Consistency

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.

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

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

By: Eugene Fram           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

How Seriously Does Your Nonprofit Board Take the Matter of Ethics?

How Seriously Does Your Nonprofit Board Take the Matter of Ethics?

By Eugene Fram                          

Most board members are aware of their obligation to ensure their nonprofit’s compliance with certain standard regulations e.g. making tax payments, submitting IRS Form 990s and/or avoiding potential fraud. But what I have found missing in the nonprofit environment is a sense of board member responsibility to provide for and sustain a viable ethics program.

Board members, as representatives of a community, profession or industry, have a significant responsibility to mitigate risks for their supporting constituencies. To ensure their integrity and prevent tainting the organization’s reputation, an internal ethical culture must prevail. An emphasis on ethical conduct should cover everyone from board members to the lowest ranking employee, and address issues that range from personal use of facilities to various types of harassment.

Following are some thoughts on putting ethics in their rightful place:

• The Audit Committee in responsible-business organizations often have a full-time corporate counsel or compliance officer who are charged with seeking evidence of unethical behavior. On the other hand, nonprofits must vest significant ethics responsibilities in the audit committee. As a base approach, the audit committee should have the CEO investigate installing a hotline system that can surface questionable behaviors and issues. 

• Ethical Behaviors Start with the Board – A review of existing ethical standards should be included in the orientation process of every new board member or employee– and reinforced briefly each year. Potential conflict of interest in board members can skew decision-making and jeopardize outcomes. Engaging in “sleight of hand” decisions can reverberate throughout the organization. For example: it is not unusual for nonprofit boards to seek grant dollars that support programs that are not directly related to the organization’s mission. Similar relaxation of standards can propel an organization down the slippery slopes of ethical boundaries. This also applies to senior managers whose behavior or actions are perceived to be inappropriate.

• Seeking Information – Although the Sarbanes-Oxley act suggests that board directors are obliged to seek information from persons below top management, this can sometimes become controversial in the nonprofit environment.

The bottom line is that (ethics) compliance must be pervasive, ongoing and actively tested, experts say, in order to maintain a healthy culture throughout the organization. By rewarding ethical behavior and mitigating risk, nonprofit board members will be doing all they can to protect themselves and preserve values for shareholders (and help to assure ethical actions in a mission-centrist nonprofit.)*

* Boardmember.com (2014), “Compliance Oversights Starts and Ends with the Board,” May 14th.

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

By: Eugene Fram               

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

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

(more…)

Nonprofit Board Discourse: a Meeting of the Minds??
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100325097-1.jpg

Nonprofit Board Discourse: a Meeting of the Minds??

By: Eugene Fram       

Several years ago, a nonprofit board member complained to me that there was too little “conflict” at board meetings. Too few hands were raised to challenge or simply question the efficacy of certain important agenda items. Having participated in hundreds of nonprofit meetings, I have observed that this laissez-faire response still typifies a significant number of board member’s attitudes, especially for items that deserve vigorous discussion. Why is that? And why can the term conflict be  perceived as an asset to an organization that is determined to move forward?

Below are some answers based on my own experience in the nonprofit environment.

  • Major Focus is on Operations: As I have commented in other posts, focusing on operations seems to be a default option for many nonprofits. Unlike members of business boards who have substantial financial investments in their organizations, nonprofit board members are volunteers with little personal risk and with insufficient motivation to challenge the status quo. Since the median nonprofit director’s term of service is seldom greater than 6 years, a board member can lack significant interest in the nonprofit’s long-term future. In addition operational items are more concrete and inherently more interesting because many center on people related decisions. Then there’s the “nice guy” impulse—directors’ meetings are usually brief (1 to 1.5 hours) and board member are often reluctant to voice dissenting views that may offend colleagues and extend meeting times.

Encouraging “Constructive Conflict”

  • Preparation Is Critical: Review of governance agenda materials leads the way to more rigorous discussions.   This requires nonprofits to provide meeting materials at least one week in advance to facilitate fact- based discussions. Some may argue that busy board members will ignore materials well in advance of the meetings. But isn’t it a solid advantage to have some of the most interested board members well briefed for the meeting?
  • The importance of mission: As much as possible, the board chair needs to frame each agenda item in light of its impact the nonprofit’s mission.   This helps eliminate frivolous comments and questions, e.g., voting on the color of the menu at the annual diner. These distractions, like responding to tweets, detract from discussing substantive issues. Chairs can diplomatically eliminate them by simply suggesting the distraction  issue can be handled “off line.”
  • Recruitment: Nominating candidates for the board who have the abilities to interact effectively at meetings are important to improving the quality and quantity of meeting discussions.   While nonprofits often need a diversity of board members from different fields and backgrounds, they also must have a core of directors who know the differences between governance and operational activities, who understand what is involved in critical thinking, have demonstrated leadership elsewhere and have broad understandings of what constitutes strategic planning.   Otherwise the board, like the one I encountered, had many very busy middle level managers types who did well on time-constrained specific projects, but they had no interest in governance or strategic planning.   The de facto result was that the Board Chair authoritatively operated the board.
  • Getting Together: Currently, most nonprofit board members live time-compressed lifestyles and only connect with others at formal board or committee meetings. To build an effective team decision-making, board members need to know each other personally and professionally.   Board chairs and CEOs must take steps to provide social or professional occasions for the board at which directors can interact.   Sometimes a simple 10-minute agenda item at a meeting asking each member to briefly review personal or professional events can help—as proven by organizations like Rotary.

Passion vs. Passivity: The nonprofit board member who lamented the absence of “conflict” in the boardroom recognizes that an engaged and often challenging governing body is in the best interest of a healthy and forward moving organization.

Are Your Board and Staff Ready For Change?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100259602.jpg
Free Digital Image

Are Your Board and Staff Ready For Change?

By: Eugene Fram               

Ideally, change takes place only when is a critical mass of board and staff want it. A significant portion of leadership must realize that the status quo won’t do. Based on my experiences, this ideal is rarely achieved because:

  • The CEO needs to support the changes being suggested and/or mandated by a majority of the board.   But, if not fully invested in the change, the CEO can accede to board wishes for action but move slowly in their implementations. The usual excuse for slow movement is budget constraint.

Complicating the situation is the fact that most nonprofit boards are hesitant to remove a CEO who has a nice personality but lacks vision, makes modest revisions each year and keeps budgets
in  balance. As volunteers, board members know that removing a “status quo” CEO can cause board and staff conflict. These events require more meeting times and can cause board members
to turn against one another. Volunteers accept board positions to promote positive outcomes, not to become involved with the stresses that accompany conflict.

  • Changing a CEO, board members or the governance model, etc., can easily send negative signals to the staff because they may view it as leading to disruption in their jobs and working environments. Most nonprofit staffs are only one or two organizational levels away from the board and may become concerned that new influential board members can have significant impact.

For example, two professors persuaded their board colleagues that the agency needed a “management by objectives program.”  The staff became so involved in establishing and measuring
objectives that they neglected client services .

Critical actions that boards can take to overcome these barriers.

  • Agreement about what “change” means. Perhaps it is increasing clients served and/or simultaneously having to increase donations to maximize the mission’s service? These changes can be readily measured. However, nonprofits often have revisions that can only be measured approximately in the short-term because of the significant costs involved. These include such items as improving public awareness or community influence. They require use of more qualitative measures over time to assess trends and improve the measures. *

Those responsible for change need to be reminded that words have meaning, and the words used to describe revisions can create negative attitudes from board members and staff. Those with
negative connotations include “profit, efficiency and restructuring.” Positive words include “mission, serving and compassion.”

  • Radical honesty about the hurdles standing in you way. It’s important to be upfront about the “bandwidth” in staff and board resources needed to implement any major modifications. This involves having three or four board members who are experienced with implementing change, willing to assume leadership of the process and have the interpersonal skills necessary to “sell” other board members on the benefits of the new plan. In one situation, where a governance model was changed and the ED’s title revised to President/CEO, a traditional board member was dissatisfied.  He complained about the new title “What do we call the ED now, Presco?”   The implication was that the new title was satisfactory for the head of a business organization but too sophisticated for the operating head of a nonprofit organization.
  • Commitment to do whatever it takes. Driving changed from a nonprofit board position isn’t for the person or team that gives up easily. A realistic plan is to anticipate the bumps in the road along the way. For example, if some board members agreed to a revision with limitations, it’s the responsibility of the CEO and board members to make certain they are consulted as the change progresses, helping them, if they can, to be more comfortable with it. If the change has substantial impact on the staff, the CEO and board members need to be certain that false rumors are handled appropriately when they appear. This also applies to rumors circulating in the community or in an industry, if the nonprofit is an association.

When boards fail to take the types of actions cited above, the impact can affect the nonprofit’s culture for decades. For example, a nonprofit engaged a new executive director with an authoritarian leadership style.  His long-term predecessor developed a relaxed culture, often casually taking staff meeting time to read poetry. The Board concluded major changes were necessary.

As a first step to solve the problem, the board made a mistake by demanding the new ED modifies his authoritative management style. But concurrently, a union organizer heard about the dissatisfaction and persuaded the social workers on the staff to form a union. Results: the problematic ED was finally terminated, and an experienced ED, who had worked previously at the agency, was engaged. But the social work staff is still unionized. Trust between management and the professional staff was never restored.

* https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/07/24/using-imperfect-metrics-well-tracking-progress-and-driving-change/

The Nonprofit Board’s New Role In An Age of Exponential Change

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100456475.jpeg

The Nonprofit Board’s New Role In An Age of Exponential Change

By Eugene Fram                

Most nonprofit boards are being faced with huge pressures—reduced financial support, challenges in integrating new technologies, recovering from Covid impacts and difficulties in hiring qualified personnel who will consider “nonprofit” wages. To survive long term, board members need to be alert to potential opportunities. These may be far from the comfort zones of current board members, CEOs and staff.

What needs to be done?

Look for scalable opportunities to reformat the nonprofit: This may include merging, partnering or acquiring other organizations, obviously in an attempt to make both organizations more effective and efficient. One nonprofit, operating a sheltered workshop for the blind and visually impaired affiliated with a local Goodwill nonprofit. The change over many years allowed the original service organization to grow from a budget of $5 million with 160 employees to today’s budget of $50 million. Currently it has 800 employees, serving 150,000 clients annually.

To achieve results like these, the board had to move out of its comfort zone, learn about new types of operation that can help fulfill the mission and initiate bold moves. To explore and manage such changes, a “Lean Management”* approach using small-scale experimentation can be helpful.*

Acknowledge the inherent limitations of nonprofit board tenure:

The median tenure for nonprofit board members is from four to six years. With only reputation and/or emotional investment in the organization, this creates a short-term time line horizon for many board members. The CEO, probably the only one with long-term organizational memory, has an obligation to motivate the board to consider long-term actions in this time-compressed tenure environment.

    Led by the Chair & CEO what can be done?

First recognize that not all board members will be interested in developing a future scenario that goes beyond their tenure limits. The argument will be that a three-year strategic plan is sufficient.  The answer  is to have the board chair and CEO form a discussion group, not a committee to highlight longer term opportunities.  It should be composed of board members  who appear to be visionary in the mission field, in their career backgrounds back along with management and staff representation. 

Pose questions like these:

  • What do you see the mission of this organization will be a decade from now?
  • What might shape it now to grow, decline gradually or stay stable over the decade?
  • What can management do now to prepare for the next decade?
  • Are there small-scale experiments that will assist in preparing for these changes?
  • What succession plans are required to make available strong or stronger management abilities available in the next decade?

Once a scenario is developed from the discussions, ask management to develop one or two experimental programs. If successful, it will help guide the nonprofit for the next decade. Hopefully, future board members will see the value of this work, develop an appreciation for longer term planning and continue the process.

This process is all a matter of aligning board members to long-term thinking. It involves using conceptual considerations by board and management. It motivates the CEO to consider managerial abilities that will be required, and it also should be especially helpful for board members whose careers are outside the mission area of the nonprofit.

* https://npengage.com/nonprofit-management/lean-implementation/PostB

Is Your Nonprofit Strategically Deprived?

By: Eugene Fram   

A vital concern to the future of any nonprofit organization is frequently neglected. Responsibility for the lack of strategic planning must reside with the chief executive, board members and the tactical challenges that inevitably flow to the board.

Before a nonprofit board can begin successful strategic planning, it must:
• fully understand the difference between strategic and tactical planning.*
• have a fully engaged chief executive involved with the board in the leadership of the strategic planning process.
• have a proportion of board directors with some specific types of strategic oriented experiences.

For example, one faith based organization recreational facility I know built a modern new building. However, the leadership was unaware of the quietly growing demand for preschool education in the area. As soon as the new building was opened, several parts of the structure had to be remodeled to accommodate a growing preschool population.

While I admit that planning for coming societal and behavioral, changes is difficult, like the one in the example, I suggest that any nonprofit board needs to take “inventory” of the following backgrounds of the current chief executive and board members.

How strategically capable is the organization’s chief executive? Does he or she stay at the leading edge of the field? Has the board recruited the chief executive for a strategic acumen or for just keeping the organization on a stable course?

How successful has an organization been in recruiting some of the following types of board members?
1. Those with enough time to become thoroughly acquainted with field related to the mission, visions of the organization’s operations. After all, many nonprofit directors serve on boards whose fields of focus are quite different from those in which they have working experience.
2. Those who can distinguish between a strategic plan and a tactical plan?
3. Those capable of critical thinking, questioning past assumptions as they relate to the future.
4. Those who have had successful strategic planning experiences at a high (not tactical) levels on other FP or NFP boards.
5. Those who have innate visionary abilities to assess future opportunities or roadblocks.
6. Those who have failed with past unsuccessful strategic plans but learned from their mistakes.
7. Those who can realistically project the financial challenges a strategic plan will develop.
8. Those with significant prior NFP or FP experience who can be models for younger directors with time restrictions who contribute via time limited task force assignments. But they need much more seasoning with understanding governance functions because they often rubber stamp board chair or CEO suggestions.

Addressing these recruitment issues in a forthright manner should enable nonprofit organizations to determine if they are strategically deprived. This move also might improve nonprofits’ records for strategic planning.

*  “strategy is the action plan that takes you where you want to go, the tactics are the individual steps and actions that will get you there”.

Once Again: How to Keep a Nonprofit Board Informed.

Informed.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-10046990.jpg

Once Again: How to Keep a Nonprofit Board Informed.

By: Eugene Fram   

With high performing nonprofit boards, its members will rarely be invited by the CEO to participate in operational decisions. As a result, management will always have more information than the board. Yet the board still needs to know what is happening in operations to be able to overview them.
The name of the game is for the CEO to communicate the important information and to keep directors informed of significant developments. Still, there’s no need to clutter regular board meetings by reporting endless details about operations.

Following are some practical suggestions:
• An executive director, in response to a blog post I presented, provided a most creative approach. He and the board chair have a weekly conference call, usually on Thursday. Other board members are invited to join the call if they have time. A few days later, the ED sends a brief e-mail to all board members highlighting the important events that took place during the week. (He joked that his high school English teacher would never approve of its format, but the board is always full informed.)

• Probably the more traditional way of keeping board members aware of what is happening within the organization is to have staff frequently make short presentations. I have seen this approach used in dozens or nonprofit board meetings without success. Two problems frequently occur. First the staff person is so enthusiastic about an opportunity board that the presentation continues well beyond the allotted time, and, second, board members raise “micromanagement” level questions, that further extend the presentation session. To solve these problems, the board chair needs to suggest to those seeking more than appropriate detail that the questions can be answered “offline.” In addition, the chief executive should meet with the staff person well ahead of the meeting to make sure that the material to be presented is succinct, and the staff person is well aware of the time constraint. A “dress rehearsal” might even be appropriate for some staff personnel

• Another technique is to use a consent agenda. With a consent agenda, routine and previously agreed upon items are organized together in the pre-meeting agenda and then, hopefully, approved as a group. If one or more board members question an item in the group, it is placed on the agenda for the next board meeting. This process eliminates the time consuming effort of having a separate discussion for each item.

• A third controversial way is for the chief executive to meet with board members informally about every quarter. (It is controversial because many nonprofit CEOs feel this is too time consuming.) Occasionally, these meetings are with two directors at one time. At the sessions, the chief executive can discuss the more “entrepreneurial or wild ideas” that might need testing and update board members on operational decisions in greater detail. Some of the meetings can happen quite informally, before or after a committee meeting or after a monthly board meeting. Others can occur at appropriate social events. This is a controversial suggestion, as some CEO’s report they don’t have sufficient time for such a rigorous meeting schedule.  My observations of dozens of CEOs indicates that the very best manage to develop the schedule.
It is important to have the executive’s assistant keep track of the meetings and then to have authority to make new appointments to meet the quarterly schedule. Obviously, the CEO would need to meet with the board chair more often. If the board is a national one, meeting less frequently or a scheduled phone call are appropriate. One veteran CEO I know meets frequently with two board members. One is a long serving member, and the other is a newly appointed board member.

Keeping important information flowing to the board is critical to having a high performing nonprofit. It is a significant CEO responsibility