Skip to main content

When the Board Wastes the CEO's Talent

Image
By

A RECENT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE for ongoing member communications at a nonprofit got me thinking about how boards can, often quite unintentionally, waste their CEO's talent and, in turn, the talent of bright, committed staff.  Boards can waste their own talent, too, but that's the subject for the next post. 

 In this conversation, some board members argued that it was the role of the board to review and approve every word the organization relayed to its membership.  Others differentiated between "strategic" communications -- issue briefs, advocacy alerts, statements on future organizational directions, for example -- and "informational" communications, such as event promotion, volunteer or donor recognition, and activity recaps.  Clearly, the substance of the communication seemed to be one (if not the) determining factor in when the board would involve itself in message development and approval. 

 However, we didn't get to that understanding until after I raised the issue that, at some level for many communications, we are talking about an operational activity, one carried out on a daily basis by staff who are hired in whole or in part because of their ability to communicate.  The board may approve an overall communications plan; it is the staff, with the leadership of the CEO, who will develop and implement it.  The CEO will determine what communications need committee or board input or final approval before release, not the other way around.

 We left the conversation with the understanding that the organization's CEO would be responsible for "informational" communications.  Her judgement would determine if the board or the president would review a message before its distribution to the members, to stakeholders, or to the media.  "Strategic" communications would likely be developed collaboratively with a committee or task force and approved by the full board.  We did not delve into the issue about the CEO spanning the critical space between strategy and operations -- leading or shaping strategy at times, carrying it out at others.  That's a nuanced conversation for another day.

 This is just one small example of how boards and their CEO's can get bound up in who-does-what-when-and-why.  Boards are charged with hiring the most capable staff leaders they can find.  Boards that then forget (or fear) their CEO's talent by doing the work of that talent may just as well take that CEO salary and throw it down a rat hole, because they've reduced their CEO to the level of a glorified administrative assistant.  (And even though great administrative assistants are worth their weight in gold, the CEO almost always earns more.  If the board fails to hire the best CEO talent it can find, it's a thousand times better off with a really great administrative assistant.  At least stuff will get done.)  

 Talk about squandering human AND financial resources!  Are you listening, board members?

 I'm reminded of John Carver's statement “Board members and the executive director are colleagues without hierarchy.”  It's a beautiful thing, but often unrealized, especially if a board is new to having a CEO relationship or it is stubbornly carrying some outdated notion that the CEO is nothing more than their 'hired help'.  

 Boards hire CEOs to do mission-critical strategic AND operational work.  Let them do it and support them in their doing it.  Talk that through to clarity, establish policies or procedures, if necessary, but don't do it for them.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
 Excellent tips. Really useful stuff .Never had an idea about this, will look for more of such informative posts from your side.. Good job...Keep it up
Sample Job Descriptions
July 4, 2014 at 8:39 AM
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