SuccessionPlanning

The Succession Dilemma: Why Do Nonprofit Boards Fail to Plan Ahead?

The Succession Dilemma: Why Do Nonprofit Boards Fail to Plan Ahead?

By: Eugene Fram             

There are many types of crises common to an organization. But one event seems to trigger a large proportion of the ensuing trauma. It frequently happens when a CEO or another top manager retires, resigns or leaves for other reasons.   The flow of leadership is about to be disrupted and there is no viable replacement for the departing executive.

This transitional panic happens in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD)  reported that 50 % of public company directors concede that CEO succession planning needs to be improved. * In the nonprofit environment, only 27% actually have succession plans to replace a suddenly departing executive. ** This demonstrates the low priority nonprofits place on over-viewing talent succession to prepare for unexpected vacancies.

Here are some insights (in italics) from the NACD report that are applicable to nonprofit succession planning, be it management talent overview or implementing the replacement process.

The process …for succession planning should begin with determining the… organization’s future strategy.

This type of generative strategic thinking is difficult to accomplish in the nonprofit environment for several reasons. Currently, the planning cycle for most nonprofit boards that I have encountered is from three to five years. The median tenure for nonprofit board members is from four to six years. This means that most board members will only be actively involved with one planning cycle. My observation is that it not a motivating environment for longer terms nonprofit planning.   It tends to focus planning on known details instead of the more ambiguous “what if” questions.

At a minimum each cycle should have some considerations of the talents and skills that will be needed by senior managers to robustly complete the plan and to remain current for the next change.   Such a listing allows senior managers to plan for personal growth and for board governance committees to better understand the new skills and talents required for board members.

Examples:   A CEO may recognize that she/h needs further background in the applications of Artificial Intelligence to nonprofits.   In turn, the board has as an obligation to help the CEO to achieve this goal, even if the CEO might leave after taking advantage of this educational opportunity.

From the board’s perspective, the governance committee may decide that the board does not have a sufficient number of board members interested in fundraising to mount a capital campaign. The plan should how greater attention is needed to recruit candidates with comfort in fundraising.

Trying to achieve agreement on projection can cause disruptive discussions among board members. Legacy-focused board members may try to sidetrack projections especially when the organization has been reasonably successful under a popular leader. But the airing of the issues can be helpful, even if they become emotionally charged.

…Boards of directors are increasingly accepting culture as a hard issue, as opposed to a soft issue. that is measurable and has a direct impact on the organization’s performance.

In both the for-profit and nonprofit environments, the CEO must drive the organization’s culture through example and operational policy. In turn, the board must trust and verify that the CEO is managing in a morally sound and ethical manner.   Where questions arise related to the CEO, on these two issues, the board must start an investigation, often with the assistance of an outside party.

To maintain a healthy culture and the process of succession planning, nonprofit boards need to:

  • Have a healthy review of the nonprofit’s culture included in each planning cycle.
  • Be certain that the CEO has a strong cadre of managers capable of growing in their current positions and able to advance if the opportunity arises.
  • Become reasonably well acquainted with the strengths and limitations of key members in the cadre group.
  • Allow three or more years to plan a CEO transition.
  • Have a written plan in place in the even that the CEO becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated.

Nonprofit planning cycles, like those in the for-profit world, rarely relate succession considerations to the planning efforts because the boards can have a constant churn of memberships. This tends to produce a short-term atmosphere not conducive to succession planning. Every planning cycle should include a review of culture as well as the growth and grooming of high potential staff.

*https://www.nacdonline.org/Resources/Article.cfm?ItemNumber=53191

** https://boardsource.org/fundamental-topics-of-nonprofit-board-service/executive-transition/

How Often Do Nonprofit Board Members Need to Question Strategic Norms?

How Often Do Nonprofit Board Members Need to Question Strategic Norms?

By Eugene Fram               

A new nonprofit board member has a lot to learn. Considering that his/h term of service will be relatively short (typically six years), he/s must quickly learn the “ropes” to participate in a meaningful way. In this process, colleagues and leadership will acquaint him/h with prevailing board systems and culture—often ignoring the depth of expertise she/h can employ. Example: An expert in financial strategies may be asked to assist the CFO with accounting details, far below the person’s skill level. Oftentimes the new board member also is greeted with a mantra that says, “We’ve always done it this way.” As the board member moves in his path from novice to retiree, during a short tenure, there is little opportunity to suggest innovations that differ from the accepted fundamentals and to successfully advocate for change.

Following are four nonprofit areas that call for strategic scrutiny and, if recognized by several other current board members as constraints on the future of the nonprofit, the process may allow individual directors to seek positive change:

Can Mission Creep be Good?? Dedication to the organization’s mission should be the board and staff’s primary focus. Often this focus can limit a conservative board’s vision if long-term risk may be involved. But nonprofits have an obligation to keep current in addressing emerging needs and may veto a client venture that has reasonable potential. This hard and fast adherence to mission parameters can be used as an avoidance mechanism to maintain the status quo. How do directors determine the initiative’s positive/negative impact on the organization? Boards need to wrestle with tough questions such as the following: As baby boomers retire, there will be an increased need for elderly housing. Should those nonprofits whose mission is to operate homes for children feel morally obliged to extend both their mission and operational expertise to develop separate or operationally related homes for the low-income elderly?

Nonprofit boards, in my opinion, try hard to acculturate new board members to the mission, as the current group of board members views it. The disadvantage is that expansion or even modification of the program implementation becomes difficult or even unacceptable. A field case: A moribund human services agency offered counseling services on weekdays from 9 to 5 and on Thursdays 9-8pm. The nonprofit had no provision for emergency services. For decades board members had been acculturated to the rigid service schedule and were resistant to change. Finally, a group of new board members, recognizing the urgency of the clients’ requirements was able, with support of new a CEO, to develop a cost-effective way to increase service to a 24/7 model.

The Ethos of Overhead vs. Development: When the need for a new staff-type management person arises, it is often hotly contested. Nonprofit organizations have usually operated on the ethos that about 80% of budgets need to be expended for direct client services. This ignores the fact that an increase in overhead costs, if carefully planned, can yield substantial increases to program budgets. One CEO who was adept at fundraising refused to engage a COO, citing increased overhead as the reason. After four years of board prodding, he relented and made the appointment. The result was positive on two counts—he was able to expand his fundraising prowess and internal operations improved significantly.

Board Culture: Many boards have a tendency to be a rubber stamp for management. This can be a significant danger with nonprofit boards whose culture encourages directors to “go along to get along.” Board members, as volunteers, often view the political and friendship costs of rigorous debate as being too high. Others surmise that management has more information in the field and are uncomfortable in challenging its expertise. This malaise in the nonprofit sector can have disastrous results, evidenced in the frequent reports of fraud due to board laxity. Occasionally, a board may even refuse to fire the perpetrator and the state attorney general must intervene.

There is nothing tactically sacred about the monthly two-hour board meeting and yet limited discussion and crowded agendas can inhibit any type of rigorous discussion at them. Board members who would like to suggest new ideas or question accepted norms are usually frustrated and discouraged from doing so. Although obsolete, the meeting format is rarely challenged. There are, however, alternative options. Board meetings, in my opinion, should be scheduled for longer periods such as 1½ – 2 days–or bimonthly meetings of 3-4 hours. Instead of merely current updates, the format, if carefully structured, could then accommodate substantive policy/strategy issues and allow board members to be heard.

Alternative Data Measurement Systems: Nonprofits often fail to develop  impact data that one could deem reliable. In my view, too many nonprofits fail to appreciate the benefits of rigorous performance basis measurement. This failure is caused by the substantial cost of developing some qualitative impact counts, e.g. impact of advocacy efforts. Nonprofits, however, can glean whatever value they can through imperfect metrics, gathering information and data that may be anecdotal, subjective, interpretive, qualitative or developed through small size samples. Over time, imperfect metrics can be continually improved and become useful in tracking progress and driving change. (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)

Challenging the Nonprofit’s cultural DNA is daunting. Ties to traditional modes of governance are hard to sever. But with sensitivity and persistence, a board member can help move the organization forward, if at least several other directors also understand the need to question strategic norms.

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

Pressure Test Your Nonprofit’s Fund Development Efforts

By: Eugene Fram

It’s no secret that nonprofits do not excel in the craft of fundraising. A 2015 study reported that 65% ofCEOs gave their boards academic grades of “C” or below for efficacy on this front. Yet most will agree that without the continuous influx of financial support, the mission to which the board members have committed themselves will fail

I clearly remember examples of this deficit from my own board experience—one in which I served on the fund development committee for a small nonprofit which met monthly for about a year. A sincere and hardworking board chair headed it, but the meetings took place without the presence of the CEO.   Many ideas with merit were exchanged such as developing a reserve fund, “get or give” board requirements etc.There was a lot of talk but no implementation, and after a year of pure discussion, a new president, who convened a new committee, disbanded the group.

A review of the pressure points in key fundraising activities would have taken the group from talk to action and further implementation. Here are activities and their variations that I consider most critical to nonprofit development processes:

Board-CEO Partnership—Some Elements For Success

 To be successful in fundraising, both the board and CEO must be active partners. Board memberscannot fundraise alone as in the above example.

 Board members will never have the required depth of organizational knowledge to demonstrate nonprofit outcomes and impacts. Also the CEO and/or development director, if there is one, will be needed to build proposals for grants or awards. In addition, the CEO should have access to foundations in the mission field, so that appropriate responses can be initiated

. Although this is not always the case, the CEO needs to have the ability to interact with senior business and foundation executives. Where the CEO lacks these capabilities, the board has an obligation to offer the services of a management coach to help him/h to acquire such skills. Expenses involved can yield substantial returns!

 Hypothetically, the board must be continually seeking donors who will be interested in the nonprofit’s mission, quickly involving the CEO when an opportunity is identified. Similarly, the CEO has an obligation to agree with the board about what funding proposals should be pursued from foundations and individuals.

 While the board is one partner in the development effort, not all board members should berequired to be active in fundraising. At a minimum, all should be asked to report donor opportunities that they encounder.

 For nonprofits that have a diverse board, some training on how to seek and address opportunities will be necessary. These topics can range from knowing that their employers have a matching gift policy to recognizing something they see in a newspaper/magazine that might be reviewed as a funding opportunity.

 Three or four board members, willing and able to drive the effort, should shoulder major funding activity. Many of the others will be unable or unwilling to become involved, except to provide lead information. (A recent study shows although 90% of nonprofit directors believe fundraising is an important obligation, only 45% of organizations require board member to minimially fundraise.) *

 The board members focusing on development need to be able to be persistent and constantly on the lookout for new sources.   As one fundraiser said to me, “ I’ll keep after the opportunity until the donor tells me to “go away!”  He was directly responsible for a $1 million donation to his university for organizational support. As part of the partnership, the board and CEO will have to determine how much time and resources need to be given to fund development. This can become a difficult discussion because many CEOs will want to direct more of the budget to targeted mission projects. In some cases where an unusual opportunity arises, the CEO may have to expend substantial amounts of his/h personal time to be successful. He/she may also have to redirect staff time and resources to the project.*

Nonprofit fundraising is a team effort. In cases where the CEO does not actively involve some board members in the process, make certain the board is not being micromanaged by the CEO.

How Does Your Nonprofit Retain Termed-Out Board Members?

s

Nonprofit board members whose terms have expired are typically recognized at annual meetings with gifts, plaques or certificates of service. In many cases, this is like saying, “Here’s your hat–there’s the door.” Rarely does the organization have a plan for continuing to connect with these folks, many of whom represent significant assets – i.e. talent and expertise – that can be meaningful to the organization for years. For the very best among them, there is no guarantee that replacements will have the same or superior skills and talents.

Here are some new and established ways to keep them engaged or to reengage those who have drifted away from the organization.

Advisory Board – Include them in an advisory board to the CEO and/or Board Chair. For prestige purposes, it is important that the board be clearly designated as a sounding board to the CEO and/or Board chair when both are appropriate. This group should include selected former board members plus others from the community or industry. Agendas should not be packed with detailed power point presentations, leaving only brief time periods for open discussion. My experiences with these boards are that they should meet three or four times a year. A reasonably large one, 15-20 people, is required; understand that on the average, not all will be able to attend.

Form an “Alumni Group” – Major consulting and business organizations (e.g., McKinsey and P&G) actively support a networking group of former employees who also may meet on an occasional basis. The organizations have newsletters which report on former employee professional changes and successes, and provide current membership rosters that offer tremendous networking opportunities. It also gives the group an opportunity to reconnect on their own with old friends/colleagues and to become updated on their families and activities. Obviously the costs and efforts for maintaining the activity are modest.

Nonprofits could improve on this model by also offering occasional short conferences, 1.5 days maximum, for former board members related to the mission of the nonprofit. They can be conducted locally or at some off-site retreat, so spouses or significant others can be included. The conferences can be operated on a self-sustaining basis if developed at a moderate cost that is divided among participants. Agendas will need to be carefully planned with a small group of potential attendees.

Continued Direct Contact – The nonprofit CEO needs to have informal contact with each current board member three or four times a year to update board members to new potential strategies and ongoing challenges faced by the organizations, a minimum of 45 informal personal or phone contacts a year to help solidify his/h relationship with the board.
Current board members may assist the CEO by performing the same function to keep former board members engaged through some informal contacts each year. To be certain that all responsible for making these contacts are on the same page with current information, some reorientation on current organizational policies and strategies will need to be developed.

Establishing Effective Nonprofit Board Committees – What to Do.

g

Establishing Effective Nonprofit Board Committees – What to Do.

Following are ways that many nonprofit boards have established effective board committees using mygovernance model as described in the third edition of Policy vs. Paper Clips. ( https://goo.gl/QEL8x3)

• In the planning effort, focus board personnel and financial resources only on those topics that are germane to the organization at a particular time. For example, financial planning, long-range planning or short-rangeplanning. However the board needs to be open to generative planning if new opportunities present themselves or are developed via board leadership.

• Reduce the number of board standing committees to no more than five, even less if possible

• Use subcommittees, also known as ad hoc committees or task forces, to review a range of board levelt topics, as needed, such as personnel policies, OSHA requirements and long-term space needs.

• Generally the CEO should attend all major committee meeting. He or she may or may not serve on subcommittees, depending on the information and guidance needed by the group.

• Staff input is critical. Professional staffs make major contributions to board policy decisions. It needs to be remembered that nonprofit staff in most organizations are more closely related to the board than they are in for-profit situations. The nonprofit staff are only a few organizational levels below the board.

• The CEO needs to foster an atmosphere in which staff members feel free to express opinions to board members and administrative staff. Such an atmosphere benefits the organization and isn’t just social activity.

• When confronted with a particular difficult issue, an excellent means of communications is the board/staff workshop. The professional interaction between board and staff should enhance the quality of decision-making. There are also secondary benefits, as a workshop enhances professional communications between board and staff and engages board members in meaningful hands-on projects. In addition, the board can assess the capabilities of promotable staff. Many boards have been content to analyze proposals endlessly (i.e., engage in analysis-paralysis). Others to avoid conflict, have tended to rubber-stamp proposals made by vocal or overly aggressive board members or the CEO. Neither of these types of boards truly participates in the challenging act of establishing policy and direction for their nonprofit groups.

The times are currently changing very rapidly due to the introduction of AI. Nonprofit Boards are being held much more personally accountable for their actions by the community and by legal statute. For example, if a volunteer board chair assumes the ED/CEO title or becomes president/CEO, he or she may face increased exposure to liability for not meeting his or her duties to be beinging very current on financials, compliance regulations, organizational limitations, etc.

A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond

By Eugene Fram             

g

Here are suggestions to assure the best possible partnership between the board chair and CEO.

Keeping boards focused on strategic issues is a major challenge for nonprofit leaders.  This leadership crisis is intensified by the fact that board chairs tend to have short terms (according to BoardSource, 83% stay in office only one or two years). Thus, nonprofit CEOs  and board chairs need to bond quickly. For the good of the organization, they must come together swiftly and create a partnership that works. Here are golden rules for the CEO and board chair to follow:

1. Be sure the CEO and board chair share strategic issues with each other—negative as well as positive ones. A failure by either the chair or CEO to share information, such as a potential cash flow issue, can be disastrous for the nonprofit.

2. It’s critical for the CEO to conduct orientation sessions with a new chair, explaining the challenges facing the nonprofit, and reviewing the fundamentals of the mission. The CEO can help the chair keep the board focused on strategic issues, whether they’re programmatic or financial.  With many nonprofits electing a new president each year, the CEO needs to prioritize these tasks.

3. Make sure staff know who has the final say. Some employees mistakenly view the board chair as the ultimate authority, even when the organizational table lists the CEO as holding that position. As a result, they may try an end run around the CEO, asking the board to overturn the CEO’s decision about salaries, promotions, or programs, for example. Both the CEO and board chair must emphasize the fact that the CEO is the final authority. If they make this message clear enough, they can probably keep staff from attempting any end runs. If an end run still occurs, the board chair must refer the issue to the CEO for resolution, except if the CEO is being charged with malfeasance.

4. The CEO should arrange for individual board members to meet with management staff on occasion so that the board can gather information about how the organization is operated and obtain an understanding of the promotional abilities of managers. The Sarbanes-Oxley act (a federal statute relating to public corporation boards) recommends this process for for-profit boards, and it’s also a good one for nonprofit board members.

5. Give staff members opportunities to participate in strategic planning and to support board committees. The board chair and CEO should work together to arrange such board-staff interactions, including joint celebrations of organizational success.

6. The CEO and board chair need to agree on the use of ad hoc board committees or task forces and their relationship to standing committees. For example, should the HR/personnel committee be a standing one or only an ad hoc one to address major personnel policies? In the 21st century, a board should only have maximum of five standing committees, many can only have three.  If task forces are used to provide provide options for occasional policy issues, for example pension plan changes, there may be little need for a standing board HR/personnel committee.

7. The board chair and CEO should be the active leaders in fundraising efforts, with the CEO as administrative leader. The board chair and other board members must provide the CEO entrée to funding sources. They often need to accompany the CEO on fundraising visits. The CEO should keep the board chair informed of all entrepreneurial development activities being explored.

8. The board has only one major employment decision to make – to recruit and hire the CEO. It’s usually a long and exhausting process. But once it’s completed, the employment of all other staff personnel is the responsibility of the CEO and the CEO’s management team. For senior positions, most CEOs ask their chairs and/or other board members to meet with candidates, but the ultimate responsibility remains with the CEO.  The board also has a responsibility to overview staffing to make certain that adequate bench-strength in in place for succession placements,  at the CEO and the senior management

9. When hiring a CEO, or soon after employment, the board chair and CEO must face a stark reality—the need for emergency leadership should the CEO become temporarily incapacitated. These plans can either be established informally by the chair-CEO partnership or more formally via board resolution. The following are possible interim CEOs: a senior manager in the organization, a semi-retired experienced CEO living near headquarters, a consultant living in a neighboring city. CEO succession planning is an important issue for the partnership should the CEO decides to leave or retire.

10. The CEO can be helpful to the board chair in recruiting new board members by suggesting possible volunteer candidates or other contacts who have demonstrated an interest in the organization’s mission, vision, and values. Board candidates will want to meet with the CEO as part of the interview process. As a result, the two partners must agree on how to present the organization to board candidates.

11. The chair and CEO need to lead in establishing meeting agendas. The two partners must work together to assure there’s sufficient meeting time to discuss and resolve strategic issue While many nonprofits call their top executive the “executive director,” the term CEO or president/CEO is a more leader-focused.

12. For the current environment, board members should be ready and willing to be ready to involved in a heightened level of board activity.   If not, the board chair and board member should determine what constraints the member needs to be in place for his/h activity.

Once Again! What Does Nonprofit Board Oversight Mean?

d

By:Eugene Fram

Frequently, I encounter nonprofit case stories surface related to inadequate oversight by nonprofit boards of directors.  Some of the cases result in substantial dollar losses to the nonprofits. Following is my personal list of what reasonable board oversight means to attempt to help nonprofit boards of directors to avoid such losses.

  • At least half the board should be able to analyze the monthly or quarterly financial statements.  Have voluntary information sessions available for those who do not have the skills.
  • Make certain that an external audit is conducted at least every two years, and the board is involved in the selection of the external auditor from a list of two or three suggested by board members and/or management. [i]
  • Be alert to the system used for developing new programs.  Be wary when new programs are described such as “mindboggling.”
  • Be certain the organization has either a comprehensive assessment committee, finance committee, and/or audit committee. (Some states require nonprofits to have an audit committee once the organization has a certain annual revenue.) 
  • Be alert to the development process for filing critical reports –Examples:  990s, employee tax withholdings and both state and federal tax reports.[ii]
  • Make certain the board has developed or is developing a current strategic plan.
  • Make certain that the organization has a knowledgeable CFO.  No board member should have to worry about the safety of the organization’s assets.
  • Be especially alert when financial reports are frequently late or one or more directors perceive financial personnel are inadequately skilled. 
  • If you don’t understand something, be ready to raise questions, even if the question appears to be innocuous
  • Nonprofit transparency is critical in the 21st century.  “Trust But Verify.”

[i] For guidance in this process see: Eugene Fram & Bruce Oliver, (2010)“Want to Avoid Fraud?  Look to Your Board,” Nonprofit World, pp.18-19.

Identify Nonprofit Staff Groups To Help Drive Organizational Change

Identify Nonprofit Staff Groups To Help Drive Organizational Change.

By Eugene Fram     

Nonprofit executive directors Board Members tend to think of the staff professionals as individual contributors. These individuals are persons who mainly work on their own and increasingly also have to contribute as team players – for instance, counselors, health care professionals, curators and university faculty. However, many executive directors fail to recognize that these individual contributors can be grouped according to identifiable types, with differing work-value outlooks. Each group needs to be motivated differently to drive change in today’s fast moving social, political and technological environments. Nonprofit board members can use these groupings in their responsibilities for overseeing promotable staff members.  

From years of observation of a variety of nonprofits the late Robert Pearse, a psychologist, and I have identified four major groups that have been labeled “Nostalgics,” “Maintainers,” “Producers’ and “Builders.” Executive directors and board directors who do not recognize the existence of such groups and the special needs to motivate and evaluate them differently may not achieve the forward motion or the performance goals that are required in the 21st century.

An identifiable group may dominate a department or it may have members in different departments. In many cases, a single group may include professionals with disparate personalities but whose work-value systems are similar.

Meet, for example, Sarah Thomas, a congenial department head who has spent the past decade in a nonprofit trade association, and Jack Engels, a brusque cost accountant in the association’s financial division. Sarah is well liked by the members of her department, while Jack is largely left alone in his work.

On the surface, Sarah and Jack appear to have little in common. Closer observation, however, shows that they are alike in one important aspect. Sarah’s department, which she has headed for the past six years, performs at a satisfactory level. Over the years, Sarah has tended to hire staff professionals who have  work-values like her own. They are good – but not outstanding – performers. The group gets regular work done but rarely exhibits creative efforts or critical thinking.  A recurring complaint from Sarah and her people is, “The department has too much to do.”

Jack Engels, the brusque accountant, also gets his work done, even though he shows little enthusiasm for his work. It is just a job, and he is averse to any change, except that mandated by accounting requirements.

Both Sarah and Jack are Maintainers, for both are comfortable with the status quo. If the executive director and/or board members were to allow the Maintainers standards to pervade the entire organization’s performance, it would likely stagnate and eventually decline.

Nostalgics are generally easy to recognize because they identify so strongly with the organization’s past history and culture. Many of them tend to be long tenured professionals whose performance has leveled off over time. They tend to take pride in being dedicated to the nonprofit but are uncomfortable with changes they perceive as breaking sharply with tradition.

The following strategies are helpful in working with Nostalgics:
• Respond to their need to revere and emotionally relive the past.
• Encourage the “willing worker” value system of group members.
• Show how proposed changes will perpetuate past glory by contributing to organizational longevity and prominence.
• Recognize that Nostalgics lack vision and prefer to avoid direct confrontation about the future direction of the organization.

Maintainers constitute the largest group in virtually all organizations, as illustrated by Jack and Sarah, they are average performers who typically have less tenure but also possess more currently useful skills than Nostalgics.  They do only what is required by a job description or implied contract. Although they appreciate having a professional position, they have not internally accepted the self-directed performance behavior one typically associates with being a professional.

Several guidelines are helpful in working with Maintainers.
• Be alert to the strong “legacy” value system at work in this professional group-all established processes can be successful in the future.
• Depend on group members for low to average productivity but be aware that requests for increased productivity or increased self-management are likely to generate resentment and hostility.
• Emphasize the pressures in the organization’s external environment that require professional performance improvement. Indicate how such improvements are important to long-term job security.
• Set modest but attainable performance improvement goals on an annual basis. (Note: If a complete turnaround is essential, for the organizational survival, this slow improvement will not be adequate.)
• Expect some continuing hostility whenever Maintainers feel new standards put pressure on them for sustained higher performance and commitment.

Producers are a varied collection of highly individual “type-A” workaholics who are motivated by their own goals. They tend to work on their own, but can be useful as team leaders if required for time limited projects. Because work output is the core of their existence, they see few differences between their personal and professional lives, sometimes leading to an unhealthy work-life balance.  This can be a larger challenge if work forces are increasingly working from home.   Producers will support changes initiated by the executive director that they perceive will enable them to produce more efficiently as individuals.

The executive director can try to motivate Producers’ effectiveness in the following ways:

  • Channel Producers’ vigorous efforts into organizational priorities by linking Producers’ special interests to the mission and goals of the nonprofit.
    • To the extent possible, provide Producers with the resources needed to be self-managing and productive.
    • Wherever possible, remove bureaucratic roadblocks to their productivity.
    • Agree annually on goals, and let Producers achieve them with a minimum of supervision and with appropriate rewards .

Builders, unlike Producers, are committed to furthering the goals of the organization, even at the expense of his or own personal goals. A senior nurse, who agrees to become an administrator, even though he or she prefers to care for patients, is an example of a Builder. Builders fall into two categories: vague visionaries and organized progressives. The former group’s attention span shifts rapidly from one detail of a proposed change to another. They lack sustained capacity for completing long-term performance improvement. The members of the latter group, organized progressives, are systematic thinkers who think quickly. Once they have a picture in mind, they can provide the executive director with knowledgeable and strong support.

An executive director can motivate the Builder group in the following ways:
• Use the vague visionary Builders to help sell others when launching new performance programs.
• Explain to organized progressives how their Builder values can contribute to a long-term systematic improvement plan.
• Give organized progressives strategic follow-up assignments to ensure the new program will move forward.
• Provide Builders with superior performance rewards..

If nonprofits are to continue to serve the nation in the current turbulent difficult time, executive directors and volunteer board members will need to provide strong support to their Builders and Producers and their work-value systems. In addition, they must also motivate the Nostalgic and Maintainer groups, using the suggestions cited above.

We hope this blog will spur board members, executive directors and president/CEOs to identify these four groups in their own organizations.
Sources
Eugene Fram & Robert Pearse (1991) “The High Performance Nonprofit: A Management Guide for Boards and Executives,” Families International, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Judith Gordon (1991), “Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach,” Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 205-207, 742.

Board Member Networking Pays Off for Nonprofits

By Eugene Fram    

Over decades of nonprofit board membership and consulting, I have rarely observed volunteer board members effectively networking with their peers to develop best board practices. Also rarely do I see them accompany management to regional or national conferences related to the nonprofit’s mission. These types of exposures are necessary to have groups of board members capable of making generative suggestions.

For board members who are willing and able to network, I suggest the following: 

(more…)

Once Again!! A Nonprofit Board’s Most Important Job!

By: Eugene Fram

Many people believe as I do that a nonprofit board’s job is to find the best possible person to act as CEO of the organization, then stand back and let that person manage. If your board is in agreement, here are guidelines for action:

• Recruit Widely: Develop a rigorous vetting process. Well before the search begins, make certain that potential internal candidates have had an opportunity to demonstrate management acumen. If an internal candidate is somewhat less qualified than an external one, don’t let the decision be swayed by the fact that the internal candidate would be less costly to employ.
• Understanding The Partnership: The need for the CEO and Board to operate within a partnership framework is well documented and accepted. However, the CEO is both the senior staff manager and a de facto representative of the board-staff relationship. Normal communications to the staff must be through the CEO. The CEO can’t be an insecure manager by withholding negative information from the board.
• A Nonprofit Board Has An Overview Responsibility: Sometimes, this responsibility can devolve into micromanagement of the management and staff. If the overview, policy or strategy functions of the board are not being adequately executed, a lead director may need to be appointed to help focus on them.*
• In terms of organization and CEO measurement, the board must seek data and information on outcomes and impacts, not become overly involved with process details.
• Nobody Does His/Her Job Perfectly: The board needs to be highly tolerant of inconsequential CEO mistakes. However, if these mistakes persist over time, the board needs to assess reasons for their continuing. Major errors need immediate investigation, and the board members also must be honest with itself about their own culpability in its due diligence process.
• The CEO And Staff Must Be Evaluated Fairly: In a nonprofit situation, this must be done in partnership, not hierarchically. Everybody must understand the “rules of the game.” Outcomes and impacts need to be related to the mission of the organization.
• The Board and CEO Must Partner On Fundraising: An effective CEO must, in the 21st century, be the face of the organization to accomplish its mission. Nonprofit board members are part-time stewards. Consequently the CEO must accept a significant responsibility for fundraising.

These guidelines can be useful to nonprofit boards in self-evaluation projects. They can determine whether or not the board is facing the realities of standing back and letting the CEO manage. The CEO should have full operational authority, and the staff should function without an atmosphere of board micromanagement.

*International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law / vol. 14, nos. 1-2, April 2012 / p.57.