Challenge Conventional Wisdom
Fresh perspectives that question common board governance assumptions
CCW1: Most Board Members Are Doing It Wrong—And Nobody Tells Them
Most condo board members aren't doing their job properly. Not because they're malicious—because nobody ever told them what the job actually is.
Seven Fundamental Mistakes:
1. Confusing attendance with engagement Most think showing up and voting is the job. Wrong. Engaged service means reading materials 2-3 days early, preparing questions, following up between meetings, thinking continuously about building challenges.
2. Delegating governance to the property manager Most think manager runs building, board approves. Wrong. Manager works for board. Board sets policy framework, provides oversight, makes strategic decisions—doesn't rubber-stamp recommendations.
3. Treating reserve study like a suggestion Most file it away and forget it. Wrong. It's your financial future documented. Use it to guide budgets, update every 3-5 years, track actual versus projected expenses, communicate funding status regularly.
4. Making financial decisions without understanding numbers Most see positive bank balance, figure everything's fine. Wrong. Need to understand cash flow, budget variance, reserve adequacy, delinquency impact, relationship between operating and reserves.
5. Avoiding conflict at all costs Most seek compromise, table discussions, stay silent. Wrong. Conflict isn't governance failure—it's often a sign governance is happening. Welcome dissent, debate vigorously, make decisions despite disagreement.
6. Operating without clear processes Most operate informally. Wrong. Need consistent processes: authorization levels, vendor selection procedures, policy development, action tracking, financial review protocols.
7. Focusing on small decisions while ignoring big strategy Most spend 90% on operational details, 10% on strategy. Wrong. Strategic discussions should come first. Delegate operations. Schedule separate strategic sessions.
Why these persist: bad governance doesn't create immediate consequences, new members learn from existing members, nobody teaches board governance, residents don't know what good looks like.
The full document explains each mistake in detail, why nobody corrects them, the impact, and what actually good board service looks like.
CCW2: Your HOA Board Doesn't Need More Rules. It Needs Better Judgment.
When problems arise, boards instinctively reach for the rulebook. Packages getting stolen? Create package policy. Parking disputes? Add more parking rules. Noise complaints? Draft detailed noise regulations.
More rules often make problems worse.
Why Adding Rules Doesn't Solve Problems:
Rules can't cover every scenario. Guest parking limited to 48 hours—but what about the resident's elderly parent recovering from surgery for a week? The contractor doing unit renovation for ten days? The resident's car in the shop for five days? All technically violations, but punishing all three equally feels wrong.
More rules create more loopholes. People claim their second car belongs to a "guest" who lives there. Everyone's friend becomes a "contractor." Each new rule spawns creative interpretations requiring more rules.
Rules without judgment become weapons. Neighbors who dislike each other report technical violations. Selective enforcement against people you have issues with. Rules become instruments of conflict.
What Better Judgment Looks Like:
Two residents parking in guest spaces overnight. Resident A has two cars, parks one in guest space every night to avoid paying for second assigned space—clear abuse. Resident B's car in shop for a week—temporary situation. Both violate the 48-hour rule. The rule doesn't tell you how to handle them differently. Judgment does.
The Alternative: Keep rules simple and principle-based: "Guest parking is for temporary visitors, not resident vehicles." Invest in judgment—train board members to evaluate contextually. Create decision frameworks, not detailed regulations. Document precedents to build collective judgment.
The full document explores why boards default to rule-making, how to develop institutional judgment, frameworks for consistent but contextual decisions, and transitioning from rule-heavy to judgment-based governance.
↑ Back to Top
CCW3: Being a 'Nice' Board Member Is Actually Hurting Your Organization
I was the nice board member. Everyone liked me. I listened sympathetically, smoothed things over, found diplomatic ways to go along. I never wanted to be difficult.
I thought this made me good at governance. I was wrong.
Turning point: Board approved $50K parking garage repair with single bid, no competitive analysis, questionable scope. I had concerns but raising them would challenge the president, disagree with treasurer, delay the project. So I stayed quiet. I voted yes. I was nice.
Three months later: project incomplete. Fixed visible spalling but not drainage. Six months later spalling was back. My niceness cost $50K and left us needing $80K more for proper repair.
How Niceness Undermines Governance:
Nice members don't ask hard questions. Hard questions make people uncomfortable. "This landscaping contract is 15% higher—what are comparables? Have we solicited competitive bids?" Not attacks—due diligence. But they feel like attacks.
Nice members go along to get along. I voted for things I had reservations about to avoid being lone dissenter. Others did the same. We suppressed concerns, voted yes, implemented decisions nobody was confident about.
Nice members avoid confrontation. One member consistently arrived unprepared. Another checked phone constantly. Everyone noticed, nobody said anything—too uncomfortable.
Nice members prioritize resident happiness over responsible governance. Building needed assessment increase. Responsible: increase now, communicate why. Nice: "Let's wait until next year."
Nice members give vague feedback. Property manager underperforming. Nice: "It would be great if work orders were faster." Direct: "Five-day response is expected. Current twelve days is unacceptable."
Nice members compromise on everything—including things that shouldn't be compromised. Legal compliance, financial integrity, ethical standards get compromised to maintain harmony.
Nice vs. Kind: Nice means avoiding discomfort. Kind means doing what's best for the organization, even when uncomfortable. After I stopped being nice and started being kind, our board became dramatically more effective.
The full document shares the complete transformation, how to stop being too nice, and why your building needs effective governance—not popularity.
↑ Back to Top
CCW4: The Best Board Members I've Worked With Rarely Speak in Meetings
I used to think the most valuable board members talked the most—had opinions on everything, dominated discussions, drove decisions.
After five years working with fifteen different board members, I learned the most effective are often the quietest. They might contribute 2-3 times during a two-hour meeting. But when they speak, the entire conversation shifts.
Why Quiet Members Are More Effective:
They're actually listening. Talkative members formulate next comments. Quiet members analyze for gaps, compare to previous meetings, think through consequences, notice patterns.
Example: Three elevator bids. Talkative members debated cheap versus expensive for fifteen minutes. Quiet member: "The cheap bid excludes control system upgrade the others include. We'd need to upgrade separately within two years for $30K. So the $240K 'cheap' bid is actually $270K—more than the $265K mid-priced bid." One question changed the discussion.
They ask questions instead of stating opinions. Opinions add viewpoints. Questions force deeper thinking. Security cameras debate had three opinions. Quiet member: "What problem are we solving—preventing break-ins, catching perpetrators, or making residents feel safer? Solution might differ based on priority." That revealed we hadn't defined the objective.
They wait for the right moment. Talkative members jump in immediately. Quiet members wait until: discussion reveals key disagreements, conversation circles, important perspective is missing, decision point approaches. Then speak—maximum impact.
They contribute insight, not just information. Information tells what. Insight tells why it matters and what to do. Exterior painting discussion: talkative member googled average costs. Quiet member connected historical records to current deterioration, identified gap in analysis, suggested inspection before accepting bids.
They don't need to prove value. Talkative members talk to demonstrate contribution. Quiet members are secure enough they don't need validation. Speak when they have something meaningful, not to prove engagement.
The Paradox: Members with most influence often talk least. When they speak, everyone listens. Their contributions carry weight because they're rare and meaningful.
The full document shares how to become more strategically quiet, why boards undervalue quiet members, and the complete framework for high-value, low-volume contribution.
↑ Back to Top
CCW5: Stop Trying to Consensus Your Way to Good Governance
Consensus has become sacred in board governance. Everyone wants it. Boards pride themselves on unanimous votes. Consensus is presented as the gold standard.
This is wrong. The pursuit of consensus is killing effective governance.
I served on a board obsessed with consensus. Two years of discussing until everyone agreed. If even one person had reservations, we'd table for "more research." We thought this was collaborative.
What it actually meant: paralysis. Important decisions deferred indefinitely. The most stubborn member had veto power over everything.
Then a new member joined willing to say "we've discussed enough, let's vote" even when someone objected. She was comfortable with 3-2 votes instead of 5-0.
At first this felt wrong. Then we started making better decisions, faster.
Why Consensus Undermines Boards:
Consensus gives one person veto power. Four members ready to increase assessments for reserve funding. One opposed—"residents can't afford it." Six hours across three meetings trying to persuade. Eventually approved inadequate $50 increase nobody thought was right. That wasn't consensus—surrender to the most stubborn person.
Consensus produces lowest common denominator solutions. Three security options—comprehensive ($65K), basic cameras ($25K), lighting only ($8K). Couldn't do comprehensive or lighting. Ended up with basic cameras nobody thought optimal. Package thefts continued.
Consensus masks fundamental disagreements. Short-term rentals—some thought fine, others terrible. Three months finding "consensus": 30-day minimum, restrictions. Nobody satisfied. Policy internally inconsistent.
Consensus confuses agreement with correctness. Groups can be collectively wrong. Board unanimously deferred elevator modernization to avoid assessment increase. This consensus masked that the decision was wrong—created higher costs later.
When Consensus Makes Sense: Establishing core values, decisions requiring unanimous buy-in, no urgency where deliberation adds value, issues needing supermajority mandate. Most board decisions don't fit these criteria.
What Good Governance Looks Like: Present issue clearly → ensure information → discuss vigorously → vote → majority wins → everyone implements, including those who voted against.
The full document explains breaking free from consensus culture, why discomfort of majority rule is healthy, techniques for normalizing dissent, and why the goal is good decisions—not unanimous agreement.
↑ Back to Top