Dear board volunteer . . . Please invest in my potential and development.

May 7, 2013 erik organizational development, Planning, volunteers

DonorDreams blog is honored to be hosting the May 2013 Nonprofit Blog Carnival. The theme this month is “Dear board volunteer . . .” and the idea is “If you could write an anonymous letter to a nonprofit board about something they do that drives you crazy, what would that letter look like and what suggested solutions would you include?” If you are a blogger and would like more information on how to participate and submit a post for consideration, please click here to learn more.

I wanted to expand the Nonprofit Blog Carnival concept in May. So, I reached out to real non-profit people and asked them to also write an anonymous letter to their board volunteers. These people are executive directors, fundraising professionals, board members, donors, community volunteers, consultants and front line staff. I promised everyone anonymity in exchange for their submissions.

We will celebrate May’s Nonprofit Blog Carnival on Wednesday, May 29, 2013. Up to that fun-filled day, I will publish real anonymous letters every day right here at DonorDreams blog.

I hope you enjoy this real look at real issues that our community deals with on a daily basis.

Here is today’s letter:

Dear Board of Directors,

Thank you for your commitment and dedication to the mission of our non-profit organization. I am very proud of the tremendous strides that we have taken as a board and as an organization in the last three years. As you all know, developing our board into a high functioning and high profile board has been a key objective in our three-year strategic plan. We have worked diligently at achieving that objective by implementing a standing governance committee to focus on the core governance, composition, and performance of our board.

The governance committee has suggested, and you have adopted policies and procedures around assessing the performance of individual board members as well as the board as a whole. These actions have resulted in:

100% board giving for the last three years,

the development of an annual special event that raises the necessary revenue to sustain our summer program that was formerly funded solely by federal grant dollars,

100% board member completion of the individual commitments on the Board Commitment Form,

a 71% increase in reserve funds, and

a 415% increase in giving for our annual campaign.

As they say, what gets measured gets done.

As we reflect on our amazing successes in board development, I can’t help but wonder why the same amount of effort has not been given to developing my capacity as the Executive Director of this organization.

It is difficult for me to comprehend why setting my annual goals, and assessing my performance, is only completed when I harass you enough to do it. Why can’t you ever get a task force together to complete this critical task, and why do you apply a rubber stamp to my recommendations? I am baffled by this because the vast majority of you are successful leaders in your respective business fields, and a number of you have built very successful companies.

I’m certain your road to achievement as a leader has included successfully establishing performance criteria and appraising the performance of your subordinates and employees. Similarly, I’m sure that our goal setting and performance measurement successes as a board have not escaped your attention.

Just imagine what we could accomplish together if you were to form a task force to come along side me in setting my annual objectives and completing a thoughtful performance appraisal and professional development plan. Take a moment to envision the amazing alignment we would have if the full board took sufficient time to review my goals and approve my performance appraisal and professional development plan.

Engaging the full board in this process would certainly take care of any misperceptions that exist about what the Executive Director’s role is vs. the board’s role.

Thank you for being deliberate in creating a high performing, high profile, strategic board of directors. Please consider taking the next step in our organization’s development by spending the necessary time to develop the leadership of the organization. I can promise you that you will not be disappointed with the return on your investment.

Sincerely,
ROI Roger

If you have some advice for the author of our anonymous letter, please be respectful and share it in the comment box at the bottom of this post.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Dear board volunteers . . . Can we please follow our fundraising policies?

May 1, 2013 erik Board development, Fundraising

I wanted to expand the Nonprofit Blog Carnival concept in May. So, I reached out to real non-profit professionals and asked them to also write an anonymous letter to their board volunteers. These people are executive directors, fundraising professionals, board members, donors, community volunteers, consultants and front line staff. I promised everyone anonymity in exchange for their submissions.

We will celebrate May’s Nonprofit Blog Carnival on Wednesday, May 29, 2013. Up to that fun-filled day, I will publish real anonymous letters every day from real non-profit professionals right here at DonorDreams blog.

I hope you enjoy this real look at real issues that our community deals with on a daily basis.

Here is today’s letter:

Dear Board Members,

We are so excited that our upcoming fund raiser is nearly at capacity. You all have done an outstanding job in talking up the event to your friends and colleagues, and in getting others to buy tickets to the event. Thank you for that.

Several years ago, you established a process that let each event committee determine the policies around which each event would operate. Once the policies were established by each committee, they were accepted or modified by the full Board. Now I know that each of you did not agree personally with all the policies, but majority rules and the policies were set, or at least I thought so.

To my surprise, and dismay, now I find out that there are many of you asking, assuming, or demanding that we don’t enforce these policies, at least as it concerns you. Some of you want to bring more people with you, of course at no additional cost. Some of you even think you should be allowed to come for free because you are a Board Member.

Good grief, this is a Fund Raising Event. It is designed to make money! Don’t you get it?

Now here is what really ticks me off. You don’t call or email me — the executive director — with these ideas. No, you call or email my event staff, who are already intimidated by you. What kind of spot do you think this puts them in?

So what do we do about this?

First, if you want to make a difference in how an event operates, volunteer to serve on the committee that designs the event. We would love to have more of you actively engaged in these committees. Second, when the committee presents the event at the Board Meeting, speak up, express your concerns then. Make your vote count. Third, once the Board accepts the policies surrounding an event, accept them. We all need to follow the direction the Board sets.

And please, call or email me if you are having issues or concerns with an event. Calling or emailing my staff with this sort of thing just isn’t appropriate or helpful. However, you must know that while I will listen to you or read your email, I will always back up the Board’s decision. You really would not want me to do otherwise.

Sincerely,
Lonely at the top

If you have some advice for the author of our anonymous letter, please be respectful and share it in the comment box at the bottom of this post.

Here’s to your health!

Should we compensate our non-profit board volunteers?

April 29, 2013 erik Board development, volunteers

Those of you follow this blog know that I’ve been unpacking old boxes of “stuff” in my basement for the last few weeks. There is a small mountain of boxes from my last place of residence. It is stuff that was deemed unimportant at the time of unpacking, but important enough (for whatever reason) not to throw away. As I’ve encountered old non-profit training materials and memories, I’ve shared some of it here at DonorDreams blog.

Last night, I rummaged through another two boxes in an effort to get ready for garbage day on Monday. As I unpacked and recycled more stuff, I came across a March 2004 edition of BoardSource’s “Board Member” magazine. The cover story was titled: “At What Cost? The Board Compensation Debate.” James Orlikoff wrote the proponent article “Yes! In the Accountability Era, Board Members Must Be Paid.” Kevin Murphy wrote the opponent article “No! Paying Boards Is a Solution in Search of a Problem.”

I remember reading this pro-con piece almost a decade ago and I found myself firmly in the “Heck No!” camp. However, I’ve softened over time and enjoyed re-reading this article last night (especially because it took me away from the job of unpacking boxes . . . LOL).

Here is the thesis of Orlikoff’s proponents argument:

“In today’s challenging, complex, and litigious environment, board compensation may soon emerge as a key component of effective governance.”

Here is the thesis of Murphy’s opponents argument:

“. . . compensating board members not only undermines public confidence in the sector, but also begins to erode the underpinnings of our governance system. The media attention to compensation scandals makes one thing clear: With board member compensation, the potential abuses outweigh the potential benefits.”

One reason for my recent defection from the opponent’s camp is that I see many municipalities compensating their city council members. In my hometown of Elgin, Illinois, a citizen who gets voted onto the council received a $1,000 monthly stipend, the ability to participate in the city’s health insurance program, and a few other small perks.

I honestly don’t think the issue of compensation undermines public confidence in our municipal institutions, and I don’t see any erosion to the underpinnings of the governance system. In other words, I am looking at an empirical example and don’t see any evidence of what the opponents to board compensation argue.

Sure . . . the city of Elgin is not a non-profit board of directors, but it also isn’t a for-profit board either.

So, let’s look at a handful of arguments put forth by the proponents:

A lot is asked of non-profit board members, and compensation is a way to reward such work and create an incentive to do a quality job.
For-profit board members are compensated, and non-profits might need to start doing the same thing in order to compete.
Adding compensation to the picture might contribute to a more rigorous board recruitment and evaluation process.

Orlikoff ticks off 10 reasons for compensating non-profit board members, and after reading each argument I find myself shrugging my shoulders and saying “Hmmm . . . maybe.”

However, in my opinion, I am left wondering if compensation might change the dynamics around “engagement” of non-profit board members.

While I have not yet formed an opinion, if someone could show me that non-profit board members would be more engaged in activities like fundraising, financial management and board governance issues, then I might joyfully jump into the proponent’s camp.

I know that some of you might be scratching your heads right now thinking it is illegal to compensate non-profit board members. The simple answer is that it is not illegal to do so. It is just a little more complicated.

According to this BoardSource article, two percent of non-profits currently pay their board members (mostly large and complex organizations), and 25% of foundations pay their board members. Joanne Fritz at about.com answered this question in her post titled “Can a Nonprofit Compensate It’s Board Members?”

So, here I sit again in the middle of a good debate. While I understand board compensation alone won’t improve non-profit board governance, I am left wondering if it isn’t part of the solution.

What are your thoughts? Would adding a small stipend create a change in recruitment efforts? Year-end evaluations? Meeting attendance? Committee meeting attendance? Fundraising? Engagement? What are some of the problems we might create by opening this ‘can of worms’?

Before you share your thoughts in the comment box below, please consider the following quote from American business man James Casey.”

“The basic principle which I believe has contributed more than any other to the building of our business as it is today, is the ownership of our company by the people employed in it.”

I dunno . . . let’s talk about it. Here’s to your health!

High Functioning and High Profile?

April 9, 2013 erik Board development, volunteers

Dani Robbins is the Founder & Principal Strategist at Non Profit Evolution located in Columbus, Ohio. I’ve invited my good friend and fellow non-profit consultant to the first Wednesday of each month about board development related topics. Dani also recently co-authored a book titled “Innovative Leadership Workbook for Nonprofit Executives” that you can find on Amazon.com.

There are some very high-profile and high functioning Boards on which community leaders serve with distinction. There are other high-profile yet lower functioning Boards on which people serve because they believe in the mission and it’s also good for their company, career or ego. It’s hard to tell which is which, and it may even be hard to decide which you want.

High profile Boards where nothing strategic is happening but everything is basically fine may be enough for you. Then again, it may not. Even if it is, “basically fine” is hard to qualify. How do you know?

If you are invited to serve on the Board of a respected community organization, the best – and really only – way I know to find out what type of board it is, is to ask lots of questions. Those questions include asking about a typical meeting, about the agenda, topics covered and the quality and quantity discussions; about the CEO and how he or she operates.

Is it a yes Board or a working board?
Is it a Board whose meetings include generative and strategic discussions or one that solely focuses on its fiduciary responsibilities?
Does the organization have a vision of where they’d like to be at some specified point in the future?
Are there organizational values?
Do they align with your values?
Is there a strategic plan?
Are there goals the CEO is working toward?
What are they and by who were they set?

The answers will tell you a lot.

If a typical meeting has no written agenda, you know going in that conversation is likely to wander off topic.

If the meeting is described as primarily votes and committee reports with approvals to follow or the vote being tabled until the discussion at hand is taken up by the committee, with others invited to attend, you know there is a Chair who knows how to run a meeting and who is also running a primarily fiduciary focused Board.

If there are robust discussions that challenge the status quo, decisions that move forward the organization’s vision and generative discussions that consider all constituent groups’ positions, you have a Board that is fiduciary, strategic and generative.

Alternatively, if there is very little discussion, you may have a high-profile but lower functioning Board. Further evidence of this will be if there are no organizational values, no vision, no strategic plan and if the goals were set by the CEO for the CEO.

The CEO’s goals are usually tied to the Board approved strategic plan. In the absence of a plan, the Board sets the CEOs goals and evaluates the CEO based on the accomplishment of those goals. CEOs that set their own goals without any Board input also tend to set the direction for the Board, both signs of a lower functioning board and also an indication of boundary issues. Other evidence of boundary issues, though on the other side, includes Board meeting topics that are operational in nature.

Boundary issues mean the Board acts on things traditionally done by the CEO, and the CEO performs duties traditional completed by the Board. The combination creates a lower functioning Board that, high-profile or not, may not meet your Board service goals or its governance responsibilities.

As described in a previous post The Role of the Board, “the Board is responsible for governance, which includes Mission, Vision and Strategic Planning; Hiring, Supporting and Evaluating the Executive Director; acting as the Fiduciary Responsible Agent, setting Policy and Raising Money. Boundary creep makes the accomplishment of governance responsibilities challenging, which in turn compromise the achievement of high functioning.”

Of course, high functioning and high profile Boards are not the only options. The opposites, low profile and low functioning, are quite prevalent and also easier to spot.

Like anything, it’s important to know what you want out of your Board service before you determine the Board that is right for you to serve. High profile doesn’t necessarily beget high functioning. What’s right for you?

As always, I welcome your experience and insight.

Carol Burnett’s advice to disengaged non-profit boards

March 5, 2013 erik Board development, volunteers

The idea of engaging non-profit board volunteers is sometimes treated by thought-leaders as a simple idea; however, in reality it is really hard. A few days ago I had this conversation with a board volunteer, and he said something I found very profound. He said, “When one person is disengaged, it is as simple as challenging them to step-up and join the group. When a few people are leading and the rest of the group is disengaged, it is far easier for the few to step-back because that is the norm.”

Obvious? Yes! Did I know this before I heard it? Of course. But I had never heard it stated quite so succinctly.

During this conversation, he also related a great quote from a business consultant he recently heard speak at a conference. The quote was “If you can’t change your people, change your people.” Upon hearing this, my mind first darted to Jim Collins, who famously talks about getting the right people on the bus and in the right seats.” Yet, surprisingly, my mind didn’t stay there. The cosmic jukebox in my head started playing a song that I still can’t get out of my head. Click here or on the YouTube screen below and please join me in singing . . .

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQuZCTLAv4]

Yeah, I think Carol Burnett gave some great advice to board development committees when she sang her iconic sign-off song.

Carol reminds us that time flies when you’re having fun. She says early in the song: “Seems we just get started and before you Know it
Comes the time we have to say, ‘So long’.” In this one simple sentence, I am reminded of the following truisms for the board development committee:

There is a beginning, middle and end to every board volunteer relationship.
It is the Board Development Committee’s responsibility to manage every aspect of that relationship during every step down that path.
In the beginning, expectations must be set or disengagement is almost inevitable (e.g. use job descriptions to recruit).
During every step of the way, year-end evaluation is essential in order to maintain engagement. These aren’t always “pat-on-the-back” meetings. Sometimes, committee members need to ask tough questions during evaluation meetings such as: “What can we do to get you more involved in our resource development program? Is there something we can do to help you feel more comfortable with your roles and responsibilities? Are you sure this opportunity is a good fit or would everyone be better served if you stepped off the board and joined a committee?“
In the end, compassion and grace — like you hear in Carol’s voice — are the values that carry the day. Hopefully, the volunteer concludes that they’re ready to move along to tackle other opportunities related to your mission and organization. However, more oftentimes it is obvious to everyone except the board volunteer. Not only must the committee exercise compassion and grace, but they must be strong and do what needs to be done. Too often committee volunteers kick the can down the road, which creates problems for another day.

When the norm on the board is disengagement, I’ve too often seen a frustrated Board Development Committee take the discussion into the boardroom. Their intention is good. After all, they want to wake some people up and shake them from their sleepy disengaged slumber. However, I’ve never seen this strategy work. In fact, it always backfires in one of two ways:

Tempers flare because it feels like finger-pointing and accusations are being made.
Committee members get frustrated because their “call to action” is met with a yawn of “disengagement”.

For me, it all comes back to that consultant’s quote that my friend shared with me: “If you can’t change your people, change your people.” with a chaser of “I’m so glad we’ve had this time together.”

I believe taking this conversation into the boardroom is tantamount to the board development committee abdicating their responsibilities and giving up. I suggest the more direct option of one-on-one meetings with disengaged volunteers.

If you are looking for resources and more reading materials on the subject of volunteer management, board development, board engagement, and how to move board volunteers onto other opportunities, you may want to click on some of the following links:

DonorDreams blog: “Have you forgotten year-end evaluations and performance plans during the year-end scramble?“
DonorDreams blog: “Is your non-profit board of directors engaged?“
DonorDreams blog: “Not fundraising? Not engaged!“
National Council of Nonprofits: Volunteers
The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “How to Fire Lousy Board Members“

What have you done or seen done when disengagement is the norm in the boardroom? Do you agree or disagree with my thoughts on individual meetings versus group discussion? Please scroll down and share your thoughts in the comment box. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

The Chicago Cubs Convention through non-profit eyes: Part One

January 22, 2013 erik Fundraising, organizational development

This last weekend I attended the Chicago Cubs Convention with my family. As we drifted from session to session, I couldn’t help but see all sorts of blog themes and things that non-profit organizations could learn from this major league franchise. I will use the next few days to share a few of these observations and hopefully stimulate a few new ideas for you and your agency. Today, I want to drill down on the idea of stewardship.

In one of the sessions that I attended, there sat Cubs General Manager Theo Epstein and the brain trust for the entire Chicago Cubs organization. There was a lot of talk about improving the stadium, improving the product of the field, and a lot of blah-blah-blah. I’ve attended a number of these conventions, and I always marvel at how I am paying them to market to me. I also can’t believe that the script never seems to change very much.

However, something struck me as very interesting this year. It was Theo’s second convention since being hired, and I heard him say this:

“The Cubs have a covenant with the fans.”

This isn’t the first time that I’ve heard him say this. I heard it at last year’s convention. I’ve heard it and read it in various media interviews. And this time it sparked the following questions and thoughts:

I wonder what he means by that?
He is emphasizing this point . . . this must be part of a larger narrative?!?!
This sounds and feels remarkably similar to non-profit stewardship efforts. Huh?

So, I went back to the basics and looked up the word “covenant” and thefreedictionary.com defines it as follows:

“cov·e·nant (kuv’e-nent) noun. 1. A binding agreement; a compact.”

Of course, every time I hear this word it takes me back to my childhood and confirmation classes. There are obvious Biblical connotations.

I believe that when Theo talks about this covenant with Cubs fans, he is referring to:

Transparency,
Accountability,
Reporting,
Recognition, and
essentially demonstrating that the team is doing what they say they’re doing.

Isn’t this exactly what non-profit organizations mean when they talk about stewardship? I believe so.

If you agree, then this raises another interesting question: “With whom does your agency have a covenant?”

I believe that non-profit professionals and board volunteers form a covenant with many different stakeholders such as: donors, clients, collaborative partners, staff, funding partners and institutions (e.g. United Way and other foundations), and the at-large community. While there are common threads that run through each of those covenants, there are also some unique promises being made by your organization.

Have you ever thought through this part of your social contract? If not, then I suggest this might be an interesting “generative discussion” at an upcoming board meeting.

After a little more thinking, I started identifying ways the Chicago Cubs try to hold up their end of this covenant. For example:

The annual convention is in part an accountability exercise where ownership, management and players open themselves up to answering questions (e.g. ticket pricing, player acquisition, organizational development philosophy, etc).
The Cubs talked a lot about investing time and resources last year in fan surveys and focus groups.
The Cubs publish a magazine called “Vine Line” in an effort to keep fans informed.

How is this any different that what some non-profit organizations do with newsletters, annual meetings, and donor communications.

As I always say . . . “We can all learn from each other.” And I do mean ALL because the Chicago Cubs Convention proves to me that there is more commonality between for-profits and non-profits than we care to admit.

What is your non-profit agency doing to fulfill its covenant? With whom do you think you have a covenant? What tactics are you using? Where do you find your inspiration and new ideas? Who do you see doing a good job with this?

Here’s to your health!

Managing the dualism of being a non-profit board volunteer

January 17, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I recently came to the conclusion that there is a strange dualism surrounding the roles and responsibilities for a volunteer serving on a non-profit board. These two different roles can compete with each other and create a weird destructive dysfunction if non-profit staff don’t do their job and keep things in check.

A few months ago I witnessed something that my mind just couldn’t process, and it has been rolling around inside my head ever since. Let me try to summarize it:

Non-profit staff recruit a volunteer to join their board.
The volunteer happily joins.
Staff work hard to get the volunteer engaged in various projects.
The volunteer happily gets engaged.
Staff try engaging the volunteer at an action plan level of a particular project (e.g. specific tasks, deadlines, etc).
The volunteer become the chairperson.
Instead of doing what is expected of a chairperson, the volunteer turns around and acts like staff works for them and starts re-assigning tasks to staff.

A little too abstract. OK, let me provide an example to clear things up.

Once upon a time, a board volunteer agreed to chair a special event committee. Once they agreed to provide leadership to the committee, they started tasking staff with doing things that might otherwise be considered the role of the chair. Here are a few examples . . . 1) please email the committee and tell them I wish to meet at a certain time and location, 2) please recruit the following volunteers to sit on my committee, 3) please check on a certain volunteer and make sure they are doing what they said they would do.

In this example, staff recruit a volunteer chairperson to help them accomplish some work. The end result is that the volunteer acts like staff works for them and sees their role/responsibilities as telling staff what to do. Staff scratch their head wondering why they needed to recruit a volunteer because they know what needs to happen . . . they needed help doing those things and not someone to tell them what to do.

Believe it or not, I see this happen all the time and I now have a theory.

The following is an excerpt from Guidestar on the subject of non-profit board roles and responsibilities:

“Nonprofit board members have two basic responsibilities—support and governance—each requiring different skills and expertise. In the role of “supporter” board members raise money, bring contacts to the organization, and act as ambassadors to the community. Equally important, the “governance” role involves protection of the public interest, being a fiduciary, selecting the executive director and assessing his/ her performance, ensuring compliance with legal and tax requirements, and evaluating the organization’s work.”

I think I see a weird dissonance starting to form between these two basic responsibilities.

Huh?

Well, one of the basic roles of a nonprofit board volunteer is “SUPPORT” . . . which I read as rolling up ones sleeves and helping get stuff done. The other role is “GOVERNANCE” . . . which I read as making sure certain things are getting done and providing some oversight.

Am I over-generalizing to make a point? YES, but I think I am still going somewhere.

If clarity isn’t established from the very beginning, it is reasonable to expect confusion. It is from here that I believe situations and examples that I provided earlier grow legs and get ugly.

If non-profit staff want to avoid these weird sand trap situations, they need to be serious about using best practices when it comes to volunteer identification, recruitment, and management.

Use a written job description
Seriously engage volunteers in orientation and continuous training opportunities
Invest time in evaluation and work on creating a culture of honest feedback

I think it is also important to mention here that providing a volunteer with a written job description is not where the magic occurs. Learning and understanding comes from the frank and honest discussion that occurs during the recruitment meeting. For example, the job description is the “MEANS” and not the “ENDS“.

Have you ever had to deal with a situation like this? How did you fix it? What tools and processes do you use to set expectations up front with volunteers to avoid confusion and role blurring down the road? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts. We can all learn from each other.

Here’s to your health!

Dealing with bullies in your non-profit boardroom

January 16, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

I was just talking to a group of volunteer board members and the topic turned to “bullies in the boardroom”. I suspect that you know what I am talking about. This person takes many different forms, such as:

The need to always be right.
They dominate the conversation.
They may talk over other people.
They get angry and aggressively assert their opinions.
They mock people who don’t agree.

As you might imagine, a conversation like this quickly turns to the question: “How do you handle board volunteers like this?”

Being a former youth development professional, I decided to look for general resources on how to deal with bullies and see if there might be commonality between how to deal with a school yard bully versus a boardroom bully.

I actually found a really good blog post at wikiHow titled “How to deal with bullies” and there was some very nice advice that crossed over such as:

Show minimal reaction to bullying
Help others
Do not make jokes at your own expense to try to prove that there is nothing they can do to hurt your feelings

Of course, some of the other suggestions fell flat for me like “Take Karate”. LOL If you have a moment, I really suggest that you click the wikiHow link and scan that article because bullying is a big deal issue in all walks of life.

There are two other thoughts that immediately come to mind when discussing this topic:

Board development
Firing board members

Board Development

You can solve your agency’s bully problem before it even starts if you get serious about board development. Your recruitment process should not be hasty. It should feel like a dating process with multiple steps. For some reason, that song “Getting to Know” from The King & I comes to mind. Do I need to say any more? Click here to visit the National Council of Nonprofits’s webpage if you need some basic board development tools for your agency.

Firing a volunteer

I always hate this discussion because I believe it should never get to this point. However, a bully in the boardroom is an intolerable situation, and it needs to always be dealt with. There is no easy way to do this, and it is always done with a nervous stomach. I could write page on this subject, but our friends at Nonprofit Hearts did a nice job with a post they titled “Firing a Board member with grace“. I suggest you click over and read what they have to say. They even do a nice job with dialog.

Have you ever had to deal with a bully in your nonprofit boardroom? What did you do that seemed to work? How did it turn out. We can all learn from each other. Please use the comment box below to share some of your thoughts and experiences.

Here’s to your health!

Is your non-profit board of directors engaged?

January 9, 2013 erik Board development, organizational development, volunteers

It’s a new year, which is always a great time to take a look at processes and systems. I especially encourage you to look at the level of engagement of your Board. They are — or should be — your biggest donors and your best ambassadors. Are they?

One of the most obvious signs that a Board is disengaged is when you’re experiencing quorum issues. If you routinely have challenges with not having enough Board members in the room to make decisions, I recommend you take a look at how your board was built and how it is being developed.

Is your Board built intentionally?

Intentionally looks like this:

There is a Board Development (also called nominating or governance) Committee that assesses the strength of your current Board, looks at the gaps, and puts together a list of prospects that are later vetted and voted upon, to fill those gaps. The committee also plans for officer succession, Board education and evaluation.

Unintentionally looks like this:

A Board member invites someone to join the Board without a discussion with the Board Development Committee as to what the Board needs, or what the expectations for service are. The person is not vetted, or told of the commitment required. There is no formal process that is followed, no education and no evaluation. Yet, the person is voted upon and joins your Board.

Once the Board is in place, regardless of if it was intentional or not, the next question is:

Is your Board engaged and are members being developed?

Engagement looks like this:

The vast majority of Board members are in the room for most meetings; you have 100% Board giving; each member acts as an ambassador in the community; and your events and public meetings are well attended by members who bring friends and colleagues. The Board understands the organization’s mission, programs and impact; participates in robust discussions; and actively seeks ways to support the Executive Director and the organization.

Disengagement, on the other hand, looks like this:

People stop coming to meetings, which results in quorum issues. They stop coming to events. They stop volunteering for things. They stop giving or supporting the organization.

Once your Board becomes disengaged, quorum issues, which maybe the most obvious, are only the tip of the iceberg. The problems underneath the surface include a lack of understanding of some or all of the following:

their role,
the executive director’s role,
the finances,
the mission and strategic vision for the organization, and
how programs support that vision.

By now you may be wondering about the level of engagement on the Board you serve.

Some questions for your consideration:

Are Board and committee meetings productive, engaging and worth the time to attend?
Does the Executive Director meet individually, at least annually, with Board members?
Is there a plan that everyone is aware of and working toward?
Are there strategic and generative discussions happening in the boardroom?
Is there meaningful work for individual board members to do?

If the answer to any of these questions is “NO” or “I don’t know,” then I encourage you to put a plan in place to move your answers to “YES”. Talk to your Board members individually and ask about engagement. Ask about how they would like to be engaged, why they joined the Board and how you can make their experience more meaningful.

For the organizations with which I work I encourage:

a written plan detailing an intentional process to build and develop the board;
annual retreats to set or re-commit to strategic goals;
board training on everything from how to read the financials, to raise money, to the role and responsibilities of the Board; and
an annual evaluation process that assesses individual members as well as the entire board against the expectations and the organization’s aspirations.

Board engagement is critical to building an organization that moves the needle and impacts the community!

What’s been your experience? As always, I welcome your experience and insight.

The role of your non-profit board?

November 7, 2012 erik Board development

Every time I speak on issues related to nonprofits, and I mean every single time, regardless of the topic, someone, usually a Board member or an Executive Director, asks “What is the role of the Board?” It has happened so often, and so consistently, that I don’t even wait for the question anymore, I just include the information. Then, of course, the question that follows or should follow is “What is the role of the Executive Director?”

The Board is responsible for governance, which includes:

mission, vision and strategic planning;
hiring, supporting and evaluating the executive director;
acting as the fiduciary responsible agent;
setting policy; and,
raising money.

Everything (Yes, I really mean everything) else is done in concert with the executive director or by the executive director.

What does that really mean?

It means the Board sets the direction, often with input from the executive director, and the executive director makes it happen, often with support from the Board.

It means the Board hires, supports, evaluates and (when necessary) fires the executive director. Likewise, the executive director hires, supports, evaluates and (when necessary) fires the staff. For Board members, that means that you work through the executive director if you have a problem or need something from the staff. For the executive director (even though they don’t need permission) having input from the Board before firing a staff member (especially one that is well known) will help build organizational cohesiveness and extend career longevity.

Fiduciary responsibility means that the Board (and not just the Treasurer but the whole Board) is responsible for safeguarding the community’s resources and ensuring accountability and transparency. The Board also must understand and formally approve finances, audits, and the 990. Fiduciary responsibility doesn’t end with finances; it also includes programs. Boards are entrusted to understand how and why an organization’s programs fill a need in the community, the numbers of people who participate in those programs and their impact, as well as how those programs connect to mission.

Setting policy is also the role of the Board. Policies are usually recommended, written and, later, implemented by the executive director, but they are voted upon and passed by the Board. Typical policies include personnel, code of ethics/conflict of interests, whistle blower, confidentiality, crisis management and/or communication. Your agency should, and does, also have by-laws (also called codes of regulations) which should be followed, periodically reviewed and if revised, voted upon by the Board.

The last piece of Board responsibility is fundraising. The executive director cannot raise money alone. The Development Director cannot raise money alone. The Board cannot raise money alone. Fundraising works best in a culture of philanthropy when both the staff and the Board are working together. The Board’s role is to set the fundraising goal, embark on the campaign, open doors, introduce staff, “make the ask” when appropriate, pick up the tab for lunch when possible, and thank the donor. The staff is responsible for training the Board, coordinating the assignments, preparing the askers with relevant donor information, drafting and supplying whatever written information will be left with the donor, including a letter asking for a specific dollar amount, attending the meetings as necessary and documenting the meeting in the database as well as writing the formal thank you note, and then creating a plan to steward the donor.

There is also a strategic and generative piece to Board service (or at least there should be). We have already reviewed strategic planning in previous posts, and I encourage you to now expand that to include strategic thinking. Is it not enough to have a strategic plan that made your Board members crazy and now sits on a shelf. Strategy is not a one day thing. Strategy requires direction setting, questioning and the committing of resources to ensure the destination is reached. It also requires the rejection of things that are outside the scope of our plan, or the revision of our plan. It necessitates having a culture that allows for and encourages questioning, and sometimes dissent. Board meetings should include robust discussions.

Finally, and least often, there is what Richard Chait describes as generative mode. Generative is a much deeper conversation about the underlying issues and how to impact them. Chait presents generative discussions as ones that “select and frame the problem.” He says “committees need to think not about decisions or reports as their work product, but to think of understanding, insight and illumination as their work products.”

Honestly, if Boards are just going to approve the things put in front of them, anyone can do that. We don’t need our community’s best and brightest to serve on our Boards for that. We do need our community’s best and brightest to lead, to govern and to be strategic about the needs of our communities and generative about the issues we face.

As always, I welcome your insight and experience.