John Carver's work is a conundrum. In one way, his policy governance theory makes complete sense. Boards of directors of nonprofit and governmental organizations should focus on the big picture, on defining results, and leave operations (how to) to their staff. With this clear focus, boards no longer have to struggle with the question of where rubberstamping ends and micromanaging begins. They are working on their responsibilities and staffs are working on theirs, which are separate but complementary. This Policy Governance model is also packed with all kinds of mechanisms for making boards more productive, and therefore more high-achieving, than current commonly-accepted practices allow for. Truly, I would like to live in a world where boards of directors behaved as Carver describes.
The problem is that they don't... and they won't. Few will accept Carver's insistence that the Policy Governance model be taken in toto. Unless and until an organization is in a free-fall, there is no motivation to adopt such a wholesale change in how they do business. At best, they will accept some suggested incremental improvements (especially, and ironically, if they come from a highly trusted CEO.) Some may say they have adopted Policy Governance, even go through the training and write some policies... but in the few cases I am familiar with in which this has happened, the boards soon revert to adopting outcome statements and plans that are put in front of them by staff, go back to organizing their meetings around agendas developed by the CEO. They may be effectively staying out of operations, but they wouldn't adopt a goal the CEO didn't want to save their lives.
So Carver's model fails for lack of practical application. Which is too bad. I wish he had devoted his considerable talent and high-quality thinking to providing his readers with a series of ideas for how and when to use some of his techniques. He could have been a real help to consultants like me who support others to improve. Those of us on the ground working with modern nonprofits are successful at introducing new governance practices one at a time. I just don't see it working otherwise.