Can Nonprofit Boards be High-Performing Teams?

I first read Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith's book, The Wisdom of Teams, years ago when I was preparing to lead a team of museum educators through a five-institution collaboration. Ever since then, I've asked myself whether or not boards of directors can meet the standards the authors identified as critical to the high-performing team.

The Wisdom of Teams looks primarily at the for-profit workplace and how groups of workers combine in teams to get work done. Teams function at a variety of levels -- or not at all -- from the innocuous working group, whose purpose is to share information, to the high-performing team, which can reach astounding feats of accomplishment.

Okay. We know boards are groups that come together to get work done. And some boards are highly effective and productive. But since boards members are serving voluntarily, would they ever have enough skin in the game to be one of Katzenbach and Smith's high-performing teams? And do they need to be anyway?

The authors identified six "team basics" that define the discipline required for team performance. They are:

the size of the team is small (generally less than 12 people). Interestingly, the national trend for size of boards has drifted downward to around 14 people. In fact, the poll that's currently running on this blog indicates the vast majority of boards are in the 11-20 person category. And really, when you look at who on your board is really invested enough to participate, it usually is a small core group -- the real team.
team members bring complementary skills to the table. This is about diversity, not sameness.
team members come together around a common purpose. For the nonprofit board, that would be the organization's vision and mission.
they agree on a common set of specific performance goals. For nonprofits, these goals would generally be articulated in the organization's strategic plan and related implementation plans. Job descriptions for board, staff and volunteers would also serve as performance benchmarks.
team members agree upon a working approach. Make clear the board's structure, how leadership is shared, how conflicts are resolved.
teams hold one another mutually accountable for their performance. The high-performing team takes this one step further: team members are deeply committed to one another's personal growth and success, and this may just be a bar too high for the nonprofit board (as it is for most groups of people working together).

Nonetheless, Katzenbach and Smith argue that there's a tremendous untapped potential for team performance in most organizations. "Hundreds of significant team performance challenges exist in every sizable organization, regardless of the prevailing institutional purpose, leadership philosophy, or governance approach. Some...are obvious, but many remain hidden under a blanket of assumptions about working group approaches and individual accountability."

Back in the Saddle

MY LAST POST WAS NOVEMBER 2012, A LIGHT YEAR AWAY it seems, that marked the beginning of a long push toward completing a manuscript on history museum leadership with my co-author, Joan Baldwin. We finally submitted 350+ pages to our editor at Rowman & Littlefield this week. If all goes well, we expect the book to be available in early 2014. It's taken us two years to get to this point, so six more months or so of revision and production don't seem too long to wait until we can hold the final product in our hands (and you can, too!). The project put a lot of things on hold, including this blog. I'm glad to be back writing about intentional leadership -- leading by design -- for nonprofit boards and staffs. Certainly, my thoughts are now informed by the forthcoming book, in which Joan and I posit that nonprofits need to focus resources on leadership, not just management. Most cultural nonprofits are at a crossroad, as is the sector in general, where nothing is qu

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

If you were asked to narrow down the list of executive director qualifications to the three most important, which ones would you identify? Would the list consist of soft skills, hard skills, or some combination? Would your list be based on the great ED you are or one you've worked for, or would it be your wish list for the ED you haven't been fortunate yet to work for? This was an assignment in my recent online class in leadership and administration for the American Association for State and Local History . I asked the class to review three-five advertisements for museum directors and analyze what these listings intimated about the organization’s past experience, current focus and goals, and future aspirations. Then, I asked the class to identify what they consider to be the three most important qualifications they would look for in a director. (Okay, so there's more than three if you dissect my three big groups.) Soft skills outnumbered hard skills, although

Leading by Design

Search This Blog