By Molly Penn<\/p>\n
Just last week, I heard complaints from two CEOs or Executive Directors who wish their board was somehow “better.”\u00a0 In one case, the board is overreaching and micromanaging.\u00a0 In the other, the board is too disengaged.\u00a0 These are common complaints that represent opposite ends of the spectrum, but share similar root causes.<\/p>\n
In most organizations, there is a new board Chair or President every 3-6 years.\u00a0 Within that time, there is also typically some turnover in which some board members leave and new ones join.\u00a0 Given a team that is constantly changing in both composition and leadership it is remarkable how little time we spend tending to building the right culture from the start.\u00a0 Especially when you factor in that boards are like Congress – we need their cooperation and alignment to get things done!\u00a0 Too often though, staff leaders throw up their hands when faced with a board that is behaving like our Congress is right now.\u00a0 Why is that?<\/p>\n
Nonprofits boards are complex and confusing bodies of people.\u00a0 There are really only 3 legal duties of a board: the duty of Obedience (fidelity to the mission), Care (proper stewardship of the resources) and Loyalty (to put the organization’s interests above their own when acting as a board member).\u00a0 Add to that one other crystal clear responsibility – that of hiring (and\/or firing) the staff leader, the CEO or Executive Director.\u00a0 Everything else we “expect” board members to do is just based in best practice – it’s not a rule, it’s an expectation.<\/p>\n
In the situations where a CEO or ED is experiencing dysfunction with the board, it is because no one has onboarded their board members and communicated what is expected of them.\u00a0 For example, because the part of the board’s job is hiring and managing the performance of the Executive Director, most board members think they (individually and collectively) are the boss of the Executive Director.\u00a0 That is not really the case.\u00a0 The board manages the ED’s performance, but the board doesn’t really know the job they are managing – in most cases board members are not nonprofit experts, yet we ask them to manage the performance of the key organizational leader.\u00a0 Expecting that they are, therefore, that person’s “boss” is a gross oversimplification of the power dynamics.\u00a0 In the best cases we’ve seen, the board and ED are thought partners.\u00a0 They each respect the other’s expertise and they collaborate in providing direction to the organization.\u00a0 But this is rare, and it requires the communication of that expectation from the outset.<\/p>\n
If your board is overreaching and micromanaging there could be a couple of reasons for this.\u00a0 The most common one is that individual members believe they have “authority.”\u00a0 The board is a body and it is meant to function as a body.\u00a0 No individual (unless they hold an officer role like Chair or President) has the authority to speak for the board.\u00a0 Nor do they have the authority to manage and direct the actions of staff.\u00a0 But if no one communicated that, it’s understandable that they would be confused.\u00a0 Individual members overstepping their authority can also be the sign of ineffective board leadership – we appoint people to the Chair or President role on the board (the Speaker role, using the Congress metaphor), but we don’t sit down with them to talk about the skills they need to serve in that role.\u00a0 So they just think they are the “leader” of the board, without that being clearly defined.\u00a0 Again, taking that extra time to proactively communicate the expectations of that role and build a strong partnership will go a long way to building an effective board Chair.<\/p>\n
This is a big one – and one we hear quite often.\u00a0 By and large, the least desirable aspect of being a board member is fund raising (in fact, we have a workshop on fund raising for boards called “Please Don’t Make Me Fundraise!”<\/em>). We dislike it so much that no one talks about it.\u00a0 We may talk about the “give or get” expectation, but we don’t get specific about what role they want to play in fundraising, and we don’t support them in building that skill.\u00a0 We just “expect” that they will fundraise.\u00a0 In fact, very few board members actually feel comfortable and able to fundraise (to ask people for money).\u00a0 But again, that is an oversimplification of this expected board role.\u00a0 There are many roles board members can play in fundraising, and the most important thing is to talk with them about what role they want to play.\u00a0 The beginning step of fundraising is relationship building – that’s an easy role for all board members to play, yet few do it because they’re afraid you’re going to ask them to ask for money!\u00a0 Again, having a conversation with each board member to find the best role they can play in the fundraising process is key to making your board feel effective, engaged and appreciated.<\/p>\n The pendulum can sometimes swing the other way, where the board shows up for meetings (sometimes), works on committees (sometimes), but remains relatively uninformed about the mission and kind of phones in their participation.\u00a0 Or, the level of participation is uneven, where some board members lean in, while others lean back, creating the overall impression of an disengaged board.\u00a0 This can show up for a couple of reasons.\u00a0 One, the ED could be recovering from a micromanaging board, so their tendency is to share as little as possible with the board.\u00a0 Another might be the way meetings are conducted (see below).\u00a0 Another (and the most common) is a board structure that is too focused on the oversight function (the committees tend to be governance, finance\/audit and fundraising).\u00a0 That’s not why people joined your board.\u00a0 They joined your board because they care about the mission, but for one reason or another, the mission is no where to be found in the board room!\u00a0 Board engagement is a participatory sport – we all have to lean into proactively curating opportunities to engage your board more deeply with the mission (the reason they joined).\u00a0 Ask them to volunteer to help run client-facing events.\u00a0 Tell client stories as part of each board meeting.\u00a0 Create a program or mission committee, that works closely with program staff.\u00a0 We need to be constantly feeding their engagement or we run the risk that their role becomes purely performative vs. substantive.\u00a0 Again, it comes down to individual communication and relationship building with your board members so you understand what they care about and you connect them to that aspect of your organization’s mission.<\/p>\n The moral of this story is it takes some intention and effort to build a strong board\/staff partnership.\u00a0 Here are some tips for how to do that:<\/p>\nMy Board is Disengaged!<\/h2>\n
Building A Strong Board\/Staff Partnership<\/h2>\n
\n