CEO succession plan

[Paul Cooksey]

I imagine most forumites will have seen Andrew Farthing's statement that he does not intend to seek re-election, quoted below.

I was sorry to see Andrew's decision, although I respect the reasons for it. I was impressed by hIs energy and commitment to his stategic plan. His focus on delivering the change he committed to is also impressive. However I do think, like any outgoing CEO, his main responsibility is now to manage the transition to his successor. (who may be hard to find given Andrew's experience in the role).

Personally I found the vision of a large, active ECF in the strategic plan persuasive. But significant change, which will take a few years to bed down, only makes sense if the new CEO intends to build on it. I am concrened that without Andrew's energy, the ECF may need to set less ambitious goals

When I put myself forward for the role of Chief Executive, I anticipated that the work would take about three hours a day. In practice, it has often approached an average of twice that, seven days a week. I have grown increasingly concerned by how much of this expenditure of time and energy has been directed towards activity which, ultimately, is at best unproductive and at worst destructive. For a job which costs me money to do – since I choose not to claim expenses, I pay £1000 to £1500 a year for the privilege – it will, I hope, be understandable if my enthusiasm has been affected.

For this reason, I decided some weeks ago (and communicated to the Board at our last meeting) that I would not be putting myself forward for re-election next October.

Until then, there is a huge amount that needs to be done, and I shall concentrate on making the most constructive contribution that I can. This should include:

- Implementing the new membership scheme, including online enrolment;
- Presenting proposals for the reorganisation of the ECF to achieve charitable status;
- Publication of a Code of Ethics;
- A consultation paper on proposals for governance changes (voting rights);
- A consultation paper on the use of funds held within the BCF following the reorganisation;
- Work on the office procedures covering finance, management information and database management.

It’s been pointed out that I have been less communicative than previously, either here on the forum or in my blog. This is true. Time has been one factor, but I hope that people will also understand that, in view of what I wrote at the start of this post, my motivation to prioritise the forum and my blog over other work has reduced sharply.

I don’t claim that this is a good thing, and I am sorry about it, but I am choosing to focus the time that I devote to this job on getting things done. I shall communicate whenever I can, but it will not be as frequently as before.

[Laurie Roberts]

I have been very impressed by Andrew's leadership in what has been a very difficult period for the ECF. Regardless of where you are on the membership issue, that Andrew has worked hard and tried his best to get a workable agreement on the way forward cannot be denied. And he should be thanked for that.

I wish him well.

[Michele Clack]

A big vote of thanks to Andrew for the huge amount of work that he has done and is doing for the ECF. He's laid the foundations for an organisation fit to face the challenges of the 21st century. He's achieved this in an amazingly short space of time against a backdrop of lost funding and an economic recession.
Two things spring to mind. Firstly the job of chief executive probably needs to be split. Secondly I'm surprised at how few people have taken any interest in Andrew's impending retirement. I think he will be difficult to replace and the ECF will have tough times ahead.

[Geoff Chandler]

"Secondly I'm surprised at how few people have taken any interest in Andrew's impending retirement."

Bad timing. It was announced when the latest grading list came out.
Those on the up are strutting around like peacocks, those on the down are posting excuses.

Give the thread a bump in about 3 months time.

[Matthew Turner]

In an earlier thread I wrote

"We know that chess players are prepared to pay to play chess, you only need look at the sucess of the 4NCL and the e2-e4 events (which are not the cheapest event but are recognised for their quality).
However, If you stated well if you don't pay up then we won't have an ECF. I don't think hands would suddenly reach for pockets.
However, I think if you asked a cross section of chess players Do you think C.J. Andrew Farthing, Lawrence Cooper etc. are doing a good job you would get the answer yes.
How do we focus attention on the second question?"

Andrew Farthing responded

"Personally flattering as this may be, I think it's a false distinction. If the people involved in the ECF are "doing a good job", this would imply that the ECF was doing a good job as well. If the latter isn't true, I'd struggle to argue that the former could be."

I wonder if Andrew has changed his mind now? People are grateful for all the work Andrew has, and is, putting but has it helped English chess - I'm not sure it has. Andrew says so himself
"I have grown increasingly concerned by how much of this expenditure of time and energy has been directed towards activity which, ultimately, is at best unproductive and at worst destructive"

If the ECF can have somebody as CEO who is a very keen chessplayer, somebody who is knowledgeable about (charitable) fundraising and is prepared to work 6hrs a day for a negative wage and yet their actions might prove to be unproductive AT BEST, then you have think that there is something wrong with the organisation, rather than merely the personel.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... you have think that there is something wrong with the organisation ....

Indeed. My feeling about the whole CJ thing - which as far as I can see amounts to an ECF balls-up from the start - is not at all that individuals within the federation are wicked or stupid or rampantly incompetent in some way. Rather, that when these people come together in the way that they do, they are for some reason completely unable to cope with/address an obviously unsatisfactory situation.

(E.g. see what the ECF's policy of "Let's pretend RDK doesn't exist" has led to)


Given that I know through personal contacts that many of those are decent people, I can only conclude that the organisation of the Federation must be rather problematic, to say the least.

[Alex Holowczak]

If the ECF can have somebody as CEO who is a very keen chessplayer, somebody who is knowledgeable about (charitable) fundraising and is prepared to work 6hrs a day for a negative wage and yet their actions might prove to be unproductive AT BEST, then you have think that there is something wrong with the organisation, rather than merely the personel.

One of the major constraints that the Board has, in my opinion, is six-monthly Council meetings. This means things tend to get done, then you have to wait a few months for the next Council meeting to come along to OK it. The Board can plan out various things after months of discussion by e-mail and in meetings, only for Council to come along and alter it after barely 5 minutes discussion.

In spite of what I've previously said on this issue, I think that OMOV should be something that is seriously considered, but only on the proviso that Council votes itself out of existence at the same time. The electorate should exist only to elect the Board (and other Officers like FIDE Delegate), and leave them to get on with everything. By all means put a couple more Non-Execs on the Board if that helps with this. And by all means flog the elected if they don't do a good job, or do something you're not happy with.

I think the concept of Council meetings was relevant when there was a need to spread the word about what was going on. Nowadays, places like the Forum do that long before a Council meeting ever gets announced. So the only new views that get aired at Council meetings tend to be things that:
(a) are completely new ideas which aren't on the Agenda, so you can't vote on them anyway
(b) you've read 20 times before on the Forum
(c) people who don't use the Forum, and so aren't aware that the majority of attendees have heard it 20 times before on the Forum

For example, the issue of six-monthly grading. It was thought that the initial publication was only to mandate the graders to come up with a solution, ready for Council to vote on it. Presumably, Council could therefore amend it. Why? The grading team knows how grading works. With respect, the most knowledgeable people about grading are already on the grading team. So what can be gained from going to Council yet again? What should happen, is that the Home Chess Director implements the change with the assistance of his grading team, and any parties who are interested should volunteer to become part of the grading team.

Equally, the issue of charitable status. Our CEO works in this field, so he knows what he's doing. With regard to the detail of these issues, he's probably the ideal man to have in the position of implementing it. So why does Council need to be involved at each stage of the process? Again, what should happen is that interested parties should volunteer to help the CEO with some of the tasks associated with getting it set up.

The benefits of this approach would be:
(1) The CEO (and other Directors) have a more manageable workload, because there are more volunteers
(2) You don't have "thumb-twiddle" periods where the Board is waiting for a Council meeting before moving on

I don't believe something like this would ever happen.

[Michele Clack]

Alex I think that you are spot on. It needs to be changed as quickly as possible in the direction you suggest. Things move much more quickly these days and you need to be able to respond quickly. If someone like Andrew can't steer the unwieldy ECF ship as he would like and feels it needs then I suspect nobody can. I think that this is what Matthew is getting at.

Other people have mentioned more volunteers being needed as well. I suspect that we really need to recruit someone with a strong HR background as HR Director. They would have responsibility for recruitment and retention of volunteers and all matters related. They could sort out grievance procedures and agree things like dress codes and be a first point of call when there are problems. This would free up the CEO to work on the business side of things.

[Carl Hibbard]

Anyone seen any sign of what the new marketing director is doing?

[Peter Turner]

Anyone seen any sign of what the new marketing director is doing?

Who is that?

TRIM GO AWOL

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Anyone seen any sign of what the new marketing director is doing?

Well, his photo has been added to the list of ECF officials on the ECF website. I wonder what it is he is marketing?

[Angus French]

Anyone seen any sign of what the new marketing director is doing?

Well, his photo has been added to the list of ECF officials on the ECF website. I wonder what it is he is marketing?

... a written profile has also been added.

[Paul Cooksey]

If the ECF can have somebody as CEO who is a very keen chessplayer, somebody who is knowledgeable about (charitable) fundraising and is prepared to work 6hrs a day for a negative wage and yet their actions might prove to be unproductive AT BEST, then you have think that there is something wrong with the organisation, rather than merely the personel.

If someone like Andrew can't steer the unwieldy ECF ship as he would like and feels it needs then I suspect nobody can. I think that this is what Matthew is getting at.Other people have mentioned more volunteers being needed as well. I suspect that we really need to recruit someone with a strong HR background as HR Director.

I also agree with Matthew, but I feel differently to Michele about the best solution.

I am doubtful that an HR Director could be effective as a volunteer, even if such a volunteer was found. But more than this, I'm reluctant to try to solve the ECFs structural problems by increasing back office work with extra people or compliance, as suggested in the Resignation thread. The ECF already does more administration than the volunteers can handle, to the extent a professional office is necessary. I think the we are all painfully aware that the cost of administration is at the heart of our funding issues.

Michele is surely right that more volunteers would improve English chess. But it seems to me we have a specific difficulty finding good volunteers to serve on the ECF board. These roles involve a huge commitment to doing the kind of work one would normally only do if paid, and guarantee that your competence and character will be publicly questioned. Why would anyone want to do one of these roles, rather than volunteering to captain a team, do some coaching or help organise an event? Indeed, why would we want them to?

I do not doubt it is possible to run a big, professional ECF. But it requires a commitment to a large and expensive infrastructure, such as that in France. I cannot imagine our independent organisers electing to join a monopoly ECF. It is inconceivable that the Chess Arbiters association would give up their independence and allow the ECF to govern them. It seems to me that the reaction of most players to the dispute between Alex McFarlane and the ECF board reinforces our tradition of decentralisation.

Andrew answered the Regan question - what is it you want ECF to do? - as well as anyone has in his strategy document. But I think his experience as CEO is proving we cannot support a big enough ECF to deliver it. Perhaps a number of competent volunteers will replace Andrew and carry his vision forward. I hope so. But history makes me doubt it.

In the alternative, I could imagine a small ECF fulfilling only core responsibilities:
1. Arrange and run meetings, lead (CEO)
2. Produce a grading list (Home Director)
3. Administer international ratings, select Olympiad team and represent England at FIDE (International Director)
4. Maintain a website connecting newcomers to local chess clubs and junior organisations (Marketing director)
5. Select junior teams, arrange coaching (Junior Director)
6. Be the treasurer (Finance Director)
7. Arrange the British Championship (Outsource* - CEO recommendation to a Council vote).

...and nothing else. Nothing. Maybe this is even an organisation small enough to be funded by voluntary membership, with the voting structure suggested by David Robertson instead of a Council.

If there are volunteers who want to do some thing specific like get chess on TV, or promote chess in schools, great. Let them run it as a project reporting to the CEO, and let Council to vote on their proposal. Or choose proposals if there is more than one group. (maybe by email to speed things up). The project approach worked well with the grading website. Online membership could have been progressed in this way.

An ECF board making sure the basics happen each year as simply and cheaply as possible, and volunteer projects making specific improvements, seems workable to me.




(*In fact if Alex had paid the ECF £1 for the right to award the 2011 British Championship titles in a tournament run by him, I think the clarity that a single person was in charge and accountable would have avoided many of the issues that occurred. Funding would have necessarily flown through him, and he would have had control of opening and closing ceremonies.

In the worst case, if no-one is willing to run a tournament in the existing form, the ECF would have to ask an existing event to award the title. In the best case organisers from across the country would bid to bring the Championship to their area, receiving a donation from the ECF central sponsors to add to their local sponsorship.)

[Mick Norris]

Paul, as is often the case, you talk a lot of sense

Clearly, the ECF is in difficulties, with the President under siege, the CEO departing and for all we know, other board members to follow

I think Andrew's departure is a real shame, because I trust him to get (most) things right, and I know he has widespread support in the MCCU and I guess further afield

Just how bad things had got came to me when I was asked to stand to replace Andrew

I agree that Council needs to be reformed, or abolished, but if good people keep trying and failing, then maybe the ECF structure is indeed at fault

I like to think that membership will be the start of he process to reform

[Roger de Coverly]

I like to think that membership will be the start of he process to reform

You might think that, but to my mind it presents leagues with an unpleasant three way choice:-

(a) a league can carry on at present and accept that its Game Fee bill will double or triple
(b) it can run its competitions either wholly or partly ungraded
(c) it can demand that everyone taking part in its competitions is an ECF member with limited if any exceptions and default or otherwise penalise any club who infringes those rules.

Having said that, there's a paradox that the ECF is either too big or too small. I hope its a reasonable observation that in terms of administrative support, the average League or Congress makes next to no call on the ECF's professional office. That's the "too big" case. It's also the "too small" case that the ECF office has next to no involvement in the practicalities of running local and regional chess events. So you have to ask what the office is for. Directors have commented that the ECF office is very useful support in their role as directors. That may well be the case, but is it just demonstrating that the ECF's governance is just "too expensive"?

The last six months or so, have suggested that ECF Boards are not to be trusted to operate without some form of oversight, which implies you need a body with the power to ask them what they are playing at. Up to a point, this (unofficial) forum and various blog writers do a reasonable if chaotic job, but the Board are under no compulsion to reply, or take the slightest notice.