Thanks Richard - I don't think my position is at odds with what you're suggesting. My statement that "Our role as board members is to govern and to ensure the CEO's vision and strategies align with the mission and values of the organization" does not mean that the board does not work with the organization's senior leadership team on setting strategy. It is the opposite.
The Strategy committee of the board works very closely with the CEO and his leadership team on strategy. In fact the strategy committee is the most popular committee of the board which receives by far the most board Member input.
There's a subtlety here, in our two positions - and it's one that we've worked hard to clarify. For a non-profit organization with a professional management team, strategy setting is a collaborative exercise - not one that is thrust upon management by the board - and so I can assure you that the board collaborates effectively with management on strategy and we then focus on CEO execution.
There's a ton of industry guidance which supports this approach. For example the National Association of Corporate Directors suggests "that directors move beyond the traditional “review and concur” approach to strategy development and move toward an ongoing strategy dialogue with management". Here's some additional resources:
My position is simply that I want to give credit for execution to the people that actually implemented the strategy. I'm Canadian - it's not natural for me to toot my own horn. Despite the many negative comments about some members' user experience of late, the organization has made considerable strides against it's mission to serve its members.
Lastly, as I was thinking about the "polarizing" slate notion, and the underlying pontification of bias, two things occurred to me:
Again I think context is key!
The slate selection process for 2019 was perhaps the most comprehensive of any. There were approximately 40 potential candidates put forward, and there were several indeed which came from the chapter organizations. After going through our scoring process (which is based on the criteria listed on the elections page linked above) we identified the top 12 candidates. This year we took the extra step of interviewing all 12 candidates which allowed us to bring the slate to our target number of 8 top candidates.
Why out of 40 candidates are there no women candidates recommended? Why did your committee judge that no women were qualified?
Thanks for your question. I hope my answer will satisfy you, but I understand if it doesn't.
We did in fact have women candidates put forward. In addition to the primary criteria listed on the Board Elections Portal, the committee also gave consideration and points for diversity. In this case gender diversity, geographic diversity, industry diversity were all key elements in the evaluation process.
The committee feels strongly that the candidates who made the final slate are the best choices when all criteria were considered. This consideration was done carefully and without conscious bias. We had an impressive list of potential candidates. Many "qualified" candidates did not score sufficiently high enough to make the top 8, this does not mean that they were not qualified.
The process brings a sadness to my heart. I have been led to believe that diversity mattered to the (ISC)2 Board and its executive leadership. I was wrong. It still is a "Kentucky" old boys network where patronage appointments are made under the guise of a quasi-scientific method of awarding points for color and gender. I'd recommend that the Board undertake "unconscious bias" training to fully address their condition.
I think there's additional context that I'd like to share... The Board over the past several years has been committed to diversity as evidenced by the current board composition. The Chair is one of 4 females on the board, we have 6 people of color, we have 3 white American males and the board members represent 6 different countries (New Zealand, Hong Kong, Chile, Croatia, Canada and the United States).