Board Recuitment

What attributes does a nonprofit board member need to be a Change Agent?

By Eugene Fram

Be well acquainted with mission arena of the organization — This can range from current or previous employment in the arena or being a board member of an allied organization. The change agent must be able to “walk the talk.” Example: Ask the CEO of a counseling organization whether or not the treatment modalities used by the staff are current.

Must have a proactive style — Uninterrupted attendance at most board and committee meetings; asks questions that his/her board colleagues recognize as being perceptive ones; be well respected by peers internally and externally; responds well to the “give or get” policy of the organization and has a professionally cordial relationship with the CEO.

Needs to be patient and flexible — The frequent rotation of board personnel may mean that a process of convincing new board members that the change is in the best interest of the nonprofit’s clients. Be ready to change when outside circumstances require a modification of the shape of the effort.

Has excellent people skills — He/she will need to understand the various reactions to the change(s) being driven. These can range from board colleagues to management personnel, staff and even external stakeholders like funders.

Will “stay on message” in comments related to the change — Will be required to present arguments in a concise and understandable manner. Will be seen as a strong, but not overbearing, champion for the change.

The time issue — Most nonprofit board members are volunteers with full-time occupations and family responsibilities that must take time precedents. Becoming a nonprofit board change agent often requires these additional time commitments:

• Chairing a major board committee for a substantial time period.
• Possibly taking personal responsibility for research/ background efforts.
• Specialized training efforts may be required for other board members.
• A continual process of updating colleagues and seeking allies to whom some of the work can be delegated.
• Constantly being alert to legacy minded people who may impede forward moment toward the change goal.

Not every nonprofit board change agent will have all the qualifications cited above and all the time necessary to devote to marketing the change. But from those who have succeeded, others need to know what is potentially involved.

* https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/champions-change-agents-advocates-dr-jack-jacoby/

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

How Nonprofit Boards Can 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.

(more…)

6 Approaches to Innovation for Nonprofit Boards

6 Approaches to Innovation for Nonprofit Boards

By Eugene Fram                    

The Bridgespan Group, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation,  completed an exciting research study. The results identified “six elements common to nonprofits with a high capacity to innovate” * Following are some suggestion how to implement these elements.

  1.  Catalytic Leadership that empowers staff to solve problems that matter. This involves the board to lead with committed and generative leadership. **  Board members must be ready to ask tough questions. They must require management to respond to the classic question, “Who would miss the nonprofit if it were to disappear?” Board members should be able to suggest new ideas drawn from business and the public sector that can be adapted, assessed and tested by management and staff
  2. A curious culture, where staff looks beyond their day-to day obligation, questions assumptions, and constructively challenge each other’s thinking as well as the status quo. This, in my view is difficult to achieve, but boards should attempt to take every advantage to develop it. Boards that question the status quo are hard to find in all fields. They should, at the least, involve the staff in strategic planning efforts and pay close attention to its development. Staffs then are in an excellent position to challenge the status quo. One staff person in a human services agency, for example, challenged the status quo by observing the nonprofit did not have a “safety net” mission, but in reality had a “sustainability” mission. The agency was not only helping clients on a day-to-day basis but also was trying to assist them to achieve sustainable lifestyles.
  3. Diverse teams with different backgrounds, experiences, attitudes and capabilities—the feed-stock for growing an organization’s capacity to generate breakthrough ideas.

As the Bridgespan Group has noted, it is necessary to have board members, “who are diverse across their dimensions: demographics, cognitive and intellectual abilities and styles with professional skills and experiences. In my opinion, nonprofits have been successful in recruiting board members in all of these categories except two—cognitive and intellectual abilities. I have encountered nonprofit boards without a single director with strategic planning or visionary abilities. Board members’ full time occupations often do not require them to have these abilities. As a result, strategic planning was just a SWAT (strengths, weakness and threats) review without any real analytical depth. To rectify the situation, nonprofits need to add these abilities to their recruitment grids. Unfortunately, this makes the recruiting effort more difficult since the abilities don’t appear on many resumes. Candidates must be assessed from an in-depth interview process.

  1. Porous boundarieswiden the scope for innovations, by allowing fresh ideas to peculate up from staff at any level—as well as constituents and other outside voices—and seep through silos.

Because many nonprofits have small travel budgets, they may operate in “bubbles, ” consisting of themselves and similar neighboring organizations. In addition, they can acculturate board members to the “bubble” traditions and environments.   For example, they may ask a new board member, with strong financial abilities to help the CFO with accounting issues, instead of asking her/h to develop a strategic financial plan for the organization. Perhaps as national webinars become more available to nonprofit managements and their staffs, these information flows will help to change the innovation roadblocks. Then they can, “generate new ideas systematically, test ideas using articulated criteria, metrics methodologies and prioritize and scale the highest potential ideas.”

  1. Idea Pathways that provide structure and processes for identifying, testing and transforming promising concepts into needle-moving solutions. For example, the process of Lean Management can allow testing of new ideas quickly. Instead of waiting for a new strategic plan to establish a pathway for something new, a nonprofit can test it with a series of small-scale efforts to determine its viability. The idea can be dropped if positive results are not developed after a couple of tests.   If after successive tests with viable information results, the idea can be moved quickly to an implementation stage when the nonprofit has the necessary resources.
  2. The ready resources—funding, time, training and tools—vital to supporting innovation work. To fully take advantage of most of these six innovation guidelines, fundraising is critical. But each board and staff cannot do it alone. It must be a partnership between the board members and the CEO that recognizes fundraising for innovation is a necessary part of the nonprofit’s resourcing efforts.

*https://ssir.org/articles/entry/is_your_nonprofit_built_for_sustained_innovation

**https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.10520/EJC-967dbda2e

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable Evaluating Themselves?

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

By: Eugene Fram       

A 2025 survey of business boards by PWC (Accounting/Consulting Firm) yielded the following results;

  • More than half (55%%) of board members think someone on their board should be replaced.
  • Most board members (78%) do not believe their boards’ asssessment process provides a complete picture of overall board performance.
  • A majority (51%) say their boards are insufficiently invested in the investment process.
  • About half (45%) seek addiktional education or training on key topics.*

Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?

Ask The Tough Questions:  No matter what process is used in the evaluation, the board has to address some difficult common questions.  These include:

  • To what extent are board members overly compliant with the wishes of the board chair or CEO? Having been a veteran nonprofit board member or a consultant with dozens of others, I find there is a tendency for nonprofit board members to “go along to get along.” As a result, the board tends to be compliant with the wishes of the board chair, the CEO or an influential director. Rigorous/civil dissent is not part of meeting discussions.
  • Leadership selection discussions are rarely a priority. Often, through lack of interest or the organization’s formal culture, the board has little contact with staff members below the senior management level and little interest in assessing where future management strength can be developed.
  • I have yet to encounter a nonprofit board that is willing to discuss its effectiveness in terms of overall strengths or weaknesses. Critical tough questions are: Are all members contributing at a minimum “get or give” level?  Especially between meetings, how can board’s internal communications be improved? To what extent does the board become involved in micromanagement or perpetuate it long after the board has outgrown the startup stage?   For example, I observed one mature board make a decision about the timing of fundraising events and then spend the next hour brainstorming the types of events that might be developed—clearly a management responsibility to investigate.
  • The strategic strength of the board. Nonprofit board member backgrounds should be aligned with the emerging needs of the nonprofit.  Examples, if fund development is going to be a priority, a person with event planning experiences should be recruited. If the reserve fund return is not being maximized, a person with a financial background, not a CPA, is required.
  • The ineffective nonprofit director. It is the most vexing problem that boards face. This person’s behavior can range from one who monopolizes discussions to the person who attends meetings but never makes any financial or other types of contributions. Some boards claim that they can approach the problem by asking each director to assess the effectiveness of his/h colleagues, but in decades of nonprofit governance experiences, I have never encountered a board that has had this process in place.

Review Current Practices:  If the board has never been self-evaluated, to do a proper self evaluation, these steps are important:

  • Develop a questionnaire to be completed by all board members.  It should be carefully crafted to determine how the board as a group and each individual board member contributes to enhancing the organization’s mission.
  • The committee assigned to the project should seek the assistance of someone with professional evaluation competence to guide the work.  Hopefully he/s will accept the assignment on a pro bono basis. This also can be an interesting project for a small group of graduate students, guided by a knowledgeable professor.  Because of the confidential nature of the material, no more than three students should be involved.
  • Develop the processes for dissemination, confidentiality, collation of materials and organization of survey information. Again, engage a professional to assist with these efforts.

Traditionally, nonprofits use a simple questionnaire to evaluate the organization and the CEO. Their development processes vary widely, and their usefulness often can be questioned when not all board members take the time to thoughtfully respond to the survey or when it is developed by committee. However, board self-evaluation needs to be completed with professional assistance, and the results reported with diplomatic care to drive positive board change.

*https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/governance-insights-center/library/assets/pwc-2025-annual-corporate-directors-survey.pdf

Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: A Complex Problem?

By: Eugene Fram   

At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.

In another instance the board refused to sue a local contractor who did not perform as agreed. The “elephant” was that the board didn’t think that legally challenging a local person was appropriate, an issue raised by an influential board member. However, nobody informed the group that in being “nice guys,” they could become legally liable, if somebody became injured as a result of their inaction.

Over the years, I have observed many boards with elephants around that have caused significant problems to a nonprofit organization. Some include:

• Selecting a board chair on the basis of personal appearance and personality instead of managerial and organizational competence. Be certain to vet the experience and potential of candidates carefully. Beside working background (accounting, marketing, human resources, etc.), seek harder to define characteristics such as leadership, critical thinking ability, and position flexibility.

• Failure to delegate sufficient managerial responsibility to the CEO because the board has enjoyed micromanagement activities for decades. To make a change, make certain new board members recognize the problem, and they eventually are willing to take action to alleviate the problem. Example: One board refused to share its latest strategic plan with it newly appointed ED.

• Engaging a weak local CEO because the board wanted to avoid moving expenses. Be certain that local candidates are vetted as carefully as others and that costs of relocation are not the prime reason for their selection.

• Be certain that the board is not “rubber-stamping” proposals of a strong executive director/CEO. Where major failures occur, be certain that the board or outside counsel determines the causes by conducting a postmortem analysis.

* Retaining an ED who is only focusing on the status quo and “minding the store.” The internal accounting systems, human resources and results are all more than adequate. But they are far below what can be done for clients if current and/or potential resources were creatively employed.

* A substantial portion of the board is not reasonably familiar with fund accounting or able to recognize financial “red flags.” Example: One CFO kept delaying the submission of an accounting accounts aging report for over a year. He was carrying as substantial number of noncollectable accounts as an asset. It required the nonprofit to hire high-priced forensic accountants to straighten out the mess. The CEO & CFO were fired, but the board that was also to be blamed for being “nice guys,” and it remained in place. If the organization has gone bankrupt, I would guess that the secretary-of-state would have summarily removed part or all of the board, a reputation loss for all. The board has an obligation to assure stakeholders that the CFO’s knowledge is up to date and to make certain the CEO takes action on obvious “red flags”.

* Inadequate vetting processes that take directors’ time, especially in relation to family and friends of current directors. Example: Accepting a single reference check, such as comments from the candidate’s spouse. This actually happened, and the nominations committee made light of the action.

What can be done about the elephant in the boardroom?

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to use, no pun intended! These types of circumstances seem to be in the DNA of volunteers who traditionally avoid any form of conflict, which will impinge upon their personal time or cause conflict with other board members. A cultural change is required to recruit board members who understand board member responsibilities, or are willing to learn about them on the job. This is an important interview question to pose to candidates because it highlights the importance of good governance as a contribution. I have seen a wide variety of volunteer board members, such as ministers and medical personnel, successfully meet the challenges related to this type of the board learning. Most importantly, never underestimate the power of culture when major changes are being considered.

In the meantime, don’t be afraid to ask naive questions which forces all to question assumptions, as in Why are we doing the particular project? Have we really thought it through and considered other possibilities?

Board members need to have passion for the organization’s mission. However, they also need to have the prudence to help the nonprofit board perform with professionalism.

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.

Positioning Sustainable Nonprofit Organizations for 2026 & Beyond

Positioning Sustainable Nonprofit Organizations for 2026 & Beyond

By Eugene Fram        

Many nonprofits boards have entered their 2025-2026 fiscal years. From a “35,000 foot viewpoint,” following are three integrated nonprofit board functions that should have special focus to assure stakeholders that the nonprofit has long-term organization sustainability.

(more…)

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.

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Proactive in Strategy Development

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Proactive in Strategy Development

By: Eugene Fram       

Most Boards do not excel at strategy planning. In fact, when the subject is included on a meeting agenda, it usually produces a general lack of enthusiasm. A McKinsey study * cited weakness in for-profit boards dealing with the topic. And in my opinion, similar deficits are endemic to nonprofit boards whose response to strategic proposals is often simply– “ to review and approve.”

What causes these vital governing bodies to be passive when the future of the organization is obviously at stake? First, most nonprofit boards meet between 8 and 12 times a year, for what averages to about 1.5 hours monthly. With an agenda crammed with compliance issues and staff reports, there is little time left for board members to dive deeply into a discussion of future transformative efforts on behalf of the organization. When a new strategic plan is developed (that may only occur once every 3-5 years, with a limited perspective), its implementation is not as rigorous as it should be—even in high performing boards.

According to the McKinsey study, only 21% of business board members claim to fully understand the firm’s total strategy. Because of their diverse backgrounds, the percentage of uninitiated nonprofit board members is probably similar or even higher!

Next, the study also reports: “…there is often a mismatch between the time horizons of board members and that of top management.” Since the median tenure for a nonprofit board member is between four and six years, it follows that management‘s experience with the mission environment exceeds the vast majority of board members. Since the outset of the 2009 recession, it becomes critical that a dialogue between board and management brings focus to economic priorities. When the economic environment remains more dynamic, it requires much more discussion.

Questions that board and management need to consider to overcome these issues.

• How well do board members understand the mission dynamics? In terms of nonprofit experience, management has a better understanding of the mission’s environment. As a result, management needs to be proactive in educating board members about the dynamics involved. This can take place at meetings, retreats or engaging outside experts to interact with board members. Where it is possible and appropriate, management should invite board members to join them at local or regional conferences.

• Has there been enough board-management debate before a specific strategy is discussed? “Board members should approach these discussions with an owner’s mind-set and with the goal of helping management to broaden its thinking by considering new, even unexpected, perspectives.” During these debates management should provide information on key external trends affecting the mission. It also needs to review: strengths and weaknesses of staff talent to achieve the mission, the abilities of the nonprofit to differentiate itself and to increase services to its clientele. All of this can keep the organization from perpetuating the status quo—providing small budget increments and keeping current clients satisfied, not seeking growth.

• Have the board and management discussed all strategic options and wrestled them to the ground? Nonprofit board members and their managers may not be used to having high-quality discussion like these. To provide bases for these types of conversations the board must view management as a set of peers with different responsibilities. “Creating a participative, collaborative dynamic while maintaining a healthy tension is critical.”

“Developing strategy has always been complex—and becomes more so with a board’s increased involvement, which introduces new voices and expertise to the debate and puts pressure on management teams and board members alike to find the best answers.”

* http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/tapping-the-strategic-potential-of-boards

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.