Thank you for penning this Hildy.
Full disclosure to those who read this, I am a board member and participant in these open meetings. So let me share my initial fears and discoveries.
First, it was a bit unsettling to think that a)my face and comments were going to be open to the whole world (that’s my ego) and b)what is going to prevent openness from allowing the process to get bogged down or hijacked by arrant voices.
In response to my exposure (item (a) above) - the most powerful thing about transparency is that there is nothing to hide and therefore nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed by. Any decision we make has been vetted and thought through. The assumptions that can often go unidentified when making decisions are all brought into the open so that we, as leaders, deeply understand the implications and rationale behind the actions and decisions we make. Personally, I love this aspect as it encourages my own growth and strengthens my resolve around the beliefs and values I hold.
With regard to hijacking by rogue or arrant voices. To put it plainly, it has never happened. This is not because there aren’t dissenting opinions or conflicting ideas. We challenge each other constantly, but what makes it work is that we do have a collective agreement on the goals and outcomes we want to achieve. It is that agreement that can focus and bring in the voices that seem arrant. In fact, as Hildy shares in the blog, we find the exact opposite of hijacking. Rather than being taken in a direction we don’t want to go, external voices elucidate new paths that we excitedly travel down and may not have seen because of the inherent nature of “group think” (something that every group experiences)
Justin - thank you so much for sharing what this has meant for you personally. Many board members do think it would be scary. Your experience is hugely valuable!
Hildy
Full disclosure to those who read this, like Justin I am also a board member and participant in these open meetings.
From my perspective in the UK, I find myself amid an often frustrating debate about transparency where those who disagree with greater transparency - or are maybe frightened by it - construct straw men, arguing that transparency is too expensive, diverting us from the important business of serving beneficiaries. A second straw man is that we think being transparent about finances is the answer to everything, and all we want is a deluge of data. Transparency is not a trap laid by those seeking to criticise nonprofits, as some would have it (the Trappists!)
Hildy’s blog is important for me because it reminds us that transparency is much, much more than how much the ED is paid. It also beget’s the error that transparency only builds confidence in nonprofits, at the expense of trust. Our experiments with an open board truly show that silence is not golden. I think we’ve found opening up has enriched the conversation, just as companies everywhere are finding that involving ‘super-users’ in design and development is more rapidly improving products.
Nonprofits should be the gold standard when it comes to transparency, but based on our gold standard, not standards set by others. If we are not seen to be leading this debate ourselves, and building trust by being open, I worry deeply that an increasingly sector agnostic public will look elsewhere to achieve the social outcomes so many want to achieve.
COMMENTS
BY Justin Pollock
ON February 27, 2015 08:59 AM
Thank you for penning this Hildy.
Full disclosure to those who read this, I am a board member and participant in these open meetings. So let me share my initial fears and discoveries.
First, it was a bit unsettling to think that a)my face and comments were going to be open to the whole world (that’s my ego) and b)what is going to prevent openness from allowing the process to get bogged down or hijacked by arrant voices.
In response to my exposure (item (a) above) - the most powerful thing about transparency is that there is nothing to hide and therefore nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed by. Any decision we make has been vetted and thought through. The assumptions that can often go unidentified when making decisions are all brought into the open so that we, as leaders, deeply understand the implications and rationale behind the actions and decisions we make. Personally, I love this aspect as it encourages my own growth and strengthens my resolve around the beliefs and values I hold.
With regard to hijacking by rogue or arrant voices. To put it plainly, it has never happened. This is not because there aren’t dissenting opinions or conflicting ideas. We challenge each other constantly, but what makes it work is that we do have a collective agreement on the goals and outcomes we want to achieve. It is that agreement that can focus and bring in the voices that seem arrant. In fact, as Hildy shares in the blog, we find the exact opposite of hijacking. Rather than being taken in a direction we don’t want to go, external voices elucidate new paths that we excitedly travel down and may not have seen because of the inherent nature of “group think” (something that every group experiences)
BY Hildy Gottlieb
ON February 27, 2015 05:22 PM
Justin - thank you so much for sharing what this has meant for you personally. Many board members do think it would be scary. Your experience is hugely valuable!
Hildy
BY Karl Wilding
ON February 28, 2015 03:19 AM
Full disclosure to those who read this, like Justin I am also a board member and participant in these open meetings.
From my perspective in the UK, I find myself amid an often frustrating debate about transparency where those who disagree with greater transparency - or are maybe frightened by it - construct straw men, arguing that transparency is too expensive, diverting us from the important business of serving beneficiaries. A second straw man is that we think being transparent about finances is the answer to everything, and all we want is a deluge of data. Transparency is not a trap laid by those seeking to criticise nonprofits, as some would have it (the Trappists!)
Hildy’s blog is important for me because it reminds us that transparency is much, much more than how much the ED is paid. It also beget’s the error that transparency only builds confidence in nonprofits, at the expense of trust. Our experiments with an open board truly show that silence is not golden. I think we’ve found opening up has enriched the conversation, just as companies everywhere are finding that involving ‘super-users’ in design and development is more rapidly improving products.
Nonprofits should be the gold standard when it comes to transparency, but based on our gold standard, not standards set by others. If we are not seen to be leading this debate ourselves, and building trust by being open, I worry deeply that an increasingly sector agnostic public will look elsewhere to achieve the social outcomes so many want to achieve.
Karl