foundation boards

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

Do Nonprofit Boards Face Cyber Security Risk?
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100325196.jpg

Do Nonprofit Boards Face Cyber Security Risk?

By: Eugene Fram     

Solarwinds and Target and others may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.

A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet.  Considering the recent introductions of new AI tools, the power of immature teenagers and adults to initiate Cyber Security (CS) problems seems unlimited.  

What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consultant with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.

After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.

1. Carefully “wall off” all confidential information – Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment.
2. Review D&O and other liability policies – Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS.
3. Board Encouragement – Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board’s concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches.
4. Can third party payer help? – Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance.
5. Education and training of employers – Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses.
6. Finance & Audit Committees – Recent data indicate that only 20% of nonprofits have a CS vulnerability assessment in place and only about the same proportion have a plan  in place should a CS breach take place . *  Due care responsibilities seem to be missing among a large portion of nonprofits.

If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. SolarWinds and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.

*https://communityit.com/nonprofit-cybersecurity/

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

The Enron Debacle–2025 Lessons For Nonprofit Boards?

 

By: Eugene Fram               

In 2001 Enron Energy collapsed due to financial manipulations and a moribund board. It was the seventh-largest company in the United States. Andrew Fastow, the former CFO and architect of the manipulations served more than five years in prison for securities fraud. He offered the following comments to business board members that, in my opinion, are currently relevant to nonprofit boards. Quotations from Fastow are italicized.*

• One explanation of his downfall was he didn’t stop to ask whether the decisions he was making were ethical (moral).

Nonprofits directors and managers can find themselves in similar situations. One obvious parallel is when a conflict of interest occurs.  In smaller and medium sized communities, it is wise to seek competitive bids, especially when the purchase may be awarded to a current or former board member or volunteer.

Board members and managers themselves can be at personal financial peril, via the Intermediate Sanctions Act, if they wittingly or unwittingly provide an excess salary benefit to an employee or an excess benefit to a volunteer or donor. Examples: The board allows a substantial above market salary to offer to the CEO. Also the board allows a parcel of property to be sold to a volunteer or donor at below market values. 

One subtle area of decision-making morality centers on whether a board’s decision is immoral by commission or omission. Examples: In its normal course of client duties, the board allows managers to travel by first class air travel. Obviously, resources that are needed by clients are being wasted and morally indefensible. On the other hand the moral issue can come in to play, if the nonprofit is husbanding resources well beyond what is needed for an emergency reserve. The organization, in a sense, is not being all it can be in terms of client services or in seeking additional resources. Overly conservative financial planning, not unusual in nonprofit environments, can result in this latter subtle omission “moral” dilemma. Overtly, universities with billions of dollars on their balance sheets have been highlighted as having the issue, but I have occasionally noted smaller nonprofits in the same category.

• He (Fastow) said he ultimately rationalized that he was following the rules, even if he was operating in the grey zones (area).

There can be grey zones for nonprofits. Example: IRS rules require that the nonprofit board be involved in the development of the annual Form 990 report. But what does this involvement mean—a brisk overview when the report is finished, a serious discussion of the answers to the questions related to corporate governance, a record in the board minutes covering questions raised and changes suggested, etc.? A nonprofit boards needs to make a determination on which course is appropriate.

Boards implementing government-sponsored contracts can get into grey areas. Example: Some contracts require the nonprofits to follow government guidelines for travel expenses. I wonder how many nonprofit audit committees are aware of their responsibilities to make certain these guidelines are followed?

According to Fastow, a for-profit director can ask the wrong question—“Is this allowed?” A nonprofit director can make the same mistake. Instead, in my opinion, the better question for a nonprofit should be “Will this decision help the organization to prosper long after my director’s term limit?”

As Fastow did, human service boards can invite trouble if they falsely rationalize an action as being taken for client welfare, and then conclude they are following the rules.

• Mr. Fastow said one way to start changing an entrenched culture is to have either a director on the board, or a hired adviser to the board, whose role is to question and challenge decisions.

Nonprofit directors are often recruited from friends, family members and business colleagues, etc. This process creates an entrenched board.

When elected to the board, a process begins to acculturate the new person to the status quo of the board, instead making best use of the person’s talents. Example: An accountant with financial planning experience will be asked to work with the CFO on routine accounting issues, far below her/h professional level. One answer is to accept Fastow’s suggestion and to appoint a modified lead director or adviser to a nonprofit board.***

An old Chinese proverb states, “A wise man learns by his own experiences, the wiser man learns from the experiences of others. Nonprofits can learn a something from Andrew Fastow’s post conviction trecollections to hopefully help avoid significant debacles.

*https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-syn&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-syn&hspart=iba&param1=u3aa5HpmsM3IXRQhgULSrC7

**https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/intermediate-sanctions

***http://bit.ly/13Dsd3v)

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/

Does A New Nonprofit Board Member Really Understand Your Organization?  The New Board Member Nurturing Challenge!

 

Does A New Nonprofit Board Member Really Understand Your Organization?  The New Board Member Nurturing Challenge!

By: Eugene Fram       Free Digital Image

The careful nurturing of a new board member, whether for-profit or nonprofit, is critical. The pay-off of a robust orientation process is an informed and fully participating board director. The following are very similar occurrences in both for-profit and nonprofit boards:

The CEO of a transportation firm agrees to become a board director of a firm developing computer programs. He has risen through the transportation ranks with a financial background, but he knows little about the dynamics of the computer industry.

A finance professor is asked to serve on the board of a nonprofit school serving handicapped children. She has no children of her own and has never had any contact with handicapped children, social workers or teachers serving handicapped children.

In these similar cases, the new board member needs to become reasonably conversant with a new industry or a new human service field in order to be able to better apply policy development skills, strategic planning skills and to allow generative thinking.

On nonprofit boards, the problem is exacerbated when the new board member often is asked to immediately join a specific board committee without being able to understand the board perspectives and the organization’s mission vision and values. Following are ways in which the nonprofit board can resolve this problem:

  • Don’t appoint the new board member to committee until she/h has completed a board orientation program including a review of board procedures, attending several board meetings, has had visits with the staff, as they normally operate, and becomes alert to the major trends in the field. This ideally should take about six months assuming the board member is employed full-time elsewhere.
  • During this time, the chief executive and board president should be available to visit with the new board member as frequently as she/h wants in order to respond to questions.
  • Hopefully, the chief executive would informally meet the new board member (and each established director) quarterly to review current issues and opportunities. In addition to the information presented at the board meetings, this will provide a better perspective of the board’s mission, vision and values.
  • Ideally, the board volunteer should attend one staff meeting and one outside professional meeting to acquire a feeling for the topics reviewed at these gatherings and the field terminology.
  • During the first year, a senior board member needs be seated next to the new person at meetings to act  as a “host” for the new board member.

If most of these actions can be accomplished within a six-month period, major blind spots are removed, and the new board member can then join a standing board committee or an active task force. Now, reasonably understanding the organization and her/h own participation on the board, she/h has a background to make a substantial contribution for years to come.

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…)

Two Nonprofits Merge: Synergy or Collision Course?

 

Two Nonprofits Merge: Synergy of Collision Course?

By Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

Having led a merger committee that resulted in a successful merger with another nonprofit, I thought my field observations might be of interest to others contemplating a merger. These comments center on a merger of two equal partners, which plan to form a new organization, not the acquisition of one nonprofit by another.

Assuming both organizations have merger committees that meet frequently, over an extended time period, the following initial issues need to be reviewed:

• Are the mission, vision and values of both organizations the same or sufficiently similar?

• Are there any financial issues that might cloud the negotiations?

• Do the two merger committees work well together and view each other positively as potential colleagues?

• Are both groups willing to invest the board time and financial resources to bring about a melding of the two groups?

• Are there any factions in either of the two organizations that might be emotionally opposed to the merger?

• What, at this early stage, might be some barriers (“deal breakers”) to the merger?

• What needs to be done to move the merger process forward and to develop an implementation plan, if both boards agree to the merger?

• How will the impact of the merger be determined and at what intervals will it be measured?

• In the event that either or both organizations are dissatisfied with the merger, what specific detail need to be specified in a “prenuptial” breakup agreement?

• How will the CEO of the merged organization be determined? This will have to be decided amicably

• How can morale of both organizations be maintained during merger discussions? What incentives need to be developed to maintain those who will certainly need a new job, e.g. CFO?

The Devil Is In The Details – Are These “Deal Breakers?”

• Consider various stakeholders who might be impacted by the merger. (These can include: community leaders, managers, staff, funders, vendors, media, etc.) How can consensus be achieved?

• Where will the new nonprofit be physically located? What are the real estates implications?

• The combination will probably require layoffs and new reporting arrangements. How will these be decided?

• How will the new board be constituted? Will a larger new board be necessary? If not, what is the plan for paring down the size of the new board.

• What legal counsel will be needed and at what costs? Will foundation support be needed to establish the merger?

• What systems or interpersonal relationships are necessary to avoid “surprises” before or after the merger?

Never Underestimate the Importance of Culture

The failure of the AOL-Time Warner merger has become an all time classic example of the failure of the two cultures to blend into a new culture. I have observed that blending two nonprofit organizations will certainly encounter cultural “bumps in the road,” starting about six months after the merger and can continue for several years. Although the mission, vision and values of both groups may be identical, culturally inspired blips can arise from differences in which previous boards operated, from expectations of the CEO, from staff differences, etc. However, they do take time, persistence and board leadership to resolve.

Any merger will have its own specific imprint. However, I hope that the guidelines cited above will be helpful in navigating the rough shoals that frequently appear after the honeymoon period.