Skip to main content

Dead Wood Continued

Image
By
MY LAST POST LEFT YOU AT THE POINT OF determining why it's important for your organization to have a fully functioning board. I think that getting very clear on this -- even to the point of writing it down -- as a sort of board mission or vision statement -- will help all board members understand the board's role in leading and protecting a complex system of stakeholders, programs and services. This statement, along with a board job description outlining organizational expectations of board service and the criteria used to identify board talent, form the foundation for evaluation of board member performance.

While some boards are more forgiving of extensive absences or cantankerous behavior, these and other idiosyncracies can ultimately affect effective governance and jeopardize "street cred". (I discuss the absent board member in more detail here.) So, another discussion might have something to do with how much a board can/will tolerate.

These discussions certainly fall within the responsibility of the Nominating/Board Development Committee, and that's perhaps where they should start, but they should continue through to the full board. The very act of discussing these topics at the full board will cause many individuals to re-evaluate their commitment to board service. Some attrition may naturally occur because of it.

The table has now been set to consider easing dead wood into other capacities. I'd love to hear from you about the table-setting discussion you've used to prepare for removing dead wood!

The Conversation
It's now time for one-on-one conversations with your dead wood. Typically these conversations need to come from the head of the Nominating/Board Development Committee or the president. At the very least, the conversation must be held by a board peer. Your first objective is to discover why the dead wood isn't connecting with board work (or the organization in general).

I think the conversation might best be started with an empathetic offering: "We know you've been flat out with getting you new business off the ground, Frances, and you haven't had much time to devote to our organization" or "We know you've had a lot of heath issues this year, Irving." It's important, I think, for the dead wood to know that his/her board peers have noticed the lack of engagement.

The empathetic offering provides an opportunity for the dead wood to acknowledge delinquency, offer to be relieved of responsibility or make a case for staying on. Whatever the response, it's important to always tie the discussion to what the organization/board needs right now. This is not a personal indictment, it's an opportunity to explore why a board member has been unable to engage with the work of the organization.

It may be that any number of issues will surface in the conversation, related and unrelated to the organization. Perhaps the dead wood feels marginalized at board meetings or is feeling over his/her head keeping up with board work. You may be able to discover remedies that could lead to a win-win for the individual and the board.

The conversation can also lead to the opportunity of letting go: "perhaps rotating off the board now/at the annual meeting/at the end of the year will relieve you of a responsibility that you've been struggling with." You know, sometimes this offer is just what the dead wood has been waiting for, but has been too reticent to ask for it.

Next Post: Easing Into Another Capacity

Photo: Dead Wood from bluevalley_photos
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

By
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
26 comments
Read more

Back in the Saddle

By
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
14 comments
Read more

What Would Make You Turn Down an Invitation to Join a Board?

By
THERE'S SO MUCH WRITTEN ABOUT RECRUITING BOARD TALENT, I thought I'd spend a little time thinking about it from the prospect's point of view. Clearly, there are boards where the line is long to get on them. But what would make you turn down an invitation? Here's a short list to get the conversation started: 1. You've had no prior exposure to the organization. Your immediate reaction is "did you pull my name out of a hat?" (Is that lady in the picture the head of the Nominating Committee?) Seems as though there must be a hidden agenda at work (like you're rich and once you become a board member you'll pour all your resources into the organization) or the organization is simply looking for any warm body to fill a seat. 2. The organization doesn't have a good reputation. There's something to be said for street cred. An organization that's floundering may be strengthened by your participation or you may find yourself sucked into
15 comments
Read more