Governance Unstuck: Weaving courage and clarity for lasting impact

[Anton]
Whakatahau ki te Uru, Whakatahau ki te Tonga, ki a mā Kinikini ki Uta, ki a mā Taratari ki Tai, e hiaka ana tā tukura, he tio, he huka, he hauhu, hunga. Ko Ranginui e Tuihone, ko Papatūānuku e Tākotane, e tuturu whakamaua ki a teina, haumea, huie, taua. Ngā mihi o te Tauhau Pākehā ki a koutou.

He uria hau no Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, ko Ngāti Rangiwewihi, ko Ngāti Hei, ko Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki hoki. Nau mai, haramai ki a koutou. Nau mai, haramai ki te webinar nei.

Governance unstuck, we've encouraged in clarity for lasting impact. For those of you joining us for the first time and wondering who we are, Allan and Clark is a consultancy that ensures complex, high-stakes decisions are made with evidence, defended with confidence, and built to work for the people and communities affected. We specialise in strategy change management, evaluation policy and more, and we give a damn about impact, not just deliverables.

This webinar offers a reframing of board effectiveness, one that centres kaupapa Māori and invites us to lead with aroha, courage and purpose. Today we'll talk about the challenges boards in Aotearoa face, what you might experience when a board is becoming ineffective, or when things become stuck. We're excited to share with you and introduce the whāriki model and the harakiki growth model we've developed to strengthen board effectiveness, and provide some prompts, signals and questions for you to consider in discussing your own boards.

I'm fortunate today to be joined by my very good friend and esteemed colleague, Jacqui Ngawaka. Jacqui is the Governance and Te Ao Māori Advisory Lead for Allan and Clark, and will be sharing with us her insights and wisdom and guiding us through the kaupapa today. Tēnā koe, Jacqui.

[Jaqui]
Kia ora, Anton, te hoa. Tēnā koutou katoa e are are mai nei i te rangi nei. Mihi ana kia koutou katoa.

Ko Tainui te waka, ko Rereahu te tūpuna, no ngā hapū maha o Ngāti Maniapoto, e tipua hau ki roto i ngā tini manaakitanga o Ngāti Maniapoto. Ko Jacqui Taitiha Ngawaka taku ingoa. Welcome to our webinar.

It's great to be here and with you and with Anton today to talk about what happens when governance becomes stuck and how we can move that. So my sort of earliest lessons, I guess, in leadership didn't come from boardrooms, but from the marae, from the pā where I grew up, where decisions were made with tikanga and humility and a really deep relational accountability. And then sort of over the past 15 years or so, I've served in governance across iwi and health and education and community sectors.

And I've seen how sort of conventional board practice, I would say, often misses what matters most, which I think is the cultural safety aspects, the relational trust, and that Te Tiriti based responsibility. So I think governance is not a structure, it's a living practice. Boards across Aotearoa are facing rising expectations and increasing complexity.

And while many boards are diligent and well-intentioned, they also experience sort of a sort of quiet sense that governance is busy, but not fully effective. But that sort of stuckness, I believe, isn't about poor performance or capability, it's usually about misalignment. So a misalignment between the purpose of the board and the practice, or between what the board says it values and how decisions are actually made.

And I think seeing it as that misalignment rather than poor performance, relieves some of that defensiveness and opens up reflection.

[Anton]
Yeah, what really resonates for me is the way that you've reframed stuckness, not as failure, but as misalignment. I think in our governance work, where we see boards almost visibly relax when that type of language is used, it creates a permission space, I guess, to look honestly, without blame. And once that defensiveness drops away, then the real important kōrero can begin.

And I guess that leads to much better conversations, yeah. The idea or notion of stuckness is an interesting one, though. I think that notion of reflection, both at the individual director level, but also the board as a collective or a whole, that's really important, and must be an important, I guess, discipline to critically self-assess and assess whether the board is being as effective as possible or not.

And when you look at what's considered good practice in that space, you'll see boards conduct formal review processes, sometimes periodically, say each every three years. They may even get independent support to manage that process. But the way you frame things, it feels like it's much more of an ongoing discipline, almost like a governance muscle that needs to be regularly exercised, especially if you want to be noticing those shifts in behaviour, the shifts in energy, picking up on what things are no longer being said in real time.

So I really like that. But let's get practical for a minute, Jackie. What are the things that board members and practitioners should be scanning for?

What are some of the common signals that a board is becoming stuck?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, that's a great question. And there are lots of signals, and we're going to talk through some of those. But I just want to go back to when you talk about it being an ongoing discipline rather than a three-yearly or an annual consideration, I think you're definitely right.

In terms of research and commentary that we've seen from other governance experts, the sort of top five signals, and there are more than that that we'll talk about, but they are one, poor strategic clarity, two, a lack of cultural safety, three, weak relational trust, four, an avoidance of dissent or tension, I guess, and five, disengagement from Te Riti obligations. And these sort of issues can often reflect deeper governance misalignment, and they can erode the impact of the board over time. Some of these things you may have seen in your governance experience as well, and those of you who are watching us today as well, you'll see boards that sort of get stuck in those cycles of over-analysis, and there's a fear of risk, and it paralyzes them from sort of making decisions.

Or there's others that are caught in the sort of old-school way of thinking, working-trap kind of institutional inertia, and they cling to outdated structures that really don't serve their communities anymore. I've definitely seen boards where you've got dominant personalities, and that drowns out the kind of quieter wisdom, perhaps, that's sitting at the corner down there, and where token kind of representation gets mistaken for genuine inclusion. And in lots of cases, the governance and management blur is there as well, and that just erodes trust and clarity over roles.

Conflicts of interest go unspoken, and that undermines integrity. We might experience sort of the same conversation cycling at every board meeting. We're talking about the same stuff and feel like we're getting nowhere.

Or there's some really key strategic items that are not on the agenda anymore, or there's no time to talk about them. And even decisions that are taken that might work in theory, but they really don't resonate with the communities you're supposed to be serving or with the staff or with your partners.

[Anton]
Yeah, I'm struck by how subtle some of those signals are. They're not headline failures as such. They feel more like slow drifts or what we might otherwise call as slow burn types of issues.

[Jaqui]
Yeah.

[Anton]
One thing that we've noticed is that high-performing boards don't wait for multiple signals to stack up. They treat even one of these as worth pausing over, not necessarily to fix it straight away, but to understand what it might be pointing to beneath the surface. Those boards are continually reflecting and critically self-assessing their effectiveness.

That's because they can't simply wait for a three-yearly independent review. So my next question to you has two parts. Are there any other signals to watch out for that points to the fact that there might be something going on beneath the surface?

And then the second part of that is, the second part of the question, or the second question is, what are the sorts of impacts that these signals are actually pointing to?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, there are still more. And for those of you who are watching, you'll see a number of signals up on the screen there and sort of some of the problems it can lead to. I mean, I kind of describe them like this as well, just to add to what you're seeing and where things can lead to if issues aren't addressed.

So if we start with the stagnation proceduralism one, so you know that that's going on if board meetings start to feel really repetitive and you're focused on ticking the boxes rather than exploring the purpose and values and impact, the stuff that a board's supposed to be focused on. The energy might be low or the decisions you're making just feel like disconnected from the actual kaupapa of where you're trying to make impact. So if you think about a tohu for this sort of thing, it's like stagnation, a waka, kind of a drift on still waters.

The reviews, you know, we've talked about the reviews and I guess we'd say surface level. So reviews that focus on compliance or finance or outputs, which are good, but often won't assess the deep stuff like relational trust and cultural safety or tiriti responsibilities because they're too hard somehow to talk about. And so those deeper layers get left untouched.

So, you know, again, a tohu for that, a shallow pā tuna with no eels in it, you know, sort of thing. This dissent challenge fear sort of thing that goes on. So basically tension just is avoided.

And instead of dialogue, you have silence. People aren't speaking or board members hesitate to speak honestly because they fear conflict or exclusion. And a kōwhai that never flowers is a lovely tohu for that sort of scenario.

[Anton]
Is that similar to then the impact or the effect of what you're referring to earlier on where you have those voices and personalities that drown out that quieter wisdom that you're talking about?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, it can be that or also the fact that if something is raised that may cause a bit of tension, people will just avoid that. They won't want to sort of hurt feelings or cause any sort of conflict to happen. And I guess it's fair that things will just blow up and get out of hand and a little end badly sort of thing without thinking about how can you manage so that you can actually talk about those really important issues without people yelling and screaming and swearing or whatever else is walking out.

Yeah, tokenism is another signal, I guess. You know that this is happening when you've got diverse... Well, if you don't have diverse voices, then that's one thing.

But it's more when you've got diverse voices there, but they're not actually empowered. Like they can't actually contribute with their diversity to the decisions that are being made. Because diversity shouldn't be about difference.

Diversity is about actually having difference so that you change as a board. That's the point of having it. And so all those different cultural perspectives, whether it's gender or ethnicity or whatever, they don't get fully embedded.

And so then decisions are not made with real full input. And that's like the harakeke plant with the rito removed. And we all know what happens when you hūtia te rito.

The blurred governance management roles happens a lot. So the board gets tangled up in operational detail, and that just undermines trust and clarity for the management team, the CE or the executive, but also perhaps among other board members as well. And as well for the board, then their strategic oversight mahi gets lost because they're too busy worrying about the day-to-day things and what colour the roof should be and what sort of car we should buy.

And that's not the role of governance. And so I guess that equates to if you have a aka, a vine that's tangled up and it's trying to climb up two trees at once. A couple more.

So more about these conflicts of interest that are unspoken. So when board members avoid naming conflicts, so that may be people who aren't necessarily completely upfront about all of the interests that they have and things, or maybe those who know but don't say. And that just leads to compromised integrity and sort of a quiet kind of discomfort that happens.

And you can't be just full and open and frank and have good conversations, which is where we know all the good stuff comes from. So all of that transparency just gets replaced by politeness. And you really just end up turning up and having a cup of tea with people because you're not actually talking much.

So an awa like that, a river with hidden currents, that's that sort of thing. You're just trying to avoid the traps of stuff. Disconnection from community.

So where decisions get made in isolation in governance and really the stakeholder voices are absent or they're just not considered enough. And the board will feel distant, really, from the people you're meant to be serving. You know, like a Manu calling, but there's no call back.

And the short-term thinking, I guess, so that the board's just focusing on what's happening immediately, this month, next month, maybe the next three months. Deadlines, oh, we've got to get this, and short-term risks as well. And really not much attention to the long-term impact or the succession or the legacy.

It's sort of like planting a seed in sand, I guess, a seed that's not supposed to grow in sand and it won't.

[Anton]
Love those talking.

[Jaqui]
So in those sorts of spaces, compliance just becomes the comfort zone. Tick the box, file the papers, move on, all those things. And there can often be a default for boards to just go straight to process and assurance.

And all of that is necessary. You need to do all of that. But it can create motion without really any progress in terms of where you're heading for impact, and it will likely avoid all the harder conversations.

So while boards, when they're in these states, may feel like they're gaining some short-term sort of calm and predictability, over time, what they lose is that strategic courage and that honest challenge and the connection to why the organisation exists, the connection to the actual kaupapa of why you're here. And that's a big risk, this connection, and Māori have known that for a long time. And over time, it does erode trust and legitimacy.

So I really believe that until boards can prioritise connection, the governance will struggle to land, let alone uplift. And transformation, I think, begins not with more paperwork, but with just a deeper presence.

[Anton]
Kia ora. What's really powerful about this is that none of those impacts happen overnight. They emerge when boards default to safety, process or familiarity, and often with good intentions, as you were indicating.

But that raises a bigger question for me, which is, are the conventional governance tools enough on their own? Or do they need to be supplemented in some way, shape or form? So I guess my question is, what else do boards need to help them in this respect?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, I mean, I believe we just need a broader lens for governance and to expand our definition of what board effectiveness is, to sort of go from that transactional type governance to transformative leadership. And we've developed a framework grounded in kaupapa Māori and strategic clarity, a whātiki of governance effectiveness, which I'm excited to talk about. And you'll be able to see that on the screen now, for those of you who are watching us.

So that whātiki, you may know it as sort of a mat. And for this, I guess, it's more than a mat. It's a woven foundation of values and strategy and relationships.

And I believe that that approach helps boards to address the issues their organisations face. So if you imagine each of those blades as a harakeke blade crossing over and under the others, and each one carries a principle, and together they form a rich interconnected base. So the strength of the whātiki lies not in any single strand, but in the way they're woven.

So reinforcing one another to create a resilient and sort of values-led foundation for an organisation.

[Anton]
Yeah, I love that. There's so many different elements to it that I'm enamoured with. But the interconnectedness, the rāranga that's required, it's a great metaphor.

So I'm really interested to understand more. And maybe could you explain why the metaphor itself is so important in a governance context?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, I think it works really well because it speaks to governance as a collective responsibility. It protects what matters, and it holds space for knowledge and legacy, and it reminds us that leadership isn't about direction, it's about connection. And it sort of shifts the conversation from what are we good at to how well is all this working together?

So, you know, boards can see balance and interdependence rather than isolated strengths. So, you know, in the framework, there's the six blades that represent key elements. So there's vision, you know, how clearly are our values expressed and upheld?

You know, so this strand is like anchored in purpose and whakapapa, and it helps to guide long-term thinking and strategic clarity. And it prompts you to ask what are we here to protect and uplift and transform? And are we leading for mokopuna or just for the moment?

Which we can fall into that trap when we're appointed on three yearly cycles, terms, et cetera. Accountability, that's the next one. You know, are we building trust and shared responsibility?

And so this strand ensures that boards honour their commitments and uphold rights and remain answerable to those they serve. So it reflects that sort of integrity and transparency. You know, who are we accountable and how do we show that in the decisions and in our decisions and the relationships that we have?

Learning is the third strand. Do we know where we're going and why? I believe governance is a learning journey.

And so this strand reflects the board's ability to adapt and reflect and grow. And, you know, what are we learning from our practice and how are we evolving as a board? You know, we have to, as board members, be getting better at being board members.

And boards don't often focus on that. The understanding strand is, it's inclusion, but it's really that reflecting that deep listening and respect for lived experience and creating those safe mana-enhancing spaces, you know, the term that everyone likes to use. You know, do our processes and culture allow people to feel seen and heard and respected?

And then empathy, similar to manaakitanga, I guess, in a way, but that leadership that builds trust and it fosters connection and it values the emotional intelligence stuff. So it's about the leading with aroha, not ego. You know, and are we leading with care and connection or are we more like control and hierarchy as a board?

And the last strand is synergy, which really reflects the interconnectedness between people and place and purpose and all the decisions that we take that honour the collective. You know, how well are we weaving together diverse perspectives and kaupapa and responsibility into some unified action that has some impact?

[Anton]
Kia ora Jackie.

[Jaqui]
Oh, I think I need a drink after that.

[Anton]
Well in, well in. What strikes me about the strands is how relational the model is. It's not asking boards to perform more tasks, it's asking them to pay attention to how they're making decisions, how people experience the board table and how, I guess, responsibility is being shared.

[Jaqui]
Yeah.

[Anton]
So in your experience, is there a strand that boards most often underestimate?

[Jaqui]
I think learning is a big one. You know, governance is a learning journey. That's what I definitely believe.

And, you know, sometimes we can think, you know, we're on a board because we've got these skills and capabilities and, you know, all of these great things. And that's why we're there, which is right. But there is still more to learn and to learn about the people around the table with you so that you can be cohesive and actually move a kaupapa forward, progress something.

So I think that's one. And then the understanding is still a way to go, I think, in Aotearoa in lots of ways. It's definitely great in some spaces that I've been in, but not in others.

That just general inclusion and respect of lived experiences and diversity. You know, we have diversity to change the way we are, not to just have different looking, sounding people around the table. And Māori have known that stuff for ages.

So probably those two here.

[Anton]
Yeah, kia ora. I love the way you've called out that governance is a learning journey. I think that's something that we're starting to see more boards moving towards and more governance bodies and practices moving towards so that they are moving away from the, we should already know that kind of mindset more into the, what are we learning together here and now?

And it's quite an impactful or powerful shift, I think. Do you think, I suspect it changes the way that feedback around performance is also perceived. So maybe that's part of the reason why you can see boards visibly relax when things are framed that way.

Sometimes we assume that board members, as you say, are the most experienced and most knowledgeable. But I think the importance of people continuing on their individual learning journeys as well. So looking to improve, still assessing their performance, figuring out how they can get better, and modelling those things is a really important part of leadership.

[Jaqui]
Yeah.

[Anton]
So one thing boards often ask us is reviewing our effectiveness makes sense, but how do we know where we are without turning it into a tick box exercise? The idea of linking the performance to the strands feels like a really practical way of keeping things grounded. So how would you suggest that a board go about assessing where they're at on their particular governance learning journey?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, I think really at a basic level, just reviewing some of those signs we've talked about and the Tohu and identifying which ones resonate with what's going on in your current board dynamics at the moment and just using the whātiki strands to guide a bit of discussion. You know, which strand is maybe under strain or missing for us, and maybe which ones need reweaving because they're not quite, you know, joined up or cohesive with the rest. So I think those are a good start. And, you know, following that you can do, you know, the tools and dashboards, things like that, so that you can be sort of continually monitoring them.

Yeah.

[Anton]
Kia ora.

[Jaqui]
So, whāriki are made from harakeke, as most of you know, or flax, that grows all over Aotearoa, and the weaving process begins in the pāharakeke, or the flax plantation, where ringa raupā, the calloused hands, tend and harvest the plants with kia and tikanga. And governance is no different. So the work of boards must be consistent, grounded and intentional.

And like the weavers, board members are responsible for preparing the harakeke that will be woven into decisions that serve legacy. And this isn't an ornamental type of mahi, it's foundational. So just as each harakeke plant in the pāharakeke is nurtured over time, tended by ringa raupā, so too must boards cultivate their practice.

And what you're seeing is this harakeke growth journey. This visual represents that journey from awareness, to reflection, to reframing, and then embedding, through to legacy. And with each stage reflecting a deepening of responsibility and clarity and cultural integrity.

So sort of like those flowering stalks of harakeke, governance matures when it's grounded and relational and has a purpose.

[Anton]
So what does the harakeke growth journey look like?

[Jaqui]
Yeah. Oh, I think, you know, as well as governance being a learning journey, I think governance matures over time. So that journey from awareness to legacy, kind of emphasises growth rather than labels of success or failure.

That was the point of developing it. So there's no judgment there, you know, boards don't fail because they're not there yet. What matters is whether they're moving and learning and adapting.

And sometimes we often think that maturity means having everything sorted, I guess, similar to the board members know everything. But in practice, it means just being honest about the gaps and being willing to work with them. So if, you know, if people ask where your board is on this journey, it can create some clarity about what kind of governance work to do next.

And framing that whole conversation about curiosity and patterns rather than performance makes it, you know, it's not a ranking exercise, it just prompts yourself to ask and discuss.

[Anton]
So what I find helpful about the growth journey is that it removes that judgment. Like you said, I think it doesn't label boards as the good or bad. It simply asks the question, where are you starting from?

Is that right? Where are you starting from? What kind of work will you do to move your collective forward?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So in awareness stage, a board might say, oh, we're beginning to notice some gaps in our governance practice, maybe some of those signals that they're experiencing, or we've started asking questions about what is our purpose and our impact. In the reflection stage, they may be like, say, well, we're reviewing our processes and relationships sort of with a new look, with fresh eyes, or we're noticing some patterns of where we're becoming stuck or misaligned, you know, that would be a reflection stage.

And the next stage is reframing. And so they might be saying we're actively challenging assumptions and exploring new models, having gone through previous ones, or we're like, oh, yeah, we're kind of open to shifting now how we define what effective means for us. So that would be reframing.

And then in embedding, they might say, we've made some changes, and we're integrating them into our board culture. Or we feel like our decisions are reflecting our values and kaupapa consistently now. And then that legacy that sort of, you know, we're focused on long term impact and succession, we're mentoring others, we're documenting our governance journey.

Those will be some of the signals of yeah. So that Harakeke growth journey and whāraki framework are really complementary. One maps the stages of growth, and the other defines some of the woven strands of performance.

And so when you use them together, they can offer boards a really powerful way to locate themselves and reflect on their practice and strengthen their governance with intention. And each stage of the Harakeke growth journey reveals different sort of readiness levels. And boards can use this to identify which strands of the whārakei need attention.

So for instance, in awareness, again, boards might begin to notice gaps in vision and understanding. And so what they may start to do then is to surface values and purpose and relational gaps or introduce kaupapa Māori principles, those might be some things they might do when they notice those gaps. In reflection, they're probably more exploring accountability and empathy.

So what they might do is review the current governance practices against some of the whārakei strands and sort of ask themselves, you know, where are we strong and where we may be thin in terms of the strands. In reframing, they will challenge assumptions and sort of deepen their own learning. So they may reweave their strategy or relationships and values into more of the decisions that they make.

And in embedding, they may likely to be integrating synergy and relational practice. So they might integrate whārakei principles into their board culture and processes and behaviours. And again, in legacy, sort of all the strands are quite woven with intention and they're creating enduring impact.

And so they're mentoring others, they're documenting learning and ensuring those strands are sustained. So, you know, that governance being an ongoing practice again. And today, we've talked about some of the key challenges that boards in Aotearoa face and the signals of ineffectiveness and what happens when things become stuck.

And we've introduced the whārakei model to try and strengthen board effectiveness and the whārakei growth model to help boards assess their current state and think about shifting. So, you know, if today surfaced any curiosity or even unease, I think that's a great place to begin for your board and really grateful for your time today.

[Anton]
One pattern that we see in effective boards is their willingness to name where they are honestly at, even when it's uncomfortable, not rushing into embedding language before the reflection has actually been done. I love the models that you've developed for us, Jackie, to me that the alignment, what the alignment does beautifully is to give boards a, if you like, a compass and a map. So values to orient by and stages to navigate through.

I think the models support really nicely the deliberate and paced governance development rather than just being reactive and focusing on short-term fixes. In terms of practical steps that you can take after today's sessions, boards and governance bodies can begin by asking what are we most proud of in our governance practice? What do we feel, where do we feel stuck or uncertain?

What legacy are we building and for who? Our advice is to carry out a self-assessment using the whārakei framework, review the signals and identify which ones resonate most with your current board dynamics. Use these whārekei strands to guide discussion around which strands are under strain or missing, which ones need re-weaving.

If there's one message I'm taking away from today, it's that governance effectiveness isn't static, it's something that's practiced, tended, nurtured and renewed, much like the harakeke and the pāharakeke as you described, Jackie. Thank you very much for your kōrero today. That brings us to the end of our scheduled time, but we're keen to answer questions for those of you who can stay.

We've received questions about navigating board dynamics, confidence and challenge, particularly for newer or younger members. In fact, one audience member noted, I'm a younger board member and I don't feel taken seriously. When we think about creating space for other voices, like the voice of youth, or where we're planning for succession and developing our future leaders, this experience of this younger leader points to so many of the strands that you've just discussed and shared with us from the whārekei.

So I wonder what your whakaaro might be and what you'd like to share in respect of this comment.

[Jaqui]
Yeah, and I'm really grateful that this one came in with the registration, so I've had a little bit of time to think about it. And it really isn't a point one, you know, it really lands heavily, because it's not just a personal frustration, it is a signal about the health of the board's culture and the way power is being held or shared or protected. You know, when someone says, I don't feel taken seriously, they're naming a gap between what the board's stated values are and their lived experience.

And I think that's exactly where the strands of the whārekei become so important. You know, so listening is an act of leadership and younger and newer members often bring fresh insight and contemporary context and a whole lot of lived experience that others on the board simply don't have. So, you know, when their voice is minimised, the board really loses access to that intelligence.

And I think that creating space for youth isn't a courtesy, it's a strategic advantage. And that would be part of the learning strand, I think, that, you know, a board could take on. You know, how we hold people, not just ideas.

If someone doesn't feel like they're taken seriously, it's probably not really about them, it's about what the others are signalling in terms of status and authority or hierarchy. And lots of boards still like, I think, sometimes unconsciously default to that seniority or age, or you've been here for ages as markers of sort of credibility. But the empathy strand really asks us to flip that.

And, you know, say, how do we uplift the mana of every person at the table so that they can fully contribute? Relationships before debate. So sometimes younger members might enter a board where relationships are already established, and there's sort of like all these patterns that are already entrenched in a way.

And I think if we want them to thrive, we've got to be intentional about building that safety. So like giving them a tūakana to sort of partner with a bit, and the chair checking in with them before and after meetings, and getting their perspective early in on discussions maybe. And that's part of the embedding strand, you know, for the whātaki.

And then obviously legacy. I mean, developing future leaders, we've got to share the power now. You know, the succession planning stuff, it's not theoretical.

It's every day, and you know, we've got to make room for them and not intentionally sort of shut them down. And rangatiratanga isn't just about, I think, authority. It's sort of about growing the authority of others.

And you know, that's the legacy strand. And you know, obviously, when I mean, every board talks about long term strategy and intergenerational impact and legacy. But if the voices of the next generation aren't shaping those decisions, then you're really as a board just planning a future for them, not with them, because it's actually their future.

So vision and legacy. So I think you're right, it does cross a number of the strands and the growth. Yeah, synergy as well.

Yeah. And this isn't always with young people, when it comes to synergy, it's that when the power dynamics are different, everyone else needs to step in and be responsible to kind of notice who's being heard and who's being interrupted and who's being dismissed and who's being overlooked, whether they're the young person or the Māori person or the woman or the whatever. And that's how you get synergy.

That's the synergy part. Yeah.

[Anton]
Yeah. Thanks, Jackie. Moving on to some live questions now that we've received.

A question from Kitty. What are the board recruitment strategies to help move a board out of ineffectiveness?

[Jaqui]
Board recruitment strategies. I wonder what Kitty means by, well, recruiting for diversity, I guess, might be one, if they're ineffective. Looking for people who are perhaps willing to take on chair roles in terms of succession later on.

People who are, I guess, that show a willingness to learn and be part of moving forward with a board together. It's a difficult one if you're bringing in all the people that do all of the things you want, if the ones around the table already aren't.

[Anton]
Do you think coming back to the whāriki and, I guess, looking at the needs of the board are and then being really intentional and deliberate about those? So if there are strands that need reweaving or there are strands that are missing, looking for the characteristics that might support the board to reweave or strengthen the whāriki through that recruitment process, possibly.

[Jaqui]
Yeah. Which I guess was kind of where I was trying to head to. But yeah, it's like you kind of need to know the gaps so you know who you're recruiting.

And some boards already do that quite well with skills in that. But if you add some of the whāriki strands, then it just gives you a broader sense of the type of people you're looking for.

[Anton]
A question from Julie, and this one I think relates to that blurriness between the governance space and the management space. But what are your thoughts about the impact on effective governance when CEOs overreach into the board's role?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, look, the board employs the CEO. So if the CEO is overreaching, then it could be a performance issue. Or there's obviously not enough clarity about what the CEO does and what the board will do.

And so the board, in a way, really needs to have some good robust conversations with the CEO about what the clarity of those roles are.

[Anton]
The demarcation.

[Jaqui]
Yeah. I mean, but if the board is sitting back and letting the CEO do it all, you know, that's a problem in itself. And the board may need to get some other support to do some of the things that the CEO is doing.

[Anton]
Yeah. Okay, great. We also have a question from Annabelle.

How did the characteristics of effective board governance compare with the practices that make project governance successful, particularly around clarity, decision making and maintaining focus? Are there transferable skills that help avoid boards being stuck?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, I think so. I think you could apply some, you know, the whātiki strands to project governance as well. Because for that time of the project, you need everybody, you know, everybody needs to be on the kaupapa and, you know, working together.

And there will be clear roles that need to be defined. I think it certainly is transferable. Yeah.

[Anton]
Yeah, that was my take or thinking as well that the whātiki and the harakeke growth models both work with a range of different governance bodies. So there's no reason why they wouldn't work effectively with project governance as well. Okay.

Okay. This might be another question from Kitty. Thank you for pātai number two, Kitty.

How can you unstick a board that has become overly familiar with each other, which is common on school boards or whānau trusts, where everyone has settled into a role and ideas aren't debated? Instead, one or two people do everything.

[Jaqui]
I mean, I think the chair has a really key role to play in terms of moving, introducing frameworks and providing time on agendas for the board to talk about it. You know, in the end, these things work when everybody is willing to move. But I would, you've got to start with the chair because, yeah, that's the way in, I guess, to start making changes.

Or you could just suggest that as a board member yourself and say, I'm not really feeling it at the moment. I think these things are happening and, you know, how about we have some conversations about it? It takes that courage.

[Anton]
I really, so the point about the chair, I mean, that's one of the things that really stands out for me is that the chair role is so important, you know, in terms of promoting and encouraging a board to embrace those self-reflective and critical assessment practices and maintain the disciplines of doing it on a regular and ongoing basis. But they do have, as you've pointed out, such a pivotal role to play in terms of composition of the board, the functioning of the board, the sharing of the workload, as it were, and the sharing of power that you mentioned earlier on. Well, Kerry, hopefully that answered that question for you.

We have another question from Julie. Where does Harakiki merge governance processes, with governance processes, sorry, for instance, skills, matrices, strategic risk frameworks, policy, et cetera?

[Jaqui]
I think that those things, the skills, matrices, the risk frameworks, talking about Julie, they all sit on their own doing their thing. What the Harakiki growth model does and the whānaki is it really just, it helps the board to operate as a board better so that when they talk about, discuss and make decisions about skills, matrices, strategic risk frameworks, policy, et cetera, it makes those discussions even better because of the way that they operate as a board. That's how I would see it.

[Anton]
I agree. I agree. I think that that's the perfect intersect, I think, that you're describing.

Okay. And a question from Jane. Where do you think the distinction should be in agencies that have boards that also have a minister and a CE?

Does this not have duplicative elements?

[Jaqui]
Yeah, I'll pass that one to you, Anton. What do you think?

[Anton]
Definitely done. Thank you very much. Okay.

So I think that, Jane, I think that there is the potential for there to be duplication, but coming back to the fundamentals, if roles and accountabilities are appropriately and clearly articulated from the outset, we should hopefully have clear demarcation and understanding about where those responsibilities and accountabilities sit. And in the ideal world, avoid where transgressions or overstepping happens, as it's likely to, and I think in those situations from time to time. So we need to have the settings right that those issues can be raised, discussed, and the behaviour modified to reflect where the lines of accountability should induce it.

Okay. Well, that's probably a good place for us to wrap up. Thank you so much for staying on and for all your thoughtful questions.

Special call out to Kitty. Two's the winner for the day. This is the kind of discussion that makes these sessions valuable for everyone.

And remember, if any of today's discussions has sparked ideas for your own work, or you'd like help using the whareke and the harakeke frameworks, we're always happy to continue the conversation. Just click the button on the screen now. Thanks again for joining us.

Jackie, thank you very much for your kōrero i te nei wā. We really appreciated having this opportunity to be with you. Have a great rest of the day.

And I'll just close this out with a karakia. Kia hora te marino, kia whakapapa pounamu te moana, hei huarahi mā a tātou i te rangi nei, aroha atu, aroha mai, tātou i a tātou katoa, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.