Small experiments

Nonprofit Board Discourse: a Meeting of the Minds??
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100325097-1.jpg

Nonprofit Board Discourse: a Meeting of the Minds??

By: Eugene Fram       

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 types 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.

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.

Are Your Board and Staff Ready For Change?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100259602.jpg
Free Digital Image

Are Your Board and Staff Ready For Change?

By: Eugene Fram               

Ideally, change takes place only when is a critical mass of board and staff want it. A significant portion of leadership must realize that the status quo won’t do. Based on my experiences, this ideal is rarely achieved because:

  • The CEO needs to support the changes being suggested and/or mandated by a majority of the board.   But, if not fully invested in the change, the CEO can accede to board wishes for action but move slowly in their implementations. The usual excuse for slow movement is budget constraint.

Complicating the situation is the fact that most nonprofit boards are hesitant to remove a CEO who has a nice personality but lacks vision, makes modest revisions each year and keeps budgets
in  balance. As volunteers, board members know that removing a “status quo” CEO can cause board and staff conflict. These events require more meeting times and can cause board members
to turn against one another. Volunteers accept board positions to promote positive outcomes, not to become involved with the stresses that accompany conflict.

  • Changing a CEO, board members or the governance model, etc., can easily send negative signals to the staff because they may view it as leading to disruption in their jobs and working environments. Most nonprofit staffs are only one or two organizational levels away from the board and may become concerned that new influential board members can have significant impact.

For example, two professors persuaded their board colleagues that the agency needed a “management by objectives program.”  The staff became so involved in establishing and measuring
objectives that they neglected client services .

Critical actions that boards can take to overcome these barriers.

  • Agreement about what “change” means. Perhaps it is increasing clients served and/or simultaneously having to increase donations to maximize the mission’s service? These changes can be readily measured. However, nonprofits often have revisions that can only be measured approximately in the short-term because of the significant costs involved. These include such items as improving public awareness or community influence. They require use of more qualitative measures over time to assess trends and improve the measures. *

Those responsible for change need to be reminded that words have meaning, and the words used to describe revisions can create negative attitudes from board members and staff. Those with
negative connotations include “profit, efficiency and restructuring.” Positive words include “mission, serving and compassion.”

  • Radical honesty about the hurdles standing in you way. It’s important to be upfront about the “bandwidth” in staff and board resources needed to implement any major modifications. This involves having three or four board members who are experienced with implementing change, willing to assume leadership of the process and have the interpersonal skills necessary to “sell” other board members on the benefits of the new plan. In one situation, where a governance model was changed and the ED’s title revised to President/CEO, a traditional board member was dissatisfied.  He complained about the new title “What do we call the ED now, Presco?”   The implication was that the new title was satisfactory for the head of a business organization but too sophisticated for the operating head of a nonprofit organization.
  • Commitment to do whatever it takes. Driving changed from a nonprofit board position isn’t for the person or team that gives up easily. A realistic plan is to anticipate the bumps in the road along the way. For example, if some board members agreed to a revision with limitations, it’s the responsibility of the CEO and board members to make certain they are consulted as the change progresses, helping them, if they can, to be more comfortable with it. If the change has substantial impact on the staff, the CEO and board members need to be certain that false rumors are handled appropriately when they appear. This also applies to rumors circulating in the community or in an industry, if the nonprofit is an association.

When boards fail to take the types of actions cited above, the impact can affect the nonprofit’s culture for decades. For example, a nonprofit engaged a new executive director with an authoritarian leadership style.  His long-term predecessor developed a relaxed culture, often casually taking staff meeting time to read poetry. The Board concluded major changes were necessary.

As a first step to solve the problem, the board made a mistake by demanding the new ED modifies his authoritative management style. But concurrently, a union organizer heard about the dissatisfaction and persuaded the social workers on the staff to form a union. Results: the problematic ED was finally terminated, and an experienced ED, who had worked previously at the agency, was engaged. But the social work staff is still unionized. Trust between management and the professional staff was never restored.

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

Is Your Nonprofit Strategically Deprived?

By: Eugene Fram   

A vital concern to the future of any nonprofit organization is frequently neglected. Responsibility for the lack of strategic planning must reside with the chief executive, board members and the tactical challenges that inevitably flow to the board.

Before a nonprofit board can begin successful strategic planning, it must:
• fully understand the difference between strategic and tactical planning.*
• have a fully engaged chief executive involved with the board in the leadership of the strategic planning process.
• have a proportion of board directors with some specific types of strategic oriented experiences.

For example, one faith based organization recreational facility I know built a modern new building. However, the leadership was unaware of the quietly growing demand for preschool education in the area. As soon as the new building was opened, several parts of the structure had to be remodeled to accommodate a growing preschool population.

While I admit that planning for coming societal and behavioral, changes is difficult, like the one in the example, I suggest that any nonprofit board needs to take “inventory” of the following backgrounds of the current chief executive and board members.

How strategically capable is the organization’s chief executive? Does he or she stay at the leading edge of the field? Has the board recruited the chief executive for a strategic acumen or for just keeping the organization on a stable course?

How successful has an organization been in recruiting some of the following types of board members?
1. Those with enough time to become thoroughly acquainted with field related to the mission, visions of the organization’s operations. After all, many nonprofit directors serve on boards whose fields of focus are quite different from those in which they have working experience.
2. Those who can distinguish between a strategic plan and a tactical plan?
3. Those capable of critical thinking, questioning past assumptions as they relate to the future.
4. Those who have had successful strategic planning experiences at a high (not tactical) levels on other FP or NFP boards.
5. Those who have innate visionary abilities to assess future opportunities or roadblocks.
6. Those who have failed with past unsuccessful strategic plans but learned from their mistakes.
7. Those who can realistically project the financial challenges a strategic plan will develop.
8. Those with significant prior NFP or FP experience who can be models for younger directors with time restrictions who contribute via time limited task force assignments. But they need much more seasoning with understanding governance functions because they often rubber stamp board chair or CEO suggestions.

Addressing these recruitment issues in a forthright manner should enable nonprofit organizations to determine if they are strategically deprived. This move also might improve nonprofits’ records for strategic planning.

*  “strategy is the action plan that takes you where you want to go, the tactics are the individual steps and actions that will get you there”.

Once Again: How to Keep a Nonprofit Board Informed.

Informed.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-10046990.jpg

Once Again: How to Keep a Nonprofit Board Informed.

By: Eugene Fram   

With high performing nonprofit boards, its members will rarely be invited by the CEO to participate in operational decisions. As a result, management will always have more information than the board. Yet the board still needs to know what is happening in operations to be able to overview them.
The name of the game is for the CEO to communicate the important information and to keep directors informed of significant developments. Still, there’s no need to clutter regular board meetings by reporting endless details about operations.

Following are some practical suggestions:
• An executive director, in response to a blog post I presented, provided a most creative approach. He and the board chair have a weekly conference call, usually on Thursday. Other board members are invited to join the call if they have time. A few days later, the ED sends a brief e-mail to all board members highlighting the important events that took place during the week. (He joked that his high school English teacher would never approve of its format, but the board is always full informed.)

• Probably the more traditional way of keeping board members aware of what is happening within the organization is to have staff frequently make short presentations. I have seen this approach used in dozens or nonprofit board meetings without success. Two problems frequently occur. First the staff person is so enthusiastic about an opportunity board that the presentation continues well beyond the allotted time, and, second, board members raise “micromanagement” level questions, that further extend the presentation session. To solve these problems, the board chair needs to suggest to those seeking more than appropriate detail that the questions can be answered “offline.” In addition, the chief executive should meet with the staff person well ahead of the meeting to make sure that the material to be presented is succinct, and the staff person is well aware of the time constraint. A “dress rehearsal” might even be appropriate for some staff personnel

• Another technique is to use a consent agenda. With a consent agenda, routine and previously agreed upon items are organized together in the pre-meeting agenda and then, hopefully, approved as a group. If one or more board members question an item in the group, it is placed on the agenda for the next board meeting. This process eliminates the time consuming effort of having a separate discussion for each item.

• A third controversial way is for the chief executive to meet with board members informally about every quarter. (It is controversial because many nonprofit CEOs feel this is too time consuming.) Occasionally, these meetings are with two directors at one time. At the sessions, the chief executive can discuss the more “entrepreneurial or wild ideas” that might need testing and update board members on operational decisions in greater detail. Some of the meetings can happen quite informally, before or after a committee meeting or after a monthly board meeting. Others can occur at appropriate social events. This is a controversial suggestion, as some CEO’s report they don’t have sufficient time for such a rigorous meeting schedule.  My observations of dozens of CEOs indicates that the very best manage to develop the schedule.
It is important to have the executive’s assistant keep track of the meetings and then to have authority to make new appointments to meet the quarterly schedule. Obviously, the CEO would need to meet with the board chair more often. If the board is a national one, meeting less frequently or a scheduled phone call are appropriate. One veteran CEO I know meets frequently with two board members. One is a long serving member, and the other is a newly appointed board member.

Keeping important information flowing to the board is critical to having a high performing nonprofit. It is a significant CEO responsibility

Stay on That Nonprofit Board!

By: Eugene Fram

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

*https://nonprofitquarterly.org/12-reasons-resign-nonprofit-board/

What Role Should nonprofit Board Members Play in Overviewing Management /Staff Talent?

 

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.

(more…)

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

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

By: Eugene Fram    Free Digital Image

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

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

(more…)

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 

Is Your Nonprofit Board Chair Productive?

Is Your Nonprofit Board Chair Productive?

 

Is Your Nonprofit Board Chair Productive?

By: Eugene Fram         Free Digital image

Hundreds of articles have probably been published about the skills and abilities nonprofit CEOs need to have to meet the challenges of the nonprofit environment. These include: reduced funding, increased use of technology and increased responsibilities for fundraising.

Relatedly, nonprofit board chairs have been encountering escalating challenges to recruit able board personnel. Current chairs must develop a more active partnership with the CEO in fundraising and lead the board in making difficult financial, technology and other strategy decisions.

To address these challenges, following are the attributes that I think a nonprofit board chair should have to be productive, within the confines of being a volunteer (part-time) chairperson.

• Great Communication Skills: Current issues can be so pressing that chairs will need to be the types of people who don’t limit their board communications to regular meetings. Those who head the board must be in positions to return phone calls or other communications promptly and proactively seek the counsel of directors as needs arise. As a communicator, the chair should listen intently as well as provide outward-bound communications.
• Understands Importance of External Stakeholders: Traditionally chairs have not have much contact with external stakeholders. This is rapidly changing as funders want more assurance about board overview involvement in the grants they award; those providing gifts want more assurance that the intent of donor is being clearly recognized. The chair understands that an organization’s modern stakeholders range broadly from vendors to staff/management to donors. She/h understands that the nonprofit board represents the interests of a community, profession or trade association.
• Manages Board as an Organization: The chair makes certain that all directors understand their roles to overview, to have robust compliant financial and legal processes and to generate civil meeting discussions. He/s is able to abort any board attempts at micromanaging the executive group or staff. Board decisions should be viewed as being democratically developed, even when there is not unanimous agreement.
• Positive Relations With CEO: Mutual respect between the two is the hallmark of the relationship. Differences are settled without rancor, understanding that each role has boundaries – the board has the final word on policy and strategy while, at the same time, the CEO has final authority on operational decisions.
• Acquainted With Technology Basics: Since the use of technology is pervasive, the chair should be able to intelligently lead the board discussions on major technology issues. These currently include the use of the Internet, use of cloud computing and social media. Discussions can range from purchasing technical hardware and software to questions of privacy protection.
• Strategy/Policy Development: The chair has major responsibility to see that these topics are placed on the agendas, and, where approved, are implemented on a timely basis. Over the years, both issues on FP and NFP agendas have not been given the discussion time they deserve. These topics can range from pension reforms to whether or not an organization should have an acquisition/merger strategy.

The challenges facing nonprofits, their CEOs and board chairs have escalated and will likely continue to escalate. The managerial requirements for nonprofit CEOs have risen. But it has not been the same for the board chairs. Although a part-time position, nonprofit boards and their stakeholders should realize that they need to elect people with leadership know-how. They are not necessarily the people who make the largest financial donations. The two can be the same, but nomination committees must be certain that whoever is chosen to preside as board chair has the requisite skills to do so.

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…)