NT5224 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 So I've just been reading the independent consultants review of the RAA board performance . It makes fascinating reading. Can anybody explain what is meant by a 'fractured dynamic'? I'm not familiar with the term. Its certainly not appeared in any of the monthly RAA circulars to date... 'It was also clear that there is currently a fractured dynamic on the board which is hindering the board in being able to focus on the performance of its key functions'. Hmmm.....Comments? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 They can't agree? i.e. fractured = split dynamic = may be No.4 i.e. they were very loud in their differences? dynamic [dʌɪˈnamɪk] ADJECTIVE (of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress. "a dynamic economy" synonyms: modern · liberal · advanced · forward-looking · forward-thinking · [more] (of a person) positive in attitude and full of energy and new ideas. "a dynamic young advertising executive" synonyms: energetic · spirited · active · lively · zestful · vital · vigorous · strong · [more] relating to the volume of sound produced by an instrument, voice, or recording. electronics (of a memory device) needing to be refreshed by the periodic application of a voltage. NOUN a force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process. "evaluation is part of the basic dynamic of the project" music another term for dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Or take a look at pg22 where directors rate the chairman ... there is a very clear separation between 1 director and the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 The link from today's e newsletter (board evaluation) isn't working for me. Could someone provide a link, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 I just read the whole report, sounds like there’s is one ratbag director who is stuffing up the whole show. I don’t know any of them or who that would be. I hope they sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Ratbag, or prophet being ridiculed in his own country? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 The term "fractured dynamic" is not one that I've heard (and I've been in business, and the business world for over 50 years). But what the writer is referring to, (with a rather poor expression of English) is a dysfunctional board. The dynamics of a corporate board refer to the energy and momentum of a group of directors whose aims are all aligned, as regards the corporate direction and goals. When the dynamics "fracture", it simply means that the group is no longer operating with a common aim - i.e., further progression of the corporate body - and individuals are pursuing personal agendas, or hidden agendas, that are working against the smooth functioning and common aim of the board. Essentially, when this happens, it means the group leadership is weak, or the aim of the board is poorly identified, poorly spelt out, and not followed with vigour. Below is an interesting and informative little article from Harvard Business Review, about effective corporate and board leadership and guidance. In particular, the five "disrupter" elements need to be studied and absorbed by those who wish to improve their leadership and guidance ability, in relation to corporate boards and corporate aims. A More Effective Board of Directors 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 " a fractured dynamic on the board" Just a Bureaucratic Upmanship !. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Not an unexpected result given that the “take over” was based in division. Only achieved by the unprecedented soliciting of 800 proxy votes by a core few (legal yes, ethical and in the best interest of the organisation - well that is up to the individual member to decide for themselves). Good leadership requires inclusive decisions, effective debate and informed reasoning to achieve a desired outcome which will then be supported at all levels within the organisation. Dictorial stlye decision making can only achieve contempt. Open and inclusive communications is essential. Interestingly the director’s remuneration comes up again. The big statement by M.Monk of “it will not happen on my watch” ‘might’ be tested - the obvious question, as was raised at the time giving rise the the statement, why was the process included in the new constitution if was not intended to be used. (Again emphasising “open, effective, inclusive and factually correct communication) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwoodmason Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Wasn’t there a reference in the Sport Pilot before last in Monke’s column about four directors in opposition to his actions and he asked the readers if it was time for him to GO, inviting readers to comment?. No reference to it in this month’s mag tho. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 How would the average reader know whether that is the case? If you want a vote on issues, you need to be open and have people informed. We tried that, and how many bother to vote. Apathy gets you where you are.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NT5224 Posted January 26, 2019 Author Share Posted January 26, 2019 Glad that others have found and read the report. It’s obviously an important document. I noted as Frank does that the review seems to be paving the way to a proposal for board remuneration. Two years ago I voted (by proxy -I was in the Middle East), against the current corporate structure. I felt strongly that the changes worked against the interests of the rank and file membership and recreational aviation, but was happy to accept the will of the majority and throw support behind the new arrangement. Reading the independent consultants report is illuminating. People are people, and every decision-making group has personalities who clash. That’s to be expected (Im on a board myself and so is my wife). But what the report says is that these issues are not being managed and are hindering the performance of the board. It’s not pointing the finger at individuals but commenting on the performance of the board and it’s processes as a whole. A recommendation has been made that this same underperforming board is remunerated. Who recalls the arguments made two years ago that moving to the new board structure would save the organisation money? The report states some board members don’t pull their weight and read board papers or contribute. To my mind those are wasted positions. I gotta admit the current board have made a number of positive changes and got some early runs. However the findings of this consultant report paints a rather different picture to that which is communicated between RAA and it’s membership. It’s worth a read. But finally, kudos to the board for publishing the report, warts and all. It was good corporate practice to do so. Let’s make sure it’s widely read. Cheers Alan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 One of the main jobs of a chairman is to manage the board so it works. If someone is pulling the other way it is the chairman’s job to have a quiet word and sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 And what if a 'quiet word' fails to achieve cohesion within the board? Does that mean the chairman has failed and must step down? That would only empower the disruptive individual (if, indeed he/she is disruptive - in their own mind that are not). It can be difficult to bring any bunch of people together with a common goal. Our Board members do not get to choose their fellow board members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Once you elect people, they are there by a structure that is not dependent on them being the "first choice or even approved" by the other board members. An elected person could only be removed if they contravene some corporate law or criminal law. as "Not a suitable person to serve" concept which would have to be substantiated/justified if applied. Boards have quorums and have issues they "vote" on and rules about a chairman's casting vote if tied otherwise so unanimity is not required. The system is able to cope with dissent also. SO what's the big deal?. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 What if the problem IS the chairman....? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 I don’t know the people or facts in this case. But I have a lot of years as chairman and know what the responsibility is. The chairman is “ first among equals” and no more than that, but he or she must make the board function. If counselling didn’t work then the chairman would consider his position. A disfunctional board cannot serve the members well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 I don’t know the people or facts in this case. But I have a lot of years as chairman and know what the responsibility is. The chairman is “ first among equals” and no more than that, but he or she must make the board function. If counselling didn’t work then the chairman would consider his position. A disfunctional board cannot serve the members well. Getting close to the issue I suspect, given my experience with the attitude of the current chairman when I was on the board. A major reason I would not even consider standing under the new set up. (And I am aware of certain current issues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Very difficult to discipline an elected Board member if they won’t be disciplined unless their actions become unlawful or fail to comply with organisation rules that allow for dismissal if in breach. this could occur for example if the Board members actions bring the organisation into disrepute and his membership of the organisation is cancelled on that basis. Another way would be if the Board voted by majority for a spill. but also difficult to run an organisation if one member constantly acts rogue. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotSoSuperSonic Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Are you Mob sure the public release of the review of the RAAus Board is not a diversionary or misdirection type tactic? The action seems a bit too honest and transparent for RAAus, and doesn't match their standard 'Modus Operandi'. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Anything's possible, but publishing an external revue is pretty much a required action/ response, once it's concluded.. One should not be blind to what the Organisation does well, when it does, and also criticise (fairly ) what it fails to do well if and when it does. They are not entitled to rely on undue secrecy, (like any other GOVERNING body) Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Anything's possible, but publishing an external revue is pretty much a required action/ response, once it's concluded.. One should not be blind to what the Organisation does well, when it does, and also criticise (fairly ) what it fails to do well if and when it does. They are not entitled to rely on undue secrecy, (like any other GOVERNING body) Nev Just remember the golden rule...always release before a long weekend. kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 That applies with the MSM, where what they print and when they print it and IF they don't bother to print it says it all. The golden rule is "those who have the Gold make all the rules". If you aren't a sceptic here by middle age you have been somewhere else, not here. Nev . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 The joke here is that CASA wants to give dysfunctional organisations like RAAus and GFA monopoly control of their respective aviation activities under Part 149. So much for aviation safety and "safe skies for all". Some years ago GFA hired a professional sports administrator out of the UK. He lasted a few weeks beacsue he found out how it dysfunctioned and fled back home. The full story was never revealed to the members. Time to end this farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 how hard is it to organise a vote to increase members fees? can't be that hard, all the other decisions are made by the CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now