Time Compressed Non Profit Board members – Recruit & Retain Them!
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Every nonprofit board has had the experience of having board positions open and being unable to fill them with highly qualified people. The usual response from qualified candidates is that they are too busy to be accept a board position. However, the real reasons, if speaking privately, are that they perceive the nonprofit decision process to be too slow, board agendas loaded with minutiae, presentations that take up more time than they should, unfocused discussion, etc.
Following is a list of “selling points” to potential board candidates, providing a board can deliver on them!
• We are careful to make wise use of your valuable time. • Board meetings will begin and end of time, a quorum will be present at the beginning of the meeting. • Board meeting material will be sent a week ahead of time. • The agenda also will be sent out a week ahead of time. • If you miss a meeting, the minutes or videos will be available within a week afterwards. • If are going to be traveling, we have the facility for directors to attend virtually.
• Divisional staff reports will each have a time limit and be well prepared in advance, so the agenda can be completed as scheduled. The CEO works with each presenter ahead of time to assure well developed presentations. • The board chair has the responsibility to quickly refocus discussions if they get off track into the weeds. • Visual presentations will be limited to 10 important visuals. • Policy and strategic topics will be the major foci of the meetings, not operating minutiae. We view our responsibility to overview, not micromanage. • Board committee work will be aligned with the candidate’s interests and backgrounds. Committee chairs will understand board members’ time constraints. • The board chair and/or CEO will meet with each board members individually once a year to make sure the board members perceives the board experiences are in line with the above guidelines and to seek suggestions for board improvement.
Should Mature Nonprofits Allow Board Micromanagement?
Commonly accepted View of Nonprofit Micromanagement: Board members spend more time with the details of the operations instead of planning the organization’s short-term and long-term growth strategies.
The Need for a Micromanaging Board Board micromanagement is an appropriate approach when a nonprofit is in a start-up stage. Financial and human resources are modest, and the volunteer board members must assume some responsibilities normally executed by compensated staff. The chief executive often has managerial responsibilities as well as a list of clients to service. It is not unusual to promote a person who is only familiar with direct service to become the first chief executive of the organization. In turn , this neophyte manager has to depend on board members for managerial counsel and direction. A culture of board dependency is created out of necessity.
Problems Arise The micromanaging board is a worthy model for smaller nonprofits that stay at a start-up level for a long time. Some nonprofits retain this governance model, with its dependency relationships, long after it is needed. Example: One nonprofit I encountered required its department heads to first discuss major issues with designated board members before reviewing them with the chief executive, e.g., the program manager follows instructions of the board program committee chair.
Major Organizational Impacts Of Continuing Micromanagement • Management and staffs wait for board signals or instructions before taking action. One CEO reported: “I give the board options and let them choose the course of action.” Implication: I don’t want the responsibility for the action chosen. “The board told me to implement it.” • It’s more difficult to hire talented managers with these types of organizations. Most, from CEO down, are “C” players. They fear “A” and “B” players and then hire more “C” players like themselves. More qualified personnel may reject offers. • Management & staff just don’t have the “right stuff” to be creative. They don’t properly question authority. Boards are shown great deference. • Impacts and outcomes at best are minimal, but this is not readily recognized by the community or sponsoring organization. As long as income meets expenses each year, the board does not note any long-term red flags.
Changing the Culture — The Important Issue Governance and management changes do not occur easily when an organization has maintained a micromanagement culture well beyond the start-up period. Following are some ways that I have seen changes take place. • Several forward-looking members of the board, including the chair, develop a plan to seek change. Opinion leaders or well-respected veterans must be included. • Over time, often a year or more, a change plan is developed and then formally adopted by the board. This usually involves giving the chief executive full responsibility for operations, along with a robust annual assessment of the CEO and operations. • During the process, all stakeholders must be informed about the proposed changes, and the reasons for change. Naysayers will quietly spread internal and external rumors about it. Actual Example: “We will be losing our family culture and our great interpersonal relationships.” • The CEO must be in favor of the changes to be instituted. If not, the board needs to wait until the CEO retires or leaves. Of course, the board can terminate the CEO, but this will certainly lead to conflict with the staff and the stakeholder constituency he/s has developed. • When a new CEO is engaged, make certain the person has a desire and some experience to manage and the interpersonal skills to relate to the staff at its current state. • Some members of the board will become “displaced directors,” persons cemented to the older order. Look for them to resign quietly and/or take potshots at the new governance-management arrangement. Actual Example: In one organization, when the traditional ED title for the chief executive was abandoned and the title President /CEO instituted, a board member derisively questioned, “Do we call him ‘Presco’ ?”
Summary The tendency of nonprofit boards to micromanage organizational operations is still prevalent. In fact, it appears to be part of the nonprofit’s DNA! With the huge problems confronting nonprofits, it’s high time for a 21st century culture change!
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.*
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.
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.
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)
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.
Do Nonprofit Board Members Face Cyber Security Risk?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Nonprofit board members may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.
A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet.
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.
Nonprofit Boards Should Consider the Implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
BY: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
AI is rapidly being implemented in many environments, some with aggressive intensity. It presents a new reality—machines create fascinating outputs that require less energy to produce and do so at lower costs. A few, at this stage, are capable of making “human-like” decisions
Nonprofit Board Discourse: a Meeting of the Minds??
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Several years ago, a nonprofit board member complained to me that there was too little “conflict” at board meetings. Too few hands were raised to challenge or simply question the efficacy of certain important agenda items. Having participated in hundreds of nonprofit meetings, I have observed that this laissez-faire response still typifies a significant number of board member’s attitudes, especially for items that deserve vigorous discussion. Why is that? And why can the term conflict be perceived as an asset to an organization that is determined to move forward?
Below are some answers based on my own experience in the nonprofit environment.
Major Focus is on Operations: As I have commented in other posts, focusing on operations seems to be a default option for many nonprofits. Unlike members of business boards who have substantial financial investments in their organizations, nonprofit board members are volunteers with little personal risk and with insufficient motivation to challenge the status quo. Since the median nonprofit director’s term of service is seldom greater than 6 years, a board member can lack significant interest in the nonprofit’s long-term future. In addition operational items are more concrete and inherently more interesting because many center on people related decisions. Then there’s the “nice guy” impulse—directors’ meetings are usually brief (1 to 1.5 hours) and board member are often reluctant to voice dissenting views that may offend colleagues and extend meeting times.
Encouraging “Constructive Conflict”
Preparation Is Critical: Review of governance agenda materials leads the way to more rigorous discussions. This requires nonprofits to provide meeting materials at least one week in advance to facilitate fact- based discussions. Some may argue that busy board members will ignore materials well in advance of the meetings. But isn’t it a solid advantage to have some of the most interested board members well briefed for the meeting?
The importance of mission: As much as possible, the board chair needs to frame each agenda item in light of its impact the nonprofit’s mission. This helps eliminate frivolous comments and questions, e.g., voting on the color of the menu at the annual diner. These distractions, like responding to tweets, detract from discussing substantive issues. Chairs can diplomatically eliminate them by simply suggesting the distraction issue can be handled “off line.”
Recruitment: Nominating candidates for the board who have the abilities to interact effectively at meetings are important to improving the quality and quantity of meeting discussions. While nonprofits often need a diversity of board members from different fields and backgrounds, they also must have a core of directors who know the differences between governance and operational activities, who understand what is involved in critical thinking, have demonstrated leadership elsewhere and have broad understandings of what constitutes strategic planning. Otherwise the board, like the one I encountered, had many very busy middle level managers who did well on time-constrained specific projects, but they had no interest in governance or strategic planning. The de facto result was that the Board Chair authoritatively operated the board.
Getting Together: Currently, most nonprofit board members live time-compressed lifestyles and only connect with others at formal board or committee meetings. To build an effective team decision-making, board members need to know each other personally and professionally. Board chairs and CEOs must take steps to provide social or professional occasions for the board at which directors can interact. Sometimes a simple 10-minute agenda item at a meeting asking each member to briefly review personal or professional events can help—as proven by organizations like Rotary.
The absence of conflict reflects blind trust rather than a good professional relationship. Likewise, professional tensions between the (board and management) are signs of a well-performing board. We should habitually become suspicious when we observe boards where dissent is absent.*
Passion vs. Passivity: The nonprofit board member who lamented the absence of “conflict” in the boardroom recognizes that an engaged and often challenging governing body is in the best interest of a healthy and forward moving organization.
The Nonprofit CEO–How Much Board-CEO Trust Is Involved?
By; Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
The title, 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.* .
The CEO designation calls for an unwritten trusting contact with the board based on mutual respect, drawing from the symbolism that he or she is the manager of the operating link between board and staff. It is a 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 annual evaluation of outcomes and impacts CEO has generated for the organization.
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 CEO and/or Board behaviors can give an idea that a significant level of trust is involved in the relationship.
Following are some of the behaviors that signify a trusting partnership is in place:
HOW CAN NONPROFITS ACCOMMODATE TO EXTERNAL INFLUENCES? SOME FIELD OBSERVATIONS
How Can Nonprofits Accommodate To External Influences? Some Field Observations
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Ruth McCambridge, former editor of Nonprofit Quarterly, pointed out “Our organizational management, (board) styles and structures are affected by the four external influences.” See paraphrased bolded items below. (http://bit.ly/1HSwrZY)
Following are some specific field observations I have encountered that, over several decades, support her model relating to external influences.
The nonprofit’s mission field: McCambridge points out that arts organizations have dual have leadership models—artistic and business. However, unless specified which has final authority, the system can lead to continual conflict between the two; the artistic leader wanting the most authentic productions and the business leader concerned with budget realities. The final authority is often determined by which leader has the CEO title.
Human services boards and staffs often operate at a much higher emotional level than other types of nonprofits. Examples: Some of these board members consider themselves “families,” frequently fail to make the hard choices when board members are ineffective directors. Even the least productive board chair can be venerated. Staff members similarly can be emotionally bonded, failing to realistically acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of others.
On the other hand, board members of trade or professional associations often look to the staff as “servants” who should closely follow board directions. Example: One association CEO I encountered creativity developed a million dollar reserve for the group. Yet he was only allowed to spend up to $5K of a multimillion-dollar budget without formal board approval.
The nonprofit’s regulatory environment: It can be argued that nonprofit organizations are much more regulated than their for-profit counterparts. In addition to traditional state and Federal corporation laws, all nonprofits must abide by the Federal Intermediate Sanctions Act that prohibits them from providing excess benefits to anybody in a position to influence actions—internally a management or staff person and externally a vendor, donor or volunteer, etc. Charitable and public benefit nonprofits must annually file an IRS Form 990 that has, in addition to financial data, 38 questions related to corporate governance. Health care nonprofits face a multitude of regulations related to staff certification and relationships with patients. Example: A psychiatrist employed by a counseling agency resigned and took patient records with him. The employing organization had to sue for return of the records because the agency, not the psychiatrist, was responsible for confidentiality.
The nonprofit’s communities’/industries’ spoken belief systems: Having worked with nonprofits on both US coasts, I have generally observed that CEOs on the east coast are given much more managerial latitude once a nonprofit startup moves beyond its early stages. Example: I have consulted with two west coast nonprofits both well beyond the startup stage—one with a budget of $6 million and he other with a budget of $10 million. A community model that required significant number of board interventions covered both. If they were on the east coast, both would likely have had CEOs with the title “President /CEO” with much more operating flexibility than the CEOs I observed on the west coast.
The nonprofit’s communities’/industries’ cultural norms and dynamics: Peter Drucker, the noted management expert, is said to have remarked, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast every morning.” He meant that strategy needs to be in line with culture to succeed. Nonprofit boards frequently align with this comment. Example: If a nonprofit board is a conservative one and content with a “mind the store CEO culture,” one or two board members can’t do much to drive change, until the CEO retires or leaves.
Suggestion for action
With the assistance of an independent moderator, many boards could benefit from an in-depth discussion of these four issues every couple of years. It may open discussion on some internal issues that need corrective action.
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.
Nonprofit Management 