One of the most common complaints by execs about their board is that the board micromanages, and does not understandng the difference between governing and managing. And, most board development experts affirm the correctness of the exec in wanting to keep the board out of the day-to-day work.
I have maintained that for some, perhaps even the majority of nonprofits, this distinction and expectation is not possible. If we estimate that more that 70% of nonprofits have only one or no staff, I pose that the board cannot just govern (policy, planning and evaluation). If the board singularly governs, there may be no activity by the nonprofit and in fact, no one may have any idea about what should be going on in day-by-day.
I would offer instead that nonprofit boards live through different stages of development. I see a four-stage paradigm: infancy, juvenile, adolescence, and maturity. The stages are best represented by the level of focus on operations vs. governance and likely, the presence or absence of staff who can see to the operations. I believe it's possible for a board to have been in its adolescence or maturity stage and to then, for any number of reasons, regress, even to infancy.
Take for example, the New Jersey City museum, once a 1.3 million annual budget operation with staff and exhibits and now operating without staff, a reduced space, and the Board Treasurer serving as Chief Curator for a pending exhibit. While I would need to understand better, the board has reduced its numbers and all are fully engaged in operations. And if they didn't---no museum. But for sure, back to the infancy stage. For the story, go here.