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…)
Errors That Can Cloud Nonprofit Board’s Decision Making–Tread With Care
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
In this age of information overload, nonprofits need to continually scrutinize the quality and source of the material received in preparation for major decisions. Since board members often come without broad enough experience in the nonprofit’s mission arena, they may not be prepared to properly assess its progress in moving forward–and not equipped to make relevant comparisons with similar nonprofits. In addition, naive or unscrupulous CEOs and highly influential directors may inundate their boards with information and data as a distraction tactic to keep them busy in the “weeds,” reviewing what has been presented. Board members need to avoid donning “rose-colored glasses” when assessing proposals from these sources.
I once encountered a nonprofit whose board was about to acquire a for-profit organization, headed by its founder. Pushing for the “deal” were the nonprofit’s CEO and an influential board member who were not, it turned out, capable of the due diligence needed for a project of this complexity. But the board approved the acquisition without sufficient review. When the acquisition was consummated, the founding CEO of the subsidiary refused to take directions from the CEO of the nonprofit. In addition, the normal financial settlement of the project requires that a portion of the price be withheld, in escrow, pending adequate performance. In this instance, the nonprofit paid cash for the acquisition. Based on a lack of performance, the operation was finally closed with a substantial loss.
A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
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.
Nonprofit organizations can’t have a traditional bottom line profits. If they did, CEO productivity determination could be less complicated. Determining a fair CEO salary or benefit based on productivity, can be a complex issue for a nonprofit board. Providing too little or too much can be dangerous for the organization and possibly the board members. Although the spadework for salary and benefits need to be done by a small committee, the entire board needs to fully agree on the rationale for the final decision.
Following are some of significant challenges that I have noted nonprofit boards face when determining what is a fair system.(more…)
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 food items 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.
Board Members: Are Your Managers & Staffs Effectively Engaging Business Donors?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Fund development should be a partnership between board members and CEOs/Development Officers, if the latter is available. However, I have noted that board members don’t take sufficient responsibility to make certain that CEOs and Development directors are well prepared when they approach potential business donors. This, in my view, is the first step in building a relationship fundraising approach. Many involved with NFP fundraising or management have spent their entire careers in the nonprofit environment, resulting in a gap in communicating with those in the business environment.* Some may even privately believe that those in business contribute less significantly to society. While little can be done about the latter, here is what I think can be done to fill or reduce the unfortunate gap in cultures often found between for-profits and nonprofits, especially when it relates to fund development.
Homework: Development officers, executive directors and others meeting potential business donor have an obligation to know a great deal about the potential donor’s firm. The worst opening for those seeking a business donation or grant is, “Tell me about what XXX produces.” It appears the solicitor has no interest in the environment in which the firm operates. In the Internet age, there is no excuse for such lapses. A Google or LinkedIn search is also critical in preparing to understand each of the persons who might be involved in initial contacts.
With this information, a conversation can be appropriately opened with “How’s business been recently?” It can be followed by a discussion of the donor’s industry trends and challenges, establishing a level of comfort for the donor.
What can your nonprofit do for the donor? Sophisticated development officers have ways of asking this important question. Some examples: (1) In the case of a university, this may range from suggesting capable entry-level employees for the firm to answering personal questions such as guidance on seek a relative’s admission to a selective university. (2) In the case of a nonprofit whose mission to assist qualified persons to find locate new employment, its work can be related to the firm when the firm has significant layoffs.
A Business Posture: A development officer or executive director needs to convey they have grounding in the business world and its basics, especially to be able to quickly show that their nonprofit is well managed. A recent study of Silicon Valley donors and nonprofit leaders cited a empathy gap between the two. Generally speaking, nonprofit leaders and new philanthropists don’t move in the same social circles. For the latter, community is increasingly defined not by physical place but by socioeconomic class: a particular psychographic and a set of shared experiences that only wealth can buy.*
The objective is to develop a continuing conversation with the donor related to his/h business interests and outlook. This offers a connection to show that the nonprofit fulfills a human service, professional or social need. These may include:
Explaining the scope of the “executive director” title directly or indirectly if the operating CEO does have the well-known title “president/CEO.” The ED title puzzles many in the business environment, since the top operational person in a business firm most often is the “president/CEO.” **
Showing the nonprofit has a viable mission that is being carefully shepherded and the organization doesn’t engage in mission creep.
Clarifying that an achievable business plan is available.
Having a well managed internal structure that can achieve impacts for clients. (Like the results of the Zuckerberg gift to Newark schools, many business people are aware that process goals can be achieved without having client impacts.)
Unfortunately nonprofit organizations can have a reputation among members of the business community as being less effective and efficient than for-profit ones. These people may not have encountered many local nonprofit leaders, as I have, with significant management savvy. Consequently, nonprofit representatives first need to be sure they begin their relationships with donors by showing interest in their business, industry, or firm. This then offers the opportunity to demonstrate that the nonprofit’s mission is managerially strong and looks to impacts, not processes, as measures of success.
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:
Once Again! Nonprofit CEO: Board Peer – Not A Powerhouse
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Some nonprofit CEOs make a fetish out of describing their boards and/or board chairs as their “bosses.” Others, for example, can see the description, as a parent-child relationship by funders. The parent, the board, may be strong, but can the child, the CEO, implement a grant or donation? A small group of CEOs may openly like to perpetuate this type of relationship because when bad decisions come to roost, they can use the old refrain: the board made me do it.
My preference is that the board-CEO relationship be a partnership among peers focusing on achieving desired outcomes and impacts for the nonprofit. (I, with others, would make and have made CEOs, who deserve the position, when allowed by state laws, voting members of their boards!)
There are many precedents for a nonprofit CEO to become a peer board member, some without voting rights, some with full voting rights. One nonprofit group is university presidents, where shared governance with faculty bodies can be the norm. For example, when General Eisenhower became president of Columbia University, he referred to the faculty in an initial presentation as “Columbia employees.” Later a senior faculty member informed him “With all due respect, the faculty is the university.”
Another nonprofit group is hospitals where the CEO may also be or has been the chief medical officer. The level of medical expertise needed to lead requires that a peer relationship be developed. Also if the hospital CEO is a management person, he and the chief medical officer must have a peer relationship, which extends to the board.
Hallmarks of a Peer Relationship • The CEO values the board trust assigned him/her, and carefully guards against the board receiving surprise announcements. • The board avoids any attempts to micromanage, a natural tendency for many nonprofit boards. • When a board member works on a specific operating project, it is clearly understood that he/s is accountable to the CEO for results. • The CEO has board authority to borrow money for short term emergency needs. • The CEO understands need for executive sessions without his/her presence. • The CEO understands the need for a robust assessment processes to allow the board to meet its overview duties. • Both board and CEO are alert to potential conflicts of interest which may occurs. • Both value civil discussion when disagreements occur. • The board realizes that nobody does his/her job perfectly, and does not strongly react to occasional CEO modest misjudgments.
Summary Elevating a nonprofit CEO to a status of board peer does not automatically make the CEO a powerhouse. The board legally can terminate the CEO at will. However, in my opinion, having the CEO as a board member can generate following benefits.
The peer relationship help will:
• Help the organization to build a desirable public brand, since the related responsibility is more broadly understood when compared to the ED title. • Allow a capable person, with daily experience, to interface with the media. • Define a role for the CEO to lead in fundraising. • Allow the organization to hire better qualified personnel. • Allow the organization to present a strong management environment to funders. After all, top people in organizations readily communicate with people in similar positions.
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.
Nonprofit Management 