The post pandemic board - a new collaborative endeavour PR File - Flipbook - Page 26
26
The post pandemic board: a new collaborative endeavour
Yes, the role has changed.
Yet there is really no
visible recognition of that.
Should the debate about pay
for chairs be re-opened?
“We’re in a place we’ve never been before. We’re not
going back.” Where we did ask our participants for
a view on whether or not chairs should universally
be paid, they were in broad agreement that the time
was right to revisit the discussion. Options included
remuneration being offered but with the choice not
to take it, or on an ‘honorarium’ or ‘loss of earnings’
basis.
This is not to say, however, that contributors
who were asked would be tempted to enter the
debate without recognising in full the sensitivities
and practical considerations involved. While the
conclusion was largely “yes, the time is right to
reopen the discussion” this was often followed by
“but…”.
The group welcomed recent revised guidance by
the Charity Commission, yet continued to make a
persuasive collective case in principle for reopening
the discussion:
• because remuneration would enable a broader
range of people to take on the roles: “It’s
important to pay people otherwise we just end
up with people who can afford to do the job”;
•
because it would value the work of chairs who
are now carrying a much heavier load, and
• because it would encourage new people of the
calibre, skill and experience required to consider
taking the role on, especially from other sectors
and backgrounds.
At a time when chairs themselves are pointing to
the ‘inclusive leader’ as model chair compared
with the ‘heroic leader’ of the past, it may be hard
to accept only the chair being remunerated, and
therefore consideration would need to be given to
board members too. Some also believe that paying
chairs may be unhelpful because it might attract
higher numbers of people with a different kind of
motivation.
Nevertheless, if everything has changed in the
environment, in the situation of organisations, in the
role of the board and in the experience of chairs, why
shouldn’t we re-open the debate?