Board Wants vs. Organization Needs

DOES YOUR BOARD HAVE THE TENDENCY to solve the problems it wants to deal with, rather than the ones that exist?

This question, written as a statement in Ben Davis' recent coverage of the LA Museum of Contemporary Art's flight of board members in the wake of staff change, accusations of the dumbing down of exhibitions, and financial tightrope walking, has haunted me since reading it.

Haunted me because I think that many boards (not just high-powered ones) pay far greater attention to symptoms than root problems, precisely because they're not as messy or as intellectually challenging. And if you've got a board that minds the clock, root problems can rarely be tackled sufficiently in the space of a one or two-hour board meeting without considerable pre-meeting work.

If you've got a board chair who's fond of advancing personal interpretations of your organization's mission or has the boardroom equivalent of attention deficit syndrome, then it's every hand on deck to keep the entire group focused and operating at the big picture level. Not an easy task; often not done well.

We routinely choose board members based on their personal interests and preferences and we reinforce that with committee assignments and activities, which can result in breeding distinct allegiances to particular programs and people. Is it any wonder then, when solutions must be found to long-standing or seemingly intractable problems, few are willing to kill (metaphorically speaking) their sacred cows?

And what about our collective nonrprofit penchant for sugar-coating or downright ignoring poor performance and bad news. Is it really that unfathomable that a nonprofit can't pay its bills, can't attract audience, can't deliver on mission?

Some boards can paper over symptoms with money, which without the attendant examination of policies, procedures and decision-making, is usually just a bandaid. Less well-heeled boards may use other types of bandaids, such as furloughing staff, reducing hours of operation, amping up fundraising events, sliding into non-mission related programming.

Could this, in part, explain why there seems to be a slow boil underway between CEO's and their boards?

Image: Spannung / tension from cool_colonia4711

Comments

Anonymous said…

Another root problem of board leadership is explained here http://peabodyslament.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/board-of-trustees/

T.H. Gray
http://peabodyslament.wordpress.com/

July 24, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Anne W. Ackerson said…

Amen.

July 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM

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

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

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

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

Leading by Design

Search This Blog