Uncategorized

Policy vs. Paper Clips

How Does Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Impact A Nonprofit Board?

 

 

How Does Cultural Intelligence (CQ)* Impact A Nonprofit Board?

By: Eugene Fram                   Free Digital Photo

There are many ways to assess the balance of capabilities on a nonprofit board. EDs and board chairs are generally familiar with the implications of terms like IQ (cognitive ability) and EQ (emotional intelligence). New research has added a third characteristic— cultural intelligence or CQ.  Obviously, CQ comes into focus when boards are dealing with global or international issues. But its usefulness is still germane to community-based and/or domestically focused professional/trade associations. Making a change in board strategy is at best a challenging process. But when that plan collides with cultural differences, board culture will trump change. To paraphrase Peter Drucker’s pronouncement—“Culture Eats Strategy for Lunch.”  Following are a few of the many types of nonprofit CQ divisions that I have observed:

 Baby Boomers vs. Millennials: Up to this point in their history, NFP boards have tended to be organizationally conservative, but this may be changing rapidly. One of the most prominent developments is the influence of the millennials, those born rough between 1980 and the turn of the new century. The new cohorts tend to have cultural values that are quite different from those  of their parent or grandparents.Millennial work patterns, for example, are more informal, often spanning long hours and ignoring 9 to 5 routines. All of this can create a cultural gap between themselves and their boomer board colleagues and between baby boom management and millennial staffs. As they move into senior management positions,will they collide with those who have adhered to traditional conservative nonprofit cultures?    Currently their social values align with those of many human service nonprofits. But in the future, will cultural values they encounter frustrate them to the point of turning their energies toward other career opportunities? One current report concludes, “Despite what you may have heard, millennials aren’t lazy.  In fact they’re downright work-obsessed–and it’s making life worse for everybody.” 

 Entrepreneurs vs. Public Service Backgrounds: Persons with public service backgrounds tend to move slowly in bringing about change. For example, the challenge of developing consensus among city council members can be daunting.  In contrast, an entrepreneur must be able to pivot his/h organization quickly from plan A to plan B.  Consequently, “processing” takes precedence over “pivoting” when  an NFP organizational change is proposed. These two board types brings different tempos to board discussions.  If the gap is left unresolved, the entrepreneur may leave and a valuable voice is lost. Unfortunately, in my experience, I have met too many entrepreneurs who simply refuse to accept nonprofit board positions because of this discrepancy.

 Management Backgrounds vs. Independent Contributors: Persons with management background are directors who have had leadership responsibilities with small or large groups of subordinates. Independent contributors are those who basically work alone or may only have responsibilities for just a few subordinates—e.g., attorneys, professors, planners or physicians.  Board members in the latter group can assume they have  management knowledge superior to the executive director’s or other senior personnel. Often their insights are outside a manager’s experience “space.”  This creates a cultural gap that can be harmful to nonprofit’s operations.   Example: A medical association board refused to set performance standards. for its executive director and staff. One staff member commented, “Board members don’t want to build trust and establish mutually accepted goals, these guys just want to give orders.”  The cultural gap was substantial because management and staff did not know the standards and behaviors by which they will be judged annually. Another staff colleague angrily commented, “I’m not going to allow a twenty-something medical intern order me what to do!”

How to bridge the gap

 Board chairs and EDs should develop a realistic inventory of the types of CQs on their board to be certain that one style is does not dominate.

 With the continual turnover of board membership and with annually changing board chairs, the ED needs to assume long-term responsibility for the inventory.

 It probably is not possible to develop a perfect balance of cultural norms.   As a result, the chair and ED must make sure that those who have “minority CQs,” such as the entrepreneur described above, feel that their participation is meaningful and appreciated.

 Never underestimate the impact of culture and its various CQ components.   The dominant legacy, especially with successful nonprofits, must be widely accepted. But it also should be reviewed occasionally to make certain that the board is not simply accepting it at face value. The Impacts must be robust performance for all clients, along with innovative and operational effectiveness. Assessing board member’s CQ categories can be a challenge for many chairs and EDs. These categories often do not fit into discrete groupings like age and educational levels. But practice with them over time should be helpful. They allow chairs and EDs to better retain those productive outliers whose CQs may not fit the traditional legacy culture.

* https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/cultural-intelligence#:~:text=Cultural%2

 

 

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

Guidelines For Developing Authentic Nonprofit Board Leaders

By Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

 As an antidote to the leadership succession problems that have plagued business and nonprofits in the last several decades, the Authentic Leadership model proposed by William George, Harvard professor, may be of interest. Following are my views on how his guidelines can be useful to directors and managers in the nonprofit environment. (http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/authentic-leadership-rediscovered)

Authentic leadership is built on your character, not your style: According to George, these leaders must have flexible styles to be able to fill different role at different times—coach, mentor and inspiring others who must work with a minimum of management guidance. Example: He/s has to “stay on message” in any discussions of mission, vision and values. This is especially important when the economic environment is turbulent.

Because nonprofit boards must draw their candidates from a broad base of backgrounds, any board, in my opinion, can only hope to have three or four board members who can be authentic leaders and eventually fill the board chair position. Often professionals, such as physicians, professors and lawyers, as independent contributors, can lack leadership and strategic insights. Consequently, the CEO must contribute these insights when such a knowledge gap exists on the board in relation to strategy. Several nonprofit boards I have recently encountered, mainly composed of mid-level managers and independent professionals have lacked a single board member with any strategic background. Results: The strategic plan consisted of a broad-brush “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT) analysis. Hardly a valuable planning document for the 21st century.

In terms of management selection, boards need to seek those who can make the hard decisions such as CEO termination and/or having to implement a board decision that is vigorously opposed by a small minority. But the leader must still remain an authentic person, even under these difficult circumstances. Example: One CEO I encountered had the amazing ability of being able to fire a subordinate but still maintain good interpersonal relations with the person—an amazing interpersonal managerial talent, indicating an authentic leader.

Authentic leaders are real and genuine. A nonprofit board member can be a distant personality to the management and staff. Only a crisis may determine the level of authenticity of his or her leadership style. But board members in working with management and staff on projects and in social contacts need to show that they are flexible and fair persons in their decision processes. Nonprofits are somewhat different from for-profits because the staff can be only two organizational levels below the board. Consequently staff members monitor board changes closely because they know a new strong personality can impact their futures and working conditions. Example: Two professors persuaded their board colleagues to adopt an overly detailed Management by Objectives program. It stressed the staff to spend a huge amount of time reviewing and assessing objectives, instead of client center work.

One way to view these characteristics is in the evaluation process of the CEO and organization. The process must be unscrupulously rigorous but fair to all concerned. (Example: see http://bit.ly/OvF4ri) Otherwise the management and staff will view the board as a distant body, only dedicated to financial results. Organizational morale will be impacted.

Authentic leaders are constantly growing. In terms of their board membership, they are seeking to learning about the organization’s environment, concerns and opportunities. They are curious people always seeking insights into the personal, professional, cultural and civic worlds in which they live. Harvard’s George defines their behaviors in this way, “ They do not have a rigid view of themselves and their leadership. Becoming authentic is a developmental state that enables leaders to progress through multiple roles, as they learn and grow from their experiences.”

Authentic leaders match their behavior to their context. Often they may have modest Intelligence Levels (IQ) levels but they have very high Emotional Intelligence (EQ), providing them with outstanding people skills. They can quickly recognize interpersonal challenges around them, and they provide moderating solutions. Many are described as not being quick to anger. Most importantly in the nonprofit board situation, they can empathize with board, management and staff problems, even though their full-time occupations are outside the organization’s mission arena.

Authentic leaders are not perfect, nor do they try to be. Nobody does his/h job perfectly, and authentic nonprofit board leaders are quick to accept this reality for themselves and others around them, for example the CEO.  They know from experience that leaders can learn from their mistakes and become better leaders.

Summary
Authentic leaders are frequently chosen today for the key roles in business and nonprofits, according to William George. In an era when nonprofits are being challenged by budget cuts and a surplus of unfulfilled client needs, it behooves board nominations and CEO search committees to review the above list of behaviors. Those who are fortunate to engage these leaders, in turn, should improve board and staff performance –“A” players hire “A” players.

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

By Eugene Fram              Free Digital Image

According to BoardSource, “ ‘Founderitis’ and ‘founder’s syndrome’ are terms often used to describe a founder’s resistance to change. When founderitis surfaces, the source of the dilemma often is a founder’s misunderstanding of his or her role in an evolving organization.” * I would like to suggest that a nonprofit CEO also might suffer from the “founderitis illness,” sometimes with the board only being mildly or completely unaware of it.

Board Member Tenure versus CEO

The average board member tenure is six years (e.g., two three year terms) as compared with the average almost 13-year CEO tenure. ** The CEO has twice as longer period to influence polices and strategies. More importantly, she/h has more opportunity and time to acquire background knowledge and influence the organization’s culture.

“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors

  • The board is a dependent one, cancels or reschedules major committee/board meeting when the CEO can’t attend.
  • The CEO is overly verbose in presenting background information at meetings.
  • Concurrently, the number of board member comments is limited at most meetings.
  • The CEO places limits on the types of contacts the staff can have with board members, in the name of avoiding staff “end runs. “
  • The CEO carefully covets outside relationships and donor relationships. Board members are only marginally involved in fund development.
  • The Executive Committee does not challenge the CEO when setting the agenda.
  • The nonprofit board is satisfied with marginal gains each year, without seeking broader challenges to provide enhanced client services.
  • The CEO’s performance isn’t rigorously assessed.
  • The board rarely, if ever, overviews CEO and staff talent successions.
  • Board actions and activities are not rigorously reviewed or discussed.
  • Led by the CEO, Board resistance to change is substantial.

What should the board do if the CEO takes charge like a founder?

Three Options:

Does Nothing: This assumes the CEO is performing reasonably well in developing positive program impacts, not outcomes. (i.e, Program objectives can be achieved, but they can have little impacts on clients.)

The CEO and Board are satisfied with program outcomes as performance measures. As a result, the organization inadvertently may not be innovative. In addition, long-term organizational sustainability may be compromised. There may be long-term challenges on the horizon that go beyond the typical three to five year planning cycles.

A majority of board members may feel comfortable with this option because the CEO acts strongly, even though he/s occasionally may encroach on a board’s perogrative.

Makes Changes: This will probably require the CEO & Board to change, modifying some of the behaviors listed above. The CEO then forms a partnership with a changing independent board.

Some board members will be satisfied the status quo, little is required of them. But others may want to remove a CEO who leads like a founder. Internal conflict will likely arise on both sides to delay or abort change.

A Solution? Don’t rock the boat. Only when the CEO, especially one with long tenure, suffering from “founderitis” makes a graceful exit will there be opportunity for change. Hopefully, the new CEO will develop a partnership culture with the board.

* https://boardsource.org/resources/founders-syndrome/

** See: “Average tenure of nonprofit CEO Nonprofit Times”

Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?
Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?

By: Eugene Fram        Free Digital Image

Recruiting and retaining able people for nonprofit careers has always been a challenge.  Salary levels have not been comparable to business organizations and some government posts. Many small and medium sized nonprofits have frontline personnel organizationally located only two levels below the Board of Directors.  Consequently, career paths can appear stymied.

The employment situation has changed for two population cohorts.  They are: some millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and those in the Generation Z cohort (born between 1997 and 2012).

(more…)

Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: A Complex Problem?

Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: A Complex Problem?

By: Eugene Fram    Free Digital Image

At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.

In specific, the board failed to take any action to remove a board member who wasn’t attending meetings, but he refused to resign. His three-year term had another 18 months to go, and the board had a bylaws obligation to summarily remove him from the board. However, a majority of board members decided such action would hurt the board member’s feelings. They were unwittingly accepting the “nice-guy” approach in place of taking professional action. (more…)

Once Again! Should a Nonprofit CEO Be a Voting Member of the Board of Directors

   By:  Eugene Fram         Free Digital image

BoardSource, a professional governance organization, reports that this question is one of the most asked. Google reports about eight million citations, in a brief .52 second search, related to the issue or related issues. The question continues to be debated, and the need for comment and opinion seems insatiable. (more…)

Is Your Nonprofit Forward-Focused or a Prisoner of the Past?

By: Eugene Fram            Free Digital Image

Governance arguably suffers most … when boards spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror and not enough scanning the road ahead. *

It has been my experience that nonprofits rarely address the possibilities and perils of “…the road ahead.” An endless stream of current and pressing issues can cause both Board and CEO to take a myopic view of their nonprofit responsibilities — either totally ignoring strategic issues or procrastinating a discussion of the subject. The results can be damaging to the organization. Here are some “prompts” that might guide nonprofit board members and CEOs as they attempt to provide leadership in this important but neglected area:

Balanced Agendas — Include and highlight strategic issues on every board meeting agenda (not just when a committee report is presented) until they are resolved with action plans, policy development or thoroughly discussed and removed. This constant emphasis on planning can go a long way towards achieving concrete actions on topics of future concern. A discussion of immediate issues juxtaposed with ongoing strategic concerns will provide a balanced meeting format that may possibly discourage board member’s attempts to micromanage, a very common tendency in nonprofit boards!

Short Term Focus — In a BoardSource report,  “…only 33 percent of nonprofits report that their board members are actively involved in advocating for their missions, and many organizations aren’t advocating at all.”** To inspire and challenge board leaders to actively serve as ambassadors.  The explanation for weak performance in this area is often attributed to the fact that the directors’ terms of service on the board are usually three to six years during which time people’s interest in the long-term future of the organization may be compromised. Some boards may be disproportionately represented by “millennials” whose participation comes with heavy time constraints. Problems of this type can be mitigated by seeking board members who are partially or fully retired. They are likely to be better equipped to focus on the important governance functions and the fundamentals in which the nonprofit operates. Boards need to look to look further out than anyone else in the organization… There are times when CEOs (those operationally concerned with strategy) are the last ones to see (environmental) changes coming.

Board Recruiting — Nonprofit recruiting can be a hit-or-miss process, often producing candidates who are readily available and familiar to the current board. Rarely will the committee seek out people who have strong track records as strategists and/or competent visionaries. This is a real challenge, but a forward focused board should make every effort to identify potential directors who have these types of experience and skills. The topic of recruitment is a challenging one and the process should have continual annual evaluation.

Can Nonprofit Boards Work Smarter Not Harder?
As noted earlier, nonprofit board people are often limited in the amount of time they can devote to board participation. Given these constraints, the board chair and CEO can choose from a range of options that will help orient directors to better understand the external landscape in which the organization operates. These initiatives can include visits to comparable facilities, opportunities to attend field related conferences or inviting experts in the same or similar organizations to interact with board members. The purpose is to infuse each member of the board with an informed view of the organization’s long-term future and prepare them to take the appropriate action. The CEO and board chair must address this question with a viable plan: What actually helps… (to develop) a board environment that encourages participation and allows board members to derive meaning, inspiration and satisfaction from their (board) work?

Talent: The Key to Nonprofit Success — A nonprofit board has one hiring decision to make: the engagement of the CEO. But it also has a significant responsibility to overview long-term talent development in the staff and management. The board of a family service agency needs to assure that its counselors are up to date on current modalities of counseling. A recreational organization must be operating in the context of accepted fitness practices. Annual talent reviews need to be scheduled with CEOs and the appropriate staff. In addition, individual board members, with the concurrence of the CEO, may want to have occasional professional contact with key people below the senior management.

Make strategy part of the board’s DNA — (Many nonprofit) … CEOs present their strategic vision once a year, the directors discuss and tweak it at a single board meeting (or a short retreat), and the plan is then adopted. The board’s input is minimal and there’s not enough in-depth information to underpin proper consideration of the alternatives.

An educated nonprofit board will have the depth of understanding to be alert to the future needs and problems of its organization. Typically there is usually an unanticipated “fork” in the road ahead. Status quo, “minding the store,” participation by rote are all too easy mindsets that will only hobble the progress of an organization. Board chairs and CEOs are key actors in turning an existing board environment into one that is focused on moving forward.

*Christian Casa and Christian Caspar (2014) “Building a forward-looking board,” McKinsey Quarterly, February. Note: Quotations from this article are presented in italics.

**https://boardsource.org/research-critical-issues/

 

Raising the Bar for Nonprofit Board Engagement

 

Raising the Bar for Nonprofit Board Engagement

By Eugene Fram                            Free Digital Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Your Nonprofit Strategically Deprived?

 

By: Eugene Fram   

A vital concern to the future of any nonprofit organization is frequently neglected. Responsibility for the lack of strategic planning must reside with the chief executive, board members and the tactical challenges that inevitably flow to the board.

Before a nonprofit board can begin successful strategic planning, it must:
• fully understand the difference between strategic and tactical planning.*
• have a fully engaged chief executive involved with the board in the leadership of the strategic planning process.
• have a proportion of board directors with some specific types of strategic oriented experiences.

For example, one faith based organization recreational facility I know built a modern new building. However, the leadership was unaware of the quietly growing demand for preschool education in the area. As soon as the new building was opened, several parts of the structure had to be remodeled to accommodate a growing preschool population.

While I admit that planning for coming societal and behavioral, changes is difficult, like the one in the example, I suggest that any nonprofit board needs to take “inventory” of the following backgrounds of the current chief executive and board members.

How strategically capable is the organization’s chief executive? Does he or she stay at the leading edge of the field? Has the board recruited the chief executive for a strategic acumen or for just keeping the organization on a stable course?

How successful has an organization been in recruiting some of the following types of board members?
1. Those with enough time to become thoroughly acquainted with field related to the mission, visions of the organization’s operations. After all, many nonprofit directors serve on boards whose fields of focus are quite different from those in which they have working experience.
2. Those who can distinguish between a strategic plan and a tactical plan?
3. Those capable of critical thinking, questioning past assumptions as they relate to the future assumptions.
4. Those who have had successful strategic planning experiences at a high (not tactical) levels on other FP or NFP boards.
5. Those who have innate visionary abilities to assess future opportunities or roadblocks.
6. Those who have failed with past unsuccessful strategic plans but learned from their mistakes.
7. Those who can realistically project the financial challenges a strategic plan will develop.
8. Those with significant prior NFP or FP experience who can be models for younger directors with time restrictions who contribute via time limited task force assignments. But they need much more seasoning with understanding governance functions because they often rubber stamp board chair or CEO suggestions.

Addressing these recruitment issues in a forthright manner should enable nonprofit organizations to determine if they are strategically deprived. This move also might improve nonprofits’ records for strategic planning.

*  “strategy is the action plan that takes you where you want to go, the tactics are the individual steps and actions that will get you there”.

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

 

By: Eugene Fram   Free Digital Image

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

By: Eugene Fram      Free Digital Image

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it-be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver those services is often not so clear.

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this can be difficult for nonprofits to achieve. (more…)