Nonprofit impacts

Should Nonprofit Boards Be A Boot Camp for Corporate Executives?

id-100264513

Should Nonprofit Boards Be A Boot Camp for Corporate Executives?

By: Eugene Fram.       Free Digital Image

Alice Korngold, President of Korngold Consulting, suggests, “Nonprofit board service is the ultimate leadership opportunity, giving business executives the personal and professional skills they need… .“ * She suggests that the following abilities can be developed from such experiences. But will the neophyte board member become attuned to some inappropriate nonprofit practices, such as micromanagement,  and promote them on subsequent nonprofit board assignments?  Following are some of the different experiences the business executive might encounter on a nonprofit board.

(more…)

NONPROFIT BOARDS HIRE AND CEOs MUST ACT!

NONPROFIT BOARDS HIRE AND CEOs MUST ACT!

By: Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

Whenever the time is ripe to select a new nonprofit CEO, I think of the old joke that says “…every person looks for the perfect spouse… meanwhile, they get married.” By the same token, nonprofit board members seek perfection in a new ED/CEO– and find that they must “settle” for less. But there are certain definitive attributes that are essential to his/her success in running the organization. With the pressures of increasingly slim budgets, fund development challenges and the difficulty of recruiting high quality employees, the 21st century ED/CEO must be action oriented and come equipped with at least a modicum of the following abilities: *

  • Visionary: It’s all about the organization’s future. The ED/elect should bring or at least begin to cultivate a deep concept of where the nonprofit is, should be and what the trajectory should look like. He/she can do that by immersing himself in the mission field—reading widely and remaining in contact with regional and national leaders in the field. A state-of-the-art CEO should be available for consultation with colleagues with similar issues. Included in his span of vision are potential disruptions that might affect the organization– and how to help the board focus on and implement appropriate change.
  • Board Enabler: The new chief understands the limits of his/h operational responsibilities and the governance overview role required by the board. To build trusting relationships with the board, she/h realizes that transparency is key.
  • Fundraiser: The optimal fundraising relationship is a partnership between the CEO and the board. Board members must be alert to outside funding opportunities and the CEO, alert to funding opportunities from sources related to the mission field. Once an opportunity is identified, the CEO and the board work closely together to develop a proposal and to meet with the donor(s). If the organization has a development director, the person filling the position must be brought into the discussion at an early stage.
  • Communicator: To be organizationally successful, the Board and CEO must be in a position to interact with a variety of stakeholders: government officials, donors, vendors, clients and their surrogates, foundations, etc. One area in which many nonprofit CEOs need improvement is communications with the business community. It goes beyond simply joining the Rotary or Chamber groups. Nonprofit CEOs must have rudimentary knowledge of many businesses so they can interact intelligently with business leaders they encounter in development efforts. This information can be about specific organizations they are approaching or general knowledge acquired from perusing publications like Business Week or The Wall Street Journal.
  • Spokesperson: Although some suggest that the volunteer president must be the spokesperson for the nonprofit, I suggest that the Executive Director/CEO must hold this position for several reasons.
  1. If a volunteer becomes a president/CEO, he/s may acquire some liabilities that other directors don’t have. The executive director must be the CEO. Some nonprofits have given the chief operating person the title of president/ceo and the senior board person, board chair.  This eliminates confusion that often surrounds the ED title when contacting business or government officials.
  2. The volunteer president does not work in the organization daily and does not understand its nuances as well as the CEO.
  3. In a crisis situation, the media may contact board members.   It should be clearly understood that the CEO is the only person to comment to the media.
  4. In ceremonial situations, it may be appropriate for the president to be a spokesperson.
  5. The CEO needs to become the “face” of the organization because volunteer presidents come and go, some annually.
  • Team Builder: She/h needs to build a strong management team, some of whom, over time, may become capable of becoming an Executive Director. The CEO, as head of the management team, needs to be sure all staff are performing well with some being bench strength to move to higher positions.
  • Tone Setter: The CEO needs to set an ethical tone where everybody feels free to express their suggestions for improving the organization. This tone, in various ways, must also be communicated to all stakeholders by the Executive Director..
  • Performance Monitor: Hopefully the board has a rigorous and fair system for evaluating the CEO and the organization, and the values of this system are embedded in staff evaluations.

* http://nynmedia.com/news/lucky-13-what-should-we-expect-from-a-nonprofit-ceo

Director Independence: a Nonprofit Board Issue?

 

Director Independence: a Nonprofit Board Issue?

By: Eugene Fram       Free Digital Photo

In the best of all nonprofit worlds, every board member is an independent agent whose ability to make critical decisions on behalf of the organization is regularly uncompromised by outside pressures. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. Based on field observation I have concluded that questionable practices can plague nonprofit boards when social or political pressures are brought to bear on a board member. In governance terms nonprofit decision-makers should be “outside directors,” not overtly or covertly susceptible to management or board colleague personal pressures.

Discerning recruitment committees can screen candidates to be certain they are not subject to influences that might impair their judgment as board members. Lack of independence could easily divide and perhaps polarize the board as has happened in our country’s Congress. A candidate who is “sponsored” by a major donor and maintains personal ties with the donor can create a “hornet’s nest” for the recruitment group. There are no easy solutions to these problems.

Some typical examples of the apparent loss of independence:

• The legacy challenge. A board member is appointed to the board largely because his family has served on the board for generations, not because of his talent and/or commitment to the mission. If there are too many “legacies” on board, the optimal range of perspectives is narrowed resulting in inadequate discussion of potential actions.
• The chief executive does not keep a professional social distance from the board chair and/or other board members. For example, their families are frequently engaged socially.
• In “prestige boards,” a business or professional person persuades the board to accept a candidate who is business associate because he/she is a “good person” who needs board experience for networking purposes.
• A candidate for a directorship has significantly caused problems on another nonprofit board, but a current active board member, a friend of the candidate, wants him to be elected so that he/she can be given a second chance.

What Can Be Done? Sometimes Nothing: But:

• Clearly acknowledge the challenges where they exist and then seek new candidates without such encumbering ties.
• If possible, try to confront the situation directly, if it does not cause a schism within your board. Develop a policy, not a rule, which allows someone to open discussion if one of these issues arises.
• Make independence one of the characteristics desired for board candidates and clearly acknowledge what is meant by the term.
• A nonprofit board member can serve only one master—the organization’s mission. On the other hand, no nonprofit board that I have encountered is totally independent.
 As long as a board has enough members who are not beholden to other interests there should be no impairment in achieving the organization’s goals.

This type of subtle influence is rarely discussed, and to my knowledge, has never been researched. But, if left unattended by nonprofit recruitment committees, it can lead to political board schisms that seriously impact the organization.

How Do Nonprofit Boards Keep Stakeholders Engaged?
id-10062949

How Do Nonprofit Boards Keep Stakeholders Engaged?

By: Eugene Fram                       Free Digital Photo

First, exactly who are the “stakeholders” in the nonprofit environment? Most board members would readily define the term as clients, staff, donors and board members. But what about other participants such as external auditors and significant vendors? Surely a nonprofit that depends on a vendor to supply groceries can be hobbled if the food is not delivered properly. And, last but not least, the backbone of the organization — the volunteers! Many cogs in the wheel make the nonprofit world go around and need consistent and careful attention. Following are some guidelines for engaging all types of stakeholders:

  • Don’t marginalize, dismiss, or ignore a stakeholder: Unfortunately, for example, termed-out board members * are often dismissed in more than one sense of the word. After serving the typical tenure of four to six years, the retired board members may only receive boilerplate materials or fund solicitations. Any residual interest or enthusiasm for the nonprofit is not encouraged unless the retiree initiates a desire to remain connected. The assumption is that the past board members are content with the disconnect.

For those board members who have been active participants during their term, this tactic may actually be counterproductive from many points of view—talent, expertise and development possibilities. I have observed several cases in which this unintended marginalization has resulted in losing substantial financial support and needed talent. In each case,  the retirees have declined to help, using the excuse that they have been too far away from the activities of the organization. Boards must be creative in finding ways of reigniting the former directors’ commitment to the organization’s mission. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways—in an advisory capacity, forming “alumni” groups and/or by including them in social events and other occasions.

  • Recognize who may be a true partner: Such a partner can range from a vendor that has supplied the organization or a volunteer whose interests have moved to another nonprofit to a legacy board member who has developed new insights.  “It is generally easier to build consensus, request help and engender trust when those who support you are well-informed, candidly and truthfully.” **
  • Stakeholders must know about the nonprofit’s challenges and needs: Even the best-managed nonprofits have their ups and downs. During the latter periods, educating stakeholders about the issues can help to dissuade some to avoid posting job cuts and other actions.
  • Self–perpetuating boards can became insular and lose touch with other stakeholders: “These boards tend to retreat into a silo-or bunker-mentality that only serves to intensify bad habits and practices, as well as preclude consideration of other perspectives.” ** At difficult times, the board can tend to lose trust in the ED even when the problem is beyond the EDs control. If the board is at fault, it may look for a scapegoat on which to hang the root cause of the problem, often people in senior management.

* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-fram/how-does-your-nonprofit-r_b_5393736.html

** https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sweet-briar-reminded-us-alumni-engagement-mark-w-jones

How Do Nonprofit Leaders Manage Unsolicited “Great Ideas?”

How Do Nonprofit Leaders Manage Unsolicited “Great Ideas?”

 

By: Eugene Fram                                                                                  Free  Digital Photo

What does a board member or CEO do when a donor or valued volunteer approaches him/h with a great idea that needs to be implemented at once? Since most of these ideas are what a Stanford professor terms bad ideas, the board chair and CEO are often between a hypothetical rock and a hard place!  To agree to a proposed project that is impractical or irrelevant to the mission will put the nonprofit at risk. But to reject an eager volunteer or potential donor could have serious donor related financial or interpersonal consequences.

When bad ideas are suggested, nonprofit directors and CEOs traditionally have hastily reviewed them—then prolonged the evaluation process hoping the presenter will lose interest in it. When an immediate reply is called for, a full review of the project will involve board and management time and effort to provide a fair assessment. If the verdict is negative, everyone hopes for the best!

Professor Jonathan Bendor of Stanford University, who studies tech organizations, proposes a solution that can be effectively used by nonprofit directors to address this “wicked” type of problem. *  (Persons in tech organizations are constantly generating new ideas, only a handful of which meet customer requirements.)

Example of such a “wicked” problem

The CEO of an association received the following e-mail, with a cc, to the board chair from a major donor. In addition, the donor immediately left a voicemail for the CEO, “Did you get my important e-mail?”

As you know, we are trying to get more people to our association’s evening lecture series on aging. I have noted that we have very few people attending who appear to be in the above the 65+ age cohort.   Obviously these persons could benefit from participating. The group is our most important tool to meeting the association’s mission.   I suggest we hire a bus to bring them to the meetings and to return them home.   To avoid having the bus going to each of their homes, we could establish easily accessible locations in various neighborhoods where they could meet and depart the bus.

The CEO then sent the following targeted rubric to his three senior managers and to four senior board directors, asking for their evaluations of the suggestion. Along with the board chair he wanted to be ready for a hostile response, if the suggestion is rejected.

Using A Rubric

A rubric is a format that uses established criteria for evaluating ideas and hopefully highlights innovative ones.   Following is one that has been formatted for the hypothetical situation described above in italics.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with one being low and ten being high, judge the above idea against all these criteria. Place a number value in the space after each item.

Example: Potential levels for each of the of the ten criteria: Little- one through four; moderately-five and six, and substantially-seven through 10.

  1. Supports the organization’s mission ______
  2. Is consistent with our vision and cultural values._____
  3. Can be implemented with no more than XXX in direct costs _____
  4. Can be implemented with no more than XXX in indirect costs ______
  5. Can require additional capital expenditures _____
  6. Can be implemented within the current staffing or board structure_______
  7. Can require a long trial period before it can be validated as having impact_____
  8. Can be supported by the CEO and/or a majority of the board_______
  9. Can be viewed by others in our field as being innovative______
  10. Will have significant positive impact for our clients.______

Comments: (Please express a summary opinion briefly.)

The form is then compiled anonymously. The CEO reviews the results with the board chair, and then reports to the donor or valued volunteer. If the idea is rejected but presented with sensitivity, it allows the originator to feel his/h idea has had a fair hearing. If accepted, the Chair and CEO can suggest plans for further study and challenges (perhaps additional financial support?) for implementation.

Bendor’s approach* can be well applied in both the tech and nonprofit environments. Most importantly, it provides a venue to help identify innovative ideas with the greatest potential for nonprofit mission success.

* https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/jonathan-bendor-why-criticism-good-innovation

A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?

By:  Eugene Fram                   Free Digital Image

It happens: one or both of the two nonprofit engines—governance and/or management — sputters out, yet the organization continues to meet its goals and deliver adequate service to its constituents. Some examples: a child placement agency manages to maintain the quality of its oversight while struggling to deal with an admittedly inept board and CEO. Another example: An ineffective volunteer board at a youth center, meeting quarterly for a couple of hours, allows the CEO to really manage the board and to motivate the staff. The CEO realized she and the agency were in dangerous positions without an innovative board providing standard oversight, although client services were positive. (more…)

Enlarging the Nonprofit Recruitment Matrix: The art of selecting new board member

Enlarging the Nonprofit Recruitment Matrix: The art of selecting new board member

By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

There’s never enough to say about the selection of nonprofit board members. Following my last post on board behaviors and cultures I ran across a guide fo desirable skills/abilities for “for-profit” directors. From this list, I suggest the following additions to the recruitment matrices of 21st century nonprofit board candidates to improve board productivity. * Those included will have:

• Executive and Non-Executive Experiences: These include planners with broad perspectives needed to have visionary outlooks, a well as persons with unusually strong dedication to the organization’s mission. It may include a senior executive from a business organization and a person who has had extensive client level experience. Examples for an association for the blind could be the human resources VP for a Fortune 500 corporation and/or a visually impaired professor at a local university.

• Industry Experience or Knowledge: An active or retired executive who has or is working in the same or allied field. However, those who can be competitive with the nonprofit for fund development could then present a significant conflict of interest.

• Leadership: Several directors should be selected on the bases of their leadership skills/abilities in business or other nonprofit organizations. Having too many with these qualifications may lead to internal board conflict, especially if they have strong personalities.

• Governance: Every board member should have a detailed understanding of the role of governance, their overview, financial/due diligence responsibilities and the potential personal liabilities if they fail to exercise due care. In practice, nonprofits draw from such a wide range of board backgrounds, one can only expect about one-quarter of most boards to have the requisite knowledge. But there are many nonprofit boards that I have encountered that even lack one person with the optimal board/management governance knowledge. Some become so involved with mission activities that they do what the leadership tells them when governance issues are raised. Example: One nonprofit the author encountered, with responsibilities for millions of dollars of assets, operated for 17 years without D&O insurance coverage because the board leadership considered it too costly.

• Strategic Thinking & Other Desirable Behavioral Competencies: Not every board member can be capable of or interested in strategic thinking. Their job experiences and educations require them to excel in operations, not envisioning the future. Consequently, every board needs several persons who have visionary experiences and high Emotional Quotients (EQs.) Those with high EQs can be good team players because they are able to empathize with the emotion of others in the group. Finding board candidates with these abilities takes detailed interpersonal vetting because they do not appear on a resume.

• Subject Matter Expertise: Nonprofit Boards have had decades of experience in selecting board candidates by professional affiliations like businessperson, marketing expert, accountant, etc.

• Other Factors Relevant to the Particular Nonprofit: Examples: A nonprofit dedicated to improve the lives of children needs to seek a child psychology candidate. One focusing on seniors should seek a geriatric specialist.

* http://eganassociates.com.au/disclosing-the-board-skills-matrix/

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

By: Eugene Fram       Free Digital Image

A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:

  • Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
  • Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
  • Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
  • And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *

Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?

(more…)

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 stakeholders. These include the community, donors, foundations and clients, but not the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. The failure of nonprofit boards, as reported frequently by local national blog sites, show something is wrong.  Following are some inherent problems that derail boards from focusing on impacts.

(more…)

Once Again!  The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert

Once Again!  The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert

By: Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

“According to a Washington Post analysis of the filings from 2008-2012 … of more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations, … there was a ‘significant diversion’ of nonprofit assets, disclosing losses attributed to theft, investment frauds, embezzlement and other unauthorized uses of funds.” The top 20 organizations in the Post’s analysis had a combined potential total loss of more than a half-billion dollars. *

One estimate, by Harvard University’s Houser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, suggests that fraud losses among U.S. nonprofits are approximately $40 billion a year. **

Vigilant nonprofit boards might prevent many of these losses. Here’s how:

(more…)