There must be something in the water around here. I’ve had coffee with four separate nonprofit executive directors over the last 45 days, each one with the same problem–actually two problems. Their first problem is each ED believes their board is not providing the leadership, guidance, and support the organization needs. Their second problem, you probably can figure this one out on your own, is each ED is afraid to bring problem number 1 up to their board for a discussion–which I totally get.
How to proceed? I’d like to get your insights on this. For the record, here are some areas I suggested (or wish I had thought of at the time to suggest) in one form or the other:
- Stick to facts. Can you demonstrate that your agency is not having the impact on your community and a new refocus or back to basics approach may be necessary? I suggest you focus on impact/results, goals, and activities and avoid people issues for now.
- How’s your strategic alignment? Can you provide the board with examples of people and programs in your agency that are not all headed in the same direction? Maybe even fighting each other for resources.
- Can you cite clear and compelling examples of the board not delivering on critical previous promises?
- Are the agency’s annual goals consistently missed?
- Is there a lot of confusion or waste surrounding priorities, and how to best use your people, financial and other resources?
- Does your agency experience false start-ups and the existence of orphan projects?
- How long has it been since you developed, updated, or reviewed your progress on your strategic plan?
- Are more than your agency’s share of poor decisions being made?
- Are you experiencing higher turnover than normal?
My thinking is if enough of these questions raised concern in the minds of their directors, maybe they’d be open to a participating in an objective, confidential, board assessment. These assessments offer directors the opportunity to rate a number of key areas of nonprofit and board activity by how important they are AND how well the directors are performing in them.
Results come in various forms but for our purposes, think of the results as coming back in four buckets:
- Importance-high or low
- Effectiveness-high or low
If enough directors in any of these nonprofit agencies saw too many categories falling into the “high importance/low effectiveness” bucket they might be open to seeing how they could step up their game, which is what each of the ED’s and I are hoping for. With that mindset, I think each ED could begin a frank discussion with their board about how to improve things. Maybe they need the help of a consultant, maybe not. But at least I feel I would be giving these trapped executive directors some actionable advise.
What do you think? How would you handle this?
Once again Tom, you’ve addressed issues that everyone knows are happening yet no one wants to talk about them. Not only do you address them here, you give practical advice to handle the situations. I like the question suggestions you provided for EDs. Because we’re the ones in the trenches we see these issues first and have to deal with them daily.
Your commentary is certainly heartfelt, I’m sure, by many executive directors. As a board member for a nonprofit, I and other members on our board do all we can to be in alignment with agency goals, stay in touch with our ED, and accountable in our actions with annual board surveys and annual board member engagement forms. However, if you work with EDs who voice their concern that the board is not delivering the “leadership, guidance, and support” they need, my first question to that ED would be: what would it look like if we did this? what does better support or leadership mean in specific terms that can be measured? what exactly is it that the Board could do better so that we both accomplish our mutual goals? how do we get there together? Your suggestions lead that ED towards a framework that makes the conversation actionable.
Some nonprofits pull their directors in so many directions with engagement in meetings, committees, events, projects, oversight, fund raising, donor submission, donor follow-up, grant submissions, community activities, special projects that require expertise, advocacy…..you get my point. I’d ask each ED to step back and make sure that they have their board focused their time on the most important activities to the organization. And I would encourage them to sit down with the Board President and map out an action plan to improve not only the relationship but also the accountability – and metrics for joint success.
Your commentary is certainly heartfelt, I’m sure, by many executive directors. As a board member for a nonprofit, I and other members on our board do all we can to be in alignment with agency goals, stay in touch with our ED, and accountable in our actions with annual board surveys and annual board member engagement forms. However, if you work with EDs who voice their concern that the board is not delivering the “leadership, guidance, and support” they need, my first question to that ED would be: what would it look like if we did this? what does better support or leadership mean in specific terms that can be measured? what exactly is it that the Board could do better so that we both accomplish our mutual goals? how do we get there together? Your suggestions lead that ED towards a framework that makes the conversation actionable.
Some nonprofits pull their directors in so many directions with engagement in meetings, committees, events, projects, oversight, fund raising, donor submission, donor follow-up, grant submissions, community activities, special projects that require expertise, advocacy…..you get my point. I’d ask each ED to step back and make sure that they have their board focused their time on the most important activities to the organization. And I would encourage them to sit down with the Board President and map out an action plan to improve not only the relationship but also the accountability – and metrics for joint success.
I only have one answer. When we fear to speak about issues that are to the benefit of moving everyone forward successfully among a congregation that invited us in the first place based on the value we have to offer, then we have already failed them since they did not choose us because they could figure out all the answers, they choose us because they know great decisions are made from balancing ideas and opinions collectively. God bless.
Thank you, Tom for broaching a subject that is truly a “slippery slope” similar to ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?’. At some point, BoDs and EDs will need to trustfully communicate with one another, then action taken to implement in those areas that need improvement; be it the ED or the BoD or BOTH. In my experience, the majority of our BoDs are not well versed in board governance much less board etiquette. Some have never volunteered in a non-profit agency and get lost in the mire of “for profit” gain. It’s a vicious circle which ends up with staff quitting or being replaced.
We don’t live in a perfect world but if we could each “do our part” to focus on the mission/vision just to make a difference in each of our corners of the world, be patient, be teachable, be forgiving, be confident…..then we could jointly find more efficient BoDs and an ED who can see both perspectives. I’ve always heard “leadership comes from the top”, it’s easy to claim the position but you’ve got to walk the talk too. Respect plays a huge role in this.
Thanks Cindi. I agree with you an would only add the following. An effective way to avoid all of this heartburn is for boards and executive directors to talk and clarify the role and expectations of a new director to the candidate under consideration…before he/she joins the board. Everything on the table, no surprises. If a director slips up, then a conversation is in order–fast.
Thanks again.
Thank you, Tom for broaching a subject that is truly a “slippery slope” similar to ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?’. At some point, BoDs and EDs will need to trustfully communicate with one another, then action taken to implement in those areas that need improvement; be it the ED or the BoD or BOTH. In my experience, the majority of our BoDs are not well versed in board governance much less board etiquette. Some have never volunteered in a non-profit agency and get lost in the mire of “for profit” gain. It’s a vicious circle which ends up with staff quitting or being replaced.
We don’t live in a perfect world but if we could each “do our part” to focus on the mission/vision just to make a difference in each of our corners of the world, be patient, be teachable, be forgiving, be confident…..then we could jointly find more efficient BoDs and an ED who can see both perspectives. I’ve always heard “leadership comes from the top”, it’s easy to claim the position but you’ve got to walk the talk too. Respect plays a huge role in this.
Thanks Cindi. I agree with you an would only add the following. An effective way to avoid all of this heartburn is for boards and executive directors to talk and clarify the role and expectations of a new director to the candidate under consideration…before he/she joins the board. Everything on the table, no surprises. If a director slips up, then a conversation is in order–fast.
Thanks again.
I”ll add my thanks to Tom for raising this. He’s not alone in his experience.
But I believe the solution must involve both left and right brain thinking — both an analysis of what’s being missed, and some candid sharing about the context of board work in support of the organization’s mission.
I can imagine leading a workshop in which board members list
* Expectations about their roles
* Personal evaluation about their performance in each role
* What energizes each board member to do this work
* What de-energizes each board member, or puts limits on the energy they can expend
* What makes board meetings fun, exciting, vital, and worth attending
* What makes board meetings dull, frustrating, obligations that one might wish were not there
Then (or just also) have the ED (and perhaps other members of the executive team) list his or her expectations of the board, which of these are met and to what extent, and which are left unfulfilled in a way that really hurts the organization, or at least the work of the ED.
I expect that mixing structural and personal will help everybody find more trust and develop a more collaborative spirit, and that this sharing process will expose some of the real issues.
One final note — Don’t assume that the problem lies totally with the board. It may be that unclear expectations or communications, confused agenda, vague decision making processes, or other such external problems are part of what holds the board back. For this reason, it’s extremely helpful to have the session facilitated by somebody from outside — somebody who is not identifed with any part of the organization or its governance.
Excellent points and suggestions Arthur. I completely agree. Thanks for your thoughts and action plan.