GREAT lessons for nonprofit governance in this month's Conference Board Review on the role, no, the necessity, of boardroom debate as, dare I pose it, a fiduciary responsibility. 

Stuart Crainer and Des Dearlove (editors of The Financial Times Handbook of Management) do a great job of painting the typical for-profit board scenario of effectively a "love-fest" with a bunch of Directors nodding in agreement to whatever the company CEO and managers put in front of them.  Absent: smart conversation and intelligent disagreement.

Funny thing is that "polite" pretty much represents what goes on in nonprofit board rooms.  Absence of intelligent debate and strategic thinking is not the first and foremost rule of thumb for a nonprofit board.  Nope, under the guise of supporting management, nonprofit boards are pretty paralell to the for-profit board room, based on Crainer and Dearlove's description.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.

The reasons for this phenomenon are nicely put forth but more interesting to me, and the rationale for why good debate becomes a board responsibility, is Crainer and Dearlove's description of what board's should focus on in their discussions (aka, their agenda).  This comes after a reminder that the board's job is to govern the corporation and a reminder that the board is a political arena, a political forum.

So, four focii:

1. strategy: long term strategy and execution

2. performance management: how is it going against goals and what are the resource needs

3. talent discussion: leadership and management and exec succession

4. risk management: compliance and sound financial practice.

Good stuff!