Good Governance Project

Top Level APA Themes From Data Gathered Thus Far

• There is general consensus that APA’s governance is a) complex, b) at times cumbersome, c) does not always result in timely decisions, d) provides an opportunity for everyone to be heard, which is seen as a great strength, and e) generally results in good decisions, albeit slowly.
• There is confusion and difficulty 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. This is true both organizationally and individually, and for volunteers and staff.
• There is little evidence of “accountability,” i.e., who is accountable to whom and for what.
• Responses, in general, expressed parochial views, filtered through constituency lenses.
• APA 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 a widespread discouragement among those who seek to enter leadership roles.
• There is a lack of process for identifying priorities, determining what needs to be addressed, by whom and how quickly. 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."

Here is a set of questions arising out of the data gathered so far:

1. 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 might we need to begin doing and what might we need to stop doing to more fully align APA governance with the Mission/Vision? What would the benefits to psychology as a field, to psychologists and to APA as an organization if we had more strategic unity and consistent direction among our organizational units? How might we ensure our strategic direction transcends individual elected and appointed leaders' terms of office?
2. It appears that the experience of engagement with APA (being an active and engaged member) is often viewed as synonymous with being engaged in governance and being enfranchised — having a voice in decision-making. How can these three distinct experiences be decoupled, so that each has a separate and equal value?
3. 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 a) everyone being OK with the decision, b) harmony rather than conflict, c) progress made toward a consistent central mission and vision or d) something else?
4. 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 the need for inclusivity? What kinds of things need to be addressed where? How might we handle decisions that require speed differently than other issues? Should internal and external decisions be handled in the same way?
5. Why is the opportunity for everyone to weigh in on almost everything 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? The belief that without “my help” the decision won’t be good? To acknowledge every voice? To deflect criticism of final decisions? A coping mechanism for lack of trust? Other?
6. 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 apart decision making from issue-focused dialogue? Does need to be involved in both?
7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current election/selection process? What are the primary organizational and individual drivers of recycling leaders? What would happen if leadership roles were more accessible to younger members? 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?
8. How do the various parts of governance, i.e., Council, BOD, Divisions, SPTAs, Boards and committees, etc. map out in terms of legal connection, obligations, what is provided and what is received?