Good+to+Great

I have been thinking over our discussion of //From Good to Great//..I keep getting stuck on the ideat that we have a one year volunteer presidency that is in reality a 3 year commitment __and__ that our discussions/intrepretations put so much burden on that position to the bear the //Greatness .// I remember, early in the discussion, that Kathy asked if the Board as a whole was the focused leader or just the president. I think she was right. The responsibility has got to fall on the whole board, or at least the President-Elect/President/Past President combination. What do the rest of you think?

[Sonja] I agree with this, and think that if we better define the roles of our board members, we will help everyone to be great at their role. In the OA meeting, one woman talked about how this was a critical component of their organization. By defining the roles, people know what is out there, what they are volunteering for, and members-at-large understand the organization better.

[Royce]: Continuity and longevity are the watchwords when it comes to Board level positions especially P, VP, and PP. The consistency comes from creating policies, precedence, and practices for the benefit of as many members as possible. The longevity comes from the ability of those policies, precedence, and practices to endure. Yes, even in the face of new technologies. [soapbox moment: I am sick of people (not all of you wonderful people, of course) saying, "we can't decide on that because the technology changes so fast [sigh, whine, whimper]." Hogwash, I say. Good service is good service regardless of the product - televisions, computers, or bees wax candles. The key is to decide on solid outcomes and then imagine the technology as a tool for acheiving the outcome. OK, off the soapbox.] If some basic outcomes were defined then we could formulate some actions through policy development. The first policies, precedence, and practices that need to be looked at are membership, board roles and responsibilities, and services. For there we can chart a path through board action to achieve the outcome. I am in favor of broad, cross-cutting services not reducing services. I believe this because I also believe that greatness is acheived through focusing on the consistency and longevity necessary to scale up to larger audiences, expand operations digestably, and meet multiple audience without having to recreate the wheel with each new service. Different services should not deserve different organizational systems. If so, silos begin to emerge. A nice read to complement Good to Great is "The Fiefdom Syndrome" by Robert Herbold.