Strategic governance: How BHASVIC embraced the co-chair model

We spoke with the governance team at BHASVIC who shared some of their early reflections on their new co-chair model. With thanks to Kirstin Baker (Co-Chair), Simon Porges (Co-Chair), Louise Pennington (Governance Director) and Will Baldwin (Principal).

The concept of a co-chair model emerged from a practical challenge: the difficulty of finding someone willing to take on the full scope of responsibilities of a chair role on a college board. The demands of the chair position, combined with its voluntary nature, often make it less appealing to potential candidates. Offering a co-chair model presented a more attractive proposition by sharing the workload and responsibilities, making it more manageable and appealing. BHASVIC also note the benefit of making this a reduced risk of change in a strong and stable environment, on the back of a positive External Governance Review, Audit and Ofsted inspection.

‘It seems a natural direction of travel for this to be a more common model, particularly if boards wish to retain members who are also currently employed and experts in their own field.’ - Will

Simon and Kirstin, the co-chairs, both come from different backgrounds but share a common concern: the significant time commitment and the breadth of expertise required to serve as a chair. For Simon, who has experience as a Parent Governor and Vice Chair, the co-chair model was an appealing solution that allowed him to step into a leadership role without overwhelming demands. Kirstin, with her background in university governance and primary school boards, also saw the co-chair model as a manageable way to contribute her expertise to the SFC.

The co-chair arrangement not only provided a way to share the workload but also allowed the board to benefit from their complementary skills and experiences. This diversity of thought and leadership has been central to the success of the model so far, as has an open mindset:

‘When considering co-chair models it is easy to think of the potential disadvantages first (complex/communication breakdowns/twice the work for Principal and GP) - it is amazing when you start talking about co-chairing how common this is as a first reaction. Instead change your mindset and start by thinking what can be gained by co-chairing – instantly increased diversity, two minds better than one, greater breadth of capability/experience’. - Simon

Operationalising the Co-Chair Model From the outset, Simon and Kirstin established clear principles to ensure the co-chair model would work effectively. Emphasis was and is on clear accountability, simplicity in operations to avoid duplication of efforts, and a structured approach to task segmentation and rotation. Continuous feedback and regular reviews are built into the model, allowing them to adapt and improve as needed.

The co-chair roles are segmented in a way that aligns with individual strengths and the board’s needs:

• Co-Chair A (Simon) focuses on Teaching and Learning, including involvement in the Quality and Curriculum Committee.
• Co-Chair B (Kirstin) handles Resources and Support, including responsibilities for committees related to resources, governance, and audit.

This division ensures that both co-chairs contribute effectively without stepping on each other’s toes. The model also includes shared responsibilities, such as attending key committee meetings together and splitting the line management of the principal and governance professional. This structured yet flexible approach allows the chairs to cover all critical aspects of governance while maintaining a balanced workload.

The governance professional notes that keeping the approach under review was central, and it has been helpful in considering feedback and allowing specific time for reflection of the new format and processes.

Challenges and Solutions Like any governance model, the co-chair arrangement comes with its challenges. However, the chairs believe that with clear accountability, strong communication channels, and a willingness to adapt, these challenges can be effectively managed. So far, the model has functioned smoothly, though Kirstin notes it has yet to be tested under significant pressure:

‘The stability and solid foundation of the college's governance structure have been key advantages in implementing this model successfully.’

Future Prospects and Advice Looking ahead, the co-chair model seems very much to be a sustainable and effective solution for the college, and more widely a transferable model for boards looking to retain talented members who may otherwise be deterred by the demands of a full chair role. Will highlights that the model allows the board to benefit from "two outstanding people for the price of one," with no significant downsides observed thus far.

For boards considering a co-chair model, BHASVIC’s experience suggest a focus on the potential advantages rather than the perceived complexities is key. A co-chair arrangement can enhance diversity, broaden the range of skills and experiences available to the board, and provide a built-in succession plan. With clear communication and a collaborative approach, the college is optimistic the model can evolve to meet the needs of the board and the college over time.

Below is some advice straight from the chairs on some of the practical elements:

At the outset:

• Consider which activities the chairs will Segment vs Share vs Rotate
• Get input from Principal/Governance Professional/Incumbent Chair/Vice Chair
• Set out clearly how the co-chair model should work including communication between co-chairs and with other board members. We have purposefully said we will keep this under review and been open in inviting feedback. (You can read some of the documents we've used to lay this out on the members' area here.)
• As co-chairs we meet fortnightly (initially weekly) to exchange updates.

Day to day:

• Both chairs attend Search & Governance Committee and Remuneration Committee and are also both members of the Premises Committee
• Current thinking is we will rotate chairing of Corporation annually.
• We are both involved in any strategic level planning and meetings.
• While we agreed that we would split the line reporting accountability for the principal and governance professional between us which allows for fortnightly 1:1’s, we also have a termly four-way meeting in the lead up to the committee/Corporation meeting cycle and maintain flexibility for any permutation to meet.

The Rewards of Co-Chairing

‘As an executive, we have been delighted with the implementation of this model. The split of responsibilities is well thought through, and it doesn’t ever feel like we are having to replicate or duplicate anything we do or say. In my view we are getting two outstanding people for the price of one, which is a massive advantage!’ Will

Deb is Director of Programmes at SFCA and leads our work on governance.