Uncategorized

Policy vs. Paper Clips

Measuring Nonprofits’ Impacts: A Necessary Process for the 21st Century

By Eugene Fram     

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?

A Compromise Solution:

To close the gap, funders and recipients would need to agree to apply imperfect metrics over time. These are metrics that can be anecdotal, subjective or interpretative. Also they may rely on small samples, uncontrolled situational factors, or they cannot be precisely replicated. ** This would require agreement and trust between funders and recipients as to what level of imprecision can be accepted and perhaps be improved, to assess impacts. It is an experimental approach

How To Get to Impact Assessment:

1. Agree on relevant impacts: Metrics should be used to reflect organizational related impacts, not activities or efforts. Impacts should focus on a desired change in the nonprofit’s universe, rather than a set of process activities.
2. Agree on measurement approaches: These can range from personal interviews to comparisons of local results with national data.
3. Agree on specific indicators: Outside of available data, such as financial results, and membership numbers, nonprofits should designate behavioral impacts for clients should achieve. Do not add other indicators because they are easily developed or “would be interesting to examine.” Keep the focus on the agreed-upon behavioral outcomes.
4. Agree on judgment rules: Board and management need to agree at the outset upon the metric numbers for each specific indicator that contributes to the desired strategic objective. The rules can also specify values that are “too high” as well as “too low.”
5. Compare measurement outcomes with judgment rules to determine organizational impact: Determine how may specific program objectives have reached impact levels to assess whether or not the organization’s strategic impacts have been achieved.

Lean Experimentation

The five-point process described above closely follows the philosophy of lean experimentation, ** now suggested for profit making and nonprofit organizations.

Lean allows nonprofits to use imperfect metrics to obtain impact data from constituents/ stakeholders over time. Under a lean approach, as long as the organizations garners some positive insights after each iteration, it continues to improve the measurement venues and becomes more comfortable with the advantages and limitations of using these metrics.

Organizationally the nonprofit can use this process to drive change over time by better understanding what is behind the imperfect metrics, especially when a small sample can yield substantial insights, and actually improve the use of the metrics.


* https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/07/24/using-imperfect-metrics-well-tracking-progress-and-driving-change/
** http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_promise_of_lean_experimentationPosted in advocacy, associations, audit comitttees, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board Learning Opportunities, Board meetings, Board micromanagement, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Charity, client focus, Donations, Dysfunctional nonprofits, Ethics & Compliance, foundation boards, Good governance, imperfect metrics, Ineffective directors, Long-term Sustainability, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit impacts, Nonprofit mangement, onboarding, Stakeholder Relations, Strategic planning, Trustees, Trustees, voluneers 

Enlarging the Nonprofit Recruitment Matrix: The art of selecting new board members

Enlarging the Nonprofit Recruitment Matrix: The art of selecting new board members

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.

* http://eganassociates.com.au/disclosing-the-board-skills-matrix/

Posted in associations, Board Culture, Board Learning Opportunities, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, Nonprofit board barriers, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, onboarding, Reputation, Stakeholder Relations, Strategic planning, SuccessionPlanning, voluneers 

Wanted: Nonprofit CEOs with Entrepreneurial People Skills

Wanted: Nonprofit CEOs with Entrepreneurial People Skills

By: Eugene Fram     

The need for superior leadership skills is as critical to CEOs in nonprofits as it is in the entrepreneurial world. Following are four such skills and the unique challenges they bring when employed in the nonprofit environment.

  • The CEO’s Power of Persuasion

A nonprofit CEO and the board must take the lead in creating the organization’s mission, vision and values. However, since the board majority is usually composed of volunteers who are seldom involved in the day-to-day implementation of the organization’s mission, it becomes the responsibility of the CEO to present viable options for the future — and then to effectively share the board-approved “vision” with three discrete audiences: the board, professional staff and other stakeholders.

But board members, in the roles as part-time overseers, often do not have the time to critically evaluate alternatives when presented, particularly if a revised mission is under consideration.

Nonprofit staffs tend to be conservative, especially when change may jeopardize their positions. (e.g. “Don’t change the program, the position that may be dropped can be yours!”)

And foundations, donors, and supporters, who are possibly considering funding requests from other nonprofits, need to be approached by a CEO who is equipped with outstanding people skills.

While business organizations have somewhat similar challenges, obviously their revenue sources are not dependent on financial gifts.

  • The Right Hires

Just as in business, the process of judicious hiring endlessly challenges a nonprofit CEO. Nonprofit salary levels are simply not competitive with those of established commercial organizations, especially in the area of hard-to-find skills such as finance or AI. But these challenges can be overcome! I have seen nonprofit CEOs develop a collegial working atmosphere in their search for employees, resulting in new personnel who are not only dedicated to the mission but feel encouraged to exercise their own creative potential.

  • Face of the Organization

While board members can assist with promotion, CEOs are the leaders to whom stakeholders and employees look to promote the organization’s impacts. Alternatively, they must take the blame for failures. No longer should a nonprofit CEO be able to use the old excuse with a failed program, “The board forced me to take the action.” But to shepherd an entrepreneurial CEO, the board needs to be able to tolerate some failures as long as they were based on reasonable “business judgment.” No one does their job with unfettered perfection.

  • Growing the Organization

If a nonprofit decides to expand the scope of the organization, the skill sets needed in a CEO are quite different from those needed to maintain a status quo operation. Rarely can the executive who simply “minds the store” adjust to the complexities of the new environment and must be replaced or moved elsewhere. A nonprofit’s commitment to expansion is both exciting and terrifying. In any case, it demands a nonprofit CEO who, in partnership with a supportive board, can handle the requisite financial development and continual networking with stakeholders.

Posted in associations, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board Learning Opportunities, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Crisis Management, Dysfunctional nonprofits, Employee compensation nonprofits, foundation boards, Good governance, Ineffective directors, Liquidity, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, Nonprofit board barriers, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, Nonprofit mangement, Strategic planning, Trustees, voluneers on 

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

g

Corrected Version

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

By: Eugene H. Fram.     

Yes, if the organization has the following traditional structure:

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

Volunteer Board Chair with Presidential title

Executive Director/CEO with Responsibility for all operations

Senior Manager Division A

Senior Manager Division B

However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena and persons outside of it. 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.

In addition, it also can lead to long term board micromanagement, a culture that is difficult to change. I have seen a number of mature nonprofits (budgets, more than $1 million & some with 50+ employees) that are unnecessarily encumbered by board mandated complex processes. These some times are supported by weak executive directors who don’t want the substantial responsibility that comes with the president/CEO title. As one remarked to me, “I want to provide alternatives and let the board decide.” What he left out was the subtle inference, if the decision is a bad one “I can say that the board told me to do it.”

From clarity purpose for those in and out of the nonprofit arena, the following structure, based on my experiences, is best:

Board With A Volunteer Chairperson
Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations
Vice President Division A
Vice President Division B

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

By: Eugene H. Fram.     

Yes, if the organization has the following traditional structure:

Can A Nonprofit Organization Have An Operational President/CEO & An Executive Director?

Volunteer Board Chair with Presidential title

Executive Director/CEO with Responsibility for all operations

Senior Manager Division A

Senior Manager Division B

However this structure can be confusing to persons in the nonprofit arena and persons outside of it. 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.

In addition, it also can lead to long term board micromanagement, a culture that is difficult to change. I have seen a number of mature nonprofits (budgets, more than $1 million & some with 50+ employees) that are unnecessarily encumbered by board mandated complex processes. These some times are supported by weak executive directors who don’t want the substantial responsibility that comes with the president/CEO title. As one remarked to me, “I want to provide alternatives and let the board decide.” What he left out was the subtle inference, if the decision is a bad one “I can say that the board told me to do it.”

From clarity purpose for those in and out of the nonprofit arena, the following structure, based on my experiences, is best:

Board With A Volunteer Chairperson
Full-time President/CEO With Full Authority for Operations
Vice President Division A
Vice President Division B

Board Members: Try it and you will like it. Thousands of nonprofits have. A great deal of the success of the model develops on bases of organizational trust and the willingness of the senior manager to accept the significant level of managerial responsibility involved.   https://non-profit-management-dr-fram.com/2014/03/30/whats-in-a-name-benefits-of-the-presidentceo-titl associations, audit comitttees, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board meetings, Board micromanagement, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, CEO Evaluations, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, Dysfunctional nonprofits, foundation boards, Good governance, Long-term Sustainability, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit mangement, Strategic planning, team building, Trustees, Trustees, voluneers 

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.

Nonprofit Boards Hire and CEOs Must Act

g

NONPROFIT BOARDS HIRE AND CEOs MUST ACT!

By: Eugene Fram

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 directors seek perfection in a new ED or CEO– and find that they must “settle” for less. But there are certain defined attributes that are essential to his/her success in managing the organization.

With the 21st century pressures of increasingly slim budgets, fund development challenges and the difficulty of recruiting high quality employees the 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 tocultivate a deep concept of where the nonprofit is, should be and what the trajectory should looklike. He/she can do that by immersing himself in the mission field—reading widely and remainingin contact with regional and national leaders in the field. A state-of-the-art CEO should beavailable for consultation with colleagues with similar issues. Included in his span of vision arepotential disruptions that might affect the organization– and how to help the board focus on andimplement 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 theboard. Board members must be alert to outside funding opportunities and the CEO, alert tofunding 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 intothe 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 theirs surrogates, foundations, etc. One area in which many nonprofit CEOs need improvement in communications is with the business community. It goes beyond simply joining the Rotary or Chamber of Commerce 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

1. If a volunteer becomes a president/CEO, he/s may acquire some liabilities that other board directors don’t have. Some nonprofits have given the chief operating 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.

2.The volunteer president typically does not work in the organization daily and does not understand its nuances as well as the CEO.

3.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.

4. In ceremonial situations, it may be appropriate for the president to be a spokesperson.

5. 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 that are embedded in staff evaluations.


 

 

Two Nonprofits Merge: Synergy or Collision Course?

Two Nonprofits Merge: Synergy or Collision Course?

By: Eugene Fram    

Having led a merger committee that resulted in a successful merger with another nonprofit, I thought my field observations might be of interest to others contemplating a merger. These comments center on a merger of two equal partners, which plan to form a new organization, not the acquisition of one nonprofit by another.

Assuming both organizations have merger committees that meet frequently, over an extended time period, the following initial issues need to be reviewed:

• Are the mission, vision and values of both organizations the same or sufficiently similar?
• Are there any financial issues that might cloud the negotiations?
• Do the two merger committees work well together and view each other positively as potential colleagues?
• Are both groups willing to invest the board time and financial resources to bring about a melding of the two groups?
• Are there any factions in either of the two organizations that might be emotionally opposed to the merger?
• What, at this early stage, might be some barriers (“deal breakers”) to the merger?
• What needs to be done to move the merger process forward and to develop an implementation plan, if both boards agree to the merger?
• How will the impact of the merger be determined and at what intervals will it be measured?
• In the event that either or both organizations are dissatisfied with the merger, what specific detail need to be specified in a “prenuptial” breakup agreement?
• How will the CEO of the merged organization be determined? This will have to be decided amicably
• How can morale of both organizations be maintained during merger discussions? What incentives need to be developed to maintain those who will certainly need a new job, e.g. CFO?

The Devil Is In The Details – Are These “Deal Breakers?”
• Consider various stakeholders who might be impacted by the merger. (These can include: community leaders, managers, staff, funders, vendors media, etc.) How can consensus be achieved?
• Where will the new nonprofit be physically located? What are the real estates implications?
• The combination will probably require layoffs and new reporting arrangements. How will these be decided?
• How will the new board be constituted? Will a larger new board be necessary? If not, what is the plan for paring down the size of the new board.
• What legal counsel will be needed and at what costs? Will foundation support be needed to establish the merger?
• What systems or interpersonal relationships are necessary to avoid “surprises” before or after the merger?

Never Underestimate the Importance of Culture
The failure of the AOL-Time Warner merger has become a classic example of the failure of the two cultures to blend into a new culture. I have observed that blending two nonprofit organizations will certainly encounter cultural “bumps in the road,” starting about six months after the merger and can continue for several years. Although the mission, vision and values of both groups may be identical, culturally inspired blips can arise from differences in which previous boards operated, from expectations of the CEO, from staff differences, etc. However, they do take time, persistence and board leadership to resolve.

Any merger will have its own specific imprint. However, I hope that the guidelines cited above will be helpful in navigating the rough shoals that frequently appear after the honeymoon period.

Posted in associations, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, CEO Evaluations, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, foundation boards, Good governance, Meningful board activities, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, onboarding, Stakeholder Relations, Strategic planning, SuccessionPlanning, Trustees, Trustees, Uncategorized, voluneers on . Leave a commentEdit

Is Your Nonprofit’s Strategy Only Stating Ambitions Rather Than Solving Problems?

Is Your Nonprofit’s Strategy Only Stating Ambitions Rather Than Solving Problems?

By: Eugene  Fram               

McKinsey & Company in a recent article interviewing author and academic Richard Remelt discusses this strategy question for business organizations.*  Following is my estimation how the article’s information might be applied to the nuances encountered in nonprofit strategy development. 

Strategy Results

In evaluating strategies, nonprofit boards often only use the easier to measure results, for examples, membership size and financial ratios.

But progress for nonprofits often also must be measured in qualitative formats.  “Not being able to afford the time and money to develop excellent qualitative metrics (e.g., enhanced life quality, community commitment), to glean whatever they can from using imperfect metrics.” **

Richard Remelt suggests there is a big difference between strategies developed for actions versus ambitions.  My experiences with nonprofit strategy development suggest that many nonprofits focus on ambition rather than the problems to be solved by the next three-year plan.  He calls a strategy based on ambition “bad strategy.”   “Bad strategy is almost a literary form that uses PowerPoint slides to say, ‘Here is how we will look as a company in three years.’  That is interesting,  but it’s not a strategy.”

For nonprofits, his analysis also relates to the difference between program outcomes and program impacts. For example, A human services strategy can have good program outcomes but fail to have client impacts because basic causes aren’t/can’t be addressed. 

Board Member Motivation

The median nonprofit board member serves a term ranging from four to six years. In contrast, the average tenure for a public board member is 9.7 years.

Assuming this frequent turnover, the nonprofit director/trustee will only be involved with one strategic planning cycle. Even with a board member highly dedicated to the mission’s objectives, the brief tenure structure can dampen motivations to rigorously participate in strategic planning.  

I have seen this evolve frequently, especially when the board approves the performance of a “mind-the-store executive director,” as opposed to an “entrepreneurial” type.  Operationally, the former executive director can be described as one seeking stability over innovation.  She/h can produce modest income increases with balanced budgets, often supported by substantial legacy financial endowments.

Involving Staff in Strategic Planning and Other Insights 

  • Rumelt suggests limiting the number of persons involved in strategic board planning.  For larger nonprofits, this might only include senior and/or division management.  For smaller and midsized nonprofits, this might involve management and some professional staff. Organizationally, in these nonprofits, the two groups may be only one or two levels apart.
  • Ask simple questions like: “If our organization were to disappear, who would miss us?”  “If we were to establish a new agency, who among the staff, would we take with us?”
  • “Boards may not need strategy committees, but they just need a sense of best practice, just as ..(accountants).. have well-established best practice in accounting:”  I agree that nonprofit boards do not need a standing strategy committee.  The development and maintenance of the strategic plan is the joint responsibility of the CEO and Board Chair. Together they can use a simple maintenance device by relating most problem-solving efforts, generated in nonprofit board meetings to the 
     strategic plan.  

* https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/why-bad-strategy-is-a-social-contagion

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

Posted in:associations, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board meetings, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, Charity, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, Dysfunctional nonprofits, foundation boards, Good governance, imperfect metrics, Long-term Sustainability, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, Strategic planning, Trustees, Trustees, voluneers on 

Different Strokes For Nonprofit Board Folks

Different Strokes For Nonprofit Board Folks

By: Eugene Fram     

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 membberclassification system suggested by David Frankel, Partner of Founder Collection. *

The Eager Beaver  

This board member (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, 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 directors. (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 cohort should be valued and their contributions, and acknowledged.

The Vanilla Director 

This is a director 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 directors 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 board member 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 (doctors, professors, accountants, full-time homemakers 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.*

* https://hackernoon.com/eight-people-youll-meet-on-your-board-of-directors-8963863d4a03  

Posted in associations, Board agendas, Board Culture, Board meetings, Board micromanagement, Board Recuitment, Buidling personal relationships, Building Trust, Consistency, Corporate Governance, Donations, Dysfunctional nonprofits, foundation boards, Good governance, Long-term Sustainability, Meningful board activities, Non-profit board of directors, nonprofit executive director, Nonprofit governance, Nonprofit impacts, Strategic planning, Trustees, Uncategorized, voluneers on .