Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Richard Lewis' editorial on the Healthcare Commission's survey of
Foundation Trusts identified lack of clarity in the FT governor role as a
potential weakness in new governance arrangements. We concur that
governors may not be faring well in their challenging new governance
roles, but research is scarce and at an early stage. We reviewed some
recent published perspectives and suggest that governors' role coherence
and effectiveness remain elusive objectives. This deficit must not be
ignored.
In January 2005, a Kings Fund “straw poll” reflected roles and
effectiveness from some 60 elected governors representing 14 out of 20 1st
wave Foundation Trusts (FTs) (1). A broader perspective on governor
effectiveness comes from the Royal College of Nursing’s (RCN) survey of
all 1st wave FTs (2). More in-depth findings come from the Moore Adamson
Craig Partnership’s “beliefs and values” development programme for
governors at two 1st wave FTs (3). They present a mixed picture.
Straw poll found confusion
The Kings Fund poll revealed majority confusion about roles and only
minority confidence about effectiveness within FTs so far. Worryingly,
some governors thought operational management was their job. Others chose
“select committee member” or “community barometer” role descriptions.
Future confidence was encouragingly high however.(1) If this small group
is representative, there is a yawning gap to close before governors start
making a difference in FTs’ public accountability.
Making a difference?
The RCN’s national FT survey found evidence in only 4 FTs that
elected staff or public governors had made a difference to services (what
“difference” actually means, however, is unclear). In the other 16 FTs
the survey reported confusion over role and potential of Governors and
Board members. It concluded: “governors must play a central role in
establishing and maintaining the democracy in NHS Foundation Trust
services and their role must be fully supported to enable them to do so.
This will require investment and must form part of the review of
“governance risk” in the Compliance Framework adopted by Monitor.”(2) It
is positive that there are signs the NHS Confederation’s Foundation Trust
Network and Monitor, the independent FT regulator, are picking up these
warning signals.
Consensus on beliefs and values
The MAC Partnership’s governor development programme at two high
profile 1st wave FTs revealed another dimension. As early as July 2004,
Homerton University Hospital FT Governors were able to agree key beliefs
and values as a “basis for the conduct of affairs in the interest of the
hospital and its membership” and recommended it to the Board of Directors.
This included “working closely together, widening the membership base and
scrutinising the Board when necessary” (3). We believe that achieving
early consensus on beliefs and values reduces role fragmentation risks and
puts governors in a position to grapple with governance issues.
The aims and objectives that evolve from these beliefs and values are
still general and rather fuzzy. In a sense they must be. When we look back
at the work done by the first Governors and FTs, we may well see that
their job was to hold the ring and give some space and time while everyone
worked out what was supposed to be happening. Outcome-based criteria of
effectiveness – whether of service levels or clinical outcomes – cannot be
applied to what governors are doing in this first year. A realistic
definition of success in this new form of governance is, in our view, an
“absence of failure”. And there is no evidence of overt governor failure.
No melt-down
Despite confusion about role and purpose, governor melt-down with
mass resignations or a gradual falling away in attendance and interest has
not happened. Before we all rush off to create the bright new future of
the ‘effective’ governor, we should stop and say thank you and give some
recognition to all those governors – elected staff and public members in
particular – who have stayed the course They have dared to believe in
their role and potential contribution.
More than optimism needed
Of course in future, FT governors will have to show they make a
difference and will need more than belief to sustain them. Appointing and
agreeing remuneration of future FT non-executives (up to £14K pa would be
fair, with chairs getting £60K according to the Foundation Trust Network),
to name but one task, is not for people unsure of their governance roles
and relationships. Seen against escalating Board development and reward
criteria, proportionality will demand training and realistic support –
perhaps even remuneration - for Governors.
A “new era for public accountability” has not yet arrived. The
challenges are only too obvious: can governors add value? can they
contribute, through seeking Members’ and community views, to the strategic
planning process? will they own and drive the membership strategy?
crucially, will they become “guardians” of the organisation?
The research thus far shows that answers have to come from the
governors themselves. In their search they are entitled to much enhanced
levels of support from their FT Boards, their Membership, the FT Network
and, of course, Monitor.
Can Foundation Trust Governors Really Govern?
Richard Lewis' editorial on the Healthcare Commission's survey of
Foundation Trusts identified lack of clarity in the FT governor role as a
potential weakness in new governance arrangements. We concur that
governors may not be faring well in their challenging new governance
roles, but research is scarce and at an early stage. We reviewed some
recent published perspectives and suggest that governors' role coherence
and effectiveness remain elusive objectives. This deficit must not be
ignored.
In January 2005, a Kings Fund “straw poll” reflected roles and
effectiveness from some 60 elected governors representing 14 out of 20 1st
wave Foundation Trusts (FTs) (1). A broader perspective on governor
effectiveness comes from the Royal College of Nursing’s (RCN) survey of
all 1st wave FTs (2). More in-depth findings come from the Moore Adamson
Craig Partnership’s “beliefs and values” development programme for
governors at two 1st wave FTs (3). They present a mixed picture.
Straw poll found confusion
The Kings Fund poll revealed majority confusion about roles and only
minority confidence about effectiveness within FTs so far. Worryingly,
some governors thought operational management was their job. Others chose
“select committee member” or “community barometer” role descriptions.
Future confidence was encouragingly high however.(1) If this small group
is representative, there is a yawning gap to close before governors start
making a difference in FTs’ public accountability.
Making a difference?
The RCN’s national FT survey found evidence in only 4 FTs that
elected staff or public governors had made a difference to services (what
“difference” actually means, however, is unclear). In the other 16 FTs
the survey reported confusion over role and potential of Governors and
Board members. It concluded: “governors must play a central role in
establishing and maintaining the democracy in NHS Foundation Trust
services and their role must be fully supported to enable them to do so.
This will require investment and must form part of the review of
“governance risk” in the Compliance Framework adopted by Monitor.”(2) It
is positive that there are signs the NHS Confederation’s Foundation Trust
Network and Monitor, the independent FT regulator, are picking up these
warning signals.
Consensus on beliefs and values
The MAC Partnership’s governor development programme at two high
profile 1st wave FTs revealed another dimension. As early as July 2004,
Homerton University Hospital FT Governors were able to agree key beliefs
and values as a “basis for the conduct of affairs in the interest of the
hospital and its membership” and recommended it to the Board of Directors.
This included “working closely together, widening the membership base and
scrutinising the Board when necessary” (3). We believe that achieving
early consensus on beliefs and values reduces role fragmentation risks and
puts governors in a position to grapple with governance issues.
The aims and objectives that evolve from these beliefs and values are
still general and rather fuzzy. In a sense they must be. When we look back
at the work done by the first Governors and FTs, we may well see that
their job was to hold the ring and give some space and time while everyone
worked out what was supposed to be happening. Outcome-based criteria of
effectiveness – whether of service levels or clinical outcomes – cannot be
applied to what governors are doing in this first year. A realistic
definition of success in this new form of governance is, in our view, an
“absence of failure”. And there is no evidence of overt governor failure.
No melt-down
Despite confusion about role and purpose, governor melt-down with
mass resignations or a gradual falling away in attendance and interest has
not happened. Before we all rush off to create the bright new future of
the ‘effective’ governor, we should stop and say thank you and give some
recognition to all those governors – elected staff and public members in
particular – who have stayed the course They have dared to believe in
their role and potential contribution.
More than optimism needed
Of course in future, FT governors will have to show they make a
difference and will need more than belief to sustain them. Appointing and
agreeing remuneration of future FT non-executives (up to £14K pa would be
fair, with chairs getting £60K according to the Foundation Trust Network),
to name but one task, is not for people unsure of their governance roles
and relationships. Seen against escalating Board development and reward
criteria, proportionality will demand training and realistic support –
perhaps even remuneration - for Governors.
A “new era for public accountability” has not yet arrived. The
challenges are only too obvious: can governors add value? can they
contribute, through seeking Members’ and community views, to the strategic
planning process? will they own and drive the membership strategy?
crucially, will they become “guardians” of the organisation?
The research thus far shows that answers have to come from the
governors themselves. In their search they are entitled to much enhanced
levels of support from their FT Boards, their Membership, the FT Network
and, of course, Monitor.
Andrew Craig andrew@mooreadamsoncraig.co.uk
Colin Adamson colin@mooreadamsoncraig.co.uk
Moore Adamson Craig Partnership LLP, London
References
1. Lewis R, Governing Foundation Trusts: a new era for public
accountability. Kings Fund, London: May 2005 7pp
www.kingsfund.org.uk/pdf/governingfoundationtrusts.pdf
2. Survey of First Wave NHS Foundation Trusts. RCN, London: April
2005 14pp
www.rcn.org.uk/downloads/policy/FoundationTrustsReviewSurveyApril2005.doc
3. Brown P, Craig A. Laying the Foundations for Governors in
Hackney MAC Partnership, London: November 2004. 5pp
www.mooreadamsoncraig.co.uk/Articles/Laying_the_Foundations_for_Governor...
Competing interests:
Andrew Craig, Colin Adamson and MAC Partnership LLP consult with Foundation Trusts on development programmes for FT governors.
Competing interests: No competing interests