Most nonprofits never attain a state of sustainability.Many organizations attain a point of minimally
paid staff and a well-intentioned but under-engaged board.Life in these organizations, where many of
our friends and colleagues work, can be filled with joy and satisfaction. However, agony and frustration can offset the positives to the extent that the well-being of employees and volunteers is eroded.Staff may be extremely passionate about the
mission and talented in delivering services but inept at securing sufficient
levels of funding and adequate diversity of funding source.The board many be unable to provide
assistance.In these situations, organizations
languish in states of extended famine and intermittentfeasting, unable to effectively withstand
conclusion of grants and expiration of favored status with government or
private agencies and individuals.For these
organizations, frequently small and dependent upon one primary staff person, the end of organizational
life is always just around the corner.
If we care about the well-being of these valiant Don Quixotes
of the nonprofit world and their dreams, how can we help?How
can we help key staff and board members to consider strategic restructuring
that will preserve missions with substantial community value?How can we help organizational leaders to
embrace life extension for their missions through mergers as preferable to organizational
death with perceived honor?
We need to offer our friends and colleagues the course of dignity
possible in organizational transformation
and mission transfer.We need to frame
preservation of mission as a successful outcome. By
helping these friends and colleagues to recognize the value of transformative change,
we do more for them than allowing them to maintain an illusion of sustainability
that puts the very survival of the mission at risk.The well-being of the community is paramount
and maintenance of a valuable mission trumps the value of individual human
careers.We need to help those for whom
we care to gain perspective, to rise above their personal investment, to attain
a vantage point to rationally weigh the value of mission preservation in
relation to the value of organizational autonomy or even existence.
Ultimately, we do well to help boards with this assessment.Board members represent the community “owners”
of a nonprofit on behalf of our society.When staff are ready to close the service delivery doors or when they
are reticent to identify/create/explore opportunities for organizational transformation,
it is the board that is left with responsibility to perpetuate or terminate the
mission.We do well to help boards to preserve
the community asset of a niche passionately carved out by staff and volunteers
over the lifespan of an organization.We
owe it to the people who created this value, to find an organizational home for
the mission that has a better chance at life before desperation or neglect result
in an untimely organizational death that all too frequently creates avoidable
human suffering and the type of organizational death that makes a mission
difficult to resurrect.
February 15, 2010: Should the Board Read the Grant?
I recently
came upon a rare occurrence, even for a small organization:the chair of a board wanted to read a proposal
document before it was submitted.In the
age of pushing staff professional leadership, it was refreshing.Is it necessary?I think the answer depends upon current
board-staff relationship culture, expectations and agreements.
If a mature
development program exists, and designated members of the board are routinely
informed of major activities, including grant/contract/sponsorship proposals,
it may not be necessary for a trustee to read an application.If the organization is extremely small, the
staff inexperienced and the board has talent and time, it makes sense to have
board review.A corollary to this
situation is one where the board has trust issues with top management or the
development staff.
However,
there is one situation that always calls out for board review, where the niche and
organizational culture and operations will be dramatically altered with a new
funding source.Hopefully, the very
development of such proposals will be sanctioned by the board and further
review of actual documents may not be needed.If proposals of this type are submitted by staff without sufficient
board engagement, board-staff trust and the ability of the board to manage the
service niche on behalf of the community can be severely compromised.
Many well-intentioned E.D.’s truly want their boards to
serve as strategic partners but fail to provide the support that builds this
capacity in their boards.After a time,
board members may actually become comfortable only reviewing expenditure
reports, raising or contributing funds or some other limited type of activity.This type of low-engagement board may experience high anxiety when faced
suddenly with the opportunity to own “the big stuff.”Conversely, there is the mushroom farm type board that is kept in the dark and only
enlightened after the fact about something big having occurred.In
both cases, E.D.’s might bemoan the fact that their boards are not of great
help to them in moving the big rocks that need to be moved for the organization
to grow.But at this point, the E.D.’s have
also become stuck themselves in the pattern of not trusting their boards with
strategy, even believing these sometimes well-chosen people to be incapable of
holding the organization’s destiny in their hands.
The underutilization of boards is common, unfortunate and
can even become a dangerous condition.Whether
tension or malaise sets up in the E.D.-board relationship, it is important,
once change is desired, to focus on the how
rather than the why.How
can steps be made in building the capacity of boards to act strategically, to
gain self-confidence and the trust of their E.D. in handling the big
stuff?How can the process of
consultation be rebuilt?The calendar
year is still young and baby steps are welcome.Let this be the year for your board to begin its strategic role.Start with one of the following baby steps,
by asking for one new discussion item on a forthcoming meeting agenda, such
as:1) the top operational goals for the
year;2)the next big grant application or development activity;3) how success at meeting the mission is
measured;4)how to better understand and meet emerging community
needs; 5)understanding the competitive environment for
the organization; and 6) how community awareness of organization accomplishments
be increased.In all cases, board
members should be encouraged to talk about:how can I make a contribution to this?In beginning to share responsibility for solutions, boards begin to participate
in strategic thinking and increase their readiness to buy-in on strategic decisions
when consulted.
January 15, 2010: Strategic Planning vs Board Development?
Which comes first, planning or development?At first glance, the act of setting goals (a
part of planning), seems to be a “do me first” type of thing.However, when it comes to board work, a
better answer depends on the overall “state of the board.”If your board is fulfilling ALL of its basic
responsibilities satisfactorily, then it may be appropriate to set aside other
areas of board work in order focus additional attention on developing a new 2-5
year strategic plan.
But that was a trick answer.Part of a board’s basic responsibility IS planning, lots of goal setting, strategy development and
performance monitoring anyway.One could
argue that much of important board work consists of helping the organization to
stay focused by coordinating planning or goal setting, for:annual
operations, executive performance, board recruitment, etc.Additionally, well-organized boards can
devote the majority of every full board meeting to processing strategic issues
and devote committee meetings to strategic planning work on an incremental
basis (instead of concentrated energy at an annual retreat) .
The bottom line answer is:strategic planning and board development are
NOT mutually exclusive.Strategic thinking should be a constant exercise
when developing policy.A strategic
issue is, after all, something that impacts an organization’s fundamental
likelihood of success.A great board,
by definition, acts strategically as frequently as possible.
How do you launch board work with a bang for the new year?Begin with simple gifts of coordination and focus.Start by
renewing commitment to the priorities for the year, the handful of big rocks to
be moved or challenges to address to move the organization forward.Next, link together the management tools
available for keeping your eye on the prize of priority progress:strategic plan goals, annual operational goals,
annual board development goals, chief executive performance plan, monthly
executive director’s reports, periodic board committee reports, quarterly and
annual chief executive performance review and board self-assessment.
Throughout the year, stay focused on the priorities,
keep management tools linked and the important things will get accomplished.Become distracted, begin worrying about
smaller or non-priority items and, well, another year will go by and you will
not be certain that appropriate progress has been made.Keep your eyes on the prize.The staff and the community are counting on
you !