There's a big fight brewing at Target (the department store). There's an "activist" director who is claiming that the rest of the board has been asleep at the wheel (my words). It's kind of exciting to think about these corporate (paid nonetheless) board types having this fight over who is being responsible as well as what issues really need attention and, who should even be on the board. I know -- such fights are a bit distracting to the day-to-day business but maybe this is the kind of discussion that should be going on to ensure the board is doing what they are paid to do.
Now, Imagine a nonprofit world which had activist (board) directors vs. complacent directors.
I can hear you nonprofit boards and execs saying "that would be a nightmare and a distraction to the real needs of the organization!"
But stop for a moment and appreciate that the activist director represents the passion and kinds of discussions and interest many of you nonprofit execs wish happend at your board tables. But it often doesn't.
See the Wall Street Journal for the story.