Category Archives: Board Development

July 2, 2013 · 3:43 pm

Improving Board Performance Through New Board Member Orientation

imagesWhen I first became an Executive Director, for the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy there was no formal process for orienting new members who had been elected to the Board of Directors.  That was in 1993.  Last year, in a presentation on financial orientation for new Board members sponsored by ASAE, it was stated that only 41% of associations conduct Board orientations.  In the long period between 1993 and 2012, there have been financial and other “scandals” involving prominent nonprofits, significant changes in law that impacts non-profits, and a sea change in technology that has created more demand for transparency in organizational governance.  Aside from the legal and fiduciary exposure, social media use by organizations brings governance into much clearer focus for members, stakeholders, and the public.  More than ever, Board members need to begin their terms of service with knowledge of the strategic vision and direction of the organization, as well as more knowledge of how the parts fit together.

Call it overkill, or caution, or simply the inherent interest of systems-oriented therapists in processes, but at AAMFT we created an orientation for all newly elected Board members that, in reality, begins at the nomination phase.   After individuals are elected, there is a mandatory one and a half-two day orientation period that is hosted in the Association’s headquarters.  The orientation is hosted by the President, President-Elect, and Executive Director of the Association. Of particular focus during that time:

  1. Having newly elected Board members speak to their personal aspirations for Board service, and how they would define success.  Common questions: “If you are successful in your Board service, what will the Association look like at the end of your term? What issues will have been addressed that you see as important in the next three years? What would you like to make sure is maintained, and what would you like to see changed, improved, or eliminated?
    Even though individuals address this in platform statements, etc., their views evolve and become more relevant to them after election.  This information also gives the leadership significant clues about how Board culture might evolve, and how Board dialogue might be carried forward.
  2. Reviewing the principles outlined in the American Bar Association’s book, Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations.
  3. Reviewing the specific policies of the Association that are based on the Guidebook.  (AAMFT has a Governance Manual that includes, among other things, the Strategic Plan, the Board Calendar, the Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Policies, Board Member Role and Responsibility, Relationship with Staff, and more.)
  4. Reviewing the Finances and Corporate Structure.  There is a presentation (mentioned above) that offers great information on financial orientation on ASAE’s website if you are a member.
  5. Discussion of current landscape of the association.  This changes annually, but allows for some in-depth exploration (circling back to the beginning) about issues the Board is currently deliberating, the political climate internally and externally, etc.  It is in this section that there is discussion of the key questions outlined in the book, The Will to Govern Well.  These questions look at what is known about the current needs, wants, and preferences of members and stakeholders, the organization’s strategic capacity and position, the external trends that will impact the organization and the ethical implications of some of the issues before the organization.

Of all the tools, programs, training, etc., that can be provided to organizational leaders, this program of orientation has been vital in building collaboration, knowledge-based decision making by the Board, and better communications with members and the public about the governance and operations of the organization.   If your organization is one of the 59 percent that is not doing an orientation for incoming Board members, what are you waiting for?  Being a Board member is one thing.  Being a Good Board member is more challenging than ever, and even the most committed, well-meaning individuals who serve can use orientation, training, and “on-boarding” processes to help them toward success and meaningful contribution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Leadership

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 23, 2013 · 3:23 pm

The Problem is Never “Not Enough Good Ideas.” The Problem is Too Many

th

Glenn Tecker and colleages have written in The Will to Govern Well about four primary questions (and one “wrap around”) that help Boards govern with knowledge.  Those questions help provide a framework for data gathering and analysis to be used in planning.  In general, they are:

  • What do we know about the needs, wants, and preferences of our members and/or stakeholders that is relevant to this issue?
  • What do we know about the evolving external context that is relevant to this issue, and how that might impact planning?
  • What do we know about the strategic capacity (and position) of our organization that is relevant to this issue?
  • What are the ethical implications of our choices?
  • Then there is a fifth question:  What do we wish we knew, but don’t?

These questions are designed to move an organization from “information and data” to “knowledge.”  They are quite effective in moving Boards from operations to strategy as well.  The issue then becomes, what to do with what you know in terms of action?  And further, what do we do when there are 20 good ideas on the table, but we can really do only two or three of them?

One mechanism that can help is the use of strategic screens:  a set of questions through which to view your knowledge, the challenge/opportunity before you, and the values your organization holds. The Fieldstone Alliance has information about this concept.

A great example of the use of strategic screens is found in the work of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).   After clearly articulating values, business model, and strategic priorities, on pages 9-10 of their strategic planning document (see it under the About/Governance section), they discuss their two overarching screens:  the values screen, and the strategic management screen,and then expand them subsequently.  In the use of these screens, NAMI writes:

“NAMI’s screens are built upon NAMI’s mission and values.  They are grounded in NAMI Standards of Excellence, which describe the mutually agreed upon standards of operation for NAMI, NAMI chartered State Organizations, and NAMI Affiliates.  The screen assists us in making values informed strategic choices.  They help NAMI determine why we would undertake any given idea and how we would shape and refine the idea in order to hold or enhance NAMI’s competitive advantages and ensure strong management.

Simply put:  if we test an idea against this screen and cannot provide clear and satisfactory answers to the questions posed in the screen, then we ought not pursue that idea.  While the idea or program may have many merits and be appealing, if it does not support NAMI’s mission or values and enhance our competitive advantage, then, as leaders dedicated to advancing NAMI’s strategic well-being, we must refrain from those actions.”

As executives, our job is to ask the strategic questions, gather the best data/information available, churn that into knowledge, and act to the betterment of our organizations/issues.  NAMI provides a great example of how one organization has modeled its process. Take a look!

1 Comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Strategic Planning

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 22, 2013 · 4:10 pm

Resources: You May Have More Than You Think!

thThe story is told of a sign in a Pentagon procurement office that said, “Better, Faster, Cheaper:  Pick Any Two.”  While humorous in a way, we recognize some (painful) truth in the statement.

In a parallel way, leaders in nonprofit organizations also have three types of resources (and therefore choices) at their disposal.  To maximize the impact of an organization’s programming and vision, we need to build a strategy using all three.

The three types of resources every organization has are Time, Money, and People.  Typically we think first (and sometimes only) of money as the basic resource to drive an organization’s progress. You read often that fund development is the chief priority for an organization—and that would be true for any organization these days, really. The type of algorithm in the Pentagon sign exists, no doubt.  If you have less money, you may have to find ways to maximize your “people” resource.  If you don’t have a lot of either, then time may become a resource—it may take longer to achieve your objective, but there are ways to use time to build your programming as well.

We all know about financial budgeting and management, but I’ve also seen organizations create very successful advocacy campaigns using people power.  Organizations can succeed primarily using the intellectual capital and of their volunteers or their profession.  However, I’ve seen many fewer organizations that actually consider creating a human capital budget, or that even know how many hours or to what end they have volunteers contributing over any given cycle.

Have you done a “human capital” (people) assessment of your organization?  Do you know how you are spending volunteers’ energy and commitment, and how that relates to your strategic priorities?  Do you have a human capital development plan that will help build the strategic capacity of your organization?  This resource can be as vital, and sometimes more vital, than having funds to spend on certain initiatives.

Time is also an asset.  Occasionally, we don’t have much of it, or we use it to create and drive an agenda.  The National Breast Cancer Coalition, for example, has identified the year 2020 as the deadline to end breast cancer.  It is using time as an asset, to create urgency for people and funding.

Some things are calendar driven, and must be considered in light of deadlines.  Then again, there is a saying that “Time cures.”  Do you ask, when considering an issue, whether it requires money, people, or time?  Time can be used another way: in sequencing well.  For some issues, if you do the right things first (using time correctly) you may not have to do several other things—they may take care of themselves.

Take the opportunity to do a global assessment of your organization’s strategic capacity in these three areas.  How does your organization consider, count, and use its’ people, its’ time, and then, its’ money.  By being conscious in this assessment, you may well find resources you didn’t know you had, or be able to capitalize and deploy the resources you have in a more effective way.

1 Comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Resource Development, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 9, 2013 · 4:26 pm

How to Move Boards from Operations to Strategy

A3d_pie_chart 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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,