Governance is more than Board behaviours

Good governance for nonprofits will not be achieved by simply importing recommendations about 'proper' Board behaviour from the private sector, suggests David Walker writing in yesterday's Guardian
He quotes Liberal Democrat peer Andrew Phillips and charity lawyer as saying: "Some of most dynamic and wonderful charities I have to deal with have crap governance on certain managerial and academic views.
"But some of the most conformist and risk-free have got everything perfect in governance terms."
The broader point to emerge is that governance is not just about moderating power relationships between owners and executives (as in some private sector governance models).
As David Walker remarks: "The key question is ownership. In the public and voluntary sectors, ownership is a mystery. Who owns Oxfam or Shelter? If social tenants owned their own homes, they would no longer be tenants. It suits trustees of public bodies to emphasise their independence, saying, "We are not beholden to ministers or councillors." But does that mean they control their organisation's assets?
"Phillips is impatient with theological discussion about boards, arguing that, in practice, charity trustees know their job is to ensure the public interest is upheld and to get on with it. Besides, we don't know much about how corporate boards operate, in any sector, nor about their effectiveness."
These issues and more were explored extensively in a recent Home Office-funded study by the Foundation for Good Governance, in which I played a small part. The full report, and evidence taken, is now available here.