#282 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday February 23)
Good morning,
SMALLER ACTIVE BOARDS
I’ve been writing a lot about nonprofits and how they should function. In response to one such Musing, Bradley Mindlin commented that “Like you I have been involved with many 501(c)(3) organizations and worthy causes. I have had many good experiences. I will continue my involvement and continue stressing the importance of giving and involvement to our adult children.“
Notwithstanding his good experiences, however, Brad noted two bad experiences. These both occurred when a board became too large, becoming essentially a collection of donors and not a “working board.” When this happens, Brad maintains (and I tend to agree) that the board will increasingly tend to violate proper corporate governance and best practices. Eventually the unwieldy large board’s authority is usurped by a small group that controls the organization. These two issues—size and concentration of authority—are related and plague many boards
Brad prefers a smaller working board with a separate support group that engages in some of the initiatives of the organization but without “legal board” status (although often the head of the support group may have a seat on the board). He notes that large board with minimal and diffuse power will lead to “a leader who arises (no matter how noble their intentions) that rules in a Trumpian ‘my way or the highway’ style,” with a group of sycophants as followers. In Brad’s words, “It can destroy the organization and cause terrible liabilities, both to the charity and the individual board members.”
SIZE MATTERS
In order for a board to truly act as a board, it must be a manageable size—best practices suggest no fewer than ten and no more than 25 is ideal. A board much larger will, of necessity, have to consist largely of reports and less “real” work. That said, it is not inconceivable to run an organization with a large board; provided it has a robust committee system. With a smaller board, however, each board member is integral to the work of the organization and will have a sense that their presence, opinions, and time are important.
TIME TO MOVE ON
Organizations need to have diverse, active boards. Too often, they rely on entrenched leadership and past board chairs. It is axiomatic that for any organization to survive, leadership must evolve and should be transitioned to others. It also needs to be distributed among people with specific expertise and interests.
Transition is powerful and necessary—both in terms of people and ideas. Sometimes transition is scary and is resisted by those in positions of control. They do the organization a disservice. Rather than clinging to power, the soft power should translate to advising the CEO behind the scenes and providing mentorship and wise guidance to the board. Too often people seem unwilling to step out of a leadership role and into a supporting role. I joined a board once with a chair who served for 15 years in that capacity. Needless to say, the board was ossified and was unable to do much planning for the future with such a stranglehold asserted by one man—who had the best intentions but perhaps not the best instincts.
I recently finished a stint as the chairman of the board of a nonprofit. In the “past-chair” role, I was supposed to serve on the Executive Committee. Each time I missed a meeting, my successor called to ask me to attend the next meeting. Finally, after three misses, he called and said, “Hey, now I get it. You’re not coming because you want to give me room to lead without you in the room.” Exactly. I felt it was important for me to step aside and let others lead. My presence in the room might give me a “super vote” and could supplant the authority of future chairs and boards.
One of the dilemmas facing nonprofits is an ability to create a pipeline of future leadership. Another equally stultifying phenomenon is the unwillingness of leadership to step aside and the unwillingness to allow challenges to prior strategies.
THINGS CHANGE
With each new generation of an organization’s leadership and each era of its evolution, its strategic plan will—and should—change to account for the social and economic circumstances of the time and the needs of the people being served. But too often those who are in charge see no reason to cede responsibility to new people or to encourage organizations to consider mid-course corrections and strategic reconsiderations. Through the unwillingness to brook debate about the future and/or to make room for the consideration and implementation of ideas of others, they cut off the oxygen that feeds an organization’s evolution.
BUT HOLD ON TO INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY
The healthiest organizations find places for their past leaders, often creating active and involved “Past Presidents’ Councils” and “Emeritus Boards” for long-time board chairs and members, respectively. These councils retain the valuable guidance of leadership, keep past board members committed (and contributing), and create a healthy natural progression for leaders . One such past presidents group meets with the sitting president every couple of months and shares their advice and past experiences with the sitting president. Just as it is important to bring up new leaders, it is a mistake to lose the institutional memory and experience of past leaders.
BECOMING MENTORS
In our lives and as we mature, our roles in family, at work and in our communities become ones increasingly roles of mentorship, advising and cheerleading. To step back and let others lead, stepping back into an advisory role, requires maturity, confidence in others, humility, and love for these organizations. Former Board leaders should curtail their involvement—not because they can’t still contribute in many important ways, but because their continued active involvement may act against more engaged participation from others and, in turn, allow less flexibility for the organization to evolve in response to changed circumstances. We need to trust each other and cooperate in transition, for the betterment of all concerned.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: