Ineffective directors

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

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

By: Eugene Fram           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

By: Eugene Fram               

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

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

(more…)

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 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)

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.

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.

 

Once Again!! Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.

 

 

By: Eugene Fram.       Free Digital Image

Articles and studies from a Google search on “Dysfunctions in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations,” yields nearly two million items in less than a minute. These items show dysfunctions on charter school boards, church boards, healthcare boards, trade associations, human services boards etc.

Rick Moyers, a well-known nonprofit commentator and nonprofit researcher, concluded:

“A decade’s worth of research suggests that board performance is at best uneven and at worst highly dysfunctional. ….. The experiences of serving on a board — unless it is high functioning, superbly led, supported by a skilled staff and working in a true partnership with the executive – is quite the opposite of engaging.”

These data and comments can lead one to conclude that all nonprofit boards are dysfunctional. I suggest that nonprofit boards can generate a range of dysfunctional behavioral outcomes, but the staff can muddle through and continue to adequately serve clients.

Mildly Dysfunctional: Board meeting attendance can be a problem, left unattended by the board chair and CEO. Agendas are not completed within the meeting time frame. Strategic planning discussions takes place once a year with little reference to it between annual meeting retreats. Goals are established without measured outcomes, or more importantly–Impacts.
On the other hand, budgets and finances are reasonably well handled. Incremental growth each year is modest. Board recruitment takes place largely based on board contacts and friendships, with a few recommendations by the CEO. Most everyone on the board is mildly or fully dedicated to the organization’s mission.

Moderately Dysfunctional: Many of the above dysfunctions, plus one or more of the following ones:

• The board chair and/or the CEO receive heightened deference in board discussions.
• Important decisions are made without full participation by all board members. One of two directors set the tone for the discussions and the outcomes.
• Either the board chair or CEO has inadequate backgrounds to develop a robust board. Nearly all agenda topics center on operational issues.
• The board does not trust the CEO but is unwilling to take action to remove him or her.
• The mission is not clearly defined and “mission creep” can be a problem. In this instance, the staff can be productive, if some managers are able to isolate staff from the board dysfunctions.

Highly Dysfunctional: Many of the following board behaviors are exhibited:

• The board is divided into unyielding factions, a la the current US congress.
• Board discussions go beyond civil discourse into personal barbs, often disguised as humor.
• Board committees are not functioning properly. Important decisions are often delayed for a year or more.
• Rumors about the board conflicts are reaching funders, who are asking questions about the rumors.
• It is becoming difficult to recruit talented board members or professional personnel.
• The board chair and other board directors refuse to acknowledge the problems.

There is little that the staff can do in this situation, except to hope for a funding angel to cover the financial problems that will develop. However, I did observe one organization that recovered from such highly dysfunctional board behaviors and finally succeeded in recruiting more talented board members. It also adopted a new governance format. The change led to some board members to resign. (One was insisting that the board members should evaluate individual staff personnel!) However the mistrust between the board and staff, as a result of the dysfunctional board behaviors, continued for decades.

Associations, Board agendas, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Charity, Consistency, Crisis Management, Dysfunctional nonprofits, foundation boards, Good governance, Ineffective directors, Long-term Sustainability, Non-profit board of directors, Nonprofit board barriers, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, Nonprofit mangement, Trustees, Trustees, 

 

     

     

    •  
    •  

    Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: An Evergreen Board Problem?

    Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: An Evergreen Board Problem?

    By: Eugene Fram    Free Digital Image

    At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.

    In specific, the board failed to take any action to remove a board member who wasn’t attending meetings, but he refused to resign. His three-year term had another 18 months to go, and the board had a bylaws obligation to summarily remove him from the board. However, a majority of directors decided such action would hurt the board member’s feelings. They were unwittingly accepting the “nice-guy” approach in place of taking professional action.

    (more…)

    Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century

     

    Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century

    By Eugene Fram      Free Digital Image

    Unfortunately, outcomes and impact are often unrelated, which is why a program that seems to produce better outcomes may create no impact at all. Worse, sometimes they point in opposite directions, as can happen when a program works with harder-to- service populations resulting in seemingly worse conditions, but (has) higher value-added impact. … Rigorous evaluations can measure impact (to a level of statistical accuracy), but they are usually costly (a non starter for many nonprofit), difficult and slow. * But how do the medium and small size nonprofits measure actual results in the outside world such as enhanced quality of life, elevated artistic sensitivity and community commitment?

    A Compromise Solution:

    To close the gap, funders and recipients would need to agree to apply imperfect metrics over time. These are metrics that can be anecdotal, subjective or interpretative. Also they may rely on small samples, uncontrolled situational factors, or they cannot be precisely replicated. ** This would require agreement and trust between funders and recipients as to what level of imprecision can be accepted and perhaps be improved, to assess impacts. It is an experimental approach

    How To Get to Impact Assessment:

    1. Agree on relevant impacts: Metrics should be used to reflect organizational related impacts, not activities or efforts. Impacts should focus on a desired change in the nonprofit’s universe, rather than a set of process activities.
    2. Agree on measurement approaches: These can range from personal interviews to comparisons of local results with national data.
    3. Agree on specific indicators: Outside of available data, such as financial results, and membership numbers, nonprofits should designate behavioral impacts for clients should achieve. Do not add other indicators because they are easily developed or “would be interesting to examine.” Keep the focus on the agreed-upon behavioral outcomes.
    4. Agree on judgment rules: Board and management need to agree at the outset upon the metric numbers for each specific indicator that contributes to the desired strategic objective. The rules can also specify values that are “too high” as well as “too low.”
    5. Compare measurement outcomes with judgment rules to determine organizational impact: Determine how may specific program objectives have reached impact levels to assess whether or not the organization’s strategic impacts have been achieved.

    Lean Experimentation

    The five-point process described above closely follows the philosophy of lean experimentation, ** now suggested for profit making and nonprofit organizations.

    Lean allows nonprofits to use imperfect metrics to obtain impact data from constituents/ stakeholders over time. Under a lean approach, as long as the organizations garners some positive insights after each iteration, it continues to improve the measurement venues and becomes more comfortable with the advantages and limitations of using these metrics.

    Organizationally the nonprofit can use this process to drive change over time by better understanding what is behind the imperfect metrics, especially when a small sample can yield substantial insights, and actually improve the use of the metrics.


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

    Raising The Bar For Nonprofit Involvement

    Raising The Bar For Nonprofit Involvement

    By Eugene Fram            Free Digital Image

    It’s no secret that some nonprofit board members cruise through their term of board service with minimal involvement. McKinsey Company, a well-known consulting firm, has suggested five steps that can be used to counteract this passivity in for-profit boards. * With a few tweaks, McKinsey suggestions (in bold) are relevant to the nonprofit board environment where director engagement is often a challenge.

    Engaging between meetings: Nonprofit boards traditionally meet monthly, bimonthly or quarterly. Unless the board is a national one, these meetings range from one to three hours, with the three hours being typical of quarterly meetings. The meeting agendas are usually packed, and they leave little time for individual board members to enhance discussions. ** In addition, a sense of anonymity develops among board members who do not know each other personally, a significant barrier to team building. I have encountered nonprofit boards where disconnect between board colleagues is simply a nod—or less– when passing each other.

    Board cohesion based on interpersonal relationships has an important impact on the quality of board discussions. It allows a board member to more fully understand the perspectives and goals of his/her fellow  or “where they’re coming from.” With this information at hand on both sides of a discussion, it increases board members possibility of creating “win-win” impacts for the nonprofit.

    Responsibility for promoting between-meeting engagements needs to rest with the board chair. As a staring point, the chair can sponsor a few informal Jefferson dinners. The topic should be a cause which can excite the invitees. It needs to be a challenge to the board Members. ***

    Engage with strategy as it’s forming—do not just review & approve it: Traditionally most of what becomes an organization’s strategy will emanate from the management and staff. But the board must proactively help to form strategy or step in to fill gaps when the management refuses to do it.

    In forming strategy the board has an obligation to make certain all viewpoints are heard. Staffs as well as management ideas need to be considered. In addition, the board may need to take direct actions when the organization fails to fulfill a mission obligation. Example. A counseling agency only offered services during normal business hours–9 am to 5pm, five days a week. Its board required management to offer services, 24/7 with an emergency phone line when the office was not open. The management, a creative group, found a way to do it, without increasing costs.

    Engage by cultivating talent: The nonprofit board has several responsibilities in regard to talent.   First, it must engage and then evaluate the CEO. This is a complex duty because the vast majority of the board members are not full-time employees and many have only tangential attachments to the organization’s mission field. Second, the board must overview the quality of the staff talent so that it is in line with budget constraints. Third, it must be aware of those within the staff who may be promotable to management. Finally it must be alert to succession opportunities internally and externally in the event the CEO was to leave abruptly. Succession planning for the CEO must also include considerations about the talents that will be needed beyond the current one.

    Engage the field: Since nonprofit board members have full-time occupations outside the mission field, it’s important that they receive a flow of information about leading edge changes taking place outside the organization. However, CEOs sometime can operate a “mind the store” nonprofit, by looking at past successes without a visionary component. To help avoid this occurrence, specific directors might be assigned to become more deeply familiar with key projects in order to assess their progress.

    Engaging on tough questions: A difficult task on a nonprofit board where politeness is an overriding value. Peers are friends and business associations and generally there are few potential penalties for “going along to get along.” In all my decades as a nonprofit director, I have yet to see one board member ask that his/h dissenting vote be recorded in the minutes. A necessary action when he/she feels that the vote being passed by the majority may lead to harmful to the organization.

    *http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/changing-the-nature-of-board-engagement

    ** In California, the Brown Act might prohibit such meetings. The Brown Act covered concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies that were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops and study” sessions.

    ***For details on the background and planning for Jefferson dinners see: http://jeffersondinner.org/jefferson-dinner/

    Posted in audit comitttees, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board Learning Opportunities, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, board self assessment, Boared meetings, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, Good governance, Long-term Sustainability, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit outcomes, onboarding, Stakeholder Relations, Strategic planning, SuccessionPlanning, team building, Trustees, Trustees, voluneers