Cluster Organisations Heading off the Rails

In my role as a mentor for a cluster manager, through the TCI Network’s programme (https://www.tci-network.org/mentoring), a recent Skype discussion was on cluster boards and the governance of the clustering initiative. Mistakes here can be disastrous, leading to clustering initiatives heading off the rails. The discussion centred on a chapter in my Cluster Development Handbook, with four questions:

1.    What is worse: people with a very good reputation on the board but with a low degree of involvement in the cluster, or people who are unknown but enthusiastic and very involved in the cluster?

Both categories are needed, with the balance changing over time. The balance also varies according to local customs and the extent to which ‘the enthusiastic and involved’ are already active in cluster projects/task forces. Two principals:

1.    At the start of a clustering initiative, the emphasis is on a board with senior, high profile triple helix leaders, each lending their name to the cluster organisation.

2.    Once the clustering initiative is well underway, then the enthusiasm, energy and active participation of board members becomes the dominating element.

A doomed-for-failure board is one dominated by public agency representatives and industry association officials.

2.    How to evaluate the board of directors?

The evaluation should be internally driven, not by outsiders. Topics for an annual self-examination by the board could include:

• Do we individually and collectively understand our purpose as a board?
• Why do we exist? Are we aligned and committed around that purpose?
• Accepting that we come to the board with different perspectives, are we able to discuss and then integrate these?
• Are the communications between us open, based on trust?
• Can we be doing this better? Our effectiveness? Our interface with the cluster’s management team?
• Is the composition of the board still appropriate?

This self-evaluation should not be prompted by a crisis.

3.    Imagine a cluster with a poorly selected board. How can this be addressed?

It is fundamentally the selection process that requires addressing. Some aspects:

·      Has a job description been prepared for a director?

·      Does the job description identify that the board leads the cluster’s strategy process, but does not in isolation set the strategy?

·      Have the current priorities and core work of the board over coming years been identified?

·      Have potential board members already served on task forces, project teams?

·      Are new board members taken through an orientation process? Are new board members paired with a “buddy” from the existing board?

A short-term response: Place pressure on directors to engage with their cluster well beyond participation at board meetings.

4.    A new chairperson has a very authoritarian character and does not have the right mindset. What can we do now?

Cluster organisations move forward through voluntary engagement. It is persuasion, not intimidation, which is central to a successful chairperson’s role. An old “command & control” approach does not work.

The management style of those invited to chair a cluster organisation should be known in advance, with few surprises. The problem therefore primarily lies with the selection process.

A short-term response: Invite a respected board director with an open, participative leadership style to step forward as a Co-Chair.

Does this check with your experiences? Comments welcomed!

Ifor Ffowcs-Williams   [email protected]