A Nonprofit Paradox: Weak Leadership Pool, Positive Organizational Outcomes?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
It happens: one or both of the two nonprofit engines—governance and/or management — sputters out, yet the organization continues to meet its goals and deliver adequate service to its constituents. Some examples: a child placement agency manages to maintain the quality of its oversight while struggling to deal with an admittedly inept board and CEO. Another example: An ineffective volunteer board at a youth center, meeting quarterly for a couple of hours, allows the CEO to really manage the board and to motivate the staff. The CEO realized she and the agency were in dangerous positions without an innovative board providing standard oversight, although client services were positive. (more…)
Over decades of service on nonprofit boards, I have interfaced with board colleagues who possess a variety of performance styles and behaviors. Certain of these types seem to be common to all boards. My comments below are based on adaptations of a board member classification system suggested by David Frankel, Partner of Founder Collection. *
The Eager Beaver
This board member (usually 30s to early 40s) has probably been successful as an entrepreneur or is, perhaps, rapidly rising through middle management in a larger organization. He/she wants to “get things done”. His/her impatience with the typically slow nonprofit rate of progress can be channeled and directed by the CEO or Board Chair. Discouraged by lack of action, this director may quietly exit the board on the pretext that work pressures have increase. On the other hand, if properly nurtured, board members in this category can offer substantial leadership contributions.
The Checked-Out Check Writer
Serving on a nonprofit board has likely become a family or company tradition for some board members. (Some local nonprofits are now about 100 years old or older.) Regardless of the person’s dedication to the mission, nonprofit board service becomes part of this board member’s DNA. Often they develop into respected leaders and can be conduits to modest or substantial donations. In addition, they have access to interpersonal networks that are useful in recruiting other able board members. This board cohort should be valued and its contributions, acknowledged.
The Vanilla Director
This is a board member who attends meetings regularly, occasionally makes an interesting comment. He/she is dedicated to the mission of the organization and can make substantial financial or other contributions. One such director I observed, volunteered to assist the staff with a difficult field problem. According to Frankel, these board members are “less critical and offer encouragement…. ” However, like many other nonprofit board members, across behavioral types, avoid rigorous discussions at board meetings. If substantial conflict appears between factions of the board on a major issue, they may resign instead of taking an unpopular stand.
The Nonprofit Entrepreneur
This is a director who has a substantial understanding of the nonprofit sector. He/s has served on other nonprofit boards and is dedicated to the nonprofit’s mission. He/s has a desire to help move the nonprofit to its next level of service to clients. He/s often brings bold or different perspectives to the board and management. She/h knows that to achieve growth and improve client services, it is necessary to “sell” ideas to other board members, as well as the CEO. It’s important that the nonprofit entrepreneur and CEO are on the same page in terms of the organization’s future and potential to serve clients. If not, the CEO, unfortunately, may view the entrepreneur with his/h “fast track” style as a disrupter.
An overview of nonprofit boards tends to focus on the unique set of skills and work experience they bring to the table (physicians, professors, accountants, full-time retirees etc.) A closer look at the board suggests another layer of classification i.e. individual styles, motivation and behaviors. Herein is challenge and opportunity to develop meaningful board experiences for each individual who has said “yes” to the call to service.*
Enlarging the Nonprofit Recruitment Matrix: The art of selecting new board member
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
There’s never enough to say about the selection of nonprofit board members. Following my last post on board behaviors and cultures I ran across a guide fo desirable skills/abilities for “for-profit” directors. From this list, I suggest the following additions to the recruitment matrices of 21st century nonprofit board candidates to improve board productivity. * Those included will have:
• Executive and Non-Executive Experiences: These include planners with broad perspectives needed to have visionary outlooks, a well as persons with unusually strong dedication to the organization’s mission. It may include a senior executive from a business organization and a person who has had extensive client level experience. Examples for an association for the blind could be the human resources VP for a Fortune 500 corporation and/or a visually impaired professor at a local university.
• Industry Experience or Knowledge: An active or retired executive who has or is working in the same or allied field. However, those who can be competitive with the nonprofit for fund development could then present a significant conflict of interest.
• Leadership: Several directors should be selected on the bases of their leadership skills/abilities in business or other nonprofit organizations. Having too many with these qualifications may lead to internal board conflict, especially if they have strong personalities.
• Governance: Every board member should have a detailed understanding of the role of governance, their overview, financial/due diligence responsibilities and the potential personal liabilities if they fail to exercise due care. In practice, nonprofits draw from such a wide range of board backgrounds, one can only expect about one-quarter of most boards to have the requisite knowledge. But there are many nonprofit boards that I have encountered that even lack one person with the optimal board/management governance knowledge. Some become so involved with mission activities that they do what the leadership tells them when governance issues are raised. Example: One nonprofit the author encountered, with responsibilities for millions of dollars of assets, operated for 17 years without D&O insurance coverage because the board leadership considered it too costly.
• Strategic Thinking & Other Desirable Behavioral Competencies: Not every board member can be capable of or interested in strategic thinking. Their job experiences and educations require them to excel in operations, not envisioning the future. Consequently, every board needs several persons who have visionary experiences and high Emotional Quotients (EQs.) Those with high EQs can be good team players because they are able to empathize with the emotion of others in the group. Finding board candidates with these abilities takes detailed interpersonal vetting because they do not appear on a resume.
• Subject Matter Expertise: Nonprofit Boards have had decades of experience in selecting board candidates by professional affiliations like businessperson, marketing expert, accountant, etc.
• Other Factors Relevant to the Particular Nonprofit: Examples: A nonprofit dedicated to improve the lives of children needs to seek a child psychology candidate. One focusing on seniors should seek a geriatric specialist.
Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:
Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *
Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?
A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“One of the key functions of a (nonprofit) board of directors is to oversee (not micromanage) the CEO, ensuring that (stakeholders) are getting the most from their investments.” * State and Federal compliance regulations have been developed to make certain that boards have an obligation to represent stakeholders. These include the community, donors, foundations and clients, but not the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. The failure of nonprofit boards, as reported frequently by local national blog sites, show something is wrong. Following are some inherent problems that derail boards from focusing on impacts.
How Does Cultural Intelligence (CQ)* Impact A Nonprofit Board?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
There are many ways to assess the balance of capabilities on a nonprofit board. EDs and board chairs are generally familiar with the implications of terms like IQ (cognitive ability) and EQ (emotional intelligence). New research has added a third characteristic— cultural intelligence or CQ. Obviously, CQ comes into focus when boards are dealing with global or international issues. But its usefulness is still germane to community-based and/or domestically focused professional/trade associations. Making a change in board strategy is at best a challenging process. But when that plan collides with cultural differences, board culture will trump change. To paraphrase Peter Drucker’s pronouncement—“Culture Eats Strategy for Lunch.” Following are a few of the many types of nonprofit CQ divisions that I have observed:
Baby Boomers vs. Millennials: Up to this point in their history, NFP boards have tended to be organizationally conservative, but this may be changing rapidly. One of the most prominent developments is the influence of the millennials, those born rough between 1980 and the turn of the new century. The new cohorts tend to have cultural values that are quite different from those of their parent or grandparents.Millennial work patterns, for example, are more informal, often spanning long hours and ignoring 9 to 5 routines. All of this can create a cultural gap between themselves and their boomer board colleagues and between baby boom management and millennial staffs. As they move into senior management positions,will they collide with those who have adhered to traditional conservative nonprofit cultures? Currently their social values align with those of many human service nonprofits. But in the future, will cultural values they encounter frustrate them to the point of turning their energies toward other career opportunities? One current report concludes, “Despite what you may have heard, millennials aren’t lazy. In fact they’re downright work-obsessed–and it’s making life worse for everybody.”
Entrepreneurs vs. Public Service Backgrounds: Persons with public service backgrounds tend to move slowly in bringing about change. For example, the challenge of developing consensus among city council members can be daunting. In contrast, an entrepreneur must be able to pivot his/h organization quickly from plan A to plan B. Consequently, “processing” takes precedence over “pivoting” when an NFP organizational change is proposed. These two board types brings different tempos to board discussions. If the gap is left unresolved, the entrepreneur may leave and a valuable voice is lost. Unfortunately, in my experience, I have met too many entrepreneurs who simply refuse to accept nonprofit board positions because of this discrepancy.
Management Backgrounds vs. Independent Contributors: Persons with management background are directors who have had leadership responsibilities with small or large groups of subordinates. Independent contributors are those who basically work alone or may only have responsibilities for just a few subordinates—e.g., attorneys, professors, planners or physicians. Board members in the latter group can assume they have management knowledge superior to the executive director’s or other senior personnel. Often their insights are outside a manager’s experience “space.” This creates a cultural gap that can be harmful to nonprofit’s operations. Example: A medical association board refused to set performance standards. for its executive director and staff. One staff member commented, “Board members don’t want to build trust and establish mutually accepted goals, these guys just want to give orders.” The cultural gap was substantial because management and staff did not know the standards and behaviors by which they will be judged annually. Another staff colleague angrily commented, “I’m not going to allow a twenty-something medical intern order me what to do!”
How to bridge the gap
Board chairs and EDs should develop a realistic inventory of the types of CQs on their board to be certain that one style is does not dominate.
With the continual turnover of board membership and with annually changing board chairs, the ED needs to assume long-term responsibility for the inventory.
It probably is not possible to develop a perfect balance of cultural norms. As a result, the chair and ED must make sure that those who have “minority CQs,” such as the entrepreneur described above, feel that their participation is meaningful and appreciated.
Never underestimate the impact of culture and its various CQ components. The dominant legacy, especially with successful nonprofits, must be widely accepted. But it also should be reviewed occasionally to make certain that the board is not simply accepting it at face value. The Impacts must be robust performance for all clients, along with innovative and operational effectiveness. Assessing board member’s CQ categories can be a challenge for many chairs and EDs. These categories often do not fit into discrete groupings like age and educational levels. But practice with them over time should be helpful. They allow chairs and EDs to better retain those productive outliers whose CQs may not fit the traditional legacy culture.
Solarwinds and Target and others 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. Considering the recent introductions of new AI tools, the power of immature teenagers and adults to initiate Cyber Security (CS) problems seems unlimited.
What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consultant with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.
After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.
1. Carefully “wall off” all confidential information – Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment. 2. Review D&O and other liability policies – Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS. 3. Board Encouragement – Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board’s concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches. 4. Can third party payer help? – Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance. 5. Education and training of employers – Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses. 6. Finance & Audit Committees – Recent data indicate that only 20% of nonprofits have a CS vulnerability assessment in place and only about the same proportion have a plan in place should a CS breach take place . * Due care responsibilities seem to be missing among a large portion of nonprofits.
If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. SolarWinds and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.
Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
As an antidote to the leadership succession problems that have plagued business and nonprofits in the last several decades, the Authentic Leadership model proposed by William George, Harvard professor, may be of interest. Following are my views on how his guidelines can be useful to directors and managers in the nonprofit environment. (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/authentic-leadership-rediscovered)
Authentic leadership is built on your character, not your style: According to George, these leaders must have flexible styles to be able to fill different role at different times—coach, mentor and inspiring others who must work with a minimum of management guidance. Example: He/s has to “stay on message” in any discussions of mission, vision and values. This is especially important when the economic environment is turbulent.
Because nonprofit boards must draw their candidates from a broad base of backgrounds, any board, in my opinion, can only hope to have three or four board members who can be authentic leaders and eventually fill the board chair position. Often professionals, such as physicians, professors and lawyers, as independent contributors, can lack leadership and strategic insights. Consequently, the CEO must contribute these insights when such a knowledge gap exists on the board in relation to strategy. Several nonprofit boards I have recently encountered, mainly composed of mid-level managers and independent professionals have lacked a single board member with any strategic background. Results: The strategic plan consisted of a broad-brush “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT) analysis. Hardly a valuable planning document for the 21st century.
In terms of management selection, boards need to seek those who can make the hard decisions such as CEO termination and/or having to implement a board decision that is vigorously opposed by a small minority. But the leader must still remain an authentic person, even under these difficult circumstances. Example: One CEO I encountered had the amazing ability of being able to fire a subordinate but still maintain good interpersonal relations with the person—an amazing interpersonal managerial talent, indicating an authentic leader.
Authentic leaders are real and genuine. A nonprofit board member can be a distant personality to the management and staff. Only a crisis may determine the level of authenticity of his or her leadership style. But board members in working with management and staff on projects and in social contacts need to show that they are flexible and fair persons in their decision processes. Nonprofits are somewhat different from for-profits because the staff can be only two organizational levels below the board. Consequently staff members monitor board changes closely because they know a new strong personality can impact their futures and working conditions. Example: Two professors persuaded their board colleagues to adopt an overly detailed Management by Objectives program. It stressed the staff to spend a huge amount of time reviewing and assessing objectives, instead of client center work.
One way to view these characteristics is in the evaluation process of the CEO and organization. The process must be unscrupulously rigorous but fair to all concerned. (Example: see http://bit.ly/OvF4ri) Otherwise the management and staff will view the board as a distant body, only dedicated to financial results. Organizational morale will be impacted.
Authentic leaders are constantly growing. In terms of their board membership, they are seeking to learning about the organization’s environment, concerns and opportunities. They are curious people always seeking insights into the personal, professional, cultural and civic worlds in which they live. Harvard’s George defines their behaviors in this way, “ They do not have a rigid view of themselves and their leadership. Becoming authentic is a developmental state that enables leaders to progress through multiple roles, as they learn and grow from their experiences.”
Authentic leaders match their behavior to their context. Often they may have modest Intelligence Levels (IQ) levels but they have very high Emotional Intelligence (EQ), providing them with outstanding people skills. They can quickly recognize interpersonal challenges around them, and they provide moderating solutions. Many are described as not being quick to anger. Most importantly in the nonprofit board situation, they can empathize with board, management and staff problems, even though their full-time occupations are outside the organization’s mission arena.
Authentic leaders are not perfect, nor do they try to be. Nobody does his/h job perfectly, and authentic nonprofit board leaders are quick to accept this reality for themselves and others around them, for example the CEO. They know from experience that leaders can learn from their mistakes and become better leaders.
Summary Authentic leaders are frequently chosen today for the key roles in business and nonprofits, according to William George. In an era when nonprofits are being challenged by budget cuts and a surplus of unfulfilled client needs, it behooves board nominations and CEO search committees to review the above list of behaviors. Those who are fortunate to engage these leaders, in turn, should improve board and staff performance –“A” players hire “A” players.
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 directors, 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 43- 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 three 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.
From my observations and those of my colleagues, virtual meetings are more efficient for reporting operational items like compliance updates. But they lack the robust human social interactions provided by face-to-face meetings.
Some nonprofits will continue to increase the proportion of virtual meetings post-covid, both groups, those using it now and those using it post-covid, may now be looking to reduce the human deficit incurred.
Here are some suggestions:
More But Shorter Meetings: Instead of monthly board meetings, schedule meetings every two months.. With the social intensity in the environment, some boards are being required to meet more frequently. In advance of the meetings, ask the CEO to send a list of announcement types items, hopefully limited to one page. (Have it understood that the one page may not meet the requirements of her/h high school English teacher!)
Onboarding New Board Members: A friend joined a nonprofit. As a result of all virtual board and committee meetings she feels adrift of human connection. She might even not recognize some of her new colleagues if she passed them on the street. This problem can be alleviated to some extent by arranging for the new member to have brief individual virtual meetings with other board members and senior managers. It’s a hopefully a quick fix to a problem.
Strategic Planning. It was evident in the pre-corvid period that strategic planning needs to have a longer focus than the traditional three to five-year plan in order to achieve organizational sustainability. There are enough evidences of post-covid changes to continue strategic planning with small committees. This involves more frequent, but shorter, virtual meetings for the planning committee and updates to the board.
Building Trust: Having trust among board colleagues is critical to having a fully functioning board. Talking directly to them, listening carefully and even watching body language or face colorings. Some people, for example, when agitated develop a flushed face. None of this appears when meetings are virtual! There are several actions Board Chairs and/or CEOs can take to help members to be better acquainted, hoping to lead to trusting relationships.
· Good & Welfare Periods: At the beginning or end of the virtual meeting ask members to share personal or professional events—promotions, marriages, children or grandchildren, etc.
· Outside Presentation: At a virtual meeting, arrange for a local or national authority to briefly talk about a mission related topic
· Invite the board members’/managements’ spouses or significant others to also be involved.
· Other Interests: Invite board members/management persons to discuss unusual skills they have or other groups to which they belong that promotes the public interest.
· Board Education: Where possible continue board education via a virtual approach. If staff persons participate, be certain presentations are rehearsed and that time restrictions are carefully followed.
Focusing on any of these four areas in a time-compressed nonprofit environment can be difficult. In my opinion, nonprofit boards should review them to determine if they can help alleviate the obvious deficits inherent with virtual meetings.
Nonprofit Management 