Governance Bites #113: sports boards in strategy, with Professor Lesley Ferkins

In this episode, Mark Banicevich talks to Professor Lesley Ferkins about the involvement of sports boards in strategy. He asks how the board's role interacts with management, and what the most effective process is to develop a strategic plan. They discuss the importance of horizon scanning, and how to ensure the strategy aligns with the values and mission of the organisation. Mark asks how boards can balance their role in strategy with the other parts of the role, such as risk management and management oversight, and he asks about devolving to committees or engaging consultants. They discuss the frequency of reviewing the strategy, and how progress can be monitored. Lesley also shares the best governance advice she has received. 
Professor Lesley Ferkins is Professor of Sport Leadership & Governance, AUT Sports Performance Research Institute NZ. She has over 25yrs experience as an academic in sport management. Prior to academia, Lesley held senior leadership roles in sport & recreation as Executive Director for national and regional entities in NZ. Lesley is currently Professor at AUT and former Director of the AUT Sports Performance Research Institute NZ (SPRINZ). Before joining AUT in 2015, Lesley was Associate Professor at Unitec (and formerly Program Director), senior lecturer at Deakin, Melbourne, and Postgraduate Head in Sport & Recreation at AUT. Her teaching spans postgraduate and undergraduate courses in sport leadership and governance, strategic sport management, sport organisation, and work integrated learning.
#governance, #leadership, #corporategovernance, #boardcraft, #decisionmaking, #makingadifference, #governancebites, #boardroom , #cgi, #charteredgovernanceinstitute, #director, #notforprofit, #cpd, #professionaldevelopment, #incorporatedsociety, #sportgovernance, #collaborativegovernance

Transcript

0:00

Tēnā koutou [greetings everyone], ko Lesley Ferkins tōku ingoa. My name is Lesley Ferkins, and hi there. I am a professor in sport leadership and governance based up at AUT Millennium, so working for AUT University. I have the privilege of being up at AUT Millennium, which I call the heartbeat of the New Zealand sports system. A great complex. Probably a few other places might debate that around the country, but it's so neat to be working with all kinds of NSOs [national sports organisations] and practice-based organisations in the work that I do. And we're going to talk today about sports boards and strategy, which you said you did your PhD in, a topic related to this. Yes, I did, way back in nearly last century. So I started it just at the turn of the century, and at that time, 2002, 2003, I was looking for a topic that, you know, we all want to make a difference when we do our PhD, a topic that could make a difference. Yeah. And in working with [Professor] David Shilbury over at Deakin University, he tuned me into the idea of governance and sport governance. Obviously, it was in sport, and the important influence that the context of governance can have for the organised sport system. And so, being really committed to the organised sports system, I thought that was a great place to put my efforts. So yeah, I started off there, and looking at, looked at strategy. And I did that because at that time, a lot of the corporate literature were talking about the board's role was monitoring and kind of overseeing CEO [chief executive officer] performance, and there wasn't a lot of focus on the strategic role of the board, and that there needed to be, kind of in balance with the monitoring role, called out as performance and conformance, or strategic orientation and development and the monitoring role. And same with the sports sector. When I talked to a lot of boards in the sport sector. At that time, you know, early 2000s, a lot of NSOs were still quite committee-based. So, you know, kind of there to make sure the hole in the fence was fixed, and you know, because that's how we've grown up as a sports system, and we weren't as kind of corporatised and not as focused on the strategic role. So that's where I really drove into for my PhD, which was an absolute blast. Cool. Highly recommend it. Hi, welcome to Governance Bites. My name is Mark Banicevich, and as you just heard, I have the pleasure again of spending time with Professor Ferkins. Professor, thank you very much again for your time. I'm really looking forward to this topic. Last time we caught up, we talked a lot about the soft skills about leadership, which are a bit more challenging for me. And now we're getting into a bit more space. It's a bit more hard skills. So back in my comfort zone a little bit. So my first question for you was, how should a sports board's role in strategy formulation differ from the role of management in developing the strategy? Yeah, yeah, nice. So yeah, I mean as I rambled on just before there when you, before you got your intro in, yeah, I've spent a long time thinking and studying and working with boards in the strategy space because of the critical role of the need for boards to, you know, be focused on the strategic element of their role. Who was it? I think it was [John] Carver, you know, talked about the board's role is to create the future, not mind the shop. And it's a quote that has stuck with me for a long time. I think it was Carver. And so yeah, it's, you know, one of the things I kind of feel a little bit sad about as we've tried to drive the strategic role of the board is maybe the arbitrary separation between a board needs to be strategic, and management are operational. So never the twain shall meet. And I think actually over the course of the work that I've done, that's probably quite an unhelpful arbitrary line, and that it's actually critical for the board to understand and appreciate and know about the operational side of it so that it can be really informed in the way that it is involved in designing and formulating the strategy with the CE [CEO]. So I guess back in the day when I was starting my PhD, much of the literature and practice was that the CEO would design the strategic direction of the organisation, you know, the strategy for the organisation, and the board would look at it and kind of rubber stamp it. Right. And so my question for the PhD was, how can boards develop their strategic capability? So how can they, you know, uplift their strategic contribution? And I worked with three national sport organisations in an action research process. So we did it as we were learning about it. Right. And kind of some simple answers that came through our process of this development work, which was the board actually needs to be involved in the strategy design and also have, you know, it sounds simple, but also have a key oversight and connection to its implementation and not to be divorced from. So yeah, that kind of led to, you know, the board's involvement in the strategy workshops and really rolling their sleeves up and getting involved in working in partnership with the CE in the strategy design and oversight of implementation. It's great to hear that because the strategy workshops and things are the most fun, I think, you can have. So, you know, being on a board and being involved in those strategy workshops and the creation of the strategy as kind of a collaborative effort between the CEO, the management team, and the board. So a significant amount of overlap, and the board being not just one that gives a rubber stamp but gets heavily involved in that is really great to hear. Indeed. As I say, that's the really fun stuff. Yeah, neat. Go you. What are the most effective processes for sports boards to develop a strategic plan? So how do you go about it as a sports organisation? How do you say, "We have no strategy now. We need to have a"strategy. How do we do it?" Yeah. So yeah, I mean the first thing would be that it's not going to be quick. You know, it could be quick, but it then will sit on a shelf and no one will kind of engage with it. Right. And you know, as I said, when I sort of first started my PhD, it kind of tended to be the thing the CE would, you know, do it and then there it was and off they'd go, but there wasn't that kind of buy in. So yeah, it, and you know, again, we know this, we know this about work processes that, you know, the more involvement that people have in, and connection with the design and effort of it, the more connected they will be and the more committed we will be to implementing. So, you know, that's the kind of the basic emphasis of that. So yeah, the board's process is to work with the CE and to consider, you know, that lovely continuum of collaboration through to consultation. And the distinctions of that kind of, of that line if you like. So, you know, real collaboration is the idea of power sharing and multiple decision makers, not just asking and then you deciding. Right. And so, you know, that's kind of the idea of true collaboration. But it's enormously resource intensive. It takes lots of time. You've got to get agreement and consensus, and it's tough to build all of that, and it takes lots of time. But you know, there are some things and processes and strategic design is one of them where there needs to be certain groups involved in a truly collaborative way. And I'd call out those groups as: absolutely the board, with the CE, probably the SLT [senior leadership team] - If they have one.- if they have one. Or the operational team, so the operational knowledge. And then of course, the other partners in this are the regional entities and the system across which the NSO is governing, which includes, as well, clubs and you know, any of the other affiliates. So you know, those are the stakeholders. I actually like to call them "stake-owners", which really distinguishes between, you know, sometimes stakeholders could be all of New Zealand. So you think of the big sports in New Zealand: netball, tennis, are they the big sports? Okay, rugby and cricket, you know. Everyone that sits down and watches it on television is a stakeholder. Yeah, I have a stake in this. I feel connected to it. That's what that's, you know, definition of being a stakeholder. I have a, I feel like I have a stake in what's going on here. You know, rugby does attempt to ask lots of people, but many sports of course, can't do that extent, go to that extent to create a collaborative decision-making process. But there are those precious stake-owners. So those are the members through the democratic process, you know, the official legal members of the NSO. So those are typically the regions and the affiliates. And so too are the clubs of the official governing members of regions. So they're the stake- owners. Yes. Like shareholders, right? Same thing. They just don't get dividends. Yeah. They just don't get dividends. So yeah, clearly those are the entities that need to be really paid attention to in terms of the connection with the design of a strategic process for the board. For the organisation. Yeah. So you'd start using the traditional mechanisms of workshops with various subgroups, then potentially a survey out to get a feel for the trends that are coming out, draft a strategy, get the strategy out for consultation, that kind of approach. Yeah, that's it. Right. Nice. Yeah. Lots of mechanisms these days, especially with the communication techniques we now have. Yes. Yeah. It's so much easier than it was 20 years ago, right. To what extent should boards engage in horizon scanning, getting an idea of what's going on, what are the future trends and risks to the organisation? Yeah, sure. I mean, obviously that's a key part of the idea of strategic contribution or strategic thinking, you know, making a distinction between a strategic plan and strategy development or strategic contribution. The plan is the thing, is the artifact that might, is the culmination of this process, but a critical part of the strategic process is not only, you know, looking into the horizon and the future, but then also understanding the contextual nature of where you are, where you've come from, and therefore where you might be heading. And yeah, I mean, I think, you know, strategy is often, you know, considered that kind of 360 view, you know, where have we been, where are we now, and where are we heading is the kind of the strategy idea. But you know, all of that encompasses the idea of the, you know, what's around us, who are, you know, what are the trends? Who are the, who are the major players here? What's the competition? You know, what might we be facing in the future? What are the things that we can learn from the past? So that's that environmental awareness, that's absolutely critical. And boards are great contributors to that because if you have a really good board, you've got some people that have coming from a range of different perspectives that can really add to that kind of environmental thinking. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And no organisation operates in a vacuum, right. You've got to have an idea of what's going on around you because it's going to impact you. And yeah, the "what if" stuff is also the thing that's, you know, fascinating work to do when you, you start thinking about your scenario analysis and those sorts of exercises can be really interesting to think about what could happen. Indeed. Yeah. And produce a lot of value for the organisation - Yeah. - because they're far more prepared for things when they do happen. Yes. Yes. How can boards ensure that the strategic plan is aligned with the values of the organisation and its mission? Yeah. So yeah, it, you know, often values, you know, they're kind of overused but underused in a way in a strategy process, you know, because you know, there are some key components of strategy, environmental scanning and analysis, the vision and the mission or the purpose and the what and the why and then the how, you know, those are being the key components of strategy. But you know, where do values sit in all of that? And maybe the answer is they sit everywhere, which is kind of why they, you know, can be missed or overused if you like, because they do need to infiltrate everything at each stage. And so how do you capture that, and so on? Yeah. And that's the work of, you know, that is the work of the board to try and capture and establish and lead the intangible values-based approach for the organisation and then embed that in the artifact, which might be the strategic plan. You know, that perhaps the thing that doesn't work so well is to go, those are our values, that goes in the strategic plan, finished. Yeah. You know, it's obviously about living and breathing the essence of it. That alludes to another challenge with values is actually identifying what they are in the first place, right. Because it’s quite easy to come up with this wish list of what we think our values should be. But understanding what the values of the organisation truly are and whether they're aligned to everybody that's involved is actually quite a challenging process. It's hugely challenging, and I often way I like to approach it in the values work that I've done is to not lead out with values, but to, you know, it's a bit like the sort of action research work that I do, which is, you know, you learn by doing. Yes. You learn when you get into the field and start to work with and create change and develop, and then you understand some of the key things that need to be happening. And I feel like values capture is a bit like that, and that, you know, let's progress with a process of strategic design, and along the way, let's tune into what the values are, need to be, have been, could be, and then perhaps at the end, kind of wrap around with a values capture - Yeah. - of what they are, but how they might need to evolve, as well. That makes a great amount of sense because then you're actually exploring what the values of the entity are rather than having a separate almost arbitrary exercise where you put a whole lot of words on the board and go, we really like those four there. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's a great, a great approach. I really like that. How can boards then balance the need for strategic thinking with their other governance responsibilities, with their oversight responsibilities, with their risk management responsibilities? How do you get that balance right in the boardroom? Yeah, yeah, such a good question. I'm a Libra, so I'm kind of into balance. Yeah, very scientific Libra that I am. And yeah, balance is a big thing for me. Probably because I'm a Libra. And so when I did my PhD, that was one of the things that we came out with. David Shilbury and I, when we did some publishing work and that, we came out with the board strategic balance was this kind of model of, you know, look at all the things that the board needs to balance. Yeah. And when I entered my PhD, it was seemingly a little bit out of balance in terms of the boards that I spoke with and the work that we did, you know, it was quite conformance-oriented. So, you know, the oversight of, the monitoring role was kind of heavily weighted, and the strategic role, you know, needed to be uplifted a bit. And so, you know, that was about bringing that in balance. But it doesn't mean that that's the only role of the board, the strategic role. Of course, there are these critical other things that the board needs to do, and stakeholder and stake-owner relationships are another absolutely critical role. Another one is the work with the CE and the way that that, you know, that the CE partners with them in the governance role is another one. And so, you know, we kind of put these blocks on a bit of a continuum with a balance thing underneath it. Fulcrum in the middle. Fulcrum, that's the word, fulcrum. And yeah, and it's not losing sight of the critical elements, but making sure that, you know, we are in balance. Yeah. And what happens, when you kind of get out of balance things are, you know, there might be sort of a tolerance range that, you know, for now we're here because we need to be, but we also need to make sure we balance that in the future. In my experience, one of the challenges in particular in sport, and as you know a little bit more in terms of a minority sport, is because you're reliant on volunteers, and in our case, very much volunteers both at the board level, at the management level, fortunate to get to the stage where we could employ a part-time CEO, which helped immensely. But you'll get these environmental factors that will be thrown at you. You'd have, for example, a case that has happened in health and safety in sport, and everyone on the board is suddenly very hyper aware of this one issue, and it takes your focus to such an extent that sometimes you lose balance of the other things, and keeping those things in balance is really, really, really important, isn't it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And actually, one of the things I wanted to do, I didn't end up doing it, was to create a little physical model of that. Yes. You know, the balance, board strategic balance, so that that could sit on the boardroom table, and you know, you put your finger on it and go, "Okay, where are we at the moment? Look guys, we're, you know, we"we've become a bit imbalanced. We need to kind of think about how we're going to get back into balance." But yeah, recognising the realities of it, I mean, that absolutely happens, and you know, we can be sideswiped by those things that come at us for sure. Yeah, yeah. So what extent then should boards delegate strategic planning tasks to committees, external consultants, draw other people in, and to what extent should they kind of take responsibility for it with the CEO? Yeah, cool. Nice, nice, nice question. So yeah, I mean, first of all, you know, the thing that I've kind of come to learn is the critical nature of the board's willingness to roll up its sleeves and get involved in the design of the strategy going forward. So not to leave that and abdicate that to the CE or the SLT. And so yeah, and involvement, board involvement in strategic design and planning, absolutely. You know, again, it's this distinction between the strategic thinking and conversations that happen around the boardroom table, and then the artifact, which is the strategic plan, - Yes. - that is a reference point, you know, when we might forget what we're supposed to be, you know,"What are the priorities? Oh yeah, there they are again, they're in the strategic plan." So yeah, it's the board's, what was your question again? It was around whether and how you should bring in, delegate to external committees or to consultants for them. Right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I would say that every single board meeting is, its purpose is for strategic conversation. The process of strategic planning is a particular kind of cycle of, you know, that happens at certain times, three to five years or whatever, and it's super helpful to have obviously the, you know, some external input and facilitation into that. And I'm a massive advocate of the external facilitator coming in to help pull the ideas together for that particular purpose. And yeah, then we're off with some kind of, you know, subcommittees or management work to outwork that. But I think where I was heading before, which when I forgot the nature of the question was that every board meeting is conversation of - Strategic. - Yeah, you know, and the agenda needs to reflect that- Yes. - and that the agenda mirrors the strategic plan's priorities. Yeah, I think you've raised a really clear distinction that when you're going through the strategic planning process, having external support and facilitation is really, really valuable. And you know, my experience of that is very on point with that because if you have an internal facilitator, they're in a difficult position where either they can't put their own thoughts forward or if they do, they can dominate the conversation. Whereas if you got an independent person, then everyone that's relevant can have their voice and that person all they're doing is making sure that everyone gets heard. Yes. Yeah, nice. So it's a really strong process. And then as you say, once the plan is developed, the board's role very much is on monitoring the plan, and supporting the implementation thereof, and so forth. Nice. Yeah, cool. Cool, thank you. How can boards ensure that they have the necessary skills and expertise, particularly to engage in complex strategic decision-making, particularly sports boards again where you're working with volunteers, right. How do you get the right skill sets around the table? Yeah, nice. Yeah, so we've been on a bit of a journey around the board skills and board composition. When I say we, I mean I think the sector kind of led by Sport New Zealand and so a couple of things I'd say about that is the cool nature of the Sport New Zealand's governance development program. So Julie Hood leads that. And there's all kinds of board evaluation tools and resources that Sport New Zealand has on offer for NSOs and you know any of the public facing ones. Regional organisations, clubs. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So and what's happened recently is that Sport New Zealand has updated its board skills matrix to recognise the soft skills, the board dynamic side of things. Right. And so with that is really the, recognising the critical nature of what we like to call,"He tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata" [It is people, it is people, it is people.] So a bit of te reo [Māori language] there, which is about it’s the people, it's the people, it's the people. It's about the people. So you know, it's always going to come back. So it's actually critical who you have sitting around your table. It seems obvious but also what the processes are to enable that. And of course, that's been a massively vexed process for sport, which is what I mean by we've been on a bit of a journey with that. So traditionally sports have been, you know, hey, we've had the representative model of governance. President, secretary, treasurer, regional representatives. That's it. And the regional representatives come to represent their regions. Yes. And we've grown up in that way. But we have been evolving ourselves to think about actually the board, people that sit around the board need to be acting the best interests of the organisation they are there. Yeah. The journey has been happening for 25 or more years, right, with Sport New Zealand. That's right. That's right. And you know, there are some hangovers still from the regional kind of patch protection and concern that the regions have for, you know, maybe loss of autonomy and, you know, this kind of at times, you know, difficult growing pains in terms of the idea of the power sharing relationships. And so, you know, we've evolved to be probably most sport organisations now at the national level have a hybrid combination. So they've got some elected and some appointed. Yes. And those elected are not elected from a region, they are elected at large. Yes. So they come from the sport in terms of a deep understanding of lived experience of regional experience, but aren't there to represent the region per se. Yeah. Yeah. And New Zealand Cricket have a really interesting model that you'll have talked to Martin about [episode #104], but it's a different... It was really interesting talking to Martin Snedden about that and because I've grown up in that concept of some, well I haven't grown up, I grew up in the in the model of president, secretary, treasurer and regional representation, but we moved to a model of some elected and some appointed to try and get that balance of skills. And talking to Martin about the approach of, no, no, everyone is elected but you have a strong appointments panel - Yes. - to identify the people with the right skills - That's right. - and put those forward to the membership to be elected. That's right. It's a really strong model, I think. I want to think about that a little more. Yeah. It's super interesting. And I think New Zealand Rugby looked at it pretty closely when they were trying, were designing their reinvention of their governance arrangements with regions. And the other person I'd call out, I think you're might be interviewing her, Tracy Malloy. She has done her PhD. Yeah, we're working on arrange time with Tracy. Yes, absolutely. She's just completed her PhD on the board appointments panel. And it's like, - Yeah. - why would you do a tiny, you know, PhD on a tiny piece of the governance equation? But you know what, that tiny piece had this enormous leverage in terms of, if you get the board appointments panel right, if you get the right people on the board appointments panel, and get that process humming, then guess what's going to happen. Yeah, absolutely. It's funny that you ask that, because isn't that what a PhD is. Not at all. Getting really, really good at a very small piece of expertise. But it needs to have a wide impact. Absolutely it does. Yeah, definitely, definitely. Yeah, nice. Yeah. Okay. So how frequently should boards review and update their strategic plan to respond to those changing circumstances? And is that period of time changing as, technology in particular is just moving at such a rapid pace? So, you know, how frequently should it be reviewed? Yeah, yeah. So I mean, as you're saying that I'm thinking of you know the wonderful lessons that come from Te Ao Māori [the Māori worldview] which is this intergenerational really long horizon thinking. I'm really fascinated by that. Yeah. So you know three to five years is just is such a small time horizon compared to the intergenerational, you know, - Hundred year plan type thing. - Yeah, indeed. And that's the beauty of a Te Ao Māori perspective is that there are some very, you know, long-term visions and perspectives both from where, you know, from whakapapa [individual's geneology] all the way to into the future. Yes. So you know, kind of putting that into the picture. And then also, I like to think of Simon Sinek's work when I think about this too, which is, you know, his model was 'why, what, how', starting with that. And then what Te Ao Māori have taught us is also we need in there is 'who'. So 'who'. So don't move too far without bringing the 'who'. Considering that, yeah. So 'why, who, what, how', could absolutely be the process. And come, bring me back to the pointy end of the question again. It was around how frequently the strategic plan should be reviewed. Yeah, yeah. So you know, it is an artifact captured in time. But it also is a dynamic process. Yes. So and I think we've kind of got our heads around that. That it's something to be lived every day, every, perhaps, you know, board meeting or every day in the organisation. And so that the agenda reflects the strategic priorities and the strategic plan and that's the conversation around the boardroom table. But yeah, there is a moment in time where you know there are these kind of you know ability to bring in a, have a bit of a refresh bring in someone new to help us facilitate and yeah. Refreshing it about every 3 to 5 years, right. Exactly, exactly. It that seems to be about the right kind of cadence. And but you know, it's not an arbitrary thing. It's like when do when do we feel like we need to just tweak and refresh? Yeah. To me it should be absolutely an evolving dynamic document and not done set fixed. Yes, yeah. Because things happen that we need to change and evolve all the time. Wax not stone. Yeah. It's I think one of the advantages that we have in the sports sector is, the why, the purpose, is usually a lot easier to identify than it is for a lot of corporates. You know, if you, because to a large extent depending on what the organisation is you're there for the benefit of the sport. Because you love the sport and you want the sport to grow and evolve. And so that 'why' is often a little bit easier in a sports organisation that can be in a corporate that is, you know, at some point to be very mercenary about it, is there to make money, and it's about how do we make money and why do we exist to do that. So yeah, it makes, it gives sport I think a little bit of an advantage in that strategic planning process. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the other thing I'd say about us in sport is that we are evolving, I believe. It's my sense of it anyway, from, you know, that kind of, our purpose is to grow the sport and, you know, to enable the sport to thrive, and to win medals. To, our purpose is to help New Zealanders survive, thrive. Live longer, healthier lives through activity. Yeah. Through the sport or activity that we can offer. And when we have that kind of, beyond the sport organisation lens, it kind of helps us to figure out the co-opetition thing going on. So we're not competing. We're working with those other sports to enable New Zealanders to have active healthy lives. You know, Sport New Zealand's mission and our roles like, for example, Tennis New Zealand, is to enable the well-being of New Zealanders through tennis, not for tennis. Yes. And same thing with the HP [high performance] space. And it's a bit of a mind bender for some, in that, from my perspective, it's not, the purpose is not to win medals or win Wimbledon or to win the championships. The purpose is to, you know, the purpose is the human endeavour. To literally be the best you can be. And through that human endeavour the outcome, you know, one of the things that could happen is the winning thing, but that's not the reason why the the high performance activity happens. It's the human endeavour. And so there's something beyond the actual, the medal. And for us New Zealanders, you know, it brings me great joy to watch the human endeavour on the world stage with our Olympians. And it's not that they win, it's how they won. It's not that they lose, it's how they lose that I love. Yes. Yeah. Very cool. What mechanism should boards have in place to monitor progress towards those goals? So you've got your strategic plan. It's there in front of you on the board table. You're discussing it each board meeting. What are the what are the mechanisms that you use to monitor it? Yeah, this seems sort of like an easy question, but I'm kind of going to open it up to some complexity, or at least just to call out the absolute challenge of that. One of the things that we are noticing through the chair's community with Martin Snedden [episode #100], the sector governance community that we're running, is the conundrum and the challenge of boards to really be across the implementation of strategy. So probably now the easier role. You know, back in the early 2000s we were kind of just figuring out how boards can be strategic and how they can contribute into the strategic design of the organisation, feels like we're nailing that. Boards know how to do it. We're doing that. You know, that's a reasonably well, you know, well-honed kind of capability. The massive question now is how boards really help drive the implementation, and what their role is in that, and the understanding and knowledge of what happens in implementation. CE's only got so much time to report. The CE is there to report but they also know they're, you know, they're being appointed by the board, and performance managed by the board. So there's all kinds of vexed things when it comes to the board's role in monitoring the implementation. So I reckon we've got a lot more work to do and how to figure that out to make sure that the board can really authentically be a great guide in the way that strategy gets implemented. Yes. Yeah. For me as well, one of the challenges is, you're always trying to define, when you set your strategic plan, how you know when you've met an objective, some form of KPI to measure and follow. And I think sometimes there's a tendency for you to find outcomes that are very difficult to measure where outputs are very easy to measure. So you've got that challenge: do we define an outcome, or do we define an output? An output we're hoping will deliver the outcome, but we don't actually know, but it's easier to measure than the outcome. So yeah, and you know, this is the work of strategy, isn't it? That's right. We know that we choose things that we can measure easily, which is to our detriment, because there are all kinds of other things that are intangible, long-term, uncapturable, and in other words, unmeasurable, that are critical. And so the trick is to appreciate both. You know, we need both. Yeah. And the more we move towards this Te Ao Māori concept of the intergenerational goals, the harder those things become to measure, right. So yeah, you're right, we have to embrace both. What are the most common challenges that sports boards face in engaging effective strategy development and implementation? Excuse me. Yeah, I think it would be that. It would be that we need to play in the sandpit of both tangible and intangible, measurable and unmeasurable, but evidence-based capture of what's happening. And yeah, just, I guess for me, it's an appreciation of that, the two are, need to exist in tandem with each other. You know, there is a heavy dominance on the measurement side of it. It reminds me of the, you know, the world I operate in, in the scientific world of research. There's a heavy dominance on quantitative research. Yes. It's called a positivist paradigm where things can be measured, captured, and measured, and are a little more defined and absolute, if you like, without using too absolutist language, versus the emergent world of the intangible, qualitative nature of capturing evidence, which is equally important and valid, but so much harder to kind of nail down. And so I like to talk in the language of what can be measured, but also what can be captured in terms of evidence that things are tracking in the way that we might want it. And another way of saying that is to expand the idea of evaluative processes from, yeah, we need to evaluate, but we also need to understand the ripple effects of things, which kind of brings us into the realm of impact. Yes. You know, how are, this happens and we can capture that, but then what are the ripple effects that we don't even know about or are intangible, but are nonetheless having some significant impacts that are either helpful or unhelpful. Hopefully helpful, because that's ultimately what you're trying to deliver. Indeed. Yeah. Great. One final question for you. What's the best governance advice you've received? Oh, I think I'm just going to go with the thing that sits in my head from Martin Snedden, and you know, he constantly talks about, hanging my arm up here. He constantly talks about shifting from a horizontal way of thinking to a - that's vertical! - A vertical way of thinking, to a horizontal. Okay. And you know, that has so many kind of implications, permutations in the governance context, from a hierarchical way of looking at leadership [vertical] to a collective way of looking at leadership [horizontal], from a top-down approach to NSO direction [vertical] to a collaborative approach to NSO [horizontal], you know, working with. And so, and to a, you know, a chair directing and telling [vertical] to a chair facilitating [horizontal]. And yeah, just the way that Martin so succinctly and simply kind of explains the vertical to horizontal model, I think is a - I like that. - really, really helpful way of conceptualising so many different things. And also so tangible, in terms of the visible nature of this, right. Yeah, yeah. That's really cool. Lesley, thank you very much again for your time. That's been a cool conversation. I look forward to catching up again soon and to seeing you next episode. Kia ora [thanks]. Ngā mihi nui [many thanks]. Thank you for watching this episode of Governance Bites. We have more episodes on YouTube and your favourite podcast channel where I interview directors and experts on various topics relating to boards of directors and governance. We'd love to see you back, and please like, subscribe and share the videos and podcasts.