What do you think you're doing?

It's always exciting to be asked a question that you don't know the answer to when you're standing in front of an audience, especially if you think you should know the answer. Of course, this rarely happens to me … apart from at one recent conference, where I was asked: "What are the positive effects of all the governance changes being implemented and proposed for the housing association sector?"

It's hardly a surprising question. Board members will probably be rubbing their weary eyes, in fact, as they have been sent such a great deal of reading. Higgs, the National Housing Federation Consultation on Governance, "In Control" and the rest.

The joy of having a magazine column, however, is that one can answer the question later after having given it some thought.

The underlying result, in my view, of much of the governance change we are now seeing is that non-executive board members will be required to work harder and perhaps be more "independent".

But despite all the theory, what seems to make boards work well together are first, a happy combination of well-motivated people from different backgrounds and second, effective leadership.

For the chair, this is not an easy formula to apply and maintain; all the more so as board sizes reduce and more boards adopt a unitary format over the next few years (a unitary format being one that involves non-executive and executive members).

Although the law does not draw a distinction between the duties of executive and non-executive directors, the practical result of governance change is that many of the accepted working practices marking the interaction between executives and non-executives are being eroded.

Non-executives are being told, in exactly the same way as those in the private sector, to take their duties more seriously and to be responsible for the organisation as a whole. At the same time they are being asked to work constructively with the senior management team and be strategic; another challenge is to have a sufficiently deep understanding of an association while maintaining an independent and strategic stance. Trouble may be brewing in the boardroom.

One result of all this transformation may well be that fewer housing association staff sit on the boards of other housing associations.

The confidentiality problem
Historically, these outsiders have been one of the props for non-executive boards because they bring particular knowledge and working experience, yet at the same time are able to challenge executives. This also helps foster the next generation of housing association chief executives.

Increasingly, however confidentiality may mean having staff from other registered social landlords will be less desirable for many. This is a shame because they often bring positive, valuable insights to non-executives about the sector.

Non-executives are being told to take their duties more seriously and to be responsible for the whole organisation

None of the practices outlined above sit well with the concept of direct nomination onto a board. Nor do they work well where you want a smaller and more focused board. The emerging role of board appointment committees may well conflict, to positive effect, with the existing status quo.

Will the demarcation line for board members' "challenge" role need to be redrawn? It is an emerging conundrum.

At what stage would a board member be seen to be acting in an executive capacity?

One RSL company secretary has said to me that she now feels clearer about what she could expect the board to do. I agree. Board member contracts and fixed terms bring with them a certainty that did not exist before. But meanwhile, there are new obstacles for chief executives.

However the board is structured, there is greater public and regulatory expectation of good governance. A board must be in control and its non-executives capable of managing the executive team.

Executives must embrace the contribution non-executive board members bring. Good non-execs are increasingly in demand from other organisations and if their contribution is ignored, they may go elsewhere. Conversely, the knowledge that their contribution is required may mean that some interesting new recruits can be found.

If more hard-working and ethnically diverse boards result in better housing associations, this can only be for the good.

Yes, it will mean longer hours for non-executives, but this mirrors the private sector. Research published recently in The Economist magazine showed that in the USA, the time spent each month by non-executives had increased by a third; 85% of board members were spending more time looking at accounts, 83% spending more time on governance and 51% on monitoring financial performance.

None of those sounds, on its own, very strategic. I anticipate it will be a similar story in the social housing sector.