Nonprofits have volunteer leaders (the board), and for the most part, paid leaders. As many know, one of the largest challenges in nonprofit leadership is this paradigm. I know from my own consulting practices that there are three basic governance/ceo scenarios most commonly practiced: nonprofit boards make every big decision possibly consulting with their ceo, possibly not; nonprofit ceos make every bid decision possibly consulting with their boad, possibly not; and nonprofit boards and ceos have clearly defined which desicions belong to whom and consult each other on the rest.
Of course the biggest challenge is deteriming which approach to take, ensuring that each party is fulfilling their responsibilites. We like to think that the "everyone has defined and practices their respective decisions-making role" the practice but I know from my practice this is not the case.
I speak of all this because in the New York Times there is an article reviewing the current plight of Community Preservation Corporation -- a big nonprofit developer in New York and New Jersey. The writer does a great job of reviewing affordable housing deicsions and the "so whats" of those decsions. In addition though, and of particular interest to me, the writer also reviews the roles of the board and CEO (now resigned) and how the nonprofit was able to procede toward a cliff, financially.
This is worth reading to consider the question: just when and how far should a board go in sharing its decision-making? And, why is it that only the CEO has to experience the consequences of shared decision-making?