An Interview with Dr. James McGuirk, CEO of Astor Services for Children and Families

Jim McGuirk has been the Executive Director/CEO of Astor Services for Children and Families (formerly The Astor Home for Children), which is headquartered in Rhinebeck, New York, since July 2002. Astor Services provides a comprehensive range of mental health and early childhood education services in the Hudson Valley and the Bronx, New York, serving over 6,000 children annually in 20 locations. I had the privilege of working with Jim and a task force consisting of several members of the Astor Services Board a couple of years ago, fashioning recommendations to clarify the Board’s governing role and to update its committee structure, which the Board unanimously adopted in February 2007. Jim and I recently discussed the Task Force process and the impacts of the effort on Astor Services governance.

Doug: Jim, what, in your opinion, are the key factors accounting for the success of the Governance Task Force in securing the Board’s unanimous approval of its recommendations?

Jim: There are several factors that helped to ensure that the Astor Services Governance Task Force would achieve its goals. First and foremost, we already had a really solid governing body in place at Astor. The board consisted of a diverse and representative mix of members who were passionately committed to the Astor mission, were ready and willing to contribute substantial time to their governing work, and were open to changing and growing on the governance front. So our Governance Task Force could focus on fine-tuning the Board’s role and structure, without needing to engage in radical reform. We didn’t have to contend with the kind of ingrained opposition to change that I’ve seen defeat many other nonprofits’ governance reform efforts over the years. We were also blessed with a Board Chair who not only strongly backed the Task Force’s effort, but also took the time to serve as chair, never missing a meeting during the three months that the Task Force fashioned its recommendations and always making sure meetings were productive and ended on time.

It was also critical that the whole Board of Directors was involved at the very beginning of the process. Before the Governance Task Force was even created, we held a daylong retreat in August 2006 at the FDR presidential museum in Hyde Park, where we laid a solid foundation for the effort consisting of: a clear understanding of the High-Impact Governing Model that guided the Task Force in coming up with its recommendations; and strong consensus on the major Astor Services governance issues that deserved serious Task Force attention. The fact that you facilitated that retreat, Doug, and that you subsequently served as consultant to the Governance Task Force brought greater continuity to the effort, ensuring that we didn’t reinvent the proverbial wheel. It also helped that one of our Board members who served on the Task Force had worked with you in a very similar board development process a couple of years earlier. That the Task Force employed a carefully-designed, highly transparent, and very logical process in carrying out its charge also contributed to its success: beginning with the identification of the key assumptions that should guide the Task Force in carrying out its charge (for example, that it should draw on recent advances in the field of nonprofit governance); then fleshing out the governance issues that had been identified at the Hyde Park retreat; next engaging Task Force members actively in discussing possible initiatives to address the issues; and finally, refining the initiatives, turning them into detailed action recommendations. The process turned Task Force members into real “change champions” for the recommendations that they ultimately presented to the full Board themselves: peers presenting to their peers.

Doug: OK, so the Astor Services Board now has a more clearly defined governing role and an updated committee structure. Has all of the time and effort put into coming up with – and implementing – these governance improvements been worth it?

Jim: Well, Doug, I had some doubts early-on. To be very honest, getting the new committees underway was a pretty time-consuming challenge. However, with over two years of experience behind us, I’m sold on the new committee structure. I believe it has generated four powerful benefits-providing the organization with a rich return on our investment. First, the committees have functioned as very effective governance engines in getting the detailed governing work of the Board done. Our Board is much more focused on making the really high-stakes decisions to address the preeminent opportunities and challenges we’re facing. Believe me, the Astor Services Board works at a high level and doesn’t get bogged down in micromanagement of any kind. Second, the committees ensure that Board members have an opportunity for in-depth involvement in governing work, which has resulted in much higher Board member satisfaction and tremendous ownership of their governing decisions and judgments. A third very important benefit is that the committees give me a place, as CEO, to work with Board members in fine-tuning and updating their governing work on an ongoing basis. For example, I work closely with the Planning and Program Development Committee for ways to improve the strategic and operational planning and budget preparation processes. In a very real sense, we use our committees as continuous governance improvement vehicles. And fourth, creatively and proactively involved Board members who are satisfied with their governing role make much better partners for a CEO, and I can honestly say that one of the most important benefits is a rock-solid partnership with my Board that has been a very necessary support as our organization deals with the challenges of theses difficult economic times.

Doug: Pretty impressive, Jim. A closing question: What were the most formidable hurdles you had to deal with in implementing your new committee structure?

Jim: The implementation process went much more smoothly than I had expected, and I can’t say we’ve had to surmount any really big hurdles. That said, I should point out that we did spend quite a bit of time dealing with two issues: getting our executive staff up to speed on their role in supporting the new committees; and making sure that full Board meetings involve substantive, interesting discussion without re-hashing the work already done at the committee level. The organization could not have made these transition if I did not have highly skilled, deeply dedicated executive staff, many of who functioned as the liaisons to the various committees.