Charity

CEOs Need To Develop Partnering Relationships With Board Members

By Eugene Fram              

When a CEO publicly introduces a board member as “my boss,” (as I have overheard more than once) there is a problem. It’s true that both parties—CEO and board member—have specific roles in the success of a nonprofit organization. But the hierarchy of authority should be deemphasized when it comes to interpersonal connections. The most effective mindset for CEO and board members is to view each other as partners in working to achieve the organization’s mission and their impacts.

The CEO’s efforts to cultivate such relationships are key. The following are some initiatives that he/she can utilize: *

• Partners need to know each other as individuals: With overcrowded meeting agendas, rambling debates and hurried exits, there is often not enough time to know the person’s name who sits next to you, let alone anything about his life outside the boardroom. Even off-site meetings for informal exchange are hard to schedule and poorly attended. This lack of human connection is a real deficit in internal board relationships. The CEO can help in a number of ways.

1. Take a few minutes at the beginning or end of the meeting to allow board members, if they choose, to report something new or important in their personal or professional lives.
2. The CEO and/or board members should try to meet with individual board members or small groups to suggest new or unique ideas for improvement within the organization. Show professional regard for their responses even if it is not actionable.
3. Create social occasions by inviting board members and their significant others to participate informally. Or ask some board members to plan gatherings that could be as casual as afternoon wine and cheese or self paid dinners out together.

• Connect partner directors to the CEO’s real work: Since most nonprofit board members’ full-time interests and professions are not directly related to the organization’s mission, it’s important for CEOs to educate board members more deeply about what goes on routinely to achieve the mission, especially in those areas (e.g. human resources) in which the decision-making information is quite ambiguous.

For partner board members wanting deeper organization knowledge, the CEO needs to invite them to accompany him/h to local, regional or national professional meetings. Not only do these offer professional benefits, such as understanding accrediting processes, but it also offers the CEO an opportunity to solidify partnerships. Example: As a young faculty person at a university, the senior VP of Finance occasionally would invite me to accompany him to professional meetings. He would use travel time to orient me on macro issues facing the university.

• Energize board meetings: In recent years business meetings have been described as “death by power point.” Many presentations ranges from 20 to 30 power point cells when 8-10 can highlight the story. There are many actions the CEO, with the concurrence of the board chair, can take to develop these into partnership relations.
1. Keep minutiae off the agenda. If it crops up because a few directors find a small topic of tangential interest, the chair has a leadership obligation to take action by saying, “How does the X issue contribute directly to achieving our mission? Let’s set up a process where those interested in this issue can discuss it after the meeting.”
2. Place the boilerplate topics at the end of the meeting.
3. Staff reports on their operations are necessary at every other board meeting. While the CEO has an obligation to make certain they are brief and well presented, the chair has to make certain that board member questions are precise so that the staff person can stay within allotted time.
4. Use a “consent agenda” process for items about which there appears to be substantial agreement.
5. Make certain that every new chair is reasonably familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order to encourage civil discussion and conduct an orderly meeting process. It also can be helpful to appoint a parliamentarian should the rule-book need interpretation.
6. Focus on action items. “Send board members out the door with a clear idea of what they need to do between now and the next board meeting”** (and with the feeling that he/s has met with a group of high energy partners.)

• Meaningful Work: As much as possible, the CEO, with the board chair, has to make certain that every director views his/h efforts as meaningful to achieving the mission: Example: A CEO devoted an entire meeting to reviewing a powerpoint presentation he was planning to make. This was the final straw for a board member, who felt his time was being squandered. He immediately resigned his position with the usual excuse of increased work responsibilities.

A Leadership Challenge: Bonding with the board and encouraging board member connections is a tall order for a CEO with full operational responsibilities. As board members’ terms expire and new people step up to the plate, the challenge to build relationships is continuous. Even some termed-out board members need meaningful contact and must be kept interested and invested in the nonprofit’s development. The CEO, with the strong support of the board chair, should provide leadership in these important tasks—it will help the organization to move forward while maximizing the benefits to its clients.

*http://boardassist.org/blog/bored-blazing-7-steps-get-board-reconnected-re-engaged-enth

**Ibid

How A Nonprofit Board Member Can Initiate Positive Change

How A Nonprofit Board Member Can Initiate Positive Change 

By: Eugene Fram             

A nonprofit board member comes up with an idea that he thinks will do wonders for the organization. He is convinced that establishing a for-profit subsidiary will not only be compatible with the group’s mission but may even bring in new sources of revenue. It’s his ball–now what’s the best route to run with it? All too often in the nonprofit environment, initiating change can be as daunting as trying to get consensus in the US Congress! There are, however, certain interpersonal levers, which, if pushed, can accelerate the process–although one hopes that not all the levers will be needed in any specific situation.

  • Board Colleagues – Quietly enlist as many board colleagues as possible to support the idea.  Enlisting support from board opinion leaders is critical — then open up the discussion to others in informal conversations. Premature presentation to the entire board could stall the process.
  • The CEO – Either before or during conversations with board colleagues, be certain to review the proposed change with the CEO.  He/S will voice acceptance, rejection, or asks to consider it.  If s/he is opposed to the change, the board member only has these alternatives – wait until a new CEO is engaged; seek board termination of the CEO that is generally not a good move; or wait for better timing and board support.  It is foolhardy to seek the change in face of the full opposition of the CEO. If the CEO will support the change, it may be a good idea for the board member to step back and make the CEO the leading change agent.
  • Revenues – No matter how good the change, implementation will likely require financing beyond current budget allocations.   Consequently, a plan for fund  development from foundations and individuals will be needed for the final proposal.
  • Other Organizations—Other organizations with similar situations could serve as useful models. An on-site visit will provide information and enable the nonprofit to develop benchmarks that will reassure those that remain skeptical.
  • Measurement–Establish measurement metrics before the change is launched.  Do not hesitate to use imperfect metrics to track progress and drive change during the development period.  (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)

Nonprofit board members have relatively short tenures—typically four to six years or less– and are often regarded as temporary overseers. There are opportunities to be much more than that if the board operates in a 21st century generative manner. The board climate should be open to ideas of positive change, and the creative board member must appropriately adapt or adopt the above levers to ensure effective acceptance and implementation

Can a 9-Year Tenure Promote Nonprofit Board Member Effectiveness?

Can a 9-Year Tenure Promote Nonprofit Board Member Effectiveness?

Having served on two nonprofit boards for a period of ten consecutive years, I was interested to read a study of the optimal tenure for business board directors. * The business study found that a board member’s effectiveness peaked at nine years, after which it falls off.* If a parallel study were to be run with nonprofits, what conclusions might be drawn given that the usual nonprofit board tenure is two three-year terms? What, if any, might be the impact on nonprofits by extending a board member’s term of office? Although there are differences in their missions, nonprofit and for-profit boards should be able learn from each other., As a result, it is fair to ask, what impact would the study’s data have if applied to a nonprofit?

As might be expected, in the for-profit environment as in the nonprofit environment, one size did not fit all in the study results. Those firms that had complex operations required a longer learning time curve for new directors, and the optimal time was 11 years for maximum director effectiveness. This contrasts with about seven years if the directors required greater monitoring efforts. If nonprofits were to follow these conclusions, it suggests that the traditional two three-year director terms are desirable for start-ups but not for those nonprofit boards that have matured.

Another overall conclusion was that high average board tenure did not impact the board’s ability to attract new directors, whether they are high performing or poorly performing firms. In other words, those boards with high tenure boards records would have little problems attracting new directors.

To replicate this study in the nonprofit environment would be difficult because the stock performance measures used by the for-profit researcher are not appropriate. Consequently, highly creative, well-accepted measures would need to be developed. The study does raises some questions that nonprofits need to ponder:

• What are the core characteristics of nonprofit board membersby which to judge effectiveness? How can they be defined and how can they be measured?
• Is a board with a large group of long tenured members a detriment to nonprofit progress, as commonly believed, or a board with human resource experiences to be admired?
• Should nonprofits experiment with offering directors three three-year terms, renewable each in three-year increments? After all it is not unusual to encounter nonprofit directors who have served for 10 or more years, by using some “escape clauses,” in the bylaws such as the member first filling an unexpired term of another member or a director after six years being able to stay on as board chair for another two years plus an additional year as past board chair.

*Ben Haimowitz (2013) “Why 9 Years is a Lucky Number for Board Director Tenure and Effectiveness,” CEO Briefing Newsletter, September 13th. Please note that tenure can be significant problem in the for-profit arena. Some boards can have several directors with 50 year of voting tenure
See: Richard LeBlanc (2013) “How Long Should a Board Director Serve?” Huffington Post, September 19th.

Do Nonprofit Boards Proactively Engage Their Stakeholders?

Do Nonprofit Boards Proactively Engage Their Stakeholders?

By: Eugene H. Fram

Nonprofit directors and trustees need to take overview responsibility for engaging all of the organization’s stakeholders.

The first step must involve defining the term“stakeholder” in the broadest action oriented terms. Most boards will quickly agreethat clients and board members are stakeholders, but what about others such as external auditors and significant vendors. For example, if a charity is depending on one vendor for a substantial part of its grocery supplies, that vendor needs to be viewed as a stakeholder—its failure to delivery properly affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.

Following are some guidelines for engaging all types of stakeholders. Don’t marginalize, dismiss or ignore any stakeholder: Nonprofits do this with termed-out board members. * After six active years, a typical tenure, many former board members only received boilerplate materials or development solicitations. The board’s rationale is that they have served welland there is a downside on more frequent communication.This tactic assumes all board members want such a communications approach.

However, for board members who have been very active, it maybe counterproductive from development and future interest viewpoints. The ED and Board Chair need to keep a list of name of this special group and see that they keep in personal touch with the members once or twice a year.

I have observed several cases in which this unintentional marginalized has resulted in losing substantial financial gifts and needed talent. In both cases,the termed-out board members have declined with the excuse that they have been too far away from the activities of the organization. Using members of this group in advisory capacities can avoid such marginalization by forming them in alumni groups or including them insocial occasions and celebrations.

Recognize who may be a true partner: Such a partner can range a vendor that has supplied the organization or a volunteer whose interests have moved to another nonprofit. “ It is generally easier to build consensus,request help and engender trust when those who support you are well-informed, candidly an truthfully.” *

If stakeholders don’t know about the nonprofit’s challenges and needs, even the best-managed nonprofits have their ups and downs. During the latter periods, having stakeholders knowledgeable about the issues can help to dissuade some to avoid protesting job cuts and other receactions. Self–perpetuating boards can became insular and lose touch with other stakeholders: “These boards tend to retreat into a silo-or bunker-mentality that only serves to intensify bad habits and practices, as well as preclude consideration of other that only serves to intensify bad habits and practices, as well as preclude consideration of other perspectives.” * At difficult times, the board can tend to lose trust in the ED even when the problem is beyond the EDs control. If the board is at fault, it may look for a scapegoat on which to hang the the problem, often people in senior management.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-fram/how-does-your-nonprofit-r_b_5393736.html* https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sweet-briar-reminded-us-alumni-engagement-mark-w-jones

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     

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…)

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

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

By: Eugene Fram                    

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

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

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

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

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:

  • Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
  • Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
  • Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
  • And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *

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

(more…)

What Should Nonprofit Board Members Know?

By Eugene Fram       

A blog developed by an internationally known  board expert* raises some pertinent governance questions mainly targeted to for-profit boards. Following are my suggestions how these questions could apply to nonprofit and trustee boards. In addition, field examples show what happened when the questions had to be raised in crises situations.

Does bad news rise in your organization?
“You may be the last to know.” For example, the board of a human services organization knew that the professional staff was not happy with a new ED with an authoritarian management style, but the board felt it needed to give him a chance to modify his style. Board members didn’t know that the staff  professionals had been meeting with a union organizer for nine months.
A labor election resulted, with the professional staff agreeing to work under a trade union contract.

Do your CEO & CFO have integrity?
“If the CEO or CFO holds back, funnel information, manages agendas, is defensive or plays…. cards too close to the, vest, this is a warming sign.” For example, a CFO was delinquent in submitting a supplementary accounts receivable financial report. The board and CEO accepted his excuses, but the data, when submitted, had a significant negative impact on the financials. Both the CEO and CFO lost their positions.  Should the board have also accepted some responsibility for the crisis?  

Do you understand the (mission) and add value?
The board members need to seriously answer this question:
If this organization were to disappear tomorrow, who would care?

Do you know how fraud can occur in your (nonprofit)?
Common wisdom prevails that there is little for-profit or nonprofit boards can do avoid fraud. To review nonprofit boards actions that can be taken, especially for medium and small size nonprofit boards, see; Eugene Fram & Bruce Oliver (2010) “Want to Avoid Fraud? Look to your Board,” Nonprofit World, September/October, pp.18-19.

Do you compensate the right behaviors?
“You are at the helm as board members. Whatever you compensate, management will do.”
Be certain the organization is compensating for outcomes and,more importantly, today impacts. Too often compensation is given for completing processes that are not tied to client impacts

Do you get disconfirming information?
Management is only one source of information. With the agreement of management, visit privately with people below the management level. Set a Google Alert for the name of the organization to see what others on the Internet are saying about your nonprofit’s relationships.

Do you get exposures to key (operational areas) and assurance functions?
“Bring key people into the boardroom, without Power Points. See how they think on their feet. It is good for succession planning and is an excellent source of information.”

Do you get good advice and stay current?
“Bring tailored education into the board room and stay on top of emerging developments. “ This is especially important for the nonprofit directors or trustees who serves on a board that is out of their area of expertise. For example, bankers might serve on a hospital boards.

Do you meet with (stakeholders) – apart from management?
Board members need to join with management in meeting key funders occasionally to determine if their expectations are fully met and what the board might do to foster a continuing relationship. This lets funders know that the board is involved over-viewing the organization’s outcomes and impacts.

*Richard Leblanc, “The Board’s Right to Know and Red Flags To Avoid When You Don’t.” http://www.boardexpert.com/blog, September 14, 2012
Note: Bold & quoted items are from the above blog.

 

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

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

By Eugene Fram             

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

Board Member Tenure versus CEO

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

“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors

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

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

Three Options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Nonprofit Missions Get Muddled

 

By: Eugene Fram  

It happens over time. A passionately conceived mission starts to drift from its original intentions. Stakeholders begin to view a nonprofit’s purposes from a different angle. There is a discrepancy between how the organization is committed to act and external perceptions of its current actions. Nonprofit boards need to be on the alert to such misalignments that can go unnoticed in the perceptual “fog” of daily challenges. It can limp along for years without acknowledging the impact of the client reality by which the nonprofit is being judged.   

A good start would be a five year review of how others see the organization, i.e. volunteers, funders, clients, members, etc. The study can be conducted by an outside firm or developed internally by analyzing imperfect metrics. (See this article: http://bit.ly/OvF4ri). Based on those findings, nonprofits can either be assured that the perceptual status quo is congruent with the mission as stated– or, if there are material inside/outside differences, take steps to begin to rectify the discrepancies. These can range from mission modifications to a complete mission overhaul. Here are some considerations:

• Is the name of your organization confusing? Take the Family Service organization, for example, multipurpose human services agencies that, in some cases, were being perceived as resources for family planning. A few organizations’ first move to reinforce their stated mission was to change their names to Families First.

• Is your mission statement clear and concise? Does the wording represent your core objectives? Is it targeted to the right clients? Has it been highlighted in both written and digital output? A university’s mission may be to develop its students’ intellectual growth over a college time period. Conversely, the student/parent perception may see a degree as a conduit to a good job. The school, in this instance, is obliged to better represent its mission statement to convey its rationale—or modify its mission to redirect its academic trajectory.

• Societal and demographic needs are constantly evolving. The former Elderhostel changed its direction significantly when it sought to attract a younger population and renamed itself “Road Scholar.” Although it’s important to accommodate a variety of new initiatives, the question is– do they fit within the organization’s framework? It’s obvious that a nonprofit can’t be all things to all people. It may be difficult to accept a new perceptual reality, but growth and survival may be dependent on accommodating it.