It’s time to come up with some new models for what it means to serve on a board. In the classic board model I have always been struck by the fact that to serve on a board requires endless altruism. Human nature shows us that for most human beings it’s hard for anyone to remain, let alone for an extended period of time- like a 3 year board term- altruistic. It’s much more likely for someone to start that way and then want to move towards a more reciprocal relationship. While the concept of being of service selflessly to an organization is a noble one, it is simply too hard to execute or maintain for most of us; especially now given the volatile economic climate we are living in.
So what are some better models? Do we need really need a “working” volunteer board or can we do better to support our organization through strategic alliances, partnerships and developing a strong donor base to pay for the talent we need to help our organizations grow?
How many times have we seen a strong leader at the helm of a NFP who leaves the organization and it suffers dramatically? NFP’s are no different than a for profit model. Except in the for profit world we pay people to sit in our world and do the work we need. Maybe what NFP’s really need is to become more profitable to do more of the same and use their boards more as sounding boards rather than try and use them as substitute workers for their organizations…
By Rick Moyers
Nonprofit board members did not get very high marks from their executive directors in the recently released “Daring to Lead 2011” report.
The report, produced by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint, is based on a national survey of more than 3,000 executive directors of small to midsize nonprofit organizations. (I’m a vice president at Meyer and a co-author of the report.)
Although “Daring to Lead 2011″ was intended as a study of executive directors, it is often difficult to separate the issues that affect executive directors from those that affect boards. And it’s a reminder that executives and boards have a complicated and symbiotic relationship.
In general, the report is critical of boards, citing relatively low levels of executive-director satisfaction with board performance, modest levels of board-member engagement (at least as reported by executive directors) in almost every area of board responsibility, neglect of the executive’s annual performance review, lack of insight into the business models of the organizations they govern, and failure to provide adequate support for new executives after they’re hired.
Admittedly, these criticisms are based on survey responses from executive directors, and plenty of board members have tales of woe about how poorly they are served by their top executives. However, the results are not anomalous. Other studies that included the board member perspective have produced similar findings.
If “Daring to Lead” is a report card on board performance, then boards are barely passing.
Or maybe we just expect too much.
Board members are, after all, volunteers. Many serve with little or no training or orientation and have limited time and resources. Maybe we should just be grateful for what they are able to do and stop having such unreasonably high expectations. Maybe we should start grading on a curve.
Even if you don’t buy that argument, “Daring to Lead” highlights an obvious disconnect between what most of us think boards ought to do—particularly when it comes to fund raising but also in many other areas—and how boards function in the real world.
And if we’re not willing to expect less, we need to figure out some new approaches to helping boards measure up to high expectations.
P.S. Thanks to the many readers who posted thoughtful comments to my earlier post,“Should Foundations Do More to Strengthen Boards?” Some of those comments address the question above—and I plan to respond in my next post. I’d still love to hear from those who haven’t weighed in yet.