By Molly Penn and Michael Davidson<\/p>\n
In his characteristically provocative July 6, 2020 blog post, \u201cThe default nonprofit board model is archaic and toxic; let\u2019s try some new models<\/a>,\u201d Vu Le identifies and seeks to disrupt pervasive \u201cnorms\u201d in the dynamics of nonprofit boards that should indeed be questioned.<\/p>\n \u00a0For me, Vu Le\u2019s post touched a nerve.\u00a0 Much of our work involves nonprofit boards.\u00a0 While we have seen some great boards, we have also seen how much of the Executive Director\u2019s time is claimed by \u201cmanaging\u201d their boards \u2013controlling hard to control personalities, keeping them from micromanaging, responding to their agendas, educating them about nonprofits, educating them about the programs, etc.\u00a0 At the very least, there should be a universal mandate that all new board members be trained in what it means to serve on the board of a nonprofit.\u00a0 Which brings us to the crux of the issue \u2013 what does it mean?<\/p>\n \u00a0Michael Davidson (the Board Coach) works primarily with boards and writes extensively about them, so I reached out to Michael to collaborate on this response (do not necessarily read \u201crebuttal\u201d) to Vu\u2019s post.\u00a0 There are places where he and I agree with Vu Le and places we do not \u2013 read on to continue the provocative dialogue about what nonprofit boards should be!<\/p>\n \u00a0Nonprofit organizations are given corporate status and tax exemption because they serve a public good.\u00a0 The origin of boards was to ensure that the assets of these \u201ccharitable trusts\u201d (as they were originally called) were used to serve the vision for which the organization was created.\u00a0 In other words, to ensure that while the mission may change slightly over time, the fidelity to the originating vision remained intact.<\/p>\n \u00a0Legally, boards were given three basic duties: the Duty of Care<\/strong> (care about the organization \u2013 pay attention, participate and be actively involved in advancing the mission, including ensuring the fiduciary health and conformity to financial best practices.); the Duty of Loyalty<\/strong> (the interests of the organization come before personal interests); and the Duty of <\/strong>Obedience<\/strong> (ensure the organization obeys the law and stays true to its original purpose).<\/p>\n \u00a0Those three duties are all the legal<\/em> guidance we have for how boards should operate.\u00a0 All the other \u201cnorms\u201d of board responsibilities are things that are assumed, but not prescribed, as Vu Le so refreshingly points out.<\/p>\n \u00a0Some of the harmful norms are worth calling out here.\u00a0 For example, the notion that the board is the Executive Director\u2019s \u201cboss\u201d too often gets interpreted as each board member is the boss of the ED.\u00a0 When any one of them asks for something, the ED should provide it.\u00a0 In fact, the board as a body (meaning collectively, not individually) is the ED\u2019s supervisor, which is much more complicated.\u00a0\u00a0 The whole board has the power to hire and fire an ED and should be engaged in managing their performance.\u00a0 This management is accomplished through the annual review of the ED which includes setting objectives.<\/p>\n \u00a0However, if we lose sight of the mandate that the relationship between the ED and the board needs to be a partnership, we create a toxic dynamic where the ED is trying to meet the demands of a group of individuals that distracts them from doing their best job leading and managing the organization.\u00a0 For BIPOC leaders, there is the added exhaustion of the ingrained white supremacy inherent in this structure and trying to raise the board\u2019s awareness of the issues facing the constituents (and staff) without making board members \u201cuncomfortable\u201d by using terms like racism and white supremacy.<\/p>\n \u00a0The other harmful norm that needs some major unpacking is that the fiduciary responsibility to ensure the organization\u2019s health has become, over time, an expectation that board members contribute financially and participate actively in raising funds for the organization.\u00a0 Today\u2019s organizations do face the reality of diminishing foundation and government support, so there is absolutely a need for help in securing the resources needed to execute the mission!\u00a0 However, as we impose the expectation that our boards \u201cgive and get\u201d resources, we often exclude members of the communities served by the organization in roles of governance.\u00a0 When we, as consultants, suggest that boards need to diversify, we are met with \u201cbut what about the give\/get?\u201d as a defense (as though there are no people of color with money, which is a myth) when in fact that is a proxy for white dominance.\u00a0 As board member \u201cgive and gets\u201d become higher, the ED feels more pressure to cultivate and tend to board members, spending inordinate amounts of time and energy on things that distract them from the mission and pull them in many different directions.\u00a0 This dynamic has created a power differential between EDs and their boards (where one should not exist), forcing the ED into a subservient role that undermines their ability to lead.<\/p>\n \u00a0We have some recommendations to share (of course \u2013 we\u2019re consultants after all!) that we think will help improve some of these dynamics:<\/p>\n We know that the need for boards to raise funds must still exist, and as long as it does, board members need to feel a deep connection to the mission to be the best advocates for it.\u00a0 We stop short of advocating for different boards (as Vu Le does).\u00a0 Instead, we believe that as a sector, we should stop talking about a \u201cworking board\u201d vs. a \u201cfund raising board,\u201d as though they are different things.\u00a0 If we change the contribution expectation from a fixed \u201cgive or get\u201d to the expectation that has been adopted by many organizations, that each board member make a \u201cpersonally signigficant\u201d contribution, that will allow us to diversify and broaden the representation on our boards. There is actually data showing that boards with this expectation contribute more<\/em> than where there is a fixed expectation. \u00a0An important part of the motivation for personal giving and for fundraising outreach is the sense of \u201cownership\u201d and responsibility. This does not preclude the use of an auxiliary fund raising group such as a \u201cFriends of\u2026.\u201d \u00a0committee or special events committees, where non-board members can participate as ambassadors too. The motivation for participation in these groups is frankly often social. Michael and another colleague, Brian Saber of Asking Matters, have talked about this phenomenon in their article, \u201cRubber Stamps Don\u2019t Fundraise<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n ED\u2019s need to claim their rightful role as a coach and guide for the board.\u00a0 More specifically, ED\u2019s should focus their attention on their \u201csecret weapon\u201d \u2013 the nominating and governance committee.\u00a0 This is the committee that recruits new members (EDs should have a say in who is being recruited for what), \u00a0upholding governance best practices like annual assessments (EDs can remind the committee to do this and provide tools), and board succession planning (the ED should be strongly involved in grooming and selecting the next board chair).\u00a0 The board chair is crucial because they help keep the board focused in the right areas (i.e. not micromanaging) so the ED needs a strong partnership with their board chairs.<\/p>\n While the board as a whole can technically \u201cfire\u201d the ED, that only comes up in egregious circumstances, and as a daily rule, the board should consider themselves equal partners to the ED. This is in contrast to the experience of board members who have served on for-profit boards where the role of the Board is to \u201cdirect\u201d the CEO. \u00a0\u00a0As Vu Le advocates, let\u2019s get EDs away from \u201cpermission seeking\u201d and move toward a recognition that the ED leads the day to day life of the organization.\u00a0 Barring an explicit policy to the contrary, the ED has the power to make any decisions necessary for the continued health and vitality of the organization.<\/p>\n\u00a0What Are Boards Legally Required To Do?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\u00a0Harmful norms<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
What We Propose<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Revisit the financial expectation<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The ED as coach<\/em><\/strong> and guide for the governance board<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ED as Leader<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Recruit \u00a0boards for social capital<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n