Shared leadership is the current language for how a nonprofit board and exec are supposed to function. Each is to have a clear role and set of responsibilities and the combined whole is supposed to drive the nonprofit to successful outcomes.
I have to say however that the number of times I hear how this framework is so not working with many execs asking "do I really need a board" or "how can I minimalize the board's presence" or any number of similar questions.
It should not be surprising that founder execs frequently raise this cry wondering aloud why a board at all.
The answer for the need for a board is simple: it's a legal requirement for a corporation and of course, a nonprofit is just that, a corporation. A more complicated answer is that a board serves as the surrogate "owner" for the public and an exec does not - thus the rule of check-and-balances. Beyond this: a board can bring added value in the area of connections and raising money and insights into the community.
But what if a board doesn't bring so-called added value? Who's suppose to do something about this? I would offer that indeed, the exec has the most to gain for developing a board that does bring added value. And, while many execs may see this board building as a distraction away from getting down to the business of achieving outcomes, I pose that the short-term distraction is worth it in the long-run.
Now, getting to the state of shared-leadership: that is the next level board development work that follows the building of a board that adds value. So, for you execs struggling with a board that just doesn't do it for you: hunker down, realign your schedule and know that even if you are not in the long-run the individual who will experience the shared leadership board, I believe that your efforts will produce a higher achieving organization.