Well, after a year of hard work, and frankly many months away from this blog, I'm days away from launching BOARD KNOW-HOW!
Hope you'll visit us at http://www.boardknowhow.com/
This new venture provides a cost-effective way for Boards to incorporate training into any and every one of their meetings if they so desire. In addition to providing on-demand facilitated workshops and presentations related to not-for-profit governance, the site also contains a library of policy guideline documents, each designed to fuel Board discussion on an issue it should be discussing, and providing sample policy language for consideration.
After years of consulting with not-for-profit Boards in person, at considerable cost to the organizations in question, it became clear there simply must be a more efficient and affordable way for Boards to enhance their governance capacity.
As we continue to expand the resources available through Board Know-How, we'll be looking for input to help prioritize what governance competencies we need to address in our knowledge warehouse. Hope you'll share your thoughts and pose questions as we grow together in the coming months and years.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Why Don't Boards Spend Time Discussing their Own Performance?
Before I walk into a Board meeting to facilitate a discussion on governance, I conduct a survey of Board members. While the overall responses to the questions vary by organization (which helps me focus attention on items of priority), too often I discover that very little time is actually spent by the Board on its overall performance, and how it might be improved.
Which begs the question: if the Board doesn't spend time consider ways to improve their performance, who does? Answer: no one!
In my view, every Board, at least annually, should:
Which begs the question: if the Board doesn't spend time consider ways to improve their performance, who does? Answer: no one!
In my view, every Board, at least annually, should:
- Conduct a performance evaluation of the Board as a whole
- Conduct peer-to-peer evaluations of individual Board members
- Consider the competencies it needs at the Board table, assess those competencies against those possessed by current Board members, identify where gaps exist, and consider ways (future recruitment, professional development) to eliminate those gaps
- Have open and candid discussion about Board meetings: the agenda (are the right things on it, are important issues given ample time); frequency and format of meetings; etc.
These are important matters. Left unadressed, a Board risks a lot: inertia is the first thing that comes to mind.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The REAL Job of the Board Chair
It may well be that misinterpretation of the role and responsibilities that fall to the Chief Elected Officer (i.e. the Chair of the Board) lies at the heart of many stressful relationships between a Board and their Chief Staff Officer (Executive Director, CEO). And again, let me state at the outset: I have little doubt those who rise to and eventually serve as Chief Elected Officer almost always have the best of intentions. They are no doubt committed to the organization's cause and mission, and have served as a dedicated volunteer for years before assuming the role of Board Chair.
But here is how I define the role of Board Chair:
The job of the Board Chair is to manage the activities of the Board not the activities of the organization!
So, what are the Chair's job outputs? The Chair should focus on building Board agendas that are chock full of issues that the Board should address (trends, strategies, policy development and monitoring). The Chair should ensure Board committees are following through with their work. The Chair should focus on issues related to Board performance (i.e. professional development needs, Board composition).
I frequently come into contact with Board Chair's who view their job as managing the Chief Staff Officer. That's not the Chair's job - that's the Board's job! The Board as a whole determines organizational priorities and hold the Chief Staff Officer accountable for outcomes and complaince with Board policy - this is what Board meetings are for.
Every Board needs to put into place a job description for the Chair that makes this distinction abundently clear. I often wonder, when I meet a Board Chair intent on "minding the store", precisely who is minding the Board. Sadly, I almost often come to the conclusion that the answer is no one.
But here is how I define the role of Board Chair:
The job of the Board Chair is to manage the activities of the Board not the activities of the organization!
So, what are the Chair's job outputs? The Chair should focus on building Board agendas that are chock full of issues that the Board should address (trends, strategies, policy development and monitoring). The Chair should ensure Board committees are following through with their work. The Chair should focus on issues related to Board performance (i.e. professional development needs, Board composition).
I frequently come into contact with Board Chair's who view their job as managing the Chief Staff Officer. That's not the Chair's job - that's the Board's job! The Board as a whole determines organizational priorities and hold the Chief Staff Officer accountable for outcomes and complaince with Board policy - this is what Board meetings are for.
Every Board needs to put into place a job description for the Chair that makes this distinction abundently clear. I often wonder, when I meet a Board Chair intent on "minding the store", precisely who is minding the Board. Sadly, I almost often come to the conclusion that the answer is no one.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Two Questions Boards Should Ponder
I'm preoccupied with thoughts of a workshop I'm doing next week for an organization that has no documented governing policy, no strategic plan, and no collective Board vision for the organization.
It's clear from discussions I've had with some members of the Board that they care deeply about their organization. Sadly, the problems facing the organization today are predictable given the lack of policy and strategic goals, both of which are clearly Board responsibilities. Yet again, a Board that hasn't been governing, because they don't understand what governance entails. Sadly, I come across this circumstance too often - bright and capable individuals who arrive at a Board table with a sincere desire to do the right thing, but failing because at no time were they actually taught how to govern.
I've drafted two critical questions to advance to the Board at the session, questions I think every Board without governing policy and strategic goals should ask themselves.
It's clear from discussions I've had with some members of the Board that they care deeply about their organization. Sadly, the problems facing the organization today are predictable given the lack of policy and strategic goals, both of which are clearly Board responsibilities. Yet again, a Board that hasn't been governing, because they don't understand what governance entails. Sadly, I come across this circumstance too often - bright and capable individuals who arrive at a Board table with a sincere desire to do the right thing, but failing because at no time were they actually taught how to govern.
I've drafted two critical questions to advance to the Board at the session, questions I think every Board without governing policy and strategic goals should ask themselves.
- Can an Executive Director/CEO truly demonstrate success to the Board if the Board has not made it clear from the start what success will look like?
- Is it realistic to expect an Executive Director/CEO to satisfy the particular needs of individual Board members, each of whom may have a different idea of what success will look like?
I'm really looking forward to the discussion that will (hopefully) result when I raise these questions. If any of you ever advance them to your Board, I've love to hear what resulted from the discussion that followed.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Turning Board Members into True Leaders
My thoughts today seem to be preoccupied by the many associations struggling to find real leaders among their membership to sit on the Board of Directors. Not once, but three times this week, I've listened as association leaders spoke of the difficulties their organizations are having finding individuals with solid leadership skills to sit on their Board.
Many reference the exodus of the boomers and the differing motivations of Gen X and Y (often characterized as "what's in it for me"). The challenge is compounded when the members of an association are not, by their nature, leaders in their own right.
What's the answer? Well, for me it comes down to dedicating time and resources (through a professional development budget item for the Board) to giving Board members the leadership skills they truly need to govern their association. Building a 45-minute to one-hour training session into every Board meeting agenda makes sense. As does marketing the opportunity to develop leadership skills to the younger generation in response to their "what's in in for me" response to the volunteer "ask".
It astounds me that many not-for-profit organizations fail to budget for Board professional development. The Board needs leaders. If you can't find them, you'll need to develop them. It's a must.
Many reference the exodus of the boomers and the differing motivations of Gen X and Y (often characterized as "what's in it for me"). The challenge is compounded when the members of an association are not, by their nature, leaders in their own right.
What's the answer? Well, for me it comes down to dedicating time and resources (through a professional development budget item for the Board) to giving Board members the leadership skills they truly need to govern their association. Building a 45-minute to one-hour training session into every Board meeting agenda makes sense. As does marketing the opportunity to develop leadership skills to the younger generation in response to their "what's in in for me" response to the volunteer "ask".
It astounds me that many not-for-profit organizations fail to budget for Board professional development. The Board needs leaders. If you can't find them, you'll need to develop them. It's a must.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Board Members MUST Think Future
Some Board members are, simply put, incapable of thinking long term and strategically. Those who cling to the past and those who can’t cope with change are in the wrong place. The Board is for leaders – leaders think future, focus on trends, thus ensuring their organizations remain vital and worthy of stakeholder support. The doers, quite frankly, are better off on committees.
In workshops or discussions I have with individuals in the not-for-profit sector, I often refer to a fictional association of widget-makers. In their daily work, they are doers. When they get to the Board table, unless told otherwise in orientation and in a well thought out recruitment process, they assume they are at the Board table to also be a doer. They are not. Their task is now to lead, not do. And therein lies the core of the problem in many associations. I keep coming back to one statement with client Boards time and again: as a society we have too often assumed that governance is somehow instinctive. Widget-maker or brain surgeon, if one is not taught how to govern, one will not govern. Governance is NOT instinctive. Governance must be learned.
And in most organizations, the Chief Staff Officer (CSO), who lives and breathes the organization all day, every day, often has a better grasp of what the real issues are than the Board does. My approach, when I served as as CSO, was to constantly place information on internal and external trends in front of the Board – they need it to do their job. In most instances I was lucky - my Board had the courage to make the tough decisions – they understood through education and orientation what their job was, and they did it.
But in too many associations, the Board gets scared – they are too afraid to deal with challenging situations, or are simply reluctant to change old ways of doing things. Eventually the CSO, with the best of intentions, fills the governance void – s/he just decides to take action – does what s/he can to address the issues and keep the organization afloat and relevant to members and stakeholders.
At some point, a Board with a CSO who is filling the governance void will come to view the CSO as taking liberties and working beyond their comfort level – that’s when the axe falls. The CSO simply can’t win. The only way a CSO can truly win is if the Board actually does their job - determines strategic goals, establishes policies, and monitors CSO compliance with those policies. A CSO can't demonstrate success if the Board isn't clear about what it wants the CSO to build and within what policy framework.
In workshops or discussions I have with individuals in the not-for-profit sector, I often refer to a fictional association of widget-makers. In their daily work, they are doers. When they get to the Board table, unless told otherwise in orientation and in a well thought out recruitment process, they assume they are at the Board table to also be a doer. They are not. Their task is now to lead, not do. And therein lies the core of the problem in many associations. I keep coming back to one statement with client Boards time and again: as a society we have too often assumed that governance is somehow instinctive. Widget-maker or brain surgeon, if one is not taught how to govern, one will not govern. Governance is NOT instinctive. Governance must be learned.
And in most organizations, the Chief Staff Officer (CSO), who lives and breathes the organization all day, every day, often has a better grasp of what the real issues are than the Board does. My approach, when I served as as CSO, was to constantly place information on internal and external trends in front of the Board – they need it to do their job. In most instances I was lucky - my Board had the courage to make the tough decisions – they understood through education and orientation what their job was, and they did it.
But in too many associations, the Board gets scared – they are too afraid to deal with challenging situations, or are simply reluctant to change old ways of doing things. Eventually the CSO, with the best of intentions, fills the governance void – s/he just decides to take action – does what s/he can to address the issues and keep the organization afloat and relevant to members and stakeholders.
At some point, a Board with a CSO who is filling the governance void will come to view the CSO as taking liberties and working beyond their comfort level – that’s when the axe falls. The CSO simply can’t win. The only way a CSO can truly win is if the Board actually does their job - determines strategic goals, establishes policies, and monitors CSO compliance with those policies. A CSO can't demonstrate success if the Board isn't clear about what it wants the CSO to build and within what policy framework.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Is it a Board Committee or a Staff Committee?
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).
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:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
