Category: A2 – Organizations

by John Holbrook Jr.
A Biblical View, Blog #040 posted April 3, 2017, edited March 9, 2021.

In my blog of April 3, 2017, I introduced John Carver’s Policy Governance. In this blog, I will discuss how I see planning occurring within an organization using Policy Governance.

Organizational [2] planning requires clear thinking and unhampered communication among the parties involved (members of the board, the staff, and the planning team). Clear thinking and unhampered communication in turn require the use of an easily understandable planning process and precise planning terms or nomenclature.

After a lifetime of planning for businesses, churches, Christian ministries, military units, professional firms, and secular non-profits, I have developed an approach to organizational planning based on John Carver’s Policy Governance. [1] Because Carver did not deal specifically with the subject of “strategic planning,” I have developed my own application of Carver’s principles to the area of organizational planning, in which I have abandoned the use of the term “strategic planning” because it tends to confuse the planning process – as you will see, half of the work of what is normally called “strategic planning” falls under Carver’s ends planning and is the business of the board and half of it falls under Carver’s means planning and is the business of the CEO and his staff.

Because the traditional terms “long-term,” “mission,” “objectives,” “short-term,” “strategy,” “tactics,” and “vision” are often use interchangeably, they seldom convey precise ideas. Here I would like to imbue these terms with precise meanings by relating them to a planning process based on Policy Governance.

As I have indicated above, the planning process needs to be divided into two parts: (1) developing an organization’s Ends, which is the job of the board, and (2) developing the Means by which the organization will accomplish its Ends, which is the job of the CEO and his staff. To simplify my explanation, I will assume in each case that I am a member of the planning team and will use the term “we.”

1 – Ends Planning

Ends planning must be conducted by the organizations board.  As I have thought about it, Ends Planning involves more than just the organization’s Ends. First, it must start with an understanding of the organization’s identity. Second, there are actually three types of Ends to consider: (a) Founders’ Ends, (b) Current Ends, and (c) Future Ends. Let’s look at all of them.

1.1. Organizational Identity. The character and motivation of an organization’s founders usually get indelibly stamped on an organization and can be seen in the organization’s leadership long after its founders have departed. This organizational identity can be determined by answering the question, “Who are we?” The answer should identify the common denominator between the founders and the current trustees.

For example: The March of Dimes’ identity derived from the compassion of its original trustees for the victims of disease – particularly children. That same compassion motivates the trustees of the March of Dimes today. I imagine that their answer to the question would be, “We are people who care about sick children.”

Knowing the organization’s identity is critical and must be the starting point for the board’s Ends Planning.

1.2. Organizational Ends. These ends can be determined by answering the question, “What are we ultimately trying to accomplish here?” But even that question needs elaboration, because it does not force us to examine the changes that the organization’s Ends may have gone through in the past and maybe should go through in the future. Thus I think there are three Ends that we need to know about: (a) Founders’ Ends, (b) Current Ends, and (c) Future Ends.

1.2.1. Founders’ Ends. In previous planning, these ends would have been called the vision or originating purpose of the organization. The Founders’ Ends can be determined by answering the above question, modified to cover the past, “What were the founders trying to accomplish here?”

For example: The March of Dimes was founded to fight a specific disease, polio, by ameliorating the suffering of its victims and by underwriting research into its eradication. So the founders’ answer would have been: “The amelioration and eradication of polio.”

 1.2.1. Current Ends. In previous planning, these ends would have been called the mission or sustaining purpose of the organization. The Current Ends can be determined by answering the above question, modified for the present, “What are we trying to accomplish here?”

For example: After the perceived eradication of polio, the trustees of the March of Dimes considered shutting it down, but decided that the abandonment of the good will and expertise which it had accumulated over the decades of its existence would be irresponsible. Instead, they adopted a new purpose – to fight infant pathologies such as birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality. So I imagine the current trustees’ answer would be, “A radical reduction in the incidences of birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality.” Note that the Current Ends is not very different from the Founders’ Ends; it represents an adaptation to changed circumstances. Note also that, while it did not require changes to the March of Dimes’ fund-raising operations, it did require changes to the March of Dimes’ technical focus and expertise and thus probably produced many changes in personnel and procedures.

1.2.3. Future Ends. These ends can be determined by answering the above question, modified for the future, “What should we be trying to accomplish here?” Before we can consider this question, however, we need to address another: “How might the future affect us?”

1.2.3.1 – Environmental Analysis (external). With as much realism and foresight as possible, we must delineate the environment in which the organization will be operating during the coming decade and identify those factors which will help or hinder the organization. The analysis must consider such critical influences upon the organization as the economy, political and social forces, the state of technology, and the organization’s customers or beneficiaries.

1.2.3.2. Capability Analysis (internal). With as much rigor and honesty as possible, we must then identify the organization’s critical strengths and weaknesses in such areas as finance, management, marketing, organization, production, and technology.

1.2.3.3. Opportunities and Risks. Finally, viewing the organizations strengths and weaknesses against the environment in which the organization must operate, we must identify both the opportunities and the risks which the organization confronts.

At this point, we can return to the question, “What should we be trying to accomplish here?” What should our Future Ends be? An understanding of the Current Ends and a careful analysis of opportunities and risks will define the niche which the organization is uniquely qualified to fill. The organization’s ability to fill this niche represents its critical edge.[3] Therefore Ends Planning’s final step becomes developing a Future Ends for the organization which takes advantage of this critical edge.

Before leaving the board’s area of responsibility, I must mention again a rule of thumb in which I believe strongly. In dealing with a subordinate individual or group, a superior individual or group must issue precise instructions concerning what the subordinate individual or group must accomplish, but little or nothing concerning how it should be accomplished. The superior may, however, tell his subordinate what not to do. [4]

2 – Means Planning

Means Planning should be conducted by the staff. Once the board has identified the organization’s Future Ends, the CEO and his staff must determine how to achieve those Future Ends. As I have thought about it, I realized that Means Planning divides naturally into five categories: (a) Strategy, (b) Long Term Objectives, (c) Organizational Structure, (d) Organizational Development, and (e) Tactics/Short Term Objectives.

Strategy. Strategy can be determined by answering the question, “Where are we going?”

Long Term Objectives. Given where we want to go and our core values, what are the long range objectives the achievement of which will move the organization in the desired direction? That is, “How will we get there?”

Organizational structure. Next, we answer the question, “What kind of organization will be most successful in accomplishing the long range objectives we have set for ourselves?” What should its capabilities be? How should it be organized?

Organizational development. Here we identify the personnel and resources which the organization will need. What kind of people will we need, and how will we find, recruit, and train them? What facilities, furniture, and equipment will we need, and how will we obtain them? What materiel will we need? How much money will the people, FF&E, and materiel cost? Finally, how will we raise the necessary funds?

Tactics/Short Term Objectives. After the organization is in place, Where and how shall we use it? – That is, what specific actions will the organization take to achieve specific objectives, and when?

© 2016 John Holbrook Jr.
_________________________________

[1] See John Carver’s Boards That Make a Difference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA 1990. I regard his Policy Governance as the greatest breakthrough in organizational governance and planning in history.  To recapitulate: He divides the business of running an organization into two spheres of responsibility. On the one hand  the board or supervising authority has the responsibility of (a) establishing the ends which the organization will work to achieve , (b) determining the things which everyone in the organization will not do, (c) hiring and firing the CEO, and (d) monitoring the CEO’s performance. On the other hand, the CEO has the responsibility of deterining and executing the Means by which the organization will achieve its Ends, including hiring and firing the staff and managing all operations (e.g. research, product design, marketing, production, etc.) and support activities (e.g. administration, finance, property management, etc.). Depending on the nature of the organization, the nomenclature might change, but the principles involved will not – e.g. a military unit commander will be dealing with personnel, intelligence, operations, and logistics, but his focus will still be on developing and managing the Means by which to achieve the Ends which have been given to him by his superior(s).

[2] I use the generic term “organizational” here because what I am proposing applies to all organizations, be they businesses, churches, governmental departments, military units, non-profits, professional firms, schools, or other enterprises that require effective cooperation and coordination among many people in order to succeed.

[3] For a secular organization, I might call this ability the organization’s competitive edge. In a church or ministry, however, its members should not think of themselves as competing with other churches or ministries, but rather as ministering to others with the unique ability which the Lord has given to it. I might consider this ability the church or ministry’s critical skill.

[4] Here we should follow God’s example. God told Adam to “subdue the earth” – that is, organize it and cultivate it like a garden. He did not tell Adam how to “subdue the earth.” He did, however, issue a proscription: Adam must not eat of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Later God issued additional proscriptions to Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments. If you look through the Bible, you will find that God almost always only proscribes the limited number of things that mankind must not do, and he seldom tells mankind how to do anything. He leaves mankind free to use his imagination and individual abilities in trying to accomplish the mission which God has given him.

 

by John Holbrook Jr.
A Biblical View,  Blog #039 posted April 3, 2017, edited March 9, 2021.

When God created Universe, he created the heavens and the earth. Next, he created life on earth, starting with plants and moving on to creatures. Regarding the latter, he created the fish of the waters and the fowl of the air first, the animals and creeping things of the land next, a single man, whom he called Adam, and then a single woman, whom Adam called Eve.

Now I want to cast this story in an unusual framework.[1] Imagine that, when God created Universe, he started a new venture or enterprise, which I will call Earth Inc.[2]

1 – Earth Inc.’s Board

As I indicated in my first blog of July 18, 2016, God is both singular and plural – that is, the Godhead consists of three persons: God-the-Father, God-the-Son, and God-the-Holy Spirit. They form a tri-unity, which is often called the Trinity. Thus the Godhead or Trinity can be regarded as the board of overseers that launched Earth Inc.

As I indicated in my first blog of July 18, 2016, God-the-Father produced the design and script for Universe and God-the-Son and God-the-Holy Spirit are executing them. Thus the board knew Earth Inc.’s  “…end from the beginning.” [3] They must have looked forward to the day when earth would be inhabited by a large number of people who would require many things. They would need some basic institutions: (a) families in which to raise children, (b) churches in which to worship their creator, and (c) governments with which to rule the nations. They would need other social institutions such as (a) schools and colleges to provide specialized education, (b) book publishers and news media to keep people informed, and (c) clinics and hospitals to care for the injured and sick. They would need commercial enterprises such as (a) farms to produce food, (b) manufacturing plants to produce clothing, furniture, tools, and equipment, and; (c) architectural and engineering firms to design and construction firms to build homes, offices, plants, and public infrastructure such as roads and railroads, bridges and tunnels, water, sewer, and power lines, etc. All of these institutions could model themselves on the parent organization, Earth Inc., in which God intended that he (the board) and mankind (the staff) would work in harmony.

2 – The Staff – Mankind

To fulfill the above plan, the board set about creating a CEO to obtain and lead a staff. God formed Adam from the earth, breathed life into Adam, and then set about conveying his priorities to Adam.

Lesson 1 – the relationship between obedience to God and liberty

God issued his first policy statement to Adam in the form of a very extensive permission and a very limited proscription. Adam could eat of every plant in the garden excepting the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.[4] The determination of good and evil belonged solely to God, and fellowship with God would keep mankind informed of what he deemed good and evil.

By issuing a single proscription against eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God set an interesting precedent. On the one hand, he tried to protect Adam, his wife, and their heirs from death – i.e. eternal estrangement from God – which was the punishment for disobedience. On the other hand, he gave them almost complete freedom to use their own creativity and judgment in fulfilling their mission. The board did not tell Adam what to do or how to do it – just what not to do.

Lesson 2 – the diversity & importance of life

After warning of the consequences for disobedience, God issued an assignment to Adam which consisted of a crash course in the scope of what he had in mind. He would bring to Adam every creature that he had put on earth and Adam would name them. In science, this is known as a taxonomic project. It involves far more than giving a creature a name. It includes examining the creature’s nature and noting the similarities and differences between it and all other creatures, including the differences between a male and a female of the same species. It also includes considering how it might be useful to some enterprise. For example, could it be domesticated? If yes, what could it provide to the enterprise? If not, what impact would its existence in the wild have on the enterprise? If it could perform an unusual task, what could it teach an engineer about designing a device to do the same?  Note two very important aspects of this task: first, it was focused on living beings; second, it forced Adam to notice that, while every species which he was examining included a male and a female, his own species did not. It was lacking a female – a condition which God deemed “not good.” [5]

Moreover, by insisting that Adam start his life by naming the animals, God stressed the importance of life. God is the giver of life. He is the only source of life. Life trumps all other considerations. Mankind must not extinguish life outside of the carefully defined boundaries which God has set. Mankind’s stewardship of the earth must include continual concern for the welfare of all people, animals, fowls, and fish – particularly the most vulnerable among them (such as a baby in his or her mother’s womb). Jeopardizing the life or welfare of any of God’s creatures in the name of convenience or economic profit should be severely punished.

Lesson 3 – the completion of mankind

Immediately after Adam had finished his task, God put him into a deep sleep, took flesh and bone from Adam’s side, formed a woman, and presented her to Adam to be his wife and “help meet” or helpmate.[6] Adam immediately called her “woman, because she was taken out of Man.” [7] [8] Only then was mankind complete.

By both his design of the human male and female bodies and his designation of Adam’s wife as a “help meet,” God stressed the importance of specialization and hierarchy.

Lesson 4 – Earth Inc.’s mission

After providing Adam with a wife, the board conveyed Earth Inc.’s mission to them jointly. As stewards of the earth, they should “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” [9]

By issuing Earth Inc.’s mission to Adam and Eve jointly, the board stressed that Earth Inc. is a joint enterprise involving all living people for the benefit of all living creatures.

3 – Answers to the original question

What then can the Bible tell us about organizational governance?

First, every organization can be reduced to two major components: (1) its board, which usually consists of a small group of people who bring the organization into existence, determine its purpose and policies, select a person to manage its operations, and monitor its operations to ensure that the board’s dictates are being followed and (2) its staff, which consists of 1 to 100,000 or more people who execute all the tasks that are necessary for its operations.

Second, one of the first tasks of an organization’s board is to articulate policies that define, discourage, and punish employee misbehavior.

Third, a board should articulate the ends which it wants the organization to achieve, but it should not determine the means of doing so. In refraining from determining the means, the board establishes a principle. Even within the staff, a manager should assign tasks to his subordinates without insisting on particular means. Doing the latter deprives the subordinates of the opportunity to use their creative abilities and the organization the benefit of the same. (Of course a manager may have to teach a neophyte how he might perform a given task, but at the time he should make clear that, as the subordinate becomes familiar with the job, he might find a better way to do it.)

Fourth, within an organization, whether it be a family or a global corporation, there must be a clear chain of command and clearly defined roles, each of which bears a certain level of authority and a certain level of responsibility, for which the person will be held accountable. These roles should take into account each individual’s God-given gifts and stage of development.

Lastly, an organization exists for the benefit of everyone involved in it, from shareholders to board members to staff members (executives, middle managers, and laborers alike) to vendors to creditors to the community in which it operates. It does not exist solely for the benefit of its shareholders and senior employees who garner its profits. For example, a company must not close a large plant, lay off tens of thousands of workers for whom other, comparable jobs are not available, and plunge the local community into severe economic difficulties due to the resulting (a) loss of tax revenues and (b) gain in social costs merely to benefit the company’s investors and executives. Such an action is criminal and should be punished accordingly.

4 – Policy Governance

Here is where John Carver’s Policy Governance [10] is so important. Whether advertently or inadvertently, its prescriptions for organizational governance reflect God’s prescriptions for Earth Inc.’s governance.

Carver perceived just how dysfunctional the traditional manner of governance can be when board chairs and board members preside over operational committees (administration, finance, research, sales, etc.) that are responsible for the main areas of an organization’s activities.In effect, the board tells the staff what to do and how to do it. Thus the board gets bogged down in day-to-day operations, frustrates and often prevents the employees from doing their jobs, and neglects the board’s main duties.

Policy Governance, on the other hand, is designed to draw a sharp distinction between board and staff responsibilities. The board is responsible for establishing organizational ends and policies, as well as hiring and monitoring the performance of the CEO, who is the senior member of the staff. The CEO is responsible for achieving the board-set ends while adhering to the board-set policies. Thus, within the limits set by the board, the CEO is free to manage, mold, and motivate the organization as he sees fit. He identifies the means that will be used to achieve the ends. He does or oversees the hiring and firing of the staff. He decides what resources will be needed, how to obtain those resources, etc.

Carver’s approach has two important results: (a) it prompts the board to stay focused on the big picture and prevents the board from meddling in operations and (b) it tells the CEO, not what he must do, but what he cannot do, thereby freeing him to use his creativity and initiative in the execution of his job (in this respect, it imitates God’s instructions to mankind, which are mostly proscriptions rather than prescriptions). Most important, it holds one person accountable for the organizations success or failure – the CEO.

© 2016 John Holbrook Jr.
_____________________________________

[1] An analogy makes use of a resemblance in some particulars between two things which may be quite different otherwise. It does not imply a one-to-one correspondence between them in all respects.

[2] The precise domain to which God has confined mankind is unclear. There are passages in the scriptures like “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man” (NIV Psalm 115:16), which suggests that man should remain on earth. This interpretation is reinforced by passages that condemn the Babylonians for aspiring to reach the heavens with their tower. On the other hand, there are passages like “Thou hast made [man] to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet” (KJ21 Psalm 8:6), which are then defined as “all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea…” (KJ21 Psalm 8:7-8). Does “the works of Thy hand” include the heavenly bodies or just the earthly creatures that are enumerated? I am inclined to believe the latter. Hence I have entitled the enterprise Earth Inc., not Universe Inc.

[3] Isaiah 46:10.

[4] Genesis 2:17.

[5] Genesis 2:18.

[6] KJV Genesis 2:18.

[7] KJV Genesis 2:21-23. Adam later called her “Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (KJV Genesis 3:20).

[8] The Rev. Malcolm Smith painted a delightful picture here. After noting that, in Hebrew, the word for man is Ish and the word for woman is Ishah and that both Adam and his bride were naked, he asked, Can you imagine what Adam said when he first saw her walking toward him: “Ish…..aaahhhhh!” (Malcolm Smith, Revelation, Logos Tapes, Hazlitt, NJ, 9th tape.)

[9] KJV Genesis 1:28

[10] I highly recommend John Carver’s many books, particularly Boards That Make a Difference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA 1990.