Board Learning Opportunities

A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond
id-100121468

A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond

By Eugene Fram              Free Digital Photo

Here are tips to assure the best possible partnership between the board chair and CEO.

Keeping boards focused on strategic issues is a major challenge for nonprofit leaders.  This leadership crisis is intensified by the fact that board chairs tend to have short terms (according to BoardSource, 83% stay in office only one or two years). Thus, nonprofit CEOs  and board chairs need to bond quickly. For the good of the organization, they must come together swiftly and create a partnership that works. Here are golden rules for the CEO and board chair to follow:

1. Be sure the CEO and board chair share strategic issues with each other—negative as well as positive ones. A failure by either the chair or CEO to share information, such as a potential cash flow issue, can be disastrous for the nonprofit.

2. It’s critical for the CEO to conduct orientation sessions with a new chair, explaining the challenges facing the nonprofit, and reviewing the fundamentals of the mission. The CEO can help the chair keep the board focused on strategic issues, whether they’re programmatic or financial.  With many nonprofits electing a new president each year, the CEO needs to prioritize these tasks.

3. Make sure staff know who has the final say. Some employees mistakenly view the board chair as the ultimate authority, even when the organizational table lists the CEO as holding that position. As a result, they may try an end run around the CEO, asking the board to overturn the CEO’s decision about salaries, promotions, or programs, for example. Both the CEO and board chair must emphasize the fact that the CEO is the final authority. If they make this message clear enough, they can probably keep staff from attempting any end runs. If an end run still occurs, the board chair must refer the issue to the CEO for resolution, except if the CEO is being charged with malfeasance.

4. The CEO should arrange for individual board members to meet with management staff on occasion so that the board can gather information about how the organization is operated and obtain an understanding of the promotional abilities of managers. The Sarbanes-Oxley act (a federal statute relating to public corporation boards) recommends this process for for-profit boards, and it’s also a good one for nonprofit board members.

5. Give staff members opportunities to participate in strategic planning and to support board committees. The board chair and CEO should work together to arrange such board-staff interactions, including joint celebrations of organizational success.

6. The CEO and board chair need to agree on the use of ad hoc board committees or task forces and their relationship to standing committees. For example, should the HR/personnel committee be a standing one or only an ad hoc one to address major personnel policies? In the 21st century, a board should only have maximum of five standing committees, many can only have three.  If task forces are used to provide provide options for occasional policy issues, for example pension plan changes, there may be little need for a standing board HR/personnel committee.

7. The board chair and CEO should be the active leaders in fundraising efforts, with the CEO as administrative leader. The board chair and other board members must provide the CEO entrée to funding sources. They often need to accompany the CEO on fundraising visits. The CEO should keep the board chair informed of all entrepreneurial development activities being explored.

8. The board has only one major employment decision to make – to recruit and hire the CEO. It’s usually a long and exhausting process. But once it’s completed, the employment of all other staff personnel is the responsibility of the CEO and the CEO’s management team. For senior positions, most CEOs ask their chairs and/or other board members to meet with candidates, but the ultimate responsibility remains with the CEO.  The board also has a responsibility to overview staffing to make certain that adequate bench-strength in in place for succession placements,  at the CEO and the senior management

9. When hiring a CEO, or soon after employment, the board chair and CEO must face a stark reality—the need for emergency leadership should the CEO become temporarily incapacitated. These plans can either be established informally by the chair-CEO partnership or more formally via board resolution. The following are possible interim CEOs: a senior manager in the organization, a semi-retired experienced CEO living near headquarters, a consultant living in a neighboring city. CEO succession planning is an important issue for the partnership should the CEO decides to leave or retire.

10. The CEO can be helpful to the board chair in recruiting new board members by suggesting possible volunteer candidates or other contacts who have demonstrated an interest in the organization’s mission, vision, and values. Board candidates will want to meet with the CEO as part of the interview process. As a result, the two partners must agree on how to present the organization to board candidates.

11. The chair and CEO need to lead in establishing meeting agendas. The two partners must work together to assure there’s sufficient meeting time to discuss and resolve strategic issue While many nonprofits call their top executive the “executive director,” the term CEO or president/CEO is a more leader-focused.

12. For the current environment, board members should be ready and willing to be ready to involved in a heightened level of board activity.   If not, the board chair and board member should determine what constraints the member needs to be in place for his/h activity.

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

 

 

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

By: Eugene Fram          Free Digital Photo

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:

  • A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years.   This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.
  • The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.
  • The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.

Mitigating Oversight Barriers: There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four board members, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.

  • Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.
  • “New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 40- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.

Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.

  • Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.
  • NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.

Conclusion: Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.

Board Members:  Are Your Managers & Staffs Effectively Engaging Business Donors?

Board Members:  Are Your Managers & Staffs Effectively Engaging Business Donors?

By: Eugene Fram          Free Digital Image

Fund development should be a partnership between board members and CEOs/Development Officers, if the latter is available. However, I have noted that board members don’t take sufficient responsibility to make certain that CEOs and Development directors are well prepared when they approach potential business donors. This, in my view, is the first step in building a relationship fundraising approach. Many involved with NFP fundraising or management have spent their entire careers in the nonprofit environment, resulting in a gap in communicating with those in the business environment.*  Some may even privately believe that those in business contribute less significantly to society.  While little can be done about the latter, here is what I think can be done to fill or reduce the unfortunate gap in cultures often found between for-profits and nonprofits, especially when it relates to fund development.

Homework: Development officers, executive directors and others meeting potential business donor have an obligation to know a great deal about the potential donor’s firm. The worst opening for those seeking a business donation or grant is, “Tell me about what XXX produces.” It appears the solicitor has no interest in the environment in which the firm operates. In the Internet age, there is no excuse for such lapses. A Google or LinkedIn search is also critical in preparing to understand each of the persons who might be involved in initial contacts.

With this information, a conversation can be appropriately opened with “How’s business been recently?” It can be followed by a discussion of the donor’s industry trends and challenges, establishing a level of comfort for the donor.

What can your nonprofit do for the donor? Sophisticated development officers have ways of asking this important question. Some examples: (1) In the case of a university, this may range from suggesting capable entry-level employees for the firm to answering personal questions such as guidance on seek a relative’s admission to a selective university. (2) In the case of a nonprofit whose mission to assist qualified persons to find locate new employment, its work can be related to the firm when the firm has significant layoffs.

A Business Posture: A development officer or executive director needs to convey they have grounding in the business world and its basics, especially to be able to quickly show that their nonprofit is well managed. A recent study of Silicon Valley donors and nonprofit leaders cited a  empathy gap between the two.  Generally speaking, nonprofit leaders and new philanthropists don’t move in the same social circles. For the latter, community is increasingly defined not by physical place but by socioeconomic class: a particular psychographic and a set of shared experiences that only wealth can buy.*

The objective is to develop a continuing conversation with the donor related to his/h business interests and outlook. This offers a connection to show that the nonprofit fulfills a human service, professional or social need. These may include:

  • Explaining the scope of the “executive director” title directly or indirectly if the operating CEO does have the well-known title “president/CEO.” The ED title puzzles many in the business environment, since the top operational person in a business firm most often is the “president/CEO.” ** 
  • Showing the nonprofit has a viable mission that is being carefully shepherded and the organization doesn’t engage in mission creep. 
  • Clarifying that an achievable business plan is available.
  • Having a well managed internal structure that can achieve impacts for clients. (Like the results of the Zuckerberg gift to Newark schools, many business people are aware that process goals can be achieved without having client impacts.)

Unfortunately nonprofit organizations can have a reputation among members of the business community as being less effective and efficient than for-profit ones. These people may not have encountered many local nonprofit leaders, as I have, with significant management savvy. Consequently, nonprofit representatives first  need to be sure they begin their relationships with donors by showing interest in their business, industry, or firm. This then offers the opportunity to demonstrate that the nonprofit’s mission is managerially strong and looks to impacts, not processes, as measures of success.

*https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/key-trends-silicon-valley-philanthropy-tatiana-fedorova/

**https://non-profit-management-dr-fram.com/2010/05/31/non-profit-governance-executive-title-ceo-versus-executive-director/

How Prepared Are Board Members for the Challenges of the Nonprofit Culture?

 

 

How Prepared Are Board Members for the Challenges of the Nonprofit Culture?

By: Eugene Fram     Free Digital Image

Given that the typical tenure of a new board member is four to six years. And assuming that a new board member’s intention is to make his/her unique contribution to the organization’s progress before he/s rotates off the board and is supplanted by another “new” board member. With these factors in mind, I estimate that many volunteers enter the boardroom with little understanding of nonprofit culture. Even those who have served previously on business boards may initially spend valuable time in accommodating to the nuances of nonprofit practices and priorities before being poised to make contributions to the “greater good” that nonprofit create. Following are some areas that are endemic to nonprofits:

(more…)

Does Your Nonprofit Have A Process For Implementing Strategy?

 

Does Your Nonprofit Have A Process For Implementing Strategy?

By: Eugene Fram           Free Digital Image  

My observation is that intense interest in nonprofit organizational strategy only takes place  very three or five years when the strategic plan needs to be reviewed.  The cause, as I see it, is that substantial numbers of nonprofit board members and senior managers lack substantial strategic  backgrounds and interests to enable them to give the plan implementation attention. Most boards I have encountered are fortunate to have one or two  board members with broad based strategic experiences. With nonprofit board members rotating every four to six years, it’s likely that any board member will only participate in one strategic plan change experience.  Also some nonprofit CEOs and senior managers can be directly appointed from staff positions, lacking knowledge of strategy development.    

Based on a survey of commercial organizations by McKinsey, it appears that these boards and their managements have similar strategic challenges as nonprofits. * 

Following (in bold) are McKinsey’s three suggestions for implementing strategy development and my suggestions for adapting them to nonprofit organizations (more…)

Common Practices Nonprofit Boards Need To Avoid

 

Common Practices Nonprofit Boards Need To Avoid

Peter Rinn, Breakthrough Solutions Group, * published a list of weak nonprofit board practices. Following are some of the items listed (in bold) and my estimation of what can be done about them, based on my experiences as a nonprofit board director, board chair and consultant.

• Dumbing down board recruitment – trumpeting the benefits and not stressing the responsibilities of board membership. Board position offers frequently may be accepted without the candidate doing sufficient due diligence. At the least, the candidate should have a personal meeting with the executive director and board chair. Issues that need to be clarified are meeting schedules, “give/get” policies and time expectations. In addition, the candidate, if seriously interested, should ask for copies of the board meeting minutes for one year, the latest financials, and the latest IRS form 990.. These reports and the data revealed tell a great about the sustainability and impact of the nonprofit.

• Overlooking the continued absence of board members at board meetings, strategic and planning meetings. Many bylaws have provisions dropping board members who do not meet meeting attendance criteria established by the bylaws. However, such actions are difficult to execute because of the interpersonal conflicts that can arise. For example, one organization with which I am familiar had a director who did not attend any meetings, but did make a financial contribution to the organization. When his resignation was requested, he refused. Not wanting to create conflict, the board simply kept him on the board roster until his term expired and then sent him a note acknowledging the end of his term. The board chair, not the CEO, has a responsibility to have a personal conversation with the recalcitrant director. He/s needs to offer a “tough love” message in the name of the board.

• Taking a board action without conducting enough due diligence to determine whether the transaction is in the nonprofit’s best interest. Although each board member should sign conflict of interest statement each year, my impression is that this is rarely done. Board members should understand the potential personal liabilities that might be accrued as a result of violation of the federal Intermediate Sanctions Act (IRS Section 4958) and other statues. For example, under IRS 4958, a board member can have his or her personal taxes increased if involved in giving an excess benefit, such as selling property to the wife of a board member for less than the market rate. Some boards and their members need to be frequently reminded about their “due-care” responsibilities.

• Allowing board members to be re-elected to the board, despite bylaw term limitations. This often occurs when the board has given little thought to a succession plan, and the only person who seems qualified is currently in place. It also happens when the board has significant problems and nobody on the board wants to take the time to hold a time consuming position. Some boards, however, have a bylaw exception that allows a board chair, if scheduled for rotation, an extra year or two to be chairperson. Succession planning needs to be a yearly routine for top managers and for the board itself.

• Allowing board members to ignore their financial obligations to the nonprofit. To assess board interest in a nonprofit, foundations and other funders like to know that every board member makes a financial contribution within their means or participates in the organization’s “give/get” program. This topic should be discussed at the outset of recruitment so it can be full understood by all directors.

• Overselling the protection of a Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) insurance and laws limiting the liability of directors. The importance of a nonprofit having a D&O policy, even a small one, can’t be overstated. I recently encountered a nonprofit that had operated for seventeen years without a D&O policy, although its annual budget was $500,000, and it was responsible for real estate valued at least $24 million. Each director should be knowledgeable about the potential personal liabilities involved with the board position. Frequently, board members assume that a D&O insurance policy covers too wide a range of situations.

• Allowing ignorance and poor practices to exist keeps leadership in control. Changing leadership and practice is difficult for both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. However, in the nonprofit environment it is more difficult because poor leadership and practices can continue for a long time period, as long as current revenues meet expenditures. They can even become part of the organization’s culture. In some situations, this state of affairs continues because the board has low expectations of management and staff. It’s critical that the leadership needs to be thoroughly evaluated annually.

There is much that nonprofit boards can do about avoiding common practices that weaken the effectiveness of the board.

* aka The Nonprofit Entrepreneur, Placitas, New Mexico

Anticipating Tomorrow’s Nonprofit Crises Today

 

Anticipating Tomorrow’s Nonprofit Crises Today

By: Eugene Fram            Free Digital Image

In the decades in which I have been a nonprofit/business board member or consultant, I fortunately have only been in the mire of a crisis situation twice.   In both cases, the board was totally unprepared to take appropriate actions to minimize the turmoil that followed.

Following some guidelines that nonprofit boards can use to plan to respond effectively to crises in the 21st century: *

(more…)

Should Mature Nonprofits Allow Board Micromanagement?

 

Should Mature Nonprofits Allow Board Micromanagement?

Commonly accepted View of  Nonprofit Micromanagement: Board members spend more time with the details of the operations instead of planning the organization’s short-term and long-term growth strategies. 

The Need for a Micromanaging Board
Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when a nonprofit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the volunteer board members must assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of clients to service. It is not unusual to promote a person who is only familiar with direct service to become the first chief executive of the organization. In turn , this neophyte manager has to depend on board members for managerial counsel and direction. A culture of board dependency is created out of necessity.

Problems Arise
The micromanaging board is a worthy model for smaller nonprofits that stay at a start-up level for a long time. Some nonprofits retain this governance model, with its dependency relationships, long after it is needed. Example: One nonprofit I encountered required its department heads to first discuss major issues with designated board members before reviewing them with the chief executive, e.g., the program manager follows instructions of the board program committee chair.

Major Organizational Impacts Of Continuing Micromanagement
• Management and staffs wait for board signals or instructions before taking action. One CEO reported: “I give the board options and let them choose the course of action.” Implication: I don’t want the responsibility for the action chosen. “The board told me to implement it.”
• It’s more difficult to hire talented managers with these types of organizations. Most, from CEO down, are “C” players. They fear “A” and “B” players and then hire more “C” players like themselves. More qualified personnel may reject offers.
• Management & staff just don’t have the “right stuff” to be creative. They don’t properly question authority. Boards are shown great deference.
• Impacts and outcomes at best are minimal, but this is not readily recognized by the community or sponsoring organization. As long as income meets expenses each year, the board does not note any long-term red flags.

Changing the Culture — The Important Issue
Governance and management changes do not occur easily when an organization has maintained a micromanagement culture well beyond the start-up period. Following are some ways that I have seen changes take place.
• Several forward-looking members of the board, including the chair, develop a plan to seek change. Opinion leaders or well-respected veterans must be included.
• Over time, often a year or more, a change plan is developed and then formally adopted by the board. This usually involves giving the chief executive full responsibility for operations, along with a robust annual assessment of the CEO and operations.
• During the process, all stakeholders must be informed about the proposed changes, and the reasons for change. Naysayers will quietly spread internal and external rumors about it. Actual Example: “We will be losing our family culture and our great interpersonal relationships.”
• The CEO must be in favor of the changes to be instituted. If not, the board needs to wait until the CEO retires or leaves. Of course, the board can terminate the CEO, but this will certainly lead to conflict with the staff and the stakeholder constituency he/s has developed.
• When a new CEO is engaged, make certain the person has a desire and some experience to manage and the interpersonal skills to relate to the staff at its current state.
• Some members of the board will become “displaced directors,” persons cemented to the older order. Look for them to resign quietly and/or take potshots at the new governance-management arrangement. Actual Example: In one organization, when the traditional ED title for the chief executive was abandoned and the title President /CEO instituted, a board member derisively questioned, “Do we call him ‘Presco’ ?”

Summary
The tendency of nonprofit boards to micromanage organizational operations is still prevalent. In fact, it appears to be part of the nonprofit’s DNA! With the huge problems confronting nonprofits, it’s high time for a 21st century culture change!

Do Your Board Members View Their Board Work As Being Meaningful?

 

Do Your Board Members View Their Board Work As Being Meaningful?

By Eugene Fram                  Free Digital Image

For several decades, I have suggested that nonprofit Board Chairs and CEOs have a responsibility to be sure that each board member perceives his/h continuing relationship as being meaningful. Following are some organizational guidelines that can assist Board Chairs and CEOs in this effort.*

  1. Developing or hiring strong executive leadership: Obviously when hiring externally it is necessary to engage a person with a managerial background. But many nonprofit CEOs can be appointed after years of being an individual contributor or leading a small department. These experiences condition them to do too much themselves, rather than to assume a strong management posture. This involves focusing more on strategy, on talent development, interacting more with the board/community and creating a long-term vision.

A strong CEO, if appointed internally, should understand the role changes that take place once appointed. He/s must delegate activities that were once performed within a comfort zone and seek new challenges. Examples: The new CEO needs to be enthusiastic about becoming a fundraiser.   She/h must become well acquainted with peer CEOs regionally and nationally to stay abreast of the state-of-art in both management and mission areas. He/s needs to become acquainted with cohorts in the business and public management communities. Over time, those involved with the nonprofit internally and externally must perceive the organization is lead by a capable executive.

  1. Creating impact: In the 21st century, funders, board members and other nonprofit leaders are attracted to organizations that create impacts as opposed to outcomes. A nonprofit can have great program outcomes with little long-term impacts on clients. Impact is often hard to measure, but it can be done, only if started with imperfect measures that are improved over time. ** For example, one local human services organization, with which I am acquainted, operates groups of apartments offering social services that allow elderly clients to live independently for years on their own, rather than in an assisted living facility. The impact in this instance is well-defined and an impetus to attracting board members and donors that find the impact meaningful.
  2. Building relationships externally and internally: Board candidates who have broad contact networks are sought by search committees to enhance community or industry relationships or to strengthen the organization’s fund development efforts. Little effort is directed to fostering closer relationships among current board members who often don’t get to know each other personally because of crowded board and committee agendas. Example: I consulted with one board where some board members complained that they might not recognize their board peers when they meet them in outside social situations.

To solve the problem, both the Board Chair & CEO must acknowledge that it exists—in the above example; it took an extensive personal interview board survey to highlight the problem.   Then creative tactics like the following can be employed.

  • One CEO has a weekly one-hour conference call with the board chair to discuss current issues. Other board members are invited to join the calls if they wish. This is an excellent way for new board members to quickly become attuned to the nonprofit.
  • Another CEO, each Sunday, sends a one-page e-mail summary of major events to board members. He reports that his high school English teacher would never approve of his grammar or structure, but he knows emails are reviewed. They are reflected in the level of discussions at meetings
  • Low-key self-funded social events for board members and significant others can help board members to become better acquainted and work together.
  • Another classical approach is to allow 10 minutes each meeting to allow board members to briefly report changes in their personal or professional lives.
  • Assuming an organization is successful in developing a cohesive board, what can be done to retain these efforts once they have termed-out? The answer is to ask them to join the organization’s “Alumni Association.”   The process can be found here: (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ltl.20305)

  1. Organizational stability: Unstable nonprofits have common telltale signs—rapid employees or management turnover, excessive bank borrowing, reserve depletion, late report filings, etc. It’s difficult to provide meaningful board experiences under these conditions. However it is not unusual to find board members who will accept responsibility when the nonprofit is unstable, if they are dedicated to its mission. A few may  “enjoy” a board position  to be involved in the turnaround challenge.

While no nonprofit will be perfect, those with the best opportunity to provide meaningful board experiences will have a well formulated strategic plan that allows it to be stable operationally and financially.

*https://grantspace.org/resources/blog/high-impact-volunteer-engagement-six-factors-for-success/

** https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/07/24/using-imperfect-metrics-well-tracking-progress-and-driving-change/

 

Board Member Networking Pays Off for Nonprofits

Board Member Networking Pays Off for Nonprofits

By Eugene Fram    Free Digital Image

Over decades of nonprofit board membership and consulting, I have rarely observed volunteer board members effectively networking with their peers to develop best board practices. Also rarely do I see them accompany management to regional or national conferences related to the nonprofit’s mission. These types of exposures are necessary to have groups of board members capable of making generative suggestions.

For directors who are willing and able to network, I suggest the following: 

(more…)