Non profit outcomes

CEOs Need To Develop Partnering Relationships With Board Members

 

 

CEOs Need To Develop Partnering Relationships With Board Members

By Eugene Fram               Free Digital Image

When a CEO publicly introduces a board member as “my boss,” (as I have overheard more than once) there is a problem. It’s true that both parties—CEO and board member—have specific roles in the success of a nonprofit organization. But the hierarchy of authority should be deemphasized when it comes to interpersonal connections. The most effective mindset for CEO and directors is to view each other as partners in working to achieve the organization’s mission and their impacts.

The CEO’s efforts to cultivate such relationships are key. The following are some initiatives that he/she can utilize: * (more…)

Nonprofit Chief Executives Should Have Title: President/CEO, Updated and Expanded

Nonprofit Chief Executives Should Have Title: President/CEO, Updated and Expanded
This post, over several years, has developed a record of continued viewing interest. Rarely a day passes in which the data doesn’t include one or two views, or occasionally a day in which the viewer’s data rise to five. For example, when previously updated in 2014 there were 274 post views, during 2015 there were 57 views and in the first three months of 2016 there were 27 views, indicting that the number may pass that of 2015. Perhaps the controversial nature of topic causes the longevity of interest

When nonprofit organizations reach a budget level of over $1 million and have about 10 staff members it is time to offer the chief operating officer the title of PRESIDENT/CEO. In addition, the title of the senior board volunteer should become CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD, and the title of EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR needs to be eliminated. Experience has shown that with a reasonably talented PRESIDENT/CEO at the helm, he/she can provide the following benefits: (more…)

Trustee Responds to Charge of Being Willfully Blind or Incompetent!

Trustee Responds to Charge of Being Willfully Blind or Incompetent!

By Eugene Fram

The organization in which Andrew Purkis served as a trustee had been dissolved. Purkis and his colleagues were cited as “…willfully blind or incompetent.” * Such strongly negative pronouncements inspired him to write an essay in which he listed four reasons why his British group had been unsuccessful in exercising their oversight responsibilities.

A review of his rationale provides some fodder for American nonprofit directors/trustees to consider the reasons that led to his organization’s downfall– and more importantly, to assess their own board strengths and vulnerabilities. The following, in my opinion, are areas that have relevance to the Purkis exposition.
 (more…)

Beyond the Bylaws: A Clarification of Nonprofit Board Responsibilities–Revised and Updated

Beyond the Bylaws: A Clarification of Nonprofit Board Responsibilities–Revised and Updated

By: Eugene Fram

A nonprofit director’s duties may be much more difficult than those of a for-profit board member. Both types of directors have the same basic duties: fiduciary responsibilities; establishing, with staff input, mission vision and values; setting policies/strategies; over-viewing outcomes/impacts and conducting annual meetings.

I suggest nonprofit directors may not be fully addressing some duties specified in the bylaws and some which are culturally driven. This latter group might be called “latent duties.” (more…)

Radio Program Tomorrow–March 11th.

You may find this radio program in which I am interviewed of interest.

http://tonymartignetti.com/2016/03/nonprofit-radio-march-11-2016-policy-vs-paper-clips/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Can Groupthink Hamstring Change on a Nonprofit Board?

Can Groupthink Hamstring Change on a Nonprofit Board?

By: Eugene Fram

Dictionaries typically define groupthink as “…the lack of individual creativity, or a sense of personal responsibility that is sometimes characteristic of group interaction.” In my opinion, the process is as lethal to the nonprofit board as smoking can be for humans. It ties boards to past experience and discourages experimentation. Since many nonprofit charters require boards to “conserve assets” and board members are characteristically volunteers, the nonprofit culture inevitably defers to groupthink–it’s in their DNA! “One goes along to get along.”
(more…)

What Role Should Directors Play in Overviewing Nonprofit Management/Staff Talent?

What Role Should Directors Play in Over-viewing Nonprofit Management/Staff Talent?

Nonprofit boards rarely develop an in-depth strategy for assessing its organization’s human capitol. Some will keep informal tabs on the CEO’s direct reports to prepare for the possibility of his/her sudden departure or is incapacitated. Others –smaller organizations with fewer than 20 employees—need only a basic plan for such an occurrence.

Need for Strategy: In my view, maintaining a viable talent strategy to assess staff and management personnel is a board responsibility, albeit one that is often ignored. The latter stems from the constant turnover of nonprofit directors whose median term of service is 4 years—hardly a lifetime commitment. Like for-profit directors whose focus is on quarterly earning results, their nonprofit counterparts are more interested in resolving current problems than in building sufficient bench strength for the organization’s long-term sustainability. (more…)

Can Nonprofit Boards Learn from the Recent Carnegie Hall Disruption?

Can Nonprofit Boards Learn from the Recent Carnegie Hall Disruption?

By: Eugene Fram

The costly upheaval between Carnegie Hall board and staff appears to be slowly moving toward resolution. * But, for decades, other types of large nonprofit organizations have imperfectly resolved the issues that have arisen at Carnegie Hall without similar spectacles. Examples: university boards know they have to fully rely on faculty to develop up-to-date curricula. Hospital boards know they have to retain skilled physicians or face the potential of due care failure liabilities.

I suggest that nonprofit directors need to consider three actions to help eliminate the type of spectacle recently evidenced by the Carnegie Hall organization. (more…)

Board Members: Does Your Nonprofit Know How To Engage Business Donors?

Board Members: Does Your Nonprofit Know How To Engage Business Donors?

By: Eugene Fram

Fund development should be a partnership between board members and CEOs/Development Officers, if the latter is available. However, I have noted that board members don’t take sufficient responsibility to make certain that CEOs and Development directors are well prepared when they approach potential business donors. This, in my view, is the first step in building a relationship fundraising approach.

Many involved with NFP fundraising or management have spent their entire careers in the nonprofit environment, resulting in a gap in communicating with those in the business environment. Some may even privately believe that those in business contribute less significantly to society. While little can be done about the latter, here is what I think can be done to fill or reduce the unfortunate gap in cultures often found between for-profits and nonprofits, especially when it relates to fund development. (more…)

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

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

By Eugene Fram

Nonprofit boards and CEOs in the United States are being overwhelmed with requests from foundations and governmental agencies to move from providing outcome data to providing impact data. One nonprofit with which I am well acquainted has been required to reform its IT program to meet the requirements of a local governmental IT program, so that impacts can be assessed. It will be interesting to see how this scenario plays out.

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 nonstarter 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.

* http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_promise_and_peril_of_an_outcomes_mindset
** https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/07/24/using-imperfect-metrics-well-tracking-progress-and-driving-change/
*** http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_promise_of_lean_experimentation