CEO Evaluations

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

By Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Your Nonprofit’s CEO Succession Plans COVID Updated?

 

Are Your Nonprofit’s CEO Succession Plans COVID Updated?

By:Eugene Fram          Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Prepared Are Board Members for the Challenges of the Nonprofit Culture?

How Prepared Are Board Members for the Challenges of the Nonprofit Culture?

By: Eugene Fram     Free Digital Image

Given that the typical tenure of a new board member is six years. In addition, a new board member’s intention  may be to make his/her unique contribution to the organization’s progress before he/s rotates off the board and is supplanted by another “new” director. With these factors in mind, I estimate that many volunteers enter the boardroom with little understanding of nonprofit culture. Even those who have served previously on business boards may initially spend valuable time in accommodating to the nuances of nonprofit practices and priorities before being poised to make contributions to the “greater good” that nonprofits create. Following are some areas that are endemic to nonprofits:

• Mission is Impact: Whereas the central mission of corporate boards is to make money for shareholders, nonprofit organizations, with their multitude of diverse missions, are commonly invested in impact. Most nonprofit directors, managers and staff are committed to helping the nonprofit organization fulfill its unique mission. I have seen staff and managers, often with highly marketable skills, remain with nonprofits despite financial pressure to move on. Dedication to the organization’s raison d’etre is a strong motivator that keeps good people working towards its accomplishment. Both types of organizations can report financial results quarterly, but nonprofits struggle to measure such long-term mission outcomes as  ” … enhanced quality of life, elevated artistic sensitivity, community commitment and successful advocacy… .” The elusive nonprofit challenge becomes how to measure impact in order to assess mission fulfillment. (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)

• A Slower Pace: The pace of the decision process is decidedly slower in nonprofits than in the corporate board. This can occur for a number of possible reasons. It could be that the NFP’s charter may purposely set up requirements that preclude hasty and possibly unwise decisions—by mandating a period of deliberation before an action is formally voted upon. It may possibly be that the organization recognizes that it has insufficient staff for fast implementation. And there have been a number of cases when a nonprofit board has had to defer action because a succession of meetings has not produced a voting quorum!

• Get or Give Obligations: Nonprofit board members are said to stand “10 feet tall” in response to their commitment and service to the organization. The value of their time, energy and expertise is immeasurable. Another important aspect of good board management is ensuring the availability of adequate funds. To this end, many nonprofits ask board members to help generate and/or make annual donations themselves within the parameters of their resources. Commonly, directors are urged to make a “stretch” gift– and there are times when they are even requested to make their largest donation to that organization or seek donations or services from others. Some directors resist this type of pressure. But even with a development staff taking proactive development responsibility, it is still the board’s responsibility to pursue funds by every appropriate means.

• Board Chair, CEO and Staff Relationships: This triumvirate of positions makes up the lifeline of any nonprofit organization. Both Board Chair and CEO have their own designated spheres of influence that sometimes succumb to a board culture that is resistant to change. The staff has its own set of issues related to the nonprofit’s “flat” structure.  Here are some cultural breakdowns in internal relationships that can be disruptive to the organization.

The NFP Board Chair is probably more important than in an FP organization. The rank and file board members often defer to the current chair on proposed actions– generally to avoid conflict, which might impact donations or hobble potential networking efforts. This hesitancy to challenge the leadership cannot only impede progress but is apt to give the board a “rubber stamp” image..

The CEO will be the keystone to implementing a high-performance culture in a nonprofit organization. Boards are frequently resistant to consider replacing a CEO as long as he/s is producing at  a “C” or “B” level.  “If it’s not broken, why fix it?” is the view, albeit a short-term response. Understandably, the frequently shifting body of board members finds that maintaining the status quo is less disruptive. It is not, however, always in the best interest of the organization and its potential to grow and serve clients. 

The Staff, unlike in the FP hierarchy, is structurally often only one or two levels below the board, thus well attuned to the frequent rotations of board personnel. A continual shifting body of directors makes staff members vulnerable to changing priorities, which can significantly impact their work. Nonprofits should offer many opportunities for staff and board to communicate appropriately—to interact in informal settings and on board-staff committees. But creeping board micromanagement needs to be avoided as a danger for nonprofits. 

Summary: Once acclimated to the unique challenges of the nonprofit culture, serving on the board can provide an exceptionally rewarding experience. Board members will have a chance to work with others who are dedicated to the work of serving people with significant personal needs, improving the positive contributions of professional and trade associations and bringing value and enrichment to their communities.

 

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

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

By Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

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

Board Member Tenure versus CEO

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

“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors

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

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

Three Options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wanted: Nonprofit CEOs with Entrepreneurial People Skills

Wanted: Nonprofit CEOs with Entrepreneurial People Skills

By: Eugene Fram      Free Digital Image

The need for superior leadership skills is as critical to CEOs in nonprofits as it is in the entrepreneurial world. Following are four such skills and the unique challenges they bring when employed in the nonprofit environment.

 

  • The CEO’s Power of Persuasion

A nonprofit CEO and the board must take the lead in creating the organization’s mission, vision and values. However, since the board majority is usually composed of volunteers who are seldom involved in the day-to-day implementation of the organization’s mission, it becomes the responsibility of the CEO to present viable options for the future — and then to effectively share the board-approved “vision” with three discrete audiences: the board, professional staff and other stakeholders. But…

Board members, in the roles as part-time overseers, often do not have the time to critically evaluate alternatives when presented, particularly if a revised mission is under consideration.

Nonprofit staffs tend to be conservative, especially when change may jeopardize their positions. (e.g. “Don’t change the program, the position that may be dropped can be yours!”)

And foundations, donors, and supporters, who are possibly considering funding requests from other nonprofits, need to be approached by a CEO who is equipped with outstanding people skills.

While business organizations have somewhat similar challenges, obviously their revenue sources are not dependent on financial gifts.

  • The Right Hires

Just as in business, the process of judicious hiring endlessly challenges a nonprofit CEO. Nonprofit salary levels are simply not competitive with those of established commercial organizations, especially in the area of hard-to-find skills such as finance or IT. But these challenges can be overcome! I have seen nonprofit CEOs develop a collegial working atmosphere in their search for employees, resulting in new personnel who are not only dedicated to the mission but feel encouraged to exercise their own creative potential.

  • Face of the Organization

The nonprofit CEO, like his entrepreneurial business counterpart, must be the top marketing executive who is the face of the organization. While board members can assist with promotion, CEOs are the leaders to whom stakeholders and employees look to promote the organization’s impacts. Alternatively, they must take the blame for failures. No longer should a nonprofit CEO be able to use the old excuse with a failed program, “The board forced me to take the action.” But to shepherd an entrepreneurial CEO, the board needs to be able to tolerate some failures as long as they were based on reasonable “business judgment.” No one does their job with unfettered perfection.

  • Growing the Organization

If a nonprofit decides to expand the scope of the organization, the skill sets needed in a CEO are quite different from those needed to maintain a status quo operation. Rarely can the executive who simply “minds the store” adjust to the complexities of the new environment and must be replaced or moved elsewhere. A nonprofit’s commitment to expansion is both exciting and terrifying. In any case, it demands a nonprofit CEO who, in partnership with a supportive board, can handle the requisite financial development and continual networking with stakeholders.

 

Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?
Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?

By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

Recruiting and retaining able people for nonprofit careers has always been a challenge.  Salary levels have not been comparable to business organizations and some government posts. Many small and medium sized nonprofits have frontline personnel organizationally located only two levels below the Board of Directors.  Consequently, career paths can appear stymied.

The employment situation has changed for two population cohorts.  They are: some millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and those in the Generation Z cohort (born between 1997 and 2012).

(more…)

Once Again! Should a Nonprofit CEO Be a Voting Member of the Board of Directors

   By:  Eugene Fram         Free Digital image

BoardSource, a professional governance organization, reports that this question is one of the most asked. Google reports about eight million citations, in a brief .52 second search, related to the issue or related issues. The question continues to be debated, and the need for comment and opinion seems insatiable. (more…)

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/

 

Using A Nonprofit’s DNA In Planning?

Bob Harris, CAE, suggests a nonprofit’s DNA consists of five elements. ** Following are my thoughts on how they can be applied, if a nonprofit board wants to develop an understanding of the “real world” applications of the Harris DNA elements. This needs to take place prior to the planning efforts.

Board Structure: Nonprofit boards must effectively operate with a series of board committees. The number of committees varies widely. I have observed some with as few as three committees and others with as many as 15 committees. The latter group rationalizes the number by suggesting board member involvement leads to better understandings of missions, vision, and values. More desirable board candidates live time-compressed work and lifestyles and can’t become involved with committees that meet without defined charters or try to micromanage management decisions.

Three to about six committees seems to be optimal for a mature board in the 21st century. A startup board will require more committees to allow board members to assume operational roles. One warning! If this large committee DNA format is allowed to carry over into maturity, it can lead to a dominating board that will be difficult to change.

Strategy: “A Board must act strategically—not tactically” ** In terms of its DNA, strategy must be the “lifeblood” that helps relate all major decisions to the nonprofit’s mission.

Start-up nonprofits often focus on tactical discussions at Board meetings. Founders and board members must address tactical issues because board members have two responsibilities. They must govern and act as part or full-time staff.  But as the organization matures it becomes essential to fashion all agendas on policy/strategy issues. The responsibility for action resides with the Board Chair and CEO. The Board Chair, however, has a special obligation to proactively discourage lengthy discussions of tactical issues, frequently characterized as “weed discussions.” It should be emphasized that these are operational and management responsibilities, not Board agenda items. 

Sustainability: This factor involves several critical keystones. First is the sustainability of income sources. If, for example, the nonprofit is heavily dependent on governmental funding, to what extent is the nonprofit able to secure private and foundation sources should governmental support abruptly decline? Managers and audit committee members need to be continually alert to seeking new funding sources.

A second keystone involves succession planning. The Board has direct responsibility for CEO succession and must overview staff succession. The latter involves knowing who among staff personnel are promotable, or, with training, be able to fill managerial positions. In my opinion, most nonprofits boards don’t provide significant overview attention to staff promotions.

Relatively short board terms or tenures for most board members (4-6 years) allow the board to introduce new thinking. However, they may not motivate board members to come to grips with issues related to long-term sustainability. Board members are traditionally active for one planning cycle, assuming strategic planning takes place every three to five years. From a sustainability perceptive, this restricts discussions of DNA changes that may impact stakeholders in the seven to ten-year time frames.

Relevance: Two keystones are also important here. First clients and funders must be able to perceive that the nonprofit is fulfilling its mission with integrity and a focus on stakeholder satisfaction.

The second involves maintaining a strongly committed board. To achieve this goal, the Board Chair and CEO must take actions to make certain that each board member perceives that her/h contributions are meaningful.   These perceptions can only be determined from candid conversations with each board member. It’s the responsibility of both the Board Chair and CEO to annually assess that each board member is involved with meaningful activities.

Unlike humans, the DNA of nonprofit organizations can change with careful interpersonal adjustments. For example, assumed it is desirable to have emergency client services available 24/7 instead of the normal 40-hour working week. Then management and staff should work together to modify the DNA (fair scheduling hours, etc.,) to accommodate the change.

Performance: The approaches to assessing the value of nonprofits have recently changed. Focus has changed from assessing program outcomes to assessing program impacts. ***

Program objectives can be achieved, but they can have little impact on clients lives. For example, marriage counseling can be helpful in eliminating symptoms of problems to meet client satisfaction, but the results may lack impact because they don’t address the problems’ root causes. Data analysts are being employed by some nonprofits to model impact information that is being requested by foundations and donors. The task, however, can take a long time to implement.

Suggestion: Most well-run nonprofits review their missions, visions, and values every three to five years. A review of their DNA factors, prior to the planning cycle can enhance the process.

 

Raising the Bar for Nonprofit Board Engagement

 

Raising the Bar for Nonprofit Board Engagement

By Eugene Fram                            Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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