By: Eugene H. Fram

My blogs have been drawing an unusual number of views related to dysfunctional nonprofit boards.  Is it because:

• Nonprofit evaluations have become a prime media interest?
• Compliance regulations have forced a greater number of nonprofits to substantially review their charters?
• More boards have found board problems arising as a result of reviewing the expanded 990-form section on governance?
• More audit committees are being given expanded responsibilities?

Can a nonprofit organization focus on its mission vision and values if it has a dysfunctional nonprofit board?  I have seen this accomplished in situations where the CEO is managerially oriented and can live with the board’s problems or foibles.  For example, one nonprofit I encountered had an eleven person board, four of which never attended meetings and several others were sometimes absent for personal reasons.  Meeting minutes clearly showed a focus on operational detail. However a strong CEO was able to focus well, and the organization prospered. On the other hand,the CEO openly complained that she was overworked, needed board member assistance and easily could become financially liable board, missteps.  

In another situation I encountered, the board chair and ED were very strong, but the board governmentally weak. Work and family pressures constrained the time board members could devote to their governance responsibilities. While the organization performed reasonably well, performance problems and board liability issues might arise, if either the chair or ED retired or resigned.

Although not desirable station, a dedicated mission oriented staff can, at a minimum, perform reasonably well when its board may be dysfunctional.  However the following conditions are needed.

• Management is able to keep the staff focused on mission, vision and values.
• A legacy staff person(s) becomes a mentor(s) for more recently engaged staff. 
• The dysfunction is relatively brief and resolved by board member rotation.  If too long, organizational performance will decline.  
• Board members involved with the dysfunction do not seek to involve staff in their disputes.