Consistency

How Often Do Nonprofit Board Members Need to Question Strategic Norms?

How Often Do Nonprofit Board Members Need to Question Strategic Norms?

By Eugene Fram               

A new nonprofit board member has a lot to learn. Considering that his/h term of service will be relatively short (typically six years), he/s must quickly learn the “ropes” to participate in a meaningful way. In this process, colleagues and leadership will acquaint him/h with prevailing board systems and culture—often ignoring the depth of expertise she/h can employ. Example: An expert in financial strategies may be asked to assist the CFO with accounting details, far below the person’s skill level. Oftentimes the new board member also is greeted with a mantra that says, “We’ve always done it this way.” As the board member moves in his path from novice to retiree, during a short tenure, there is little opportunity to suggest innovations that differ from the accepted fundamentals and to successfully advocate for change.

Following are four nonprofit areas that call for strategic scrutiny and, if recognized by several other current board members as constraints on the future of the nonprofit, the process may allow individual directors to seek positive change:

Can Mission Creep be Good?? Dedication to the organization’s mission should be the board and staff’s primary focus. Often this focus can limit a conservative board’s vision if long-term risk may be involved. But nonprofits have an obligation to keep current in addressing emerging needs and may veto a client venture that has reasonable potential. This hard and fast adherence to mission parameters can be used as an avoidance mechanism to maintain the status quo. How do directors determine the initiative’s positive/negative impact on the organization? Boards need to wrestle with tough questions such as the following: As baby boomers retire, there will be an increased need for elderly housing. Should those nonprofits whose mission is to operate homes for children feel morally obliged to extend both their mission and operational expertise to develop separate or operationally related homes for the low-income elderly?

Nonprofit boards, in my opinion, try hard to acculturate new board members to the mission, as the current group of board members views it. The disadvantage is that expansion or even modification of the program implementation becomes difficult or even unacceptable. A field case: A moribund human services agency offered counseling services on weekdays from 9 to 5 and on Thursdays 9-8pm. The nonprofit had no provision for emergency services. For decades board members had been acculturated to the rigid service schedule and were resistant to change. Finally, a group of new board members, recognizing the urgency of the clients’ requirements was able, with support of new a CEO, to develop a cost-effective way to increase service to a 24/7 model.

The Ethos of Overhead vs. Development: When the need for a new staff-type management person arises, it is often hotly contested. Nonprofit organizations have usually operated on the ethos that about 80% of budgets need to be expended for direct client services. This ignores the fact that an increase in overhead costs, if carefully planned, can yield substantial increases to program budgets. One CEO who was adept at fundraising refused to engage a COO, citing increased overhead as the reason. After four years of board prodding, he relented and made the appointment. The result was positive on two counts—he was able to expand his fundraising prowess and internal operations improved significantly.

Board Culture: Many boards have a tendency to be a rubber stamp for management. This can be a significant danger with nonprofit boards whose culture encourages directors to “go along to get along.” Board members, as volunteers, often view the political and friendship costs of rigorous debate as being too high. Others surmise that management has more information in the field and are uncomfortable in challenging its expertise. This malaise in the nonprofit sector can have disastrous results, evidenced in the frequent reports of fraud due to board laxity. Occasionally, a board may even refuse to fire the perpetrator and the state attorney general must intervene.

There is nothing tactically sacred about the monthly two-hour board meeting and yet limited discussion and crowded agendas can inhibit any type of rigorous discussion at them. Board members who would like to suggest new ideas or question accepted norms are usually frustrated and discouraged from doing so. Although obsolete, the meeting format is rarely challenged. There are, however, alternative options. Board meetings, in my opinion, should be scheduled for longer periods such as 1½ – 2 days–or bimonthly meetings of 3-4 hours. Instead of merely current updates, the format, if carefully structured, could then accommodate substantive policy/strategy issues and allow board members to be heard.

Alternative Data Measurement Systems: Nonprofits often fail to develop  impact data that one could deem reliable. In my view, too many nonprofits fail to appreciate the benefits of rigorous performance basis measurement. This failure is caused by the substantial cost of developing some qualitative impact counts, e.g. impact of advocacy efforts. Nonprofits, however, can glean whatever value they can through imperfect metrics, gathering information and data that may be anecdotal, subjective, interpretive, qualitative or developed through small size samples. Over time, imperfect metrics can be continually improved and become useful in tracking progress and driving change. (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)

Challenging the Nonprofit’s cultural DNA is daunting. Ties to traditional modes of governance are hard to sever. But with sensitivity and persistence, a board member can help move the organization forward, if at least several other directors also understand the need to question strategic norms.

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

By: Eugene Fram

It’s no secret that nonprofits do not excel in the craft of fundraising. A 2015 study reported that 65% ofCEOs gave their boards academic grades of “C” or below for efficacy on this front. Yet most will agree that without the continuous influx of financial support, the mission to which the board members have committed themselves will fail

I clearly remember examples of this deficit from my own board experience—one in which I served on the fund development committee for a small nonprofit which met monthly for about a year. A sincere and hardworking board chair headed it, but the meetings took place without the presence of the CEO.   Many ideas with merit were exchanged such as developing a reserve fund, “get or give” board requirements etc.There was a lot of talk but no implementation, and after a year of pure discussion, a new president, who convened a new committee, disbanded the group.

A review of the pressure points in key fundraising activities would have taken the group from talk to action and further implementation. Here are activities and their variations that I consider most critical to nonprofit development processes:

Board-CEO Partnership—Some Elements For Success

 To be successful in fundraising, both the board and CEO must be active partners. Board memberscannot fundraise alone as in the above example.

 Board members will never have the required depth of organizational knowledge to demonstrate nonprofit outcomes and impacts. Also the CEO and/or development director, if there is one, will be needed to build proposals for grants or awards. In addition, the CEO should have access to foundations in the mission field, so that appropriate responses can be initiated

. Although this is not always the case, the CEO needs to have the ability to interact with senior business and foundation executives. Where the CEO lacks these capabilities, the board has an obligation to offer the services of a management coach to help him/h to acquire such skills. Expenses involved can yield substantial returns!

 Hypothetically, the board must be continually seeking donors who will be interested in the nonprofit’s mission, quickly involving the CEO when an opportunity is identified. Similarly, the CEO has an obligation to agree with the board about what funding proposals should be pursued from foundations and individuals.

 While the board is one partner in the development effort, not all board members should berequired to be active in fundraising. At a minimum, all should be asked to report donor opportunities that they encounder.

 For nonprofits that have a diverse board, some training on how to seek and address opportunities will be necessary. These topics can range from knowing that their employers have a matching gift policy to recognizing something they see in a newspaper/magazine that might be reviewed as a funding opportunity.

 Three or four board members, willing and able to drive the effort, should shoulder major funding activity. Many of the others will be unable or unwilling to become involved, except to provide lead information. (A recent study shows although 90% of nonprofit directors believe fundraising is an important obligation, only 45% of organizations require board member to minimially fundraise.) *

 The board members focusing on development need to be able to be persistent and constantly on the lookout for new sources.   As one fundraiser said to me, “ I’ll keep after the opportunity until the donor tells me to “go away!”  He was directly responsible for a $1 million donation to his university for organizational support. As part of the partnership, the board and CEO will have to determine how much time and resources need to be given to fund development. This can become a difficult discussion because many CEOs will want to direct more of the budget to targeted mission projects. In some cases where an unusual opportunity arises, the CEO may have to expend substantial amounts of his/h personal time to be successful. He/she may also have to redirect staff time and resources to the project.*

Nonprofit fundraising is a team effort. In cases where the CEO does not actively involve some board members in the process, make certain the board is not being micromanaged by the CEO.

Nonprofit Boards And Internal Working Environments—No Pieces of Cake!

People who work in the business community sometimes view nonprofit organizations as “cushy” places to work. The truth is that today’s nonprofits have challenges that are very different from those of the corporate world–and typically struggle to accommodate parameters such as restricted finances, increasing wage costs that must aligned with ever expanding client needs. In addition, board members must be concerned about personal liabilities under special legislations such as completing the IRS Form 990 and The Intermediate Sanctions Act. * Not easy!

A article in the Wall Street Journal discusses the hypothetical release from “grind” pressures a business executive might experience when moving employment to a nonprofit. ** Following are some of the specific advantages cited by the article (in bold) followed, by some of my real world observations over four decades as board member and/or consultant.

“People, etc.

The importance of the mission to a nonprofit cannot be contested. It’s what attracts committed personnel to the field and motivates them to grow the organization. The problem is that this concept can lead to a low risk culture that impedes the CEO and senior managers from seizing client service opportunities, elevating the fundraising culture and developing innovative business plans that can demonstrate impacts. 21st century standards require nonprofit CEOs to be strong and aggressive entrepreneurs. But conservative boards often inhibit that behavior in the nonprofit sector

“For nonprofits, it is more difficult to measure success.”

No question about this statement when it comes to measuring objectives that are anecdotal, subjective, interpretative or qualitative, such advocacy for the homeless. ** Also the metrics can only rely on small sample data or those that are derived from situational data. On the positive side, both nonprofits and for-profits are beginning to utilize types of data often referred to as “non-financial metrics.” These are lean experiment style metrics *** that can be modified, long as as learning takes place.

“Generally speaking, nonprofits are much more process-oriented….”

Nonprofit boards often employ a process culture because they are responsible for public funds or charitable dollars. This often leads to a board micromanagement approach long after the nonprofit has exited its startup phase. Also it causes many nonprofits to limit their potential for maximizing client service.

“There are also multiple stakeholders (clients, donors, volunteers, the general public) whose viewpoints have to be considered.  

Both business and nonprofit organization have multiple cohorts with which they must be concerned in the 21st century. But the nonprofit has to tread the very fine line between various constituencies.   A board member angering a major donor can lead to the organization’s bankruptcy!

“Collaboration decision making replaces speed in this world.”

Nonprofit managers have to devote significant time to garner a high level of collaboration, some times at the expense of more important projects. Many nonprofits operate on a “consensus” format. But without board members having a financial investments in the organization, and the rotating director tenure system (4 to 6 year median), votes can be based on a personal need to “go along to get along.”  What should take place is rigorous and civil discussion, respectful of dissenting votes.

* International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law / vol. 18, no. 1, February 2016

**Ted Beck (2016) “Think You Want to Work For a Nonprofit?” The Wall Street Journal, September 12th, p. R10

** For a comprehensive explanation, see: http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/96738/Measuring-What-Matters-How-To-Pick-A-Good-Metric.aspx 

How Do Nonprofit Boards Keep Stakeholders Engaged?

How Do Nonprofit Boards Keep Stakeholders Engaged?

By: Eugene Fram                      

First, exactly who are the “stakeholders” in the nonprofit environment? Most board members would readily define the term as clients, staff, donors and board members. But what about other participants such as external auditors and significant vendors? Surely a nonprofit that depends on a vendor to supply groceries can be hobbled if the food is not delivered properly. And, last but not least, the backbone of the organization — the volunteers! Many cogs in the wheel make the nonprofit world go around and need consistent and careful attention. Following are some guidelines for engaging all types of stakeholders:

  • Don’t marginalize, dismiss, or ignore a stakeholder: Unfortunately, for example, termed-out board members * are often dismissed in more than one sense of the word. After serving the typical tenure of four to six years, the retired board members may only receive boilerplate materials or fund solicitations. Any residual interest or enthusiasm for the nonprofit is not encouraged unless the retiree initiates a desire to remain connected. The assumption is that the past board members are content with the disconnect.

For those board members who have been active participants during their term, this tactic may actually be counterproductive from many points of view—talent, expertise and development possibilities. I have observed several cases in which this unintended marginalization has resulted in losing substantial financial support and needed talent. In each case,  the retirees have declined to help, using the excuse that they have been too far away from the activities of the organization. Boards must be creative in finding ways of reigniting the former directors’ commitment to the organization’s mission. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways—in an advisory capacity, forming “alumni” groups and/or by including them in social events and other occasions.

  • Recognize who may be a true partner: Such a partner can range from a vendor that has supplied the organization or a volunteer whose interests have moved to another nonprofit to a legacy board member who has developed new insights.  “It is generally easier to build consensus, request help and engender trust when those who support you are well-informed, candidly and truthfully.” **
  • Stakeholders must know about the nonprofit’s challenges and needs: Even the best-managed nonprofits have their ups and downs. During the latter periods, educating stakeholders about the issues can help to dissuade some to avoid posting job cuts and other actions.
  • 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 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 root cause of 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

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    

Given that the typical tenure of a new nonprofit board member is about six years, the 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 board member.” 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 board members, 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 board members 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 of board members 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.

 

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.

How Does Your Nonprofit Retain Termed-Out Board Members?

s

Nonprofit board members whose terms have expired are typically recognized at annual meetings with gifts, plaques or certificates of service. In many cases, this is like saying, “Here’s your hat–there’s the door.” Rarely does the organization have a plan for continuing to connect with these folks, many of whom represent significant assets – i.e. talent and expertise – that can be meaningful to the organization for years. For the very best among them, there is no guarantee that replacements will have the same or superior skills and talents.

Here are some new and established ways to keep them engaged or to reengage those who have drifted away from the organization.

Advisory Board – Include them in an advisory board to the CEO and/or Board Chair. For prestige purposes, it is important that the board be clearly designated as a sounding board to the CEO and/or Board chair when both are appropriate. This group should include selected former board members plus others from the community or industry. Agendas should not be packed with detailed power point presentations, leaving only brief time periods for open discussion. My experiences with these boards are that they should meet three or four times a year. A reasonably large one, 15-20 people, is required; understand that on the average, not all will be able to attend.

Form an “Alumni Group” – Major consulting and business organizations (e.g., McKinsey and P&G) actively support a networking group of former employees who also may meet on an occasional basis. The organizations have newsletters which report on former employee professional changes and successes, and provide current membership rosters that offer tremendous networking opportunities. It also gives the group an opportunity to reconnect on their own with old friends/colleagues and to become updated on their families and activities. Obviously the costs and efforts for maintaining the activity are modest.

Nonprofits could improve on this model by also offering occasional short conferences, 1.5 days maximum, for former board members related to the mission of the nonprofit. They can be conducted locally or at some off-site retreat, so spouses or significant others can be included. The conferences can be operated on a self-sustaining basis if developed at a moderate cost that is divided among participants. Agendas will need to be carefully planned with a small group of potential attendees.

Continued Direct Contact – The nonprofit CEO needs to have informal contact with each current board member three or four times a year to update board members to new potential strategies and ongoing challenges faced by the organizations, a minimum of 45 informal personal or phone contacts a year to help solidify his/h relationship with the board.
Current board members may assist the CEO by performing the same function to keep former board members engaged through some informal contacts each year. To be certain that all responsible for making these contacts are on the same page with current information, some reorientation on current organizational policies and strategies will need to be developed.

Establishing Effective Nonprofit Board Committees – What to Do.

g

Establishing Effective Nonprofit Board Committees – What to Do.

Following are ways that many nonprofit boards have established effective board committees using mygovernance model as described in the third edition of Policy vs. Paper Clips. ( https://goo.gl/QEL8x3)

• In the planning effort, focus board personnel and financial resources only on those topics that are germane to the organization at a particular time. For example, financial planning, long-range planning or short-rangeplanning. However the board needs to be open to generative planning if new opportunities present themselves or are developed via board leadership.

• Reduce the number of board standing committees to no more than five, even less if possible

• Use subcommittees, also known as ad hoc committees or task forces, to review a range of board levelt topics, as needed, such as personnel policies, OSHA requirements and long-term space needs.

• Generally the CEO should attend all major committee meeting. He or she may or may not serve on subcommittees, depending on the information and guidance needed by the group.

• Staff input is critical. Professional staffs make major contributions to board policy decisions. It needs to be remembered that nonprofit staff in most organizations are more closely related to the board than they are in for-profit situations. The nonprofit staff are only a few organizational levels below the board.

• The CEO needs to foster an atmosphere in which staff members feel free to express opinions to board members and administrative staff. Such an atmosphere benefits the organization and isn’t just social activity.

• When confronted with a particular difficult issue, an excellent means of communications is the board/staff workshop. The professional interaction between board and staff should enhance the quality of decision-making. There are also secondary benefits, as a workshop enhances professional communications between board and staff and engages board members in meaningful hands-on projects. In addition, the board can assess the capabilities of promotable staff. Many boards have been content to analyze proposals endlessly (i.e., engage in analysis-paralysis). Others to avoid conflict, have tended to rubber-stamp proposals made by vocal or overly aggressive board members or the CEO. Neither of these types of boards truly participates in the challenging act of establishing policy and direction for their nonprofit groups.

The times are currently changing very rapidly due to the introduction of AI. Nonprofit Boards are being held much more personally accountable for their actions by the community and by legal statute. For example, if a volunteer board chair assumes the ED/CEO title or becomes president/CEO, he or she may face increased exposure to liability for not meeting his or her duties to be beinging very current on financials, compliance regulations, organizational limitations, etc.

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.