What Role Should Nonprofit Board Members Play in Overviewing Management /Staff Talent?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Nonprofit boards rarely develop an in-depth strategy for assessing its organization’s human capital. Some will keep informal tabs on the CEO’s direct reports to prepare for the possibility of his/her sudden departure or is incapacitated. Others –smaller organizations with fewer than 20 employees—need only a basic plan for such an occurrence.
Need for Strategy: In my view, maintaining a viable talent strategy to assess staff and management personnel is a board responsibility, albeit one that is often ignored. The latter stems from the constant turnover of nonprofit board members whose median term of service is 4-6 years—hardly a lifetime commitment. Like for-profit board members whose focus is on quarterly earning results, their nonprofit counterparts are likely more interested in resolving current problems than in building sufficient bench strength for the organization’s long-term sustainability.
Once Again: How to Keep Nonprofit Board Members Informed.
By: Eugene Fram. Free Digital Image
With high performing nonprofit organizations, board members will rarely be invited by the CEO to participate in operational decisions. As a result, management will always have more information than board members. Yet the board still needs to know that is happening in operations to be able to perform their overview process. The name of the game is for the CEO to communicate the important information and to keep board members informed of significant developments. Still, there’s no need to clutter regular board meetings by reporting endless details about operations.
A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“One of the key functions of a (nonprofit) board of directors is to oversee (not micromanage) the CEO, ensuring that (stakeholders) are getting the most from their investments.” * State and Federal compliance regulations have been developed to make certain that boards have an obligation to represent all stakeholders. These include the staff, community, donors, foundations and clients, but not only the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. Following are some inherent problems.
How Can Nonprofit Boards Overcome the Inertia of Certain Board Members?
BY: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Making major changes in nonprofit mission, board structure, management or other significant matters is difficult. The typical nonprofit board will be divided into several groups on the issue: 1) members who want change, 2) members opposed to change, some strongly opposed and 3) what I call “process board members,” persons uncomfortable with major decisions who always want more data or information before voting.
The first and third groups (members who want change and process directors) will be very willing to appoint a committee to review the alternatives, but it’s up to the board chair to satisfy process members who create obstacles.
Process members like to sit back and examine issues, often, in my opinion, sincerely feeling that their questions allow them to be on the cusp of showing some insights that others have failed to notice. They always ask, “Have we consulted everybody?” Or say, “Let’s make sure we have considered everything.” Often they are members who call for postponement of the vote, even after a lengthy discussion.
Process members are well-intentioned, sincere individuals. However, the board has to be careful that these members don’t allow the board to continually examine one angle after another until they lose sight of the board’s main job. They can keep action in limbo indefinitely! It is up to the board chair to makes certain that this does not happen. But board chairs want to develop an inclusive board where all who want to voice their views can be heard.
A certain level of board process is necessary to operate efficiently. But when it gets out of hand, it can have a serious negative effect. Boards often lose some of their best volunteers, who get frustrated and quietly resign. Their usual reason for resigning is “the pressure of job obligations.” To me, that’s a covert message that the board is getting mired in minutiae, usually initiated by process members.
One friend recently from a board, using the “job obligations” excuse. The real reason was that the executive director, a process oriented person, used board-meeting time inappropriately, including asking the full board to review detailed public relations powerpoint presentations.
In another situation, I watched a board make a strategic decision involving the combining of two programs. Even after a thorough discussion of the decision, the board insisted on discussing the tactical decisions needed to implement the change, all of which were the responsibility of management. The board was unable or unwilling to shed an imbedded process culture that the status quo nonprofit had used for over 50 years.
The Bridgespan Group, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, completed an exciting research study. The results identified “six elements common to nonprofits (in bold/italicized) with a high capacity to innovate” * Following are my suggestions on how to implement these elements.
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
A curious culture, where staff looks beyond their day-to day obligation, question 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.
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.
Porous boundarieswiden the scope for innovations, by allowing fresh ideas to percolate 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.”
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.
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.
Should Mature Nonprofits Allow Board Micromanagement?
Commonly accepted View of Nonprofit Micromanagement: Board members spend more time with the details of the operations instead of planning the organization’s short-term and long-term growth strategies.
The Need for a Micromanaging Board Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when a nonprofit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the volunteer board members must assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of clients to service. It is not unusual to promote a person who is only familiar with direct service to become the first chief executive of the organization. In turn , this neophyte manager has to depend on board members for managerial counsel and direction. A culture of board dependency is created out of necessity.
Problems Arise The micromanaging board is a worthy model for smaller nonprofits that stay at a start-up level for a long time. Some nonprofits retain this governance model, with its dependency relationships, long after it is needed. Example: One nonprofit I encountered required its department heads to first discuss major issues with designated board members before reviewing them with the chief executive, e.g., the program manager follows instructions of the board program committee chair.
Major Organizational Impacts Of Continuing Micromanagement • Management and staffs wait for board signals or instructions before taking action. One CEO reported: “I give the board options and let them choose the course of action.” Implication: I don’t want the responsibility for the action chosen. “The board told me to implement it.” • It’s more difficult to hire talented managers with these types of organizations. Most, from CEO down, are “C” players. They fear “A” and “B” players and then hire more “C” players like themselves. More qualified personnel may reject offers. • Management & staff just don’t have the “right stuff” to be creative. They don’t properly question authority. Boards are shown great deference. • Impacts and outcomes at best are minimal, but this is not readily recognized by the community or sponsoring organization. As long as income meets expenses each year, the board does not note any long-term red flags.
Changing the Culture — The Important Issue Governance and management changes do not occur easily when an organization has maintained a micromanagement culture well beyond the start-up period. Following are some ways that I have seen changes take place. • Several forward-looking members of the board, including the chair, develop a plan to seek change. Opinion leaders or well-respected veterans must be included. • Over time, often a year or more, a change plan is developed and then formally adopted by the board. This usually involves giving the chief executive full responsibility for operations, along with a robust annual assessment of the CEO and operations. • During the process, all stakeholders must be informed about the proposed changes, and the reasons for change. Naysayers will quietly spread internal and external rumors about it. Actual Example: “We will be losing our family culture and our great interpersonal relationships.” • The CEO must be in favor of the changes to be instituted. If not, the board needs to wait until the CEO retires or leaves. Of course, the board can terminate the CEO, but this will certainly lead to conflict with the staff and the stakeholder constituency he/s has developed. • When a new CEO is engaged, make certain the person has a desire and some experience to manage and the interpersonal skills to relate to the staff at its current state. • Some members of the board will become “displaced directors,” persons cemented to the older order. Look for them to resign quietly and/or take potshots at the new governance-management arrangement. Actual Example: In one organization, when the traditional ED title for the chief executive was abandoned and the title President /CEO instituted, a board member derisively questioned, “Do we call him ‘Presco’ ?”
Summary The tendency of nonprofit boards to micromanage organizational operations is still prevalent. In fact, it appears to be part of the nonprofit’s DNA! With the huge problems confronting nonprofits, it’s high time for a 21st century culture change!
Do Your Board Members View Their Board Work As Being Meaningful?
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
For several decades, I have suggested that nonprofit Board Chairs and CEOs have a responsibility to be sure that each board member perceives his/h continuing relationship as being meaningful. Following are some organizational guidelines that can assist Board Chairs and CEOs in this effort.*
Developing or hiring strong executive leadership: Obviously when hiring externally it is necessary to engage a person with a managerial background. But many nonprofit CEOs can be appointed after years of being an individual contributor or leading a small department. These experiences condition them to do too much themselves, rather than to assume a strong management posture. This involves focusing more on strategy, on talent development, interacting more with the board/community and creating a long-term vision.
A strong CEO, if appointed internally, should understand the role changes that take place once appointed. He/s must delegate activities that were once performed within a comfort zone and seek new challenges. Examples: The new CEO needs to be enthusiastic about becoming a fundraiser. She/h must become well acquainted with peer CEOs regionally and nationally to stay abreast of the state-of-art in both management and mission areas. He/s needs to become acquainted with cohorts in the business and public management communities. Over time, those involved with the nonprofit internally and externally must perceive the organization is lead by a capable executive.
Creating impact: In the 21st century, funders, board members and other nonprofit leaders are attracted to organizations that create impacts as opposed to outcomes. A nonprofit can have great program outcomes with little long-term impacts on clients. Impact is often hard to measure, but it can be done, only if started with imperfect measures that are improved over time. ** For example, one local human services organization, with which I am acquainted, operates groups of apartments offering social services that allow elderly clients to live independently for years on their own, rather than in an assisted living facility. The impact in this instance is well-defined and an impetus to attracting board members and donors that find the impact meaningful.
Building relationships externally and internally: Board candidates who have broad contact networks are sought by search committees to enhance community or industry relationships or to strengthen the organization’s fund development efforts. Little effort is directed to fostering closer relationships among current board members who often don’t get to know each other personally because of crowded board and committee agendas. Example: I consulted with one board where some board members complained that they might not recognize their board peers when they meet them in outside social situations.
To solve the problem, both the Board Chair & CEO must acknowledge that it exists—in the above example; it took an extensive personal interview board survey to highlight the problem. Then creative tactics like the following can be employed.
One CEO has a weekly one-hour conference call with the board chair to discuss current issues. Other board members are invited to join the calls if they wish. This is an excellent way for new board members to quickly become attuned to the nonprofit.
Another CEO, each Sunday, sends a one-page e-mail summary of major events to board members. He reports that his high school English teacher would never approve of his grammar or structure, but he knows emails are reviewed. They are reflected in the level of discussions at meetings
Low-key self-funded social events for board members and significant others can help board members to become better acquainted and work together.
Another classical approach is to allow 10 minutes each meeting to allow board members to briefly report changes in their personal or professional lives.
Assuming an organization is successful in developing a cohesive board, what can be done to retain these efforts once they have termed-out? The answer is to ask them to join the organization’s “Alumni Association.” The process can be found here: (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ltl.20305)
Organizational stability: Unstable nonprofits have common telltale signs—rapid employees or management turnover, excessive bank borrowing, reserve depletion, late report filings, etc. It’s difficult to provide meaningful board experiences under these conditions. However it is not unusual to find board members who will accept responsibility when the nonprofit is unstable, if they are dedicated to its mission. A few may “enjoy” a board position to be involved in the turnaround challenge.
While no nonprofit will be perfect, those with the best opportunity to provide meaningful board experiences will have a well formulated strategic plan that allows it to be stable operationally and financially.
Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Articles and studies from a Google search on “Dysfunctions in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations,” yields 3,530,000 items in .53 of a second. These items show dysfunctions on charter school boards, church boards, healthcare boards, trade associations, human services boards etc.
Rick Moyers, a well-known nonprofit commentator and nonprofit researcher, concluded:
“A decade’s worth of research suggests that board performance is at best uneven and at worst highly dysfunctional. ….. The experiences of serving on a board — unless it is high functioning, superbly led, supported by a skilled staff and working in a true partnership with the executive – is quite the opposite of engaging.”
These data and comments can lead one to conclude that all nonprofit boards are dysfunctional. I suggest that nonprofit boards can generate a range of dysfunctional behavioral outcomes, but the staff can muddle through and continue to adequately serve clients.
Nonprofit Boards Should Consider the Implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
BY: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
AI is rapidly being implemented in many environments, some with aggressive intensity. It presents a new reality—machines create fascinating outputs that require less energy to produce and do so at lower costs. A few, at this stage, are capable of making “human-like” decisions
What Role Should Nonprofit Board Members Play in Overviewing Management /Staff Talent? By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Nonprofit boards rarely develop an in-depth strategy for assessing its organization’s human capital. Some will keep informal tabs on the CEO’s direct reports to prepare for the possibility of his/her sudden departure or is incapacitated. Others –smaller organizations with fewer than 20 employees—need only a basic plan for such an occurrence.
Need for Strategy: In my view, maintaining a viable talent strategy to assess staff and management personnel is a board responsibility, albeit one that is often ignored. The latter stems from the constant turnover of nonprofit board members whose median term of service is 4-6 years—hardly a lifetime commitment. Like for-profit board members whose focus is on quarterly earning results, their nonprofit counterparts are likely more interested in resolving current problems than in building sufficient bench strength for the organization’s long-term sustainability.
Nonprofit Management 