Skip to content

Klass Strategies

Home arrow Board Tech Blog
Board Tech Blog
March 1, 2010: Mission Maintenance Merging PDF Print E-mail

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 intermittent feasting, 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? PDF Print E-mail

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.

 
February 1, 2010: Big Stuff Buy-In PDF Print E-mail

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? PDF Print E-mail

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.

 
January 1, 2010: Gifts of the Wise Board PDF Print E-mail

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 !    

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>

Results 10 - 18 of 79