How to build a resilient governance body that can thrive in a remote environment

Collect recommendations not decisions: The FSGC is an advisory body that conducts reviews and provides recommendations to the FAS Commissioner. However, the governance committee does not hold decision-making authority. Therefore, the body is not constricted in their reviews by the need to come to a “final decision.”

Capture votes in an open spreadsheet rather than an open forum: Meetings (including virtual meetings) are utilized to hold critical conversations and discuss open questions. However, when it comes to voting and providing recommendations, everything happens outside of the meeting. All stakeholders have access to a shared spreadsheet- a simple yet effective tool- that members are asked to complete with their recommendations, ensuring a transparent process. This method allows members the opportunity to reflect after meetings and collaborate as appropriate prior to submitting their recommendations. Keeping voting separate from the meeting, also helps ensure that members do not feel pressured or swayed by who is in attendance. This not only facilitates the voting process; it also helps streamline voting in a telework environment.

Maintain individual opinions rather than consensus or majority rule: The FSGC is intentionally structured to include members from disparate business lines, advisory bodies, and regional offices; so it is essential to give everyone a voice at the table. Therefore, all members are expected to express their individual recommendations. A summary of the recommendations and the detailed comments are shared with the FAS Commissioner for a final decision. This structure enables members to dissent, encouraging a break from the status quo and ensuring that individual opinions are heard.

Start with a narrow scope and broaden with experience: When the FSGC was first stood up, it began by only reviewing IT investments. After proving that the committee provides valuable insights, the scope was expanded to also include reviews of non-IT investments. Maintaining a narrower scope initially allowed the FSGC to demonstrate success early on, validating that the body had the right expertise in order to gain buy-in from diverse stakeholders.

Secure executive leadership support: The vocal support of the FAS Commissioner and other members of leadership has been critical to the FSGC’s success. The FAS Commissioner has highlighted the importance of good governance and has acknowledged the value of the FSGC’s recommendations. While it may seem obvious, the importance of executive support cannot be overlooked.

Maintain a dedicated facilitator: Beyond identifying the office responsible for driving the FSGC, a specific individual has been tasked with facilitating the committee. One individual has served as a central resource for stakeholders and has consistently facilitated meetings and high-stakes processes. This structure has enabled central oversight of the FSGC’s strategy, ensuring steadfast, dedicated leadership even during uncertain times. While it may not always be possible to maintain the same facilitator, it is important to ensure that there is always an individual- or a team of individuals- responsible for advancing the vision of the governance body.