Developing nonpofit management trust

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

An updated and revised viewer favorite post

At coffee recently 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 director who wasn’t attending meetings, but he refused to resign. His term had another year to go, and the board had a bylaws obligation to summarily remove him from the board. However, a majority of directors decided such action would hurt the director’s feelings. They were unwittingly accepting the “nice-guy” approach in place of taking professional action. (more…)

How Can Nonprofit Boards Overcome the Inertia of Certain Directors?

How Can Nonprofit Boards Overcome the Inertia of Certain Directors?

By: Eugene Fram

Making major changes in mission, board structure, management or other significant matters is difficult. The typical nonprofit board will be divided into several groups on the issue: 1) directors who want change, 2) directors opposed to change, some strongly opposed and 3) what I call “process directors,” persons uncomfortable with major decisions who always want more data or information before voting.

The first and third groups (directors who want change and process directors) will be very willing to appoint a committee to review the alternatives, but it’s up to the board chair to satisfy process directors who create obstacles.

Process directors like to sit back and examine issues, often, in my opinion, sincerely feeling that their questions allow them to be on the cusp of showing some insights that others have failed to notice. They always ask, “Have we consulted everybody?” Or say, “Let’s make sure we have considered everything.” Often they are directors who call for postponement of the vote, even after a lengthy discussion.

Process directors are well-intentioned, sincere individuals. However, the board has to be careful that these directors don’t allow the board to continually examine one angle after another until they lose sight of the board’s main job. They can keep action in limbo indefinitely! It is up to the board chair to makes certain that this does not happen. But board chairs want to develop an inclusive board where all who want to voice their views can be heard.

A certain level of board process is necessary to operate efficiently. But when it gets out of hand, it can have a serious negative effect. Boards often lose some of their best volunteers, who get frustrated and quietly resign. Their usual reason for resigning is “the pressure of job obligations.” To me, that’s a covert message that the board is getting mired in minutiae, usually initiated by process directors.

One friend recently resigned from a board, using the “job obligations” excuse. The real reason was that the executive director, a process oriented person, used board-meeting time inappropriately, including asking the full board to review detailed public relations Power Point presentations.

In another situation, I watched a board make a strategic decision involving the combining of two programs. Even after a thorough discussion of the decision, the board insisted on discussing the tactical decisions needed, all of which were the responsibility of management. The board was unable or unwilling to shed an imbedded process culture that the status quo nonprofit had used for over 50 years.

Falling in Love With the Mission & Other Sage Advice for a First Time Nonprofit Director

Falling in Love With the Mission & Other Sage Advice for a First Time Nonprofit Director

By: Eugene Fram

Sam Smith recently entered early retirement and wants to become a director on the board of a nonprofit organization. His motive is to give back to the community where he has prospered. As a first time board member, he can look to some advice from pros in the area, from a recently published article by Stanford’s Center Social Innovation (CSI).
http://stanford.io/1qefmx1

Following are my reactions to some of the article’s suggestions, hopefully adding important field information. The comments are based on having served on 12 nonprofit boards over several decades and my experiences as a consultant to at least a dozen additional nonprofit boards.

Fall in Love Wisely
This is good advice. It follows the nonprofit dictum that each director needs to be dedicated to the organization’s mission. In practice, however, some flexibility is required:
• the availability of choices at the time the search for the position takes place
• the board ‘s current composition – example, no board needs six attorneys
• the time and frequency of meetings
• requirements of “get or give” etc.
• the compatibility of he new director with the current CEO — a fast driving director may not be compatible with an ED, doing a status quo job but lacking in entrepreneurial instincts.

In my opinion, good nonprofit directors may only need to have a modicum of mission dedication, as long as long as he/s can be assured the organization is having positive impacts. For example, a director has joined a board for networking contacts does an outstanding fundraising job. Choosing a nonprofit board is akin to finding a spouse. Everybody looks for the perfect spouse, but in the meantime people get married!

Pick Your Preferred Developmental Stage
Like commercial organizations, the CSI article points out nonprofits range though three stages – early stage, growth stage and scaling stage. The early stage can be most frustrating for those who have worked in commercial organizations. Board members often are called upon to doing everything, from securing the facility at night to assuming operations responsibility. Management relies on the board for both direction and operational decisions.

More staff support for the board becomes available in the growth stage. Board oversight committees are organized to reflect operational aspects bush as — building, personnel, budget, program, etc. These can work well until they become redundant, as staff assumes more responsibility. Board meetings can become longer and filled with reports. Board turnover may increase rapidly. Unfortunately, during the growth stage a nonprofit culture can keep this system in place long after it is productive. When this occurs, the board needs to move to a corporate position.

Under a corporate position http://amzn.to/eu7nQl the board focuses on over-viewing management impacts, strategic planning and policy development. Tactical operational decisions become the responsibility of management and, hopefully, micromanagement is completely abandoned.

The CSI article calls for a third scaling stage: “Organizations that understand the difference between scaling solutions versus scaling the organization engage in collective impact strategies that require developing a strong network. The board relies on connections across sectors and disciplines.” Here the board, hopefully, takes leadership through generative “what if” questions to increase the scale of client-based solutions. Mergers and partnerships can take place that should provide better quality client services.

Design for Harmony & Efficiently

Like a business board, the new first time board member has to know that the nonprofit board only has one employment decision – engaging the chief operating officer. However, any sensitive nonprofit CEO should seek the formal or informal board reactions before changing or engaging the senior management team.

Board Engagement – Every nonprofit CEO and board chair wants their board members fully engaged. But few talk about the need to have them meaningfully engaged. Since nonprofit directors representing communities and foundations over such a wide spectrum of backgrounds, the CEO and Board Chair need to clearly assess what is meaningful to each director. To some being involved with the details of the annual dinner is meaningful. Hopefully to most others, strategic planning and overview management outcomes are paramount.

“Cultivating the right composition? (The answer) lies in in the venerable idea of the ‘the 3 Ws:’ work, wisdom & wealth… . [M]embers (should) bring one or two or even three of these assets to the organization. “

Engineer Financial Health

Like the business situation, what constitutes an organization’s overhead can be a debate among professional accountants. “Baring field variations, 15% of overhead is typical in the nonprofit world and reflects salary levels that are significantly lower than in the for-profits… . “

Most nonprofit directors serve limited terms amounting to anywhere from one to six years, with the vast majority in the four to six year ranges. Sometimes this brief tenure of board members precludes some boards from really focusing on the sustainability issue. While some operating expense, can be drawn from endowment (4-5% in recent years) there must be a prudent reserve to assure long-term increases and improvements in client services.

Fundraising should be a joint responsibility between the CEO and board members who are comfortable with the process. At the very least, each board member should feel responsible to provide leads and introductions to potential funding sources.

Board-Staff Relationships: For-Profits Take Cue From Nonprofit Model

Board-Staff Relationships: For-Profits Take Cue From Nonprofit Model

By Eugene Fram

The hierarchy-organized business is declining in importance. Senior business CEOs, as board members and senior managers, are now blogging or tweeting messages directly to staff. The two founders of Google have frequent company-wide forums that personally or electronically allow every employee to address direct questions to the founders.

While these changes are new in business environments, informal and formal relationships between nonprofit boards and staffs have been in place for decades. (more…)

What to Expect When The New Nonprofit CEO Is A Millennial!

What to Expect When The New Nonprofit CEO Is A Millennial!

By: Eugene Fram

The nonprofit’s CEO, a baby boomer or genXer, is about to retire or leave for another position. The board has engaged a new CEO a millennial person born after 1980. * His/h age is probably late 30s or possibly early 40s. What changes can the board expect from this new professional?

Following are my estimates based on some suggestions from psychologist, Dr. Jon Warner, http://bit.ly/1IFXK7u plus my 10 years experience collegiate teaching millennials. (more…)

The Nonprofit President/CEO – How Much Board & CEO Trust Is Involved?

The Nonprofit President/CEO – How Much Board & CEO Trust Is Involved?

By; Eugene Fram

The title, president/CEO for the operating head of a nonprofit, clearly signals to the public who has the final authority in all operating matters and can speak for the organization.* It is not an ambiguous set of titles. However, the terms “manager” or “executive director” can be quite ambiguous and do not generate the same external understanding or respect. An executive director can be the administrator in a small church or the operational head of a large arts organization. The public and some corporate directors often view managers and executive directors (because of the organizational history of nonprofit) as “hired hands,” not as professionals who are able to manage all operational activities. (more…)

Once Again! What Does Nonprofit Board Oversight Mean?

Once Again! What Does Nonprofit Board Oversight Mean?

By: Eugene Fram

I have a daily subscription to Google Alerts on “Nonprofit Management” and “Nonprofit Governance.” Every week, several nonprofit case stories surface, related to inadequate oversight by nonprofit boards of directors. Many of the cases result in huge losses to the nonprofits. Following is my personal list of what I consider to be reasonable board oversight responsibilities, to attempt to help nonprofit boards of directors to avoid such losses.
Financial Related Actions
• At least half the board should be able to analyze the monthly or quarterly financial statements. Have voluntary information sessions available for those who do not have the skills.
• The board chair needs to be alert to “teachable moments” during board meetings. When a complex financial or board related legal issue arises, the chair needs to make certain that all have a basic understanding of what is involved. Otherwise some directors will sit quietly and nod their heads in agreement!
• Make certain that an external audit is conducted at least every two years, and the board is involved in the selection of the external auditor from a list of two or three suggested by board members and/or management.
• Be certain the organization has either a comprehensive assessment committee, finance committee, and/or audit committee. (Some states require nonprofits to have an audit committee once the organization has specific annual revenues.)
• Be alert to the development process for filing critical reports –Examples: IRS 990s, employee tax withholdings and both state and federal tax reports. With the recent expansion of the 990 Form, the board and/or audit committee needs to be involved with the development of the form and responding to the 28 new questions related to nonprofit governance.
• Make certain the board has developed or is developing a current strategic plan and that it becomes a useful document.
• Be especially alert when financial reports are frequently late or one or more directors perceive financial personnel are inadequately skilled.

Other Governance Actions

• Be alert to the system used for developing new programs. Be wary when new programs are described such as “mind-boggling.” However, be certain that all reasonable opportunities are examined in a robust manner. Otherwise the organization may be a candidate for long-term disruption, like Eastman Kodak.
• Although engaging the CEO is the only hiring decision the board makes, it still has a responsibility to understand the strengths and weaknesses of promotable internal staff. This will require some board interactions with these staff persons
• Make certain that the organization has a knowledgeable CFO. No board member should have to worry about the safety of the organization’s financial assets.
• Directors need to be ready to raise questions, even if they fear the questions may appear to be inadequate ones.
• Nonprofit operational transparency is critical in the 21st century. Malfeasance, in any format, must not be covered–up for the “sake of the organization’s reputation.”

“Trust But Overview &Verify.”

Nonprofit Policy Development & Operations Management – Crossing Boundaries?

Nonprofit Policy Development & Operations Management – Crossing Boundaries?

By: Eugene Fram

“Nose in- fingers out,” is the commonly used guide for nonprofit directors’ relationships to operations. Translated into terms of governance-management relations, it means that boards have an obligation to overview management impacts and outcomes, but they need to avoid micromanaging the operations of the nonprofit. This is a particular danger with nonprofits because micromanagement often seems to be in the DNAs of nonprofit boards.

On the operations side, strong experienced nonprofit CEOs can tend to be overly impatient and can easily make strategic or policy decisions that are the responsibilities of the board. In fact, I have seen a few CEOs step over the boundary and develop and execute board style policies. (more…)

When Should Nonprofits Consider Making A Transformative Change?

When Should Nonprofits Consider Making A Transformative Change?

There is no “quick fix” to some nonprofit problems. A new hire, a board retreat, another task force—all good nonprofit “fixers”—are simply not equal to major challenges that call for transformative change. The evidence of more than one of the following signals suggest the necessity for different and possibly radical action:

• Lack of progress stemming from director micromanagement
• Mission creep or irrelevance of original mission
• Poor morale on board, staff and/or management
• Inadequate outcomes
• Struggle to compete with other similar organizations
• Divisive internal conflict
• Continuing financial and/or client deficits

Over the years I have seen nonprofits bravely taking on transformative change to keep their organizations alive and healthy. In every case, the process has been slow, frustrating and yes, messy! But the rewards have been significant. Here are a few “real world” examples that come to mind: (more…)

Strong Culture & Leadership Critical for Nonprofit Board Strategic Success

Strong Culture & Leadership Critical for Nonprofit Board Strategic Success

By Eugene Fram

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) is conducting a series of sessions focusing on board “challenges and opportunities expected in the next five to seven years.”
http://bit.ly/1wuW8Wt

Following is how I perceive one of the session’s results (in bold) could apply to helping nonprofit boards focus on culture, leadership and achieve strategic success: (more…)