Monthly Archives: May 2013

A common theme that has been addressed in several forums lately (nonprofit vs. for profit challenges/styles, Boards that micro-manage, etc.) is how to get Boards to move out of operations and into strategic issues and discussions.  While there is no “one time” solution, or “one size fits all” intervention, there are some very practical ways to help Board members understand the horizon they should be considering in their role.

For individual member associations, and even for many trades, Board members arrive at their positions having climbed the leadership ladder in the organization.  Many times, that means moving from components with lower budgets, fewer (or in some cases no) staff, and where the volunteer base is also the workforce.  We are all probably familiar with the terms “working Board” in that respect.  In the past, we’d refer to that as the fact that the Board and other volunteers not only do the governing, they also do the “lickin’ and stickin’.”  (No one does much lickin’ and stickin’ anymore.)  Sometimes the role is not clear, the practice is not consistent, even in an organization that has a larger staff and budget.  Staff can’t be critical of Board members if they aren’t clear and consistent in their actions as well, and ask Board members to do operational things without a clear understanding of the implications.

A tool I have used successfully to highlight this issue in Board member orientation that helps incoming (and reinforces for continuing) Board members see a bigger role for themselves is this:

1.      I make a list of different levels of staff:  a) receptionist/call center, b) “line” workers (project coordinators/administrators), c) department managers, d) executive staff, and e) the executive director.

2.      I ask the Board members to create two columns and write down in one the level of detail the positions require (at times I ask for a percentage of detail work vs the level of strategy).  In the second column I ask them to write down the length of “lead time” each level of worker needs to be thinking ahead to be successful at their jobs.

It becomes clear pretty quickly that the focus of time and attention is quite different for different levels of staff.  The specific focus of time grows shorter the closer to the front line of work one gets, and the level of detail more extensive.  You move from thinking about the work I’m doing right now (the call I have to manage, how many are in the queue) to what is next year’s budget going to be (or the year after that) and what kind of programming needs to be planned in the next three to five years.

Sometimes we then do the same thing with governance; with Components, Standing Committees, Task Forces, etc., and then the Board.  What is the focus in time that each should have, from now, to a year from now, to five or ten?  What is the level of operational detail each level of governance should have as a matter of concern?

Having Board members recognize that their job is to move farther out in time, and higher in strategy to trends and mega-issues allows them to grasp their role in strategic direction and decision in a very practical way. It becomes pretty clear that not only is there a great opportunity cost if you have Board members acting like receptionists or even project managers, but also if the Board is engaged in those areas of focus primarily, either no one—or possibly the “wrong” persons, are going to end up focusing on what should be the Board’s primary task.  I’ve seen more than one Executive Director get in trouble for “doing the Board’s work” when, in fact, the Board had neither defined its role appropriately nor equipped itself to do its job.  And if the Board isn’t doing its work at the strategic level, isn’t it better that someone is trying to do it than no one?

There is no one correct answer to the questions, or right way to fill out the charts, obviously.  And the percentage focus in time and operations/strategy can change depending on circumstances.  But this exercise gives Board members and staff a way to have direct discussions about the issue without saying someone is “right or wrong” in their view.  It gives a chance to clarify expectations, goals, etc., overtly and directly, rather than having things simmer with the real issue of scope of role never being discussed.

Yes, there’s more to it that could be written.  But this is a starting point that can be used—a tool in the toolkit for execs to help move their Boards from operations to strategy, or at least to be clear about who is doing what, and expectations of each.