Ineffective directors

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 

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

 

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

By: EugeneFram    Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

     

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

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

    (more…)

    Nonprofit Board Disruption—A Board Member’s Reflections

    Nonprofit Board Disruption—A Board Member’s Reflections

    By: Eugene Fram          Fre Digital Image       

    A tsunami can suddenly erupt on a nonprofit board. Or, instead, dissension can smolder within the organization, and finally burst into flame. In any case, polarization of opinion can damage an organization unless skillfully managed. It can occur on many fronts: fraud, sharp division of opinion, staff morale or any number of issues. In turbulent times such as the Covid 19 environment, latent problems can swiftly escalate and create chaos.

    Disruption on the Board can only be resolved with strong leadership. In most cases, the Board Chair (BC) assumes the responsibility of addressing the problem. In my 30+ years of board/consulting participation, I have had a number of opportunities to view nonprofit boards in trouble. In this post, I share some of the suggestions that have “worked” to resolve problems and help rebuild broken organizations.

    When the BC has to accept the challenge of uprooting the problem, he/she is likely to be met with some resistance. Board members may resign from the board in anticipation of a substantial increase in meetings and time involved. Some may be concerned that their management reputation could be sullied or personal financial liabilities leveled by the IRS, the possibility of lawsuits.

    If the BC is unable to persuade the distressed board members that their expertise is needed to achieve the nonprofit’s mission, and has made them aware of the Directors & Officers’ Insurance policy which will protect them from financial liability, it will be difficult to recruit new people in this period of instability.

    However, the BC can ask former board members to return for another year. In one case, a human service organization persuaded a board member about to be termed out to stay for another two years. He happened to be a senior vice president of a listed firm–and a valuable asset to the nonprofit.   He accepted the offer to stay and agreed to become BC of the weakened organization. During his extended tenure, he successfully recruited some former members dedicated to the organization’s mission.

    (more…)

    Errors That Can Cloud Nonprofit Board’s Decision Making–Tread With Care

     

    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.

    (more…)

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

     

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

    BY: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Common Practices Nonprofit Boards Need To Avoid

     

    Common Practices Nonprofit Boards Need To Avoid

    Peter Rinn, Breakthrough Solutions Group, * published a list of weak nonprofit board practices. Following are some of the items listed (in bold) and my estimation of what can be done about them, based on my experiences as a nonprofit board director, board chair and consultant.

    • Dumbing down board recruitment – trumpeting the benefits and not stressing the responsibilities of board membership. Board position offers frequently may be accepted without the candidate doing sufficient due diligence. At the least, the candidate should have a personal meeting with the executive director and board chair. Issues that need to be clarified are meeting schedules, “give/get” policies and time expectations. In addition, the candidate, if seriously interested, should ask for copies of the board meeting minutes for one year, the latest financials, and the latest IRS form 990.. These reports and the data revealed tell a great about the sustainability and impact of the nonprofit.

    • Overlooking the continued absence of board members at board meetings, strategic and planning meetings. Many bylaws have provisions dropping board members who do not meet meeting attendance criteria established by the bylaws. However, such actions are difficult to execute because of the interpersonal conflicts that can arise. For example, one organization with which I am familiar had a director who did not attend any meetings, but did make a financial contribution to the organization. When his resignation was requested, he refused. Not wanting to create conflict, the board simply kept him on the board roster until his term expired and then sent him a note acknowledging the end of his term. The board chair, not the CEO, has a responsibility to have a personal conversation with the recalcitrant director. He/s needs to offer a “tough love” message in the name of the board.

    • Taking a board action without conducting enough due diligence to determine whether the transaction is in the nonprofit’s best interest. Although each board member should sign conflict of interest statement each year, my impression is that this is rarely done. Board members should understand the potential personal liabilities that might be accrued as a result of violation of the federal Intermediate Sanctions Act (IRS Section 4958) and other statues. For example, under IRS 4958, a board member can have his or her personal taxes increased if involved in giving an excess benefit, such as selling property to the wife of a board member for less than the market rate. Some boards and their members need to be frequently reminded about their “due-care” responsibilities.

    • Allowing board members to be re-elected to the board, despite bylaw term limitations. This often occurs when the board has given little thought to a succession plan, and the only person who seems qualified is currently in place. It also happens when the board has significant problems and nobody on the board wants to take the time to hold a time consuming position. Some boards, however, have a bylaw exception that allows a board chair, if scheduled for rotation, an extra year or two to be chairperson. Succession planning needs to be a yearly routine for top managers and for the board itself.

    • Allowing board members to ignore their financial obligations to the nonprofit. To assess board interest in a nonprofit, foundations and other funders like to know that every board member makes a financial contribution within their means or participates in the organization’s “give/get” program. This topic should be discussed at the outset of recruitment so it can be full understood by all directors.

    • Overselling the protection of a Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) insurance and laws limiting the liability of directors. The importance of a nonprofit having a D&O policy, even a small one, can’t be overstated. I recently encountered a nonprofit that had operated for seventeen years without a D&O policy, although its annual budget was $500,000, and it was responsible for real estate valued at least $24 million. Each director should be knowledgeable about the potential personal liabilities involved with the board position. Frequently, board members assume that a D&O insurance policy covers too wide a range of situations.

    • Allowing ignorance and poor practices to exist keeps leadership in control. Changing leadership and practice is difficult for both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. However, in the nonprofit environment it is more difficult because poor leadership and practices can continue for a long time period, as long as current revenues meet expenditures. They can even become part of the organization’s culture. In some situations, this state of affairs continues because the board has low expectations of management and staff. It’s critical that the leadership needs to be thoroughly evaluated annually.

    There is much that nonprofit boards can do about avoiding common practices that weaken the effectiveness of the board.

    * aka The Nonprofit Entrepreneur, Placitas, New Mexico

    Once Again! Mismanagement Causes Huge Agency Failure—A Word To The Wise Nonprofit?

     

    Once Again! Mismanagement Causes Huge Agency Failure—A Word To The Wise Nonprofit

    By: Eugene Fram.    Free Digital Image 

    Rarely do failed for-profit or nonprofit organizations get a posthumous review of what actually went wrong.The collapse of one of the largest nonprofits in the US, the Federal Employment Guidance Service (FEGS)of New York City, is a noteworthy exception. Details of the causes that led to the human service’s demise were aired widely throughout NY media. *  This organization had a $250 million budget, with 1900 employees who served 120,000 households covering a range of mental health and disability services, housing, home care and employment services.

    Following are my interpretations of what its board should have done to avoid such a tragedy

    .• Failure of nonprofits: Failure of small nonprofits is rampant for a wide variety of known reasons. Outside of fraud being involved, the FEGS failure demonstrates that no nonprofit is too big to fail because of a lack of board due care. Boards have to be acutely aware of the professional financial competencies of their CFO and CEO or well-meaning people who naively believe that loans could be easily repaid. There should have been a well-documented financial strategy. The nonprofit closed with $47million in loans/liabilities/debts.

    • Symptoms of impending collapse: Clearly with $47 million being owed, common financial ratios should have alerted knowledgeable board members to the coming catastrophe. But in the nonprofit environment, it is not unusual to that find board members, even business executives, are unfamiliar with the fund accounting approach used by nonprofit organizations. In addition, contracting city and state agencies failed in their reviews of the organization’s finances . However, some nonprofits, either intentionally on unintentionally, can saddle contract reviewers and board members with so much information that even the most conscientious can’t spot problems. (Humorously, board members in this category are referred to as “mushroom directors” because like growing mushrooms, they are kept in the dark an covered with excrement. But this type of tactic was successfully used against IRS auditors in the famous Madoff debacle.)

    • Government or Foundation Contracts: In accepting these contracts, nonprofits must be realistic about whether or not there is enough money to cover full costs. They can’t be blinded by what the contract can do for the organization’s client. If adequate overhead funding is not attached to one or more of these agreements, they eventually can cause bankruptcy, because the nonprofit eventually will have to borrow or seek additional donations to cover them.

    How Nonprofit Boards Can Avoid Problems

    • Review Financials: Current financials need to be given to board members monthly, or at least quarterly if the board meets less often. The very detailed budget data can often be difficult for board members without budget experience. At the least, everybody on the finance committee needs to be able to intelligently review the income statement and balance sheet. Also they need to be aware that fund accounting permits some unusual twists—food donations, for example, can be included in revenues, based on an estimate of their value. Consequently, cash revenues and expenditures need to be a focus for board members’ analysis. Make certain that financials are delivered on timely and complete bases.

    A nonprofit CFO didn’t submit an accounts receivable reports for nine months because he said he was too busy to compile it. Neither the board nor the CEO demanded issuance of the report. When finally delivered, it was clear that the CFO was listing a substantial number of uncollectible accounts as active ones. Both the CFO and CEO were fired, and the nonprofit had to hire expensive forensic accountants to review the impact.

    • Gaps Between Revenues and Expenditures: This is the ultimate red flag, if not followed carefully. It may vary from period-to-period in a predictable pattern that everybody understands, but if the gap continues, say for four to six months, strong board action is necessary.

    • Adopt written financial policies: These are necessary to make sure all concerned with finances are on the same page. Since interpretation is often required in financial decisions, nothing should be left open to broad interpretation

    .• Contracts with governments, foundations and others: Make certain that reimbursements for indirect costs are included. If not included, have a benefactor ready to step in to cover the costs.

    An old Chinese proverb, “A wise man (or woman) learns from his/h own experience. The wiser man (or woman) learns from the experiences of others.” One hundred twenty thousands households and individuals lost services from an 80 year old human service nonprofit. There is much to learn from the collapse of FEGS.

    * https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-fegs-autopsy-a-case-of-bad-nonprofit-business-in-a-tough

     

    Do Your Board Members View Their Board Work As Being Meaningful?

     

    Do Your Board Members View Their Board Work As Being Meaningful?

    By Eugene Fram                  Free Digital Image

    For several decades, I have suggested that nonprofit Board Chairs and CEOs have a responsibility to be sure that each board member perceives his/h continuing relationship as being meaningful. Following are some organizational guidelines that can assist Board Chairs and CEOs in this effort.*

    1. Developing or hiring strong executive leadership: Obviously when hiring externally it is necessary to engage a person with a managerial background. But many nonprofit CEOs can be appointed after years of being an individual contributor or leading a small department. These experiences condition them to do too much themselves, rather than to assume a strong management posture. This involves focusing more on strategy, on talent development, interacting more with the board/community and creating a long-term vision.

    A strong CEO, if appointed internally, should understand the role changes that take place once appointed. He/s must delegate activities that were once performed within a comfort zone and seek new challenges. Examples: The new CEO needs to be enthusiastic about becoming a fundraiser.   She/h must become well acquainted with peer CEOs regionally and nationally to stay abreast of the state-of-art in both management and mission areas. He/s needs to become acquainted with cohorts in the business and public management communities. Over time, those involved with the nonprofit internally and externally must perceive the organization is lead by a capable executive.

    1. Creating impact: In the 21st century, funders, board members and other nonprofit leaders are attracted to organizations that create impacts as opposed to outcomes. A nonprofit can have great program outcomes with little long-term impacts on clients. Impact is often hard to measure, but it can be done, only if started with imperfect measures that are improved over time. ** For example, one local human services organization, with which I am acquainted, operates groups of apartments offering social services that allow elderly clients to live independently for years on their own, rather than in an assisted living facility. The impact in this instance is well-defined and an impetus to attracting board members and donors that find the impact meaningful.
    2. Building relationships externally and internally: Board candidates who have broad contact networks are sought by search committees to enhance community or industry relationships or to strengthen the organization’s fund development efforts. Little effort is directed to fostering closer relationships among current board members who often don’t get to know each other personally because of crowded board and committee agendas. Example: I consulted with one board where some board members complained that they might not recognize their board peers when they meet them in outside social situations.

    To solve the problem, both the Board Chair & CEO must acknowledge that it exists—in the above example; it took an extensive personal interview board survey to highlight the problem.   Then creative tactics like the following can be employed.

    • One CEO has a weekly one-hour conference call with the board chair to discuss current issues. Other board members are invited to join the calls if they wish. This is an excellent way for new board members to quickly become attuned to the nonprofit.
    • Another CEO, each Sunday, sends a one-page e-mail summary of major events to board members. He reports that his high school English teacher would never approve of his grammar or structure, but he knows emails are reviewed. They are reflected in the level of discussions at meetings
    • Low-key self-funded social events for board members and significant others can help board members to become better acquainted and work together.
    • Another classical approach is to allow 10 minutes each meeting to allow board members to briefly report changes in their personal or professional lives.
    • Assuming an organization is successful in developing a cohesive board, what can be done to retain these efforts once they have termed-out? The answer is to ask them to join the organization’s “Alumni Association.”   The process can be found here: (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ltl.20305)

    1. Organizational stability: Unstable nonprofits have common telltale signs—rapid employees or management turnover, excessive bank borrowing, reserve depletion, late report filings, etc. It’s difficult to provide meaningful board experiences under these conditions. However it is not unusual to find board members who will accept responsibility when the nonprofit is unstable, if they are dedicated to its mission. A few may  “enjoy” a board position  to be involved in the turnaround challenge.

    While no nonprofit will be perfect, those with the best opportunity to provide meaningful board experiences will have a well formulated strategic plan that allows it to be stable operationally and financially.

    *https://grantspace.org/resources/blog/high-impact-volunteer-engagement-six-factors-for-success/

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

     

    Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.

    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 3,530,000 items in .53 of a second. 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.

    (more…)