relationship with your CEO over time. In addition to ensuring that all board members have an opportunity to provide input into the CEO assessment process, here are other options to seriously consider: For example: 1) you could also ask your CEO to complete a CEO self-assessment tool aligned with the question set board members use to provide feedback; (2) you could ask for 360-degree assessments by direct reports to the CEO; and, in appropriate instances, (3) you could ask for mentor or coach assessments of the CEO. The immediate goal is to provide valuable feedback to the CEO that accurately assesses his or her efforts and gives genuinely helpful guidance to improve overall performance. The ultimate aim is to build an effective partnership that will help your CEO and, through his or her efforts, actively assist the credit union and its members to succeed. In many respects, there really is no higher calling before you as a board. 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 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 Two Of The Five Top Questions Board Chairs Have Michael Daigneault and Jennie Boden Oct 23, 2018 1. Should chairs vote? 2. What’s the best way to ask a director to move on? Quantum Governance recently had the privilege of spending a few days with nearly 100 credit union board chairs, vice-chairs and others when we conducted the Board Chair Development Seminar for CUES in Amelia Island, Fla. In this article, we put forth two of the top five questions we learned were on their minds and make an attempt to answer them. Question 1: Should board chairs vote on all regular matters? This first question surprised us. We were amazed to find that 50 percent or more of the board chairs in attendance said they didn’t vote unless there was “a tie in the boardroom.” Remarkable. They, in turn, were stunned when we told them that this practice was simply wrong. Digging further, their assumptions behind their abstention made some sense and evidenced an important desire for fairness. For example, they were concerned that: “A board chair, in expressing his or her opinion, might unduly sway the will of the whole,” and “Our board chair is the most senior member of our board and everyone looks to him; it wouldn’t be fair.”These are valid points, and we wholeheartedly agree on the need to ensure fairness and the ability to hear everyone’s voice in the boardroom. However, even board chairs have rights! The No. 1 question on Robert’s Rules of Order ’s online FAQs is: “Is it true that the president [also meaning chair] can vote only to break a tie?” Robert’s Rules of Order says “No, it is not true that the president [again, here, they also mean a chair] can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the voting body [which the board chair of a credit union is], he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the rights to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions ….” When you and your colleagues on the board address conflicts of interest, your efforts are not about eliminating them, but mitigating them. Similarly, your board chair not only has rights, but also a governance duty to independently express his or her opinion on matters before the board. He or she should also share experience, thoughts and perspectives which you likely want to consider. Follow some basic steps and you’ll be fine: Elect individuals to the role of chair who can be fair, objective facilitators. Ask the chair to share his/her thoughts at the close of the discussion, not at the beginning. Unless the vote is a private ballot, the chair’s vote should be rendered last. (Note that we found this voting issue to be so important that we’re working on a full white paper on this topic, and it will be published soon!) Question 2: How do I talk with a board member about moving on? In our recently released State of Credit Union Governance, 2018 , 74 percent of respondents reported that their boards are effective or very effective at having the right mix of skills or experience to accomplish its governance roles and responsibilities. And yet, still, asking a board member to move on remains one of the top issues on board chairs’ minds. We get it. It’s a hard one. Without term limits in place at many credit unions, board members may serve far beyond their time. We know it sounds harsh, but it’s true. We had a client once warn us that there were one or two members on the board that might have dementia, but they did not ask them to move on for fear of upsetting them. From a human perspective, we understand it. But from a governance perspective, one has to ask whether those board members are able to aptly fulfill their legal duties and governance roles and responsibilities. We offer these five tips to help you engage in the hard conversation when it’s time for a board member to transition off your board. Have your chair, along with at least one other trusted board member, engage in a private conversation, and: Be respectful and open; approach the conversation with a genuine desire to learn. Try to understand where the board member in question is—what his or her perspective is and what might make a transition easier. Focus on what you’re hearing and not on what you’re saying. This isn’t about you. This is about your board member. People will respond better if they are feeling heard. Be direct and get to the point. We know it’s a hard conversation, but don’t “beat around the bush.” Don’t put it off! When you know that you need to have the conversation, have it. You’ll be doing everyone a favor. Don’t wait until you get to the point of having a member with dementia—even possible dementia—on your board. Expect a positive outcome, even if that outcome may be that the board member moves on; it could be good for him/her and the board. Not all transitions are bad. Don’t assume that the outcome will be bad for the board member. Look for a graceful exit and transition for all. We felt that all five of the top questions on board. chairs' minds were vital—and that if they were on the minds of the board chairs, they were likely on the minds of other directors and CEOs, too. (Are they on yours?) 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

Supervisory & Audit Committee Resources A Cautionary Tale of Risk Management in This Time of Bank Failures Defining roles and responsibilities and continuing education help ensure appropriate coverage. Read More The Importance Of A Truly Independent Supervisory Committee If you’re shifting to an ‘audit’ committee instead, be careful not to sacrifice independent oversight at the altar of efficiency. Read More A Case for Reaching Higher Musings on the Federal Reserve’s proposed guidance on supervisory expectation for boards Read More ERM Is Everyone's Responsibility 10 steps to take to ensure your leadership is doing all it can to identify and manage risk Read More Supervisory Committees Function Well, But... Just like CUs and their boards, supervisory committees must change with the times. Read More

< Back Building Your Associate Board Member Program, From The Philosophy Up Jennie Boden and Gisele Manole May 1, 2021 The groundwork for success includes commitment from the start. The debate over the best governance practices for board succession rages on. It is a routine topic in every single engagement and interview we conduct. The issues of diversity and term limits are especially prominent lately, and the daunting task of building the board of the future feels, as with many other responsibilities, like a full-time job for the credit union’s volunteers, all of whom have limitations on their time. The State of Credit Union Governance 2020 found that almost half of board members surveyed (45%) thought that their board was only adequate or less than adequate at attracting people who have the right skills. So, what does it take to marry talent with your board and governance culture? Mina Worthington, CEO of $796 million Solarity Credit Union in Yakima, Washington, describes how her credit union answered the question. “Ultimately our success was in finding the right way to meaningfully involve associate board members in the work of our board,” she says. “They are board members in every way possible except for the vote.” What does an associate board member program look like? And are some key ways that associate board members can be brought successfully into your fold? At Solarity CU, associate board members are partnered with a “board buddy” to help orient them to the credit union and the culture of the board itself. Proper board orientation is oftentimes overlooked or treated as a “self-help” effort, lacking a strategy for continuing orientation past reading the governance manual, bylaws and policies and meeting with the CEO and senior management. An associate board member at Solarity CU explains: “Right after I joined, my board buddy reached out and called me. We sit next to each other in the board meetings. She’ll whisper historical things to me and follow up with me after the meetings to be sure that I understood everything. I’ve only been on the board for about two months, but I already feel respected, and I definitely feel like my voice is heard.” Another hallmark of Solarity CU’s success with its associate board member program has been the institution of regular monthly meetings between the CEO and associate board members before the board meetings to review the meeting materials and answer any questions. Worthington says, “Investing the time in building those relationships with associate board members was just as important as making sure that they knew what was going in the meeting materials each month—the message being, ‘We want to learn about you as much as you want to learn about us.’” Another hallmark of a successful associate board member program is access to training and conferences that give associate members a broader look at the issues, innovations and ever-evolving best practices in credit union governance. Think of this as an investment by both parties in the future of the credit union. A multitude of resources are available—from online trainings and workshops to conferences and certification programs. Some are even free! So, the underlying philosophy of a successful associate board member program must be, “We’re 100% committed to you,” instead of thinking of associate members as engaging in a protracted interview process that can sometimes go on for years. From our experience in working with thousands of credit unions, an associate board member program that engages, orientates, educates and invests in its volunteers in meaningful ways is the best way to ensure the future of your credit union. In the coming year, if you haven’t explored an associate board member program to support a healthy balance of board renewal at your credit union, maybe 2021 is the year to do so. Just be sure, as with everyone in your boardroom, that you are open and committed to helping those volunteers develop into exceptional stewards of your vision and mission, too. You can purchase Quantum Governance’s Associate Board Member Job Description, as well as other policies from their Policy Library here . Previous Next

< Back A New Credit Union Model with Classic Principles Focuses on Social Purpose Michael Daigneault and Caitlin Hatch Oct 1, 2018 Reclaim the ‘why’ of credit unions by deeply embedding social purpose in all your activities. Most modern credit unions significantly under-leverage their cooperative model. A key reason for this is the way the leaders of most credit unions conceive of “success.” Our thinking a few years ago was that the perspective of all CU leaders about success fell somewhere along a spectrum we could define (see graphic). On one end of this spectrum, CU leaders were very “member-centric” in their approach. “After all,” they would say, “credit unions exist for their members. Success is providing member services and benefits that improve people’s lives—sometimes at the expense of better financial results or ratios.” These CUs’ cause was to—first and foremost—benefit the member. They did so while prudently ensuring the ongoing viability of CU operations. On the other end of the spectrum, CU leaders were strongly focused on their CUs’ “financial performance”—fundamentally oriented toward financial success, growth and sustainability. “You can’t help members if you don’t exist” was a perspective such credit unions often shared. They did not ignore their members by any means, but ultimately, success for credit unions on this end of the spectrum was primarily based on classic financial measures, sometimes at the expense of rewarding members first. Their “cause” was to ensure the ongoing financial health of the credit union so that it might, in turn, offer products and services to members and their families. Still other CUs were in the middle of our success spectrum and took a “balanced approach.” These CUs did all they could to thoughtfully harmonize the member-centric and CU-centric approaches. They saw the essence of their success as an ongoing balance of excellent service and strong financial results. Sometimes service was paramount in their thinking. Sometimes financial strength had to be the priority. Overall, however, the careful balancing between the two would lead to true success. These CUs’ “cause” was twofold: to benefit members and craft a strong financial cooperative. More recently, as we have talked to other CUs about ways they could take greater advantage of their cooperative model (and what it truly means to be a CU today), we learned that a few were thinking in a new way about success. These CUs reported that the essence of their approach was to include their relationship to their communities in their thinking about every one of their programs. These CUs have a new cause orientation and new success metrics. After talking with these CUs, did we need to revise the entire spectrum? The answer was a resounding yes and no. We’ll explain. ‘Revising’ the Spectrum The much more robust and comprehensive “community focus” that these CUs were taking didn’t seem to fit well on our initial spectrum. On the other hand, this new approach remained closely related to the fundamental CU ideas of member service and financial strength. What we ultimately learned is that by adding a third focal point—community —to the member-centric and financial performance focal points, a new way of framing success for credit unions emerged, one that is a direct descendant from the movement’s foundational principle of people helping people. At this point, some of you may be thinking, “Hey, maybe we are already a social purpose credit union. We already do lots of good things in the community.” You are not alone in suggesting this, but the social purpose approach goes much farther than nearly all of the community engagement efforts we have seen to date. As Coro Strandberg , former chair of $21.7 billion Vancity , Vancouver, British Columbia, and a corporate social responsibility pioneer, explains, “It is not uncommon for credit unions to find that they are not as far along toward becoming a social purpose organization as they think they are. It is because they already have the philosophy built into their DNA. [But, because of that,] they think they are doing more than they actually are!” The Social Purpose Model The social purpose approach—fully executed—means integrating social purpose into everything a CU does. It has a direct connection to the values and underlying principles that propelled the CU movement many years ago. In this model, the CU commits “a substantial portion of its assets to social finance projects rather than having social investment as an ancillary corporate social responsibility plan,” wrote Sean Geoby and Olaf Weber in a 2013 article in the Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment . In other words, the focus on community impact becomes the driving vision of the CU, which then embeds social purpose values into all aspects of its governance, strategy and operational efforts. This does not mean that a CU should abandon its members nor the credit union’s financial health. Rather, to really serve members and substantially grow the credit union’s financial strengths, shifting to a broader focus on community can help rally many more people and organizations to the “cause” of the credit union. To do this, Strandberg advises, “As a board and management team, you need to determine what your purpose is. Why are you here?” The answer, she suggests, should not be to just meet member financial needs, but to go beyond such needs and—in a targeted manner—address some of the broader societal issues negatively impacting members and their families. And yes, this may mean helping others in the community who are not yet connected with the CU. As Simon Sinek challenges us all in his book, Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action , organizations need to both examine and reclaim their “Why?” CUs should certainly serve their members and their families with excellent products and services—what Sinek terms the “what.” They should also effectively execute their cooperative business model and maintain strong and sustainable financial fundamentals—which Sinek calls the “how.” But they should also think deeply about their core societal purpose—the “why”—a societal purpose that embraces members’ needs, but also extends far beyond just members in its ultimate reach and impact. This helps to transform the entity from one that simply provides a service or a commodity—like so many others in the marketplace—into a social movement. A cause! When helping the community becomes part of your core product line, and you think about it that way and it's part of what you are doing, focused on it on a daily basis, you are starting to arrive. -- Brett Martinez, Redwood Credit Union Social Purpose CUs Vancity : Chief Governance Officer and Corporate Secretary Karen Hoffman says the CU defines success as “building healthy communities and increasing and preserving the well-being of our members.” Under this vision, the CU has achieved 25 percent market share in one of Canada’s most sophisticated and international financial cities. Vancity does not focus on community simply because it has the “luxury to do so” due to its large asset base. It is so large today—and has gained such a passionate and loyal membership—due to its courageous decision to improve the Vancouver community. The CU has succeeded in transforming itself into a cause to improve Vancouver—a cause that many people in the city and its surrounding areas can truly believe in and actively seek to be a part of. For example, one of the CU’s most important efforts is its high-impact community investment loan that supports affordable housing; social purpose real estate; local, natural and organic food; the environment and energy efficiency; as well as social enterprises and social ventures. The CU’s social finance portfolio dwarves traditional corporate social responsibility efforts at many institutions. Vancity’s journey toward the social purpose model was sometimes two steps forward and one step back. The CU’s leaders had to experiment to see what would work. Other CUs can learn from its experience and take inspiration from its success. University Federal Credit Union , Austin, Texas : Under the banner of “When Our Community Is Strong, We Are Strong,” $2.3 billion University FCU has elevated its already strong community efforts to a new level. “This demonstrates where the heart of UFCU is—with our members and our community,” says Heather McKissick, VP/community impact and a CUES member. “In only its first year, our DO GOOD program has rallied our employees’ efforts around our community partners and made a real impact on the people they serve.” The credit union’s CEO, Tony Budet, understands that the model has its challenges. “We needed to attract new leaders to our board who were from within the community and had an interest in it, and it was a culture clash at first,” the CUES member says. “It’s difficult to go through that. A lot of credit unions will have this challenge if you don’t have an anchor or a group of people on the board who are part of the community you serve. It needs to be board-driven.” Lake Trust Credit Union , Brighton, Michigan : David Snodgrass, CCE, CEO and a CUES member, says: “We were talking about our strategy, culture and our business plan and we were wrestling with answering the question, ‘Why?’ We started reflecting on, ‘Why we are here?’ and ‘What is our purpose beyond just the traditional banking services we offer?’ It is still a journey we are on today.” $1.8 billion Lake Trust CU pursued a number of avenues, including forming a 501(c)(3) foundation to encourage charitable participation in some of its community endeavors, pursuing a grant from the U.S. Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. “Our CDFI grant request is to help seed a micro loan fund for small businesses in rural communities across the state of Michigan and to help us to take more risk than we would otherwise in our standard business practice—take a chance on a single mom who wants to open a hair salon, a young man who wants to open a pizza shop, in an effort to breathe economic opportunities into our smaller communities across the state,” Snodgrass says. Like Budet, Snodgrass also emphasizes that a social purpose model needs to be driven at the board level. Lake Trust CU has recently added four new board members and two associate directors from the non-profit sector with very deep roots in the community. “The contributions of our new board members have been multiple,” he explains. “It has invigorated the leadership team … to think even bigger about where we can go. They have opened up their networks to us and connected us to other thought leaders or other social purpose enterprises. That has been priceless. Having partners is part of this—we can’t do it all ourselves.” Redwood Credit Union , Santa Rosa, California : Sometimes pressing circumstances demand new approaches. Last year $4.3 billion Redwood CU found itself at ground zero in one of the most destructive wildfires in California history. CUES member Brett Martinez, CEO, says that the CU’s historic response was a result of having reacted to earlier fires in 2015 and 2016 and the recognition that the CU was able to react in an emergency to meet its communities’ needs. Because of its already deep relationships, Redwood CU was able to raise $32 million from 41,000 donors and help ensure the funds got to the right hands. “The state senator knew the areas, what the needs are, and the newspaper helped to communicate, get the word out and manage the communication, and that helped us being able to take in and distribute the money,” Martinez says. “Affordable housing is a huge issue,” he adds. “We didn’t do construction loans. We didn’t do agriculture lending either. There were other people doing that, and there wasn’t a need. Now, we are doing them, and we intend to keep doing them, even after recovery is completed. When helping the community becomes part of your core product line, and you think about it that way and it is part of what you are doing, focused on it on a daily basis, you are starting to arrive.” Redwood CU’s response to the disastrous fires has helped to propel it to a whole new level. Its leaders acknowledge they will never be the same after this experience. Future plans include more fully integrating the lessons learned—a hallmark of a maturing social purpose model. Pursuing the Model Snodgrass acknowledges that really understanding community needs and developing authentic relationships with community partners can be challenging. “Deciding to do this requires a degree of humility,” he says. “It’s not about you—all of your energy is directed to others. We were meeting with a social purpose organization in downtown Detroit. They are doing some amazing things: employing homeless women, designing jewelry, creating products. We wanted to understand how we would could add value and support them. We were met with a degree of skepticism. When you start engaging in community organizations, they don’t expect that somebody really cares. They expect that this is some sort of propaganda play.” Much work remains to be done to fulfill the promise of CUs’ social purpose model, which offers a blend of classic CU principles, an innovative community-centered approach and the promise of re-energizing the “why” of CUs in a way that appeals to young people. The approach also appears quite flexible and allows for both incremental development and a broad reach. It also stimulates innovation and a renewed passion from credit union leadership in how they design the credit union to be a meaningful cause—a cause that genuinely invites others to collectively reclaim the “why” of a credit union and create positive impact for members, their families and communities. 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 Coming Together for the Common Good Michael Daigneault Dec 1, 2019 Consider multiple perspectives and build consensus— not unanimity—to ensure your CU is making good decisions. If you Google “decision-making,” we think you’ll be amazed at what comes up in the search results: “The Top 5 Decision-Making Models You Need to Know,” “Models of Decision-Making: Rational, Administrative and Retrospective Decision-Making Models,” the “Most Popular Decision-Making Models,” and even “Decision-Making Models of Decision-Making.” And the list goes on. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a simple, no-fuss, one-size-fits-all model that we as leaders of our credit unions could apply—be it in the boardroom or in the halls of our CUs’ administrative offices—that could assure us that we were making the right decisions? Wouldn’t it be nice to know we’re making the best decisions that always put our members’ interests first while delivering the most effective outcomes for our credit unions? Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. A former colleague from what was then the Ethics Resource Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank and consultancy, used to say that decisions are the hardest when there are two competing values at play. And we think he’s right. It’s easy to make good decisions when the options are black and white, good and bad, positive and negative. Should you merge with the larger, more solvent credit union when yours is hours away from shutting its doors? Is the core conversion a go when you have the funds to switch and your current system is on its last legs? Should you promote the current VP/finance to CFO when she’s fully capable, has the requisite skills, the backing of the board, a great relationship with you (the CEO) and the trust of senior management? It’s easy to see how you can quickly get to “yes” on these questions and many others. But when you and your colleagues are in the boardroom—or managing your credit union from the C-suite—how do you make decisions when the questions are not as clear? What do you do when there are two important, competing values at play?How does a credit union decide between “serving member interests” and “ensuring the financial safety and soundness of the credit union?” How do you balance the credit union’s ongoing health and meaningful outreach in the community?Perhaps the most important job of board members and senior management alike is to ask questions that lead to not only expeditious decision-making but the right decisions. Perhaps the most important job of board members and senior management alike is to ask questions that lead to not only expeditious decision-making but the right decisions. Commit to Having the Hard Conversation First and foremost, begin by committing to having the hard conversations that you need to have in both the boardroom and the C-suite. While researching for the soon-to-be-released 2020 State of Credit Union Governance report, we found that more than a third of respondents said their boards do only an adequate or less-than-adequate job of asking the hard questions that need to be asked. And yet, the same study found that boards report overwhelmingly that they are “making quality decisions.” How can this be? Fundamental to effective decision-making is ensuring that, as credit union leaders, you are upping your game in terms of asking hard questions. What do we mean by “hard questions?” Perhaps the most important job of board members and senior management alike is to ask questions that lead to not only expeditious decision-making but the right decisions for the credit union and ultimately for members. If you fail to do so, you’re not living up to your role and responsibility—either as a volunteer or as a paid leader of your credit union. Being open and inviting multiple perspectives into difficult conversations is critical to decision-making. It’s vital to ensure that every voice in the room is heard. Remember, that your credit union is a nonprofit governed by a board of directors, not a privately owned company led by a chairman/CEO. By design, the strength of a cooperative leadership structure comes from the chorus of voices that governs it—even though at times it may be cumbersome. (Remember cooperative principle No. 2, democratic member control? Read about it .) Be Conscious of Unconscious Thought Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American psychologist and economist who won a Nobel prize for his work on judgment and decision-making, much of it outlined in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. In the book, Kahneman suggests that for the most part, individuals spend about 90% of their time “thinking fast,” or motivated by subconscious or unconscious thought, and only 10% of their time “thinking slow,” or motivated by rational or conscious thought. What does this have to do with the decisions coming before your credit union’s board and senior management? Well, everything. It means that everyone in the boardroom or in the C-suite is coming to the table with their own biases, and they are largely subconscious. And these decision-makers are, believe it or not, largely driven by those biases. Remember that discussion that you had about moving away from brick and mortar? Or the presentation that your CEO and her team made to the board on that potential merger? What about the discussions you’ve been having in executive session about the CEO’s variable pay? All of these discussions and more are being seen through different lenses by various board members and senior leaders. A board member who believes in high-touch customer service and relishes the personal connection with the tellers in his local branch will forever believe that brick and mortar is the way to go. Legacy board members may be deeply concerned about what a merger might mean for their own board positions. And finally, the executive director at the homeless shelter who serves on your board will likely find the CEO’s pay enviable and maybe even too generous, regardless of performance. Remember, these perspectives—even if they are unconscious—are always at play, and they have an impact on each and every meeting and in each and every conversation, whether we want to believe it or not. Be Clear About What Consensus Means … and What It Doesn’t Another critical component to effective decision-making is to understand the concept of consensus as it is designed to operate in the credit union boardroom. The reality is that a significant number of credit union leaders still believe that consensus exists only when everyone is in complete agreement—what some would term “absolute consensus” or simply “unanimity.” Sure, it feels great when we can all agree with a motion or proposal. And yes, sometimes a thoughtful compromise is the best course. But absolute consensus or unanimity—while desirable or comforting at times—is not necessary to make good decisions in the boardroom. Indeed, there are even times when insistence on unanimity may cause a proposal or initiative to become a mere shell of what it once was. If meaningful changes are made just to satisfy one or two hold-out votes, an initiative may become so modified or watered-down that it may no longer add the significant value that the original proposal offered. What, then, is an appropriate degree of consensus in the boardroom? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a general agreement about something.” Note the word “general.” It involves coming to an agreement to support a decision that is in the best interest of the whole. The process of coming to consensus is designed to afford everyone an opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions about the subject at hand. Yep, there it is again—genuinely hearing everyone’s voice. Consensus in the boardroom, therefore, does not require unanimity. What it does require is you and your colleagues asking the hard questions, challenging your values, raising your subconscious thinking to the conscious level and coming to a decision that is in the best interest of the whole. Not everyone may agree when you come to a consensus, but if you have a quorum, a majority of those voting on the matter are generally considered a consensus on regular matters coming before the board. (Note that the Federal Credit Union Bylaws , published by the National Credit Union Administration include only a simple majority—50% plus one voting member for a motion to pass.) And remember, once the final vote is taken on a matter, the decision has been made. The entire board is now expected to speak with one voice … even if you were one of the members voting against the motion. Be Transparent About Your Decision-Making We end where we began, by sharing a lesson from our days at the Ethics Resource Center. We had the good fortune to work with a select group of researchers—ethics officers at Fortune 500 companies, consultants and practitioners from around the nation—in a program we developed called the ERC Fellows Program. Together, we took on leading questions and issues in the field of business ethics. One such question was, “What makes for an ethical leader?” Surprisingly enough, our research led us back to decision-making. We found that regardless of how ethical the leader was as an individual, in order to be seen as an ethical leader, the individual’s decision-making process needed to be seen as one that had integrity. Our research with the Ethics Resource Center offered four key recommendations on the notion of ethical decision-making and ethical leadership: When announcing critical decisions, be certain to acknowledge the ethical issues (competing values or even subconscious thinking) inherent in the situation being addressed and how the proposed solution (the decision) addresses those ethical issues. When discussing the ethics of key decisions, publicly acknowledge the difficulty of resolving such dilemmas and challenges and your awareness of the fact that ethical people could reasonably disagree on how best to resolve the dilemma. (Remember, you and your colleagues will prioritize different values, and this is where subconscious thinking will emerge!) Insist that your direct reports (or for boards, the CEO and senior management) talk you through the ethics of their decisions for review and/or approval at the same level of detail they discuss other business considerations. (But do so without micromanaging the CEO/senior management!) Ensure that leaders understand their impact on the organization’s culture and how their attention or inattention to the ethical dimension of their choices impacts the organization’s culture. Given the unique role of credit union leaders as stewards of their members’ funds, we believe the role of the credit union leader—be they volunteer or paid—as effective decision-makers is paramount. Have the courage to ask the hard questions. Engage all of the voices in your boardrooms, volunteers and senior management alike. Be conscious of both rational and subconscious thought. Know what consensus really means and what it doesn’t. And be clear about the decisions you make—all for the betterment of your members. Previous Next

< Back A Matter of Culture Michael Daigneault Apr 1, 2014 What drives yours? Here are 10 elements to shoot for in your board room. I ask credit union leaders a lot of questions… Indeed, asking questions is one of the best things effective consultants do. Some of my questions have proved fairly easy to answer; some, much more difficult. In recent years, one of the most challenging questions for many credit union CEOs and board leaders has been: “What type of organizational culture are you trying to foster at your credit union?” The difficulty in answering this question has led me to ask a second question, which has proved even more vexing: “What type of leadership or governance culture are you trying to foster at your credit union?” I have tried to discover what makes it is such a challenge for leaders to answer to these fundamental questions—particularly at the CEO and board levels. Perhaps the notion of organizational or leadership culture is something they haven’t had the chance to think a great deal about? Perhaps they have been focused on other things—like survival, economic shifts, new regulations or financial ratios? Maybe culture is something credit union leaders simply accept as-is—or take for granted? Maybe the very notion of organizational culture—as applied to a credit union or its governance—is confusing and needs to be clarified? (It is a fairly new construct, dating back perhaps just a few decades.) Or maybe it is all of the above? Uncovering why it is so difficult to answer the “governance culture question” has taken me on a recent quest to figure out what organizational culture is at a deeper level—and to try to better understand why many experts feel culture is so important to organizational success. For example, in 2010 organizational culture guru Edgar Schein warned that “cultural understanding is desirable for all of us, but it is essential to leaders if they are to lead.” Jim Dougherty wrote in a 2014 Harvard Business Review article that “company culture is part of your business model,” and “the single most important attribute to successful companies.” If these experts are right—and culture is somehow central to success—then we should try to uncover the hurdles CU leaders face in understanding, articulating and building the culture of their institutions. In particular, we should try to identify and overcome any leadership and governance culture challenges leaders may face. What is ‘Organizational Culture?’ Every credit union has a culture. Just what that culture is can be hard for its leaders to describe—even if they have been with the credit union for a long time. Although long-tenured board members often feel they understand their CU well, they are frequently too close to it to really take a step back and identify the unconscious beliefs and assumptions that have been guiding their decision-making. It is, as such, a real challenge for board leaders to really see their own organizational culture. This can be the case concerning the CU overall (where leaders do not always have the kind of institutional access to pick up key cultural cues) and at the governance level (where leaders may be too personally involved to identify the underlying assumptions with any degree of objectivity). In his book Organizational Culture and Leadership , Edgar Schein formulates a formal definition of organizational culture, the essence of which is this: “what a group learns over a period of time as it solves its problems of survival in an external environment and its problems of internal integration.’ This leads us then to a new pair of questions you should yourself ask about your credit union: How much is your organizational culture simply an unconscious by-product of your founders’ or key leaders’ leadership style? And, on the other side of the coin: How much is your organizational culture the result of a conscious attempt to shape its values and assumptions? This last question brings us to look deeper into how credit union leaders can work together to improve their organizational and leadership culture. How Do Leaders Create or Change Culture? If you have been trying to make changes in how your organization works, you need to find out how the existing culture helps or hinders you. Accordingly, you need to determine what assumptions operate within the existing culture. Schein groups assumptions into three basic levels: 1) artifacts—all of the surface things you would first observe, see, hear or feel when you encounter an organization; 2) stated beliefs and values; and 3) basic underlying assumptions—the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs and values of the group. In 1983, Schein wrote that when organizations first form, there are usually dominant figures or “founders” whose own beliefs, values and assumptions provide a visible and articulated model for how the group should be structured and how it should function. As these beliefs are put into practice, some work out and some do not. The group learns what parts of the founder’s belief system work and which should be left behind. This learning gradually creates shared assumptions. Founders and subsequent leaders continue to attempt to embed their own assumptions, but increasingly they find that other parts of the organization have their own experiences to draw on and, thus, cannot be changed. Increasingly the learning process is shared, and the resulting cultural assumptions reflect the total group’s experience, not only the leader’s initial assumptions. But leaders continue to try to embed their own views of how things should be and, if they are powerful enough, continue to have a dominant effect on the emerging culture. Board members need to be able to take a step back and reflect on how your organization either challenges (or doesn’t) these assumptions. Be aware that your response will be tainted by your own influence on the culture you have helped to build. This is where an unbiased third party who can remain objective and observe your board’s dynamics may be helpful. If you are trying to examine (or change) your governance culture, you may also find yourself fighting against the organization’s design and structure; organizational systems and procedures; the design of physical space, facades and buildings; stories, legends, myths and symbols; and formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds and charters. Changing culture can be difficult, particularly because sometimes culture can act as a protective mechanism, with each existing assumption working to reinforce and support the other. If you try to change one assumption in isolation, the others will push back to reinforce the status quo. Assumptions are also driven by the individuals or groups who have influence within the organization. If you want to change the culture, you sometimes have to foster a culture change within your organization’s current leaders, or modify the organization’s core governance philosophy as well as its policies and procedures. While often the most effective, changing the behavior of key leaders can be so hard that modifying the core governance philosophy is often the best opening move. When all else fails, a change in personnel may be required. But there is hope. Change can happen. It takes a focused effort and commitment to the following types of primary mechanisms: what leaders pay attention to, measure and control; how leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises; deliberate role modeling and coaching; operational criteria for the allocation of rewards and status; and operational criteria for recruitment, selection, promotion, retirement and expulsion. 10 Elements of an Effective Culture Once you and your colleagues—both the board and the senior staff leaders–have effectively recognized and thoughtfully discussed the underlying assumptions driving your current credit union leadership culture, you can turn your attention to identifying any weaknesses or gaps and shape a more effective leadership culture for the future. I challenge you to address each of the following 10 key elements to build an effective board culture for your credit union. 1. Commit to a culture of engagement. Nothing really improves unless the board and senior staff are actively engaged in the process. This means leaders have to do more than just attend monthly meetings and listen. It means they have to do their homework, and be genuinely prepared. It means they have to show up and actively engage in discussions. That way, they can co-create with senior management the future of their credit union. It’s the responsibility of senior staff leaders and all board members to be familiar with the credit union’s key programs and strategic initiatives. It’s also the responsibility of leadership to work together to improve them. To do so, you must be engaged. 2. Join with management to foster a culture of teamwork. There is a lot of literature in the business world on the importance of teamwork, but seldom is it applied directly to boards. Taking a page from Management 101, you and your colleagues must join together to foster a culture of teamwork. And not just among yourselves—be sure to include members of your credit union’s senior leadership. Who else will work with you, shoulder to shoulder, during times of challenge? Evaluate opportunities with you? Celebrate the successes with you? Share the burdens? 3. Build a culture of curiosity. Socrates was recognized by Oracle at Delphi as one of the wisest men on earth because he was a genuinely curious man who was open about what he knew and—perhaps more importantly—what he did not know. Bring your own humility to the board room. Come with an open mind and learn from both your board and senior staff colleagues. Curiosity is one of the most important attributes a director—and a board as a whole—can have. 4. If you are able to develop a culture of curiosity , you’ll likely also foster a culture of learning. You and your colleagues will bring to the table your own personal curiosities and, combined together, you will move in the direction of what Peter Senge, a leading 21st century management theorist, has called a “learning organization.” Indeed, you can then begin to look at board room (and many committee meeting) experiences not through the lens of “necessary data exchange,” but the lens of “collective learning.” Culture is a learned experience and learning models should help us to better understand culture creation and change. 5. To support your learning, you and your colleagues will need to foster a culture of inquiry. You will need to revise the very nature of your board meetings so they encourage a genuine dialogue and exchange of ideas, a culture in which great questions are recognized and appreciated. Gone should be the days of stale committee reports or—worse yet—committee reports that simply mirror the written briefing materials. 6. All this communication requires that CU leaders maintain a sincere culture of respect. Respect does not mean agreeing to everything anyone else suggests. It does not simply mean being “nice.” It does mean deeply listening to—and honoring—other leaders’ voices in the process of decision-making. It also means valuing others’ contributions and knowing the boundaries of the role you each are carrying out. 7. Be mindful that you have all committed your time, talents and expertise to the CU board for the same reason—to be of service. Focus on that commitment. Build a culture of service, remembering that the roots of the CU movement are deep. For more than 100 years, credit unions have been providing quality financial services to their members. Above all else, we are driven as a movement by our commitment to cooperative principles. Voluntary and open membership, member economic participation and rewards are at least as—or more important than—the bottom line. 8. Because you are stewards of other people’s funds and have committed to a culture of service, you and your colleagues should—and will—be held to a very high standard. You will need to, therefore, build a strong culture of diligence. Some components of this part of your culture will be informal. Together you and your colleagues will determine mutually agreed-upon standards and expectations for how you will act and govern the CU. Other, more formal standards will be imposed upon your CU by regulators. In either case, you and your colleagues must pledge that together you will be eternally vigilant on both the formal and the informal standards guiding your decisions and actions. 9. As stewards of other people’s funds, and because as a CU you are committed not only to a culture of service but also to cooperative principles, you must commit to a culture of accountability. Of course, you must hold each other accountable and, clearly, accountability extends to your credit union’s CEO and, ultimately, the staff. You must model a culture of respect from the top-down, the same way you must model accountability. 10. Ultimately what every organization wants to build is a culture of trust. You want a trusting relationship with your members, your staff, your regulators and with the public. It’s the right thing to do and can only benefit your business bottom line as well. In all, building a culture that breeds success for your CU will not be an easy journey, but is certainly one that’s worthy of the effort. Challenge your organization’s long-held assumptions. Commit yourself. Be engaged. Ask your questions. Leave your ego at the door. Respect one another. Hold each other accountable. And do the right thing. Having done so, you will earn the trust that your members place in your leadership! Previous Next