Should All Board Members Be Required to be Involved With Fundraising? Updated Version
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Based on my experiences, I suggest those who have done it before or are willing, with some coaching, to try it. However, board members also need to maximize their colleagues’ contacts. That may involve teaming someone who does not usually get involved in fundraising with an experienced hand, if the inexperienced person knows a potential donor.
The CEO will also need to be an assertive leader when it comes to fundraising, but all board members will need to play an active or supportive role. Neither board members nor CEOs can abdicate their fundraising roles.
Everyone on a nonprofit board should make an annual contribution. This is accomplished by a Giveand Get Policy.* Certainly, the amount depends on each director’s personal situation, but even a token amount is significant or useful contributions in other ways are in line with the policy. When developing 21st century funding grant proposals for foundations or corporations, funders want to know whether or not all members of the board have a personal interest.
How Can Nonprofits Accommodate To External Influences? Some Field Observations
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Ruth McCambridge, former editor of Nonprofit Quarterly, points out “Our organizational management, (board) styles and structures are affected by the four external influences.” See paraphrased bolded items below. (http://bit.ly/1HSwrZY) Following are some specific field observations I have encountered that, over several decades, support her model relating to external influences.
The nonprofit’s mission field: McCambridge points out that arts organizations have dual have leadership models—artistic and business. However, unless specified which has final authority, the system can lead to continual conflict between the two; the artistic leader wanting the most authentic productions and the business leader concerned with budget realities. The final authority is often determined by which leader has the CEO title.
Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Unfortunately, outcomes and impact are often unrelated, which is why a program that seems to produce better outcomes may create no impact at all. Worse, sometimes they point in opposite directions, as can happen when a program works with harder-to- service populations resulting in seemingly worse conditions, but (has) higher value-added impact. … Rigorous evaluations can measure impact (to a level of statistical accuracy), but they are usually costly (a non starter for many nonprofit), difficult and slow. *But how do the medium and small size nonprofits measure actual results in the outside world such as enhanced quality of life, elevated artistic sensitivity and community commitment? (more…)
Whenever the time is ripe to select a new nonprofit CEO, I think of the old joke that says “…every person looks for the perfect spouse… meanwhile, they get married.” By the same token, nonprofit board members seek perfection in a new ED/CEO– and find that they must “settle” for less. But there are certain definitive attributes that are essential to his/her success in running the organization. With the pressures of increasingly slim budgets, fund development challenges and the difficulty of recruiting high quality employees, the 21st century ED/CEO must be action oriented and come equipped with at least a modicum of the following abilities: *
Visionary: It’s all about the organization’s future. The ED/elect should bring or at least begin to cultivate a deep concept of where the nonprofit is, should be and what the trajectory should look like. He/she can do that by immersing himself in the mission field—reading widely and remaining in contact with regional and national leaders in the field. A state-of-the-art CEO should be available for consultation with colleagues with similar issues. Included in his span of vision are potential disruptions that might affect the organization– and how to help the board focus on and implement appropriate change.
Board Enabler: The new chief understands the limits of his/h operational responsibilities and the governance overview role required by the board. To build trusting relationships with the board, she/h realizes that transparency is key.
Fundraiser: The optimal fundraising relationship is a partnership between the CEO and the board. Board members must be alert to outside funding opportunities and the CEO, alert to funding opportunities from sources related to the mission field. Once an opportunity is identified, the CEO and the board work closely together to develop a proposal and to meet with the donor(s). If the organization has a development director, the person filling the position must be brought into the discussion at an early stage.
Communicator: To be organizationally successful, the Board and CEO must be in a position to interact with a variety of stakeholders: government officials, donors, vendors, clients and their surrogates, foundations, etc. One area in which many nonprofit CEOs need improvement is communications with the business community. It goes beyond simply joining the Rotary or Chamber groups. Nonprofit CEOs must have rudimentary knowledge of many businesses so they can interact intelligently with business leaders they encounter in development efforts. This information can be about specific organizations they are approaching or general knowledge acquired from perusing publications like Business Week or The Wall Street Journal.
Spokesperson: Although some suggest that the volunteer president must be the spokesperson for the nonprofit, I suggest that the Executive Director/CEO must hold this position for several reasons.
If a volunteer becomes a president/CEO, he/s may acquire some liabilities that other directors don’t have. The executive director must be the CEO. Some nonprofits have given the chief operating person the title of president/ceo and the senior board person, board chair. This eliminates confusion that often surrounds the ED title when contacting business or government officials.
The volunteer president does not work in the organization daily and does not understand its nuances as well as the CEO.
In a crisis situation, the media may contact board members. It should be clearly understood that the CEO is the only person to comment to the media.
In ceremonial situations, it may be appropriate for the president to be a spokesperson.
The CEO needs to become the “face” of the organization because volunteer presidents come and go, some annually.
Team Builder: She/h needs to build a strong management team, some of whom, over time, may become capable of becoming an Executive Director. The CEO, as head of the management team, needs to be sure all staff are performing well with some being bench strength to move to higher positions.
Tone Setter: The CEO needs to set an ethical tone where everybody feels free to express their suggestions for improving the organization. This tone, in various ways, must also be communicated to all stakeholders by the Executive Director..
Performance Monitor: Hopefully the board has a rigorous and fair system for evaluating the CEO and the organization, and the values of this system are embedded in staff evaluations.
Unwritten Protocols for Directors Can Boost Nonprofits’ Effectiveness
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
Nonprofit boards are governed by a series of obligations —some are clearly defined as legal responsibilities such as financial actions. Others, however, are less clearly defined and relate to people who are, in some way, associated with the organization. Guidelines to these diverse interactions are not typically archived in policies but are important to the overall professionalism of the board. They include consideration of its: board structure, internal operations, recruitment methods and leadership style.
In the best of all nonprofit worlds, every board member is an independent agent whose ability to make critical decisions on behalf of the organization is regularly uncompromised by outside pressures. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. Based on field observation I have concluded that questionable practices can plague nonprofit boards when social or political pressures are brought to bear on a board member. In governance terms nonprofit decision-makers should be “outside directors,” not overtly or covertly susceptible to management or board colleague personal pressures.
Discerning recruitment committees can screen candidates to be certain they are not subject to influences that might impair their judgment as board members. Lack of independence could easily divide and perhaps polarize the board as has happened in our country’s Congress. A candidate who is “sponsored” by a major donor and maintains personal ties with the donor can create a “hornet’s nest” for the recruitment group. There are no easy solutions to these problems.
Some typical examples of the apparent loss of independence:
• The legacy challenge. A board member is appointed to the board largely because his family has served on the board for generations, not because of his talent and/or commitment to the mission. If there are too many “legacies” on board, the optimal range of perspectives is narrowed resulting in inadequate discussion of potential actions. • The chief executive does not keep a professional social distance from the board chair and/or other board members. For example, their families are frequently engaged socially. • In “prestige boards,” a business or professional person persuades the board to accept a candidate who is business associate because he/she is a “good person” who needs board experience for networking purposes. • A candidate for a directorship has significantly caused problems on another nonprofit board, but a current active board member, a friend of the candidate, wants him to be elected so that he/she can be given a second chance.
What Can Be Done? Sometimes Nothing: But:
• Clearly acknowledge the challenges where they exist and then seek new candidates without such encumbering ties. • If possible, try to confront the situation directly, if it does not cause a schism within your board. Develop a policy, not a rule, which allows someone to open discussion if one of these issues arises. • Make independence one of the characteristics desired for board candidates and clearly acknowledge what is meant by the term. • A nonprofit board member can serve only one master—the organization’s mission. On the other hand, no nonprofit board that I have encountered is totally independent. As long as a board has enough members who are not beholden to other interests there should be no impairment in achieving the organization’s goals.
This type of subtle influence is rarely discussed, and to my knowledge, has never been researched. But, if left unattended by nonprofit recruitment committees, it can lead to political board schisms that seriously impact the organization.
Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?
By: Eugene H. Fram. Free Digital Image
Yes, if the organization has the following structure:
Board With A Volunteer Chairperson Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations Executive Director for Division A Executive Director for Division B
However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena. The executive director should have final authority for all operational matters related to the organization, except those designated for the board in the bylaws. For example, pensions plan changes.
The big question is who carries the CEO title. Some nonprofits, in their early stages, have a volunteer, part-time, President/CEO and an operational Executive Director. This signifies the volunteer, representing the will of the board, can have final authority in implementing board operational policies/strategies. This is not a good structure because the CEO title might lead to the volunteer having liabilities that other board members don’t have.
How Do Nonprofit Leaders Manage Unsolicited “Great Ideas?”
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
What does a board member or CEO do when a donor or valued volunteer approaches him/h with a great idea that needs to be implemented at once? Since most of these ideas are what a Stanford professor terms bad ideas, the board chair and CEO are often between a hypothetical rock and a hard place! To agree to a proposed project that is impractical or irrelevant to the mission will put the nonprofit at risk. But to reject an eager volunteer or potential donor could have serious donor related financial or interpersonal consequences.
When bad ideas are suggested, nonprofit directors and CEOs traditionally have hastily reviewed them—then prolonged the evaluation process hoping the presenter will lose interest in it. When an immediate reply is called for, a full review of the project will involve board and management time and effort to provide a fair assessment. If the verdict is negative, everyone hopes for the best!
Professor Jonathan Bendor of Stanford University, who studies tech organizations, proposes a solution that can be effectively used by nonprofit directors to address this “wicked” type of problem. * (Persons in tech organizations are constantly generating new ideas, only a handful of which meet customer requirements.)
Example of such a “wicked” problem
The CEO of an association received the following e-mail, with a cc, to the board chair from a major donor. In addition, the donor immediately left a voicemail for the CEO, “Did you get my important e-mail?”
As you know, we are trying to get more people to our association’s evening lecture series on aging. I have noted that we have very few people attending who appear to be in the above the 65+ age cohort. Obviously these persons could benefit from participating. The group is our most important tool to meeting the association’s mission. I suggest we hire a bus to bring them to the meetings and to return them home. To avoid having the bus going to each of their homes, we could establish easily accessible locations in various neighborhoods where they could meet and depart the bus.
The CEO then sent the following targeted rubric to his three senior managers and to four senior board directors, asking for their evaluations of the suggestion. Along with the board chair he wanted to be ready for a hostile response, if the suggestion is rejected.
Using A Rubric
A rubric is a format that uses established criteria for evaluating ideas and hopefully highlights innovative ones. Following is one that has been formatted for the hypothetical situation described above in italics.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with one being low and ten being high, judge the above idea against all these criteria. Place a number value in the space after each item.
Example: Potential levels for each of the of the ten criteria: Little- one through four; moderately-five and six, and substantially-seven through 10.
Supports the organization’s mission ______
Is consistent with our vision and cultural values._____
Can be implemented with no more than XXX in direct costs _____
Can be implemented with no more than XXX in indirect costs ______
Can require additional capital expenditures _____
Can be implemented within the current staffing or board structure_______
Can require a long trial period before it can be validated as having impact_____
Can be supported by the CEO and/or a majority of the board_______
Can be viewed by others in our field as being innovative______
Will have significant positive impact for our clients.______
Comments: (Please express a summary opinion briefly.)
The form is then compiled anonymously. The CEO reviews the results with the board chair, and then reports to the donor or valued volunteer. If the idea is rejected but presented with sensitivity, it allows the originator to feel his/h idea has had a fair hearing. If accepted, the Chair and CEO can suggest plans for further study and challenges (perhaps additional financial support?) for implementation.
Bendor’s approach* can be well applied in both the tech and nonprofit environments. Most importantly, it provides a venue to help identify innovative ideas with the greatest potential for nonprofit mission success.
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.*
A Special Relationship: Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Photo
Viewer Favorite – Updated & Revised
Here are tips 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.
Nonprofit Management 