Board meetings

Director Independence: a Nonprofit Board Issue?

 

Director Independence: a Nonprofit Board Issue?

By: Eugene Fram       Free Digital Photo

In the best of all nonprofit worlds, every board member is an independent agent whose ability to make critical decisions on behalf of the organization is regularly uncompromised by outside pressures. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. Based on field observation I have concluded that questionable practices can plague nonprofit boards when social or political pressures are brought to bear on a board member. In governance terms nonprofit decision-makers should be “outside directors,” not overtly or covertly susceptible to management or board colleague personal pressures.

Discerning recruitment committees can screen candidates to be certain they are not subject to influences that might impair their judgment as board members. Lack of independence could easily divide and perhaps polarize the board as has happened in our country’s Congress. A candidate who is “sponsored” by a major donor and maintains personal ties with the donor can create a “hornet’s nest” for the recruitment group. There are no easy solutions to these problems.

Some typical examples of the apparent loss of independence:

• The legacy challenge. A board member is appointed to the board largely because his family has served on the board for generations, not because of his talent and/or commitment to the mission. If there are too many “legacies” on board, the optimal range of perspectives is narrowed resulting in inadequate discussion of potential actions.
• The chief executive does not keep a professional social distance from the board chair and/or other board members. For example, their families are frequently engaged socially.
• In “prestige boards,” a business or professional person persuades the board to accept a candidate who is business associate because he/she is a “good person” who needs board experience for networking purposes.
• A candidate for a directorship has significantly caused problems on another nonprofit board, but a current active board member, a friend of the candidate, wants him to be elected so that he/she can be given a second chance.

What Can Be Done? Sometimes Nothing: But:

• Clearly acknowledge the challenges where they exist and then seek new candidates without such encumbering ties.
• If possible, try to confront the situation directly, if it does not cause a schism within your board. Develop a policy, not a rule, which allows someone to open discussion if one of these issues arises.
• Make independence one of the characteristics desired for board candidates and clearly acknowledge what is meant by the term.
• A nonprofit board member can serve only one master—the organization’s mission. On the other hand, no nonprofit board that I have encountered is totally independent.
 As long as a board has enough members who are not beholden to other interests there should be no impairment in achieving the organization’s goals.

This type of subtle influence is rarely discussed, and to my knowledge, has never been researched. But, if left unattended by nonprofit recruitment committees, it can lead to political board schisms that seriously impact the organization.

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

By: Eugene H. Fram.      Free Digital Image

Yes, if the organization has the following structure:

Board With A Volunteer Chairperson
Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations
Executive Director for Division A
Executive Director for Division B

However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena. The executive director should have final authority for all operational matters related to the organization, except those designated for the board in the bylaws. For example, pensions plan changes.

The big question is who carries the CEO title. Some nonprofits, in their early stages, have a volunteer, part-time, President/CEO and an operational Executive Director. This signifies the volunteer, representing the will of the board, can have final authority in implementing board operational policies/strategies. This is not a good structure because the CEO title might lead to the volunteer having liabilities that other board members don’t have.

(more…)

A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

By:  Eugene Fram                   Free Digital Image

It happens: one or both of the two nonprofit engines—governance and/or management — sputters out, yet the organization continues to meet its goals and deliver adequate service to its constituents. Some examples: a child placement agency manages to maintain the quality of its oversight while struggling to deal with an admittedly inept board and CEO. Another example: An ineffective volunteer board at a youth center, meeting quarterly for a couple of hours, allows the CEO to really manage the board and to motivate the staff. The CEO realized she and the agency were in dangerous positions without an innovative board providing standard oversight, although client services were positive. (more…)

Different Strokes For Nonprofit Board Folks

Different Strokes For Nonprofit Board Folks

By: Eugene Fram     Free Digital Photo

Over decades of service on nonprofit boards, I have interfaced with board colleagues who possess a variety of performance styles and behaviors. Certain of these types seem to be common to all boards. My comments below are based on adaptations of a board member classification system suggested by David Frankel, Partner of Founder Collection. *

The Eager Beaver  

This board member (usually 30s to early 40s) has probably been successful as an entrepreneur or is, perhaps, rapidly rising through middle management in a larger organization. He/she wants to “get things done”. His/her impatience with the typically slow nonprofit rate of progress can be channeled and directed by the CEO or Board Chair. Discouraged by lack of action, this director may quietly exit the board on the pretext that work pressures have increase. On the other hand, if properly nurtured, board members in this category can offer substantial leadership contributions.  

The Checked-Out Check Writer 

Serving on a nonprofit board has likely become a family or company tradition for some board members. (Some local nonprofits are now about 100 years old or older.) Regardless of the person’s dedication to the mission, nonprofit board service becomes part of this board member’s DNA. Often they develop into respected leaders and can be conduits to modest or substantial donations. In addition, they have access to interpersonal networks that are useful in recruiting other able board members. This board cohort should be valued and its contributions, acknowledged.

The Vanilla Director 

This is a board member who attends meetings regularly, occasionally makes an interesting comment. He/she is dedicated to the mission of the organization and can make substantial financial or other contributions. One such director I observed, volunteered to assist the staff with a difficult field problem.  According to Frankel, these board members are “less critical and offer encouragement…. ” However, like many other nonprofit board members, across behavioral types, avoid rigorous discussions at board meetings. If substantial conflict appears between factions of the board on a major issue, they may resign instead of taking an unpopular stand.

The Nonprofit Entrepreneur

This is a director who has a substantial understanding of the nonprofit sector. He/s has served on other nonprofit boards and is dedicated to the nonprofit’s mission. He/s has a desire to help move the nonprofit to its next level of service to clients. He/s often brings bold or different perspectives to the board and management. She/h knows that to achieve growth and improve client services, it is necessary to “sell” ideas to other board members, as well as the CEO. It’s important that the nonprofit entrepreneur and CEO are on the same page in terms of the organization’s future and potential to serve clients. If not, the CEO, unfortunately, may view the entrepreneur with his/h “fast track” style as a disrupter.

An overview of nonprofit boards tends to focus on the unique set of skills and work experience they bring to the table (physicians, professors, accountants, full-time retirees etc.) A closer look at the board suggests another layer of classification i.e. individual styles, motivation and behaviors. Herein is challenge and opportunity to develop meaningful board experiences for each individual who has said “yes” to the call to service.*

* https://hackernoon.com/eight-people-youll-meet-on-your-board-of-directors-8963863d4a03  

Once Again!  The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert

Once Again!  The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert

By: Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

“According to a Washington Post analysis of the filings from 2008-2012 … of more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations, … there was a ‘significant diversion’ of nonprofit assets, disclosing losses attributed to theft, investment frauds, embezzlement and other unauthorized uses of funds.” The top 20 organizations in the Post’s analysis had a combined potential total loss of more than a half-billion dollars. *

One estimate, by Harvard University’s Houser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, suggests that fraud losses among U.S. nonprofits are approximately $40 billion a year. **

Vigilant nonprofit boards might prevent many of these losses. Here’s how:

(more…)

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

By Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

 As an antidote to the leadership succession problems that have plagued business and nonprofits in the last several decades, the Authentic Leadership model proposed by William George, Harvard professor, may be of interest. Following are my views on how his guidelines can be useful to directors and managers in the nonprofit environment. (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/authentic-leadership-rediscovered)

Authentic leadership is built on your character, not your style: According to George, these leaders must have flexible styles to be able to fill different role at different times—coach, mentor and inspiring others who must work with a minimum of management guidance. Example: He/s has to “stay on message” in any discussions of mission, vision and values. This is especially important when the economic environment is turbulent.

Because nonprofit boards must draw their candidates from a broad base of backgrounds, any board, in my opinion, can only hope to have three or four board members who can be authentic leaders and eventually fill the board chair position. Often professionals, such as physicians, professors and lawyers, as independent contributors, can lack leadership and strategic insights. Consequently, the CEO must contribute these insights when such a knowledge gap exists on the board in relation to strategy. Several nonprofit boards I have recently encountered, mainly composed of mid-level managers and independent professionals have lacked a single board member with any strategic background. Results: The strategic plan consisted of a broad-brush “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT) analysis. Hardly a valuable planning document for the 21st century.

In terms of management selection, boards need to seek those who can make the hard decisions such as CEO termination and/or having to implement a board decision that is vigorously opposed by a small minority. But the leader must still remain an authentic person, even under these difficult circumstances. Example: One CEO I encountered had the amazing ability of being able to fire a subordinate but still maintain good interpersonal relations with the person—an amazing interpersonal managerial talent, indicating an authentic leader.

Authentic leaders are real and genuine. A nonprofit board member can be a distant personality to the management and staff. Only a crisis may determine the level of authenticity of his or her leadership style. But board members in working with management and staff on projects and in social contacts need to show that they are flexible and fair persons in their decision processes. Nonprofits are somewhat different from for-profits because the staff can be only two organizational levels below the board. Consequently staff members monitor board changes closely because they know a new strong personality can impact their futures and working conditions. Example: Two professors persuaded their board colleagues to adopt an overly detailed Management by Objectives program. It stressed the staff to spend a huge amount of time reviewing and assessing objectives, instead of client center work.

One way to view these characteristics is in the evaluation process of the CEO and organization. The process must be unscrupulously rigorous but fair to all concerned. (Example: see http://bit.ly/OvF4ri) Otherwise the management and staff will view the board as a distant body, only dedicated to financial results. Organizational morale will be impacted.

Authentic leaders are constantly growing. In terms of their board membership, they are seeking to learning about the organization’s environment, concerns and opportunities. They are curious people always seeking insights into the personal, professional, cultural and civic worlds in which they live. Harvard’s George defines their behaviors in this way, “ They do not have a rigid view of themselves and their leadership. Becoming authentic is a developmental state that enables leaders to progress through multiple roles, as they learn and grow from their experiences.”

Authentic leaders match their behavior to their context. Often they may have modest Intelligence Levels (IQ) levels but they have very high Emotional Intelligence (EQ), providing them with outstanding people skills. They can quickly recognize interpersonal challenges around them, and they provide moderating solutions. Many are described as not being quick to anger. Most importantly in the nonprofit board situation, they can empathize with board, management and staff problems, even though their full-time occupations are outside the organization’s mission arena.

Authentic leaders are not perfect, nor do they try to be. Nobody does his/h job perfectly, and authentic nonprofit board leaders are quick to accept this reality for themselves and others around them, for example the CEO.  They know from experience that leaders can learn from their mistakes and become better leaders.

Summary
Authentic leaders are frequently chosen today for the key roles in business and nonprofits, according to William George. In an era when nonprofits are being challenged by budget cuts and a surplus of unfulfilled client needs, it behooves board nominations and CEO search committees to review the above list of behaviors. Those who are fortunate to engage these leaders, in turn, should improve board and staff performance –“A” players hire “A” players.

Are Your Nonprofit’s CEO Succession Plans COVID Updated?

 

Are Your Nonprofit’s CEO Succession Plans COVID Updated?

By:Eugene Fram          Free Digital Image

“CEO succession planning is one of the most important responsibilities of a (nonprofit) board…”  * Yet others and I find it to be a neglected responsibly.  In the for-profit arena, a mistake in choosing the wrong CEO can “lead to a loss of $1.7 billion in shareholder value in addition to a loss of organizational confidence and momentum.“ *

Choosing the wrong nonprofit CEO in a situation when I was a board member set in motion a year of staff turmoil, lost growth potentials, decline in the nonprofits reputation and an uncalculated financial loss.  After a post-turmoil CEO took the helm, the agency prospered for more than twenty-five years.

Based on a national study of for-profit boards, following are some COVID-19 CEO succession questions that nonprofit board members should consider now. *

Is our emergency successor still right for this environment?  Is the internal successor capable of managing under turmoil conditions?  If not, a new external person needs to be contacted.  Often this turns out to be a consultant in the mission field.  It’s important to reevaluate all external options now for the CEO’s ability to manage under unprecedented conditions.

Is our CEO role specification still right?  Over several decades, I have encountered a number of what I would call, “mind-the-store” CEOs.  These persons have: nice personalities, keep expenses within budgeted incomes, but are not proactive in seeking innovation and change.  Unfortunately, these types of CEOs can satisfy their boards for decades under what might have been considered normal circumstances. Because CEOs have a better grasp of current mission-related trends, boards and CEOs should strategically positioned  for the Post-COVID 19 period, even while addressing unusual operational challenges.

Do we have the right people in our near-term succession pipeline– are they prepared?  The selection of the CEO is the only employment decision that nonprofit boards make.  But they are also required to overview the near-term staff succession pipeline for those with very special talents.  For many nonprofit boards, this involves an uncomfortable discussion of who might be in line to succeed the CEO or other senior managers should any become temporarily incapacitated.

Is your board ready and able to have these discussions?  Under current tenure requirements, the average tenure for nonprofit board members centers around six years—two six-year terms or three two-year terms. As a result of this brief tenure, many board members may feel that simply raising the question of CEO succession suggests a lack of the CEO’s abilities to manage.  It also may cause board conflict, if suggested.  However, it is simply the members’ due diligence responsibility and, if ignored, can cause strategic problems for the organization.

First Steps: *  Review your leadership/experiential criteria.  The abilities a nonprofit CEO may need may change substantially.  Working with the CEO, nonprofit boards need to take the lead in surfacing these criteria, for example, better understanding of IT requirements.·     

Ensure that your emergency (succession) plan is more than just a single name on an envelope. It’s a good idea to have a process ready for an unplanned exit by the CEO.   CEO experience criteria should be reviewed in depth every two years to be current.·     

Do now what you normally would put off for later.  Start listing the criteria that a CEO will need to operate successfully, emerging from the shock of the pandemic .  It will enable the board to consider the changes taking place. Also the CEO can have some guideposts on how his/h abilities need to be enhanced.

* https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/07/26/ceo-succession-plans-in-a-crisis-era/ 

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 directors, 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 43- 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 three 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.

Can Nonprofit Virtual Meetings Be Humanized?

 

 

Can Nonprofit Virtual Meetings Be Humanized?

By: Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

From my observations and those of my colleagues, virtual meetings are more efficient for reporting operational items like compliance updates.  But they lack the robust human social interactions provided by face-to-face meetings. 

 Some nonprofits will continue to increase the proportion of virtual meetings post-covid, both groups, those using it now and those using it post-covid, may now be looking to reduce the human deficit incurred.

Here are some suggestions:

More But Shorter Meetings:  Instead of monthly board meetings, schedule meetings every two months.. With the social intensity in the environment, some boards are being required to meet more frequently.  In advance of the meetings, ask the CEO to send a list of announcement types items, hopefully limited to one page.  (Have it understood that the one page may not meet the requirements of her/h high school English teacher!)

Onboarding New Board Members: A friend joined a nonprofit.  As a result of all virtual board and committee meetings she feels adrift of human connection. She might even not recognize some of her new colleagues if she passed them on the street.  This problem can be alleviated to some extent by arranging for the new member to have brief individual virtual meetings with other board members and senior managers.  It’s a hopefully a quick fix to a problem.

Strategic Planning. It was evident in the pre-corvid period that strategic planning needs to have a longer focus than the traditional three to five-year plan in order to achieve organizational sustainability. There are enough evidences of post-covid changes to continue strategic planning with small committees.  This involves more frequent, but shorter, virtual meetings for the planning committee and updates to the board.

Building Trust:  Having trust among board colleagues is critical to having a fully functioning board.  Talking directly to them, listening carefully and even watching body language or  face colorings.   Some people, for example, when agitated develop a flushed face.  None of this appears when meetings are virtual!  There are several actions Board Chairs and/or CEOs can take to help members to be better acquainted, hoping to lead to trusting relationships.

·      Good & Welfare Periods:  At the beginning or end of the virtual meeting ask members to share personal or professional events—promotions, marriages, children or grandchildren, etc.

·      Outside Presentation: At a virtual meeting, arrange for a local or national authority to  briefly talk about a mission related topic

·      Invite the board members’/managements’ spouses or significant others to also be involved. 

·      Other Interests: Invite board members/management persons to discuss unusual skills they have or other groups to which they belong that promotes the public interest.

·       Board Education:  Where possible continue board education via a virtual approach.  If staff persons participate, be certain presentations are rehearsed and that time restrictions are carefully followed.

Focusing on any of these four areas  in a time-compressed nonprofit environment can be difficult. In my opinion, nonprofit boards should review them to determine if they can help alleviate the obvious deficits inherent with virtual meetings.        

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

By Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

According to BoardSource, “ ‘Founderitis’ and ‘founder’s syndrome’ are terms often used to describe a founder’s resistance to change. When founderitis surfaces, the source of the dilemma often is a founder’s misunderstanding of his or her role in an evolving organization.” * I would like to suggest that a nonprofit CEO also might suffer from the “founderitis illness,” sometimes with the board only being mildly or completely unaware of it.

Board Member Tenure versus CEO

The average board member tenure is six years (e.g., two three year terms) as compared with the average almost 13-year CEO tenure. ** The CEO has twice as longer period to influence polices and strategies. More importantly, she/h has more opportunity and time to acquire background knowledge and influence the organization’s culture.

“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors

  • The board is a dependent one, cancels or reschedules major committee/board meeting when the CEO can’t attend.
  • The CEO is overly verbose in presenting background information at meetings.
  • Concurrently, the number of board member comments is limited at most meetings.
  • The CEO places limits on the types of contacts the staff can have with board members, in the name of avoiding staff “end runs. “
  • The CEO carefully covets outside relationships and donor relationships. Board members are only marginally involved in fund development.
  • The Executive Committee does not challenge the CEO when setting the agenda.
  • The nonprofit board is satisfied with marginal gains each year, without seeking broader challenges to provide enhanced client services.
  • The CEO’s performance isn’t rigorously assessed.
  • The board rarely, if ever, overviews CEO and staff talent successions.
  • Board actions and activities are not rigorously reviewed or discussed.
  • Led by the CEO, Board resistance to change is substantial.

What should the board do if the CEO takes charge like a founder?

Three Options:

Does Nothing: This assumes the CEO is performing reasonably well in developing positive program impacts, not outcomes. (i.e, Program objectives can be achieved, but they can have little impacts on clients.)

The CEO and Board are satisfied with program outcomes as performance measures. As a result, the organization inadvertently may not be innovative. In addition, long-term organizational sustainability may be compromised. There may be long-term challenges on the horizon that go beyond the typical three to five year planning cycles.

A majority of board members may feel comfortable with this option because the CEO acts strongly, even though he/s occasionally may encroach on a board’s perogrative.

Makes Changes: This will probably require the CEO & Board to change, modifying some of the behaviors listed above. The CEO then forms a partnership with a changing independent board.

Some board members will be satisfied the status quo, little is required of them. But others may want to remove a CEO who leads like a founder. Internal conflict will likely arise on both sides to delay or abort change.

A Solution? Don’t rock the boat. Only when the CEO, especially one with long tenure, suffering from “founderitis” makes a graceful exit will there be opportunity for change. Hopefully, the new CEO will develop a partnership culture with the board.

* https://boardsource.org/resources/founders-syndrome/

** See: “Average tenure of nonprofit CEO Nonprofit Times”