Board micromanagement

Nonprofit Board Members Must Be Vigilant

By: Eugene Fram

Based on the outcome of the Lemington Homes case precedent cited below, not being rigorous about their due care evaluation responsibilities can be peronally costly to nonprofit board mmbers.

The personal cost of director inattentiveness is made painfully clear in an important federal appeals court decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals decided the decision, in re Lemington Homes, on January 26, 2015 for the Third Circuit. … [T]hese difficult facts arose from a small, nonprofit organization. … Yet the standards for board members applied by the appeals court are quite clear.* (The case results) also addresses the appropriateness of punitive damages against officers and board members…).

The court determined that (15 of 17) board members took no action, despite clear evidence of deficient care to the institution’s residents. …[T]his breach of care, (led to) $2,250,000 in joint and several compensatory damages. As such, the decision offers a particularly valuable — and practical — board education opportunity.

The lack of nonprofit director and officer care is not unusual, possibly because board members are part-time volunteers, sometimes not understanding their potential liabilities.

Following are some examples of board laxity that I have encountered over the decades that I have been involved with nonprofits that might lead to personal liabilikty.

• Failure to assess staff realities – A social work staff became concerned with the authoritarian style of a newly appointed ED. The community style board felt that to avoid negatively publicity about the agency it needed to give the ED a second chance to improve relations. In the meantime a local electrical workers union heard about the problem and, without the board’s knowledge, began to take steps to unionize the agency’s social work staff. At the end of six difficult months, the staff voted to be unionized, and the ED was fired for failing to develop positive staff relationships. The organization’s United Way funding was temporarily placed in jeopardy — a reputation loss to the board members and management.

• Lacks an effective audit committee — I have encountered many nonprofit boards that don’t have an audit committee, even when it is a state requirement. This is especially prevalent when nonprofit boards feel too rigorous an examination indicates that the board does not trust management and staff. The other extreme that has been reported in the press is where the ED is clearly guilty of an offense, but the board refuses to take proper action and state authorities have to replace the board members.

• Board members don’t protect each other — I have encountered situations where the board has refused to purchase D&O insurance for its directors and managers. The faulty rationale was that the board is very close to the finances, and “(fraud) can’t happen here.” At the time, the board had responsibilities for a $400K annual budget, a $700K reserve fund and $24 million in real estate assets. Note, if a $1 million D&O policy only covered theboard member fines in the Lemington Homes case, the 15 directors together would be personally responsible for the balance, an aver each plus a reputation loss.

• Boards are not attentive to compliance basics such as: —
1. Making certain that all directors are thoroughly familiar with duties of due care; their responsibilities related to the IRS Form 990, the Intermediate Sanctions Act and the basics of fund accounting for financial reports
2. Requiring all persons involved with finances take two weeks vacation each year.
3. Making certain that the board and top management are serious about punishing those who use organizational resources for themselves.
4. Requiring board members to sign a conflict of interest statement each year.
5. Making certain that all non-routine expenditures over XX have signatures of two board members.
6. Making certain all persons with access to cash are covered by a surety bond policy.
7. Changing auditing firms or the partner in charge of the account every three to five years.

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

By: Eugene Fram         

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.

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

By: Eugene Fram 

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

     

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 those services is often not so clear.

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 can be difficult for nonprofits to achieve.  

The Executive Committee

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 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.

Board Recruitment

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?). Board members also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-today issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability. 

In general, nonprofit boards also need to seek board candidates with certain behavioral characteristics, such as persons who:

  •  are adept at critical thinking and high level strategy development,
  • have substantial experiences in an allied area to the mission,
  • have a depth of experiences with both for-profit/nonprofit boards and can act as models for those having their first board nonprofit board experience. 

Recruiting these types of candidates requires vetting that goes beyond reviewing what is normally listed on resumes.  With many nonprofit board members living time compressed lifestyles, will they have the time and motivations to do the additional vetting?

Micromanagement

The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. With some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to allows the board to be involved in operational areas that should be delegated to management.  This can be a nonprofit challenge when the board enjoys the process and a weak ED likes the excuse, “the board told me to do it,” when a decision causes a problem.  Sometime the change has to wait until the ED leaves and/or the nonprofit acquires a group of  board members who can establish an organizational line between strategy development and operational tactics.

Is Your Nonprofit Forward Focused or a Prisoner of the Past?

g

By Eugene Fram                          

It’s no secret that some board members cruise through their term of board service with minimal involvement. McKinsey Company, a well-known consulting firm, has suggested five steps that can be used to counteract this passivity in for-profit boards. * With a few tweaks, McKinsey suggestions (in bold) are relevant to the nonprofit board environment where director engagement is often a challenge.

Engaging between meetings: Nonprofit boards traditionally meet monthly, bimonthly or quarterly. Unless the board is a national one, these meetings range from one to three hours, with the three hours being typical of quarterly meetings. The meeting agendas are usually packed, and they leave little time for individual directors to enhance discussions. ** In addition, a sense of anonymity develops among board members who do not know each other personally, a significant barrier to team building. I have encountered nonprofit boards where disconnect between board colleagues is simply a nod—or less– when passing each other.

Board cohesion based on interpersonal relationships has an important impact on the quality of board discussions. It allows a board member to more fully understand the perspectives and goals of his/her fellow board members or “where they’re coming from.” With this information at hand on both sides of a discussion, it increases the possibility of creating “win-win” impacts for the nonprofit.

Responsibility for promoting between-meeting engagements needs to rest with the board chair. As a staring point, the chair can sponsor a few informal Jefferson dinners. The topic should be a cause which can excite the invitees. It needs to be, a challenge to the directors. ***

Engage with strategy as it’s forming—do not just review & approve it: Traditionally most of what becomes an organization’s strategy will emanate from the management and staff. But the board must proactively help to form strategy or step in to fill gaps when the management refuses to do it.

In forming strategy the board has an obligation to make certain all viewpoints are heard. Staffs as well as management ideas need to be considered. In addition, the board may need to take direct actions when the organization fails to fulfill a mission obligation. Example. A counseling agency only offered services during normal business hours–9 am to 5pm, five days a week. Its board required management to offer services, 24/7 with an emergency line when the office was not open. The management, a creative group, found a way to do it, without increasing costs.

Cultivate talent: The nonprofit board has several responsibilities in regard to talent.   First, it must engage and then evaluate the CEO. This is a complex duty because the vast majority of the board members are not full-time employees and many have only tangential attachments to the organization’s mission field. Second, the board must overview the quality of the staff talent so that it is in line with budget constraints. Third, it must be aware of those within the staff who may be promotable to management. Finally it must be alert to succession opportunities internally and externally in the event the CEO were to leave abruptly. Succession planning for the CEO must also include considerations about the talents that will be needed beyond the current one.

Engage the field: Since nonprofit board members have full-time occupations outside the mission field, it’s important that they receive a flow of information about leading edge changes taking place outside the organization. However, CEOs sometime can operate a “mind the store” nonprofit, by looking at past successes without a visionary component. To help avoid this occurrence, specific directors might be assigned to become more deeply familiar with key projects in order to assess their progress.

Engaging on tough questions: A difficult task on a nonprofit board where politeness is an overriding value. Peers are friends and business associations and generally there are few potential penalties for “going along to get along.” In all my decades as a nonprofit board member, I have yet to see one board member ask that his/h dissenting vote be recorded in the minutes. A necessary action when he/she feels that the vote being passed by the majority may lead to harming the organization.

*http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/changing-the-nature-of-board-engagement

** In California, the Brown Act might prohibit such meetings. The Brown Act covered concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies that were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops and study” sessions.

***For details on the background and planning for Jefferson dinners see: http://jeffersondinner.org/jefferson-dinner/

Moving Toward a High Performance NonProfit

By Eugene Fram

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.

Breaking the Cycle:

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 nonprofit or for-profit 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.

*https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2023/09/14/lean-mean-nonprofit-machine-an-intro-

OnceAgain! How Can Nonprofit Boards Support Management & Staff and Refrain From Micromanaging?

Once Again! How Can Nonprofit Boards Support Management & Staff and Refrain From Micromanaging?

By: Eugene Fram                    

The dilemma is common to nonprofit organizations. As start-ups, everyone aspires to do everything. Passion for the mission and determination to “get it right” imbue board members with the desire to do it all. But once the organization starts to mature, board roles shift to focus more broadly on policy and strategy issues. With the advent of qualified personnel to handle operations, there are many overview activities, sans micromanaging, available to board members. Following are some ways that boards can assist and demonstrate support for operations, CEOs and staffs without interfering.

    • Respect Management & Staff: The Board needs to accept the CEO as professional manager, not as a person dedicated to a field specialty—police officer, physician, attorney, etc.—with part-time management efforts. * He/s should know how to hire well, interrelate with staff, board and other stakeholders and make certain day-to-day operations are effective and efficient. It is possible, however, to have a mediocre board and an effective management and staff that is devoted to the nonprofit’s mission. Hopefully, a few board members recognize the situation and are able to build a culture of respect for the management and staff, often a difficult task when the board is micromanaging the nonprofit.
    • The Importance of Long-Term Goals: Currently nonprofits tend to plan on a three-year to five-year cycle because the environments in which they operate change so quickly. With nonprofit board members having 4-6 median terms, this suggests many will have one short-term outlooks. But, in my opinion, much longer-term planning needs to be considered, perhaps for as long as ten years. This way current planning can influence longer-term planning. This generative thinking will also provide some benchmarks for the types of abilities and skills that future CEOs will need to possess.
    • Understand Psychological & Non-Monetary Benefits: Flexible benefits are required by nonprofits to compete with business and other nonprofits paying higher wages. For example, in many areas, hospital chains compete with human service agencies for people with social-work abilities. They must also compete with businesses for computer specialists. One way is to offer flexible scheduling to all personnel needing it. Another way is for the board to formally honor staff for successes and make certain that management provides appropriate praise frequently, a requirement for millennial, and possibly generation Z age staffs.
    • Empower the CEO and staff: Boards need to be sure that the CEO is fully empowered to make tactical operating decisions without board interference. On an overview basis, the board needs to request management to ask small staff teams to work on projects that can yield tangible results. This will encourage groups and teams to become more responsible.

Within its overview responsibilities, nonprofit board members can be quite proactive in assisting management and staff when they meet routine operational challenges. The above discussions demonstrate ways this can be accomplished. Nonprofit boards can add to them to meet local challenges.

* Some growing nonprofits unfortunately elect the CEO from the staff and allow him/h to continue to have some staff responsibilities.

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             

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”

Are Dysfunctional Nonprofit Boards Interesting?
The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: id-100435120.jpg

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.  

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

By: Eugene Fram   

Like the Streisand song lyric, nonprofit people who need people must first have the know-how to choose and cultivate those people! If not, the risks to a board can range from modest to substantial. It all begins with making the right choices and vetting board and CEO candidates.  Most nonprofit board members know that they are only required to make one hiring decision—the engagement of the CEO. This is a process that always involves some risk factors. Take the case of the university that has expended substantial amounts to engage a CEO. After a brief “honeymoon period” it was determined that the candidate lacked the requisite background to move the organization forward. His resignation was forthcoming, and with it, a disruption that was costly not only in dollars but in board/faculty morale and public confidence.

A nonprofit board is usually confronted with several people risks. Following are some that should be noted by board members.

Colleagues on the Board- Modest Risk: Except when a crisis occurs necessitating additional time and effort to address the problem, there is often little opportunity for collegiality among nonprofit board members. In recent times, with many board members living time-compressed lifestyles, colleagues not only don’t know each other but may pass each other on the street without recognition! This lack of personal interaction makes it difficult for directors to understand and share perspectives regarding the organization. It is clearly the board and CEO’s responsibility to provide these opportunities by organizing social events and/or small gatherings for board people to interact– perhaps over breakfast, lunch or wine. Another option is to extend an invitation to attend local or regional professional events. Or to invite board members to join a conference call during the weekly call between the board chair and the CEO. People contact within the board cements relationships and becomes an asset to working together as a group.

Financial Personnel-Might Be Substantial Risk?: Financial people, as a group or individually, can constitute a potential risk group. At the very least, each board member should be thoroughly acquainted with the CFO, his/h senior reports and the professional qualifications of each, especially in relation to their abilities to stay current with financial requirements. The board needs to provide sufficient signals to all staff personal that it is alert to unethical behavior, especially fraud.  Similarly, the board and/or its committees need to make certain that there is substantial compliance with all regulations imposed by governmental or professional organizations. Example: One CFO delayed the delivery of an accounts receivable report for an extended time period. Neither the board nor management demanded it. When the report finally arrived, the board found that the CFO had been carrying a substantial number of bad debts as assets.   To rectify the situation, the nonprofit had to engage costly forensic accountants. Although the board was also substantially at fault in its due care, both the CFO and CEO were fired.

The CEO-Can Be A Substantial Risk: Like a marriage, there needs to be substantial trust between the board members and CEO. However the CEO should to be comfortable with a policy of “trust but verify.”   This requires that the board members and/or its audit committee ask questions or make inquiries that sometimes might appear be insulting. Some examples:

The Staff- Can Be Moderate Risk: Board members need to be have enough contact with management and staff in order to be able to help identify those who with talent may be eligible for promotion, understanding that traditionally the CEO has is responsible for internal promotions.   Unfortunately this is a nonprofit board responsibility that is often neglected. But it needs to be reviewed annually at the time that CEO succession is reviewed by the board.  

A nonprofit is only as good as its team of people. With many of the board members rotating off after their terms have expired, it becomes an ongoing challenge to keep them apprised of potential risks and challenges. The board must develop its own way to a nonprofit’s success.   In addition, it must overview management and staff to build background knowledge on those with potential to become future leaders. 

Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century

 

Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century

By Eugene Fram      Free Digital Image

Unfortunately, outcomes and impact are often unrelated, which is why a program that seems to produce better outcomes may create no impact at all. Worse, sometimes they point in opposite directions, as can happen when a program works with harder-to- service populations resulting in seemingly worse conditions, but (has) higher value-added impact. … Rigorous evaluations can measure impact (to a level of statistical accuracy), but they are usually costly (a non starter for many nonprofit), difficult and slow. * But how do the medium and small size nonprofits measure actual results in the outside world such as enhanced quality of life, elevated artistic sensitivity and community commitment?

A Compromise Solution:

To close the gap, funders and recipients would need to agree to apply imperfect metrics over time. These are metrics that can be anecdotal, subjective or interpretative. Also they may rely on small samples, uncontrolled situational factors, or they cannot be precisely replicated. ** This would require agreement and trust between funders and recipients as to what level of imprecision can be accepted and perhaps be improved, to assess impacts. It is an experimental approach

How To Get to Impact Assessment:

1. Agree on relevant impacts: Metrics should be used to reflect organizational related impacts, not activities or efforts. Impacts should focus on a desired change in the nonprofit’s universe, rather than a set of process activities.
2. Agree on measurement approaches: These can range from personal interviews to comparisons of local results with national data.
3. Agree on specific indicators: Outside of available data, such as financial results, and membership numbers, nonprofits should designate behavioral impacts for clients should achieve. Do not add other indicators because they are easily developed or “would be interesting to examine.” Keep the focus on the agreed-upon behavioral outcomes.
4. Agree on judgment rules: Board and management need to agree at the outset upon the metric numbers for each specific indicator that contributes to the desired strategic objective. The rules can also specify values that are “too high” as well as “too low.”
5. Compare measurement outcomes with judgment rules to determine organizational impact: Determine how may specific program objectives have reached impact levels to assess whether or not the organization’s strategic impacts have been achieved.

Lean Experimentation

The five-point process described above closely follows the philosophy of lean experimentation, ** now suggested for profit making and nonprofit organizations.

Lean allows nonprofits to use imperfect metrics to obtain impact data from constituents/ stakeholders over time. Under a lean approach, as long as the organizations garners some positive insights after each iteration, it continues to improve the measurement venues and becomes more comfortable with the advantages and limitations of using these metrics.

Organizationally the nonprofit can use this process to drive change over time by better understanding what is behind the imperfect metrics, especially when a small sample can yield substantial insights, and actually improve the use of the metrics.


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