Just how much latitude does a nonprofit CEO have when the board has neither dictated parameters (policy) or been clear about what doesn't "fit" within the CEO's purview?
Lat night, President Obama laid out his plans for his next 1000 days with a stated commitment to get what needs done despite a "boss" (aka congress in particular) that has put roadblocks in his way throughout his term +.
Now the beauty of a president declaring he, in the final duration of his tenure will just "get it done" is pretty great. The consequences for deviation from his bosses wishes are limited. I suppose there's the risk he could make mistakes (like his many-fronted wars) and only history will judge of course along with the respective electoral parties. History could also celebrate if the actions render good or even great results.
But what about a CEO? Nonprofit boards are nororiously bad at both setting parameters and judging (how many boards conduct annual performance review (we know the answer is "few"). We also know that day-to-day oversight aka guidance or parameters, is not particularly storng by most boards. But there is also evidence that when something goes horribly wrong, boards do react. Boards however react for the most part, slowly and sometimes, without tangible action although informed by external parties -- contractors, funders, donors and sometimes, customers.
So, can nonprofit CEOs do as they think best? Sadly, I believe, the answer is "probably". One last "but". Where boards have in place a strategic plan (they know where they want to go and what success will look like AND what theirs and their CEO's role is and maybe are helped by a clearly enunciated dashboard); have clear policies that outline the parameters for which staff can perform; have an annual performance review with clear annual goals -- the likelihood is that the result will be a win:win:win for the board, ceo and most importantly, mission/constituents.
We do want our CEO's to have the freedom to do what they do best but within clear parameters.