ARTICLE
The four Ps of governance: People, Purpose, Process and Performance
By Melissa Drayson
As every Further Education (FE) corporation, governance professional and principal will know all too well, there is now a mandatory requirement under the Skills and Post-16 Education Act for FE colleges to commission an external review of governance by July 2024 and every three years going forward.
The Department for Education (DfE) has helpfully set out the expected terms of such a review in its guidance on external governance reviews (EGRs), published in May 2022. It is heartening to note that the DfE highlights that the focus of a review should not only include compliance, structures, policies, and processes, but also “the effect of board culture and behaviours on decision-making, including facilitating appropriate challenge and contribution, and on the culture and tone of an organisation”.
This is against the backdrop of an unfortunate narrative that seems to lay the failures of colleges at the door of governing bodies.
Whilst there are undoubtedly examples of weak governance, no board operates in isolation from its senior leadership team (SLT) or the sufficient or otherwise allocation of adequate resources to support governance, including in its governance professional. A governing body can only be as effective as the relationships and culture that underpin it
On a practical level, what the requirement for EGRs means is that colleges are being required to spend thousands of pounds at a time when there are more pressures on already stretched budgets than ever before. It is essential, therefore, that the EGR brings real value and a set of recommendations that, when implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of the learner experience and the success of the college.
To achieve this, it is vital that everybody involved in governance — governance professionals, chairs, governors, and senior leaders — agrees the purpose, understands the value of the EGR and is prepared to contribute to the process.
So, what is good governance anyway?
If you ask ten different people, you’re likely to get ten different answers, but they will probably include at least one or a combination of the following:
- Effective and watertight policies, systems, and processes
- Compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements
- Maintaining and driving a strong strategic focus at board level, allowing management to manage
- Strong oversight of performance, with appropriate support and challenge
- Meetings that run like clockwork — great written information, robust discussion, excellent timekeeping, clear decision-making
- The right mix of skills and diversity on the board
- Relationships built on mutual understanding, trust, and openness
“My governors help me to see things that I wouldn’t necessarily have thought of — especially around risk and the bigger picture.”
Chief Executive
More simply put, good governance can be described through four simple words: People, Purpose, Process and Performance.
The DfE guidance requires any EGR to take into account the Code of Governance; most usually the sector’s own Code of Good Governance for English Colleges. The Code provides an excellent checklist of statutory, regulatory, and good practice markers for governance professionals and corporations to follow (namely, the process). In isolation, however, it cannot tell us how effective a college’s governance is. A board could comply fully with the Code and, arguably, still have meetings that fail to do their job.
Anyone who has worked with boards for a while will recognise the scenario where agendas, papers, procedures, and processes are all in place, yet somehow there’s a disconnect in the boardroom. Maybe the meeting has gone rogue, the discussion has become fractious or has veered off at a tangent from the main purpose and valuable time has been lost. Or maybe proceedings are stilted, individuals are disengaged and decisions are made on the nod. People leave the meeting feeling dispirited and frustrated. All this despite having a diverse group of highly qualified, talented, and experienced individuals around the table.
The answer, to me, lies in the first P: People. People make a culture where the shared purpose (the college mission, vision, values and strategy) drives everything and strong performance oversight becomes the norm. Relationships at all levels are key: between the chair and individual governors; between governors and the SLT individually and collectively; between the chair, principal and the governance professional. I’m not talking about being ‘mates’ — a relationship between chair and principal conducted in the pub or on the golf course is not good governance (and believe me, it happens).
Through getting relationships right, a truly inclusive and dynamic governance culture can be built, based on mutual trust, strong communication and an understanding of and respect for each other’s roles. Within such a culture, every individual is confident to perform their role, and individual contributions — including those that don’t conform to the norm — are valued. Expectations are set and communicated, and strong challenge is part of the package when these are not met.
There is no doubt that in organisations where governance is most effective, any sense of ‘us and them’ has been eliminated and a ‘one team’ approach is evident. Governors operate true strategic leadership in pursuit of the college’s common purpose, leaving the principal and SLT to run the college, implement strategic goals and mitigate strategic risk (the performance).
Colleges should invest in developing relationships (including induction and training) not only for chairs and governors on their roles but also for senior staff on the importance of good governance and their roles in supporting this. Governors are very quick to pick up when executive colleagues treat them like interfering do-gooders or fail to see the ‘point’ of governance — both of which can lead to an erosion of trust, defensiveness and frustration, and the risk of the ‘meeting from hell’ scenarios outlined above.
“Clear communication between executive and non-executive colleagues is key. There must be an understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities, clarity about mutual expectations and agreement on what the right level of information is for the board to do its job. Often it’s not as much as you would think.”
Governance professional
At Rockborn, we tailor our EGRs to offer a bespoke service that meets not only the requirements of the DfE’s guidelines but also reflects the unique situation of each college and its corporation. We don’t believe in tick-boxes. Our sector experts work alongside you (not inspecting you!) towards an outcome that brings real benefits and added value to your governance arrangements.
During an EGR I always set out to speak to as many governors and members of SLT as possible, as well as observing at least one meeting. One of the things I look out for as a simple indicator of a culture of engagement is whether governors talk about the college as ‘you/they’ or ‘we/us’ in discussion.
Towards the end of 2022, I undertook an EGR for an FE college as part of the Rockborn team. I observed excellent practice across the board (full compliance, robust processes) but what stood out for me was that individual governors voluntarily told me how much they enjoyed their roles. These were all highly-skilled professional people who were used to working in high-pressure, result-focused environments. Their enjoyment came from confidence in their director of governance and executive colleagues, knowing the college, sharing its ambitions, successes, and failures, and feeling part of a team that was making a difference.
Needless to say, strong relationships at all levels (especially at the triumvirate of chair, principal and director of governance) and the prioritisation and resourcing of governance formed the bedrock of the positive culture.
“Everybody should come away from a meeting feeling that they collectively did a good job although sometimes the job itself can be difficult.”
College chair
