Meredith Niles warns trustees that being too polite to each other can hinder effective governance.

I would estimate that over the past five years, I have easily spent 1,000 hours on charity board work, primarily as a participant – attending, preparing for, and following up after board and subcommittee meetings – but also as an observer, a facilitator and a trainer. In that time, I have had an opportunity to witness lots of practice – in most cases very good, but sometimes with room for improvement.

Where do things go wrong? In my opinion, it often comes down to trustees being too polite. Of course trustees are inherently nice people; they are, with rare exceptions, giving their time for free to causes about which they care passionately. However, an instinctive sense of decorum can, if left unchecked, get in the way of the board exercising its responsibilities effectively.

It is not rare to hear a charity executive lament the fact that a new trustee, recruited for his or her strong track record of driving corporate performance, seems to have parked that hard-charging attitude at the door. While this might make for nice, sociable meetings, no one – not least the charity’s service users – benefits from unfairly low expectations of the executive team. Trustees should not be afraid to ask tough questions and play the role of critical friend.

Nor should they be unwilling to challenge themselves. Just because trustees are volunteers doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have high expectations for their performance. The problem of trustees consistently missing meetings, not contributing constructively, or otherwise not pulling their own weight may be widely recognised – frankly, even by the culprits themselves – but no one feels comfortable being the one to say something, so the behaviour continues.

The problem of boards getting too cosy with the executive team and with each other is hardly unique, either among charities or, indeed, with corporate boards, And, I admit from personal experience, that it can often be seductively easy just to ‘go with the flow.’

So what is the solution? Institutionalise best practice.

Exercise open recruitment to ensure trustees are selected for what they bring to the table, not just because they have an existing relationship with someone in the organisation.

Set clear expectations for trustees at the outset and have processes in place (possibly a standing governance committee or formal annual review process) to monitor board and trustee performance. That way, conversations about performance are de-personalised.

Be transparent about terms of service and have honest and open conversations about when it’s time to move on. You’d be surprised how many long-serving trustees would be grateful for the opportunity to leave gracefully but feel too obligated to the organisation to suggest doing so, while at the same time, no one else feels confident to bring up the subject of retirement out of fear of hurt feelings.

Most importantly, keep in mind the objectives the charity has agreed and make sure they are being delivered. If a board is really finding it difficult to provide sufficient critique, you can even think about appointing someone to play the role of challenger in the meeting until it comes more naturally to everyone.

Practice makes perfect. Let’s collectively commit to parking our politeness and putting performance first.

Meredith Niles is treasurer at Booktrust and head of innovation at Marie Curie Cancer Care