Nonprofit boards need to expand their evaluations of nonprofit managers and their organizations adding more behavioral impacts * to their evaluations.
For example, a nonprofit might count the number of volunteers that have been trained. But boards must go to the next level in the 21st century. In the case of volunteers, they must seek to understand the impacts on those trained. They need, for instance, to understand how well these volunteers are assisting clients and how they are representing the nonprofit to the clients. The training is a process, but it determines their relationships with clients and yields impact data.
Qualitative data must be developed to the next level, and the average nonprofit CEO will argue that he/she doesn’t have the staff or expertise to develop impact data. Engaging an outside organization to complete a simple project can cost thousands of dollars.
Gene Takagi, noted San Francisco attorney, who specializes in nonprofit organizations published an article listing 12 reasons for resigning from a nonprofit board. It is worth reading.*
BUT
Nonprofit board members often become impatient with the slow pace of progress toward positive change. Here are some actions that may change the situation, improve service to clients and prepare the organization for any long-term mission disruptions.
• Talk With The CEO: He/s may feel the same frustrations and be delighted to find a board member who shares his goals. In fact, she/h may be thinking of leaving or be wedded to the current area only because of a family situation. As a result, your conversation may give a chief executive new hope and energy. On the other hand, if the CEO is too aligned with the past, it will be unlikely that the board will terminate the current CEO, unless there are some performance malfeasances involved. Then, estimate the CEO’s remaining tenure and use remaining time to find opportunities to make modest increments in change.
• Talk With Other Directors: Between board meetings, have informal coffee sessions with other directors to determine their views on the areas in which you feel change is necessary. Three or four board opinion leaders can garner positive movement, assuming there are no strong objections from the CEO.
• Outside Validation. If sufficient budget is available, ask the board to engage a consultant to examine the potentials for change. The rationale for the request might be: “We are doing well, let’s determine how we can better serve our clients.” If budget isn’t available or the CEO is against the expenditure, try to have the board arrange, for an outside speaker or two who might validate the need for change. This might be a person from the field or a local professor who has some insights aligned with change-focused board members .
• Seek Outside Financing: Personally seek sources for capacity grants that, if awarded, might be developed to further help clients. Ask the board to take leadership in applying for several of these grants. A single successful grant might be the linchpin to promote the type of change desired by the group having similar views.
• Chair The Nominations Committee: As chair, the director can be in a position to search for candidates who are forward looking. In addition, the committee, under the urging of the chair, can seek candidates who have served on other nonprofit boards and who have proven their meddle to bring about change.
Summary For any single board member of a status quo nonprofit to lead a change on organizational culture will require tenacity, time and patience. The person will need to be extremely dedicated to the organization’s mission and want to improve the services to its clients. Very few board members have the grit to lead such a change. However, a small-motivated group can be an advanced guard to initiate some actions in the right direction. But the group will have to keep Peter Drucker’s insight in mind when the going gets tough, “Culture eats strategy change for breakfast.”
An unusual case of an ED accused of serious malfeasance, but the board refused to fire him. http://bit.ly/1om6XUw
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.
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.
What Role Should Nonprofit Board Members Play in Overviewing Management /Staff Talent?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Nonprofit boards rarely develop an in-depth strategy for assessing its organization’s human capital. Some will keep informal tabs on the CEO’s direct reports to prepare for the possibility of his/her sudden departure or is incapacitated. Others –smaller organizations with fewer than 20 employees—need only a basic plan for such an occurrence.
Need for Strategy: In my view, maintaining a viable talent strategy to assess staff and management personnel is a board responsibility, albeit one that is often ignored. The latter stems from the constant turnover of nonprofit board members whose median term of service is 4-6 years—hardly a lifetime commitment. Like for-profit board members whose focus is on quarterly earning results, their nonprofit counterparts are likely more interested in resolving current problems than in building sufficient bench strength for the organization’s long-term sustainability.
Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
The problems of Wells Fargo and Enron have provided negative examples for future leaders, according to William George, Senior Fellow at the Harvard Business School. As an antidote to these and others serious problems that have plagued business and nonprofits in the last several decades, he cites the movement towards Authentic Leadership. He further lists six guidelines to identify behaviors in such leaders. Following are my views on how his guidelines can be useful to directors and managers in the nonprofit environment. (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/authentic-leadership-rediscovered)
Once Again: How to Keep Nonprofit Board Members Informed.
By: Eugene Fram. Free Digital Image
With high performing nonprofit organizations, board members will rarely be invited by the CEO to participate in operational decisions. As a result, management will always have more information than board members. Yet the board still needs to know that is happening in operations to be able to perform their overview process. The name of the game is for the CEO to communicate the important information and to keep board members informed of significant developments. Still, there’s no need to clutter regular board meetings by reporting endless details about operations.
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.
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.
** 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.
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.
Nonprofit Management 