The What and the How

The internal dialogue that builds partnership, accountability, and Strategic Confidence

The meeting has been going on for two hours.

A councilmember says, “Why hasn’t this been fixed yet?”

A board member adds, “We talked about this months ago.”

Someone proposes a specific solution and urges staff to implement it immediately.

Across the room, the city manager or superintendent takes notes and tries to reconcile multiple expectations, each expressed as a priority.

Nothing dramatic has happened. No crisis. No scandal. Just something far more common in public leadership: blurred lines between deciding what should be done, when it should be completed, and determining how it should be done.

When that line blurs, frustration builds on every side.

And often, the frustration is less about disagreement and more about misaligned dialogue.

The Most Misunderstood Distinction in Public Governance

Elected officials run for office because they care. They see problems and want to solve them. So when a resident calls about a service issue or a parent raises a classroom concern, the instinct is to act. When progress feels slow, the instinct is to press.

That instinct comes from commitment.

But in both city councils and school boards, the governing body is not responsible for managing day-to-day operations. That responsibility rests with a city manager, county administrator, or superintendent.

At its core, governance turns on a simple distinction:

The governing body decides what matters.

Professional leadership determines how it is accomplished.

That distinction is not technical. It is foundational. And it depends on ongoing dialogue.

The What: Direction, Priorities, Outcomes

The What belongs to the governing body acting collectively.

The What includes:

• Community or district-wide priorities
• Policy direction
• Desired outcomes
• The level of urgency attached to those outcomes
• Standards for accountability

When a council or board sets the What, it answers questions like:

• What outcomes matter most right now?
• What deserves concentrated attention?
• What can continue steadily?
• What does success look like?

The What defines direction and expectation.

It does not require the governing body to design operational steps. It does not involve assigning tasks to individual staff members. It does not include directing departments or principals in their daily work.

When elected officials move from defining What into prescribing How, even with good intentions, accountability blurs. Staff begin receiving mixed signals. The manager or superintendent becomes accountable to individual preferences rather than collective direction.

The internal dialogue weakens.

The How: Strategy, Management, Execution

The How belongs to professional leadership.

In cities and counties, that is the manager or administrator.

In school districts, it is the superintendent.

The How includes:

• Designing comprehensive strategies
• Sequencing initiatives
• Allocating resources
• Supervising personnel
• Implementing policy
• Reporting progress

Once the governing body defines the What, the professional leader determines the How and holds the organization accountable for execution.

This is not a silent handoff. It requires disciplined conversation.

Managers and superintendents return with plans, options, resource implications, and metrics. Governing bodies ask clarifying questions. Expectations are refined. Progress is monitored.

This exchange is the essential internal dialogue of governance — direction met with strategy, expectation met with execution.

Strategic Confidence as Partnership

Clarity about What and How produces something essential: Strategic Confidence.

Strategic Confidence is the shared assurance that the governing body’s priorities are clearly identified, mutually understood, and actively pursued with defined accountability.

It is also partnership.

Elected officials need confidence that their direction is recognized and advanced. Managers and superintendents need clarity about what they are accountable for delivering.

Each depends on the other.

This partnership is a form of disciplined dialogue:

Direction offered.

Strategy proposed.

Expectations clarified.

Progress reported.

When that dialogue is steady, trust deepens. When it falters, suspicion grows.

Strategic Confidence is not built through a single vote or retreat. It grows through repeated, clear exchanges between the governing body and professional leadership.

Structuring the Dialogue Through Priorities

One practical way to strengthen this partnership is to structure priorities clearly.

Immediate Priorities: Focused Urgency

Immediate priorities should be few. Ideally one. Occasionally, two or three at most.

The discipline of naming a single Immediate priority can be transformative. It forces clarity. It compels the governing body to ask:

“If we could advance only one major outcome right now, what would it be?”

Identifying one primary Immediate priority does not diminish other commitments. It signals unified focus. It tells professional leadership where concentrated energy should go first.

Immediate priorities sharpen the What.

Strategic Priorities: Deliberate Planning

Strategic priorities are areas where the governing body directs professional leadership to develop or update a comprehensive strategy and return with recommendations.

Here the exchange is explicit.

Council or Board sets the What:

“This outcome matters. We expect progress.”

The manager or superintendent develops the How:

“Here is the strategy, timeline, cost, and measures of success.”

This back-and-forth is governance at its best. It keeps direction and execution aligned without collapsing the distinction between them.

Ongoing Priorities: Steady Advancement

Ongoing priorities are commitments expected to continue along established paths with regular reporting. They require disciplined follow-through and predictable check-ins. Not reinvention at every meeting, but steady conversation about progress.

Ongoing priorities sustain the dialogue without reopening settled direction unnecessarily.

Protecting the Line, Sustaining the Dialogue

This framework works only if both sides protect the line between What and How.

Elected officials must resist directing operational details or intervening in personnel matters. Professional leadership must resist allowing ambiguity to persist or quietly redefining priorities.

The distinction is not about hierarchy. It is about a partnership grounded in integrity and accountability.

When the governing body owns the What and professional leadership owns the How, governance steadies.

Meetings become less reactive. Reports align with stated priorities. Focus sharpens. Progress is measurable.

Most importantly, the internal dialogue strengthens.

And that matters.

Because before a council or school board can engage its community in meaningful dialogue, it must model dialogue within its own walls — between direction and execution, between those elected to lead and those entrusted to manage.

When that partnership is clear and disciplined, Strategic Confidence takes root.

And with it, governance becomes not only more effective, but more trustworthy.

Follow Matt on Substack.