Stakeholder Relations

Raising The Bar For Nonprofit Involvement

Raising The Bar For Nonprofit Involvement

By Eugene Fram            Free Digital Image

It’s no secret that some nonprofit board members cruise through their term of board service with minimal involvement. McKinsey Company, a well-known consulting firm, has suggested five steps that can be used to counteract this passivity in for-profit boards. * With a few tweaks, McKinsey suggestions (in bold) are relevant to the nonprofit board environment where director engagement is often a challenge.

Engaging between meetings: Nonprofit boards traditionally meet monthly, bimonthly or quarterly. Unless the board is a national one, these meetings range from one to three hours, with the three hours being typical of quarterly meetings. The meeting agendas are usually packed, and they leave little time for individual board members to enhance discussions. ** In addition, a sense of anonymity develops among board members who do not know each other personally, a significant barrier to team building. I have encountered nonprofit boards where disconnect between board colleagues is simply a nod—or less– when passing each other.

Board cohesion based on interpersonal relationships has an important impact on the quality of board discussions. It allows a board member to more fully understand the perspectives and goals of his/her fellow  or “where they’re coming from.” With this information at hand on both sides of a discussion, it increases board members possibility of creating “win-win” impacts for the nonprofit.

Responsibility for promoting between-meeting engagements needs to rest with the board chair. As a staring point, the chair can sponsor a few informal Jefferson dinners. The topic should be a cause which can excite the invitees. It needs to be a challenge to the board Members. ***

Engage with strategy as it’s forming—do not just review & approve it: Traditionally most of what becomes an organization’s strategy will emanate from the management and staff. But the board must proactively help to form strategy or step in to fill gaps when the management refuses to do it.

In forming strategy the board has an obligation to make certain all viewpoints are heard. Staffs as well as management ideas need to be considered. In addition, the board may need to take direct actions when the organization fails to fulfill a mission obligation. Example. A counseling agency only offered services during normal business hours–9 am to 5pm, five days a week. Its board required management to offer services, 24/7 with an emergency phone line when the office was not open. The management, a creative group, found a way to do it, without increasing costs.

Engage by cultivating talent: The nonprofit board has several responsibilities in regard to talent.   First, it must engage and then evaluate the CEO. This is a complex duty because the vast majority of the board members are not full-time employees and many have only tangential attachments to the organization’s mission field. Second, the board must overview the quality of the staff talent so that it is in line with budget constraints. Third, it must be aware of those within the staff who may be promotable to management. Finally it must be alert to succession opportunities internally and externally in the event the CEO was to leave abruptly. Succession planning for the CEO must also include considerations about the talents that will be needed beyond the current one.

Engage the field: Since nonprofit board members have full-time occupations outside the mission field, it’s important that they receive a flow of information about leading edge changes taking place outside the organization. However, CEOs sometime can operate a “mind the store” nonprofit, by looking at past successes without a visionary component. To help avoid this occurrence, specific directors might be assigned to become more deeply familiar with key projects in order to assess their progress.

Engaging on tough questions: A difficult task on a nonprofit board where politeness is an overriding value. Peers are friends and business associations and generally there are few potential penalties for “going along to get along.” In all my decades as a nonprofit director, I have yet to see one board member ask that his/h dissenting vote be recorded in the minutes. A necessary action when he/she feels that the vote being passed by the majority may lead to harmful to the organization.

*http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/changing-the-nature-of-board-engagement

** In California, the Brown Act might prohibit such meetings. The Brown Act covered concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies that were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops and study” sessions.

***For details on the background and planning for Jefferson dinners see: http://jeffersondinner.org/jefferson-dinner/

Posted in audit comitttees, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board Learning Opportunities, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, board self assessment, Boared meetings, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, Good governance, Long-term Sustainability, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit outcomes, onboarding, Stakeholder Relations, Strategic planning, SuccessionPlanning, team building, Trustees, Trustees, voluneers 

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

 

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

By: EugeneFram    Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

     

    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.

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts

    By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

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

    (more…)

    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…)

    Can Small Experiments Test Nonprofit Strategic Validity?

    Can Small Experiments Test Nonprofit Strategic Validity?

    By: Eugene Fram        Free digital image

    When given a series of potential mission changes, modifications or opportunities, most nonprofit boards take the following steps: (1) Discuss alternatives (2) Develop working plans, board/staff presentations and funding proposals (3) All three usually are packaged into a three or five year strategic plan for implementation. Typically the process can take about six months to “get all stakeholders on board.” When something new is suggested, the conservative board and nonprofit management immediately respond, “Great idea, let’s consider it in the new strategic plan.” Results: It can take three to five years to implement the idea, assuming the plan actually gets off the shelf, not an unusual occurrence for nonprofit organizations!


    Another alternative being implemented by some nonprofit is to use a rapid experimentation approach called Lean. “First developed for use in the for-profit world, … the method focuses on new ideas for products through iterative experiments. Lean practitioners build simple prototypes ‘called minimum viable products (MVPs),’ …move quickly to get feedback on these items from constituents/stakeholders.” * As long as they have some positive iterations they continue to full product development.

    Example: The software division of a large firm suggested a program that it felt certain would have great marketability because of it perceived uniqueness. The software developers were required to present it personally to a small group of potential customers. As a result of the interviews, both marketing and development executives dropped it.

    How Can Nonprofit Boards Utilize Lean Experimentation?

    These lean experiments can be conducted at minimum costs and with small samples that initially may not be statistically significant. (For example, in the software case cited above, there were only four customers in the sample, but they generated significant sales.)

    Not being able to afford the time and money to develop excellent metrics, nonprofit boards, especially in assessing ambiguous and qualitative impacts, need to initially glean what they can from the use of imperfect metrics. (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri). The metrics can be anecdotal, subjective, interpretive or qualitative. For most nonprofits, it is a great leap forward from doing nothing or taking years to implement action. Also it offers an opportunity for client centered investigations.  The most critical requirement is that the directors and management agree that the process is reasonable and that outcomes from each experimental iteration constitute fair and trustworthy information.

    A Current Example

    There seems to be a growing body of knowledge of how to apply the art of lean in the nonprofit environment. * The use of lean to assess the proper venues to select social media by which to communicate with donors and other stakeholders is an example. All agree that the use of various social media venues is difficult to assess for both for-profits and nonprofits.

    Here, as an example, is what might be done to obtain some directions on using social venues to reach millennials. Charitable nonprofits are seeking ways to communicate with this group as potential volunteers and future donors. Instead of a board waiting to take action on a broad social media strategy before taking some action on social media, it might start with some small-scale, low cost experiments. The information it obtains from one or two MPVs would be useful in backing into a comprehensive social media strategy when a new strategic plan is needed. But an early MPV also might also provide some information for immediate action.

    Summary: Like any management process lean is not a panacea for either the business or nonprofit sectors. It has its advantages and disadvantages and will not replace more rigorous process, when required–longitudinal studies and strategic planning. However, its experimental design feature can help drive the nonprofit decision process to be more effective and efficient. That alone can help to recruit more able directors, who because of time-compressed lifestyles, now are impatient with the traditional pace of nonprofit decision-making.

    * For a robust report of the use of lean in the nonprofit sector see: Peter Murray & Steve Ma (2015) “The Promise of Lean Experimentation,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, summer, 14pp. (http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_promise_of_lean_experimentation)

     

    Nonprofit Boards and the Oversight Gap in Internal Leadership Development 

    Nonprofit Board and the Oversight Gap in Internal Leadership Development 

    By: Eugene Fram                    Free Digital; Image

    Although the nonprofit CEO is charged with nurturing the development of his/h staff, the board is responsible for over-viewing the process. Research evidence shows both board and management may be neglecting their duties in regard to this responsibility. Only (20% to 30%) of nonprofit CEO positions are filled internally, a rate that can be about half the rate of for-profit organizations–(about 30% to 50%.) The same research shows that, “Hiring the more (internal personnel) can improve performance at the two-year mark by 30%.”  * These figures are averages and can vary widely based on organizational practices and industry standards. (more…)

    Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

     

     

    Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

    By: Eugene Fram          Free Digital Photo

    Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.

    The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:

    • A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years.   This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.
    • The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.
    • The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.

    Mitigating Oversight Barriers: There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four board members, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.

    • Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.
    • “New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 40- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.

    Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.

    • Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.
    • NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.

    Conclusion: Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.

    Board Members:  Are Your Managers & Staffs Effectively Engaging Business Donors?

    Board Members:  Are Your Managers & Staffs Effectively Engaging Business Donors?

    By: Eugene Fram          Free Digital Image

    Fund development should be a partnership between board members and CEOs/Development Officers, if the latter is available. However, I have noted that board members don’t take sufficient responsibility to make certain that CEOs and Development directors are well prepared when they approach potential business donors. This, in my view, is the first step in building a relationship fundraising approach. Many involved with NFP fundraising or management have spent their entire careers in the nonprofit environment, resulting in a gap in communicating with those in the business environment.*  Some may even privately believe that those in business contribute less significantly to society.  While little can be done about the latter, here is what I think can be done to fill or reduce the unfortunate gap in cultures often found between for-profits and nonprofits, especially when it relates to fund development.

    Homework: Development officers, executive directors and others meeting potential business donor have an obligation to know a great deal about the potential donor’s firm. The worst opening for those seeking a business donation or grant is, “Tell me about what XXX produces.” It appears the solicitor has no interest in the environment in which the firm operates. In the Internet age, there is no excuse for such lapses. A Google or LinkedIn search is also critical in preparing to understand each of the persons who might be involved in initial contacts.

    With this information, a conversation can be appropriately opened with “How’s business been recently?” It can be followed by a discussion of the donor’s industry trends and challenges, establishing a level of comfort for the donor.

    What can your nonprofit do for the donor? Sophisticated development officers have ways of asking this important question. Some examples: (1) In the case of a university, this may range from suggesting capable entry-level employees for the firm to answering personal questions such as guidance on seek a relative’s admission to a selective university. (2) In the case of a nonprofit whose mission to assist qualified persons to find locate new employment, its work can be related to the firm when the firm has significant layoffs.

    A Business Posture: A development officer or executive director needs to convey they have grounding in the business world and its basics, especially to be able to quickly show that their nonprofit is well managed. A recent study of Silicon Valley donors and nonprofit leaders cited a  empathy gap between the two.  Generally speaking, nonprofit leaders and new philanthropists don’t move in the same social circles. For the latter, community is increasingly defined not by physical place but by socioeconomic class: a particular psychographic and a set of shared experiences that only wealth can buy.*

    The objective is to develop a continuing conversation with the donor related to his/h business interests and outlook. This offers a connection to show that the nonprofit fulfills a human service, professional or social need. These may include:

    • Explaining the scope of the “executive director” title directly or indirectly if the operating CEO does have the well-known title “president/CEO.” The ED title puzzles many in the business environment, since the top operational person in a business firm most often is the “president/CEO.” ** 
    • Showing the nonprofit has a viable mission that is being carefully shepherded and the organization doesn’t engage in mission creep. 
    • Clarifying that an achievable business plan is available.
    • Having a well managed internal structure that can achieve impacts for clients. (Like the results of the Zuckerberg gift to Newark schools, many business people are aware that process goals can be achieved without having client impacts.)

    Unfortunately nonprofit organizations can have a reputation among members of the business community as being less effective and efficient than for-profit ones. These people may not have encountered many local nonprofit leaders, as I have, with significant management savvy. Consequently, nonprofit representatives first  need to be sure they begin their relationships with donors by showing interest in their business, industry, or firm. This then offers the opportunity to demonstrate that the nonprofit’s mission is managerially strong and looks to impacts, not processes, as measures of success.

    *https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/key-trends-silicon-valley-philanthropy-tatiana-fedorova/

    **https://non-profit-management-dr-fram.com/2010/05/31/non-profit-governance-executive-title-ceo-versus-executive-director/

    Six Approaches to Innovation for Nonprofit Boards

     

     Six Approaches to Innovation for Nonprofit Boards

    By Eugene Fram                     Free Digital Image

    The Bridgespan Group, supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, completed an exciting research study. The results identified “six elements common to nonprofits (in bold/italicized) with a high capacity to innovate” * Following are my suggestions on how to implement these elements.

    1.  Catalytic Leadership that empowers staff to solve problems that matter. 
      This involves the board to lead with committed and generative leadership. ** Board members must be ready to ask tough questions. They must require management to respond to the classic question, “Who would miss the nonprofit if it were to disappear?” Board members should be able to suggest new ideas drawn from business and the public sector that can be adapted, assessed and tested by management and staff

    2. A curious culture, where staff looks beyond their day-to day obligation, question assumptions, and constructively challenge each other’s thinking as well as the status quo.
      This, in my view is difficult to achieve, but boards should attempt to take every advantage to develop it. Boards that question the status quo are hard to find in all fields. They should, at the least, involve the staff in strategic planning efforts and pay close attention to its development. Staffs then are in an excellent position to challenge the status quo. One staff person in a human services agency, for example, challenged the status quo by observing the nonprofit did not have a “safety net” mission, but in reality had a “sustainability” mission. The agency was not only helping clients on a day-to-day basis but also was trying to assist them to achieve sustainable lifestyles.
    1. Diverse teams with different backgrounds, experiences, attitudes and capabilities—the feed-stock for growing an organization’s capacity to generate breakthrough ideas.
      As the Bridgespan Group has noted, it is necessary to have board members, “who are diverse across their dimensions: demographics, cognitive and intellectual abilities and styles with professional skills and experiences. In my opinion, nonprofits have been successful in recruiting board members in all of these categories except two—cognitive and intellectual abilities. I have encountered nonprofit boards without a single director with strategic planning or visionary abilities. Board members’ full time occupations often do not require them to have these abilities. As a result, strategic planning was just a SWAT (strengths, weakness and threats) review without any real analytical depth. To rectify the situation, nonprofits need to add these abilities to their recruitment grids. Unfortunately, this makes the recruiting effort more difficult since the abilities don’t appear on many resumes. Candidates must be assessed from an in-depth interview process.
    1. Porous boundaries widen the scope for innovations, by allowing fresh ideas to percolate up from staff at any level—as well as constituents and other outside voices—and seep through silos.
      Because many nonprofits have small travel budgets, they may operate in “bubbles, ” consisting of themselves and similar neighboring organizations. In addition, they can acculturate board members to the “bubble” traditions and environments.   For example, they may ask a new board member, with strong financial abilities to help the CFO with accounting issues, instead of asking her/h to develop a strategic financial plan for the organization. Perhaps as national webinars become more available to nonprofit managements and their staffs, these information flows will help to change the innovation roadblocks. Then they can, “generate new ideas systematically, test ideas using articulated criteria, metrics methodologies and prioritize and scale the highest potential ideas.”
    1. Idea Pathways that provide structure and processes for identifying, testing and transforming promising concepts into needle-moving solutions.
      For example, the process of Lean Management can allow testing of new ideas quickly. Instead of waiting for a new strategic plan to establish a pathway for   something new, a nonprofit can test it with a series of small-scale efforts to determine its viability. The idea can be dropped if positive results are not developed after a couple of tests.   If after successive tests with viable information results, the idea can be moved quickly to an implementation stage when the nonprofit has the necessary resources.

    2. The ready resources—funding, time, training and tools—vital to supporting innovation work.
      To fully take advantage of most of these six innovation guidelines, fundraising is critical. But each board and staff cannot do it alone. It must be a partnership between the board members and the CEO that recognizes fundraising for innovation is a necessary part of the nonprofit’s resourcing efforts.

    *https://ssir.org/articles/entry/is_your_nonprofit_built_for_sustained_innovation

    **https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/all-about-generative-leadership-and-its-benefits