Policies, Reliable Data and Truth

Policies should be consistent and standardized, but they should not be formulaic. Writing policies is not always a straightforward process. Sometimes the information that sits behind the policy is lacking. That is, operating principles have been assumed but not tested and fine-tuned by the board.

Risk appetite plays a far more important role in the writing of policies than one realizes, with the board not always being on the same page with its risk appetite in determining the policy. Taking 15 minutes out for a quick game of risk with the board can help a board understand how much risk variation there is across the board, which influences the starting point about the content that might go into a policy for each board member.

Let’s look at Covid 19 policies as an example to tease out some of these concepts that can appear a bit nebulous, without a concrete example.

Many states introduced mandatory requirements for workers to be vaccinated, but as we know for varying reasons, not all were in favor of vaccinations. When it came to writing policies for entities, there was the possibility of at least two positions: ‘Company X requires all staff to be vaccinated’; or ‘In accordance with government policy, Company X requires all staff to be vaccinated’. These are vastly different policies, especially once governments revoked or amended their requirements. The difference could result in litigation if a company was deemed to have overstepped the mark on government requirements, but this was less likely if the company was merely following government requirements. Of course it could go the other way if it was deemed that the company did not take sufficient steps to protect staff or clientele in its own right. Board entities needed to have their risk discussion before the policy was written, but many would have assumed that no discussion was necessary given the simple nature of the policy.

The fact that policies need to be written indicates that some choice is needed in outlining principles, usually affected by risk appetite. A Not For Profit / For Purpose (NFP) entity whose objects include caring for the poor or marginalized are more likely to have a higher risk appetite when it comes to making their resources available to help others rather than a For Profit business that is seeking to grow shareholders wealth.

The difficulty is in collecting, collating and benchmarking this data, and indeed any data that is used in the formation of culture. This is also the problem we have with the word TRUTH nowadays, after all, TRUTH is information or data that is deemed to be correct and accurate.

Truth has become such a nebulous concept where it is no longer regarded as absolute, anybody’s truth can be regarded as accurate as the next persons. But at the same time everybody assumes that there is only one truth.

While there may be occasions when there is such a thing as an absolute truth, the disservice history has done us is the claims of TRUTH by some that is just opinion, or at the most, fact only in a limited scenario. This has understandably made some wary of any claims of TRUTH.

Jean Cocteau, the French philosopher and filmmaker based his movie career on drawing out the tendency of C19th western thinking which tried to contain all information in little boxes, in other words, making claims of truth when it was not always clear cut or only culturally determined. It was this ideology that lead the postmodernist philosophers to go to the other extreme of throwing out the concept of ALL absolute truth. These extremes of ‘my opinion is truth’ and ‘there is no truth’ is what has lead us to the tensions we currently experience.

Whilst we all seek accuracy, it has become far more elusive as the amount of data in the world grows. Cultural, location and even family variations add their own complexity. How do you pronounce “Newcastle”?, is it a boot or a trunk? As our world and cultural influences grow, determining accuracy, truth, or one’s position has become even more difficult.

This is where we come back to policies, it is easy to assume that we all know what it is we want to say in our policy, but we may be expressing more opinion than we realize. Tensions rise as we have assumed the content of the policy that doesn’t sit well with others, which can lead to an inability to move forward and a seizing up of operations. In many instances where there is a policy gap it is because there hasn’t been the heavy lifting of thinking through the agreed (often basic) content of what is to go into the policy.

This is where we need to spend more time collating information for our governing or source documents. The reality is most of us don’t set aside enough resources to do our research, with all our research departments having suffered over the years. As far as practicable, take the time to gather as much relevant information, ensuring accuracy where possible, good consultation and brainstorming with your board. Wade through the variances of interpretations or opinions, breaking it down to the agreed upon principles to enable your entity to develop the appropriate governing documents.

At some stage a call has to be made where we put pen to paper for the policy or governance document, based on the information gleaned. A good first step to achieve this is to draw up a basic document, taking a stand either way, and allow it to be pulled apart in consultation until the content is agreed upon. Then work through the polishing process.

Don’t forget the importance of good review policies and practices. Maintain a good policy register (a basic CSV document is a good starting point which can always be imported into a more sophisticated policy management system when needed). Ensure regular reviews and good iterational development for the next stages of growth.