Laramie Board Learning Project

Constructing a better board orientation

2012-01-28T11:43:00.000-07:00

We know we need to do better in orienting new members of our nonprofit boards. I shared my rationale - and my general vision - for what and why in last Monday's post. But what would it actually look like?

I'm feeling challenged to translate what I laid out last week into a sample orientation process. If I follow my own counsel, I'm envisioning a basic framework that looks something like this:

Before the orientation event

Remember, while you may schedule an event designated as new member orientation, the actual experience is an ongoing process that began in recruitment. Here is the minimum foundation that we laid out in advance of the event I'll be describing in a moment.

In recruitment:

The prospective member learned of general expectations of individual board members. You offered a verbal overview in your introductory conversation(s). When interest was expressed, you followed up with a more formal discussion and a packet of information that included the board member job description. If they are not already involved and deeply familiar with your organization, you've also provided them with additional information to help them better understand your mission and your work. That may be in the form of print materials. It also might be links to your website, videos, etc.

Once he/she has accepted:

You immediately placed into the new member's hands a copy of the board handbook or access to the electronic board portal that serves the same purpose. Yes, in advance. This gives the new member time to get acquainted with the full range of duties and the structure in which the board works. This eliminates any excuse for spending the orientation event reading the handbook's contents to participants. It also gives the new member a chance to identify questions that will drive that event and make it more germane to their early informational needs.

During the orientation event

They've accepted. They're ready to serve. Now it's time for the formal orientation event. My example is two hours long. There's nothing magical about a two-hour time frame; your orientation may be longer or shorter than that. But my arbitrary two-hour framework acknowledges the physical limits of many adult brains and bodies. You're probably holding this event at the end of an already long work day. What you're sharing isn't completely unfamiliar, but it is still "new." Don't overload them during this important group learning experience.

Welcome and introductions (20 minutes*)

Not just names and work affiliations. Ask them to share something that connects them to each other and the commitments they now share (e.g., "describe at least one compelling reason why you agreed to serve on this board").

The responsibilities of this board (40 minutes)

General discussion about roles and responsibilities, focused primarily on their questions about the job description, what's in the handbook, etc. Deepen their understanding and clarity: "What exactly does this mean?" "Give us examples of how members 'promote XYZ Agency in the community'." Highlight what you want, but let their questions drive the conversation.

The board's leadership role (30 minutes)

Discussion of the board's unique leadership contributions, internally and externally. Focus on their roles in advancing and protecting your vision and mission - those specific duties that only the board fulfills, by charge and practice. Talk about the critical community outreach work that they do, in their daily lives as well as in formal settings. Talk about how the board defines its own "success." Examples are critical here. While the CEO may have anecdotes to share, they must come primarily from the veteran board members in attendance (board president and mentors). This needs to be peer-to-peer.

My leadership potential (20 minutes)

Time to reflect, individually and then as a group, about the ways in which they want to get involved. Ask them to volunteer one or two thoughts about where they see themselves making an early contribution. Connect those ideas to the reason(s) they committed to serve. Identify how you will facilitate those first steps.

Continuing the journey (10 minutes)

Bring closure to the event by identifying topics that require deeper explanation or exploration. What aspects of their board service are still a bit cloudy? Where are they feeling less confident? Identify those need areas and commit to following up within the month.
(Re)introduce them to their veteran board mentor, who will act as their informal guide for the next six to 12 months of service.

After the orientation event

The learning journey continues. New board members need and deserve support as they begin their service and expand their understanding of the responsibilities they've assumed. What type of support you provide depends primarily on their identified needs. Following are some examples of ways to continue the learning process for new members:

Follow up within the week from the board president and board mentor (a must).
Address their identified learning need areas. How depends on the topic and level of need. It may require a more detailed session, sharing additional documentation, a tour, etc. Make sure you follow up, and that you do so in a timely manner.
Regular check-ins should be made by the board mentor. Don't assume the lack of a phone call means the new member has no questions.
Build in ample time for questions during board meetings, a benefit for all members (and an essential part of governance). Be prepared to offer context for new members coming into existing discussions. Don't single them out, but be sure they have opportunities to clarify, question.
Assign new members to an active committee that fits their interests and strengths. It gives them a chance to get involved in meaningful work, in ways that are comfortable stretches for them.

I have additional thoughts about each of these areas, but I'll close this off and instead look forward to hearing your observations and recommendations.

* Scheduled times may work perfectly as outlined, or they may simply offer a suggested level of emphasis.

'Fly on the wall:' Better board orientation

2012-01-23T05:21:00.001-07:00

If I were a fly on the wall, observing a new board member orientation unfolding in the way it should be structured, what would I see?

I knew up front that the focus of my recent interview with Renee McGivern for her Nonprofit Spark podcast would be challenging our typical conceptions of new board member orientation. I was prepared to share - and did share - observations and recommendations on the topic. I've often discussed the importance of welcoming new members onto the board in deeper and more useful ways in this space.

But Renee's "fly on the wall" question caught me slightly off guard in the moment, and it prompted a lot of post-interview thought about exactly what that better way of orienting would look like. Since I've never explored the topic here in any comprehensive way, I'm feeling challenged to articulate my vision of what that better new board member orientation would look like for a typical nonprofit.

I'd like to open with three assumptions about orientation that underlie my vision.

First, orientation is more than a single event, scheduled after a prospect has agreed to serve on your board. It began long before that 'yes' was uttered. The potential board member knows, because you've specifically outlined in the recruitment process:

The mission and vision of your organization and the basic programs it provides in advancing them.
The specific expectations of your board - not only the bottom line legal and fiduciary responsibilities but also the larger leadership roles of your governing body.
Their specific expectations - why you are recruiting them to serve now. Do you need their particular professional expertise? Are you interested in reaching out to new segments of the community via their connections to that community? They need to know, up front, what they are being asked to bring to the table beyond the general board member job description roles.

Second, new board members have access to the specific details needed to govern from the moment they accept. Whether it is a hard copy board handbook, an electronic board portal used to store key board documents, or some other resource, essential documents and data (e.g., the bylaws, minutes, financial statements, statistics on clients served) are readily available to them. They are smart, successful people. You do not need to spend this orientation session reading to them what they can review at their own convenience. I'm not saying that you have no need to review some of those details in this formal setting. I'm saying do not waste precious time reciting all of those details at this induction event.

Third, no matter how open and user-friendly you make an orientation event, new members will feel overwhelmed and they will not remember everything they "need to know." You can do your part by resisting the urge to dump truckloads of details on them in one sitting, by reminding them that they have access to most of those details when they need them (e.g., the handbook or portal), and by assuring them that questions - now or later - always are welcome.

So, with all of that as a foundation, what would that fly on the wall see? I'm not sure that what follows leads naturally to a detailed agenda (though it may help me develop one for a future post). But here are my 'musts' for a better board orientation event.

New members aren't outnumbered by too many 'insiders' in attendance. At most, a two-hour event would include the new members, the board president, the CEO and the new member mentor(s). (More on the mentor later.) They already are feeling overwhelmed. They will have one or more terms to get to know the rest of the board and staff. This session needs to be a comfortable, safe place for exploring - with their fellow newbies - what it really means to serve this agency. Confronting them with an endless parade of people, especially insiders bearing PowerPoint presentations, only adds to the anxiety and the potential for overload.

The session and its content focus primarily on the board and their roles within it. The basics aren't new, because they were outlined in recruitment. This session gives them an extended opportunity to explore what that really involves: how the board accomplishes its work (e.g., the way that the board is structured to fulfill its roles, the committees or other work groups that facilitate that work, the routines and events of the board's year). It gives them a chance to go into greater depth about what that looks like and an opportunity to see how they will go about finding their place as active members. Additional information about the organization and its work also is inevitable, but it isn't the primary topic for this session.

It connects the board's collective role, and their individual role, to the heart of the organization and its work. Too often, we focus all of our energies into describing the logistics of service - the whats and hows of being a board member. Those are essential to understanding what is expected, but they're not enough. If we've recruited well, we've attracted new members who are passionate about the work that we do. They want to connect, directly and indirectly, to the organization's success. Tell stories, offer examples, that give life to the work that you do. Make sure that some of those stories illustrate the board's role in that impact. Link their coming leadership roles to what prompted them to say yes in the first place.

More time should be devoted to new members' questions than presentations by others. Remember, they already have basic information about your organization and their responsibilities. This is a time for conversation, led largely by the questions they already have and those that will arise as you dig deeper into what it means to serve. It's also time for them - and you - to check assumptions about how this board functions as a team and a work group. I mentioned in the interview the perils of having multiple people enter the boardroom with different ideas about how how boards work. Discussing this up front, and getting a sense of how governance is enacted in this board, is critical.

This orientation event marks the beginning of the next phase of their board learning journey. When they leave this session, they should:

Know who has been assigned as their board mentor (and, preferably, met that person). They know that this person will serve as a peer guide, a person upon whom they can call with questions. The mentor is an additional resource who remembers what it feels like to be new.
Know that there will be other opportunities to learn more about specific aspects of their work and about the agency, because yours is a board where learning is valued and embedded in their work.
Know that you will be offering additional focused sessions on topics of concern to new members (e.g., a follow-up specifically targeting the agency's financials).
Know that they will have opportunities to tour the facility, if doing so was was not possible during this initial orientation.

A word about what it means to be new...

Renee and I addressed it in the interview, but I'd like to offer a brief postscript on what I hope is obvious: it takes time to move from new recruit to active, seasoned veteran. In the world of communities of practice, where my research lies, that process is called legitimate peripheral participation. Renee and I agreed that we shouldn't excuse new members from stepping up and getting involved, that we should find meaningful ways to engage them early in the board's work.

But orientation is a process, not a one-time event. We facilitate that process by demonstrating to new members that they are supported as they begin their service. We build upon that process by assigning them meaningful activities, via committees and other opportunities to serve, to demonstrate how they will contribute to the organization's success. We enhance their learning and their commitment by structuring meetings for lively, governance-focused discussions where they are always expanding their potential to lead. We give them (reasonable) time and space to find a place where they can make a meaningful contribution.

Now that I've had the chance to gather the various ideas about board orientation that have been floating in my brain for years, I think I'll try to come up with an agenda that puts what I've described here into some actionable shape that you may find useful. It's a logical next step for me, and an additional opportunity to engage you in a conversation about how we induct our new board members.

Overheard: Jan. 20 edition

2012-01-20T11:53:00.003-07:00

Leading this week's list of favorite nonprofit governance links is a video that, I must say, left me feeling pretty good about what I've been advocating in this space for the past five years.

Connections: Award-winning boards of directors (Center for Nonprofit Advancement)

Connections - Greenbrier Learning Center from DCTV on Vimeo.

Listening to representatives of the Greenbrier Learning Center describe the innovative practices that keep its award-winning board on track sparked a series of "Yes!" and "I told you so...." responses for this viewer. It takes a bit of time to get to the substance of the interview (10 minutes in), but when you arrive you'll be treated to a description of a board that successfully focuses its energies on the important work that ties them to their motivations for service. You will hear - wait for it - about meetings that open with learning moments (I leaped from my chair when I heard that one) and that clear space for meaningful discussions by using consent agendas. The entire interview spotlights what can happen when a board is tied to what is important - to their organization, to their community, and to the board members themselves. It shows us what is possible when we engage our boards purposefully.

Quit complaining: Best practices for nonprofit board learning (Renee McGivern)

Part of me hesitates to share this one, because I'm Renee's interviewee. But the topic of this audio podcast will be of interest to many readers, and it helped me think more deliberately about board orientation processes (likely leading to my next post). We covered a lot of board learning ground in this 45-minute interview, primarily on the processes that underpin the way we orient new members to the organization and their roles. There are a couple of ways to access this interview: via this website and via the Nonprofit Spark podcast in iTunes. Both offer download options.

Youth board members: Can minors serve on a nonprofit board? (Emily Chan)

One of my favorite nonprofit legal experts, Emily Chan, addresses a question that many boards ask: Can we include youth members and, if so, what are the issues we need to be aware of up front? Having a credible legal perspective on the question is a major service to her readers. Equally valuable is her comprehensive approach to covering a range of considerations for a board. Emily extends beyond the legal bottom line to encourage boards to look deeply at their motivations and the very real consequences of engaging youth members.

Earned income 101 for nonprofits (Gene Takagi)

Emily's legal partner, Gene Takagi, recently presented a terrific webinar on a topic that may be new to many boards - earned income. The gift to us all is this recorded version (and accompanying slides). If earned income is a part of your nonprofit's revenue, or if you're considering earned income as a potential addition to your revenue mix, Gene's presentation will help you better understand the parameters under which you can work. It's a challenging topic, made more accessible, thanks to Gene.

Visualizing a 'more ideal' board committee

2012-01-16T08:26:00.001-07:00

If many nonprofit board committees waste members' talents and time, and drag their attention away from their governance responsibilities, because they're focusing on the wrong areas, what would an "ideal" work group structure look like?

In last Monday's post, I made a case for rethinking the way we create and use our board committees. We too often assign their work based on staff functions, then complain when they "micromanage." We also wonder why they can't find the energy for the more visionary, future-focused responsibilities that comprise governance. The connection is not a coincidence.

So what would make a more ideal committee? What areas would a more ideal committee structure cover? I have a few "more ideal" thoughts about how I would respond to those questions and acknowledge that you may have your own version of "more ideal" that brings boards and their committees closer to their ultimate responsibilities.

My "more ideal" committee:

Would have a charge, goals and activities grounded in the board's governance roles, not staff functions. Energy and outcomes would move the board's leadership work forward.
Would take a more detailed approach to fulfilling its work but still remain aspirational in focus - asking and answering big governance questions about the future, capacity, etc.
Would ask the question, "what does the board need to know to make the best decision possible on this," and take charge of ensuring that its learning needs are addressed.
Would not just report on committee findings and activities but would facilitate board-level discussions that engage members in broad group exploration of the issue at hand.
Would submit committee reports - especially regarding activities that have already passed - in writing, opening board meeting time for meaningful discussion (and contributing to the board's organizational history).
Would include staff and volunteer participation where appropriate, to foster information sharing, wider ownership of outcomes, and feeding the board's pool of prospective new members.
May not be a "committee," but a task force called together for a specific purpose and disbanded when the work is completed.

In the last post, I posed a few alternative focus areas for board committees. In the rest of this post, I will reintroduce those committees and suggest how they might be used to accomplish your board's work. You may have different needs and different ways of conceiving your ultimate governance responsibilities, but I offer these as an example of how we might create a different structure for doing our boards' work. Your board may have a different ways of conceptualizing your roles and the structure to fulfill them.

Community Outreach Committee

This committee would be charged with nurturing the board's/organization's relationships in the community, laying the groundwork by asking: What kinds of relationships? With whom? Why? How? It would be charged with ensuring that board members are establishing and building mutually beneficial relationships with key stakeholder groups. In some cases, board members would take the lead in making connections to stakeholders. In other cases, members would add board-level credibility and support to relationships that senior staff are building with community members and groups. Whatever the specific setting, emphasis is on the unique boundary-spanning credibility that the board brings. The committee also must focus on ensuring that every member serving in a community ambassador role has the support and resources needed to succeed.

This committee would play a lead role in the leadership team defining and communicating a larger strategy for community outreach. It would not delve into specific public relations or marketing tasks (staff's domain, if staff exist). Rather, it would encourage members would bring in what they are hearing and seeing in their boundary spanning work and identify with the CEO the issues and opportunities to address within the context of their mission. It also would lead the board in developing any policies related to this work.

Resource Development Committee

Interpreted broadly, this group's task could be daunting. On the other hand, having one committee charged with taking a holistic approach to understanding and sustaining all of the agency's resources is healthy and conducive to more productive and effective decision making. In my "more ideal" conceptualization, this committee's charge would include funding: expanding diversity of sources, building stability - and, yes, fundraising - as part of that mix (not necessarily personally implementing the fundraising process, but ensuring that appropriate goals are set and processes adopted that lead to their achievement). Committee members also would have responsibility for board-level involvement in human resource development, primarily focused on policy development but attuned to helping senior staff ensure that paid and volunteer staff have the resources needed to succeed. I also would place policies and issues related to capital resources (buildings, investments, etc.) under this umbrella.

Yes, I realize that particular description might terrify many board members. The point is that the board benefits from a system-wide understanding of a nonprofit's resources, rather than having different member subsets working on various, isolated parts.

Accountability/Transparency Committee

I acknowledge the inherent overlap between the focus of this committee and the one just described. But I offer it as a separate entity, to not only avoid killing Resource Development Committee members, but to create a natural mechanism for the board as a whole understanding and embracing their accountability responsibilities. I see this committee as guaranteeing that the organization fulfills all reporting requirements instituted governmental (e.g., IRS and grantor agencies) and donor sources. But beyond that bottom line role, this committee would take the lead on facilitating board-level conversations about appropriate internal and external transparency and accountability to all stakeholders. It would raise awareness about a critical role that too often is ignored or confined to asking, "Is our 990 up to date?"

Board Development/Governance Committee

The previous three committees spend a significant percentage of their time tending to external sustainability issues. This one turns inward, addressing the capacity needs of the board itself. An investment in the board's learning and recruitment needs yields results in increased member capacity to lead and serve. Among the responsibilities that would fall under this committee's charge would be: identifying and addressing the board's learning needs, planning and implementing individual member and board self-assessments throughout the year, taking the lead for the board's new member recruitment process, and serving as the board's nominating committee. The point of this committee is the board's ownership of its own learning and leadership development needs. It also holds leadership responsibility for cultivating and recruiting the new members who will help the board meet its own capacity needs.

The topics I've selected and the charges I've given each committee may feel exactly right to you, or you may have your own thoughts about focus areas for your governing body. The point is that your board will rise to the aspirations members set for themselves. Are you asking your board - and its committees - to lead as only the board can? Are you giving them work that links them directly with the reason they signed on in the first place?

Overheard: Jan. 13

2012-01-13T06:04:00.000-07:00

This week's favorite links inspire boards to ask big questions, and offer ways to define the first steps to making them actionable.

New Year's resolutions - not goals - for nonprofit leaders (Marion Conway)

Marion asked and smart people answered. Their collective wisdom, this post, offers inspiration for nonprofit boards and senior staff. Take some time to read and reflect on their comments. They're powerful and practical.

Bringing on a new ED: It's more than a change - it's a process! (Steve McKee)

Hiring an executive director isn't something boards do every day, but it's one of the most important responsibilities of governance. Because they don't have much practice, the potential for boards to mishandle executive transition is great. This post inspires boards in this position to think beyond the single moment of hiring. It helps them understand the entire process of leadership succession and how it impacts the entire organization.

Action steps for getting your board right in 2012 (Kevin Monroe)

The dual focus on the assessment and steps to create actionable results is the obvious strength of this new post by Kevin. If you're a regular reader, you know my love of thought-provoking questions. Kevin's contributions here engage boards in the reflection needed to focus attention on their capacity and leadership needs, for this year and beyond.

No more boring meetings, please! (Jesse Lyn Stoner)

No doubt most, if not all, readers can relate to the sentiment. The default response is to redesign the meeting. Jesse Lyn asks a question that should be asked more than it is: Is this meeting even necessary? If the answer is yes, the process of clarifying that there is a purpose increases the likelihood that participants will accomplish will be achieved in the most effective way possible.

Rethinking nonprofit board committees

2012-01-09T05:27:00.000-07:00

Do your board committees make sense? Are their responsibility areas governance responsibilities, leading the group toward effective leadership on their unique roles; or are they digging into areas best left to staff?

For most nonprofit boards, committees are where the focused work takes place. A smaller group of members assumes responsibility for a facet of the board's work and, we hope, exploring options to share with the rest of the group. Ideally, they also are assuming leadership for facilitating board discussions about those issues, educating the larger group about the options and impacts on the way to thoughtful and appropriate decisions.

Used well, committees allow members to apply their existing expertise or build knowledge in an interest area while doing the background work necessary for an appropriate collective decision. They also develop members' leadership skills in a specific aspect of the board's work and potentially for the board as a whole.

Unfortunately, many committees fail to reach their full potential. And there's one major reason for that: they're charged with the wrong focus areas. They're assigned what essentially are staff functions. Do these sound familiar?

Personnel Committee
Finance Committee
Public Relations/Marketing Committee
Fundraising Committee
Building and Grounds Committee

Yes, the board is responsible for all aspects of the organization's health and stability. They have deep interest in these (and other) aspects of the agency. They even have some governance-level responsibility in each area. But unless they are charged otherwise, these committees naturally will be drawn to goals and tasks that border on staff functions - and micromanagement.

Micromanagement is a special risk. Board members want to serve. They want to be thorough and diligent. However, it is a very short leap from "helpful" to "interfering." They naturally will gravitate toward what they know and do best. Members who have expertise in specific areas (e.g., contractors on the buildings committee or PR professionals on the public relations committee) will want to dive in and get involved in tasks that may be staff responsibilities. They may hover over staff, alienating those employees. They may even actively interfere. There are ways to participate and lead in the areas where they have applicable knowledge and skills. How they exercise them as part of the governing body is the question.

For some nonprofits, where there are no employees or where the board assumes heavy operational responsibility alongside a small staff, there may be legitimate reasons for members to take a more hands-on role. It does not absolve them of their governance responsibilities, though. They cannot ignore those leadership functions while taking on those day-to-day, management- or volunteer-level activities. They must attend to the essential duties that come with governance, first and foremost. They are legally and morally obligated to do so.

If the board leads a larger, more fully-staffed nonprofit, they should be primarily spending their energy on the larger visionary, strategic and accountability roles for which they are primarily responsible.

I'd like to propose that changing the charge of our committees - assigning them responsibility for different governance-level roles - moves the board itself closer to accomplishing what they are called to do.

What if your board's working groups looked something like this:

Resource Development Committee
Community Engagement Committee
Accountability Committee
Board Development Committee

What you choose as responsibility areas depends both on your board's general governance roles and your specific organizational need areas (which may change from time to time). Where does your organization require their leadership? That's where your committees should aim.

Aspects of the more common committees would still receive board attention (For example, resource development might cover policy development for fundraising; and community engagement would inevitably include public relations goals.). But they would cover far more, and more at the board's leadership level. It also likely that it would draw board member attention to the higher-level contributions where they will find greater satisfaction.

I think I'll stop here with this post, lay the groundwork for a larger discussion and gather your feedback on the notion. In a future post, I'll flesh out a bit further what a shift in committee focus might open up for the board, the work it does, and the impact on your nonprofit.

Overheard: 2012's first favorite posts

2012-01-07T11:37:00.000-07:00

A gift from one of my favorite board thinkers, Alice Korngold, opens 2012 on an inspiring note and provides the centerpiece of my first favorite governance links of the new year.

Imaginary boards: The secret to a better world (Alice Korngold)

A 2006 Leader to Leader Journal article introduced me to both its author and the "duty of imagination" - and made me an Alice Korngold fan. Adding imagination to the three widely recognized legal duties of governance (obedience, loyalty and care) does more than expand the responsibility. It links board members to the heart and soul of the work to which they have committed. It also connects them to their ultimate leadership contribution (and their personal motivations for signing on in the first place): fulfilling the organization's mission. This marvelous post provides a vision of a better and more inspiring way to govern that comes from building an environment (and expectations) where imagination is an integral part of board work. I've added it to my "board essentials" bookmarks and will be sharing this one widely. It's already a governance classic.

January 1, 2012: Relationship resolutions (Steven Klass)

Building and nurturing relationships that create and sustain support for the nonprofit and its mission is one of the most unique contributions board members can make. Those relationships may be with external audiences - donors, policy makers and potential supports from their peer circles. They may be internal - including fellow board members and the executive director. Most of all, they have opportunities to engage in fulfilling work that connects their motivations with the agency's needs. In this post, Steven Klass inspires us to take a moment to reflect on the relationships we have developed, or might develop, to build our nonprofits' capacity to advance their respective missions.

1 key for nonprofit leaders to accomplish your 2012 goals (Kevin Monroe)

Kevin offers only one resolution for boards and other nonprofit leaders to consider as we enter 2012: define/affirm your "big hairy audacious goals" (Jim Collins concept) advancing your vision and mission, and then find those smaller steps that make them achievable. What are those smaller steps that not only center your attention on those larger aspirations but also move you closer to them? We all know how daunting it can be to think about a mission that we may never see fulfilled in our lifetime. That doesn't mean you abandon it. You commit more deeply to that purpose and then find meaningful ways to move it forward, one step at a time.

What's on your board's first meeting agenda for 2012? (Anne Ackerson)

Governance involves a broad scope of responsibilities, but the hub of activities that fulfill them is the board meeting. We can't afford not to continue the conversation about improving the ways in which those meetings unfold and focus the board's attention on the critical leadership work with which it is assigned. One of the reasons I love Anne's work - and this particular post - is that she addresses big questions in practical ways. In this case, she's encouraging us to reflect on how we've been conducting business and our aspirations for the future (both immediate and long term) and adopt strategies that replace the less-than-effective ways in which we conduct our work in meetings.

Board learning: Definitive posts (so far)

2011-12-30T08:37:00.000-07:00

An ongoing conversation about how nonprofit boards, and the adults who serve on them, learn is the unique niche of this blog. It's in the blog's name, in my credentials, and increasingly everywhere in the writing here.

In the past year, I've made a more conscious effort to increase the quality and frequency of posts focused on the learning that occurs in nonprofit governance. The result is a growing list of resources - or at least my interpretation - related to board learning in all of its forms.

In this post, I gather links to some of my key writings on the topic, published in 2011. For the reader interested in a general overview, this offers a quick summary of my experiences and biases on board development. For me, it also represents a chance to pause and reflect on an intellectual journey that really has only begun.

The challenge of organizational board learning (6/18/11)

While others preceded it, this post truly launched my focused effort and my commitment to exploring board learning in greater depth this year. I began to understand just how important it is to facilitate an extended conversation about the learning needs (and responsibilities) of those who govern. The continuing challenge, as a facilitator of that process, is providing the theoretical context for what is shared while keeping it accessible, to not dummy down the discussion (like so many of the resources offered to boards). My goal is to stretch just enough to inspire, but to not chase away those interested in the topic by adopting an overly theoretical approach. Boards are made up of smart people who want to serve and to lead. They don't want to be bored, and they want the tools to succeed. That's why understanding and sharing the essence of board learning is so important.

The 70:20:10 rule of board learning (10/30/11)

I'm not sure why, but this post continues to draw regular, strong readership. Traffic sources suggest it pops up often in general searches regarding the 70:20:10 experiential learning framework - the luck of the draw (and Google) brings readers to the page. But I also suspect that nonprofit readers found it via the usual social media outlets (e.g., Twitter), saw something that resonated or appealed, and began sharing with others. Or they discovered it and saw that it supports or enhances conversations their boards are already having about their development efforts. Whatever the reason, I hope that it ultimately helps to broaden readers' perspectives on how we learn and how our boards learn collectively.

So, what do boards experience? (11/6/11)

This post introduced readers to the broader concept of experiential learning. I took a favorite taxonomy, from a scholar whose work resonates for me, and offered examples of each type of experience from a nonprofit board setting.

Embedded board learning: Part 1 (11/28/11)
Embedded board learning: Part 2 (11/30/11)

The previous posts sparked deep reflection on the myriad ways in which boards learn, whether or not they realized they were doing so. In these two posts, I shared eight comparatively easy ways to build learning into routine governance work. I'm tired of the old complaint, "But we don't have time...," and the assumption that learning only takes place in a formal (preferably classroom-like) setting. Some of of my recommendations will appeal more than others. That's fine. My ultimate goal was to give you some ideas, that didn't require massive amounts of time or labor, and encourage you to do something to more consciously create opportunities for our boards to learn and serve more effectively.

Board learning styles: Applying Kolb's model (4/10/11)

I'd forgotten about this post in this year of "learning" focus, but it definitely deserves to make this list. Because I came to adult learning from outside of education, I've tended to be open to a range of perspectives, especially those that just make good sense. This is one of those frameworks. I've seen how these general learning types interact in groups, particularly in my interactions in and with nonprofit boards. Boards that include convergers, assimilators, divergers and assimilators have the capacity to look at issues from different angles, explore options, not accept easy answers, and ultimately emerge with the right decisions for their organizations.

What does a board know? (2/21/11)

This post introduces the idea that boards carry - and need - many types of knowledge to govern. I borrowed a framework from another discipline and applied it to board work. It helped launch a recurring theme for these posts: that the learning resources available are far more varied - and far more accessible - than those that typically come to mind when we think about board development. More important, many already lie within the board and its individual members.

Andragogy: How adults learn (1/17/11)

This one wasn't the most profound piece I wrote on the topic of board learning this year, but it was an important contribution. It acknowledged the idea that adults learn differently, and in more varied ways. It also introduced andragogy, a foundational notion in adult learning theory.

I admit, creating this post was as much a chance for me to reflect on this topic - and the informal goal that I set for myself as a blogger - as it is to draw these resources into one location for anyone interested in learning more about how boards learn. The journey will continue in 2012, in ways that even I can't predict.

Seven Faces: My notes & observations

2011-12-27T18:17:00.003-07:00

Because I knew that the overview of the Seven Faces of Philanthropy that I wanted to share with you would stretch the bounds of appropriate length for a blog post, I decided to offer my summary in Monday's post and share my personal reactions separately.

I chose an audio update, mostly because it felt like a natural way to talk about these personal reactions and ideas. It also felt like a low-key way to mix things up a little and add a bit of a multimedia twist to the way I present content here.

Faces: Seven giving personalities

2011-12-26T10:54:00.001-07:00

What drives someone to give? There are many ways to answer that question, many frameworks to help us understand donor motivations. While can find value in any of those perspectives, one - The Seven Faces of Philanthropy - has always resonated deeply for me.

A good friend and mentor introduced me to Faces during my tenure as a University of Wyoming development officer. It clicked for two reasons: one, its seven giving personalities offer more nuanced layers to donor motivations; and two, I easily recognized myself, and other donors I'd encountered, in those personalities.

Like too many of the resources I want to share with readers, Faces has not historically drawn the interest and visibility needed to make it easily accessible to practitioner audiences. It's gotten better (as I was updating my links this morning, I found and bookmarked several new descriptions, generally posted on blogs). But putting it into the hands of nonprofit staff and volunteers, who would actually use it, doesn't seem to have been a high priority. That's one major motivator for me in writing this post.

Before I introduce the Faces, let me offer a bit of detail about the research underlying the framework:

It is based on a study by Russ Prince, a consultant, and Karen File, a University of Connecticut faculty member.
Study included quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus groups and interviews) elements.
Target for this study was the "affluent individual donor," defined as someone with $1 million or more in a "discretionary investment advisory account," who contributed at least $50,00 to a single nonprofit in the two years preceding the study.

I'll discuss my thoughts about legitimate and not-so-legitimate (at least from a research standpoint) applications of the framework in a bonus post on Wednesday. In the spirit of not making this post any longer than necessary, I'll dive right in and introduce you to each Face.

The Communitarian ("Doing good makes sense"). This person generally is a local business owner, often a member of your board (or a peer of your business community board members). The Communitarian views philanthropy as an important part of supporting and enhancing the entire community. In Prince and File's research, this Face represented the largest group, 26.3 percent of the participant pool.

Some additional detail on Communitarians: they want to give something back to the community, they are active in local affairs, and they understand that nonprofits have a place in meeting community needs, filling in the gaps that government cannot (and should not) address. They are members of local service organizations, like Rotary and Soroptimsts. There is some sense that giving is in their own self interest. Therefore, they research prospective nonprofits carefully.

The Devout ("Doing good is God's will"). As the name and Prince and File's subtitle suggest, this donor sees giving as part of his/her duty to God and a commandment to help others. They are almost always members of religious communities, and nearly all of their contributions go to their churches or other religious institutions. The Devout represented 20.9 percent of the study pool.

More about the Devout: they have deeply religious reasons for giving - it's sharing what God has provided to them. Their gifts pay that forward. Giving is based on their belief system, a "sign of spiritual development and maturity." Because of that foundation in personal and spiritual beliefs, the Devout tend to focus giving on a relatively narrow set of organizations with values that match their own. Because giving should be a "pure" act, the Devout frowns upon donors who act with other motivations in mind. They also see nonprofits as better equipped than government to make the right decisions and serve more effectively.

The Investor ("Doing good is good business,"). Prince and File describe this donor as giving "with one eye on the nonprofit cause and one eye on personal tax and estate consequence." A primary factor for this donor comes in the form of tax and estate benefits. They are particularly attracted to umbrella organizations that provide an additional layer of accountability (e.g., community foundations or United Way). This donor represented 15.3 percent of the study pool.

The Investor finds tax deductions to be very attractive. Like the previous two Faces, the Investor sees the nonprofit sector as more trustworthy than government; but both sectors are worthy of skepticism from this donor. Because of that skepticism, they evaluate carefully potential beneficiaries. Those that are professionally administered, with the right leaders and structures in place, will be most likely to receive an Investor gift. Investors focus on the act of giving, but they aren't concerned about the motivation behind the act. One of the quickest ways to turn off the Investor is to state or imply a duty to give.

The Socialite ("Doing good is fun"). This person is well connected, through local social networks. Their giving is driven by those connections and the opportunity to interact - with their networks and with a select set of nonprofits that they support (often a mix of arts, education and religious organizations). They won't volunteer for the day-to-day work, but they'll help organize your fundraiser and invite their friends. The Socialite accounted for 10.8 percent of Prince and File's major donor pool.

Socialites cherish their informal networks, usually filled with people (and givers) much like themselves. A strong endorsement from a well-connected Socialite means a lot. Philanthropy is an extension of their personality; giving is an expression of personal identity. They want to know that you're doing good work with the fruits of their labors (and will turn on you if you prove yourself unworthy. You don't want that negative word-of-mouth.). They don't particularly care what others think of their motivations, and they respect others' rights to not give. Socialites work hard for you, and they expect you to recognize that effort.

The Altruist ("Doing good feels right"). If a "selfless" donor is possible, this would be the giving personality behind it. Altruists give from a generous and empathetic place. They see giving as a moral act, part of their personal development. They act on their gut in giving, not relying on others to direct them to the "right" organization. More than others, the Altruist is attracted to social causes and the nonprofits that advance them. Nine percent of the original pool could be classified as Altruist.

The Altruist's motivations lie pretty much in direct opposition to the Socialite's. They are more likely to request anonymity, or to take offense at excessive formal recognition of their contributions. They are more likely to see giving to be a moral (though not religious) obligation, one that falls more heavily on the shoulders of the wealthy. They are deeply offended by motivations that are not "selfless." That applies to individual donors and to government - nonprofits are better able to address social needs. They judge the people of an organization more than the structure.

The Repayer ("Doing good in return"). Our relationship with the Repayer is an ongoing one, and it didn't start in the development office. This person was a constituent first - a patient, a student, a program participant. His/her status as a donor is the next phase of that relationship. The Repayer gives out of appreciation/loyalty or obligation. It should not surprise you to find out that the primary beneficiaries of the Repayer's giving in Prince and File's study were either medical organizations or educational institutions. The represented 10.2 percent of major donors in the study.

In some respects, engaging the Repayer should be a fairly straightforward process. They know you, they know your work, and they are grateful (in varying degrees) for your previous support. That doesn't mean that you skip relationship building, though. Some relationships begin relatively early in the donor's life (e.g., immediately after graduation - or sooner). Others come later (e.g., following a medical crisis). In each case, the relationship you build is grounded in the quality of service that your organization provided in the past. Repayers don't need outside advisers to help them evaluate your worthiness. They want you to value their contributions, but they don't want you to take your eyes off current service recipients while you're recognizing them.

The Dynast ("Doing good is a family tradition"). In Prince and File's study, this donor was most likely to have inherited two things: wealth and a culture where giving is part of the family's identity. Both are passed down from one generation to another. What might differ, though, was the focus of that giving. A younger generation could set itself apart from its parents and grandparents, and make its own mark, by identifying and supporting different causes and organizations than those who came before them. Dynasts represented 8.3 percent of the study pool.

You may be surprised to learn that one finding from Prince and File's research is the Dynast's openness to supporting a range of nonprofits, including some that considered outside of the mainstream (I'm having a major "aha" moment as I rediscover this one - and thinking about my favorite Dynast donor role model.). Motivations come from within and are more important to the Dynast than the act itself. Charity is an internalized value. They have little need for validation from others. Because they are the frequent targets of fundraisers and organizations, they necessarily take care in ensuring that those who receive their support are worthy of it. They want to know that you make a difference.

This post is already far too long, because I wanted to give you a more detailed picture of each Face than most available online resources provide. I'll discuss the framework, and my experiences with it, in Wednesday's bonus.

Overheard: Last links for the board year

2011-12-23T14:45:00.000-07:00

I have other plans for next Friday's favorite links post, so this is the last of the year based on my weekly reading and exploration. There's an informal "diversity" theme this time around, mostly thanks to the luck of following links. As is often the case, that wandering yielded thought-provoking and useful resources.

Why you need a diverse nonprofit board, not a diverse board member (Nonprofit Hub)

I always approach the topic of diversity cautiously, aware enough that my own demographic status carries limits to completely understanding the issues and experiences. I also think twice when talking about alternatives to setting recruitment goals that do not list characteristics as gender, ethnicity, educational background, etc. After serving on too many boards filled with white, college-educated professional women with ties to the local university, I understand all too well the importance of serving with people who don't look or think exactly like me. That said, I also know that our usually futile "We need a man..." or - as is common to nonprofits in our community - "We need a member of the Hispanic community..." goals will not automatically lead us to diversity success. Simply deciding to "add an X and stir" isn't the answer, especially when it turns "board member X" into a token and a spokesperson for his/her entire demographic group. That's counterproductive to the board team and disrespectful of the varied contributions that member can make. This post invites us to think about diversity at the organizational level, and takes us to an article that boards everywhere should read and discuss.

Diversity and the false choice (Minnesota Council on Foundations)

This post continues the diversity theme (and offers another link to the article offered above). It also refers readers to additional resources, including Rosetta Thurman's marvelous blog. I've long appreciated Rosetta's approach to discussing diversity, encouraging readers to dig beyond the superficial.

Who's on your board? (Kaye O'Leary)

The connection to diversity is indirect in this one; but it does end up supporting the need, as part of a larger commitment to valuing authenticity and innovation in governance. Actually, the link within this post, to an older post on innovation in the boardroom, adds further fuel to the fire. It's viewed through a corporate governance lens, but the impacts on group capacity to innovate and lead into the future apply equally well to the nonprofit setting.

2 techniques to increase board resiliency (Kevin Monroe)

It's a VUCA (read the post) world, and Kevin is doing his best to help your boards get through it. Not only do our nonprofits need to be resilient in a challenging, turbulent environment, so do the boards that lead them. Kevin's latest post inspires us to find the strength - and the tools - to step up and govern. As with any Kevin Monroe post, he offers both inspiration and practical ideas for acting on it.

A holiday gift for your board: A refreshed dashboard (Matthew Forti)

This post, offered on the Stanford Social Innovation Review site, offers some terrific tips for creating dashboards that are user-friendly and aimed at enhancing board oversight and decision making. Dashboards aren't my forte, but I see the value and am always interested in resources that help me understand how to make the most out of this tool.

Flipping the nonprofit board agenda

2011-12-20T06:56:00.000-07:00

When people ask me to recommend one step they could take to improve the effectiveness of their board meetings, my instant response is "flip the agenda."

The usual complaints about board meetings cluster around two common themes: no time for the "fluffy" stuff and fatigued members by the time they get to the places where that fluff might actually arise (old and new business, generally found at the end of the agenda). Regular readers know that I've often advocated for a different frame of mind about that fluff. What's often treated as "nice IF we ever find the time" is governance. I try my persuasive best, but I'm finding that that shift of thinking is much harder for boards than it should be.

But the second complaint, board members too exhausted to speak, let alone think, when the substantive questions arise, requires only one simple action: flipping the agenda.

If your agenda is like most, it's front-loaded with reports, something along the lines of this:

Minutes to be approved
Treasurer's report
Executive director's report
Committee reports

Your individual board may handle these tasks in different ways. You may have other, similar meeting elements that fit the general theme. But the overall effect on the board is fairly universal: members are checked out and exhausted by passively sitting around listening to others ramble on about things that happened in the past (because that's the focus of most reports: events that took place between meetings). If your board has two to four committees, and they all have something to report, that little checklist could take at least an hour of your members' precious time and energy.

Now, I have another recommendation for dealing with all those reports: adopt a consent agenda. Boards should be focused on the future, not endlessly reviewing events from the past. But if that step is too rich for your members' collective blood, you can position these items in a different place on the agenda: at the end, where passive attention is less damaging.

Flipping the agenda - placing the reports and other passive tasks at the end and opening meetings with the larger issues that require fresh thinking and full attention - involves board members in the substantive work up front. Two things are likely to occur. First, they have the energy needed to discuss these agenda items freely and creatively. Second, they also have the potential to generate energy, as they are engaged in work that challenges them and connects them to aspects of the meaningful work that drew them to serve in the first place.

So what might a "flipped agenda" look like? Here's an example of how I envision a revamp:

XYZ Nonprofit Board Meeting

Call to order

Burning board question (10 minutes): How are we, as a board, "feeling" our mission? (Discussion based on Carlo Cuesta's post, "Overcoming a Disconnect with the Mission")

Old business (in the spirit of simply flipping things around)

Update, discussion on agency's efforts to diversify funding base (facilitated by Resource Development Committee)

New business

Discuss proposed collaboration with ABC Nonprofit to create a community resource clearinghouse (facilitated by Community Engagement Committee)

Reports (only if you really, really cannot adopt a consent agenda)

Approval of previous meeting minutes
Treasurer's report
Executive director's report

I toyed with adding other agenda items to this example, in the spirit of a more detailed illustration of what I am advocating. Ultimately, I deleted them in recognition of another agenda pitfall: cramming too much activity into a finite time frame. Even the two old and new business examples offered have the potential for overload when presented in one meeting. You could easily select only one for focus this time around and end up with a stimulating, engaging, and potentially overwhelming (in a good way) meeting.

One thing in my sample meeting that I refused to remove from the table was the "burning board question," a brief opportunity to engage members in governance related learning that connects them to the meaning of their work. That small investment of time sets the stage and puts them into the right frame of mind for the work that lies ahead.

Another minor shift that I want to be sure to point out in this example: the role of committees in leading the "old" and "new" business items. Rather than itemizing tasks already behind them, they are engaged in leading their peers in substantive, future-oriented discussions clearly tied to governance responsibilities. Don't underestimate the transformative potential of changing the way you involve your committees while you're flipping the agenda.

A given for the success of this agenda adjustment - or any board agenda - is that members receive it in a timely manner. The greatest agenda in the world, filled with the most profound questions of the day, is of no value if members see it only a day or two before the meeting (or worse, at the meeting). Substantive discussions require time to think, gather feedback, and read supportive materials. They require time.

Have you experienced a similar kind of approach to board meetings? Would your board be open to flipping things around? What other changes to meeting structure might a board consider to transform the way it works?

Overheard: Dec. 16 edition

2011-12-16T06:02:00.002-07:00

Sharing my favorite board-related links from the last week...

Is 5:30 the best time for a board meeting? Really? (Carlo Cuesta)

Carlo poses an important but seldom discussed question: Are we really meeting at a time that fosters active engagement and full member attention? I was fascinated by the question, and hopeful that it would generate some wide feedback - mostly because I believe that member fatigue or distraction is an unspoken challenge to effective meetings. There will be no one, perfect answer: unless "are you a morning person?" is part of your recruitment criteria, you'll likely have a mix of members who are most alert at very different times of the day. It's still appropriate to ask - and to adapt when necessary to ensure that you are engaging the largest number of members at a time when they are at their best for governance. By the way, I'd encourage you to comment on this entry and help to expand the discussion. I've not seen this conversation anywhere else, and it deserves some visibility.

The spotlight on nonprofit boards (Gene Takagi)

As often as boards obsess about the terrible things that could go wrong, I've found that most are generally unaware of their true legal/accountability expectations. They may encounter aspects of those responsibilities, but the larger picture remains a mysterious unknown. One of my favorite nonprofit legal minds, Gene Takagi, shares a great overview that should generate healthy discussion and spark further research. The blog where this is posted, where Gene and partner Emily Chan regularly write on these topics, is an excellent starting point. If you're not subscribed to their blog, and following them on Twitter (Gene, Emily), you need to do so, today. They constantly expand my understanding of nonprofit legal issues.

Getting people to change (Hildy Gottlieb)

Hildy always stretches me to think more expansively about what motivates people to act. The entire post offers great specifics about the challenges and facilitators to change. But she could have limited the post to this sentence and accomplished everything she intended: "...people will move mountains if they are inspired to do so." We can apply that to the larger community in which we operate. We also can apply that to the board itself. The next time we feel compelled to whine about the latest way that the board has let us down, ask this instead: How have we inspired them to move that mountain?

"Goodbye butts in chairs" (Rae Tanner)

Finally, a little training humor - not board-specific, but definitely reminiscent of why many board training events tend to fall short of their full potential. If you're a regular reader, you know I agree wholeheartedly.

Building diverse board capital

2011-12-12T05:33:00.000-07:00

"We really need a more diverse board." When most of us think about diversity, we start with demographic kinds of definitions: ethnicity, gender, age, education, neighborhood, etc. - characteristics and qualities that, for the most part, we can see.

Those aspects of diversity absolutely are important and must be incorporated into the board's recruitment goals. But there are other ways of infusing diversity into your board that carry the potential to transform the governance outcomes and experiences - not to replace the demographic factors, but as an enhancement.

One of my favorite additions to the diversity mix introduces social capital that we bring to the boardroom. In this recent post, Harold Jarche introduces three types of capital that we all carry within us, but express in different ways and levels. Fans of Malcolm Gladwell's seminal book, The Tipping Point, will recognize them immediately. I'm one of those fans. And, as always happens, when I read Harold's post, I instantly connected it to nonprofit boards.

Jarche describes the three capital types this way:

Intellectual capital (ability to collect, retain and share information)
Social capital (ability of people to work together)
Creative capital (ability to combine diverse ideas)

We all have the capacity for each inside of us. We use all three at some point in our daily lives. But usually, one or two will feel more natural as ways of working and interacting. (For example, when I read Gladwell years ago, I recognized myself immediately in his version of intellectual capital, the Maven. My primary role is to share, create, and curate information that others may find useful. If you interact with me on Twitter and other social media sites, one of life's great mysteries has just been solved.)

I'd like to propose that boards that have a better mix of these types of human capital will have a greater potential - and capacity for what governance requires. Let's explore what each type might bring to the nonprofit boardroom.

Intellectual/Maven

These are the people who have specific knowledge to share (mission area or governance role specific), and a knack for translating it into something useful for board work. We all bring intellectual capital to the boardroom. But, if we've recruited wisely, some of us have a particular way of sharing and expanding our understanding in the process.

They bring deep knowledge and experience, and they share willingly with the board, to expand member understanding of the issues and work that bring them together.
They bring articles and other resources that inform the board's work, recognizing that it's not the CEO's job alone to educate members.
They ask the questions that encourage us to not accept quick solutions, bringing information and perspectives to flesh out the discussion.

Social/Salesperson

We all have the responsibility and (hopefully) are talking about our mission regularly. But these individuals are especially comfortable, connected and willing to lead the outreach on your behalf.

They are constantly thinking about whom to approach and how - and pushing the rest of us to do the same.
They are not afraid to call on people, both those they already know and those they've yet to meet.
They naturally find those embedded opportunities to tell our story and act on them.
They serve as role models for fellow board members.
They willingly act as mentors who can accompany board members (and the CEO), to encourage effective outreach.
They are persuasive people, effective in making the case for support and inspiring others to act.

Creative/Connector

These are the people who find connections in unexpected (and occasionally weird) places. They'll bring seemingly unrelated, or tangential, ideas to the table and somehow translate them in ways that not only make sense but change the way we look a the question at hand.

They'll ask the "what if..." and "how about..." questions that stretch us and lead us to the visionary work of governance.
They'll encourage us to feel and see the issues that we're deliberating - taking us out of our heads (since boards like to intellectualize things). Doing so potentially helps us connect more easily to the meaning-driven and meaning-making work of governance, and the purpose that drew most of us to accept a board seat in the first place.
They'll be most likely to introduce the kind of creative play that Pamela Meyer encourages to transform the way we work - IF we empower them to do so. They won't allow us to sit passively listening to reports and rubber-stamping proposals from staff.
They will occasionally drive us nuts, in good ways.

I realize that that last description of creative capital sounds pretty idealistic. If I'm romanticizing that particular capital, it's because I see it as the place where boards are most likely lacking. We recruit members for what they know: they have some expertise that we need, either as a leadership group or for our mission area. We recruit members for their connections to donors, stakeholder groups and others. What we don't often actively seek - in part, because we don't know we should - is creativity and the people who will stretch us in creative ways.

I originally intended to include a few social capital-focused recruitment tips to close this post. But as I review those tips today, they either seem repetitive of advice offered in previous entries or too facile to be truly effective. I'll continue to work on them and instead ask for conversation and feedback on how you either already approach recruitment in ways that naturally bring all three types of capital or how you might adapt your process to incorporate this different type of diversity.

Overheard: Dec. 9 edition

2011-12-09T06:11:00.000-07:00

Posts from three of my governance blogging heroes top this week's slate of favorite board links.

Overcoming a disconnect with the mission (Carlo Cuesta)

"Carlo wrote a new post! Carlo wrote a new post!" was my immediate response when this edition popped up in my Twitter feed. It also exemplifies why I'm such a fan. Mission is a common theme in his writings, and this newest post extends the conversation in powerful ways. It addresses a common issue for so many of our nonprofits: the challenge of maintaining focus on our reason for being while dog-paddling through the urgent tasks and problems slamming into into us on a daily basis, we risk floundering. When we relegate that mission to words in a statement, rather than the living purpose that drives us to the work. This passage is particularly powerful: "Above all, mission is a feeling. An organization’s leadership may capture it in a carefully worded statement, but before that happens a sense of being emerges from a milieu of diverse passions. Mission is about a group of people imagining the change they can create and exploring these possibilities together. Through their collective action, they discover something in common within one another, a shared sense of purpose." He then shares four domains of leadership to help guide our focus and work.

The nonpartisan agenda of corporate social responsibility (Alice Korngold)

In her first contribution to the Huffington Post, Alice reminds us of the larger purposes of corporate social responsibility generally and board service specifically. She draws from deep experience linking business employees and nonprofits needing their expertise to remind the reader of the mutual benefit of making those connections, whether we're talking about the types of larger corporations that Alice works with, or main street businesses found in our smaller communities. We always should be exploring and talking about the common ground and the vision of a better community when we work together to advance it.

3 keys to thriving through adversity (Kevin Monroe)

Most of our boards are quite familiar with handling adversity. We have plenty of practice walking a rocky pathway to our missions. If we're still standing, we also know something about resilience. In this post, Kevin offers three areas where that resilience is essential to sustainability. All three absolutely are the domain of governance, but I'd bet that one (funding sources) would tend to dominate their attention when times are tough. The fact that he provides the reader with examples for each area reminds me why I'm a Kevin Monroe fan.

Montana Nonprofit Association resource library

My neighbors to the north have created a wonderful online information toolbox that any nonprofit board will find useful. It covers a range of topics with governance ties, e.g., accountability and transparency, advocacy and public policy, and strategic alliances. My recommendation: bookmark it, explore it and share it with your board. It's a user-friendly resource that any nonprofit will find valuable.

Overcoming small nonprofit vulnerabilities

2011-12-04T20:35:00.000-07:00

While all nonprofits experience a range of minor to significant challenges, small organizations - and the boards that govern them - are particularly vulnerable and face a common core of issues.

As I was reading Colin Rochester's chapter on boards of small voluntary organizations (in The Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations) this weekend, I recognized immediately the three "consequences of small nonprofit vulnerability" that he listed. I've seen forms of them in virtually every organization I've encountered as a consultant, trainer, institute coordinator, and board member. They don't affect every organization equally, but they're pervasive amongst most of our smaller organizations. Let's see if you recognize them.

(1) They find it heard to look past the day-to-day challenges to do the necessary long term, strategic work. This one certainly is understandable: If you don't know for sure whether you'll have the funds to keep the doors open six months from now, if you're perpetually wondering where you're going to find the paid or volunteer staff to meet the increasing need for services, if you're constantly recruiting new board members because you've burned them out, it's mighty hard to make plans for two years from now.

This is, by far, the hardest challenge to overcome for most boards and organizations. It's why retreats fail to transform thinking or move our missions forward. It's why we wallow in meeting agendas that zero in on the right-before-us and not the "fluffy stuff" of leadership. But nonprofit staff and boards need to get over this one, as hard as it may be to do. They must vision, plan and move forward or that day-to-day existence risks becoming a permanent state. They must make the space for this work.

(2) They have limited access to expertise and skills needed to take them to the next level. Some aspects of this may be more obvious than others. For example, small nonprofits may either literally lack the funds to attend professional development events, conferences, and other opportunities to learn and network; or they may perceive that they lack the funds to devote to anything that isn't directly tied to programming. They may lack the connections to individuals with the expertise they need, on or off the board, or the funds to engage them as consultants.

What may not be so obvious when immersed in the moment is that there's a bit of a cyclical nature to this. Sometimes, you need to invest a little in your future (time as well as money), to discover ways to grow your capacity (and connect with peers and expert resources who may be able become allies down the road).

(3) They are isolated. They don't have the time - or don't feel like they have the time - to look up from what is in front of them, step away from the boardroom table, and find ways to engage others.

Smaller organizations need to be even more creative about seeking vehicles for reaching out to others, telling their story and building visibility (and a case that will attract the expert resources you seek). They need to meet others in unexpected places. They don't have the luxury of allowing some board members to sit back and let someone else do the organization's outreach.

Rochester doesn't just point out the challenges impacting smaller nonprofits. He also offers five factors that he has found to manage the "liability of smallness."

(1) Nurturing, collaborative leadership. Small organizations need something quite different from what larger, multi-level hierarchical organizations require from leaders. They need people who want to reach out, who look for ways to collaborate with others, and who will reserve the energy to attend to the human needs of people working hard to achieve big goals.

(2) The ability to be formal when needed, and otherwise flexible. Small nonprofit leaders need to be able to develop processes for making clear, wise, appropriate decisions. But they also need to be flexible: for example, fostering meeting environments that are open and where creative thinking can flow.

(3) The ability to balance the day to day with the long-range visioning work. Key to making this one work is recruiting board and staff leaders who have the capacity and the willingness to stretch the group's thinking and hold their peers accountable for making space for the long-term work. Boards and senior staff need detail people and big-picture people. Both serve the small organization well when they are empowered to ensure that today and the future receive appropriate, regular attention.

(4) An environment where the work - and the power - are spread across the board. No nonprofit really can afford a disparity between board members' participation, where some members are allowed to take a passive role. This is especially true in small nonprofits. When every member is expected to participate, and find a way to lead, capacity naturally increases.

(5) Access to external sources of information and support. I would add "...that they use" to this one. A growing network of expertise and peer communities exists (without cost), thanks to social media that deliver those resources to their desktop, phone, laptop and tablet. Face to face opportunities to network may exist in some communities (We're still trying to build that here in Laramie.). They only help if board members and senior staff take advantage of them, though.

Small nonprofits that manage to make the most of these five factors have a better chance of finding the time, energy and resources they ultimately need to move to the next level of organizational growth.

What are the challenges that most impact your small nonprofits? Did Colin Rochester miss anything? How does your board avoid drowning in the day-to-day?

Embedded board learning: Part 2

2011-11-30T05:14:00.000-07:00

Today, I share four additional ideas for embedding learning into our board meetings. For more about the thinking behind them, and to read the first four recommendations, click HERE.

Compare notes with peer boards. Local boards too often operate in isolation, not realizing that their peers at other organizations not only wrestle with similar challenges, but come up with sometimes innovative ways to accomplish their goals. What would happen if we created opportunities to compare notes and learn from each other?

Ideally, your board would find time to sit down with another governing body of an organization with similar organizations, like interests or shared constituents. Practically, that may be tricky or even impossible. One manageable alternative would be to invite the officers of that peer organization to visit one of your board meetings, with the expectation that yours would reciprocate.

What might you discuss while you're together? Well, for starters, how about:

Your visions, concerns, and focus areas
Your points of pride - what you, and your organizations, do well
Your wish lists: what you could do, if you had the resources
Your common interests and potential collaboration opportunities

Ultimately, we're all in this together, even though we may serve different components of the constituent's layered needs. We also have lessons learned - sometimes the hard way - that could benefit others if shared. Our senior staff are supportive, but there are some aspects of board work that only another board member can really understand.

Compare notes with boards of organizations different from your own. This is the same process as the first, but with a twist: looking for exchange opportunities with boards of organizations from different nonprofit subsectors. You'll find helpful common threads, but you'll also likely learn about different perspectives and approaches to governance.

Historically, most of my board assignments have been with human service organizations. The agencies may differ in size and age. They may serve different kinds of missions. But their boards all pretty much behave the same, largely because they face the same basic challenges.

What might one of those boards learn if, for example, they met with the board of an environmental organization? What if the board of an arts organization got together with their peers at an educational institution? Where would the overlaps occur? More important, what might they learn about approaching big-picture governance questions through the lens of a nonprofit that face similar issues (e.g., fundraising, outreach, program evaluation) but with different constraints? You may not be able to apply their approach seamlessly to your challenges. But you may think a little differently about those challenges.

Bring in expert friends and allies. Sometimes, the deep expertise you need lies outside of your board. It's okay (and even wise) to invite those knowledgeable allies in to update or educate your board. Really. Ask the financial expert helping you invest your reserves to check in quarterly, to discuss your strategy and explore other appropriate options. Bring in a program staff member to not just share statistics but to talk about the broader challenges that clients face and how they impact your ability to serve them. Ask experts in your mission area - for example, community college or university faculty, attorneys, medical providers, social workers - to talk about emerging research and the broader field in which you work. Invite staff from an umbrella organization (e.g., state association or United Way, if they apply to you) to have a conversation about issues that are impacting agencies like yours and the environment in which you work.

Board member book reports. Okay, this one may not appeal to everyone. Or anyone. It probably says more about my "written word" bias than anything, its roots in the perpetual "boards need to know this..." tone of my reading. It reflects my frustration with the fact that resources do exist to help boards think and act differently, but they're largely not offered in accessible formats. Bear with me on this one...

For example (the case where this notion started), the Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Governance is a surprisingly user-friendly resource. It covers a broad range of governance responsibilities well. Its language and examples will make sense to busy community leaders. The Handbook will stretch their thinking in manageable ways, because it actually delves a little deeper than the usual "101" fare. It's also 416 pages long and $90. Placing this book into the hands of every board member, and expecting them to sit down and read it, isn't realistic. But what if the organization owned a copy and asked a board member to read and summarize for his/her peers the chapter on "Building a Board," and requested that another member offer the highlights of the "Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning" chapter at a future meeting?

It needn't be a book report. Board members could read and report on industry or journal articles and accomplish the same dual goals: expanding the group's knowledge and taking partial ownership for the learning needed to govern effectively.

My list of eight isn't intended to be an all-inclusive catalog of embedded board learning options. Its sole purpose is to spark thinking about ways to more consciously build in activities that deepen the group's understanding of why the board exists and how it can actually govern. The intended takeaway is that boards have many more options to engage their brains and learn - on purpose - than special, hours-long training sessions.

Embedded board learning: Part 1

2011-11-28T05:15:00.000-07:00

Your board realizes it needs to commit more fully to its own development. Members accept that learning can take place outside of formal training events. They want to make better use of their time at meetings, not only talking about big issues but learning from and with each other.

Now, how do they actually do it?

When I've written about board learning this year, it's been primarily within the context of the natural processes that are already taking place - learning whether or not we realize we are learning. We already know about the role, or at least the potential, of formal board development events. But there's a middle ground: brief opportunities to embed learning within meetings, that not only expand member knowledge for making good decisions, but engage them as active participants in the process.

I know what you're thinking: "But we don't have time for anything else. Our meetings are too crowded as it is..." My counterpoint would be twofold:

If your agenda is like too many others, you have plenty of time. It's just taken up by long, verbal staff and committee reports; approvals of items that should be handled via consent agenda; and drawn-out conversations about details that are management's responsibility.
Assuming they address the right topics, these brief (10-30 minutes) events will accomplish two things: focus the board on where it should be - governance - and increase its capacity to do so effectively.

I've come up with eight examples of embedded board learning activities that I will describe in two posts. Part two will appear here on Wednesday.

Charge each member with sharing some aspect of his/her expertise (program, professional, etc.) with the board at least once a year. Ideally, individuals know exactly why they were recruited and what knowledge or perspective they are are asked to contribute, and they are doing so regularly. But I'm thinking of something slightly more formal: asking each member to lead brief information sharing events. For example, I served on a board of an organization that provides reproductive health services, where members provided these peer learning opportunities. More than a decade later, I still remember a 15-minute overview of emerging contraceptive technologies that the physician member of the board developed and shared with us. Yes, a staff person probably could have created a similar overview. But it was different, for our physician peer and for us, because we engaged him and he engaged us. He also expanded our collective understanding of a program-related topic, in a small sliver of meeting time.

Events of this type need not be dog-and-pony-show presentations. A member could lead a discussion about a topic related to the agency's mission area or their governance responsibilities, that builds their understanding and encourages them to think more broadly about their work as a board. For example, a retired development officer, who served on the board I studied for my dissertation, facilitated a discussion in that group about the board's fundraising roles. A board member also could share informed thoughts about how to strengthen the agency or board and facilitate a group conversation that encourages deeper discussion (and learning) about their work and their responsibilities.

Ask each board committee to take turns leading focused discussions related to board and agency capacity. This one is similar to the first, but led by your committees. Ask them to not just report on existing activities, but to facilitate a discussion looking toward the future. It could be focused on organizational goals in their area (e.g., how to build more effective relationships with donors that lead to meeting fundraising targets), or on how to build the board's capacity to succeed.

These also could be broader discussions about the environment in which the agency works. What are the emerging challenges? The potential opportunities to collaborate with others? The expansion areas to consider? What are the new developments we should be discovering? What are the best practices that we should be evaluating? These discussions should increase member awareness and engage them in focused, deep learning and visioning.

Share a reading or a link to a video in advance of the meeting and spend 10 minutes discussing it. It should to meet one of the board's two learning needs: about your mission area or about nonprofit governance. Set aside some time - early in the meeting - for sharing their reactions to the selection, and for connecting the key insights with their work as a governing body.

You know your board best. They may be readers. Or they may prefer to watch and respond to a short, high-quality video, like 501Video's marvelous "Movie Monday" selections (example here). Whatever is shared, it should cover something beyond the everyday and challenge them to think expansively about your work and their role in your success. You also should expect them to come prepared to respond. The notion that board members are "too busy" to read an article or watch a five-minute video, to expand their knowledge and serve you better, is absurd.

Hold a board debate. Select a topic that needs divergent thinking and thorough deliberation before a major decision is required. Set up a 30-minute debate covering the various sides of the issue. Assign sides to a subset of your board, charging each with investigating, presenting and "defending" one option. Chances are good that you have at least one former debate team member on board who can help you develop some basic rules for engagement. Because I have a devilish streak, I might be tempted to assign members with particularly entrenched views on the topic to defend the opposite position.

The value of this exercise includes: reducing the risk of easy consensus, because different options are being brought into the discussion; making it not only okay to hold a contrary view, but a requirement that someone offer that alternative viewpoint; and making board members active participants in at least one well-researched, deep discussion (among many, we hope) about major topics impacting your vision and mission.

I'll post the second half of this list on Wednesday. Not all of these ideas will appeal to every board. They aren't intended to do so. But if one or two spark your board's interest and can be incorporated in some workable way, the potential to transform your meetings (and your members) and expand the board's capacity to govern more effectively is large.

Book review: Building Nonprofit Capacity

2011-11-25T12:32:00.000-07:00

Since "slim pickins" again describes this week's list of potential shareworthy links, I'll switch things up and offer a book review instead.

I spent Thanksgiving day reading John Brothers and Anne Sherman's Building Nonprofit Capacity: A Guide to Managing Change through Organizational Lifecycles, thinking about how it should be "must" reading for our boards. The topic - the shifting capacity concerns that arise across an organization's life - isn't board-focused. But it absolutely is an essential leadership responsibility that boards need to understand.

The subtitle describes the book's unique focus: exploring capacity needs within a lifecycle framework. Readers may have encountered the idea of nonprofits moving through a cycle from, roughly, growth through decline. I can almost guarantee that most of your board members have not encountered the idea - or that they've considered seriously where your organization might be in the cycle. That's a shame, because greater awareness of pretty predictable challenges - when you know to look for them - may lead you and your board to different decisions that change your trajectory.

The model used as the frame for this book include these phases:

Core: Defining the core vision, mission and values; launching the initial programs; and bringing on board those who share your passion for the future you're shaping. Organizations at the start-up phase begin here, but established organizations may find themselves back at this phase during periods of re-examination.

Infrastructure/Adolescence: As attempts to grow succeed, the need to expand the infrastructure to fulfill that capacity begins to become an issue. You may find yourselves in need of increased program staff, development resources to expand fundraising capacity, larger facilities, etc. You also may require a different kind of board, moving away from the hands-on activity of a start-up - and away from the founder's cheering section that he/she recruited in the first place. It's an exciting and scary time. It's also necessary to reach maturity.

Maturity/Impact Expansion: Organizations and their boards may be tempted to relax a bit, as this is the phase where they experience stability. They've found their groove, they are providing credible services, and they have a respectable pool of resources. Boards in particular may be tempted to exhale, as they feel comfortable trusting professional staff to handle the day-to-day responsibilities and represent the nonprofit well. But complacency here is risky. It also misses the larger potential for this phase: the chance to focus on impact.

Decline: In some respects, decline is inevitable. Expecting to stay on the top of our game forever isn't realistic. The message that impacted me most as I read this chapter was that organizational leaders usually are shocked when evidence that their nonprofit is in this phase. I've been there as a board member. What isn't inevitable: a decline that ends in death. It's not easy, but boards and staff who are able to recenter, regroup, and take a different path.

Turnaround and Closing: That action leading turnaround - or accepting the need to close - is the fifth phase of Brothers and Sherman's model. For most who end up here, turnaround likely is the focus. In some cases, though, closure is the only real option, either because the organization faces too many obstacles or closure (or merger with another nonprofit) ultimately is the only logical choice.

I must admit, my head filled with examples from boards on which I was a member and boards with which I've consulted at every step Brothers and Sherman describe. Been there. Done - and sometimes barely survived - that. The surprising personal challenge to reading this accessible text: replaying sometimes painful scenarios from my board member past and seeing (or confirming) things we missed or could have done differently.

What I particularly appreciate about this book is its practical focus. For example, in the chapter on decline, each characteristic contributing to the situation is accompanied by an example of a solution. Senior staff and board members will not only find an accessible description of the lifecycle and potential markers of each phase, but also tools and questions to help them respond proactively.

The authors also do a good job of discussing the board's roles across the lifecycle, reminding the reader that our volunteer leaders face a bottom line responsibility for the health of the organization and for its future focus.

Simply raising awareness in the sector of the notion and nature of organizational lifecycles can only help nonprofit leaders think more expansively and strategically about building capacity is a service and a compelling reason to read and share this text.

Nonprofit boards: Permission to incubate

2011-11-23T13:44:00.000-07:00

Has the answer to a troublesome problem come in the midst of a shower? Has the novel approach to a new opportunity you've been pondering popped into your head while walking the dog?

Has the clarity you needed about the direction your nonprofit should take on its journey toward fulfilling your mission come to you in one of the open moments of a meeting, weeks or months after the topic first arises, in a seemingly unrelated context?

Most of us can relate to at least one of those scenarios, because we've all experienced the value of incubation: resisting the urge to resolve life's burning questions - right now - and setting them aside and allowing ourselves the mental space that inevitably leads to the quality answers that will serve us best.

Since my personal life is full of examples of incubation's value, I already appreciate the importance of not rushing the creative process (or panicking when the "right" alternative doesn't come to mind immediately). But seeing it addressed in Pamela Meyer and Brandy Agerbeck's new book, Permission: A Guide to Generating More Ideas, Being More of Yourself and Having More Fun at Work, left me thinking about the importance of giving our boards the incubation time they need to make the best possible decisions about the future.

I started thinking about an unexpected but critical role of strategy discussions and planning sessions: the opportunity put good ideas 'out there' with some kind of long term (i.e., not tomorrow) timeline. I'm recalling the priority setting session that I facilitated for a local board earlier this month and the calendar that members were creating from that process. In addition to defining priorities and creating commitment to act on them, members also were allowing those opportunities to enter their brains and their thinking about the future of the organization without the need to make hurried decisions.

That board has the creativity and the resolve to act on any of the identified priorities, today if necessary. But with the luxury of time and space to let those great ideas gel, members have a better chance of knowing how to approach each one creatively and wisely, when the time is right for the organization and the community. That may not be the reason for the retreat, or the ultimate goal, but it is a benefit that will impact their success in the long run.

Incubation time needn't be months long, or reserved for the big, visionary responsibilities of our governing bodies. It can be as simple - and crucial - as timely sharing of information board members need to make effective decisions. Do they receive the reports and background data at least a week before the meeting, or are you shoving paper at them while they're discussing the issue? Are you helping them come prepared for thoughtful discussion and decision making?

Some issues arise quickly, and some decisions truly can't wait. However, most topics worthy of board focus - the true roles of governance - are on our radar long before action is required. How often do we put off putting those future-oriented governance discussions because their agendas already are filled with "urgent" action items (and the usual parade of staff and committee reports)?

How might the quality of their conversations - and their resulting decisions - change if we anticipated them long before a vote is needed? What if we posed the questions, gave them time to begin a discussion, then committed to continuing it at future meeting(s)? What if, in the delay, they had time to reflect on the options and potential consequences, to ask constituents for their input and advice?

How would their decisions, and the deliberations leading up to them, be different? How might that impact satisfaction with their participation and their motivation to lead on your behalf?

Here's a radical idea: make a point to schedule time for open discussion during meetings, with no particular goal or vote in mind. Regularly give the board open space to collectively explore the future, ask questions, talk about the community in which your nonprofit is doing its work, share feedback gathered in the informal exchanges they have with stakeholders and potential supporters. Sit back, and let them look for connections and opportunities. Let them create a new set of questions. Make it okay to not answer them immediately, but let them percolate for awhile.

In giving us "permission to incubate," Pamela and Brandy offer this observation:

All living things and generative processes have their own internal timeline. Perhaps we don't give it time so much as we give ourselves time to be present and appropriately participatory during the incubation. Some processes need quiet monitoring under the proverbial grow light, while others benefit from lively engagement in several rounds of imaginative conversations. All require patience and time. (p. 26)

Our boards deserve the chance to discover what unfolds when their good ideas are allowed to incubate. Just as they need that "lively engagement," they also benefit experiencing that "quiet monitoring under the proverbial grow light." That time is not a luxury. It's part of the essential, rich environment of nonprofit governance.

Permission to make a (board) mess

2011-11-20T16:49:00.000-07:00

Does your board allow itself to make a mess? When it makes one, what is the natural instinct - clean it up as quickly as possible, or revel in it a bit and see what happens?

My mind was spinning with "What would this look like for a board..." thoughts as I read Pamela Meyer and Brandy Agerbeck's new book, Permission: A Guide to Generating More Ideas, Being More of Yourself and Having More Fun at Work. But "permission to make a mess" might be my favorite - not only because my internal kid found it to be a grand idea, but because it's the kind of "wild" notion that promises to shake up the boardroom in healthy and creative ways.

"Learn the lessons of the mess," Meyer and Agerbeck advise us (p. 90). That's where we'll discover something new, where we will create the space for something different and unexpected to emerge.

But the authors acknowledge the inherent challenges for most of us. We've grown up believing that we need to clean up our messes quickly or, better yet, not make them in the first place.

That can be a particular challenge for the community leaders who serve on our boards. We usually recruit them precisely because of their reputations for having their acts together, for demonstrating that they can step up and take charge. Then we pass on to the hefty burden that comes from the accountability responsibilities of governance. They must act decisively, efficiently and effectively. They must lead, darn it.

No surprise: boards generally resist messes. That's mostly a good thing, especially when they're acting as stewards of organizational resources provided by others.

But it's a challenge when they're acting in their visionary role. That's when we need our boards to embrace uncertainty, try on different scenarios and anticipate what might happen in each setting. They need to ask "what if...," to imagine different outcomes and weigh the potential costs and benefits. They need to sculpt a new path for the organization and community, knowing that myriad factors - mostly outside of their direct control - can shift the environment in an instant. That's the very definition of messy work.

It's also where the greatest rewards will be found. "A little soap and water will wash the mess away, but not the lived experience, you and discoveries you made in it," Meyer and Agerbeck tell us (p. 91).

Boards need to get messy - break away from their routine, play, be creative and curious. While they can't be reckless, they also can't be satisfied with the "safe." They need to break a few things (metaphorically speaking). They need to be okay with getting dirty once in awhile and step away from what is safe and known, into the uncertain where they will be most likely to realize the kind of impact that they - and their organizations - are meant to make.

How does your board "get dirty?" Do members allow themselves to wallow amongst the uncertain, the unexpected? How can we encourage our boards to embrace their inner mess-makers? What kinds of outcomes are possible in appropriate messiness?

Overheard: Nov. 18

2011-11-18T05:13:00.001-07:00

Engaging our board leaders, especially as they face monumental challenges, is the common theme amongst this week's favorite governance links.

Playing board games to win (Lucy Marcus)

In her first post for Reuters, Lucy describes the overwhelming need for leaders who can face the increased scrutiny placed on our organizations and boards. To prepare them for that challenge, and for embracing the future with confidence and vision, she calls both for diverse, engaged and independent-minded directors and a working environment that focuses their energies on the issues to their organization's survival. Its power lies in the case made for acknowledging and supporting the board's ultimate leadership roles.

Today's "board orientation" just isn't what it used to be! (Wild Apricot)

Scroll to the bottom of this post to get to the gem: a link to a PDF file from the Melos Institute. At the other end of the click is a great little article offering a richer way of thinking about the way we orient out boards, including a shift toward a "board development" environment across their governance work.

3 tips for increasing nonprofit board engagement (Kevin Monroe)

Regular readers know how I love a fresh call for activating board members' passion for the mission that drew them to serve in the first place. Of particular note in this great article by Kevin Monroe is a list of recommendations for increasing participation at board meetings. It is highly practical in tone, and some should be obvious (but might not be for those immersed in the dysfunctional meeting moment); but the potential impact of fairly small actions is high. The path to greater board effectiveness seldom requires Grand Canyon-sized leaps. This post is a good reminder of that.

7 easy ways to engage your board in fundraising (Kevin Monroe)

This one is another example of why I appreciate Kevin Monroe's thinking: he always manages to offer logical, accessible recommendations for shifting the board's approach to their unique governance roles. While "easy," these particular recommendations aren't dumbed down; they invite the board to think and act differently when approaching one of the tasks that scares them most.

The seven deadly sins that prevent creativity (Michael Michalko)

Okay, this one isn't a "governance" link; but it definitely can be applied to board discussions and deliberations. Boards don't think creatively - and generate more creative approaches to fulfilling our missions - in large part because of one or more of these "sins." They don't generate ideas, often because they don't think they are personally creative (or see that governance is creative work). They don't always seek out different ways of thinking about solutions to problems - partly because they aren't a diverse bunch and partly because they're too focused on finding the one "right" answer. I suspect that, as you read about each "sin," you'll recognize your board in more than one area.

Nonprofit governance: Staying on track

2011-11-13T13:06:00.000-07:00

Coming up with great ideas that are destined to transform our organizations is one thing in nonprofit governance. Staying on track - committing and acting to see them through - is entirely something else.

This weekend, I facilitated a retreat for a local board. I like this board, a lot. We spent many invigorating weeks together (a rare and wonderful thing in itself - they committed to sustained board development), helping them better understand their governance responsibilities.

My goal for them in that process: to not only know what governance entails, but to embrace it. After all, there is literally no one else to step up and assume this unique leadership responsibility for the organization that they love so deeply.

As the agenda for this new session took shape, it was clear that, like so many others, this board faced several obstacles to moving forward in productive ways. Some could have been predicted; some could have been prevented. Mostly, though, they're just typical.

The observations that follow reflect on my broader experiences as a board member and consultant, stories shared by colleagues, and the literature of nonprofit governance. They challenge nearly every governing body that has ever attempted to increase its effectiveness as a collection of leaders.

The biggest obstacle to organizational change usually lies in the group's culture. Unless the motivations and routines shift, boards and other groups will be challenged to follow up on commitments made and sustain the necessary changes. This is where the limits of relying on an outside facilitator or trainer come into play: that person can help you identify what change is needed to achieve your goals, even share tools and resources to pave the way. But when the session ends and the expert leaves the room, the real work begins and belongs to the board.

While we can't always see culture, there are ways to consciously impact it to facilitate change. Over the years, I've identified a set of factors that increase the potential for staying on track following a retreat or other focused learning/planning session.

Before the event

The group must collectively agree that there is an issue, problem or opportunity to be addressed. A frustrated executive director or board president may provide the spark for the discussion, but the group needs to buy into the need for the process. Without that, at best, the board will lack the motivation to move forward. At worst, members may actively resist change efforts.

The board also needs to agree with the desired outcome of the work they are about to do. What do they want to have at the end of the process? If your immediate response to that question is "a written strategic plan," I would encourage you to rethink that. Retreats most often go awry when they are overloaded with tedious and unrealistic "activity" (like plunking out a plan) rather than using them for space to breathe, think and vision.

Following the event

Before closing the event, the group needs to identify what follow-up commitments are being made and who will assume responsibility for moving each one forward. Who will own the change process and outcomes? Assign leadership responsibility and at least a preliminary timeline for completion. Deadlines can be changed if circumstances make them unrealistic, but they can add a layer of accountability to increase the likelihood for forward motion.

Part of that follow-up process must include a plan for embedding the follow-up in the regular work of the board. How will you keep your commitments on the agenda (literally and figuratively)? Include regular updates, and group discussion, in every board meeting.

The board's leadership must hold the group accountable for commitments made, and space and resources to do the work. News flash: this isn't the executive director's job, even if that person may play a supportive role. Responsibility for the board's focus - and success - falls on the shoulders of the president and the rest of the leadership team.

The board needs to schedule big and small check-ins throughout the year, to gauge how it is doing, identify where it is stumbling or stuck, and make timely adjustments. Don't wait until the next retreat is called. Do as the local board did this weekend: commit to a more in-depth reflection on a regular basis (they committed to a quarterly process). Not only will this help you stay attuned to commitments made, but I predict it will naturally guide the board to the governance roles that should dominate its work.

If you feel your board may waver, or you simply want extra support to ensure you stay on track, scheduling a check-in with the facilitator/trainer a few months down the road can be helpful. You'll have enough time to identify what isn't quite working as anticipated, what is challenging the group, what new opportunities are arising, etc. Use that expert resource, who shared the early part of the journey with you, for a motivation or logistics boost.

Ultimately, your board owns the success or failure of your change initiatives. It takes work; but when members own the process and the outcomes, when they actively assume responsibility for their own success, the potential that they actually will succeed rises.

Overheard: Nov. 11

2011-11-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

I'm not particularly inspired by the governance resources I gathered for you this week, so I think I'll dig back a little further and share more of those that caught my eye when I was on sick leave.

In troubled times, boards must step up (Lucy Marcus)

All boards, corporate and nonprofit, will be tested at some point. In addition to connecting us again to my favorite Marcus work (on grounding and stargazing), Lucy shares five areas that all boards must consider while governing. Some will be more pertinent to your nonprofit than others, but they all represent high-impact opportunities (and threats) for leadership.

If you need strong new nonprofit board members, address internal housekeeping first (Alice Korngold)

I was heavily medicated when I bookmarked this gem from Alice, so finding it again today feels like opening a special gift for the first time. The headline reminds us that inviting someone to come in and help us fix our big mess is hardly an enticing way to engage the caliber of community leader that all nonprofits need to succeed. More than that, Alice lays out a vision for ultimate governance success - one that truly engages our community's best in service to our mission. Powerful.

The new look of board meetings (for creating high performing boards) Movie Mondays

So simple are the recommendations shared in this Movie Monday video. It's all about how we focus board members' time when they are gathered together: how the meeting is structured, what questions are asked, how they are prepared (and expected to prepare) for the discussion, etc. It's a quick, share-worthy reminder that the road to effective governance is a very simple one.

Top 6 reasons for having a board retreat this year (Amy Eisenstein)

This one probably leaped out at me, since I'm facilitating a board retreat tomorrow morning. While number four ("plan for the year") has the potential to send everyone into comas - or the kind of non-productive tailspin that gives retreats a bad name - if not approached appropriately, this list reminds us that there are many vital ways to use the breathing and thinking space that these special events offer. I'm particularly partial to numbers one, two and six (now you'll have to read it...). While I'm constantly preaching about the critical importance of making this work the focus of board time, I appreciate the value of setting aside larger blocks of time, away from the routine aspects of governance, to vision and build the team.

What are 10 ways to make a board more effective? (Nonprofitcommunity.com)

I'm a little put off by the tone of the headline (the whole 'boards are a horrible burden' thing again), and none of the "10 ways" will shock regular readers of this blog; but I can see value in this list as a quick, in-a-nutshell reminder of the type of focus and support that boards need to succeed. Any extra nudge to help keep our boards on track is a good thing.

So, what do boards experience?

2011-11-06T20:13:00.000-07:00

Really, what kinds of learning occurs in the routine experiences of the typical nonprofit board?

The 'big news' of last week's post applying the 70:20:10 model to board learning was that most of what we adults learn comes from experience, not formal training events. I offered up some general thoughts about what experiential learning in a nonprofit boardroom might look like in that post, but the adult educator in me is feeling the need to dig a little deeper on the question you may be asking:

What IS experiential learning?

To give myself a frame for responding, I turned to one of my favorite thinkers on the topic, Tara Fenwick, who offers six types of experience where learning occurs.*

Direct embodied experience - The right now, right before us experiences that make up our daily lives. Fenwick reminds us that those experiences can impact us physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, etc. As I reflected on this one, I couldn't help thinking that so much of board work - and our approach to it - is treated as an intellectual endeavor. The fact is, as human beings, our experiences involve more than our heads - even/especially in the meaning-driven nature of the visionary work of governance. Those of us who come to boards because we care deeply about the issues do not treat future-focused discussions as essentially academic exercises. We engage our hearts, spirits and minds.

Vicarious experience - What happens when we hear others describe their experiences; the ways in which their stories impact us, inform us, and resonate with us personally. I often struggle with how to provide board members with real connections to the mission of the organization when direct experience might result in one of two very inappropriate responses: wandering into micromanagement territory or breaking client confidentiality. Providing them with ample opportunity for vicarious experience brings them to that mission while respecting boundaries. Board members need to hear stories from front-line staff and volunteers. They need to hear client stories - delivered in appropriate and sensitive ways. They need to listen to what the senior executive shares as a co-leader and as the day-to-day manager. Boards can learn, and derive their own meaning, from the stories that others tell about your mission.

Simulated experience - Set up to resemble real-life scenarios, but provided in an artificial and controlled environment. I'll admit, I'm stretching for a good example of what this might look like in a board setting (I'm hoping one or more readers might be able to share one with us.). It does summon to mind my first board assignments, for agencies providing crisis intervention services to victims of family violence and sexual assault. I often was appalled by my peers' lack of understanding of victims' experiences and fears, and the challenges crisis line volunteers and staff face in addressing their urgent needs. In that setting, role playing - taking a hypothetical (but typical) crisis call or simulating a shelter intake process - might have gone a long way to clarifying those issues for my board friends.

Relived experience - Recalling previous experiences, with the benefit of having time and perspective to assist with assessing and learning from them. There is value in organizational history. Not only does it help boards avoid reinventing the wheel, but it also fosters reflection that creates the chance to learn something new/different from our experiences. Boards benefit when they revisit their successes and their failures - especially the former. Why were we successful? What were the conditions that facilitated that success? What conditions are in place today, and how can we leverage those conditions in this situation?

Collaborative experience - Working together, experiencing something together. Collective experience includes both discussion and action. Governance is the ultimate collective experience. Conversation makes up a significant percentage of that experience, but boards can/should/do learn when they act together. In fact, getting out of their seats (and their heads) more often would be a healthy thing for our boards.

Introspective experience - Engaging the quiet voice within. Boards need to reflect. They need space to sit back, collectively and individually, and listen to what their hearts tell them, just as they listen to their heads. Resisting the urge to act quickly and decisively is a practice that would benefit more boards. If they need time to reflect on an important decision, they need to take it.

How is your board already learning through experience? Which of these experience sources surprised you? Which has the potential to expand your board's capacity if it acknowledged and focused on its value in its practice? What kinds of examples could you share with fellow readers, to help them expand their understanding of how boards learn?

* from Fenwick's 2003 book, Learning through Experience: Troubling Orthodoxies and Interesting Questions, p. 13.

Video: The Role of Nonprofit Boards

2011-11-04T07:28:00.000-06:00

The Harvard Business School's Executive Education Program recently posted this video about the role of nonprofit boards. I wouldn't call the ideas covered in this brief (2:08) overview revolutionary, but they remind us of the critical importance of the leadership responsibilities of governance.

Particularly noteworthy was an early comment about veteran board members coming into a new assignment assuming they already know what their responsibilities are, and how things work. In my experience, that can be one of the more counterproductive scenarios: A room full of people with sometimes wildly different ideas about governance, approaching the work in conflicting ways. That is a recipe for governance disaster.

Overheard: Nov. 4 catch-up

2011-11-03T19:31:00.002-06:00

I've saved so many great governance-related resources since my last "overheard" post in July that I'll never be able to catch up. I undoubtedly will leave out links that will have the ultimate answer to your burning board question. For that, I am sorry.

In the spirit of re-launching this regular feature and getting back on track, though, I'll pick a handful of highlights from the last month. I may post a bonus "overheard" at some point, digging a little further back from the summer.

Treating board members as major gift donors (Movie Mondays)

One of the reasons this video resonated is the underlying message that we absolutely must hear: the need to respect board members for all of their contributions. That theme will ring familiar if you've read my more recent posts. In an environment where the more dominant focus is on the ways in which boards fail, any reminder of the significant gifts that individual members (and the group as a whole) share with our nonprofits.

The governance/support model for nonprofit boards (Jan Masaoka)

In this one important post, Jan solves one of the bigger puzzles of board life: when are members governing and when are they supporting the agency? Committed individuals who serve on your board will engage in both at some point, but boundaries can be blurred in tricky ways simply because of their status as organizational leaders. In this marvelous entry, Jan offers an at-a-glance tool for recognizing where a specific activity might lie. More important, she opens the door for a critical conversation that every board must have.

Is your board suffering from burnout? (Chronicle of Philanthropy)

If your board is burned out, this survey probably is a moot point. You know it. You see it. You feel it. But this quick set of questions can provide a basic framework for discussing the challenges that contribute to this state.

Who's really in charge of board performance? (Rick Moyers)

This Chronicle post would spark another important discussion: who's really responsible for ensuring that the board stays on track? There's the textbook answer to that question, then there's reality. Moyers' post acknowledges the reality: that the executive ultimately carries a significant burden for keeping his/her lead volunteers focused.

Board recruitment - don't expect the "fully loaded baked potato" at first (Marion Conway)

New members need time to ease into board service: to understand their duties, the structures and programs of the organization, and the way the group interacts. It's not an overnight process, as much as we'd like to think it is - or that we would like to have happen. Marion describes several factors for success in recruitment and orientation, to help ensure a successful start to service.

A tale of two boards: Stewards of IMPACT (Kevin Monroe)

How do we know we're having a positive impact on our community? In many respects, that's the ultimate question (and driving force) of nonprofit governance. In this post, Kevin shares tips and a series of questions designed to foster discussion and identify evidence that the nonprofit's programs actually make a difference.

Got the Boardroom Blues? (Brown Dog Consulting)

And, finally, for a little Friday levity, here's a video that will resonate with most everyone who's ever served on a board. It's both funny and depressing, because it's true.

The 70:20:10 rule of board learning

2011-10-30T17:34:00.001-06:00

One of the persistent - and frustrating - refrains of many conversations about nonprofit board development centers on the notion that, if we want more effective outcomes from our governing bodies, we must plop them down in a room with an expert for training.

The faulty assumption is that boards can only learn if (a) they are called together for a formal training event and (b) that experience is led by an all-knowing instructor who will pour all of the "right" answers into their heads. When that is accomplished, poof. Our boards will miraculously get their act together, achieve some governance perfection, and stop holding us back.

It may sound good in theory, but there's just one problem: not only is it not how most adults actually learn, it's not even the way they learn best. As an adult educator, I know that formal learning experiences have a role in board development. But in assuming that training events are the pinnacle of learning for nonprofit boards (or any group of adults, for that matter), we overlook and undervalue the myriad ways in which they actually are learning. If we expand our understanding of how adults learn, we open new opportunities to engage boards in meaningful learning that changes their practice.

In an earlier "overheard" favorite links post, I referenced the 70:20:10 framework of learning, which draws on research about the role of informal adult learning. In a nutshell, the 70:20:10 model says that

70 percent of what adults learn comes through experience and real-life situations, e.g., through project-based work, collaborating with others, trying new things, practicing more advanced skills, etc.
20 percent of what we learn comes through others, e.g., mentoring, debriefing, networking, discussion, and team tasks.
10 percent comes from formal learning events, e.g., workshops/training, e-learning, and games-based learning.

(For an excellent overview of the 70:20:10 framework, visit this Slideshare presentation by Charles Jennings.)

What would the 70:20:10 look like for the average nonprofit board? Where do our boards already spend 70 percent of their informal learning (and how might they do so more effectively?)? What does the 20 percent learned from others look like? How might we leverage that interaction to the board's benefit? Naturally, I have a few ideas - and I'd appreciate your thoughts on other ways to recognize board learning in all of its forms.

70 percent learning by engaging in real situations

The board needs real, meaningful opportunities to engage in governing - meetings centered on asking the big questions, with space to make important decisions about the future of the agency, engaging the community on behalf of your organization, etc.
The board has appropriate opportunities to experience the work of the agency, to see your mission in action. That might include such activities as tours or visits to your site (with sensitivity to client confidentiality), volunteering that puts them into close contact with front-line work, participating in outreach events - any opportunity to appropriately build their knowledge of the work that you do and the impact that you have in the community.
Board members should be engaged in committee and other team-based work that draws upon their expertise and interests and deepens their contributions to the agency and fulfilling its mission.
They need challenging new assignments that stretch them: formal and informal leadership roles, exploratory assignments, and increasingly challenging projects that build their governance muscles.

20 percent learning from others

New board members should be assigned a veteran mentor, who helps them understand the culture and work of the group and who provides a ready resource for asking naive questions.
Whether or not they have designated peer support, they learn by sitting in meetings and observing how things really work: how members interact, how questions are asked and by whom, how disagreements are handled, etc.
The board, and individual board members, should have a range of joint and collective self-assessment opportunities throughout the year, e.g., setting and monitoring board goals, debrief sessions following completion of projects, post-meeting check-ins (How did we do tonight? How did we advance the mission? Where did we struggle?).
The board needs regular, open, mission-focused discussions in meetings and other work settings. They need opportunities to hear and understand a range of perspectives on important issues (which reinforces the need for having diverse voices and experiences in the boardroom).
They benefit from the chance to network with others who are engaged in nonprofit governance and/or who are engaged in the same issues as your nonprofit's mission.

10 percent learning via structured learning events

New members begin their formal learning experience via high-quality orientations that address not only the mission, programs and structure of the nonprofit, but also their governance responsibilities.
Board members can, and do, learn from attending workshops and conferences focused on topics that expand their knowledge of your mission and their governance roles.
Formal face-to-face events designed to expand their understanding of specific mission areas, your programs, and/or governance have a place in board development
Webinars and other distance-delivered training events offer other opportunities to expand board learning.

What am I missing? In what other ways can - and do - boards learn beyond formal events? How would boards interact differently if they understood the role of informal learning? How might boards benefit - and how would their impact change - if they were more cognizant of how they shape their own learning in their routine governance work?

Finding the nobility in governance

2011-10-26T12:30:00.000-06:00

My apologies for the major gap between posts. After fairly major surgery in August, the journey to a fully functioning brain (and productive keyboard) has been surprisingly tough. I'm back, not quite at 100 percent, but anxious to re-engage with lovers of nonprofit boards - especially readers of this blog.

I may not have been prepared to write about boards, but I've certainly been thinking about them. The one thing I could do during my sick leave was read, and I saw connections to nonprofit governance in every book and article I picked up. (Some call it a sickness...)

One common (and distressing) theme that ran through muchof my nonprofit reading was an old one: surviving the million-plus ways that ourboards fail us. Woven throughout the blog posts, industry reports and articleswas the familiar refrain:

Our boards are aliability. They shirk their responsibilities (IF they know what thoseresponsibilities are). They fail to follow through on anything. They hateplanning and resist learning about our work. They suck all of the executive’svaluable time away from higher priorities. We must hold them accountable. Theyhave to be managed. WHY do we have them????

Sound familiar? Okay, I’ll admit I’ve seen and heard myshare of evidence confirming most of those complaints. I’veundoubtedly contributed to that evidence as a board member. But I'm not about to lay all of the blame on boards and the good-hearted, committed leaders who serve on them.

As I read each of these treatises on overcoming bad boards,I couldn’t help asking myself a few questions:

What are we doing to ensure that our boards will have the greatest potential for success in fulfilling their responsibilities?
What messages are we inadvertently conveying to boards about our (low) expectations for them?
How are we setting them up for failure?
Who in their right mind would sign up for such a thankless,mind-numbing job (especially when everyone expects them to fail)?

My friend, Hildy Gottlieb, would encourage me to aska different kind of question:

What would happen if we expected something better fromour boards - and we helped them reach for that potential?

In the spirit of answering Hildy’s persistent whisperringing in my ears – and to provide a counterpoint to the other conversation –I’d like to offer a different set of questions:

What if we treated boards, and the community leaders whoserve on them, with the respect they deserve?
What if we created an environment where we assumed theywould lead – and we helped them reach that leadership potential?
What if we held up nonprofit governance as visionaryleadership?
What if we helped focus their work on the big questions of governance?

Obviously, these questions beg for different outcomes byboards. But they also require a shift in thinking – and action – by those whosupport them. To me, some of the most obvious changes required would be:

Access to information about what governance actually involves. Too many boards don’t have a clue what they should be doing. That's a sector problem, as much as it is an organizational issue.
Clarity about what they are signing up for before new boardmembers commit to serve. That means providing them with realistic, concise,information about expectations up front and asking for informed commitment to the role they are assuming. (And never, ever, uttering the words, "It won't take that much time...")
Agendas dominated by open time to ask the big questions,focusing on governance work. We are not making the best use of our boards' time when we drown them in endless reports and minutiae.
Treating individual and collective reflection as an asset, not a waste of time.
Building the CEO/board partnership and seeing it as a worthwhile investment, not a burden.
Embedded celebration of what they contribute – their leadership – tothe organization and the community.
Respect for their time, connections and expertise. Nonprofit governance is a noble calling, one that depends upon committed community servants to embrace the future and move us closer to it. The contributions of a high-functioning board are unique and irreplaceable.

There are myriad ways to improve nonprofit governance. Thereis vast room for growth between most boards’ current performance and their fullpotential. We have a lot of work to do. But we must be careful to acknowledge our joint accountability for supporting our boards in their effort to governmore effectively. We're all responsible for our boards' success. They can't do it alone.

We also need to take great care to avoid disparaging thesignificant gifts that board members contribute, and the commitment they bringin support of our missions. We must recognize, and support, the nobility of their service and the community transformation that is possible when they succeed.

The joy of nonprofit governance

2011-08-04T20:15:00.005-06:00

Where do we find the joy in nonprofit service? In reaching out to others on behalf of our organizations? How do we build the joy our board members feel in fulfilling their essential leadership responsibilities?

Cheyenne attorney - and longtime community servant - Greg Dyekman closed this year's Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute with an absolutely perfect talk, titled "The Joy of Working in the Nonprofit Sector." Greg is an old friend of the institute. He spoke at our very first event in 2002. He's facilitated sessions on tough topics (accountability, anyone??) and left everyone informed, happy and energized. We knew what we were doing when we asked Greg to offer an inspiring close to the 2011 institute. Once again, he more than delivered.

Greg encouraged us to focus on meeting three needs in connecting with others:

Opportunities to help. People want to help; nonprofits need to provide meaningful ways for that to happen.
To feel needed. People want to feel good about themselves, and they want to belong. Nonprofits offer rich opportunities to engage authentically and, in the process, feed this need.
To feel like they've made a difference. They want to matter. They want to contribute to something good and something bigger than themselves.

The nonprofit sector is unique in its capacity to meet all three of those needs, he reminded us. As individual organizations, and as a sector, we can help people find joy. We can provide that to donors, volunteers, staff members and, yes, board members.

Days after Greg's talk, I'm still feeling inspired. I'm still feeling hopeful. I'm also thinking about how, as our marvelous speaker challenged us, we need to ensure that service via governance is a joyful experience for our boards.

My initial instinct was to offer my own interpretation of Greg's three keys as they might apply to boards. I may act on that impulse later. But today, I'd rather leave you with his marvelously succinct message and challenge us all to reflect on how we can bring joy to nonprofit governance. How are we meeting these three needs for our board members?

Boundary-spanning boards: Promised follow-up

2011-08-02T21:07:00.010-06:00

I promised participants in my Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute workshop on Boundary-Spanning Boards that I would share notes and resources from that session here. As usual, I tried to cover too much ground in too little time - an ongoing hazard whenever I talk about nonprofit boards.

In this session, audience members participated in a multi-part activity focused on how their boards can engage others more effectively. The following notes represent ideas shared during the workshop.

Their boards' peer groups

I asked them to identify their board members' natural peer groups. They listed these connections:

The University of Wyoming (there was a strong Laramie contingent in the room)
Businesses large and small
Other nonprofits
Service clubs (e.g., Lions, Rotary, Soroptomist)
Media members
Communities outside of the organization's home office (statewide nonprofits - not uncommon in Wyoming - relying upon board members to reach out in their communities)
Individuals with connections to policymakers - local, state, county, federal
Communities of faith
Individuals with connections to Wyoming's energy industry
Educators (connections, expertise related to the organization's mission area)
Mental health substance abuse providers (mission area)
Individuals with connections to state and other government agencies
A fifth-generation Wyomingite (deep community connections and, in this specific case, also related to the organization's mission area)

Engagement benefits

We talked about potential benefits of boards embracing their community engagement responsibilities. Here are the highlights of that conversation:

Greater awareness of (and ultimately participation in) fundraising activities
Increased positive perception of the organization (and greater awareness of its full range of programs)
Increased perceived success (board enthusiasm for their work and your organization not only is contagious, it creates your organization as strong and successful)
Increased participation/numbers of clients, leading to increased grant funding
Better quality brainstorming and resulting decisions (because board members are not only out there talking, they're also listening and bringing that information back to the boardroom)
Deepened board member commitment (because this is motivating work)
Greater cohesion and enthusiasm that also impacts staff
More effective feedback

Groups to engage

Next, they identified groups that their boards could engage, or engage more fully:

Legislators
Other nonprofits (to build positive relationships and opportunities for collaboration)
Other boards of directors (offered as part of the contributor's mission work, but also opportunities for boards of other groups to compare notes, collaborate, etc.)
Local businesses (to build awareness and support for mission, identify potential donors)
Schools (mission-area, to help identify potential service recipients, provide input on programs)
Representatives of the legal system (educate judges and others about the specific needs, challenges, etc., that the contributor's organization faces)

Their next steps

We were racing the clock by this time, so this last list is short. That's sad, because the group was hitting its stride and beginning to see the potential of having their boards embrace this work. I'm hoping that a few of the participants will be willing to offer additional ideas that they either didn't have time to voice or that came to mind after we ended the workshop, via a comment on this post.

Put "public awareness" on every board meeting agenda (If you're a regular reader, you know how much I loved hearing that one. This, my friends, is an essential responsibility of governance.)
Identify and recruit mentors (community members who are unable to serve on the board [at the moment, at least] but who have expertise that can help the board govern more effectively)
Identify their spheres of influence and discuss as a group (Who do they know? Who could they engage, in what ways, in the work of our nonprofit?)

I share these lists here for two reasons: one, to provide an electronic record of the good work that they did in our brief time together and, two, to inspire your boards to ask these same questions and explore how they might expand their own boundary-spanning work.

Potentially useful links

I promised to share several links with the group.

First, here is a link to Carlo Cuesta's fantastic "60-Second Strategy" video on "Flipping Your Mission." One of those "I'll do it differently" takeaways for this presenter: this video will be shared earlier the next time I do a similar workshop.

Second, this link will take you to my bookmarks that address the boundary-spanning role of the nonprofit board.

Third is a link to the Prezi I created for this workshop.

Finally, I've uploaded the handout I created to accompany that workshop. Click here to access that set of slides.

Overheard: July 29

2011-07-29T07:25:00.016-06:00

I'm opening this week's list of favorite links with a post just discovered in my morning Twitter feed. The timing is perfect for such an inspirational post, since I'm feeling pretty depleted by logistics work for my Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute, which begins Sunday night.

Real Sacrificial Board Giving (Episcopal Charities & Community Services)

I don't know the person behind the @ECCSOnline tweets and blog posts; but in the weird and wonderful world of social media, a girl can develop enriching kinds of relationships with people who end up feeling like kindred spirits. In an environment where too many organizations obsess over tactics and the "X easy steps" of governance, I gravitate toward voices that understand and advocate for the meaningful work that should drive all of it. Earlier this month, the person behind the tweets shared the quote by Kathryn Tyler Scott that provides the foundation for this post (“…to preserve your organization for a time you will not see, and for people you never will meet"); and it took my breath away. How can we sum up nonprofit governance more perfectly? How would governance change if that idea shaped our work? This post addresses that so well, and so powerfully. Yes, I've added it to my "board essentials" bookmark list - it's "must" reading for any nonprofit governing body.

Should staff contact with the board be restricted? (Jan Masaoka)

This one drew a lot of interest on Twitter when it started circulating, which didn't surprise me. In my work with boards, I've noticed that the question of staff/board interaction tends to raise the eyebrows - if not hackles - of many an executive director. It's a sticky subject, for good reason. The tradition of a CEO buffer between the two groups is a long one, one with legitimate reasons behind it. But is isolating the groups practical, or ultimately desirable? Some peers reading this post will disagree with me on this, but I'm of the mind that creating appropriate opportunities for the two groups to interact can be a good thing. I say that as both a board member and a former staffer who worked with a board. I offer two recommendations. First, encourage/expect board presence at events in the life of the organization (volunteer recognition events, holiday parties, etc.). Second, create legitimate opportunities for the two groups to work together to advance your mission (in particular, staff participation in committees where they have expertise, knowledge, and a stake in the results). This doesn't mean that you abandon structures and policies that respect the ED's leadership of day-to-day organizational life. There simply are other good reasons to bring the board closer to that work - specifically, how it brings you closer to your mission - and to help the staff understand who the board is, what it does, and why its work matters. Actually, I have an entire master's thesis worth of research on this topic, which begs to be shared in this space.

Executive committee? No thank you (Hildy Gottlieb)

Hildy shared this reflection on discussions emerging early in the formation of Creating the Future that likely will resonate for organizations of various ages. Do you have an executive committee? What role does it play? Is it a help or hindrance? If you don't have an executive committee, how has your board addressed the "stuff" that comes up? I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this, as I'm not firmly on either side of the discussion. I must admit, though, I do like the "Stuff Happens Committee" idea that Hildy proposes, and her rationale for framing it that way. The terminology gives off a very different vibe than an "executive" committee. As someone who believes strongly that words matter, I'm intrigued by the implications.

Chairing the board: Am I the one?

2011-07-26T07:17:00.008-06:00

If you read my recent post on the importance of nonprofit board chairpersons, you already know the high value I place on a leadership role that doesn't always get the respect or consideration that it deserves.

"Any live body" is never a good criterion for recruiting board members. It is the worst possible target when we're selecting our next leader. Just as the board needs to select and support its leadership deliberately, the prospective president needs to be thoughtful in assessing whether he/she really is the right person for the job.

If you find yourself on the receiving end of an invitation to chair your board, resist the urge to respond immediately. Instead, ask for time to reflect on what is being asked of you, what you have to contribute as a leader, and whether it's ultimately a good fit for all.

What kinds of questions might foster a rich self-assessment? If I were reflecting on an invitation to serve in this capacity, here is a sampling of the types of questions I might ask myself.

Why am I considering this nomination? What is most appealing about the prospect of serving in this new way?
There is a high level of visionary leadership required of the board chairperson. How would I advance the vision and mission of the organization?
How will I keep the board focused on its governance responsibilities? Will I be willing to be assertive in holding the group to that focus?
How will I assume responsibility for the learning needs of the board?
Am I willing - and able - to be a strong and positive spokesperson for our mission?
Am I willing - and able - to support my fellow board members' community outreach work? Will I hold them accountable for doing it?
Do I have the time and energy needed to commit to this critical work?
Will I be able to work effectively with committee chairpersons and other board leaders? Do I have the interpersonal skills needed to create a strong leadership team?
Can I create a strong partnership with the CEO?
How can I use my specific experiences, expertise, knowledge, etc., to shape my leadership contributions while in this role?
What scares me most about serving?
What do I need to succeed?
How will the organization be better at the end of my term? How will I be better?

The (unexpected) perils of ambassadorship

2011-07-18T06:47:00.010-06:00

Can there really be easy pitfalls that come with a board member's increased engagement with the community?

Usually, when I share my four additions to nonprofit board responsibilities, I gravitate toward the positive motivations and outcomes of members reaching out and sharing our mission with others. Last week, though, members of a local board reminded me that there can be a bump or two along the way to this positive community outreach. In my zeal to emphasize the meaning-driven work and value of nonprofit governance, I tend to gloss over the natural cautions that board members also should know.

If you've recruited strategically, you've undoubtedly brought on board leaders who also are community leaders (with or without titles). They are connected. They have demonstrated a capacity to serve and accomplish what they commit to doing. People know them and listen to them.

The obvious good news: they are never without opportunities to tell your story, educate about your work, and advocate for your cause. If board leaders and senior staff are fulfilling our responsibility, we're encouraging individual members to get out there and share and holding them accountable for that community outreach work.

The (maybe) not so obvious caution: when their visibility as organizational leaders rises, so too does the expectation that their voice represents your voice. If we've recruited and educated well, our board members are passionate about the issues that we address as an organization. This means that they have knowledge and opinions - often strong opinions - about those issues. When the community connects individual board members and your organization, assuming that their voice is your voice is a logical next step.

Board members need to be mindful of this potential when they speak about the broader issues surrounding your work. In many personal and professional circles, when they speak, listeners may be hearing more than their individual message. They may also be hearing your organization's message. In most cases, that isn't a massive problem: the board member's personal view and your organizational message are one and the same (though greater consciousness of how they are speaking, when, and with whom will never be inappropriate).

The time will inevitably come when members' views don't dovetail perfectly with organizational messages or board decisions. That's where the challenge arises. Board members have a right to express their personal opinions; that comes with citizenship. What they must take care to do, though, is make it clear in speaking that the opinion expressed is theirs and not necessarily those of the organization.

Board members must represent the organization well and heed the call for one voice once a decision has been made. In an ideal world (from the nonprofit's perspective), board member views and organization messages would be one and the only messages an individual would feel compelled to share with the community. Board members need to remember that, for some people, they never take off the "nonprofit leader" hat. They are always representing the organization.

Board members, if you find yourself in this situation, stop, acknowledge where where you are and with whom you are speaking, and decide whether what you are about to say will help or hurt your organization's mission. If simply not speaking isn't an acceptable Plan B (and, please, think long and hard before rejecting that option. Really.), you have an obligation to clarify that the opinions shared are yours and yours alone. You are not speaking as a representative of your nonprofit.

If you're like me, you want to believe that this scenario is so rare that your board will never encounter it. But, as the board last week reminded me, it's not impossible. It need not even involve a particularly radical or controversial kind of situation to create the potential for trouble. (The example they shared would absolutely be a somewhat common occurrence for many community boards.)

My counsel is this: Have this discussion - regularly - with your board. Talk about the importance of respecting the group's decisions. Debate that stretches thinking and leads to thoughtful and considered decisions is healthy. But once a decision is made, it's made. The group speaks with one voice. Second message I would discuss with the group would be the importance of remembering and respecting their ongoing role as organizational spokespersons. Attention to the continuous nature of that ambassadorial role will help encourage them to be mindful of what they are communicating, where and with whom.

Overheard: July 15

2011-07-15T09:48:00.005-06:00

A 'destined to be a classic' post from a familiar name opens this week's list of favorite governance links.

Board members: Rocket fuel or Rocks? (Lucy Marcus)

Let's be honest: she had me at the great headline. I opened the link while waiting to facilitate a governance session with a local board, and I must admit that it lingered in the back of my mind throughout that event. I couldn't wait to get to a computer to read this post more closely. There are many reasons to add this one to my "board essentials" reading list (which I did). One of the more compelling was the focus on what the individual board member needs to know to "mak(e) the boardroom a dynamic, productive place." She shifted the focus of board responsibility to knowing/engaging vs. doing, which is a healthy place to spend a bit of time and energy. Lucy challenges board members to not just sit back and whine about boring and unproductive meetings, but to immerse themselves in learning that makes governance more personally fulfilling and more effective. We hope that board members would read this and think Lucy is stating the painfully obvious. We don't always see evidence that that would be the case.

Methods for collecting and using your nonprofit's stories (Movie Mondays)

Maybe it's because I'm putting the finishing touches on a workshop on boundary-spanning boards, but this one leaped out immediately as a must-share here. While not targeting boards directly, the content of the video - articulating and sharing the stories that make your mission come to life - absolutely fits board responsibilities.

Extreme makeover: Boards edition (GuideStar)

If you engage on Twitter or Facebook, this one may be familiar. It circulated widely in social media communities as it was released. This post resonated for me for a couple of reasons. First, it opened with a series of questions designed to engage board members in deep, governance-appropriate reflection. Second, it offered tips (and a call for patience for inevitably hard work) for engaging in whatever change is identified as needed. I wouldn't say they've shared anything terribly detailed or revolutionary. But they offer a fresh, friendly way of thinking about assessment and action.

How to unleash your board members energy for fundraising (Gail Perry)

Gail shares both a link to a radio interview she conducted with "Giving Show" host Michael Chatman and a post outlining the highlights of that talk. Is it possible to have too many words of counsel on this vexing topic? Many would say no. As is typical of her writing, Gail packages her expert advice in ways that will make sense (and feel less scary) for executives and board leaders wrestling with this challenge.

Results of new Daring to Lead study on nonprofit leadership - What a board should know
(Marion Conway)

While boards ultimately should read and consider every word of the Daring to Lead 2011 report, blogger Marion Conway does them a favor by pulling out and discussing several key findings that relate specifically to board responsibilities. Be sure to visit her blog, where she goes into greater depth on the report. Read her blog, anyway, because she's a fantastic writer and thinker.

Sources of board stories

2011-07-11T06:51:00.004-06:00

Where do board members find those great stories that energize people and prompt them to act?

I'm reflecting a lot on that question lately, as I continue to tweak my Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute workshop on boundary-spanning boards.

Our nonprofit stories are everywhere. Recognizing them, sharing them with board members (and other advocates) in appropriate ways, and helping them see how they communicate something compelling about your mission are the challenges.

As frequently happens in my life, a chance intersection with this topic popped up in an adult education text I was reading last week. In a chapter on narrative learning (in The Third Update on Adult Learning Theory), authors M. Carolyn Clark and Marsha Rossiter describe the power of stories this way:

"Stories...engage our spirit, our imagination, our heart..."

We can cite all the statistics we can generate. We can outline our services and describe in copious detail how they work. But we reach other people in ways that call them to act with our stories.

So where are the sources of these stories? Here are a few observations that I hope will be obvious to others:

The executive director. This person has the most expansive view of the organization - its impacts, challenges, successes. The CEO shares the ambassador role with the board and, as such, should have a good sense of what resonates with different stakeholder audiences. He/she is out in the community, talking about the work and tailoring messages to the unique interests of each group. The ED also has the closest working relationship with the board and is the person with the best opportunities to fill interactions with stories to inspire and illustrate.

The staff. Other staff members offer "front line" perspectives on the work and the clients served. They understand the needs, the points of pride, the connection of their work to the mission in ways that are different from the board and, to a large extent, from the CEO. With sensitivity to preserving confidentiality (for example, using client pseudonyms and composites), they can help illustrate organizational impacts in vivid ways.

Other volunteers. Like paid staff, volunteers offer a unique perspective of the work, from wherever they contribute to the organization. Some will be front-line volunteers, providing direct services, getting up close and personal with the mission. Others may serve in supportive role that give them a different sense of what it takes to move your nonprofit closer to its mission. Each offers a different layer of understanding of how the mission and vision are advanced and different lenses for seeing community impact.

Donors. When board members participate in the development process, when they have opportunities to engage donors and listen to them, they have a clearer understanding of the kinds of stories that will matter to supporters. They also have a chance to engage those storytelling donors at a deeper level.

Clients and former clients. Introducing board members to current or former service recipients isn't always possible, given the need to respect client confidentiality. But when you do have someone, likely a former client, who is willing to offer his/her testimonial about the the role your organization played on his/her life and to share it specifically with the board, you need to make that happen. The closer your board gets to the impact you have on the community, the better members will be able to communicate convincingly with others.

Other board members. Board members have their own kinds of experiences and connections that draw them to your mission. Where do they find meaning in the work that they do? How have they found opportunities to expand their service and share their leadership in ways that move you closer to mission fulfillment? Members will find both common ground and expanded understanding amongst each other's stories. Finding time for stories - and any open space where such insights can emerge - will never be wasted board meeting time.

Direct experience. This last source isn't a "who" but a "how." When members step outside of the boardroom, when they have appropriate opportunities to encounter the work and the people of your organization, they not only have a chance to hear others' stories, they create stories of their own. I'm not inviting boards to peer over staff members' shoulders or nose around in client files. I'm not even encouraging board members to do front line volunteer work. I am suggesting that board members should be encouraged to participate - appropriately - in the life of the organization. There is no experience greater than firsthand experience when sharing with others.

There are many sources of stories with the power to inspire board members and those they will engage on your behalf. What kinds of stories does your board hear? How? In what context? What kinds of stories do they need to hear to help them relate more directly to stakeholder interests?

How can our board members hear and grasp stories that engage their "spirit..., imagination..., and heart...?" How can those same stories inspire board members themselves? I would be interested in your perspectives and experiences with this.

The transformative power of lists

2011-07-08T14:02:00.005-06:00

Yes, I appreciate the irony of the title I've assigned to this post. Perhaps a more accurate revision would be this: "the transformative power of list making."

Last week, as I created notes from the flip chart sheets of a session that I facilitated for a local board, I recalled the vivid conversation about mission that those sheets represented. What I remember most was a member's statement about being able to look back on the product of our work - particularly the list of tangible ways the organization delivers value to our community - and realizing that it was a long one.

This individual saw a visual representation of the work that this small board has accomplished and that it continues to provide in the community. It was an affirmation that, even as the organization emerged from recent challenges, it managed to provide something real and valuable. It also advanced its mission. Sometimes, that is very hard to see from the middle.

Flip chart lists are a staple in my work with boards because, more often than not, important insights arise in group reflection. At the end of discussions like the one our local board had last week, the chance to step back, take a breath and absorb visually what that reflection produced facilitates a transformative moment for many members.

I wrote earlier this summer about a similar kind of experience, when I asked another local board to list community partners and other sources of organizational support. They already were in list-making mode (this took place somewhere in the middle of our retreat), but what emerged in this particular assignment was remarkable. The energy shifted, the list grew to cover multiple sheets, the names flew faster than I could write, and board members (and their executive director) were able to see that they were entering a fundraising challenge with an already strong foundation.

Neither the notes created nor the flip chart sheets themselves come anywhere near capturing adequately the individual and group insights that emerged last week. Neither board members nor I can predict exactly how that expanded, collective understanding will impact future decisions and focus. But in the simple process of listing, especially listing their assets and accomplishments, their perspective shifted.

Too often, board agendas focus on "issues" and "challenges." What would happen if we took some time out regularly to list their strengths and accomplishments or, better yet, to discuss ways to build from them? What list would spark generative thinking and shift their frame of reference from needs to assets?

Laramie Board Learning Project: Definitive posts

2011-07-04T10:29:00.005-06:00

In the four-plus years since launching this blog, I've had a chance to not only find my blogging voice but also opportunities to articulate the particular vision and knowledge that inform that voice.

In this holiday edition, I share a few early posts that provide a sense of perspective for readers who are new to this blog. I hope they will provide context for who I am and why I approach nonprofit governance the way I do.

Creating a board LeaderCulture (July 23, 2007)

Long before there was a blog, there was an original model of nonprofit leadership. LeaderCulture flowed from my brain in 1998, while sitting on the tarmac in Greesnboro, N.C., following a visit to the Center for Creative Leadership. That trip, to accept the CCL's Kenneth E. Clark Student Research Award, set me on my path of a lifetime. LeaderCulture merited an article in CASE Currents Magazine. It felt brilliant at the time - and I do think there is value in what I created (See separate entries on each of the four elements: participation, communication, direction and recognition.). I haven't shared that model for awhile, but it definitely carries ideas that seeded everything that follows.

Boards 101 video (October 27, 2008)

I'm not exactly proud of the audio performance here; but the attempt to describe my understanding of the big 10 roles - and expand upon them with what I feel they lack - offers an initial view of my vision of nonprofit governance. As with the LeaderCulture model, there are links to what comes later in my evolution as a governance writer and facilitator.

Finding community in board practice (August 22, 2009)

There's a bit of a rough feel to this one, too; but in this case, that represents my evolving understanding of the key findings and messages of my doctoral dissertation research. This work has become the foundation of my thinking and work on nonprofit governance where, to my utter surprise, so many of the puzzle pieces naturally fell into place - in a high-functioning governance setting. It has given me my research agenda and my focus for working with nonprofit boards. I definitely need to record a more polished version of this work. But I appreciate the raw nature of this version, because it shows exactly where I was in my thinking five short months after successfully defending this work.

Series: Boards as communities of practice (December 28, 2009)

Yes, the evolutionary process to find the meaning of my dissertation research was a long one. (I've learned that that is a common phenomenon of the doctoral experience.) In December 2009, I launched a series of posts exploring in greater depth the key findings and what they mean for nonprofit boards. This entry provides a set of links to each post in the series.

It's all about vision (January 20, 2010)

With the exception of the notable flashes of knowledge described above, I spent the first three years stumbling and bumbling through blogging. I wasn't sure that I had anything important to say, and I lacked a sense that blogging was a valid venue for me. This post represents a multi-layered shift - for the legitimate 'aha' moment described, for the sense of place in the nonprofit world that I found in that experience, and for the new understanding of the voice I needed to develop and why. I don't pretend that every post written since this one has been brilliant and scintillating reading; but the clarity that began with this one launched a creative and intellectual shift. 'It's all about vision' takes on multiple meanings for its author.

My (draft) nonprofit learning manifesto (February 8, 2010)

In this one - and in the series that followed - I articulated the intersections between my understandings of nonprofit governance and adult learning that makes this particular blog unique. The 'draft' in the title is deliberate and important. My thinking about ways in which adult learning principles can be addressed in nonprofit board development is a lifelong process. My understanding of each point is just a little bit different today than it was in 2010.

Moving beyond 101 (March 14, 2010)

I was a little crabby when I wrote this one. Despite the counsel of wise friends to 'meet people where they are,' I still sometimes lose patience with resistance to going any further than the basics with our boards. We can't overtax them, I'm told, they're volunteers. We can't trust them, I'm told, they always fail to do what we need. We can't motivate them, I'm told, because they simply don't understand or appreciate the work that we do. I continue to know this: Boards give too little because we expect too little and support even less. While I always write with a goal of accessibility for my target audience (the nonprofit board member), I refuse to dummy content down. I respect what boards bring to the table, challenge them to offer their best to lead their organizations, and offer them tools for stretching to make that best possible.

CWAM 2010: Exploring board practices (May 14, 2010)

This one is important, because it represents the blog unveiling of my model, Board Practice Communities. It was a big moment for me, and a first step toward public discussion about this framework for building board capacity.

Boards 'on fire' (October 31, 2010)

One of the strengths of this blog is my ability to draw upon a diverse range of sources to expand understanding of nonprofit governance, or to explore it in novel ways. This one was inspired by one of my students who, despite having little knowledge about nonprofits and no experience with nonprofit boards, managed to capture the essence of what all governing bodies need to succeed. As I re-read my response to his challenge, I see a good, in-a-nutshell summary of what I consistently share in this space.

When I started writing this entry, I envisioned an easy way to bring newer readers up to speed on a holiday, when few will be sitting at their computers reading blogs. For the reader, that may be exactly what this post does. For me, there was an unexpected outcome: a stronger sense of context for my journey so far and a better understanding of how I found my blogging voice. Not many of these posts would qualify if I were creating a "best of" list. But all are important for the conceptual road map they create.

Overheard: July 2

2011-07-02T08:26:00.003-06:00

It's another "cornucopia"-themed week of resources, a mix of the thought-provoking and the practical. Let's start with a couple of the latter.

Board FriendRaising Action Toolkit (Hildy Gottlieb)

I've downloaded and used this free toolkit from my friend, Hildy, and I recommend it. Ultimately, I'd want to sweet-talk you into ordering her book, Friendraising, which is chock-full of ideas for, and examples of, ways for board members to engage others for your mission. But this toolkit offers a good overview that you can easily share and discuss with your board.

12 ways to liven up your board meetings - and your board (Gail Perry)

No item on this list would qualify as particularly earth-shaking. But often the most basic changes carry potential to shift the tone and outcomes for a board. Adopting even one of Gail's suggestions may lead to meaningful change in the way your board works.

9 big board questions (Nick Fellers)

I'll take any chance to share questions that help nonprofit boards focus on their governance responsibilities. This list of nine by Nick Fellers offers exactly that. Boards that are "too busy" for governance could set aside time in a meeting to pose one of these questions. (Or, even better yet, they could adjust their view of why they exist.) Boards also could draw upon these questions as Fellers suggests: to create a different - and ultimately more fruitful - kind of retreat experience, focused where boards should be focused.

Daring to Lead 2011 (CompassPoint)

This national study focused on sector executive leadership should be required reading for all nonprofit boards. The picture painted isn't pretty, but it points out challenges that require board attention. Be sure to click the "boards" tab on the page for specific (and convicting) data related specifically to the issues that nonprofit executives report having with the other half of their leadership team.

Ten myths about nonprofit boards (Jan Masaoka)

Have you heard any of these myths? What are the impacts of buying into any of them? What happens when a board accepts any of them as true? Jan, as always, expands our thinking about nonprofits and, specifically, about nonprofit boards.

The "chief" roles of a board chair

2011-06-27T06:30:00.007-06:00

Who's accountable when nonprofit boards fail to live up to their governance responsibilities?

That question has been on my mind a lot as I write about, or read about, yet another governance failure. Obviously, there is no one, easy answer or one target for placing blame. There is one position within the board that I've not addressed in depth here, where significant responsibility must lie: the board chairperson.

A running joke in the nonprofit boardroom goes something like this: the only thing worse than missing a meeting and being given a committee chairmanship is missing that meeting and being elected board president. It's not a position to which everyone aspires, or for which everyone is qualified. Often, the person who assumes this role is not the member best prepared or most enthusiastic about leading his/her peers in governing. It's who's been around the longest or who's least likely to object - or who missed the meeting when the slate was selected. None of these scenarios sets up a board for the right leadership needed at the right time.

Chairing a nonprofit board requires a higher level of commitment (and more work, which is what sends many of us running for the hills - or curling up into little balls under the boardroom table - when nomination time rolls around). Without a strong president, though, without someone willing to champion the organization and push the group to focus on its governance work, the board is almost destined to flounder.

As I think about the board chairmanship, I envision five "chief" responsibilities:

Chief role model
Chief visionary
Chief agenda guardian
Chief accountability hawk
Chief partner

Chief role model. The president must demonstrate a commitment to the board's work and community leadership. He/she must model responsibility for all aspects of the job, particularly those emphasizing stewardship of the vision and mission. The board chairperson must always come prepared for the work of governance. He/she must also facilitate and expect board learning. This leader must create space in meetings reflection, information sharing, and discussion that expands the group's world view and understanding of the issues facing the organization.

Chief visionary. The chairperson sets the tone for the rest of the board. A board chairperson should be regularly asking members, individually and collectively, for examples of how they are advancing the mission. This person should be acknowledging successes and pushing to do more/better when they fall short. "How does this impact our mission?" and "How can we reach even further toward our vision?" should be the types of questions that the chief visionary poses constantly in the board's work.

Chief agenda guardian. The board president sets the agenda for the board, literally and figuratively. That means constructing meetings where the bulk of the time is spent discussing topics that advance the organization's mission. If you're delegating that task to the executive director, you are failing your peers (and the organization). Practically speaking, it may be a collaboration between president and ED; but defining the agenda and the direction it will take ultimately is a leadership decision - the president's leadership decision. Guarding the agenda also involves keeping conversations on track - bringing people back to the question at hand, reining in discussions that wander into management territory, stretching participants to think more expansively (and always focused on the vision and mission). Oh, and perhaps stating the obvious: the board president actually leads the meeting. It is a task not deferred to the ED or anyone else.

Chief accountability hawk. The chairperson should be absolutely clear about the board's accountability responsibilities and take every step possible to ensure that they are being addressed. This includes ensuring that the board is monitoring and communicating and otherwise focused on its legitimate accountability work. It also includes clarity about what is not covered under the board accountability umbrella. Fear of the unknown can derail an otherwise intelligent and capable board. A strong understanding of what board accountability looks like, reinforced by a confident president, can relieve unnecessary stress and facilitate focus where their attention should lie.

Chief partner. A strong working relationship between the board president and the executive director must be a leadership goal. Different personalities interact differently. Sometimes, the fit is less than great. But these two individuals together must work to create and protect an environment where the board is free to govern and to build its capacity to lead.

The rest of us serving on boards need to hold our presidents accountable for the kind of leadership that will inspire and push us to do our best and reach our full potential for our community. We need to recruit individuals with the capacity to move into this leadership position. We need to not settle for the person least likely to object, or select someone simply because she's been on the board the longest or "it's his turn." We need to rise to the level of accountability that our board chairperson expects of us. We need to expect the quality of leadership that we, and our organization, deserves.

Overheard: June 24

2011-06-24T09:47:00.001-06:00

I'll start this week's favorite links with a video from Team Strive, titled "Board meetings can be frustrating." It's simultaneously funny and depressing, because it's true.

The new generation of nonprofit leaders (Chronicle of Philanthropy)

This post also features a video: young nonprofit leaders sharing their thoughts, hopes and frustrations related to working in the sector. While not specifically board related, their message is one that boards need to hear. In sharing this, I'm not inviting you to micromanage staffing decisions. Rather, I encourage you to be mindful of the interests and concerns of your current and future organizational leaders, both staff and board. The reality is, "the way we've always done it" - particularly in terms of what we expect of our staff - is no longer a sustainable system (Not that it ever was. Ask the many Baby Boomers who burned out taking a 24/7 approach to their work.).

Should a Catholic charity take money from Hooters? (Chris MacDonald)

This one may feel entirely out of place in a listing of board resources, but there is a good reason I'm including it. I'm asking you to not critique this specific case, but to use this example as an opportunity to launch a discussion with our own board about the limits you (should) have regarding donations, partnerships, etc. What are the boundaries? How do your values help to define those boundaries?

Creating a culture of learning and accountability (Matthew Forti)

Since I began this week's list on a potentially depressing note, I'll end with a resource that I hope will inspire and lead to greater capacity to serve. It's a follow-up to a link I shared in an earlier "overheard" post. In this offering, The Bridgespan Group continues the conversation about the need to devote attention to nurturing an environment of where learning is encouraged and where accountability is expected. As with so many of the resources I share, the author provides a service to readers by offering recommendations that break something as large and abstract as cultural change into something we can visualize as possible.

The problem of board "do-ers"

2011-06-22T07:01:00.012-06:00

Does your nonprofit board have too many "do-ers?"

The "do-ers" are totally dedicated to your vision of the future and your mission for accomplishing it. They're enthusiastic. They may have helped you found your organization, which means their devotion to the work feels endless. When there is something to be done, you can always count on them. They're "do-ers," after all. You may have recruited these individuals because they have a track record as star volunteers - for you or another organization - or because they are active community leaders with a reputation for "getting things done."

In many respects, these individuals are dream board members. Whatever they commit to do will be done - and probably done well. But "doing" is not necessarily "governing." When our board worker bees fail to understand that there is a critical difference, the organization suffers.

In some respects, a board "do-er" is a pleasant problem to have when compared with the alternatives (e.g., a member for whom board service is a line on a resume or one who crams your meetings in to an already tight schedule and can barely remember what you're discussing). But that active tendency, and the need to feel like they're accomplishing something, can lead to obsessing over details, filling meetings with reports and "action items," and lamenting the lack of time available to focus on the fluffy stuff of mission and strategy.

I debated rewriting or deleting that last sentence, but the truth behind it will ring familiar with many readers and their boards. The more I work and serve with these dedicated volunteers, the more I realize that the real issue is a lack of clarity about the dual roles they are serving, and about which role must take precedence in the boardroom.

Earlier this year, in a "Movie Monday" video interview, Jane Kuechle articulated the problem as confusion about the fact that many board members are trying to wear two "hats" simultaneously: a "governance" hat and a "volunteer" hat. Just as a bike helmet and a bridal veil require two very different kinds of wardrobes, the roles of governor and volunteer require very different points of focus and activity.

The challenge for small nonprofits is that board members in these settings also often are lead volunteers. Their volunteer leadership is as valued and essential as their board service. But no board can afford to lose the equally important governance responsibilities, even with the annual fundraising dinner (and all of its urgent tasks) just around the corner. We've all heard of the tyranny of the urgent - focusing with such laser-like precision on the tasks right in front of us that we lack the energy to concentrate on the far more important questions and work. That phenomenon is all too real in too many boardrooms, where the "important" is the work.

Encouraging our ultra-active board members to stop and clarify which organizational "hat" they are wearing is at least half of the challenge. Actually, for many, simple awareness that they are letting their volunteerism drive their board meeting focus may be all that is necessary. Beyond that, structuring board meetings for governance work will go a long way toward focusing their attention where it needs to be. I've offered several ways to restructure meetings for governance focus in an earlier post. Click here to read that entry.

The challenge in this situation is acknowledging the do-ers' dedication to the organization and its mission, in all of its expressed forms, while encouraging - expecting - focus on the different level of leadership that governance requires. That may require explicitly setting boundaries and redirecting conversation when the talk drifts.

It happens. I've certainly been on the other side. During my first two board assignments, I also volunteered as a victim advocate for the organizations. My commitment to the work and the front-line perspective I provided were helpful. The occasional detours as I rambled on about volunteer challenges were not. I can recall six consecutive years on another board where logistics for the annual crab dinner took over the agenda for months at a time. I also scooped cole slaw, flung crab legs, poured coffee and washed dishes at that event. I get it. But I also see the impact of distracted boards who lack attention to the governance responsibilities that must take precedence.

How does your board balance the the desire to "do" with the essential but not urgent governance that is its ultimate reason for being? How do you accomplish that without squashing the enthusiasm of board members who serve your organization in other ways?

The "being" of nonprofit governance

2011-06-20T06:29:00.008-06:00

Sometimes, it takes a wise friend to gently point out the obvious. Last week, that friend was Nancy Iannone, who, in a comment shared on an earlier post, connected my academic writing and my practice-focused work.

Nancy gave me the simple vocabulary (that I actually use in other settings) for describing what I feel is missing in so many efforts to "educate" nonprofit boards. The funny thing is, I'm working on a chapter, for a new book on governance practice, about this very topic. Nancy's favor to me was helping me step away from the proverbial tree I've been pruning so I could see the governance forest where I live, teach and write.

A bit of context for this personal "aha" moment:

Since completing my dissertation, my academic focus has turned more toward sociocultural learning in the nonprofit board setting. Because the organizations they govern are meaning-driven - via their intense focus on mission, vision and values - a cultural-interpretive approach to understanding nonprofit governance practice makes particularly good sense.

The short title of my book chapter, and the Academy of Management presentation from which it evolved, sums up the gap perfectly. Board development involves not only learning about, it's also learning to be. Too much of what we throw at boards focuses exclusively on the former, but it's in the latter that members find inspiration and deepen commitment.

What Nancy helped me to see was that, in my attempt to expand the list of "10 basic board responsibilities," I was unconsciously addressing a serious lack of "being" in the roles we assign to our governing bodies. I read the list of 10 and think, "Blech! Why would anyone knowingly sign on for this?" Defining the mission and vision provides some link to the reason most of us serve. But the rest of the list? What doesn't scare the stuffing out of board members threatens to bore us silly.

In practice, the typical board agenda alternates between the frightening and the sleep-inducing. In training, boards are steered toward the same. Those few, precious opportunities to formally expand our understanding of governance are spent learning about the latest accountability requirements handed down by the IRS (talk about inspiring fear!), the need to write a plan in four hours or less (with little attention to the motivation behind it - just write the darn thing SMART-ly), and the latest techniques to transform reluctant volunteers into all-star fundraisers. Obviously, that work is part of the job (well, some version of what I've just described is part of the job). But it's not the part that sustains board members and inspires them to lead.

What Nancy's comment pointed out so nicely was that my four little additions to the job description (visionary, ambassador, steward and leader) aren't a revolutionary reconceptualization of governance. They're an articulation of the "being" part of board service and learning. She also helped me to see what I've been too busy writing to grasp: that the purpose of this blog, while grounded in real issues boards face, is fundamentally about the being-ness of boards.

I don't intend to turn this post into an academic paper, but a couple of quotes may help readers see how I'm connecting the dots. The first is a quote from Etienne Wenger, who has profoundly influenced my understanding of social learning (from a book that shaped my understanding - and my dissertation - Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity):

"Because learning transforms who we are and what we can do, it is an experience of identity. It is not just an accumulation of skills and information, not in the abstract as ends themselves, but in service of an identity. It is in that formation of an identity that learning can become a source of meaningfulness and of personal and social energy."

Learning to govern is about more than mechanics. It's even about more than inventorying and monitoring the programs delivered and clients served. Learning to govern also involves learning to lead, and to becoming social change agents in our community.

The second quote comes from John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid and extends Wenger's point perfectly:

"Learning, in all, involves acquiring identities that reflect both how a learner sees the world and how the world sees the learner."

If board members embrace their roles as visionaries for your organization, if they truly become ambassadors for your mission, they will be transformed. As human beings and as community leaders, there is no turning back. They will be changed in the process.

Another author/researcher that has influenced me, John Dirks, has called learning in meaning-making work "our soul work." Governance is, in very real ways, soul work.

As I bring this particular "well, du-uh..." moment to a close, I need to recommit to bringing those theoretical insights that shape my thinking so profoundly into my understanding of the practice of governance. I also need to be better about embedding those connections into posts I'm already writing, acknowledging those influences (and recognizing them in the first place), and applying them to real governance life.

The challenge of board organizational learning

2011-06-18T08:34:00.010-06:00

Well, I warned you that I'd be writing about Katie Smith Milway and Amy Saxton's great article about nonprofit organizational learning...

As an adult educator specializing in nonprofit learning generally, and board learning specifically, seeing their article on organizational learning in the sector was a welcome contribution to the conversation. The authors do a great job of exploring learning at the organizational level. I'd like to apply their framework to the board. I'd encourage you to read Milway and Saxton's article for context and for more detail on the model itself.

This particular model of organizational learning spotlights four elements: supportive leaders, a culture of continuous improvements, defining learning structure and intuitive knowledge processes. I'll address each piece from a board perspective. Some of the ideas will be familiar to regular readers. It's healthy to explore board learning through different lenses.

Supportive leaders. Milway and Saxton's descriptors include "clear vision and goals for organizational learning" and "champions and role models." A nonprofit board needs both. It needs to set learning goals for itself. It needs someone to realize the value of board learning, who will push the board to expand - and use - its collective knowledge. The executive director has a role in supporting this process; but it is not his/her job alone, nor is it that person's leadership responsibility. A board member (or, better yet, members) needs to take up the learning banner and carry it forward to help them serve the mission and vision better.

Culture of continuous improvements. We can't overestimate the power of board organizational culture. Nor can we minimize its impact in nonprofit life generally, especially given the meaning-driven nature of its mission-based work. Milway and Saxton describe this element as a culture that "values organizational learning" via "aligned beliefs and values," "reinforcing incentives," and "commitment to measurement of results." In the boardroom, I see this culture represented when members regularly discuss the importance of continuous board learning in all forms. I see it in the incentives provided, for example, funding for board members to participate in formal learning events (with the expectation that they will share what they learn with their fellow members).

In a culture of continuous board learning, members share their individual expertise to help the group govern better, and value that shared wisdom even more than retreats and "training" events. In a culture of continuous board improvement, members and staff would "catch" each other learning - identifying, acknowledging, and rewarding those situations when an individual member expands the group's capacity in some way. In this culture, the board recognizes that learning takes place all the time and calls it learning.

Defining learning structure. Yes, structure is important. The authors describe learning structure as "aligned to support organizational learning" through "defined roles and responsibilities for capturing, distilling, applying and sharing knowledge" and "networks and coordination." As I think about learning structure in a board setting, a few thoughts come to mind.

First, create awareness for what knowledge is shared, how it is shared, who is sharing it, with what impact. Second, have someone (or a group of someones - at minimum, the committee chairpersons) responsible for identifying the board's ongoing learning needs. What do we need to know? Where will we find it? How will we use it? Hold that person(s) accountable for ensuring that the board can access needed information, use it effectively, and evaluate the process. Because learning is so often invisible, and because boards are a transient lot, err on the side of explicitness. Third, seek opportunities to build networks that help you advance your organization's work; value and nurture the networks that are already serving you well. Bring that collective wisdom into the governance process, when appropriate, to enhance your understanding and help you make the most effective and creative decisions possible.

Intuitive knowledge processes. I got a little excited about this one, because this is where the action lies. Milway and Saxton describe this as "organizational learning processes...embedded into daily workflows," that include "defined processes" and "technology platforms." Boards can't leave their learning to chance. They also can't confine it to annual retreats or infrequent board development events. Learning goals should be part of the board's annual planning process. Beyond topics outlined there, boards should be always alert to other learning needs that emerge in the routine work and in the inevitable challenges that arise.

Boards should create regular opportunities to draw upon their own expertise in governance work (the 7x7 board member briefing that Jan Masaoka described in this post is one good, workable way to institutionalize that). They should build learning into board and committee meetings, not confine it to a formal training event. If possible, find ways to capture what is shared - via audio or video or, at minimum, via notes - and saved in ways that are available to current and future members (organizational history can be a fragile thing in a transient group like a nonprofit board).

This brings me to my final point about this learning element: the need for a platform, online or not, to capture board knowledge that can be retained and shared. I've written about this before; Milway and Saxton's model provides space for it, and confirmation that such a need exists. Much of what boards know remain stored in individual people's heads, which is a problem in a fluid membership environment. As members come and go, boards need a way for capturing organizational and decision-making history, so that new editions of the group are not perpetually plowing the same ground. In some important ways, they can - and should - have available to them resources that provide context and history, allowing them to move forward in ways that make sense for the organization.

I'd encourage you to share Milway and Saxton's article with your board. Use it to spark a discussion about how members learn as a group and how they can be more conscious of defining and facilitating learning that helps them move you closer to your vision and mission.

Overheard: June 17

2011-06-17T08:00:00.003-06:00

This week's Twitter and RSS feeds brought some gems. That would be an understatement.

Flip your mission: Framing a compelling message (Carlo Cuesta)

Oh, I am so playing this during my "Boundary-spanning boards" workshop. Carlo packs a lot into 60 short seconds, offering a fascinating approach to sharing our organization's message with greater power. I anticipate that it will resonate with many board members, and that some may need a little assistance articulating the impact of their organizations. Do you talk regularly about your nonprofit's community impact in board meetings? Do board members have the tools, vocabulary and stories to
communicate that impact effectively?

The 7x7 board member briefing (Jan Masaoka)

I'm not sure how I missed this great post when Jan published it late last month, but I'm glad it made its way back to my screen. Readers of this blog have encountered my familiar call to draw upon board member expertise to address many of the group's learning needs. What Jan describes here is one absolutely workable way to embed that into board meetings, in a compact and engaging manner.

Nonprofit boards need to step up (Todd Cohen)

This post stopped me in my tracks for two reasons. One, Todd rightfully calls boards on the carpet for common failures of leadership. More boards than not will be - should be - convicted by the evidence he lays out in making his case. Two, in the process, he manages to outline well the larger responsibilities of governance.

Are you pressuring your board? (Alexandra Peters)

Does pressuring your board to do more fundraising really work for you? No? You're not alone. Alexandra's marvelous post calls upon us to adjust our attitude, and approach, to engaging this group of leaders in more productive ways. She's frank but encouraging in the process.

Boundary-spanning boards: Connecting to roles

2011-06-14T12:48:00.007-06:00

As I prepare for my workshop at this year's Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute (titled "Boundary-Spanning Boards: Connecting Community and Organization"), I've been pondering different approaches to conveying what I want to share, in ways that will inspire boards to commit to this critical work.

This weekend, it occurred to me that community engagement really is represented in the four board roles that I've informally added to the usual list of 10 responsibilities. The ideas generated as I pondered the connections feel a little rough, but worthy of batting around with readers of this blog. May I share those ideas with you and request your feedback?

Visionary: As definers of the organization's vision and mission, the board absolutely has a responsibility for sharing that brighter future with your stakeholders. Board members are in a perfect position to articulate that vision of the future and how their organization, specifically, is working toward reaching it.

Two things need to happen, though. First, board members must have a clear understanding of your vision and mission - and be able to share them effectively with others. That may take practice. Second, they need to own the vision and mission. Members need to understand that advancing them, and stewarding resources wisely, is their ultimate responsibility as a board. Ownership also involves feeling like it belongs to them. Has the board had regular opportunities to discuss and shape that future? Your purpose? Are they absolutely committed to, preferably passionate about, them? If you and answer yes to all of these, half of the boundary-spanning battle may be over.

Ambassador: Whether or not they recognize or embrace the role, board members are your lead community links to their peer groups and other parts of the community. Members come to the boardroom table with their existing spheres of influence - their friendships, their work relationships, their memberships in communities of faith and other organizations, etc. They extend the organization's reach to new parts of the community, where perhaps none otherwise exist, and add credibility to existing connections, because of who they are as individuals and the voluntary nature of their service.

Board members have a different kind of credibility than the executive director and other staff, with different groups of people. In some cases, that credibility is greater. At minimum, it is different.

Steward: Board members accept an awesome responsibility as stewards of organizational resources. When members embrace that, and when they communicate how they are taking good care of those resources on behalf of the community, they carry great power. This is particularly true when board members represent the organization before public officials and funding sources (e.g., grantors). That board member presence at a city council meeting, or at a United Way site visit, carries great power.

Leader: When I came to this fourth responsibility, the points I had felt a bit redundant within the context of what I have shared about the three previous roles. But maybe there is a difference. Here's what I am thinking at the moment about the boundary-spanning leadership role of the board.

Board members are leaders of your organization, with complementary responsibility for the overall health and future shared with an executive director (unless yours is an all-volunteer organization, in which case the board holds complete leadership responsibility). If you have recruited well, individual members are community leaders, with or without an official title, who bring with them the power and connections that they already have within their existing networks. Whether or not they are acting on your behalf in those settings, when people know that they serve on your board, their leadership impact carries with it. When they speak on your behalf in those settings, their leadership potential magnifies. Let's be honest: it's one (perfectly appropriate) reason you recruited them to your board in the first place.

As I said at the beginning of this post, this is very much a "thinking out loud" moment for me. (You're seeing a bit of how my mind works when it's in creative mode!) I'm offering up this "draft" with the invitation to help me flesh my thoughts out further.

Focusing on informal, social board learning

2011-06-12T08:34:00.000-06:00

I've had this Slideshare presentation (posted by an admired learning leader, Charles Jennings) bookmarked for awhile now, pondering how what he shared might connect to my ongoing focus (or is that evangelism?) on our need to expand our definition of board learning.

8 Reasons to Focus on Informal & Social Learning

Rather than try to summon a fully-formed, coherent thesis within the confines of one lowly blog post, I think I'll highlight some of the points that attract me most.

Slide 7: Charles offers a series of descriptors for how one learns best. Where your responses split between the two columns can offer a quick (and very basic) snapshot of your individual learning preferences. If your board were to take this simple test, where would their individual responses fall? Does the structure of your board meetings and other learning events reflect their collective needs? Slide 8 offers an equally simplistic overview of markers to help with the evaluation.
Slide 15: The centerpiece of this slide is this quote: "In an information-rich world we all need to be continual learners." The subtitle affirms what we already know - we can't wring our hands and wait breathlessly for the next training event to help us out of a bind or provide us with the information and context needed to be the leaders we need to be. What does an "information-rich" world look like for your nonprofit board? How are you working to facilitate it?
Slide 26: The 70:20:10 model - 70 percent of what we learn is through experience, 20 percent is learned through others, and 10 percent is learned through structured courses and programs. Would this surprise your board? What would change if we acted as if we understood this? I'm not interested in using this as evidence we should abandon formal board development completely. It has a role - just not the dominant role that we assign to it.
Slide 28: The quote by social learning icon Jerome Bruner - "What is the difference between learning physics and being a physicist?" - compels. What is that critical point when one learns to be a board member? To embrace the leadership roles and enact them? To do more than show up at board meetings, opening the packet as you sit down at the table? The more I immerse myself in governance - practice and study - the more convinced I am that the real issue is a sociocultural one (Oh, my. That's a post that definitely needs to be written.).
Slide 45: Charles offers three points for "embedding" informal learning: (1) "Changing mindsets about how learning occurs," (2) "Engaging senior leaders to support change," and (3) "Realigning L&D (learning and development) to better support informal learning." Numbers two and three are process/structure factors that, while not necessarily easy for everyone, are at least straightforward. Number one - changing mindsets - will be the big challenge, including the board setting. We tend to come from backgrounds and experiences where "learning" automatically translates into "school," "training," or some other formal process. Even when we can account for all the ways those experiences might have fallen short for us as learners, it's natural to still cling to the notion that learning involves some version of teaching and taught, student and instructor. Learning that occurs in other ways is harder to see and, hence, harder to value.

As I said when I started this post, if I did have the capacity to fully flesh out a deep response to what Charles has shared, it would require far more than a lowly blog post. Instead, I'll share these brief reactions and welcome reader feedback on them, or any other part of the presentation that resonates for you.

View more Slideshare presentations from Charles Jennings

Overheard (and overdue): June 10

2011-06-10T08:37:00.004-06:00

It seems I've done a lot of apologizing lately for failing to keep my weekly commitment to share favorite governance resources. I'll try to make amends with a long, rich list of enticing and informative gems.

The challenge of organizational learning (Katie Smith Milway and Amy Saxton)

You know you'll see a full post on this one. (I can't help myself.) In the meantime, I'll whet your appetite with this article. Any high-visibility discussion of nonprofit learning is a good thing. The model Milway and Saxton share is layperson-friendly: you don't need an education degree to understand what they are describing. Focus is, obviously, the organization. I'll be writing a post targeting board learning specifically. Soon.

Diversity in governance: A toolkit for nonprofit boards (Maytree)

Boards may understand generally the need for attention to diversity in member recruitment. Knowing how to initiate the conversation and develop a process that addresses that need and leads them to meaningful engagement of new members is not so easy for most. This toolkit provides boards with a starting point that they should find valuable.

Building a better board (Tanya Howe Johnson)

My favorite part of this post is Tanya's bullet-pointed description of "an efficient and energized board" toward the end. What she describes should be considered new member orientation material. I can predict, though, that elements of her list - and maybe the entire list - will surprise any board member. Bullet point one, "spends the bulk of discussion on critical issues and planning for the future," is the essence of governance. Bullet point two, not letting committee work overtake board work, can be tough - especially for a board of "doers." The rest of her list helps boards to structure their work for success.

Governing boards - Craigslist Foundation Boot Camp 2011 (Emily Chan)

While we anxiously await audio versions of this year's Boot Camp presentations, Emily offers a terrific summary of one that will readers of this blog will wish they had attended. Read closely her summary of the presenters' "tips for strategic recruitment."

Has your nonprofit board been neutered? (Carlo Cuesta)

My admiration for Carlo begins with his ability to write a great headline. Once this one draws you in, Carlo poses questions destined to take boards deeper into their role as stewards of the vision and mission. While the entire post is powerful, I love his opening question: "Does the quality of this discussion match the quality of people?"

Building successful nonprofit boards (Elmire Bayrasli)

The interviewee, Lucy Marcus, drew me to this Forbes post. Lucy is one of those governance voices to whom I always listen. Boards grow when they pay heed to her counsel. This article spotlights Lucy's wisdom and governance expertise. (Note: you may see an ad when you first click on the article link. It's worth the second click.)

Recruiting entrepreneurial leadership (Anne Ackerson)

Anne not only makes a case for recruiting entrepreneurial minds to your nonprofit board, she provides a frame to mine for those qualities. I appreciate that. One of the most vexing, and basic, challenges of recruiting beyond demographics is not knowing how to legitimately query recruits for qualities and perspectives that are not visible. Anne offers a useful example and a basic process for recruiting for this specific criterion.

Where were the boards?

2011-06-09T07:29:00.005-06:00

If you follow the nonprofit press on even a cursory basis, you probably heard yesterday that 275,000 organizations lost their tax-exempt status.

The spark that put them on the list? They hadn't filed legally-required documentation for three consecutive years. All had warning that this was the path on which they were headed if they did not respond in a timely manner.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, most of the organizations on the list are believed to be defunct. That may be true. I hope it's true, actually. But it does leave one to wonder: for those organizations still in existence, where were the boards?

Assuming even a small fraction of those lost tax-exempt statuses belong to currently living, functioning organizations, this still points to governing bodies that failed to live up to the most basic board responsibilities.

As I reviewed the 666 names on Wyoming's list, I made a rash - though probably not wildly off-track - generalization that most were all-volunteer organizations. Whether or not that is the case, or whether some actually employed full- or part-time staff, they all had boards. Those boards held ultimate responsibility for ensuring that their organization met all fiscal and legal obligations of nonprofit status. Whether they delegated details to a staff person, or whether they took on that role a group, in the end, the responsibility was theirs. There is no one else to blame.

I harp all the time about the critical legal, fiduciary and moral obligations of governance. It's a very, very real responsibility that these leaders take on when they agree to serve on a board. I too often hear the refrain, "They're only volunteers...," usually in the context of explaining why we can't burden boards with the responsibilities of governance.

The consequences of boards not understanding and living up to those responsibilities are all too real. This, unfortunately, is a particularly vivid reminder of what happens when boards don't get that.

Great video (& exercise): Defining your value

2011-06-07T19:28:00.001-06:00

I just discovered this video (by Carlo Cuesta, @cmcuestra on Twitter), posted May 17 to his blog, Advisor to Superheroes. In the video (and a more detailed post, "Owning Your Place in the Community"), Cuesta offers nonprofits a fascinating (and absolutely accessible) process to guide board and staff through value articulation and visioning.

If you don't subscribe to Carlo's terrific blog, or follow him on Twitter, you're missing several thought-provoking jewels like this one.

Engaging community for our mission

2011-06-05T18:35:00.010-06:00

Yesterday, I facilitated a retreat focused on work that I've not been called upon to help a board address before: community engagement and resource development.

As a student of nonprofit governance - and someone who believes boards should devote far more energy to engaging the community in support of their missions - I was struck by what unfolded in that five-hour period. With sensitivity to protecting confidentiality, this post is a personal reflection on how that board successfully laid the foundation for critical boundary-spanning work.

Our goal for this retreat was not to come up with an ultimate list and detailed plan of who'll-contact-whom-for-what. That type of outcome in a relatively brief time frame is neither realistic nor desirable. Instead, we created a space to identify the agency's existing and needed resources (while not creating one long "to do" list for the executive director). We also devoted time to beginning to reflect on individuals and groups within the board's existing sphere of influence and to identifying key community supporters to whom they do not currently have natural access. This was only the first step in a long-term community engagement process led by the board.

We started our work spotlighting resource development. By the time we moved to community engagement, members had basic consensus around organizational need areas and opportunities to connect with others with both interest in the mission and capacity (of all types) to offer support.

Not directing everyone to a particular resource need in the initial community engagement activity was important and instructive. As expected, each person chose a different area - a great thing. While the board is jointly accountable for the big picture, individual members will be able to lead specific facets of governance, especially those that fit their talents and passions. This micro-sized activity reinforced that message for us.

In terms of the pool of potential supporters raised in our initial discussion? The broad spectrum of supporters and their interests identified by the board bodes well for their ability to engage widely and deeply in the future.

Because the group drifted a bit in the direction of an anticipated fundraising initiative in this first discussion, in the next step, we asked them to identify distinctive ways to invite their peer groups to engage without asking them for money. I hope that this reminded members that successful development processes are built on strong relationships. I also hope that it reinforced that there are many ways to build support and involve the community beyond asking for a financial contribution.

Since this was the first time I had facilitated this type of retreat experience, my attention to details not likely on participants' radar was high. One observation that stood out for me was the importance of acknowledging the value of every potential engagement opportunity. For example, one member prefaced sharing her list of people she knew with a disclaimer, "I don't really know anyone...." She then listed an amazing array of personal and professional connections any board member should be proud to bring to the organization. If we've successfully recruited a board diverse in background, expertise and experience, members will carry ties to an even more diverse quilt of the community, with varying interests in seeing us advance our mission. Appreciating that breadth, and individuals' contributions to that process, is essential.

Our work on Saturday was only a brief jump-start to a larger community engagement effort. The board got that. They identified next steps that flowed naturally from the day's work and realistic commitments to move forward as a board to expand the agency's foundation of community support.

Generations explained: Board dynamics?

2011-06-03T10:38:00.003-06:00

Generational explanations always fascinate me. Whether or not a specific framework appeals as the "ultimate" way of grouping and describing us (as if that were possible...), there's always an element of truth that causes me to stop and think about my own interactions - and of course, how it might inform thinking about the nonprofit sector.

Discovering this video this morning, by Dave Sohigian, prompted a fresh round of reflection on how our boards engage and value members cutting across potentially four generations. This isn't a new idea. Many with greater expertise than I write, research, and consult around this issue daily. But the video sparked my thinking about the topic, and I thought I'd engage you in the discussion.

What are your experiences? What are the challenges to engaging all members - of every generation - productively and respectfully? What are the success stories you've encountered? What research in this area particularly speaks to you?

Overheard: May 20

2011-05-20T07:32:00.002-06:00

My apologies for the brief posting hiatus last week - at least my excuse was board-related (off-site retreat with fellow members of a statewide board). I promise that this week's "overheard" offerings will be worth the wait.

The board vector: A toolkit to assess your board (Alice Korngold)

I could pretty much stop with this one and make the week of anyone interested in governance complete. This link takes you directly to a board assessment tool that Alice unveiled this week. I'm still absorbing its contents and imagining how I might incorporate it into my work with boards; but the more time I spend, the greater the potential that I see for this resource. Its great value lies in a couple of things. First, it encourages evaluation and reflection on capacity concerns beyond the usual dry list of board responsibilities, focusing on phenomena that ultimately matter to governance. Second, while covering a lot of ground, it doesn't ask "too much" of a person completing the assessment. It's easy to follow and complete. My one recommendation for Alice, that I think I'd like to discuss with her, is the possibility of exploring an online option sometime down the road. I'm envisioning situations (two on my short-term consulting calendar, one related to that statewide board) where confidentiality could be a concern and convenience might be a small challenge, and an online version might help smooth the path a bit. But I'm definitely looking forward to implementing this as early as two weeks from now, using this new tool.

4 questions to rev up your board's energy and enthusiasm (Gail Perry)

The title of this one pretty much explains why I feel compelled to share it. Gail's four questions are simple, but likely not often asked within our boards. I can see building an entire reflective event, or a section of one, around this list. I also can envision focusing on one of these to open a regular meeting, setting the tone for what lies ahead and reminding board members why they are there.

Building a better board (Carmen Nobel)

Written ultimately for a corporate board audience, the essential ideas within this post also can be adapted to a nonprofit setting. While every element makes sense, the one that stuck out for me in this article was "making it safe to be critical." Too often, boards get into trouble, or at least fall short of their full potential, because members don't feel comfortable stepping up and asking the hard questions. They may fear the answers given. They may balk at hurting someone's feelings. They may not want to make waves. But they also are falling short of their governance responsibilities. Creating an environment where it's safe to step into potentially tricky territory is absolutely essential.

Being on a board - what it's all about (Marion Conway)

One of the many things I appreciate about Marion is her ability to get right to the point of the topic she's addressing in her posts. In this case, Marion is sharing a board basics presentation that she has created that not only covers the aspects of governance that any member must understand but does so in an accessible way. I definitely will be sharing this with anyone wanting to understand boards better. It's a great additional resource on a topic that will always be in high demand.

Four ways to remove a board member (Jan Masaoka)

It's not a pleasant topic (which is why I saved it for last), but it's one that boards need to be able to address. We've all served on boards with members who were unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities to the organization. Most of us also have served on boards with disruptive members who destroy the group's capacity to govern effectively. Too few of us have actually done anything about it, often because we don't know how to address this challenging issue. Jan offers us four strategies that likely will fit most of the scenarios facing our boards.

A boardroom full of 5-year-olds

2011-05-08T18:16:00.007-06:00

What if we all brought our inner 5-year-olds to the nonprofit boardroom?

I’ve been pondering the possibility since encountering Dr. George Land’s fascinating TEDxTucson talk last week. Its ultimate focus was on unlearning – unlearning the messages that stifle our adult creativity.

We’re all born with it, Land says. He cites research showing that 98 percent of 5-year-olds demonstrate genius-level creative capacity. We lose it quickly as we proceed through the education system (by the time we reach age 10, that number drops to 30 percent).

Land’s message, and the research behind it, begs for deeper (and more personal) reflection on the impact of lost access to our creative capacity. For this post, though, I’d like to highlight one of the greatest culprits contributing to our increasing inability to imagine and innovate. That is the way in which we are nearly forced to engage in two very different types of learning simultaneously.

Divergent thinking: Our imagination, the type of thinking that generates new possibilities (the “accelerator”)
Convergent thinking: The source of judgment – testing, criticizing, evaluating (our “brake”)

We need the capacity to use both effectively. Just not at the same time, which is what Land says schooling emphasizes. We are trained from an early age to immediately begin criticizing new ideas as they are introduced. In our struggle to balance those dual tasks concurrently, we end up not doing either well. Particularly lost in the shuffle is our capacity for the divergent thinking that thrived in our childhood.

As I watched the video and pondered what this might mean to nonprofit boards, a slide popped up that offered one compelling marker. This screen shot (approximately 12 minutes into the presentation) captures that moment.

Does any of this ring familiar to your board experience? Have you uttered any of those phrases? Are they common elements of your discussions?

Adapting one of Land’s calls to the nonprofit boardroom...

What would happen if we asked our inner 5-year-olds to come up with 25-30 ways to improve governance?

How would our 5-year-old selves, individually and collectively, approach the task at hand? How would they – we - interact differently than we do now?
What kinds of answers would emerge as they/we generated those improvement concepts?
In the end, how would nonprofit governance actually be different – better – than it is right now?

I'll admit, as an adult who is struggling to reclaim my 5-year-old creativity, I'm not exactly full of answers to any of these questions. But I'm lucky enough to hang out virtually with people who expand my thinking and my creative capacity. Two of the voices not only offer inspiration but also provide tools and frameworks that boards would find useful.

Reading Pamela Meyers' phenomenal book, From Workplace to Playspace, has given me both the confidence and the resources to explore playful innovation in my own work and in my work with nonprofit boards. I'm not quite "there" yet, where I'm feeling absolutely comfortable in play. But in exploring her resources, and in interactions with Pamela, that inner 5-year-old is making more regular appearances.

Divergent thinking is what Hildy Gottlieb and my friends at Creating the Future do best. One of the strongest memories I have of the week-long CTF consultants immersion course - and one that caused me the greatest discomfort at the time - was Hildy constantly pushing us to think bigger. Whatever stretch of vision I could summon to mind, Hildy knew an even more expansive one existed - and it did. The Creating the Future website is packed with resources that will appeal to the creative 5-year-old lying within.

A third voice has essentially given us the directive to work on answering those questions. Perhaps the biggest contribution, among many, that Alice Korngold has made to nonprofit governance is her call to add a fourth duty to board responsibilities, the duty of imagination.

I tend to be more practically minded, preferring to offer readers some kind of solution - or at least a clear starting point - by the end of a post. (That, by the way, would not be my inner 5-year-old consultant/educator/blogger speaking.) Instead, with this one, I think I'll leave you with a question (which may be most appropriate, given what I am posing here):

How would nonprofit governance be transformed - how would we govern differently and our organizations better off - if we turned our inner 5-year-olds loose in the boardroom?

I suppose there is a necessary part B to that question: What is stopping us from letting them?

Overheard: May 6

2011-05-06T07:28:00.003-06:00

Let's start this week's "overheard" sharing with a post that is almost guaranteed to spark some reaction, whatever side of the dynamic you may find yourself.

Marginalizing board members (Laura Otten)

If you're a consultant to nonprofit boards, the subject of this post probably will be quite familiar - and a source of some frustration. It's a tough situation to be in, and to facilitate out of effectively. If you're a board member, you may or may not recognize the pattern that Laura describes. If you're an executive director, you may be trying to recall any personal examples that fit the scenario. (You may even recognize that this is exactly what you do, and you know why you do it.) Once our initial reactions to Laura calling us out have passed, I hope for at least two productive responses from our boards. One, recognize communication patterns that resemble this and work together to not point fingers but find a productive way to change them. Two, use it as a jumping-off point - even briefly - for reaffirming the leadership role that the board plays and the importance of that body stepping up and embracing it.

Checklist for a top-level board governance committee (Gail Perry)

We don't talk enough about the value of governance (aka board development) committees. In an environment that often feels like one endless committee meeting, adding another group to the mix will not be particularly palatable to many members. But this is one worth exploring and incorporating into your board mix. A successful governance committee actually adds capacity to handle board work, in ways that are both effective and meaningful to members. Gail's "checklist" offers an accessible way to explore the potential of this body.

Boardroom diversity means better business (Lucy Marcus)

Regular readers of this blog know I'm one of Lucy's biggest fans. She has stretched my conceptions of governance and expanded my understanding of corporate governance exponentially. One of her particular areas of expertise is board diversity, a challenge in any governance setting. Her latest post is written from a largely corporate perspective, but the message and the specifics shared here will help any nonprofit board think more deeply about the ways in which it addresses this important recruitment and engagement topic.

Highlights of the BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index 2010 (Gene Tagaki)

Obviously, every board member would benefit from reading the entire BoardSource report. But in the meantime - or in lieu of that actually happening - Gene has offered a great summary of several of the key findings from that research.

Significant board learning

2011-05-01T09:34:00.003-06:00

What does "significant" board learning look like? There are myriad ways of responding to this question, infinite lenses that could be applied.

Most of the lenses I choose come from adult learning theory, some bigger stretches than others. Applying Dee Fink's "Taxonomy of Significant Learning" is such a stretch (the original focus is on college level courses), but its elements obviously carry over to other settings - including the nonprofit boardroom. Following are my thoughts about how Fink's model might help us think more expansively about board development.

Learning how to learn

Board members take the time to figure out, collectively, what they need to know to govern - about governance generally and about the mission and issue areas addressed by the organization.
Members take the initiative for identifying and fulfilling their governance learning needs. They do not wait for the executive director and others to spoon feed information to them or tell them what they need to know.
They identify the resources - types and content - that they require to govern effectively.

Foundational knowledge

Board members gather the knowledge needed and use it in appropriate ways (e.g., increasing effectiveness of decisions made).
The board and organization find workable ways to archive knowledge and make it accessible to current and future members.

Application

Board members learn how to apply what they and others know to the practice of governance. This includes not only what they learn together through formal training events, but also their individual expertise and the tacit and informal learning that takes place in board work.
They develop and exercise the capacity to identify and address the big questions of governance.
They use what they know strategically and in the spirit of accountability.

Integration

Board members have the capacity to make connections between ideas and their combined potential to create something better/different.
Boards reach out to people with different perspectives and experiences, with the organization's mission and vision as their common ground.

Human dimension

Boards have the capacity to recognize the strengths and blind spots within.
They have the ability to learn from and with others, especially those who think differently about things then they do.
They have the capacity to work as a team, focusing on the mission and vision.

Caring

"Caring" - about whatever our missions might be - is the essence of the nonprofit sector. Governance begins with connecting deeply to the vision, mission and values of the organization.
Grounding deliberations with basic compassion and empathy for those served, and those who serve, will seldom lead to faulty decisions (yes, even acknowledging the need for accountability and the often tough choices boards must make).
Boards are willing to deal up front with the human side of governance, even the messy interpersonal aspects of group work.

Whether or not the fit of model to environment is perfect or wise in this case, the process of exploring board development in different ways is healthy for nonprofit governance. What can we learn about how boards learn, or how boards could learn, from Fink's taxonomy?

Overheard: April 30

2011-04-29T07:24:00.003-06:00

Where to start? What to highlight? There are so many potential governance links to share this week, on a range of topics. Here is a sampling of my many favorites.

Demystifying board service-part 1 (Julia Jackson)

The target audience for this post is younger nonprofit and community leaders, but anyone considering board service - even board vets - would benefit from the counsel Julia offers in this post. It expands our potential capacity to be more deliberate, thoughtful, and prepared as we assume the leadership responsibilities that come with this critical volunteer job.

Acceptance of board position sample (Gayle Gifford)

Gayle continues the early commitment theme with this direct link to a sample board service contract. I appreciate her sharing both a quality example of a board document (It helps us get past the blank-screen, "where to I start?" paralysis that adds to the challenge of encouraging boards to implement these important practices.) and a reminder that reinforcing the commitment made can only be a good thing. Clarity about all expectations, whatever they may be for your board, would be handled in the recruitment process. Having a brief, formal process for accepting those responsibilities reinforces the commitment being made.

Four things boards should understand about operating reserves (Rick Moyers)

The topic begs for more detail. Boards often struggle with grasping most aspects of their fiduciary responsibilities. But this post provides a service by simply raising four focal points for understanding operating reserves in a nonprofit setting. For those board members who simply don't know what to ask, he has resolved half the battle.

Three instant improvements for board agendas and accountability (Jan Masaoka)

The simplicity of Jan's "instant improvements" screams "no brainers." But in the case of organizing board meetings, small things can create significant focus and transformation of governance work.

3 critical mistakes made by nonprofit executive directors (Sandy Rees)

The topic of Sandy's post may not seem to have direct impact on board work. But the board/ED leadership team is a partnership. Board members who are attuned to the executive's challenges, and some of the common pitfalls of the position, can support the CEO and encourage him/her make good professional choices.

Governance as Leadership: Spotlighting a neglected model

2011-04-24T16:18:00.003-06:00

When Chait, Ryan and Taylor's seminal book, Governance as Leadership, came out in late 2004, the three-phase model described so shook my thinking about how we frame the work of boards that it became the starting point for my doctoral dissertation.

Even as I immersed myself in research exploring what I considered the 'big news' of the model - generative governance - I anxiously awaited the inevitable onslaught of scholarly and practitioner articles. Surely, I thought, something this revolutionary would generate wide attention and discussion in the field and amongst governance scholars. For the most part, though, that broader visibility hasn't come.

It is easier to find a link referencing the Governance as Leadership model than it was two or three years ago, but it's hardly dominated discussions about how boards can function more effectively. That is unfortunate for, while we might debate the nuances of the model, there is little doubt in my mind that the potential contribution to expanded thinking about governance is large.

I'll admit my own culpability in not advancing the discussion. I can (and should) write a series on Governance as Leadership, beyond the results of my research. That series may come later this year. In the meantime, I'll share two things to give you a taste of the model that inspired and shaped a year of my scholarly life (and forever shifted my thinking about governance):

The bookmarks I've collected about the model (particularly helpful is this handout)
An audio podcast that I recorded for another purpose, in which I offer a brief overview of the model and its three phases.

Overheard: April 22

2011-04-22T07:07:00.002-06:00

On this Good Friday, I share a few of this week's favorite governance related links with readers of this blog.

5 ways to make sure board members aren't bored (Amy Eisenstein)

Bored boards. If you've been around the sector and nonprofit boards long enough, you know exactly what that looks like - and how that impacts members' motivations to serve. The theme of Amy's five recommendations boils down to one word: engagement. How are we engaging board members, individually and as a group, in governance and the mission of our organizations?

Your board is in the business of change (Robert Ballantyne)

If you're not familiar with John Carver's policy governance model, some of the specifics of this post may not make sense; but the ultimate message should resonate. Boards are not recruited to protect the status quo. They don't exist to blindly accept every recommendation handed down by the CEO or listen passively to endless reports. They exist to lead, stretch and question. They exist to govern - and to advocate for change that moves the organization closer to its mission and vision of the future.

Advisory board vs. board of directors: A distinction with a difference (Emily Chan)

Advisory boards are not commonplace in the sector. Where they do exist, there are several key distinctions that must be clear to members of that group, the governing body, and the staff. Emily's post provides an excellent overview of the major differences between the two groups.

Rethinking board roles: Audio version

2011-04-20T06:42:00.001-06:00

The topic of this post isn't new - I wrote about it in this March 21 post. But I rediscovered this audio description of my four board roles (recorded for another purpose), that I thought I'd share as an alternative to the text version. If it works well here, I'll post two other audio files on topics that should be of interest to readers.

Debra Beck's Board Roles (audio)

In defense of paper trails

2011-04-18T08:08:00.008-06:00

I’m about to take a traditionally unpopular stand. I believe in paper trails – at least paper trails that make essential documents readily available and provide a sense of context for nonprofit boards.

Whether or not these trails literally are made of paper is not important. What is critical is having access to documents, reports and other information that boards need to make informed decisions. What boards need is institutional history and context for governance - to have a chance to learn from their predecessors, to build upon their work and avoid making the same mistakes.

Board members are human. Even as we embrace the awesome responsibilities that come with governance, we still struggle with stretched schedules and overtaxed memories. Expecting us to retain everything presented to us, everything we “should” know to lead effectively, without a little help simply is unrealistic.

Board members also are a transient lot. Members come and go, taking with them their knowledge and institutional history. Even when they serve long and well, through as many years as term limits will allow, when members leave, they take with them information and context for the decisions they made and their interpretations of mission that led to them. Without that perspective – and garden variety detail – board members who follow them risk reinventing the proverbial wheel and making the same unfortunate mistakes.

We can't expect to capture everything known and experienced by the board (nor would be want to do so). But we can find ways to make what is essential for governance accessible to our successors, and to preserve highlights of members' experiences that provide context for why our boards made the decisions that they did.

Among the types of resources that should be readily available to board members:

By-laws
Board and organizational policy documents
Board and committee meeting minutes
Written (or perhaps audio?) committee reports
Executive director reports
Budgets and financial reports
Copies of organizational newsletters

Those are somewhat obvious examples of resources that board members would find valuable in their governance work. But, especially with increasingly easy availability of electronic tools, and space to store them, we need not limit our board’s leadership resource to text-based documents.

For example, how would board members’ capacity to tell a compelling story on our behalf grow or shift after they’ve had a chance to listen to, or watch, a testimonial from a former client or a clip from a news story that the local station ran about one of your programs last year? Or a YouTube video that you’ve posted, promoting your services? What if we provided publicly accessible links to those resources within the board resource to make it easier for members to share with others in their boundary-spanning role?

Actually, the ability to archive and share links to information sources – our own and others – makes creating an online board resource increasingly attractive. Several great, private, secure options exist. A few I’ve used and can recommend as possibilities for boards:

Posterous

Wikispaces

PBWorks

Wiggio

Group.ly

All offer secure, free versions that would be suitable for creating a board resource/database/social network space. I’d recommend visiting each site and reviewing the available tools for fit to your board’s needs before selecting one option. Some offer additional services for a usually affordable monthly fee.

Before jumping into any document storage and sharing system, I’d make the case for creating a resource to the board and query members about preferred formats. I would not allow them to reject any system. I also wouldn’t rule out an online option solely based on their predictions that they “wouldn’t use it.” I predict that, probably more than keeping track of literal paper (and storing it in any accessible way), an online resource’s value will be proven the first couple of times that members are able to quickly put their hands on the report from six months ago, the bylaws or the link to the right YouTube video testimonial.

(Personal example/confession: I'm not afraid of paper or technology. I like paper. But ask me to put my hands quickly on the budgets of the boards on which I serve. I probably could do so for one - not because I know where the paper version is, but because I know where to find the Excel file on my thumb drive. The other board? No chance. If I need a duplicate, I'll be wasting my time, and the staff's, groveling for another copy.)

I’d be interested in hearing your experiences with, and recommendations for, creating and sharing resources to enhance your board’s understanding and effectiveness. I’d especially be interested in lessons learned if you’ve created an online resource.

Overheard: April 15

2011-04-15T07:16:00.003-06:00

Sharing a few of my favorite governance links from the week...

7 steps to get your board fired up (Gail Perry)

I've been waiting all week to share this "Movie Monday" video. It's hard not to catch Gail Perry's enthusiasm as she outlines ways to ignite our boards' passion for our organizations and their leadership. At the root of her seven recommendations are two things: bringing board members closer to the mission and helping them articulate their personal connections to that purpose.

Can mere mortals be successful board members? (Gayle Gifford)

Whew! I was fatigued just reading Gayle's list of the kinds of expectations we frequently place on board members. Nothing on that list surprised - and I'm sure each reader could identify responsibilities that she's left off. My own takeaway from this was twofold: we need to be clear in articulating our full range of expectations long before a prospect becomes a board member; and we need to have serious, ongoing conversations about whether we are ultimately using board member time/expertise as productively as possible. I'd also attempt to include those invisible expectations that we know exist in that conversation. Yes, the fact they are "invisible" make them more challenging to articulate. But the group reflection and honest discussion that that requires will be healthy, regardless of what emerges. You may also be surprised about what board members reveal as expectations - perceived or real - that add to their challenge.

Roles of the nonprofit and philanthropic community (Independent Sector)

This one isn't governance-specific, but the information shared will be valuable background for the board's boundary-spanning responsibilities. I bookmarked this one to share the link toward the top of the page (to a PDF download describing the roles that nonprofits play in community life), but all three reports linked there will be valuable for the same reason. The sector as a whole, and nonprofit leaders, need to do a much better job of describing exactly how we individually and collectively contribute to a stronger, more vital society. A large part of their failure to do so is likely that they simply have no idea. Independent Sector continues to be a great resource for understanding the big picture and the integral ways in which nonprofits make this world a better place in which to live.

Board learning styles: Applying Kolb's model

2011-04-10T09:47:00.013-06:00

Diversity that expands a board’s capacity to make effective, mission-centered decisions extends beyond the traditional demographic markers. Diversity in the way board members learn also contributes to a rich and thoughtful boardroom environment.

Adult learning theories offer multiple tools of value for identifying the way individual board members learn. I’ve already applied one such framework, multiple intelligences, to illustrate how moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach enhances members’ capacity to learn and govern. In this post, I share another model that boards, and nonprofit educators, might find useful.

David Kolb has identified four learning styles, derived from his experiential learning model. What follows is a rough outline of how I am applying Kolb’s framework to the work of boards. It’s definitely a work in progress, one in which I welcome assistance in connecting the dots.

Several great, “plain English” overviews of Kolb’s model exist. I’ve bookmarked a sampling of resources that have readers may find useful. Following is my attempt to describe Kolb’s four learning styles and offer basic examples of how each contributes something of potential value to board work.

Convergers. They prefer practical application and problem focus. They aren’t particularly enamored of the interpersonal ‘stuff’ of group work, preferring to get right to the task at hand. They ask the “how” questions. In the boardroom: Convergers will help you work through the tough “how to we make this work” questions. This is especially important in governance, where so many of the challenges being addressed are complex and defy straightforward, easy fixes. Convergers will dig in and look for ways to translate those abstract, tough ideas into something that can be reasonably resolved, or at least moved forward in some meaningful way. In an environment where mission progress is often measured in inches – if not centimeters – this is critical.

Divergers. They love generating ideas, brainstorming, and group work. Divergers are good at taking in different perspectives and seeing systems. They ask “why.” In the boardoom: Divergers will seek out – and create – a range of possibilities for the board to consider, not accepting the easy or the obvious or “the way we’ve always done it.” Divergers will be the board members who find commonalities between seemingly disparate interests and emerge with a better solution.

Assimilators. They like logical, practical approaches to decisions. Assimilators “prefer lectures, reading and time to think.” Expert knowledge carries greater weight with them, as they ask “What is there to know?” In the boardroom: Assimilators won’t let boards make snap decisions. They will push boards to seek out all of the information needed to make a quality decision, think through the consequences, and dig deeper.

Accommodators. They are the doers and the risk takers. Accommodators are action-oriented. They like new challenges and set ambitious goals. They ask “What would happen if I did this?” In the boardroom: Accommodators ensure that boards don’t succumb to the “paralysis by analysis” that plagues so many governing bodies. They will hold the board and executive director accountable for carrying through on decisions made. Accommodators are more inclined than others to encourage us to learn from what worked and what doesn’t, and to not shy away from trying again because of the latter.

Can you see how having all four types of learners in the boardroom might lead to higher-quality governance, when everyone is allowed to bring what comes naturally to the table? Kolb’s model offers some potential for thinking more expansively about those we recruit to the board (diversity of learning style is a legitimate criterion to consider). It also creates value in helping us to engage individual members by drawing out their preferred ways of thinking and expanding the group’s decision-making capacity.

Overheard: April 8

2011-04-08T07:26:00.005-06:00

Sometimes, as I pull together this weekly round-up of board resources, there is a definite theme. This week, that's not the case. There is a distinct "potpourri" kind of feel to the candidates. That's okay - it suggests that there may be something for everyone, no matter what I choose to highlight.

10 reasons to retreat (Ron Milam)

When most retreats fail, it is because the chosen focus is too ambitious, tedious, or simply wrong for the time frame or the current organizational environment (for example, the popular "let's take this half/full day and write a strategic plan" is simultaneously ambitious, tedious and wrong!). There are many great reasons to take that time away from the routine. Ron Milam offers up 10 such appropriate purposes in this post. You may have others, that I hope you'll share via comment.

Blue ribbon nominating committee for your board (Jan Masaoka)

Jan offers a fascinating model for thinking differently about new member recruitment and, in the process, a way to engage supporters and potential supporters in service to your organization. One of the perennial recruitment challenges for boards is the tendency to confine their list of prospects to current members' relatively narrow pool of acquaintances. Not only does that automatically shut out a lot of quality candidates, it also sets us up for more of the same narrow thinking and governance (since we naturally tend to associate with like-minded individuals or people who come from similar backgrounds). The blue ribbon nominating committee described here has tremendous potential to remedy that.

Board orientation dos and don'ts (Hildy Gottlieb)

One thing we can always count on Hildy to provide: accessible ways to think and act differently about governance. The essence of this post is far deeper than a "Five easy steps..." countdown, but the way in which she articulates that approach is absolutely attainable for most governing bodies.

Guilty as charged: Prove your board supports your organization (Karen Eber Davis)

The 10 "evidence" points laid out in this post could be treated as a simplistic, grade-the-board check-off list. Indeed, it might be used that way - and there might be some value as a quick snapshot of board success. But I also see some potential for using it as a jumping off point for deeper discussions about any (or all) of the markers. Regular readers will not be surprised to hear that I am more drawn to "evidence" points six through nine, as they relate to more substantive governance functions. And, yes, I am particularly fond of number nine!

Putting on your own oxygen mask first (Estrella Rosenberg)

The board connection in this one may not be immediately obvious; but as I re-read it this morning, I'm struck by its potential to describe the fundamental value of governance. The board holds ultimate accountability for the health and life of the organization, even as it delegates the day-to-day responsibilities to others. Part of that stewardship involves addressing the capacity needs of the organization and its people. Nonprofit staff and volunteers burn out when they don't take time to breathe, recharge, tend to their learning needs - everything that expands their ability to continue serving others. Just as it must monitor the financial and capital capacity needs of the organization beyond what is required today, the board should be encouraging the executive director to "put on your own oxygen mask first" and to ensure that similar support is provided to everyone involved in doing mission-critical work. If there is resistance - as some will see such personally sustaining activities as "selfish" - then the board must push to make sure it happens.

Finding time for board learning

2011-04-03T10:29:00.007-06:00

“But where will we find the time for board development?”

It’s a common question that many boards ask when encouraged to invest in their own learning. Board development is a legitimate, even critical, need. Boards build their capacity to serve and to fulfill their responsibilities effectively when they commit to expanding their understanding of the organization, its mission area, and nonprofit governance.

When most boards hear “board development,” full-day retreats and multi-hour training sessions often come to mind. For busy people volunteering precious time, adding to the burden – however important to effective service – can feel impossible. It’s not impossible at all. In fact, the average board agenda is filled with (potential) space for learning.

As I discovered in my dissertation research, learning exists everywhere in routine board work. We just don’t recognize it as learning. Capacity for this sustaining work increases even more when we take a critical look at our board agendas and make some healthy changes. Following are several recommendations for clearing that space – and for making board meetings more inspiring, productive and enjoyable in the process.

Flip the agenda. I recently was part of a discussion where a local board raised a common concern: being so fatigued by the routine stuff that dominates most meeting agendas that there is little time or energy to deal with the more important conversations that tend to clump at the end. Placing the routine up front is common practice, but we can do things differently (especially when “tradition” is counterproductive). Open with the critical topics.

Adopt a consent agenda. Clear board meetings of those time-consuming routine tasks - e.g., approval of minutes and committee reports - by placing them in a consent agenda that can be approved with one vote. Boards can quickly handle tasks that often overwhelm meetings, leaving time for higher priority discussions. This does require that committees create written summaries for inclusion in board packets. They should be doing so, anyway. We need that institutional history, especially with transient boards and staff.

Include a written executive director's report in the consent agenda. Much of what is shared in the ED’s report is routine detail that does not require discussion. Those substantive topics that require board feedback should be placed in appropriate sections elsewhere in the agenda.

Clear the agenda of the inevitable non-governance tasks. Erring on the side of oversharing is understandable. Board members don’t want to be left in the dark. But the board’s time is wasted when we bury members in management details. They’ll be less likely to micromanage when we don’t invite them to do so, too.

Include a mission moment in every meeting. The mission moment is a brief (5-10 minutes) opportunity to hear about some aspect of the mission and, hopefully, how the organization is advancing it. Candidates for a mission moment could include a program update, a challenge overcome, or a story about a client served (or a composite, where confidentiality is a potential concern). It also could cover one of the broader issues to which the agency is tied (e.g., homelessness, environmental degradation, child abuse).

Assign a reading related to mission and/or programs. Include time to discuss it within the meeting. Give board members the opportunity to share what they learned, asked questions, and otherwise expand the group's knowledge.

Pose a Big Question, related to governance responsibilities, in every meeting. Include that question on the agenda, asking them to come prepared to discuss.

Assemble board packets strategically. Don't overwhelm them with a mountain of paper and reports. Make sure everything included enhances members' understanding and capacity to govern effectively, including educational materials and background readings that help them understand the issues more fully and make more effective decisions.

Share resources throughout the month. If you find an interesting article that would be informative, share the link electronically. Doing so not only evens the reading/learning burden over time, it provides consistent opportunity to think about your organization and its mission.

Create a private, online resource, e.g., a wiki, for storing information (e.g., key documents like by-laws, minutes, treasurer’s reports) that board members need. This environment also can be used to share links to resources that expand their understanding of their responsibilities and your mission. Having those resources available on demand increases the board's knowledge base (and their potential to make wise, appropriate decisions). I saw the potential for such a portal when a friend invited me into a space she created for her board.

Obviously, the goal isn't to incorporate all of these ideas into every board meeting. Rather, I wanted to offer some tips for both creating space within your board's existing time frame and for using that found space to govern more creatively and effectively.

Overheard: April 1

2011-04-01T07:02:00.005-06:00

Developing leadership on boards of directors (Barbara Miller and Jeanne Bergman)

This week, I found an old friend - well, an old board article that has since been lost in its original form and location. Thankfully, the good folks at the Peel Leadership Centre have preserved a version of this foundational Journal for Nonprofit Management article. Leadership-centered board culture is the focus and the primary contribution that Miller and Bergman make to the governance conversation. They both encourage boards to think more deeply about their leadership potential and offer specific ideas to move toward actualizing a frequently hazy, abstract concept.

Five things board directors should be thinking about (Corsi et al)

While corporate boards are the target audience for this article, the "five things" have nonprofit parallels - and the potential to encourage boards in either setting to focus on their big-picture responsibilities. You know I love a good question. This article offers a long list to guide the governing body in reflection on the future. Note the link to the downloadable version.

Nonprofits: How to avoid problem board members in the first place (Alice Korngold)

In an earlier post, Alice encouraged us to deal head-on with problematic members who threaten the effectiveness and cohesiveness of our boards. Obviously, the best way to avoid those sticky situations is to ensure that the fit is right - and the expectations clear - in the first place. Alice's most recent post offers common-sense guidelines for setting everyone up for a successful board experience.

Passive audience vs. active participants (Erica Mills)

In this "Tune-Up Tuesday" video, Erica makes the case for reframing how we think about - and engage - our key stakeholders. There's a "well, du-uh..." feeling to her ultimate message. But, like Erica, many of us have absorbed the "target audience" mentality and language, to the point where it may be unconscious. If this brief reminder snaps us out of that practice and mindset, it's served its purpose.

Overheard: March 25

2011-03-25T07:18:00.014-06:00

In a week filled with governance-focused goodness, four posts stand out as essential board reading.

The nonprofit board's mission mandate (Kevin Monroe)

This may be my all-time favorite post by Kevin. It articulates so brilliantly the critical importance of centering governance in the mission. He takes it a step further, though, in sharing real, meaningful ways to make it part of the board's routine and its very being as a leadership group. These aren't of the "X easy tips to..." variety, but significant ways to center the board in the organization's purpose.

Getting board members to give (June Bradham)

The headline fails to spotlight the ultimate message of this wonderful post. How often do we stop to ask what it is that our board members really want from their generous contributions of leadership, talent and time? June asked the question and emerged with "nine truths about what board members really want from their experience." The simplicity of that list is striking. Every "truth" is absolutely attainable, if we make the investment in our board members that they deserve. We fail them - and our organizations - if we do not make the effort to understand what drives individuals to serve and provide that fuel for effective governance.

Engage your board sooner (Alice Korngold)

One of the most essential roles of governance is accountability for the financial health of the organization. It's also probably the area where boards are most tentative and least likely to embrace their legitimate leadership role. Alice summarizes perfectly survey data that make the case for pushing boards to engage early and deeply in understanding and accepting their fiduciary responsibilities.

The 2 hats board members wear (501 Videos)

Is selling raffle tickets part of the board's job? How about working the registration desk at your annual fundraiser? Volunteering to take a hotline shift? Board members' generosity in donating time to a cause about which they are passionate is not uncommon. But not all of that work qualifies as governance, and the blurring of the lines can be incredibly problematic. This video does a good job of raising the question and offering insight into how to handle the potentially tricky divide.

Board roles: More than the bottom line

2011-03-21T06:40:00.004-06:00

If you’ve served on a nonprofit board, you’ve probably seen – or at least heard of – the “10 Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards.” If you’ve read this blog for more than a month or two, you probably also know that I’m not the biggest fan of that list.

It’s not that the tasks it covers aren’t important governance roles. Rather, when I read that list, I see very little that actually excites and motivates board members to serve. I also see some gaps that trouble me. A few years ago, I added four roles that I believe address both issues. I talk about them at the end of this video overview of board member responsibilities, but I realized recently that I have never written about them, here or elsewhere.

It’s not that the big 10 don’t cover aspects of a couple of my added roles. But they miss articulating the broader responsibilities that exist in governance - the roles that make nonprofit governance a meaningful leadership opportunity.

My expanded roles list includes not only the BoardSource 10 but also these four:

Steward
Leader
Ambassador
Visionary

Steward – The steward ensures the appropriate use of all agency resources. He/she understands and embraces the board’s accountability to all stakeholders, not just the bottom-line reporting required of the IRS, funders and others that expect things to be counted. Accountability to me also means holding sacred the need for thoughtfulness in all deliberations – not taking them lightly, researching carefully, and making the best decisions possible with the broadest knowledge base available.

Leader – The board’s leadership role begins, and ultimately ends, with defining and advancing the nonprofit’s vision and mission. They must be willing to ask the tough questions, inside and outside of the organization, to identify and address the opportunities to move the mission forward and the key challenges to doing so. In this role, the board moves forward with confidence on the work that they take on in meetings and in the priorities to which they attend. They embrace their ultimate leadership role and all that involves, not serving as a rubber stamp for the executive director but recognizing the board’s partnership with the CEO as the organization’s leadership team.

Ambassador – Board members’ status as community leaders, and their willingness to reach out to peer and stakeholder groups on behalf of the organization, are unique contributions that should not only be valued but expected of board members. (For a fantastic overview of this aspect of board service, read Paul Vandeventer’s Stanford Social Innovation Review article, “Increasing Civic Reach.”) Board members have a special responsibility to speak up – and out – on issues impacting the organization and its mission. While others have similar opportunities and should be encouraged to do the same, board members as community leaders have a different kind of credibility with many stakeholder groups. Not encouraging and supporting them in fulfilling this role is a major mistake.

Visionary - This may be the most important – and least enacted – board role: creating, articulating and advancing the organization’s vision of a better community/world. This means regularly spending quality time envisioning what that better community/world looks like, toward what ends, and integrating that into governance work. Boards should be perpetually looking toward – and beyond – the horizon, even as they attend to work firmly grounded in the realities of today. Without this visionary role, the board will be forever stuck in the day-to-day, where nothing changes and never gets better. Tending to this role enables and empowers the board to stay focused on the unique – and usually non-urgent – responsibilities of governance. It’s both too easy and too costly to ignore.

I welcome your reaction to my additions. Do they truly add anything of value to how we define governance?

Overheard: March 18

2011-03-18T07:12:00.002-06:00

The week brought several share-worthy posts from a variety of sources. Here are a handful of my favorites.

Nonprofit boards: On saying no to problem board members (Alice Korngold)

We've all been there. We've all been distracted and frustrated by the drama that this person brings to an already challenging job. And probably most of us have kept quiet, suffering silently because we simply didn't have the options - or courage - to deal with the issue head on. Alice reminds us that we do have the capacity, and the responsibility, to deal with disruptive board members. She rightly reminds us that is the board's job, not something we push off onto the ED.

Build a board that advances fund development (Sarah Fischler)

I appreciate Sarah's focus on board culture as much as the context of board roles in fundraising. Too often, experts who write for nonprofit boards take the overly simplistic approach of boiling responses to complex governance challenges into "X easy steps to..." Engaging board members appropriately in fundraising is important. Creating a culture where they see why and understand how they can contribute to the organization's success in capacity building via this work is even more critical (and has the potential to create a more thoughtful, rich environment for engaging in the entire governance process).

Alternatives to strategic planning (Jan Masaoka)

One of myriad reasons so many of us hate "strategic planning" is the tendency to translate that into tedious, goal-by-goal "write a plan..." processes. If you're expecting that of your board, you're wasting both members' time and their ultimate value to your nonprofit. Jan offers several great alternative approaches to visualizing and discussing issues that matter and that have the potential to actually move the agency closer toward fulfilling its mission (and make participation more meaningful for all). You'll be totally unsurprised to hear that the "strategic learning agenda" resonated for me.

The truth about boards: Slides and handouts (Jamie Notter)

Jamie gets right to the point in a post that give us access to resources created for his Great Ideas Conference 2011 presentation. It's based on his recent article written for the ASAE's Associations Now magazine.

Overheard: March 11

2011-03-11T07:49:00.001-07:00

It's time to share this week's favorite links to ideas with the potential to inform or expand our thinking about nonprofit governance.

Increasing civic reach (Stanford Social Innovation Review)

If I could require a reading for all nonprofit boards this week, this would be it. Paul Vandeventer not only provides a name for the boundary-spanning leadership role (civic reach), but he also offers markers that help to put that concept into terms and actions that board members will grasp and, hopefully, embrace. This represents one of the unique responsibilities of governance that too often gets lost in the monitoring work. Both are critical roles; this one is likely to be one of the more motivating.

Why mission matters - The Bullseye Principle (Kevin Monroe)

Okay, I'm assigning two readings for the week. I can't resist a powerful post on the value of mission, and Kevin has provided exactly that in this latest post. It all begins with mission. It ends with mission. The bullseye is our mission. In this post lies a significant opportunity to reflect on how we maintain that focus.

Our boards must understand how they operate (Core Strategies)

I recognized more than a few boards - and myself as a board member at times - in this post. Clueless boards, and clueless board members, are more common than they should be. Are you asking the questions you need to ask to govern effectively? Do you know what the board needs to know?

How to tell if you have a bad board (Eric Lanke)

Some of us may see ourselves or our boards in the list of potential signs of a bad board. We may have our own warning signs to add to Eric's list. The value of this post is that list: while every one should be obvious to us, the press of daily board tasks (and the inevitable big and little crises that arise) can sway our attention from the important markers that alert us to potential trouble.

Creating generative retreat space

2011-03-06T18:31:00.004-07:00

When many of us hear the phrase "we need to schedule board a retreat," our immediate response ranges from "bleah" to "Nooooo..." Retreats' bad reputation is sometimes deserved, sometimes the result of misunderstandings about what is possible and productive.

Too often, we set aside retreat time to do the impossible, e.g, "write a strategic plan." As a young consultant, I fielded too many of those requests and attempted too many times to cram too much activity into too few hours. Inevitably, unmet (unrealistic) expectations led to lingering frustration, the feeling that time had been wasted - and yet another example that retreats are never with the trouble.

There are valid reasons for boards to retreat, for example, to:

engage in team building and group development
facilitate deep discussion and exploration that feed processes like strategic planning
create opportunities to learn and reflect together
provide fuel and knowledge for action and governance

Recently, I had the chance to facilitate the annual retreat of a board that understands how to schedule time away from routine governance work. It's my favorite consulting assignment of the year, because it always ends up being a productive and energizing event for the board. (I leave a little revved up, too.)

The task to be accomplished in this event varies from year to year. For example, one session I led for them was a visioning process that helped board members decide to proceed with a significant financial and mission commitment. This year’s retreat, like others, focused on deeper learning to increase their capacity to govern the agency as effectively and wisely as possible. Board members immersed themselves in information about specific agency programs and the environmental impacts, local and national, on those programs.

Initially, the goals for this session felt ambitious, even for this board. But its track record of diving in and staying focused and engaged in these retreats suggested that this group would make very good use of our time.

The rest of this post will discuss some of the factors that made this retreat a generative experience.

It's a regular part of their governance calendar. Board members expect to participate in this annual deep-learning retreat, and they commit to participation. Attendance has been at or near 100 percent at each of the annual retreats I've facilitated for them. That's particularly remarkable, since it takes place on a weekday morning.

The goals set were a realistic stretch for the time scheduled. Primary focus was on knowledge sharing and discussion. There were no "write a..." goals, and their focus was where boards should be focusing.

They focused on the big picture. The topics and resulting discussions centered on the organization's mission and their governance responsibilities. Board members didn't drown themselves in details and day-to-day tasks. They didn't try to turn it into one long board meeting.

They had readings ahead of time - and actually read them. Board members were prepared when they arrived, ready to engage with fellow retreat participants. Some of what we asked them to read were written program updates from staff. That freed the time they would share with staff to discuss, not sit back passively listening to long presentations. The detail also was available for later reading and reference.

The agenda included appropriate staff involvement. Agency staff members aren't strangers. The board hears from staff regularly during the year; they are trusted resources when the board needs to understand agency programs and the challenges faced. Staff members were available at the retreat to spotlight the key points of what was shared in written form and to respond to board member questions.

Questions made the difference. One of the factors that sets this board apart - and ultimately led to a productive retreat - is its ability to ask well-timed, focused, appropriate questions. Members didn't allow long presentations to happen; they regularly inserted questions along the way. They asked multiple clarifying questions of staff and of each other. Board members asked questions that requested additional detail about the topics under discussion. Members also asked what-if types of questions, extending what they were learning to different scenarios that could occur within the organization.

Usually, I would have designed a more "active" agenda that asked them to step away from an exclusively discussion mode. We did have one such break, but this board's capacity to question virtually ensured that their time together would be active and headed toward fulfilling their stated goals for the session. We kept it simple, and they emerged with that they needed to accomplish. We created a generative, reflective board learning experience.

Overheard: March 4

2011-03-04T06:43:00.012-07:00

Following are this week's favorite governance-related links, shared by great minds via Twitter and the blogosphere. It was particularly hard to select those I would feature this week, both because of the sheer number of entries I tagged as potentially worthy of focus and the impact of the messages so many of them carried. It was a heady week of insights that get right to the core purposes of governance.

Boards as conservators. Good or Bad? (Gayle Gifford)

Gayle shared this 2010 post this week, shortly after my online class closed a unit on nonprofit governance. My students absorbed the weight of the board's responsibilities, a message I consciously reinforced (20 more individuals who grasp the serious nature of governance cannot be a bad thing). As I reflected on student reactions, I also thought about Gayle's point in this post: that as we (legitimately) communicate the responsibility of the work undertaken when one accepts a board seat, we may also be inadvertently nurturing a conservative, risk-averse culture. In doing so, we may functionally shut down the environment necessary for the board's ultimate purpose: looking beyond the horizon to the vision that drives the organization's purpose. I will continue to talk about the duties of loyalty, obedience and care - and all of the serious work of nonprofit governance. But, thanks to Gayle, I will be a bit more mindful of providing context for that essential accountability.

Inception under threat (Lucy Marcus)

Speaking of context... This marvelous post by Lucy continues the conversation perfectly. One of the potential outcomes of the kind of culture Gayle discusses is exactly what Lucy describes here. When times are tough, human nature tells us to hunker down, batten the hatches, and defend what limited turf we may think we have. Risk becomes the kind of four letter word we avoid at all costs; and in the process, we forget why we exist in the first place. This sentence may be the most powerful I've read in a long time: "It takes strong principled leaders with integrity and vision, skills and determination, in the public and private sectors, to stand up and fight for the worth of investing in the future..." That, my friends, is the ultimate function of governance.

The Caretaker Board: Anchoring stability or rusty anchor? (Anne Ackerson)

Anne opens this post with a question whose answer should be obvious: "Is it enough for a nonprofit board's primary role to be protection of the status quo?" It should be obvious. It probably would be, if we posed it verbally to most of our boards. But the actions of too many of those bodies suggest otherwise. Anne does us an immense favor, first, by posing the question, then by articulating what should be the "no brainer" argument for thinking more broadly about the board's purpose. I absolutely will share this with boards I know. For what I hope will be the vast majority, it will be a positive reminder that their job is broader than simply protecting existing assets. For the few where this may be news, well, it's time that we expand their understanding.

From a foundation perspective - what makes an effective nonprofit? (Marion Conway)

"Effectiveness" is one of those concepts that should be easy to define but, in practice, is anything but easy. How your nonprofit defines "effectiveness" may not match how my organization defines it. That is something for our respective leadership teams - board and staff - to determine. Whether or not foundation perspectives are germane to that process, Marion's latest column offers great, specific ideas that would be valuable contributions to any conversation around the topic.

Movie Mondays: How Changing a Nonprofit Board's Makeup Skyrocketed an Organization's Effectiveness

2011-02-28T07:54:00.003-07:00

Today's "Movie Monday" video felt particularly shareworthy. I'd love to hear your response to what is discussed.

Movie Mondays: How Changing a Nonprofit Board's Makeup Skyrocketed an Organization's Effectiveness

Source: 501videos.com

Overheard: Feb. 25

2011-02-25T07:41:00.007-07:00

Whew! My list of potential sources to share with you this week is a mile long. It was a rich week in Twitterville and the blogosphere! Here is a small sampling of the riches shared by others this week.

A new leadership mindset for scaling social change (Leadership for a New Era)

Boards don't talk enough about leadership. While this post isn't board-specific, it offers a great perspective on the kind of transformative leadership that is required to fulfill so many of our social change-driven missions. It's a thought provoking piece, worthy of sharing and discussion. (I'd definitely recommend downloading the accompanying article, too. They ask for minimal information, and you aren't obligated to accept their e-mail newsletter.)

Member engagement - sharing stories (Wild Apricot)

Maybe it's because I've had "stories on the brain" for awhile, but it seems like more writers are addressing their importance to nonprofits' efforts to communicate and advance their missions. This post provides a reader-friendly overview of why storytelling is important to our overall success.

How to use stories in nonprofit marketing (Maureen Carruthers)

Speaking of stories... Maureen's post views stories through a marketing lens, but the specific ideas she has for how to use stories in a nonprofit setting have broader appeal. It can see every scenario on her list applying to a setting where a board member is likely to find him/herself, and where a well-told story can have powerful impact. It's a fine companion piece to the Wild Apricot post, too.

Three things your vice president could do (Gayle Gifford)

So what does your VP do, anyway? If you dust off this person only to fill in when the president can't make a meeting, you're missing a significant opportunity to draw upon (and develop) this board officer's leadership. Gayle offers exactly what the title suggests: three meaningful roles, guiding three large and important tasks, that are of value to the board.

Stars, hearts, your brain and strategic planning (Tara Kirkland)

My ultimate recommendation on this one would be to purchase the book referenced in this post, so that you will have the full benefit of what is being shared. (It's one of the very best texts I've ever read on the topic of mission-driven nonprofit sustainability.) But what the writer shares here will be a nice start, outlining a taxonomy of nonprofit core activities that you may find useful. Really, though, get the book. It should be required reading for all nonprofit boards.

Episcopal Charities annual leadership conference Storify (@Eccsonline)

If you're not familiar with Twitter, the format of this series of tweets may be confusing. But I had to include it, simply because it contains so many gems that inspired me as I read them in real time. I don't even know who's behind the ECCSonline profile, but I gain something out of nearly everything he/she tweets during the day. In this case, the tweeter was providing backchannel coverage of the group's leadership event this week - in particular, a talk by Katherine Tyler Scott, an author I've long appreciated. (Her book, Creating Caring and Capable Boards, helped to shape my early understanding of what governance really involves.) It's hard to pick a handful of my personal favorites, but I'll try (Note: the shorthand nature is normal in Twitter - think 140 characters):

"Start your nonprofit board mtg w/story from org's history to help place current work in context of today's society."

"History is about meaning. Share yours regularly w/your board, staff, donors, volunteers. Yes, it's THAT important."

"Key point > Is your nonprofit board politically competent, knowing how to negotiate with key constituents, managing conflict?"

Oh, there are just too many possibilities there. I'd love to hear what your favorites are as you read the thread.