Every not-for-profit organization, at one time, was run entirely by volunteers. When they gain enough support, they hire staff. At that point, things must change - too often, the Board continues working as they used to, holding frequent meetings and delegating tasks to the employee(s) at each meeting. Role confusion results.
I frequently work with not-for-profit Boards who continue to appoint members to committees that are clearly operational in nature. As an example, let's refer to a Conference Committee, often formed to help determine appropriate content and format for the organization's annual meeting and convention.
If the Board has approved a budget, and has policies in place that guide the Chief Staff Officer (CSO) on a daily basis, it is the CSO who should determine if a committee is required to help achieve a specific operational goal, and if so, who s/he wants to approach to sit on that committee. Such a committee is a staff committee, not a Board committee. The Board has already instructed the CSO to develop and deliver a service (the conference) that is responsive to stakeholder needs, and achieve budget targets. If the Board goes beyond that and says, "You must work with these particular people and implement their suggestions", they simply cannot hold the CSO accountable for the outcome.
The Board, naturally, appoints members to committees that are established to help the Board do its job - examples might be the Governance or Board Developement Committee, or the Nominating Committee. Going beyond that compromises the ability of the Board to fairly and objectively hold the CSO accountable for organizational outcomes. If the CSO needs a committee to help achieve an operational goal, it's up to them to establish that committee, and that committee is accountable to the CSO (or a staff member to whom the CSO delegates that task).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Sandy,
ReplyDeleteThis post is very timeley for me. A board I sit on has way to many committees and all are made up of the executive, HR, Finance, and Executive. Having finished CAE100 & CAE200 I'm full of ideas. I asked them for minutes from all of there meetings for the past 6 months as they seem to be head hunting the CSO. I was surprised when they said they didn't keep minutes. Is that a normal practise? The CSO is constantly given new direction after each meeting...there have been 5 finance committee meetings this month and then is blamed because there is no budget yet. Since voicing my opionions and asking some pointed questions, I got hauled into an exutive meeting and blind sided with a 2 page document saying that I am undermining the board. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Kim:
ReplyDeleteIt appears as if the Executive Committee is managing, not governing. As I have said on many occasions in this blog, this is where most of the problems between Boards and Chief Staff Officers emanate from.
And again, I suspect these individuals are well intentioned - they likely think they are doing their job because they have never been afforded governance training. They don't do their job because they don't know what it is.
It is impossible for the Chief Staff Officer to be successful if success isn't defined. If the Executive keeps holding meetings and then giving direction to the CSO, they are doing the CSO's job.
The unfortunate result (the letter suggesting you are undermining the Board), is unfortunate. Perhaps you need to direct the Board to the resources available in print (send them some links, even one to this blog if you want) so that they are getting the message from an "expert" in governance rather than yourself.
I see this all too often, but have also been present when the light goes on and a Board truly sees that determining policy (setting the rules for the CSO) and determining "what" the organization should be pursuing (eastablishing a strategic plan) is the only real way they can efficently and effectively steer the organization in the direction it needs to go.
Most not-for-profit Board members have jobs - they go to their jobs each day and "do" something. When they accept a seat on a Board they assume they are also being asked to "do" something. They are not. They are being asked to "LEAD". Therein lies the difference. They need to be taught how to "LEAD".