Unwritten Protocols for Directors Can Boost Nonprofits’ Effectiveness
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
Nonprofit boards are governed by a series of obligations —some are clearly defined as legal responsibilities such as financial actions. Others, however, are less clearly defined and relate to people who are, in some way, associated with the organization. Guidelines to these diverse interactions are not typically archived in policies but are important to the overall professionalism of the board. They include consideration of its: board structure, internal operations, recruitment methods and leadership style.
In the best of all nonprofit worlds, every board member is an independent agent whose ability to make critical decisions on behalf of the organization is regularly uncompromised by outside pressures. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. Based on field observation I have concluded that questionable practices can plague nonprofit boards when social or political pressures are brought to bear on a board member. In governance terms nonprofit decision-makers should be “outside directors,” not overtly or covertly susceptible to management or board colleague personal pressures.
Discerning recruitment committees can screen candidates to be certain they are not subject to influences that might impair their judgment as board members. Lack of independence could easily divide and perhaps polarize the board as has happened in our country’s Congress. A candidate who is “sponsored” by a major donor and maintains personal ties with the donor can create a “hornet’s nest” for the recruitment group. There are no easy solutions to these problems.
Some typical examples of the apparent loss of independence:
• The legacy challenge. A board member is appointed to the board largely because his family has served on the board for generations, not because of his talent and/or commitment to the mission. If there are too many “legacies” on board, the optimal range of perspectives is narrowed resulting in inadequate discussion of potential actions. • The chief executive does not keep a professional social distance from the board chair and/or other board members. For example, their families are frequently engaged socially. • In “prestige boards,” a business or professional person persuades the board to accept a candidate who is business associate because he/she is a “good person” who needs board experience for networking purposes. • A candidate for a directorship has significantly caused problems on another nonprofit board, but a current active board member, a friend of the candidate, wants him to be elected so that he/she can be given a second chance.
What Can Be Done? Sometimes Nothing: But:
• Clearly acknowledge the challenges where they exist and then seek new candidates without such encumbering ties. • If possible, try to confront the situation directly, if it does not cause a schism within your board. Develop a policy, not a rule, which allows someone to open discussion if one of these issues arises. • Make independence one of the characteristics desired for board candidates and clearly acknowledge what is meant by the term. • A nonprofit board member can serve only one master—the organization’s mission. On the other hand, no nonprofit board that I have encountered is totally independent. As long as a board has enough members who are not beholden to other interests there should be no impairment in achieving the organization’s goals.
This type of subtle influence is rarely discussed, and to my knowledge, has never been researched. But, if left unattended by nonprofit recruitment committees, it can lead to political board schisms that seriously impact the organization.
Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?
By: Eugene H. Fram. Free Digital Image
Yes, if the organization has the following structure:
Board With A Volunteer Chairperson Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations Executive Director for Division A Executive Director for Division B
However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena. The executive director should have final authority for all operational matters related to the organization, except those designated for the board in the bylaws. For example, pensions plan changes.
The big question is who carries the CEO title. Some nonprofits, in their early stages, have a volunteer, part-time, President/CEO and an operational Executive Director. This signifies the volunteer, representing the will of the board, can have final authority in implementing board operational policies/strategies. This is not a good structure because the CEO title might lead to the volunteer having liabilities that other board members don’t have.
How Do Nonprofit Boards Keep Stakeholders Engaged?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
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.
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. (more…)
Over decades of service on nonprofit boards, I have interfaced with board colleagues who possess a variety of performance styles and behaviors. Certain of these types seem to be common to all boards. My comments below are based on adaptations of a board member classification system suggested by David Frankel, Partner of Founder Collection. *
The Eager Beaver
This board member (usually 30s to early 40s) has probably been successful as an entrepreneur or is, perhaps, rapidly rising through middle management in a larger organization. He/she wants to “get things done”. His/her impatience with the typically slow nonprofit rate of progress can be channeled and directed by the CEO or Board Chair. Discouraged by lack of action, this director may quietly exit the board on the pretext that work pressures have increase. On the other hand, if properly nurtured, board members in this category can offer substantial leadership contributions.
The Checked-Out Check Writer
Serving on a nonprofit board has likely become a family or company tradition for some board members. (Some local nonprofits are now about 100 years old or older.) Regardless of the person’s dedication to the mission, nonprofit board service becomes part of this board member’s DNA. Often they develop into respected leaders and can be conduits to modest or substantial donations. In addition, they have access to interpersonal networks that are useful in recruiting other able board members. This board cohort should be valued and its contributions, acknowledged.
The Vanilla Director
This is a board member who attends meetings regularly, occasionally makes an interesting comment. He/she is dedicated to the mission of the organization and can make substantial financial or other contributions. One such director I observed, volunteered to assist the staff with a difficult field problem. According to Frankel, these board members are “less critical and offer encouragement…. ” However, like many other nonprofit board members, across behavioral types, avoid rigorous discussions at board meetings. If substantial conflict appears between factions of the board on a major issue, they may resign instead of taking an unpopular stand.
The Nonprofit Entrepreneur
This is a director who has a substantial understanding of the nonprofit sector. He/s has served on other nonprofit boards and is dedicated to the nonprofit’s mission. He/s has a desire to help move the nonprofit to its next level of service to clients. He/s often brings bold or different perspectives to the board and management. She/h knows that to achieve growth and improve client services, it is necessary to “sell” ideas to other board members, as well as the CEO. It’s important that the nonprofit entrepreneur and CEO are on the same page in terms of the organization’s future and potential to serve clients. If not, the CEO, unfortunately, may view the entrepreneur with his/h “fast track” style as a disrupter.
An overview of nonprofit boards tends to focus on the unique set of skills and work experience they bring to the table (physicians, professors, accountants, full-time retirees etc.) A closer look at the board suggests another layer of classification i.e. individual styles, motivation and behaviors. Herein is challenge and opportunity to develop meaningful board experiences for each individual who has said “yes” to the call to service.*
A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
Viewer Favorite – Updated & Revised
Here are tips 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.
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 stakeholders. These include the community, donors, foundations and clients, but not the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. The failure of nonprofit boards, as reported frequently by local national blog sites, show something is wrong. Following are some inherent problems that derail boards from focusing on impacts.
Once Again! The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“According to a Washington Post analysis of the filings from 2008-2012 … of more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations, … there was a ‘significant diversion’ of nonprofit assets, disclosing losses attributed to theft, investment frauds, embezzlement and other unauthorized uses of funds.” The top 20 organizations in the Post’s analysis had a combined potential total loss of more than a half-billion dollars. *
One estimate, by Harvard University’s Houser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, suggests that fraud losses among U.S. nonprofits are approximately $40 billion a year. **
Vigilant nonprofit boards might prevent many of these losses. Here’s how:
How Does Cultural Intelligence (CQ)* Impact A Nonprofit Board?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
There are many ways to assess the balance of capabilities on a nonprofit board. EDs and board chairs are generally familiar with the implications of terms like IQ (cognitive ability) and EQ (emotional intelligence). New research has added a third characteristic— cultural intelligence or CQ. Obviously, CQ comes into focus when boards are dealing with global or international issues. But its usefulness is still germane to community-based and/or domestically focused professional/trade associations. Making a change in board strategy is at best a challenging process. But when that plan collides with cultural differences, board culture will trump change. To paraphrase Peter Drucker’s pronouncement—“Culture Eats Strategy for Lunch.” Following are a few of the many types of nonprofit CQ divisions that I have observed:
Baby Boomers vs. Millennials: Up to this point in their history, NFP boards have tended to be organizationally conservative, but this may be changing rapidly. One of the most prominent developments is the influence of the millennials, those born rough between 1980 and the turn of the new century. The new cohorts tend to have cultural values that are quite different from those of their parent or grandparents.Millennial work patterns, for example, are more informal, often spanning long hours and ignoring 9 to 5 routines. All of this can create a cultural gap between themselves and their boomer board colleagues and between baby boom management and millennial staffs. As they move into senior management positions,will they collide with those who have adhered to traditional conservative nonprofit cultures? Currently their social values align with those of many human service nonprofits. But in the future, will cultural values they encounter frustrate them to the point of turning their energies toward other career opportunities? One current report concludes, “Despite what you may have heard, millennials aren’t lazy. In fact they’re downright work-obsessed–and it’s making life worse for everybody.”
Entrepreneurs vs. Public Service Backgrounds: Persons with public service backgrounds tend to move slowly in bringing about change. For example, the challenge of developing consensus among city council members can be daunting. In contrast, an entrepreneur must be able to pivot his/h organization quickly from plan A to plan B. Consequently, “processing” takes precedence over “pivoting” when an NFP organizational change is proposed. These two board types brings different tempos to board discussions. If the gap is left unresolved, the entrepreneur may leave and a valuable voice is lost. Unfortunately, in my experience, I have met too many entrepreneurs who simply refuse to accept nonprofit board positions because of this discrepancy.
Management Backgrounds vs. Independent Contributors: Persons with management background are directors who have had leadership responsibilities with small or large groups of subordinates. Independent contributors are those who basically work alone or may only have responsibilities for just a few subordinates—e.g., attorneys, professors, planners or physicians. Board members in the latter group can assume they have management knowledge superior to the executive director’s or other senior personnel. Often their insights are outside a manager’s experience “space.” This creates a cultural gap that can be harmful to nonprofit’s operations. Example: A medical association board refused to set performance standards. for its executive director and staff. One staff member commented, “Board members don’t want to build trust and establish mutually accepted goals, these guys just want to give orders.” The cultural gap was substantial because management and staff did not know the standards and behaviors by which they will be judged annually. Another staff colleague angrily commented, “I’m not going to allow a twenty-something medical intern order me what to do!”
How to bridge the gap
Board chairs and EDs should develop a realistic inventory of the types of CQs on their board to be certain that one style is does not dominate.
With the continual turnover of board membership and with annually changing board chairs, the ED needs to assume long-term responsibility for the inventory.
It probably is not possible to develop a perfect balance of cultural norms. As a result, the chair and ED must make sure that those who have “minority CQs,” such as the entrepreneur described above, feel that their participation is meaningful and appreciated.
Never underestimate the impact of culture and its various CQ components. The dominant legacy, especially with successful nonprofits, must be widely accepted. But it also should be reviewed occasionally to make certain that the board is not simply accepting it at face value. The Impacts must be robust performance for all clients, along with innovative and operational effectiveness. Assessing board member’s CQ categories can be a challenge for many chairs and EDs. These categories often do not fit into discrete groupings like age and educational levels. But practice with them over time should be helpful. They allow chairs and EDs to better retain those productive outliers whose CQs may not fit the traditional legacy culture.
