You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Snags at the (Historical) Society

in #history4 years ago

It makes me question the whole idea of having boards at all, when the expert in the field clearly has the better idea of what to do.

Boards are likely required by law and demanded by practice. But that doesn't mean there cannot be an overhaul of board function. What would board reform look like? How would it be implemented?


I'm also curious what kinds of executive power-sharing workflows have been tried; Stitt seems like actually a really good fit in this scenario, but there are horror stories of administrators being put in power above folks who know the material. What are some models of leadership teams that can distribute executive function (somewhat in the manner of the board, but professionalized) across several individuals?

It would be great to get a mix of young people, experts, and even people from the target audience on the board. As long as being on the board is tied to funding, however, I don't see that happening. On the other hand, a board that puts aside its ego, and listens to and trusts the experts it hires would help a lot.