Nonprofit CEO-Board Relationships

Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.

Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.

By: Eugene Fram

Viewer favorite updated and revised. (/Strong)

Article and studies from a Google search on “Dysfunctions in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations,” yields 543.000 items in .46 of a second. These items show dysfunctions on charter school boards, church boards, healthcare boards, trade associations, etc.

Rick Moyers, a well-known nonprofit commentator and nonprofit researcher, concluded:

“A decade’s worth of research suggests that board performance is at best uneven and at worst highly dysfunctional. ….. The experiences of serving on a board — unless it is high functioning, superbly led, supported by a skilled staff and working in a true partnership with the executive – is quite the opposite of engaging.”

These data and comments can lead one to conclude that all nonprofit boards are dysfunctional. I suggest that nonprofit boards can generate a range of dysfunctional behavioral outcomes, but the staff can muddle through and continue to adequately serve clients. (more…)

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Pro-Active in Strategy Development

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Pro-Active in Strategy Development

By: Eugene Fram

Most Boards do not excel at strategy planning. In fact, when the subject is included on a meeting agenda, it usually produces a general lack of enthusiasm. A recent McKinsey study * cited weakness in for-profit boards dealing with the topic. And in my opinion, similar deficits are endemic to nonprofit boards whose response to strategic proposals is often simply– “ to review and approve.”

What causes these vital governing bodies to be passive when the future of the organization is obviously at stake? First, most nonprofit boards meet between 8 and 12 times a year, for what averages to about 1.5 hours monthly. With an agenda crammed with compliance issues and staff reports, there is little time left for board members to dive deeply into a discussion of future transformative efforts on behalf of the organization. When a new strategic plan is developed (that may only occur once every 3-5 years), its implementation is not as rigorous as it should be—even in high performing boards. (more…)

Want Better Nonprofit Board Cultures? Look for Four Behaviors–Part I

Want Better Nonprofit Board Cultures? Look for Four Board Behaviors–Part I

By Eugene Fram

Board cultures can be difficult to modify or change in for-profit and nonprofits. A new McKinsey study demonstrated the strength of the board culture in three different levels of board operations—ineffective, complacent and striving. * Differentiated achievement seems to be largely dependent on four behaviors. (See bold type.) Centered on my experiences, they can be applied to nonprofit boards. At the least, the behaviors can motivate considerations for board modifications. (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…)

Do Nonprofit Boards Neglect Oversight of Internal Leadership Development?

Do Nonprofit Boards Neglect Oversight of Internal Leadership Development?

By: Eugene Fram

Although the nonprofit CEO is charged with nurturing the development of his/h staff, the board is responsible for over-viewing the process. Research evidence shows both board and management are neglecting their duties in regard to this responsibility. Only 30% of nonprofit CEO positions are filled internally, a rate that is about half the rate of for-profit organizations. * The same research shows that, “Hiring the more (internal personnel) can improve performance at the two-year mark by 30%.” These data are even more troubling when roughly related to those of large corporations that concluded that 40% of those hired from outside the organizations are replaced within 18 months. **

Why Are Nonprofit Boards Not Paying Enough Attention?

• Board Turnover: The most common board structure is two consecutive 3-year terms. Board chairs most commonly serve two consecutive 1-year terms. This in itself can easily create a “short term” board culture. Board members and chairs know they have relatively short tenures and may want to take actions that show more immediate results. Leadership development can be the antithesis of such actions. It takes time and nurturing.

• The Board-CEO Relationship: Nonprofit boards, as conservators of the organizations assets, are often hesitant to remove an incumbent CEO, sometimes, even when the person has been involved with nefarious activities. Consequently, many nonprofit CEOs are what I call “mind-the-store” types. They have small growth percentages each year, have their financial processes in order, but fail to have competent subordinates who are capable of promotion. As a result, those board members who want to establish a culture for leadership growth have to wait for the incumbent CEO to leave or retire. Most board members, as volunteers, fear the interpersonal conflict and added time commitment that follows a board initiated CEO termination. As a result, all plans for change, such as leadership development, can’t thrive without the active support of the CEO.

• The CEO’s Comfort Zone: Few, if any nonprofit CEOs I have encountered take pride in reporting that some of their direct or indirect subordinates have left for substantial success elsewhere. Many currently who have risen in the organization from a line position have had to acquire newer management skills. Consequently, less qualified incumbent CEOs may view more able but less experienced subordinates as a career threat, and they have little interest in promoting leadership development.

Moving Leadership Development Into a Nonprofit Culture

A board member who serves for six years can have some opportunities to introduce leadership development into a nonprofit organization’s culture:

• When Interviewing A CEO Candidate: Ask about leadership development in prior jobs. Ask the candidate about his/h most outstanding direct report and the most problematic one. Look for answers relating to pride in developing subordinates and for engaging able younger managers
throughout the organization. Also ask references about these issues.

• A New Strategic Plan: Have the board agree with the CEO that leadership development is critical at all levels and establish some modest mutual objectives to begin the process of introducing a new strategic plan.

• When The Lack of a Process Affects the Nonprofit’s Impacts: Establish leadership development as a major CEO objective to be accomplished within a reasonable time frame. Seek a new CEO, if the person fails to perform.

Younger people often seek careers in nonprofit organizations because they want to contribute to the lives of others or to the social welfare of the greater community. After some years of direct service experience, some may discover they have leadership potential. Without a leadership development culture, nonprofits will lose these able persons to the for-profit sector, for better financial rewards, or find they will become staff persons who do their job adequately but look other outside activities, like political office, to satisfy their leadership ambitions.

* http://hbr.org/2015/12/nonprofits-cant-keep-ignoring-talent-development
** Ibid.

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…)

The Devil’s Advocate on a Nonprofit Board: Asset or Liability?

The Devil’s Advocate on a Nonprofit Board: Asset or Liability?

By: Eugene Fram

An unwritten rule for nonprofit board membership is that it is best to “go along to get along.” But sometimes a nonprofit director’s “no” vote to an action that has had inadequate discussion can allow him/h to avoid tax penalties that have been levied on other board members for lack of due care.

Stanford University research results indicate that groups with a lone minority dissenter outperform other groups where all members agree. In addition, these groups…”are more successful than (groups) in which all members disagree and fall prey to escalated emotional, difficult-to resolve (group) brawls “ * (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…)

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

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

People Problems Can Put Nonprofits at Risk

By: Eugene Fram

Like the Streisand song lyric, nonprofit people who need people must first have the know-how to choose and cultivate those people! If not, the risks to a board can range from modest to substantial. It all begins with making the right choices and vetting board and CEO candidates.   Most nonprofit board members know that they are only required to make one hiring decision—the engagement of the CEO. This is a process that always involves some risk factors. Take the case of the university that has expended substantial amounts to engage a CEO. After a brief “honeymoon period” it was determined that the candidate lacked the requisite background to move the organization forward. His resignation was forthcoming, and with it, a disruption that was costly not only in dollars but in board/faculty morale and public confidence. A nonprofit board is usually confronted with several people risks. Following are some that should be noted by board members. (more…)