The board of directors is a governing body for an incorporated organization, consisting of individuals that provide strategic governance and support to an organization’s leader, staff, and stakeholders.
Here in the United States, in order to maintain 501(c)3 nonprofit status, an organization needs to have a functioning board. And, unfortunately, inactive and ineffective boards are pretty common in the nonprofit world.
I’ve experienced various board dynamics, both within my consulting role and as a board member for a few nonprofits over the years. I’m fortunate to have served on boards with members dedicated to serving in this capacity and care about organizational mission. However, even with my personal experiences and my interaction with boards in my projects, I’ve noticed quirks among boards that are confusing at best but can also be detrimental to staff if not checked.
While its considered an honor to serve on a board, the decisions a board makes can positively or negatively impact how staff carry out the organization’s mission.
So, how much of this is the fault of the board, and how much rests on the shoulders of the organizations that invite them to serve? Below are 10 things I’ve noticed, and how to spot them in your board:
The board exists in name only
An organization once approached me for strategic planning consulting. During our discovery call, I asked about the level of board involvement during this process. “Oh, we have a board, but they don’t do anything.” This is paraphrasing, but it’s pretty common to have a board solely to keep 501(c)3 or other incorporated status.
Most board members consider it an honor to serve on a board, but not so much when you join a board only to discover that it’s there in name only. Board service should be mutually beneficial as board members should be getting extrinsic and intrinsic motivation out of board service.
A board’s primary role is providing governance and leading strategic direction. The board is also there to hold the executive director accountable, which is very important for leader and staff dynamics. If the board can’t do its primary role, this can be detrimental to staff.
More focus on board recruitment, and less focus on addressing current board dynamics
During a recent strategic planning project, the client organization and I discussed board development as a strategic goal. Throughout this project, the organization had difficulty in getting board members to attend strategic planning meetings. Which makes sense seeing that their board rarely met to have board meetings. I also discovered that in the past, their board was more active. Now, the organization has board members that care about the mission but lacked the ability to support the executive director. The staff’s solution was to recruit new, ideally more active board members. A short recruitment took place, and the new board members were so overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work that needed to be done to address board dynamics.
Recruitment is temping when you have an inactive board. But bringing on new members in the hopes that things magically improve isn’t beneficial to new members. If your current board rarely meets, doesn’t engage staff, is disruptive, etc., these issues should be addressed and corrected before bringing on new members.
More focus on board member qualifications, and less focus on alignment with organizational mission and strategic direction
This is when your organization’s strategic plan becomes handy. Many organizations provide a high level summary of their strategy plan (or strategic vision) on their website. This is useful for future employees AND board members to use to assess whether they are in alignment with your organizational mission and vision.
Before you start recruitmenting, determine the types of board members you need based on
- Skillsets (policy, fundraising, community engagement, human resources, etc.);
- Personal identities to the communities you serve; and
- Networks (for fundraising and other opportunities)
- Alignment to organizational mission AND strategic direction
Organizations go through various stages of growth. How an organization is at its founding may look differently 10 years from now. The makeup of your board should reflects its ability to be responsive to the moment.
Board members aren’t given board orientation
Board orientation should be standard, like staff orientation. Yet it’s easy to assume that board members know how to be board members. National Council of Nonprofits, and BoardEffect provide examples on structuring board orientations. Also, board orientation is a great opportunity to have some staff members on hand to support the orientation and provide high level programmatic updates.
Board member makeup doesn’t reflect the communities you serve
Similar to having a board in name only for incorporation purposes, it’s also common to see boards with a makeup that doesn’t reflect the communities an organization serves. Yes, skillsets and networks are important, but your staff and the communities you serve should see themselves represented based on board’s personal identities and dedication to the work. Also, your board should prioritize this level of diversity and inclusion. if it’s not, then you have a problem.
Board members don’t understand the gravity of their decision-making on staff’s work and lives
Boards work with the executive director to approve a variety of things, including budgets, policies, etc. One thing I’ve struggled with as a board member is understanding that the decisions we make a board members can impact how staff carry out their work and how they live their lives. For example, if you’re a sexual and reproductive health organization, your policies should support paid family leave, abortion care support, opportunities for salary raises, opportunities for organizational growth, and health insurance that coverage fertility needs. What happens when a board is more focused on the price of health insurance that covers these areas and not on the fact that these are real staff needs?
Your organization should not only do great work, but also be a great employer. How can board members and staff work together to determine what’s best for staff’s work and lives? This leads to the next issue:
Lack of interaction between board and staff
I’ve been fortunate to serve on boards where there’s been ample opportunities for the board to engage with staff in meaningful ways. From creating committees that are equal parts staff and board and staff attending and presenting during board meetings, to both groups providing updates as a measure of transparency and accountability, there are plenty of ways to encourage staff and board to interact. This is important in times when the board needs to step in to support staff. This may look differently depending on organization size but it’s possible to foster a level of engagement where staff feel comfortable addressing concerns with the board AND for getting to know board members generally.
Lack of alignment between board and staff on organization’s strategic direction
When I support strategic planning processes, I stress engaging staff during this process not only for data gathering but also for determining what strategic priorities should be included in an organization’s strategic plan. While the board oversees implementation and follow up, staff perspective should also be included as they will be responsible for the programmatic work to move the strategic direction forward.
The board is too involved in day-to-day operations
As organizations go through various stages of growth, the board’s involvement in day-to-day operations will be situational. Executive directors leave, funding dissipates, and work environments can grow toxic. When these issues occur, it’s expected for board members to step up. When everything is running smoothly and the organizational climate is stabilized, the board is able to focus on governance while staff focuses on the day-to-day.
The board doesn’t have term limits
A term limit is a set number of times a board member can serve based on its bylaws. For example, a board can have two term limits that consist of 3 years each. This means that a board member can serve up to 6 years.
Term limits are tricky. Similar to issues arising that require a higher level of board involvement, term limits can be disruptive during organizational instability. But not having term limits can be just as disruptive when you have disruptive board members, members who are resistant to change or who aren’t aligned with the current strategic plan, or members who aren’t active at all.
As your organization grows and changes, with fresh perspectives and new insights, so should your board.
Key takeaway
The decisions your board of directors makes not only influences your organizational direction and growth, but impact how your staff does its job. If you notice these issues among your board members, develop a plan for addressing them.
Raise Your Voice: What steps can your organization take to improve board effectiveness? Share below in the comments section.
Was this useful? Subscribe to the Raise Your Voice newsletter, and explore my consulting services.
