Crisis Management

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

By: Eugene Fram   

Like the Streisand song lyric, nonprofit people who need people must first have the know-how to choose and cultivate those people! If not, the risks to a board can range from modest to substantial. It all begins with making the right choices and vetting board and CEO candidates.  Most nonprofit board members know that they are only required to make one hiring decision—the engagement of the CEO. This is a process that always involves some risk factors. Take the case of the university that has expended substantial amounts to engage a CEO. After a brief “honeymoon period” it was determined that the candidate lacked the requisite background to move the organization forward. His resignation was forthcoming, and with it, a disruption that was costly not only in dollars but in board/faculty morale and public confidence.

A nonprofit board is usually confronted with several people risks. Following are some that should be noted by board members.

Colleagues on the Board- Modest Risk: Except when a crisis occurs necessitating additional time and effort to address the problem, there is often little opportunity for collegiality among nonprofit board members. In recent times, with many board members living time-compressed lifestyles, colleagues not only don’t know each other but may pass each other on the street without recognition! This lack of personal interaction makes it difficult for directors to understand and share perspectives regarding the organization. It is clearly the board and CEO’s responsibility to provide these opportunities by organizing social events and/or small gatherings for board people to interact– perhaps over breakfast, lunch or wine. Another option is to extend an invitation to attend local or regional professional events. Or to invite board members to join a conference call during the weekly call between the board chair and the CEO. People contact within the board cements relationships and becomes an asset to working together as a group.

Financial Personnel-Might Be Substantial Risk?: Financial people, as a group or individually, can constitute a potential risk group. At the very least, each board member should be thoroughly acquainted with the CFO, his/h senior reports and the professional qualifications of each, especially in relation to their abilities to stay current with financial requirements. The board needs to provide sufficient signals to all staff personal that it is alert to unethical behavior, especially fraud.  Similarly, the board and/or its committees need to make certain that there is substantial compliance with all regulations imposed by governmental or professional organizations. Example: One CFO delayed the delivery of an accounts receivable report for an extended time period. Neither the board nor management demanded it. When the report finally arrived, the board found that the CFO had been carrying a substantial number of bad debts as assets.   To rectify the situation, the nonprofit had to engage costly forensic accountants. Although the board was also substantially at fault in its due care, both the CFO and CEO were fired.

The CEO-Can Be A Substantial Risk: Like a marriage, there needs to be substantial trust between the board members and CEO. However the CEO should to be comfortable with a policy of “trust but verify.”   This requires that the board members and/or its audit committee ask questions or make inquiries that sometimes might appear be insulting. Some examples:

The Staff- Can Be Moderate Risk: Board members need to be have enough contact with management and staff in order to be able to help identify those who with talent may be eligible for promotion, understanding that traditionally the CEO has is responsible for internal promotions.   Unfortunately this is a nonprofit board responsibility that is often neglected. But it needs to be reviewed annually at the time that CEO succession is reviewed by the board.  

A nonprofit is only as good as its team of people. With many of the board members rotating off after their terms have expired, it becomes an ongoing challenge to keep them apprised of potential risks and challenges. The board must develop its own way to a nonprofit’s success.   In addition, it must overview management and staff to build background knowledge on those with potential to become future leaders. 

Stay on That Nonprofit Board!

By: Eugene Fram

Gene Takagi, noted San Francisco attorney, who specializes in nonprofit organizations published an article listing 12 reasons for resigning from a nonprofit board. It is worth reading.*

BUT

Nonprofit board members often become impatient with the slow pace of progress toward positive change. Here are some actions that may change the situation, improve service to clients and prepare the organization for any long-term mission disruptions.

• Talk With The CEO: He/s may feel the same frustrations and be delighted to find a board member who shares his goals. In fact, she/h may be thinking of leaving or be wedded to the current area only because of a family situation. As a result, your conversation may give a chief executive new hope and energy. On the other hand, if the CEO is too aligned with the past, it will be unlikely that the board will terminate the current CEO, unless there are some performance malfeasances involved. Then, estimate the CEO’s remaining tenure and use remaining time to find opportunities to make modest increments in change.

• Talk With Other Directors: Between board meetings, have informal coffee sessions with other directors to determine their views on the areas in which you feel change is necessary. Three or four board opinion leaders can garner positive movement, assuming there are no strong objections from the CEO.

• Outside Validation. If sufficient budget is available, ask the board to engage a consultant to examine the potentials for change. The rationale for the request might be: “We are doing well, let’s determine how we can better serve our clients.” If budget isn’t available or the CEO is against the expenditure, try to have the board arrange, for an outside speaker or two who might validate the need for change. This might be a person from the field or a local professor who has some insights aligned with change-focused board members .

• Seek Outside Financing: Personally seek sources for capacity grants that, if awarded, might be developed to further help clients. Ask the board to take leadership in applying for several of these grants. A single successful grant might be the linchpin to promote the type of change desired by the group having similar views.

• Chair The Nominations Committee: As chair, the director can be in a position to search for candidates who are forward looking. In addition, the committee, under the urging of the chair, can seek candidates who have served on other nonprofit boards and who have proven their meddle to bring about change.

Summary
For any single board member of a status quo nonprofit to lead a change on organizational culture will require tenacity, time and patience. The person will need to be extremely dedicated to the organization’s mission and want to improve the services to its clients. Very few board members have the grit to lead such a change. However, a small-motivated group can be an advanced guard to initiate some actions in the right direction. But the group will have to keep Peter Drucker’s insight in mind when the going gets tough, “Culture eats strategy change for breakfast.”

An unusual case of an ED accused of serious malfeasance, but the board refused to fire him. http://bit.ly/1om6XUw

*https://nonprofitquarterly.org/12-reasons-resign-nonprofit-board/

Applying Fundamentals of a Nonprofit’s DNA To Enhance Planning

Applying Fundamentals of a Nonprofit’s DNA To Enhance Planning

By: Eugene Fram         Free Digital Image 

No two nonprofit organizations are identical. Each may reflect similar missions visions and values but—because of basic differences in their DNAs * —are clearly impacted by distinct characteristics that may have developed over a long time period.

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

(more…)

The Nonprofit President/CEO–How Much Board-CEO Trust Is Involved?

 

The Nonprofit President/CEO–How Much Board Trust Is Involved

By: EugeneFram    Free Digital Image

The title, full time president/CEO for the operating head of a nonprofit, clearly signals to the public who has the final authority in all operating matters and can speak for the organization.* It is not an ambiguous set of titles. However, the terms “manager” or “executive director” can be quite ambiguous and do not generate the same external understanding or respect. An executive director can be the administrator in a small church or the operational head of a large arts organization. The public and some corporate directors often view managers and executive directors (because of the organizational history of nonprofit) as “hired hands,” not as professionals who, with strategic vision, are able to manage all operational activities.

The  full time president/CEO designation calls for a trusting relationship with the board based on mutual respect, drawing from the symbolism that he or she is the operating link between board and staff. It is a newer type of partnership culture. However, a solid partnership does not allow the board to vacate its fiduciary and overview obligations. The board has moral and legal obligations to “trust but verify” and to conduct a rigorous evaluation of outcomes and impacts of the CEO and organization annually.

Following are some of the behaviors that signify a trusting partnership is in place:

  • The president/CEO:
    • Has authority to initiate short-term loans from a bank for emergency funding. The board has established a limit on the amount to be borrowed.
    • Sees himself/her as an equal partner in fundraising efforts. Knows how to effectively interact with top managers in stakeholder organizations.
    • Is comfortable is interfacing with senior executives of other NFP organizations, especially those to which the organization wishes to emulate.
    • Is confident about his/h management experiences and expertise, understanding that nobody does a job perfectly.         Occasional modest management missteps are viewed by the board in proper perspective.
    • Has good professional relationships with board members.
    • Does not view the job as being in jeopardy.
    • Feels comfortable in disagreeing with board members.
    • Feels comfortable with the processes the board uses to have executive sessions without management present.
    • Feels comfortable with a rigorous examination of CEO performance.
  • Board Members:
    • View CEO as a peer who deserves respect, not seen as a board servant.
    • Do not discuss the CEO’s professional limitations outside of the boardroom.
    • View the CEO as an effective staff leader.
    • Look to the CEO to be have state-of-art knowledge and vision for the areas in which the mission has been defined.
    • Expect the CEO to grow professorially and tries to support that growth within the financial means of the organization.

“In order for a trust-based governance system to work, …(nonprofits) must first develop a culture that discourages self-interest.”** In the nonprofit environment, many work to achieve a mission at the expense of self-interest. Consequently, a “high-trust” culture should be easier to establish at the senior levels. While the trust the board has in its chief operating officer can’t be described in exact quantitative terms, viewing it through the lens of a set of behaviors can give an idea of whether it is excellent, good or nonexistent.

* Note Well: In many states a volunteers who carry the title of president /CEO can accrue personal liabilities not incumbent on other board members.
** David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan (2013) “Trust: The Unwritten Contract in Corporate Governance,” Stanford Closer Look Series, July 31st.

 

 

     

    How The Nonprofit CEO Can Exit Gracefully

     

    How The Nonprofit CEO Can Exit Gracefully

    By: Eugene Fram         Free Digital Image

    Like many nonprofit CEOs, Tom Smith has held the position for 10 or more years. As he reported, and I agreed with his assessment, the association he heads was doing well. The membership has increased substantially, revenues exceed expenses each year, and through a series of development events, the reserve account now exceeds $5 million. But Tom was not satisfied. He said the job has become “boring.” In his words, it’s like turning on automatic at the beginning of each year—adjusting to a new board chair, developing a budget and being alert for “Black Swan” events that nobody can anticipate.   He quietly said to himself at the beginning of each year, “I wonder what the big problem is going to be this year?”

    Preplanning  

    Tom had a preplan: Several years ago, he had purchased an avocado farm in California, and had a partner-manager operating it successfully. He and his wife planned to move there, once he decided it was time to leave his CEO position.

    Other potential preplanning actions he might have taken:.

    • Quietly investigate the potential to join a nonprofit consulting firm.
    • Assess whether or not he can be successful as a solo consultant.
    • Quietly interact with contacts in nearby education institutions to determine how his experiences and educational credentials might qualify him for teaching or administrative positions.
    • Review grant proposal requests from foundations and governments to assess how his expertise might match those of people needed to manage the grants.   (Be certain none of this type of activity creates a conflict of interest with his current CEO position.)
    • Register with search firm to test his “marketability’ for a more interesting CEO position. (Beware of any firm that requires a fee from you.)

    Be Proactive

    Once preplanning is complete, discuss it carefully with your family, financial advisors and possibly with an attorney if a major relocation is going to be involved. Be sure that they view the change as you do. Make certain they don’t see a missed opportunity within the current position. Also be certain that the time frame is reasonable for the CEO and the organization. It would be a mistake for the CEO to leave when the CFO is planning to retire. Traditionally, a one to three year period is needed from first discussion to the time the CEO departs.

    Inform the Board

    This should be accomplished in several steps. First quietly inform the board chair. Then at intervals alert other members of the board, the management team and staff.   The CEO msy have been around for a long time and has an obligation to prepare the organization for a major change. I recently watched a nonprofit executive group “tread water,” for 18 months from the rumors of the CEO’s departure through the selection of the new CEO and his arrival at the office.   To develop a graceful exit, the incumbent needs to be aware of the situation and help provide s smooth transition.

    Leaving With Dignity 

    Leave as scheduled. Any delay will extend the uncertainty that surrounds the transition.   As noted above, nonprofit organizations have their own ways of remaining static during these transition periods.   Your CEO nonprofit successor deserves better strong support.

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

    “One of the key functions of a (nonprofit) board of directors is to oversee (not micromanage) the CEO, ensuring that (stakeholders) are getting the most from their investments.” * State and Federal compliance regulations have been developed to make certain that boards have an obligation to represent all stakeholders.  These include the staff, community, donors, foundations and clients, but not only the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe.   Following are some inherent problems.

    (more…)

    Nonprofit Board Disruption—A Board Member’s Reflections

    Nonprofit Board Disruption—A Board Member’s Reflections

    By: Eugene Fram          Fre Digital Image       

    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 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 year. 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.

    (more…)

    A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

    A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

    By:  Eugene Fram                   Free Digital Image

    It happens: one or both of the two nonprofit engines—governance and/or management — sputters out, yet the organization continues to meet its goals and deliver adequate service to its constituents. Some examples: a child placement agency manages to maintain the quality of its oversight while struggling to deal with an admittedly inept board and CEO. Another example: An ineffective volunteer board at a youth center, meeting quarterly for a couple of hours, allows the CEO to really manage the board and to motivate the staff. The CEO realized she and the agency were in dangerous positions without an innovative board providing standard oversight, although client services were positive.

    A staff, dedicated to its own professionalism, can on occasion compensate for a lackluster board and/or senior management team by continuing to provide reasonable value to the nonprofit’s clients. Another example involved the ED, simultaneously a deputy sheriff, and his law enforcement colleagues taking payments to refer wayward youths to ED’s shelter. However, the staff continued to provide valuable services. In the end it’s about leadership and the ability to step up to the plate when dysfunction occurs. In the last case, the staff acted in a professional manner, although the management was entirely corrupt and the board evidently inept.

    Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, has some innovative thoughts on that subject. He identifies four key characteristics he believes are critical to strong innovative organizational leaders. * I have listed them below, and the ways I think his ideas can be applied to nonprofit governance. (more…)

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

     

     

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

    By: Eugene Fram     Free Digital Image

    Given that the typical tenure of a new board member is four to six years. And assuming that a new board member’s intention is 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 nonprofit create. Following are some areas that are endemic to nonprofits:

    (more…)

    How Can Nonprofit Boards Overcome the Inertia of Certain Board Members?

     

    How Can Nonprofit Boards Overcome the Inertia of Certain Board Members?

    BY: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

    Making major changes in nonprofit  mission, board structure, management or other significant matters is difficult. The typical nonprofit board will be divided into several groups on the issue: 1) members who want change, 2) members opposed to change, some strongly opposed and 3) what I call “process board members,” persons uncomfortable with major decisions who always want more data or information before voting.

    The first and third groups (members who want change and process directors) will be very willing to appoint a committee to review the alternatives, but it’s up to the board chair to satisfy process members who create obstacles.

    Process members like to sit back and examine issues, often, in my opinion, sincerely feeling that their questions allow them to be on the cusp of showing some insights that others have failed to notice. They always ask, “Have we consulted everybody?” Or say, “Let’s make sure we have considered everything.” Often they are members who call for postponement of the vote, even after a lengthy discussion.

    Process members  are well-intentioned, sincere individuals. However, the board has to be careful that these members don’t allow the board to continually examine one angle after another until they lose sight of the board’s main job. They can keep action in limbo indefinitely! It is up to the board chair to makes certain that this does not happen. But board chairs want to develop an inclusive board where all who want to voice their views can be heard.

    A certain level of board process is necessary to operate efficiently. But when it gets out of hand, it can have a serious negative effect. Boards often lose some of their best volunteers, who get frustrated and quietly resign. Their usual reason for resigning is “the pressure of job obligations.” To me, that’s a covert message that the board is getting mired in minutiae, usually initiated by process members.

    One friend recently from a board, using the “job obligations” excuse. The real reason was that the executive director, a process oriented person, used board-meeting time inappropriately, including asking the full board to review detailed public relations powerpoint presentations.

    In another situation, I watched a board make a strategic decision involving the combining of two programs. Even after a thorough discussion of the decision, the board insisted on discussing the tactical decisions needed to implement the change, all of which were the responsibility of management. The board was unable or unwilling to shed an imbedded process culture that the status quo nonprofit had used for over 50 years.