CEO Evaluations

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

By: Eugene Fram            Free Digital Image

Governance arguably suffers most … when boards spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror and not enough scanning the road ahead. *

It has been my experience that nonprofits rarely address the possibilities and perils of “…the road ahead.” An endless stream of current and pressing issues can cause both Board and CEO to take a myopic view of their nonprofit responsibilities — either totally ignoring strategic issues or procrastinating a discussion of the subject. The results can be damaging to the organization. Here are some “prompts” that might guide nonprofit board members and CEOs as they attempt to provide leadership in this important but neglected area:

Balanced Agendas — Include and highlight strategic issues on every board meeting agenda (not just when a committee report is presented) until they are resolved with action plans, policy development or thoroughly discussed and removed. This constant emphasis on planning can go a long way towards achieving concrete actions on topics of future concern. A discussion of immediate issues juxtaposed with ongoing strategic concerns will provide a balanced meeting format that may possibly discourage board member’s attempts to micromanage, a very common tendency in nonprofit boards!

Short Term Focus — In a BoardSource report,  “…only 33 percent of nonprofits report that their board members are actively involved in advocating for their missions, and many organizations aren’t advocating at all.”** To inspire and challenge board leaders to actively serve as ambassadors.  The explanation for weak performance in this area is often attributed to the fact that the directors’ terms of service on the board are usually three to six years during which time people’s interest in the long-term future of the organization may be compromised. Some boards may be disproportionately represented by “millennials” whose participation comes with heavy time constraints. Problems of this type can be mitigated by seeking board members who are partially or fully retired. They are likely to be better equipped to focus on the important governance functions and the fundamentals in which the nonprofit operates. Boards need to look to look further out than anyone else in the organization… There are times when CEOs (those operationally concerned with strategy) are the last ones to see (environmental) changes coming.

Board Recruiting — Nonprofit recruiting can be a hit-or-miss process, often producing candidates who are readily available and familiar to the current board. Rarely will the committee seek out people who have strong track records as strategists and/or competent visionaries. This is a real challenge, but a forward focused board should make every effort to identify potential directors who have these types of experience and skills. The topic of recruitment is a challenging one and the process should have continual annual evaluation.

Can Nonprofit Boards Work Smarter Not Harder?
As noted earlier, nonprofit board people are often limited in the amount of time they can devote to board participation. Given these constraints, the board chair and CEO can choose from a range of options that will help orient directors to better understand the external landscape in which the organization operates. These initiatives can include visits to comparable facilities, opportunities to attend field related conferences or inviting experts in the same or similar organizations to interact with board members. The purpose is to infuse each member of the board with an informed view of the organization’s long-term future and prepare them to take the appropriate action. The CEO and board chair must address this question with a viable plan: What actually helps… (to develop) a board environment that encourages participation and allows board members to derive meaning, inspiration and satisfaction from their (board) work?

Talent: The Key to Nonprofit Success — A nonprofit board has one hiring decision to make: the engagement of the CEO. But it also has a significant responsibility to overview long-term talent development in the staff and management. The board of a family service agency needs to assure that its counselors are up to date on current modalities of counseling. A recreational organization must be operating in the context of accepted fitness practices. Annual talent reviews need to be scheduled with CEOs and the appropriate staff. In addition, individual board members, with the concurrence of the CEO, may want to have occasional professional contact with key people below the senior management.

Make strategy part of the board’s DNA — (Many nonprofit) … CEOs present their strategic vision once a year, the directors discuss and tweak it at a single board meeting (or a short retreat), and the plan is then adopted. The board’s input is minimal and there’s not enough in-depth information to underpin proper consideration of the alternatives.

An educated nonprofit board will have the depth of understanding to be alert to the future needs and problems of its organization. Typically there is usually an unanticipated “fork” in the road ahead. Status quo, “minding the store,” participation by rote are all too easy mindsets that will only hobble the progress of an organization. Board chairs and CEOs are key actors in turning an existing board environment into one that is focused on moving forward.

*Christian Casa and Christian Caspar (2014) “Building a forward-looking board,” McKinsey Quarterly, February. Note: Quotations from this article are presented in italics.

**https://boardsource.org/research-critical-issues/

 

How Can A Chief Operating Officer (COO) Advance Your Nonprofit Organization?

In my decades of involvement with nonprofit boards, I have encountered several instances in which the CEO has failed to engage the services of a COO– when this addition to the staff was clearly needed. In each case and for whatever reasons, this reluctance to act left the nonprofit organizationally starved.

This means that the CEO continues to handle responsibilities that should have been delegated, some of which a predecessor may had assumed during the start-up stage. I once observed a nonprofit CEO with an annual $30 million budget personally organize and implement the annual board retreat, including physically rearranging tables/materials and cleaning the room after the retreat! When top leadership is deflected in situations as this, client services and the general health of the organization is likely being negatively impacted.

From a board perspective, the dynamics involved with the COO issue are best explained through field case examples:

CASE A: 

Peter Gilbert was CEO of a national association, with a budget of about $13 million. The association supported about 250 human services nonprofits throughout the United States. It also had a subsidiary for-nonprofit firm that generated cash flow for the nonprofit. Income was generated from members’’ dues, foundation grants, individual donations, plus income from the for-profit firm, publications and conferences. 

After about two years, Peter was doing an outstanding job with fund development and visiting individual members, but the internal organization was being deprived of leadership since he was traveling about 50% of his working time.

The board began to suggest that Peter needed a COO to assist him to improve internal operations. However, he said the budget was too tight to allow for the salary of COO.  

Comments & History: After about four years of discussions, Peter and the board decided to allocate salary dollars from the subsidiary for-profit to fund the salary of a COO. He and the new COO worked well together for many years. The organization has successfully merged several times since then and continues to prosper. 

CASE B: 

Steve Gilbert is a 10-year veteran CEO heading a community human service nonprofit with a budget of about $3million. He is well regarded in the community, and his nonprofit is considered well run, although it is the smallest of similar types of agencies in the region. He has 4.5 full time people directly reporting to him, and a total staff of 40 professional and other types of support staff. Since the organization is a relatively “flat” one, some board members want Steve to add a COO. For example, he recently had to make a decision on whether to buy a new or rebuilt carburetor for a van? Steve recognizes the need for a COO, and at one time even allocated budget for one, but without taking action on the budget allocation.  

Comments: The board in this case needs to make a determination as to whether or not Steve is managing the organization for long-term stability. In other words, does the nonprofit have the capacity to serve more clients with the addition of a COO? Considering Steve’s long tenure of acceptable service, is it appropriate for the board to be proactive in motivating Steve to appoint a COO? With his willingness to step in to the “weeds “ and work harder when agency gaps develop, it seems he is perpetuating a form of crisis management.

He may not realize that the nonprofit may not be functioning appropriately. This may include delegating too much of the fund raising effort to others and neglecting potential donors who want to interact with the CEO. He may fear that a millennial COO will encourage too many disruptions with the status quo.

Since the appointment of a COO is clearly Steve’s responsibility, there is little the board can do except to offer, “advice and consent.”

CASE C:

Jennifer Gilbert is a newly appointed CEO of a faith based nonprofit with an annual budget about $12 million. The organization has had some significant deficits over the last three years, causing her predecessor to resign.  Although she had been a volunteer board member of the organization, this is her first management position with a nonprofit. Her previous experiences included a series of middle management positions in business and entrepreneurial organizations. One of her first actions as CEO was to eliminate the COO position.

Comments: Obviously Jennifer needs to trim costs, but she/or others must assume the responsibilities now carried by the COO. Since she had been on the board of the organization, perhaps she felt she knew enough about the internal dynamics to eliminate the COO position without starving the nonprofit? On the other hand she may be leading the nonprofit to long-term difficulty once the current financial crisis has abated.

Summary

Nonprofit CEOs may knowingly or unwittingly reject the idea of adding a new “chief” to the management team. Some are victims of the “founder’s syndrome” and enjoy the high level of control that defines their current leadership. Others are concerned about the financial implications the addition of a new staff salary might have on a typically tight budget. Risk is carefully considered in the nonprofit environment. The board needs to exert its overview responsibilities and become advocates for the change when deemed necessary. Otherwise, client services will be impeded and the organization will become locked in its status quo position.

The Succession Dilemma: Why Do Nonprofit Boards Fail to Plan Ahead?

The Succession Dilemma: Why Do Nonprofit Boards Fail to Plan Ahead?

By: Eugene Fram             

There are many types of crises common to an organization. But one event seems to trigger a large proportion of the ensuing trauma. It frequently happens when a CEO or another top manager retires, resigns or leaves for other reasons.   The flow of leadership is about to be disrupted and there is no viable replacement for the departing executive.

This transitional panic happens in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD)  reported that 50 % of public company directors concede that CEO succession planning needs to be improved. * In the nonprofit environment, only 27% actually have succession plans to replace a suddenly departing executive. ** This demonstrates the low priority nonprofits place on over-viewing talent succession to prepare for unexpected vacancies.

Here are some insights (in italics) from the NACD report that are applicable to nonprofit succession planning, be it management talent overview or implementing the replacement process.

The process …for succession planning should begin with determining the… organization’s future strategy.

This type of generative strategic thinking is difficult to accomplish in the nonprofit environment for several reasons. Currently, the planning cycle for most nonprofit boards that I have encountered is from three to five years. The median tenure for nonprofit board members is from four to six years. This means that most board members will only be actively involved with one planning cycle. My observation is that it not a motivating environment for longer terms nonprofit planning.   It tends to focus planning on known details instead of the more ambiguous “what if” questions.

At a minimum each cycle should have some considerations of the talents and skills that will be needed by senior managers to robustly complete the plan and to remain current for the next change.   Such a listing allows senior managers to plan for personal growth and for board governance committees to better understand the new skills and talents required for board members.

Examples:   A CEO may recognize that she/h needs further background in the applications of Artificial Intelligence to nonprofits.   In turn, the board has as an obligation to help the CEO to achieve this goal, even if the CEO might leave after taking advantage of this educational opportunity.

From the board’s perspective, the governance committee may decide that the board does not have a sufficient number of board members interested in fundraising to mount a capital campaign. The plan should how greater attention is needed to recruit candidates with comfort in fundraising.

Trying to achieve agreement on projection can cause disruptive discussions among board members. Legacy-focused board members may try to sidetrack projections especially when the organization has been reasonably successful under a popular leader. But the airing of the issues can be helpful, even if they become emotionally charged.

…Boards of directors are increasingly accepting culture as a hard issue, as opposed to a soft issue. that is measurable and has a direct impact on the organization’s performance.

In both the for-profit and nonprofit environments, the CEO must drive the organization’s culture through example and operational policy. In turn, the board must trust and verify that the CEO is managing in a morally sound and ethical manner.   Where questions arise related to the CEO, on these two issues, the board must start an investigation, often with the assistance of an outside party.

To maintain a healthy culture and the process of succession planning, nonprofit boards need to:

  • Have a healthy review of the nonprofit’s culture included in each planning cycle.
  • Be certain that the CEO has a strong cadre of managers capable of growing in their current positions and able to advance if the opportunity arises.
  • Become reasonably well acquainted with the strengths and limitations of key members in the cadre group.
  • Allow three or more years to plan a CEO transition.
  • Have a written plan in place in the even that the CEO becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated.

Nonprofit planning cycles, like those in the for-profit world, rarely relate succession considerations to the planning efforts because the boards can have a constant churn of memberships. This tends to produce a short-term atmosphere not conducive to succession planning. Every planning cycle should include a review of culture as well as the growth and grooming of high potential staff.

*https://www.nacdonline.org/Resources/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53191

** https://boardsource.org/fundamental-topics-of-nonprofit-board-service/executive-transition/

Do Nonprofit Boards Neglect Oversight of Internal Leadership Development?

Do Nonprofit Boards Neglect Oversight of Internal Leadership Development?

By: Eugene Fram

Although the nonprofit CEO is charged with nurturing the development of his/h staff, the board is responsible for over-viewing the process. Research evidence shows both board and management are neglecting their duties in regard to this responsibility. Only 30% of nonprofit CEO positions are filled internally, a rate that is about half the rate of for-profit organizations. *

The same research shows that,“Hiring the more (internal personnel) can improve performance at the two-year mark by 30%.” These data are even more troubling when roughly related to those of large corporations that concluded that 40% of those hired from outside the organizations are replaced within 18 months. **

Why Are Nonprofit Boards Not Paying Enough Attention?

  • Board Turnover: The most common board structure is two consecutive 3-year terms. Board chairs most commonly serve two consecutive 1-year terms. This in itself can easily create a “short term” board culture.Board members and chairs know they have relatively short tenures and may want to take actions that show more immediate results. Leadership development can be the antithesis of such actions. It takes time andnurturing.
  • The Board-CEO Relationship: Nonprofit boards, as conservators of the organizations assets, are often hesitant to remove an incumbent CEO, sometimes, even when the person has been involved with nefarious activities. Consequently, many nonprofit CEOs are what I call “mind-the-store” types. They have small growth percentages each year, have their financial processes in order, but fail to have enough competent subordinates who are capable of promotion. As a result, those board members who want to establish a culture for leadership growth have to wait for the incumbent CEO to leave or retire. Most board members, as volunteers, fear the interpersonal conflict and added time commitment that follows a board initiated CEO termination. As a result, all plans for change, such as leadership development, can’t thrive without the active support of the CEO
  • The CEO’s Comfort Zone: Few, if any nonprofit CEOs I have encountered take pride in reporting that some of their direct or indirect subordinates have left for substantial success elsewhere. Many currently who have risen in the organization from a line position have had to acquire newer management skills. Consequently, less qualified incumbent CEOs may view more able but less experienced subordinates as a career threat, and they have little interest in promoting leadership development. Moving Leadership Development Into a Nonprofit Culture

Moving Leadership Development Into a Nonprofit Culture

A board member who serves for six years my have some opportunities to introduce leadership development into a nonprofit organization’s culture:

• When Interviewing A CEO Candidate: Ask about leadership development in prior jobs. Ask the candidate about his/h most outstanding direct report and the most problematic one. Look for answers relating to pride in developing subordinates and for engaging able younger managers throughout the organization. Also ask references about these issues.

• A New Strategic Plan: Have the board agree with the CEO that leadership development is critical at all levels and establish some modest mutual objectives when beginning the process of introducing a new strategic plan.

• When The Lack of a Process Affects the Nonprofit’s Impacts: Establish leadership development as a major CEO objective to be accomplished within a reasonable time frame. Seek a new CEO, if the person fails to perform.

Younger people often seek careers in nonprofit organizations because they want to contribute to the lives ofothers or to the social welfare of the greater community. After some years of direct service experience,some may discover they have leadership potential. Without a leadership development culture, nonprofits will lose these able persons to the for-profit sector, for better financial rewards, or find they will become staff persons who do their job adequately but look other outside activities, like political office, to satisfy their leadership ambitions.

* http:/hbr.org/2015/12/nonprofits-cant-keep-ignoring-talent-development

** Ibid

Nonprofit Board Disruption—A Board Member’s Reflections

By: Eugene Fram

A tsunami can suddenly erupt on a nonprofit board. Or, instead, dissension can smolder within the organization, and finally burst into flame. In any case, polarization of opinion can damage an organization unless skillfully managed. It can occur on many fronts: fraud, sharp division of opinion, staff morale or any number of issues. In turbulent times such as the Covid 19 environment, latent problems can swiftly escalate and create chaos.

Disruption on the Board can only be resolved with strong leadership. In most cases, the Board Chair (BC) assumes the responsibility of addressing the problem. In my 30+ years of board consulting and participation, I have had a number of opportunities to view nonprofit boards in trouble. In this post, I share some of the suggestions that have “worked” to resolve problems and help rebuild broken organizations.

When the BC has to accept the challenge of uprooting the problem, he/she is likely to be met with some resistance. Board members may resign from the board in anticipation of a substantial increase in meetings and time involved. Some may be concerned that their management reputation could be sullied or personal financial liabilities leveled by the IRS, the possibility of lawsuits.

If the BC is unable to persuade the distressed board members that their expertise is needed to achieve the nonprofit’s mission, and has made them aware of the Directors & Officers’ Insurance policy which will protect them from financial liability, it will be difficult to recruit new people in this period of instability.

However, the BC can ask former board members to return for another term or two. In one case, a human service organization persuaded a board member about to be termed out to stay for another two years. He happened to be a senior vice president of a listed firm–and a valuable asset to the nonprofit.   He accepted the offer to stay and agreed to become BC of the weakened organization. During his extended tenure, he successfully recruited some former members dedicated to the organization’s mission.

A Case of Disruption

One nonprofit long-tenured CEO retired. He was well-liked and had a “laid back” management style..

His replacement style was quite different. Soon after the new CEO had established himself with the organization, complaints from senior staff members reached the Board. They described his style as too “authoritarian.”

Board response was mixed—proposed solutions to the situation created polarization between two groups. One insisted on immediate termination of the newly hired executive. The other group suggested that he be retained and counseled by board members with significant management experience. A vote was taken and the latter group won by a small majority.

Three months later, the complaints escalated. The CEO’s “I’m in charge” attitude continued to cause friction and this time, he was replaced. The organization prospered for years under the newest CEO’s direction. In the interim between the two CEOs, a union hearing about the conflict, organized the professional staff. Because trust couldn’t effectively be restored, the union still represents the professional staff today!

Other Stakeholders

Other stakeholder groups will need the leadership of the BC or the BC and CEO.

  • The media: Assuming the nonprofit’s issues become public, either the BC or CEO should be designated as the organization’s spokesperson. If neither of these persons feels comfortable in assuming this role, another board member should be appointed to the position. It must be clear to others on the Board or in senior management that only the designated spokesperson speaks for the nonprofit.
  • Staff Personnel: Generally the CEO should be responsible for keeping Staff informed. Under no circumstances should Staff be first informed by a media source.
  • Donors: Significant donors, foundations, government officials and others need to be contacted by the BC or CEO. If other board members or the CEO are also needed to handle the task, a list of “talking points” needs to be provided.
  • Vendors: If fraud or other financial manipulation is involved, the BC needs to consult with legal counsel, to determine who best should be the contact person to assure that vendors know they will be paid.

Legal Considerations

  • Engage An Attorney? It all depends on the complexity of the situation. Consulting with legal counsel would be required when terminating a staff person with a contract. It might not be needed if a police investigation determines a staff person has been stealing the nonprofit’s assets.
  • Board Determines Theft Punishment? I read about a situation where a staff person stole money. The Board continued the person’s employment as long as he repaid the funds. I hope that the board reviewed the action with an attorney to determine if its action met the criteria for due care.
  • Friends Group: Nonprofit board dissensions may motivate a group of former board members, donors or employees to form an outside cohort to help solve the problem. In several situations I have observed or have been involved, they have assumed the name “Friends of…..”. Based upon my experiences and observations, these cohorts have not been effective.

Several years ago I was in contact with two nonprofit BCs facing board and/or membership disruptions issues. Both have reported their frustrations with this comment, “ I didn’t sign up for this, when I volunteered.” One has been able to settle the problem; the other is ongoing. I hope that other nonprofit BCs will keep the above guidelines in their repertories should they be placed in a similar position.

A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond

By Eugene Fram             

g

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonprofit Boards Hire and CEOs Must Act

g

NONPROFIT BOARDS HIRE AND CEOs MUST ACT!

By: Eugene Fram

Whenever the time is ripe to select a new nonprofit CEO, I think of the old joke that says “…every person looks for the perfect spouse… meanwhile, they get married.” By the same token, nonprofit directors seek perfection in a new ED or CEO– and find that they must “settle” for less. But there are certain defined attributes that are essential to his/her success in managing the organization.

With the 21st century pressures of increasingly slim budgets, fund development challenges and the difficulty of recruiting high quality employees the ED/CEO must be action oriented and come equipped with at least a modicum of the following abilities:

 Visionary: It’s all about the organization’s future.

The ED/elect should bring or at least begin tocultivate a deep concept of where the nonprofit is, should be and what the trajectory should looklike. He/she can do that by immersing himself in the mission field—reading widely and remainingin contact with regional and national leaders in the field. A state-of-the-art CEO should beavailable for consultation with colleagues with similar issues. Included in his span of vision arepotential disruptions that might affect the organization– and how to help the board focus on andimplement appropriate change.

 Board Enabler:

The new chief understands the limits of his/h operational responsibilities and the governance overview role required by the board. To build trusting relationships with the board, she/h realizes that transparency is key.

 Fundraiser:

The optimal fundraising relationship is a partnership between the CEO and theboard. Board members must be alert to outside funding opportunities and the CEO, alert tofunding opportunities from sources related to the mission field. Once an opportunity is identified, the CEO and the board work closely together to develop a proposal and to meet with the donor(s).If the organization has a development director, the person filling the position must be brought intothe discussion at an early stage.

 Communicator:

To be organizationally successful, the Board and CEO must be in a position to interact with a variety of stakeholders: government officials, donors, vendors, clients and theirs surrogates, foundations, etc. One area in which many nonprofit CEOs need improvement in communications is with the business community. It goes beyond simply joining the Rotary or Chamber of Commerce groups. Nonprofit CEOs must have rudimentary knowledge of many businesses so they can interact intelligently with business leaders they encounter in development efforts. This information can be about specific organizations they are approaching or general knowledge acquired from perusing publications like Business Week or The Wall Street Journal.

 Spokesperson:

Although some suggest that the volunteer president must be the spokesperson for the nonprofit, I suggest that the Executive Director/CEO must hold this position for several reasons

1. If a volunteer becomes a president/CEO, he/s may acquire some liabilities that other board directors don’t have. Some nonprofits have given the chief operating the title of president/ceo and the senior board person, board chair.  This eliminates confusion that often surrounds the ED title when contacting business or government officials.

2.The volunteer president typically does not work in the organization daily and does not understand its nuances as well as the CEO.

3.In a crisis situation, the media may contact board members.   It should be clearly understood that the CEO is the only person to comment to the media.

4. In ceremonial situations, it may be appropriate for the president to be a spokesperson.

5. The CEO needs to become the “face” of the organization because volunteer presidents come and go, some annually.

 Team Builder:

She/h needs to build a strong management team, some of whom, over time, may become capable of becoming an Executive Director. The CEO, as head of the management team, needs to be sure all staff are performing well with some being bench strength to move to higher positions.

 Tone Setter:

The CEO needs to set an ethical tone where everybody feels free to express their suggestions for improving the organization. This tone, in various ways, must also be communicated to all stakeholders by the Executive Director.

 Performance Monitor:

Hopefully the board has a rigorous and fair system for evaluating the CEO and the organization, and the values of this system that are embedded in staff evaluations.


 

 

Once Again! What Does Nonprofit Board Oversight Mean?

d

By:Eugene Fram

Frequently, I encounter nonprofit case stories surface related to inadequate oversight by nonprofit boards of directors.  Some of the cases result in substantial dollar losses to the nonprofits. Following is my personal list of what reasonable board oversight means to attempt to help nonprofit boards of directors to avoid such losses.

  • At least half the board should be able to analyze the monthly or quarterly financial statements.  Have voluntary information sessions available for those who do not have the skills.
  • Make certain that an external audit is conducted at least every two years, and the board is involved in the selection of the external auditor from a list of two or three suggested by board members and/or management. [i]
  • Be alert to the system used for developing new programs.  Be wary when new programs are described such as “mindboggling.”
  • Be certain the organization has either a comprehensive assessment committee, finance committee, and/or audit committee. (Some states require nonprofits to have an audit committee once the organization has a certain annual revenue.) 
  • Be alert to the development process for filing critical reports –Examples:  990s, employee tax withholdings and both state and federal tax reports.[ii]
  • Make certain the board has developed or is developing a current strategic plan.
  • Make certain that the organization has a knowledgeable CFO.  No board member should have to worry about the safety of the organization’s assets.
  • Be especially alert when financial reports are frequently late or one or more directors perceive financial personnel are inadequately skilled. 
  • If you don’t understand something, be ready to raise questions, even if the question appears to be innocuous
  • Nonprofit transparency is critical in the 21st century.  “Trust But Verify.”

[i] For guidance in this process see: Eugene Fram & Bruce Oliver, (2010)“Want to Avoid Fraud?  Look to Your Board,” Nonprofit World, pp.18-19.

Identify Nonprofit Staff Groups To Help Drive Organizational Change

Identify Nonprofit Staff Groups To Help Drive Organizational Change.

By Eugene Fram     

Nonprofit executive directors Board Members tend to think of the staff professionals as individual contributors. These individuals are persons who mainly work on their own and increasingly also have to contribute as team players – for instance, counselors, health care professionals, curators and university faculty. However, many executive directors fail to recognize that these individual contributors can be grouped according to identifiable types, with differing work-value outlooks. Each group needs to be motivated differently to drive change in today’s fast moving social, political and technological environments. Nonprofit board members can use these groupings in their responsibilities for overseeing promotable staff members.  

From years of observation of a variety of nonprofits the late Robert Pearse, a psychologist, and I have identified four major groups that have been labeled “Nostalgics,” “Maintainers,” “Producers’ and “Builders.” Executive directors and board directors who do not recognize the existence of such groups and the special needs to motivate and evaluate them differently may not achieve the forward motion or the performance goals that are required in the 21st century.

An identifiable group may dominate a department or it may have members in different departments. In many cases, a single group may include professionals with disparate personalities but whose work-value systems are similar.

Meet, for example, Sarah Thomas, a congenial department head who has spent the past decade in a nonprofit trade association, and Jack Engels, a brusque cost accountant in the association’s financial division. Sarah is well liked by the members of her department, while Jack is largely left alone in his work.

On the surface, Sarah and Jack appear to have little in common. Closer observation, however, shows that they are alike in one important aspect. Sarah’s department, which she has headed for the past six years, performs at a satisfactory level. Over the years, Sarah has tended to hire staff professionals who have  work-values like her own. They are good – but not outstanding – performers. The group gets regular work done but rarely exhibits creative efforts or critical thinking.  A recurring complaint from Sarah and her people is, “The department has too much to do.”

Jack Engels, the brusque accountant, also gets his work done, even though he shows little enthusiasm for his work. It is just a job, and he is averse to any change, except that mandated by accounting requirements.

Both Sarah and Jack are Maintainers, for both are comfortable with the status quo. If the executive director and/or board members were to allow the Maintainers standards to pervade the entire organization’s performance, it would likely stagnate and eventually decline.

Nostalgics are generally easy to recognize because they identify so strongly with the organization’s past history and culture. Many of them tend to be long tenured professionals whose performance has leveled off over time. They tend to take pride in being dedicated to the nonprofit but are uncomfortable with changes they perceive as breaking sharply with tradition.

The following strategies are helpful in working with Nostalgics:
• Respond to their need to revere and emotionally relive the past.
• Encourage the “willing worker” value system of group members.
• Show how proposed changes will perpetuate past glory by contributing to organizational longevity and prominence.
• Recognize that Nostalgics lack vision and prefer to avoid direct confrontation about the future direction of the organization.

Maintainers constitute the largest group in virtually all organizations, as illustrated by Jack and Sarah, they are average performers who typically have less tenure but also possess more currently useful skills than Nostalgics.  They do only what is required by a job description or implied contract. Although they appreciate having a professional position, they have not internally accepted the self-directed performance behavior one typically associates with being a professional.

Several guidelines are helpful in working with Maintainers.
• Be alert to the strong “legacy” value system at work in this professional group-all established processes can be successful in the future.
• Depend on group members for low to average productivity but be aware that requests for increased productivity or increased self-management are likely to generate resentment and hostility.
• Emphasize the pressures in the organization’s external environment that require professional performance improvement. Indicate how such improvements are important to long-term job security.
• Set modest but attainable performance improvement goals on an annual basis. (Note: If a complete turnaround is essential, for the organizational survival, this slow improvement will not be adequate.)
• Expect some continuing hostility whenever Maintainers feel new standards put pressure on them for sustained higher performance and commitment.

Producers are a varied collection of highly individual “type-A” workaholics who are motivated by their own goals. They tend to work on their own, but can be useful as team leaders if required for time limited projects. Because work output is the core of their existence, they see few differences between their personal and professional lives, sometimes leading to an unhealthy work-life balance.  This can be a larger challenge if work forces are increasingly working from home.   Producers will support changes initiated by the executive director that they perceive will enable them to produce more efficiently as individuals.

The executive director can try to motivate Producers’ effectiveness in the following ways:

  • Channel Producers’ vigorous efforts into organizational priorities by linking Producers’ special interests to the mission and goals of the nonprofit.
    • To the extent possible, provide Producers with the resources needed to be self-managing and productive.
    • Wherever possible, remove bureaucratic roadblocks to their productivity.
    • Agree annually on goals, and let Producers achieve them with a minimum of supervision and with appropriate rewards .

Builders, unlike Producers, are committed to furthering the goals of the organization, even at the expense of his or own personal goals. A senior nurse, who agrees to become an administrator, even though he or she prefers to care for patients, is an example of a Builder. Builders fall into two categories: vague visionaries and organized progressives. The former group’s attention span shifts rapidly from one detail of a proposed change to another. They lack sustained capacity for completing long-term performance improvement. The members of the latter group, organized progressives, are systematic thinkers who think quickly. Once they have a picture in mind, they can provide the executive director with knowledgeable and strong support.

An executive director can motivate the Builder group in the following ways:
• Use the vague visionary Builders to help sell others when launching new performance programs.
• Explain to organized progressives how their Builder values can contribute to a long-term systematic improvement plan.
• Give organized progressives strategic follow-up assignments to ensure the new program will move forward.
• Provide Builders with superior performance rewards..

If nonprofits are to continue to serve the nation in the current turbulent difficult time, executive directors and volunteer board members will need to provide strong support to their Builders and Producers and their work-value systems. In addition, they must also motivate the Nostalgic and Maintainer groups, using the suggestions cited above.

We hope this blog will spur board members, executive directors and president/CEOs to identify these four groups in their own organizations.
Sources
Eugene Fram & Robert Pearse (1991) “The High Performance Nonprofit: A Management Guide for Boards and Executives,” Families International, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Judith Gordon (1991), “Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach,” Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 205-207, 742.

Once Again!! A Nonprofit Board’s Most Important Job!

By: Eugene Fram

Many people believe as I do that a nonprofit board’s job is to find the best possible person to act as CEO of the organization, then stand back and let that person manage. If your board is in agreement, here are guidelines for action:

• Recruit Widely: Develop a rigorous vetting process. Well before the search begins, make certain that potential internal candidates have had an opportunity to demonstrate management acumen. If an internal candidate is somewhat less qualified than an external one, don’t let the decision be swayed by the fact that the internal candidate would be less costly to employ.
• Understanding The Partnership: The need for the CEO and Board to operate within a partnership framework is well documented and accepted. However, the CEO is both the senior staff manager and a de facto representative of the board-staff relationship. Normal communications to the staff must be through the CEO. The CEO can’t be an insecure manager by withholding negative information from the board.
• A Nonprofit Board Has An Overview Responsibility: Sometimes, this responsibility can devolve into micromanagement of the management and staff. If the overview, policy or strategy functions of the board are not being adequately executed, a lead director may need to be appointed to help focus on them.*
• In terms of organization and CEO measurement, the board must seek data and information on outcomes and impacts, not become overly involved with process details.
• Nobody Does His/Her Job Perfectly: The board needs to be highly tolerant of inconsequential CEO mistakes. However, if these mistakes persist over time, the board needs to assess reasons for their continuing. Major errors need immediate investigation, and the board members also must be honest with itself about their own culpability in its due diligence process.
• The CEO And Staff Must Be Evaluated Fairly: In a nonprofit situation, this must be done in partnership, not hierarchically. Everybody must understand the “rules of the game.” Outcomes and impacts need to be related to the mission of the organization.
• The Board and CEO Must Partner On Fundraising: An effective CEO must, in the 21st century, be the face of the organization to accomplish its mission. Nonprofit board members are part-time stewards. Consequently the CEO must accept a significant responsibility for fundraising.

These guidelines can be useful to nonprofit boards in self-evaluation projects. They can determine whether or not the board is facing the realities of standing back and letting the CEO manage. The CEO should have full operational authority, and the staff should function without an atmosphere of board micromanagement.

*International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law / vol. 14, nos. 1-2, April 2012 / p.57.