Recent experiences with solicited proposals have presented the issue of consultant hiring anew for me. So, who selects the strategic planning consultant?  Most boards seem comfortable letting the ED/CEO hire a person for a one day gig, sometimes called a "retreat" or even, a "strategic planning retreat."  Can meaningful strategic planning occur in one day (or even, one half day, as many recent inquires have suggested) - sorry, that is a question for another day.

If a multi-session or multi-month strategic planning process is being initiated with discussions within a one or two day weekend retreat, then I think that the comfort of the people doing most of the work should be a preeminent consideration.  This means that even if the Board is setting policy (yeah, including goals, priorities, values, etc.), if the staff are doing most of the heaving lifting (scanning research, fleshing out of alternatives and detailed follow up items for say, an "action plan" or "operations plan" flowing from the strategic plan), then I would hope that the staff would be very comfortable with the consultant that they will be working with.

However, if the major purpose of using a consultant is to help the Board do its part of setting policy and, in some cases, doing a lot of the strategic planning work through its committees, then I think that the Board should hold sway in consultant selection, if there is a clash of values/priorities between board and staff.  Also, if the Board members are pitching in funds from their own pockets or twisting funders' arms for this project OR, they have low confidence in the ED/CEO, could they be blamed for wanting at least 51% of the influence on this type of decision?

Yes, you are right, it is a trick question! One perennial debate is whether board members themselves do board work or whether other off-board helpers do board work. You know that the answer is "yes" and "no."  Only actual trustees are able to set policy for an organization (unless the bylaws involve other types of voters) and that group is held responsible by the community for the actions of the organization.

 However, assistance with events, activities, research and proposals for action almost always involve paid staff and a variety of types of volunteers.  Under the best practices approach that I promote, only board members serve as decision makers on "standing" or permanent board committees because it is cleaner in all imaginable ways.  The popular two-committees first model (governance and development) is a great way to do this.  Once a client performs well with this model, then that group is ready to get fancy with other committees.  Great board committees always involve great staff support, so how much committee support can YOUR staff provide and still get the operations managed effectively?

Oops, I almost forgot the other type of board work groups, which I call "other board work groups" or "ad hoc" committees.  This more temporary or less central activity of the board and does NOT involve setting policy that requires an approved motion in a vote by actual trustees.  This other work involves community relations, events planning, advice on programs, etc.  Yes, this is an old-fashioned, standard set-up, but IT WORKS !!!!!  I have not ever heard or seen of any situation that requires a different solution and I welcome a challenge on this point !!!

Board consultants are frequently called upon to "fix the board."  This is OK, the dialog of vendor and consumer has to start somewhere.  It is also true that CEOs and EDs are usually responsible for facilitating board development and are best able to squeeze funds for limited board development facilitation from somewhere.

However, literature and experience shows us that people cannot be made better by force, without their consent.  It is prudent and necessary to insure that the board desires this assistance and is willing to make the three part investment:  money, time and action.  The cost in funds, while the major barrier to many potential facilitated efforts, is not the hardest part.  The time part, using available meeting time, can even be negotiated in most cases. 

But it is the action, the will to learn and behave differently that is the dearest cost and most critical to success.  To bend a phrase:  without motivation there is no movement.  Consultation and consent of formal board leaders and major skeptics is the bare minimum preparation that ethics and best practices demand before launching an effective change process.

Deterioration of your board leadership can result in a disaster to an organization that is as damaging to sustainability as a computer security breach or even physical flooding of a key office space.  However, the prescription is the same for all catastrophes:  take the extra time NOW to restore board capacity, your mission steering mechanism and very survival as an organization is at risk!

Does this mean a special meeting of a board to refill its ranks and install people in key positions?   YES. Does this mean that you shouldn't wait until the next scheduled meeting, because it is summertime......YES.  Is this a higher priority than our staff getting out a newsletter, updating the website, keeping service/office hours open (OK, not if you are running a hospital emergency room)?.  YES.   Should staff try to keep  the bad news from the board?  NO.

If the steering mechanism of your mission "boat" (organization)  is broken, then it will surely run off course, either out into open ocean exhausting scarce resources or into:   an obstacle, another  "ship", some rocks or a shoreline.  "ALL HANDS ON DECK!!!!"  It is time to do that emergency research (that board/staff homework that has been put off for years) to determine:

- who should be on your board dream team;
- what advice/referrals can these dream team community opinion leaders (sorry but they may NOT be willing to personally jump on your board at this time!);
- whom can you recruit in good faith now to help steer your boat; and
- who is left (on the board) that will lead key decisions, rebuild the team or preside over the shut-down of operating systems?

That's it.  Only fixing the broken board can fix your broken organization and postpone (or prevent) further disasters.  Is your organization’s mission and niche worth preserving?  Then it must be done, or the disaster continues…..