Illustrations by Edmon de Haro

So, by now you’d think we would have figured out how to unmute ourselves on Zoom, right? And yet, after four years of intense virtual meeting schedules…and…what?

“You’re on mute. We can’t hear you.”

What?

“We can’t hear you! You’re on mute!”

Oh. Sorry (shuffling with mouse, clicks the unmute button).

Here we go. What I was saying is that you’d think that after being forced into a virtual world, we might be better at it. And, while – minus the occasional faux pas – we’ve all made great strides, many of us are still figuring out governance and board work in the virtual space. So we asked Rebekah Burch Basinger, Ed.D., the project direct of In Trust Center’s Wise Stewards Initiative, and the Rev. Byron Klaus, D.Min., a former longtime seminary president, governance coach, and chair of the In Trust Center’s board, for their insight. Here is some of their advice on working in a virtual world.

 

Take Another Look

When boards were forced to work virtually, board leadership was compelled to explore uncharted waters of engagement strategies to actively communicate. It’s now a good time to re-assess how boards are operating, Klaus said, now that boards are more fluent in the rhythms and byways of online meetings. Those meetings required more than just a shift in mere format; they demanded a fundamental reassessment of “the big picture.”

“One thing we learned from pandemic operations is that the general rule should be that board and committee chairs really need to see the whole picture,” Klaus said. “It’s not just about meeting; it’s about maximizing a group’s time. We can adapt to new practices, but that requires careful consideration. What we have to do is find the right balance.”

For example, after pandemic lockdown mandates were lifted, the In Trust Center’s board decided to hold one meeting a year virtually, with the remaining two meetings held in person. Board preparation and committee work are conducted online, and there is regular evaluation of board effectiveness.

The experts say it’s time to consider the virtues and vices of virtual work to understand the overall impact on institutional mission and governance objectives, so that board meetings – whether online or in person – are effective.

 

Use The Tools Well

The pandemic became a catalyst for theological schools to embrace an array of previously foreign digital tools, including dashboards, surveys, and agenda preparation aids that enhance meeting efficiency and processes like note-taking and recording.

Basinger, like many people, admits to a “love-hate relationship with virtual platforms. When used well – during and between meetings – online tools hold the potential of deepening and extending conversations. But used poorly, which is too often the case, outcomes might be dreadful.”

Digital collaborative hubs like Switchboard have paved the way for reimagining meetings and saving time. Basinger and Klaus advocate for considering virtual platforms for committee meetings, emphasizing how these tools provide structured approaches that streamline processes and enhance overall efficiency, benefiting both virtual and in-person settings.

Basinger said board leaders should think carefully about the impact of digital tools on a board’s effectiveness and productivity. “Just because a board can rush through an agenda in a two-hour online meeting, doesn’t mean it should,” she said. “Efficiency isn’t a proxy for effectiveness; if the concept of ‘board meeting’ is re-framed as extended rather than episodic, with the board’s work continuing in virtual forums, online discussion groups, and other digital venues, the results could be pretty amazing – assuming, of course, that individual members put in the time.”

Klaus said it’s ultimately about “aligning our actions with our mission and leveraging the available tools to maximize productivity and innovation.” That way, he said, “we can move beyond routine tasks and focus on more strategic and impactful initiatives.”

 

Be Prepared – and Agile

The global pandemic accelerated the need for agility and adaptive leadership. Institutional boards have been compelled to recognize the significance of resilience, scenario planning, and continuous risk assessment in mitigating potential disruptions.

But, Basinger and Klaus said, preparedness extends beyond anticipating the unforeseen. Basinger said it is a responsibility of the board to adequately prepare for meetings well in advance, regardless of whether meetings are held in-person, virtually, or in a hybrid format.

Klaus said that virtual work upended the way people prepare. “Previously, people often read materials while traveling to the in-person meeting. Guilty as charged.

“To ensure the effectiveness of virtual meetings, fostering pre-meeting engagement and preparedness is crucial for chairs and members.”

As Klaus sees it, leadership’s capacity and willingness to be agile also play significant roles.

“Meetings should not just be about somebody reading reports and updates; we must be able to shift and capitalize on the lessons learned about preparedness, which are just as essential now as they were during the pandemic.”

 

Keep Communicating

Enabling and ensuring consistent communication and engagement remains vital for maintaining open channels and gathering feedback – regardless of the meeting scenario. Klaus believes this became more evident during the pandemic, and sees it as a key consideration for boards moving forward. The increasing pace of change, and the risks of a sudden crisis, generally require continuous communications to keep governing boards well-informed and able to respond appropriately, optimizing the effectiveness of meetings no matter where or when they take place.

Basinger agrees, and points out that the pace of change accelerates the pace of board deliberations and the steady flow of updates required among leadership, board chairs, and board members. As she sees it, communications is all about relationship-building and the efficient management of the group’s time and tasks.

 

Find the Best of Both Worlds

Basinger acknowledges that the incentive to attend an in-person meeting is pretty low for those who must travel distances. Nonetheless, she is seeing a trend among schools to return to in-person meetings.

At a recent In Trust Center Wise Stewards Seminar held in person, Basinger learned that the Academy for Jewish Religion (AJR), had never met in-person until the seminar, conducting business mostly in virtual settings.

“Our meetings, both administrative and board, are primarily remote,” said Dr. Ora Horn Prouser, the School’s chief executive officer and academic dean.

“At the Wise Stewards gathering, we realized how necessary it is for us to make sure our board gets together in-person at least once a year. Those two days together moved our relationships forward tremendously.”

Klaus extols the values of both settings. “There are schools that have quickly realized that a good portion of what they did pre-pandemic can only be done right face-to-face,” he said.

Basinger and Klaus said it’s important to see that each scenario presents growth opportunities. Face-to-face meetings help build and preserve rapport and a strong culture; virtual meetings conserve resources. Basinger sees evidence of a complementary hybrid model emerging.

“Finding the best blend should be intentional,” she said. “Virtual meetings can augment in-person relationships, and are efficient for decision-making for routine business and immediate items.”

No matter which direction a board chooses, Basinger and Klaus agree that consistent and attentive assessment will be required of boards.

“It’s possible that we haven’t had sufficient time to fully digest the events of the past couple of years and adapt accordingly,” Klaus said. “There’s a real sense of playing catch-up.”