APA launched the Good Governance Project in January 2011 as part of the strategic plan to “[assure] APA’s governance practices, processes and structures are optimized and aligned with what is needed to thrive in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex environment.” The charge includes inviting broad input from key stakeholders, learning about current best practices in governance, making a recommendation about whether or not the current structure requires change, and if so, in consultation with stakeholders, recommending needed changes accompanied by data driven rationale and implementation plans.
If you have any questions or ideas, please contact Nancy Gordon Moore.
Between February-July 2011, governance gathered data using:
Guided group discussions with the council and others, with 270 written responses.
30 qualitative telephone interviews.
Over 400 surveys from all key stakeholder groups to assess perceptions of APA's governance.
Initial benchmarking interviews with relevant associations to collect stories of how other organizations are addressing governance issues.
The entire GGP team participated in a rigorous review and analysis of the data. They identified areas to further explore in order to determine if APA’s governance practices, processes and structures are optimized and aligned with what is needed to thrive in today's rapidly changing, increasingly complex environment. The team continues to:
Test themes emerging in the initial data.
Share relevant information about success trends in governance and alternative strategies.
Conduct in depth discussions and collect feedback on key governance topics.
APA’s governance is a) complex, b) at times cumbersome, c) does not always result in timely decisions, d) provides opportunities for everyone to be heard, which is seen as a great strength, and e) generally results in good decisions, albeit slowly.
There is confusion distinguishing between involvement in governance and the programmatic systems and processes that engage members in the organization. Currently at APA, the primary way to engage with the organization is to become involved in governance.
There is a general lack of clarity about who is responsible for what, with little evidence of accountability. This is true both organizationally and individually, and for volunteers and staff.
Responses, in general, expressed parochial views, filtered through constituency lenses.
APA's governance is perceived to be a closed and political system. There is dynamic competition for leadership positions and recycling is commonplace, which impacts the balance between institutional knowledge and fresh ideas. There is widespread discouragement among those who seek to enter leadership roles.
There is a lack of process for identifying priorities. All issues seem to be handled as “one size fits all” — everyone is invited to weigh in on everything.
There is frustration about governance, as well as hope for change, and there is general agreement that governance needs to be “updated.” This is accompanied by a desire to “not lose anything.”
Questions
Questions to address while designing models of change
How well is our governance system positioned to achieve our newly adopted mission and vision?
What kinds of governance approaches and what kind of culture will be necessary to fully become what our vision describes? What already exists that supports the mission and vision? What would the benefits be to psychology, to psychologists and to APA if we had more strategic unity and consistent direction among our organization? How might we ensure our strategic direction transcends individual elected and appointed leaders' terms of office?
Are we deciding the right things, focused on the right issues in the best way?
How could decisions be handled differently, depending on the issues being addressed and the need for speed or inclusivity? What kinds of things need to be addressed where? Should internal and external decisions be handled in the same way?
How can we uncouple the experiences of engaging as an active member, engaing in governance and being enfranchised — having a voice in decision-making — so that each has a separate and equal value?
Why is the opportunity for everyone to weigh in on almost every issue so ingrained in the organization?
Is it commitment to inclusion? The belief that such involvement is essential to developing good policy/decisions? To increase the level of certainty that decisions are the right ones, i.e., to decrease risk? To protect decision-makers from making a mistake? To keep the peace and minimize controversy and conflict? A coping mechanism for lack of trust?
What mechanisms could permit all interested voices to weigh in and inform decisions without needing to be a formal part of governance?
How might we separate decision making from issue-focused dialogue?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current election/selection process?
What are the primary organizational and individual drivers of recycling leaders? What parts of the organization and what modes of operating are particularly appealing to younger members and will be likely to engage them in the future? What are the barriers that keep people from service?
What evidence is there that the participatory, deliberative process results in better decisions than would otherwise have been made?
What makes a good decision? What factors need to be in place to make a good decision? What are examples of successful decisions? What examples, if any, are there that the vetting process has not been effective? Is success measured by everyone being OK with the decision, by harmony rather than conflict, by progress made toward a consistent central vision, or some other way?
How do the various parts of governance — the Council of Representatives, Board of Directors, divisions, SPTAs, boards and committees, etc. — map out in terms of legal connection, obligations, what is provided and what is received?
The GGP team expects to return to the council in February 2013 with detailed proposals for the change scenario(s) selected. In that way, the council will have another opportunity to review proposed changes and participate in their final design. Then, implementation of selected changes, if there are any, will likely be in stages, with more complex items phased in over time.
I. Incremental change to the existing system
Removes percieved barriers to governance responsiveness.
Streamlines the council agenda.
Creates a triage system.
Increases accountabilities and linkage to the strategic plan.
Increases use of technologies.
II. Moderate change to existing system
Represents more extensive change and greater nimbleness.
Authority is split as follows:
A Board of Trustees has authority for “corporate” and internal policy roles.
A “Communities of Interest Assembly” governs the discipline, bringing a multiplicity of perspectives to the macro issues of the discipline.
Boards and committees are specialized content and program focused bodies advisory to governance.
Governance bodies are competency-based and broadly representative of communities of interest, rather than based on organizational units.
All work is aligned with APA's strategic direction and based on the public good, the future of the field and member views.
Includes new mechanisms from Scenario I for increased direct member input, triage, evaluation of strategic alignment, and expanded selection and orientation process.
III. Clean slate — a new governance design
Establishes a Board of Governors with diverse representation but a much smaller number of members than the current council.
Uses technology to increase communications and efficiency.
Utilize ad hoc working groups and convene ad hoc summits to be aware of APA's operational environment.
Council Action
Council Action
In response to the council’s directive at the February 2012 meeting, GGP presented the representatives with three options for change, ranging from incremental to moderate to clean slate scenarios. After dialogue and deliberation, the council indicated they were ready for a change in governance models. In a fairly even split, they endorsed both the moderate and the clean slate scenarios (see Phase II for details).
In a formal vote, the council requested the GGP team return in February 2013 with:
“...more details about ways of implementing possible new governance models that reflect the council's interest in both the moderate change and clean slate scenarios. An essential component of these details will be addressing appropriate checks and balances. Among the other elements which should be included are:
Composition and selection of competency-based governors — e.g., communities of interest, broadly representative, adhocracy.
Decision management processes — e.g., triage systems, delineation of internal and external policy accountability, including financial.
Use of technology — e.g., to increase direct member input, streamline governance functions, increase involvement from key stakeholder groups.
Council’s input will be solicited in development of design concepts to be reviewed in February for final approval in August 2013.”
The Team
Team Members
APA appointed a project team of 15 APA members, three APA staff, and three high-level representatives of Cygnet Strategy LLC, the consulting firm that was hired by APA to coordinate this project. The team members represent diverse stakeholder perspectives. They are also known to be able to disagree without being disagreeable, and are committed to collaborative inquiry and learning.
The Good Governance Project team members are:
Sandra L. Shullman, chair, Ronald Rozensky, vice Chair, Rosie Phillips Bingham, Judith Blanton, Rosalind Dorlen, Linda Forrest, Gary Hawley, Kurt Geisinger, Frederick Leong, Mary Miller Lewis, Gilbert Newman, Konjit Paige, Mitchell Prinstein, Kenneth Sherr and Richard Suinn.
