From the Archives: A Tale of Two Boards
Author’s Note: I’m out of the office this week so I thought I’d reshare this take on Boards of Directors from March 2023. All 501c organizations are required to have a board of directors – what outcomes we achieve is directly related to board culture.
There are many takes and variations on Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Tale of Two Cities set around and during the French Revolution. It has (in my opinion) one of the best opening lines ever: “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” This describes life at any given moment here on Planet Earth which demonstrates how insightful Dickens was about the human condition.
Nonprofit organizations are always living in “the best and worst of times” when it comes to their Boards of Directors. Unlike the many options available to for-profit entities to incorporate, some of which include Boards and some that do not, nonprofit organizations are required to have a Board of Directors – no ifs, ands, or buts. Without a Board, you cannot be a nonprofit. Some might say this is a small price to pay for federal income tax exemption but is the price too high?
When you consider how much time and energy are wasted on dealing with the fallout of poor Board decisions, poor Board relationships, and trying to maintain their focus on strategy – not tactics – are we really just wasting our time?
During my career as a nonprofit management professional, I have seen poor Board dynamics as the number one driver for lack of mission fulfillment. This happens because most Board members are woefully unprepared for their role; they are not educated prior to their Board tenure and then, for some reason, are resistant to Board education once elected or appointed. Sometimes, they seem to be working out their middle school drama in the Board room rather than with their therapist.
Why are some Boards high performing and others just drive us to the edge of madness with their bad behavior? Well, dear reader, I cannot offer THE answer, but I can share my opinion based on my experiences:
1. High performing boards recruit talented/skilled leaders. Bad boards appoint or elect people because “it is their turn” or because they are the only warm body available.
2. High performing boards create and maintain a structure for doing their work; they also curate a culture of respect and performance. Bad boards allow the emotionally immature members to drive the agenda; you know who I’m talking about: the ones who derail decisions, take meetings off track, and act out because they do not feel they really belong there. (They are probably right.)
3. High performing boards continue their leadership development education in collaboration with their staff. They never stop learning and they are open to hearing all opinions. Bad boards fall into factionalism and accusations, spawning suspicion and casting accusations against each other.
4. High performing Boards are good decision makers. What is a good decision maker? Someone who gathers all the required data, makes comparisons, hears all opinions and perspectives, and then respects and supports the decision. Bad boards have members that will undermine the decisions if they do not “get their way” and accuse their fellow board members of organizing against them.
When it comes to managing Board culture, the difference between a good and bad board is the commitment of its members to quality, high performance, and fulfilling the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. Board members must hold each accountable and responsible for their behavior. I will close with one of my own lines from a previous message:
Culture is created by the behavior that is tolerated.
