Ends versus means

Boards may be prescriptive at times – i.e. they write a list of 'thou shalts' for the CE. If the board hasn’t specifically said 'no', then, theoretically, the CE can do it. To manage potential skullduggery, the board may provide pro-scriptives, such as Standing Orders (or 'thou shalt nots'). These may take the form of "don’t spend over $x", or "don’t leave assets under-insured"; or "don’t let the key relationships deteriorate"; etc. However, it is better to use philosophy - a 'how' in the form of a set of values, and a 'why' in the form of a mission and a vision - and for board to expect the CE to act in accordance with these.

Once the philosophy (how and why) is in place, we need to consider the 'ends' (the board’s responsibility); and the 'means' (the CE's responsibility). It is the board's job to ensure that the "means [are NOT] so evil as to counterbalance the good of the end sought" (Lamprecht, 1920, p. 511), checking with the CE and taking "account of the means by which the ends are to be brought into being" (p. 510) because otherwise we are going to find ourselves trending in the media for the worst possible reasons. 

Part of the Policy Governance model (Carver, 2006), ends are where the Board decides the desired end goals needed for organisational performance and to balance risk; and means are what the CE determines the means of delivering the Board's ends.

• The ends: To focus on what the organisation needs to accomplish at a strategic level. To ensure no surprises for the CE or the organisation. To act with integrity (i.e., no secret deals wherever possible). To represent the organisation credibly. To use best governance practice. To clear the way so the organisation can achieve appropriate goals. To be absolutely honest with the CE, including matters of performance; to not be ‘asleep at the wheel’. To trust, but to verify trust with the CE and the organisation.
  
  
• The means: Focus on how to deliver the organisational goals set by the board. Give the board no surprises. Prioritise the goals set by the board. Be clear in the board's expectations. To support the board while providing fair critique. To have the freedom to exercise professional judgement. To ensure the organisation is secure and to ensure safety. To be honest with the board. To trust the good intentions of the board.

But we need to be aware that means-ends reasoning can provide an inherent tension in determining "how to adapt [...] between conflicting ends" (Blackburn, 2005, p. 238). Boards and CEs must act with care to avoid such tensions do not arise or that we create a "confining cage of bureaucratic management" (Blackburn, 2005, p. 112). Such an evocative phrase!

The board and the CE should work together to ensure that there are enough means for the organisation to meet its ends.

Sam

References:

Blackburn, S. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Carver, J. (2006). Boards That Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Lamprecht, S. P. (1920). Ends and Means in Ethical Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 17(19), 505–513. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939936