PDF Summary:Boards That Make a Difference, by John Carver

Effective board leadership requires a shift in mindset away from micromanaging operations towards developing policies that set the organization's strategic direction. In Boards That Make a Difference, John Carver introduces the Policy Governance model, a framework for boards to focus on establishing outcomes rather than prescribing means.

The first part outlines the fundamental principles of Policy Governance, including the board's role in defining desired results, approved practices, and delegation to the CEO. The second part explores the implementation process: developing clear policies, monitoring organizational performance against those policies, and evaluating the CEO accordingly. While acknowledging common criticisms, Carver argues this structured yet flexible approach empowers boards to lead effectively.

(continued)...

Each board member bears individual responsibility, which collectively forms the foundation of the board's overall accountability.

Carver clarifies the gradual development of accountability throughout an organization. Supervisors are accountable not only for their own choices but also for the actions taken by their subordinates. With each step up the organizational ladder, the burden of responsibility grows heavier. The CEO is wholly accountable for the behavior of all employees. The concept emphasizes the broad spectrum of responsibilities held by the CEO and underscores the importance of effective task delegation and the development of team members.

Assigning the CEO specific tasks to clearly delineate their authority.

Carver believes that governance will only be successful if the CEO has considerable autonomy to manage the organization's activities, provided that such activities remain within the limits set by the board's policies. He argues that boards ought to steer clear of excessive engagement with managerial minutiae and should instead clearly delegate authority to the CEO, thereby obviating the necessity for continual supervision by the board.

The CEO is the exclusive entity held responsible and accountable for the staff

The Chief Executive Officer is the sole decision-maker regarding the strategies and methods the workforce uses to fulfill the organization's goals. This authority includes decisions regarding hiring, compensation, fiscal strategies, technological assets, and all aspects of personnel administration unless explicitly outlined in the Board's policies. The board holds the Chief Executive Officer exclusively responsible for managing the organization's operations in an effective, prudent, and ethically sound manner.

To ensure that boards do not become entangled in management details, it is essential that they avoid dictating the methods staff should use to execute their duties or maintaining the authority to approve or disapprove of their decisions.

Carver advises boards to refrain from excessively controlling staff by detailing their methods or maintaining the power to sanction their decisions. He argues that such behaviors undermine the CEO's authority and diminish confidence, while also wasting valuable time that could be utilized more efficiently by the board. He provides examples of situations in which boards become mired in minor issues, such as approving purchases of office equipment or dictating specific staff procedures. Policy Governance sets clear boundaries for the CEO's authority, ensuring the organization is managed efficiently without inappropriate meddling from the board.

Assessing the effectiveness of the executive leadership.

Delegating tasks to the CEO does not mean the board abdicates its oversight obligations. Carver's Policy Governance model requires careful monitoring to ensure that the executive's actions are in accordance with the board's directives. The CEO must ensure the board receives detailed reports, clarifying the alignment of the organization's actions with the board's directives and confirming that these actions comply with the prescribed ethical and financial boundaries.

Reports grounded in data that show the fulfillment of criteria established by the board

Carver advises the preparation of reports that are specifically tailored to adhere to the guidelines set by the board. He critiques the traditional method in which boards scrutinize standard financial reports and various documents in the absence of established benchmarks for evaluation. He emphasizes the necessity of reports that confirm the achievement of results within the boundaries set by the board, rather than merely summarizing the activities that were carried out.

The rationale and explanations provided by the CEO for the board's current policies

The CEO's role includes elucidating and justifying how the board's policies are interpreted as part of their oversight responsibilities. The approach encourages a shared understanding between the board and the CEO regarding the intent of the policy, ensuring that the CEO's choices are consistent with what the board considers an acceptable interpretation of their expectations. Carver underscores the significance of engaging in this dialogue to maintain accountability and provide clear guidance to the CEO. The book also promotes ongoing discussions about the board's core values and main concerns.

The standards for oversight should remain unbiased and unaffected by the perspectives of the Chief Executive Officer.

The CEO bears the responsibility for establishing standards for performance evaluation. The principle upholds the integrity of the board's governance and oversight, protecting the evaluation process from potential meddling by the CEO. He passionately encourages boards to adopt specific and quantifiable methods of supervision, as exemplified by the policy model from the Missions Resource Network.

Assessing the performance of the Chief Executive Officer.

Carver posits that the evaluation of the CEO's effectiveness must be solely based on the organization's success in reaching the board's established goals and compliance with its Executive Limitations policies. The assessment is carried out consistently, focusing on oversight and ensuring impartiality regarding individual traits or personal ambitions.

The organization's performance is deeply intertwined with the CEO's effectiveness.

Carver suggests evaluating the CEO by looking at the overall achievements of the organization. The Chief Executive Officer is wholly accountable for the organization's actions and the achievement of goals as determined by those who oversee the organization. The prosperity of the organization is closely tied to the CEO's duties, which necessitates granting them significant authority and simultaneously holding them responsible for the results.

The board's policies should be the exclusive guide for decision-making.

John Carver argues that the benchmarks established by the board's policies regarding goals and limitations on executive actions should be the sole standards for evaluating a CEO's performance. This approach aligns the CEO's duties with the board's established goals, thus promoting transparency and fairness in performance evaluations. He criticizes the approach of evaluating the CEO's performance without the use of specific benchmarks that have been sanctioned by the board, relying instead on ambiguous evaluation methods or personal objectives that do not have official approval.

The responsibility for setting objectives should not rest solely with the chief executive officer.

The board is responsible for evaluating the CEO's performance based on objectives that were previously agreed upon with the board's approval. The board's governance efficacy could be undermined, resulting in scenarios where the top executive essentially evaluates their own performance using criteria they have set. Policy Governance underscores the board's duty to establish performance expectations for the CEO that are consistent with its values and strategic objectives.

Ongoing oversight instead of intermittent assessments.

John Carver emphasizes the necessity of continuous assessment of the CEO's performance instead of limiting evaluations to infrequent occasions. The board acquires essential understanding of the organization's effectiveness by persistently overseeing activities, which involves scrutinizing data and considering the CEO's interpretation and implementation of the board's directives. In Policy Governance, it's essential to recognize that the true cornerstone of CEO evaluation lies in the ongoing process of monitoring, even though an annual performance appraisal can serve to encapsulate and officially record the board's assessment.

Other Perspectives

• The delineation of duties between the board and CEO, while important, can sometimes lead to siloed thinking and a lack of cross-functional collaboration, which can be detrimental in a rapidly changing business environment.
• Overemphasis on the CEO's role in overseeing overall performance might overshadow the contributions of other senior leaders and staff, potentially leading to a hero complex or a single point of failure.
• The board's responsibility for hiring the CEO can sometimes be influenced by external pressures or internal politics, which may not always result in the best choice for the organization.
• Having distinct responsibilities for the board chair and CEO is generally good practice, but in some smaller organizations or startups, these roles may need to overlap due to resource constraints.
• While the CEO is endowed with specific duties and authorities, this can sometimes lead to an autocratic leadership style if not balanced with sufficient checks and balances.
• Individual responsibility of board members is crucial, but it can also lead to blame-shifting or avoidance of collective responsibility when things go wrong.
• Sole responsibility of the CEO for staff decisions can create a bottleneck in decision-making and may not always take into account the on-the-ground realities that staff face.
• Avoiding dictation of staff methods by the board is generally wise, but there may be instances where board expertise can significantly contribute to operational decisions, and this expertise should not be categorically dismissed.
• Ongoing monitoring of the CEO by the board is necessary, but excessive monitoring can lead to micromanagement and undermine the CEO's ability to lead effectively.
• Reports based on board-established criteria are important, but they can also lead to a checkbox mentality where ticking off criteria becomes more important than actual performance or outcomes.
• The CEO's interpretation of board policies is important, but there should also be room for staff input and feedback to ensure that policies are grounded in operational reality.
• Unbiased oversight standards are ideal, but complete objectivity is difficult to achieve, and the CEO's perspective can provide valuable context for board evaluations.
• Evaluating the CEO's performance based solely on organizational success and compliance with policies may not capture the full scope of the CEO's contributions, particularly in areas like culture building or external relations.
• The board's policies as the exclusive guide for decision-making can sometimes be too rigid, not allowing for necessary flexibility in a dynamic business environment.
• The responsibility for setting objectives should involve the board, but the CEO should also have significant input to ensure that the objectives are realistic and aligned with operational capabilities.
• Continuous oversight is important, but it must be balanced with trust in the CEO's judgment to prevent an environment of constant scrutiny that can hinder decisive action.

Effective board leadership is characterized by its emphasis on the development of governance policies and the implementation of governance practices.

John Carver places significant emphasis on the board's strong governance and its cooperative efforts with the CEO to ensure the Policy Governance model is effectively put into practice. Board leadership that genuinely impacts results is characterized by a profound dedication to stakeholder interests, a concentration on strategic guidance, and a steadfast commitment to the core principles that underpin the governance process.

The obligation of the board to self-govern.

John Carver underscores the primary responsibility of the board to guarantee its development and effectiveness. John Carver argues that the effectiveness of a board hinges on its ability to govern itself, the precision in setting its goals, its expression of principles, and maintaining discipline within the organization.

Determining the specific entities for which the board is accountable.

The board's foremost duty is to be accountable to the stakeholders. John Carver underscores the necessity for boards to have a clear understanding of whom they are accountable to, be it the broader public, a designated group of members, or stakeholders within a corporate framework. This definitive guidance underscores the importance of the board's governance, steering its decision-making processes.

The fundamental results stemming from the actions of a board encompass nurturing connections with stakeholders, establishing precise guidelines, and maintaining responsibility for performance outcomes.

Carver emphasizes the vital and unique results of the board's efforts, which include forging relationships with stakeholders, formulating distinct governance policies, and ensuring that the organization's performance meets certain standards. An effective and accountable governing board requires three essential elements. While it's recognized that tasks such as raising funds or advocating for legislative reforms hold importance, the board's primary responsibilities should not be overshadowed by these activities.

It is essential for governing boards to differentiate between mandatory outputs and those that are optional.

Carver identifies the core duties of a board, separating them from activities that are not always obligatory, and points out that while efforts such as fundraising or lobbying may be relevant in specific contexts, they are not universally required. The board should concentrate on its essential governance responsibilities to avoid being sidetracked by less critical tasks. This distinction helps boards concentrate their efforts and avoid engaging in activities that are either superfluous or harmful.

The board should refrain from involvement in activities related to staff.

Carver underscores the necessity for boards to avoid involvement in tasks that are the responsibility of the executive team, especially interfering with staff-related issues. This caution extends beyond explicitly prescribing how staff should perform their tasks to also encompass less overt intrusions, like providing unrequested guidance or participating in employee panels. He advises the board to focus on its unique governance roles and trust the CEO to oversee staff tasks within the established policy limits.

Guaranteeing efficient management of the board's schedule and procedures.

To ensure the board's time is utilized in the most effective manner, it is essential to carefully plan meetings and construct agendas that focus on key issues. The enduring priorities of the board should be shaped by its dedication to Policy Governance, not swayed by the demands of the staff.

The agenda should be structured to give precedence to the responsibilities of the board instead of issues that pertain to the staff.

John Carver asserts that the board's duties, rather than staff-related concerns, should dictate how meeting agendas are organized. He argues that if the CEO sets the agenda, this results in the board adopting a reactive role and concentrating on short-term operational issues. Instead, he suggests that the board develop a long-term agenda based on its own policymaking tasks, ensuring that it stays focused on strategic leadership.

Calendars that are planned out well into the future and extend without a set endpoint.

Carver advises boards to craft agendas focused on emerging trends and persistent challenges, ensuring a proactive stance and prioritizing long-term issues. The board's continuous and essential responsibilities are frequently referred to as its unending list of priorities. The long-term agenda, typically covering a year, segments the continuous schedule into specific objectives and strategies for the forthcoming period. This systematic approach allows the board to consistently focus on its core goals, avoiding decisions that are hasty or short-term in nature.

The establishment of ends policies should occur yearly.

Carver recommends that board members dedicate a significant portion of their yearly schedule to reviewing and adjusting their goals and objectives. The yearly process ensures that the board consistently refreshes its outlook and focuses on the broad impact the organization aims to achieve. The board is responsible for organizing its supplementary tasks, which include administrative planning, budgeting, and communicating with stakeholders, to align with the goals it has set.

The timetable for prompt ratification includes decisions required by external regulatory bodies.

Carver recognizes the tendency of boards to approve decisions that are, in fact, solely within the CEO's purview. To address this issue, he suggests implementing a more streamlined approach for crucial approvals, which preserves the CEO's delegated authority while also conserving the board's time. The approach allows the board to maintain compliance with external requirements while simultaneously remaining true to the principles of the Policy Governance model and preserving the integrity of its relationship with the CEO.

Enhancing the variety within the board's membership.

Carver firmly believes that incorporating a variety of perspectives is crucial for improving the quality of discussions within a board. He urges boards to actively seek out a variety of perspectives, including those from external sources as well as from within their own membership. John Carver emphasizes the importance of boards demonstrating a cohesive front, reflecting their collective values through the decisions they take. The board's duty involves ensuring that decisions reflect a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities as determined by its stakeholders, which is achieved through promoting open dialogue, carefully considering different options, and reaching consensus.

The significance of methodical training.

John Carver emphasizes that board members must undergo a fundamental transformation in their thinking and behavior when they embrace Policy Governance. He worked alongside Miriam Carver and Bill Charney to develop a structured method known as "governance rehearsal," aimed at maintaining and improving board members' skills in applying the model. By regularly executing their responsibilities, especially when there are no crises, the board becomes skilled in utilizing Policy Governance even during challenging situations.

The essential methods for establishing policy

Implementing the Policy Governance approach requires the development of a comprehensive guide that reflects the board's principles through a structured set of policies, organized into four distinct categories that span from broad overviews to detailed specifics.

Creating four separate categories to guide the governance policies of a board.

To implement Policy Governance successfully, boards should shift from traditional operational documents such as budgets, personnel manuals, and strategic plans to a structure that includes four specific types of board policies, as recommended by John Carver. The board's establishment of policies, which are deeply influenced by its values and priorities, has rendered traditional board documents outdated.

Developing policies that begin with broad principles and gradually integrate detailed elements, ensuring thorough examination is conducted.

John Carver emphasizes the importance of systematically developing policies in a step-by-step manner. He recommends that boards initiate by setting wide-ranging policies in various domains, incrementally honing them until the level of detail in the CEO's comprehension is considered sufficiently thorough for endorsement. This methodical strategy ensures that boards consider all relevant factors while avoiding the trivial details of management by entrusting the operational particulars to the CEO. The method is illustrated through practical examples, including LifeStream Services and an unnamed pension fund.

The board's guiding principles should be consolidated into a single, concise policy manual.

John Carver underscores the significance of a concise document that encapsulates the board's guiding principles across four distinct policy areas. This central document serves as a blueprint for the organization, defining its purpose, guiding its operations, and providing a framework for evaluating its performance. Centralizing and maintaining easy access to the board's policies enhances consistency and clarity throughout the decision-making process.

Selecting and training each board member with great care is essential.

John Carver underscores the necessity of selecting board members with deliberation and consistently enhancing their abilities. The success of the Policy Governance model is contingent upon having a board whose members are not only skilled but also deeply committed. It is essential for incoming board members to be thoroughly trained and educated in order to understand and implement the principles of Policy Governance effectively. Ensuring that every member of the board engages in ongoing learning maintains their awareness of current information and reinforces the model's tenets across the entire organization.

Other Perspectives

• While cooperation with the CEO is important, there can be situations where too close of a relationship between the board and CEO may lead to a lack of critical oversight.
• Focusing solely on stakeholder interests might sometimes overlook the broader social responsibilities of an organization, especially in cases where stakeholder interests conflict with those of other affected parties.
• The self-governance of a board is critical, but external assessments can provide valuable, unbiased insights that might be missed through self-evaluation alone.
• While boards should prioritize mandatory duties, flexibility to engage in optional tasks can sometimes lead to innovation and unexpected benefits for the organization.
• Avoiding involvement in staff-related activities could lead to a disconnect between the board and the day-to-day operations of the organization, potentially hindering the board's understanding of operational challenges.
• Efficient management of board schedules is important, but overly rigid procedures could stifle the necessary adaptability and responsiveness of the board to emerging issues.
• Planning calendars without a set endpoint may lead to a lack of urgency or the deferral of important decisions.
• Establishing ends policies yearly is a good practice, but it may not be sufficient for rapidly changing industries where more frequent revisions could be necessary.
• While diversity in board membership is beneficial, it is also important to ensure that board members have the requisite expertise and understanding of the industry to make informed decisions.
• Methodical training is important, but it should be balanced with opportunities for board members to bring in fresh perspectives and not become overly entrenched in one way of thinking.
• A structured set of policies is useful, but there must be room for flexibility to adapt to unforeseen circumstances that rigid policies may not account for.
• Consolidating guiding principles into a single manual is efficient, but it can also lead to oversimplification of complex issues that may require more nuanced documentation and understanding.
• Careful selection and training of board members are crucial, but overemphasis on conformity to a specific governance model may limit the board's diversity of thought.

Policy Governance has encountered a range of criticisms and obstacles.

The Policy Governance model, despite being solidly grounded in theory and proving successful in practice, has faced pushback and challenges, mainly from boards accustomed to traditional governance approaches or those who have misconceptions about the model's fundamental tenets.

Concerns have arisen over the implementation of a uniform strategy that fails to acknowledge individual differences.

Concerns are often raised about Policy Governance due to the perception that it advocates for a one-size-fits-all approach to governance, perceived as impractical and neglectful of the unique characteristics of different organizations.

Acknowledging that a singular approach might not suit all situations.

Carver acknowledges that every organization is unique and faces its own set of challenges. However, he argues that the foundational principles apply universally to all governing boards. He illustrates how these principles are relevant across various contexts, likening them to the fundamental concepts found in disciplines such as anatomy or chemistry, which are steadfast regardless of the situation. Policy Governance highlights crucial concepts and provides an adaptable framework that can be customized to specific situations while preserving its core principles.

The framework highlights the fundamental tenets that direct every governing body.

The Policy Governance model aims to foster accountable and effective governance by employing a set of adaptable principles, as highlighted by John Carver. The approach underscores essential tenets such as the duty to advocate for the interests of stakeholders, the necessity of upholding unity within the board, the clear delineation of duties, and comprehensive supervision, which are all relevant to governing bodies of various types. These principles provide a foundation on which boards can build policies and practices that are tailored to their specific organizations and circumstances.

It is essential for a board to consistently uphold its foundational principles.

The board is required to demonstrate unwavering commitment and maintain rigorous discipline to successfully put into action the governance framework known as Policy Governance. This transformation could prove difficult, particularly for governing bodies accustomed to traditional methods of oversight, necessitating unwavering commitment and rigorous discipline to ensure effective execution.

The method poses a significant challenge to the customary practices of those serving on the board and the personnel responsible for their implementation.

Carver recognizes that adopting Policy Governance often requires boards and staff to make significant changes in their mindset and behavior, challenging their established routines. Boards must hone their skills in assigning duties while ensuring oversight through the establishment of explicit criteria and resisting the temptation to micromanage. Chief executives should broaden their decision-making authority and responsibilities to align with a governance approach that emphasizes consistent policy governance rather than occasional singular approvals.

The foundational principles and guidelines of the model are defined by their inflexibility.

John Carver's methodology is built upon a set of firm and unyielding principles that, while flexible enough to accommodate specific circumstances, are implemented uniformly. Individuals accustomed to more flexible or impromptu methods of governance might perceive such strictness as a drawback. However, Carver argues that this rigidity is essential to preserve the integrity and core principles of the model. The Policy Governance model necessitates unwavering adherence to its core principles to prevent governance from becoming unpredictable and ineffective, much like various games such as checkers and football require adherence to a strict set of rules that define the limits of the game.

Confronting mistaken criticisms

The distinctive approach of the method is frequently misunderstood or not completely comprehended because it diverges from traditional methods. It is often misinterpreted as suggesting a decrease in fundraising efforts, a diminished focus on evaluating performance, or a limitation on interactions between the board and employees.

Policy Governance aims to neither obstruct nor discourage fundraising activities.

John Carver emphasizes that engaging in fundraising activities is in harmony with the principles of Policy Governance. Instead, it recognizes that the responsibility to raise funds is not central to the duties of governance, especially in organizations like public school boards and government agencies where these actions would be inappropriate. In situations where boards oversee private educational institutions and charitable entities, they may choose to consider fundraising as one of the discretionary components of their responsibilities. The method necessitates that boards give precedence to their essential responsibilities of governance prior to contemplating the assumption of supplementary duties, ensuring their principal role is preserved.

Policy Governance does not diminish the significance of evaluation nor does it discourage board involvement.

John Carver's approach to Policy Governance emphasizes the significance of assessment and promotes ongoing engagement from board members. John Carver regards both elements as crucial. The method requires strategically introducing metrics at the appropriate point during the governance cycle. The board isn't obligated to focus on the measurability of their Ends policies, yet it must obtain tangible evidence to confirm their achievement during evaluation.

encourages board members to focus on governance rather than involving themselves in staff responsibilities. He encourages boards to be actively involved in the development of policies, to meticulously monitor performance, and to cultivate relationships with stakeholders, tasks that require significant commitment and hard work. Boards reach their peak effectiveness through a focus on their core responsibilities instead of getting entangled in the operational details.

Policy Governance allows for open dialogue between board members and staff.

The method fosters transparent communication among the board members and the staff of the organization. Carver describes that board members possess the independence to interact with personnel, gather information, and seek advice. It is essential to understand that such interactions are distinct from the responsibilities of the CEO, which encompass providing instructions and evaluating employee performance. The board must clearly define its instructions through set guidelines to maintain a clear distinction between its oversight responsibilities and the CEO's operational tasks.

Evaluating how well the strategy works.

Despite its widespread adoption and numerous accounts of its success, there remains a constant question regarding the actual efficacy of this particular model of Policy Governance. Many board members and CEOs recognize the potential benefits of the model, yet the lack of definitive empirical evidence still prompts ongoing debate on the subject.

Investigating the importance of proficient board management.

The model's efficacy should be rigorously assessed by conducting comprehensive research. Although there has been an increasing emphasis on governance, studies assessing the performance of boards are still in their infancy and frequently fail to delve deeply into the nuanced intricacies inherent in the assessment of governance methods.

The current research does not meet the necessary criteria because it concentrates on assessing the wrong metrics.

Carver criticizes existing studies for focusing on immaterial indicators such as the satisfaction of board members or the CEO's welfare instead of assessing how well the board fulfills its duties to the shareholders and guarantees that the organization's outcomes mirror their objectives. He argues that this misplaced focus stems from a misunderstanding regarding the function of the board and how it engages with stakeholders. John Carver cites Patricia Nobbie's 2001 dissertation, which found no evidence that boards employing Policy Governance are more effective than others; however, it did not assess the extent to which organizations met objectives established by their proprietors, a principal aim of the Policy Governance model.

Identifying the correct application of Policy Governance presents unique obstacles.

A major challenge within the realm of Policy Governance research lies in verifying whether boards that claim to adopt the model are genuinely adhering to its prescribed principles. Boards frequently incorporate aspects of the model without fully understanding or adequately considering its core principles. The absence of clear definitions impedes the extraction of meaningful conclusions from research, as the outcomes observed may not accurately reflect the implementation of Policy Governance principles.

Carver delineates ten key principles (points 1-10) for implementing Policy Governance, which assist academics and board members in precisely evaluating its application and protecting against incorrect conclusions, such as those arising from research that incorrectly associates mere policy implementation or a CEO's claim of adherence with the proper enactment of the model.

The success of the Policy Governance model in promoting strategic leadership within governance hinges on the commitment, understanding, and discipline demonstrated by the board. The board is obligated to adeptly employ the tools provided by the Policy Governance model to serve the needs of their stakeholders.

Other Perspectives

• Concerns about the one-size-fits-all approach may be valid in that different organizations have unique cultures, structures, and needs that may not be fully addressed by a standardized model.
• The inflexibility of the model's principles could be seen as a limitation, as it may not allow for the nuanced decision-making required in complex and rapidly changing environments.
• The emphasis on upholding foundational principles consistently could be criticized for potentially stifling innovation or adaptation within the board's governance practices.
• The significant challenge to customary practices might not always be necessary or beneficial; some traditional practices may be well-suited to certain organizations and should not be discarded without careful consideration.
• The argument that Policy Governance does not discourage fundraising activities might overlook the possibility that the model's focus on governance could inadvertently lead to less emphasis on fundraising in practice.
• While the model emphasizes evaluation and board involvement, it could be argued that it does not sufficiently address how to balance these responsibilities with the need for boards to engage in strategic thinking and long-term planning.
• The encouragement of open dialogue between board members and staff, while positive, might not adequately address the potential for blurred lines of authority or confusion about roles.
• The call for comprehensive research into the efficacy of Policy Governance is sound, but it could be argued that the model's proponents have not yet provided sufficient empirical evidence to support its effectiveness.
• The criticism of existing research for focusing on the wrong metrics might overlook the value of subjective measures such as board member satisfaction, which can be important indicators of board health and effectiveness.
• The challenge of verifying the correct application of Policy Governance could be seen as an inherent flaw in the model, as it may be too complex or abstract for straightforward implementation and assessment.
• The success of Policy Governance being dependent on the board's commitment and understanding could be criticized for placing too much responsibility on the board without providing enough guidance or support for the practical application of the model.