Nonprofit Board Crisis

Changing the Color Isn't Enough #NonprofitBoards

Please check-out the following new report titled: When Diversity Isn’t Enough: Experiences of Board Members of Color at Agricultural and Environmental Nonprofits

by Margaret Krome-Lukens|Published September 28, 2020

Recruiting one or two people of color to serve on a board without doing any deeper reflection, or making any deeper changes towards inclusivity, equity, and belonging, may have harmful impacts for those individuals. Tokenism still plagues predominant nonprofit board culture. Racist and hostile environments are also pervasive within nonprofit board service. People of color continue to bear the hurt and harm of racism within their service. The words of the respondents in this study speak to the desperate need for more inclusive board cultures and the overhauling of systemic racism evident in agricultural and environmental nonprofit board leadership.

Conclusion, “When Diversity Isn’t Enough: Experiences of Board Members of Color at Agricultural and Environmental Nonprofits”

RAFI-USA is proud to share a new report, “When Diversity Isn’t Enough: Experiences of Board Members of Color at Agricultural and Environmental Nonprofits.” In this report, Dr. Fatimah Salleh, interviewer and lead author, lifts up the words of eleven people of color who serve on the boards of predominantly white agricultural and environmental nonprofits, highlighting the dynamics, rewards, and challenges that they have experienced in that role. It also offers some recommendations, based on those interviews, for boards that are trying to become more diverse and includes a list of relevant resources. Multiple audiences can benefit from this report, including nonprofit leaders, diversity and inclusion professionals, nonprofit and philanthropy advisors, and executive search firms.

To request a free PDF or paper copy of the report, please click here.

---

Read an excerpt from our Executive Director’s introduction below:

In 2015, RAFI-USA began a series of projects, funded by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, with the goal of increasing the representation of farmers of color on Farm Service Agency (FSA) or Soil and Water Conservation District Committees … Ultimately, as we recruited farmers of color for these roles and worked with them more, it became clear that our project goals would need to change. Most of the farmers had no interest in joining a county committee. Many had bad individual or family experiences with FSA … which made them unwilling to engage further. Some had already served on committees and said they felt it had not made a difference because they were only there as a token and were not listened to. We did not want to urge farmers to put themselves in environments that were harmful, and changed the focus of our work to exploring the topic of the environments within committees that make them uncomfortable or unsafe places for Black people, indigenous people, and people of color to participate.

We broadened the scope of our work to include nonprofit boards in the agricultural or environmental sectors, organizations which also often make decisions about resource distribution, and which often have only one or no people of color on their boards. We knew that sitting on nonprofit boards could help people of color build leadership experience, but we were also hearing stories of board service not being a positive experience …

We decided to conduct interviews with board members of color, because it is not enough to recruit them and assume the work is done: it is also about what happens to people of color once they are in those spaces. These interviews examine the cost of “diversity” on the people of color sitting on nonprofit boards. Their pictures are displayed on websites as proof of “diverse” boards. We must hear their stories as well.

Edna Rodriguez
Executive Director, RAFI-USA

A Council of Advisors is NOT a Board #NonprofitBoards

If I have said it once I'll continue to saying it: A Council of Advisors is NOT a Board!

Arizona State University just announced the formation of it Interplanetary Initiative!  I must admit that from grade school on through today I am interested and even excited about what may result from this initiative.  I am excited that a bunch of uber smart and talented folks are willing to be in a "room" and identify the possibilities and how to pursue these.  

But, according to ASU Now, the University's newspaper, a "team of industry leaders will influence ASU's innovation agenda and provide guidance on building positive human space futures.  This team, referred to as an advisory board, will offer it's wisdom and guidance to the Initiative.  But, as best I can tell, this group will have no fiduciary responsibility - no authority.  It will lend its talent and that's it.

A perfectly fine task but the "board" label does little more than send a different message as to authority and responsibility.  Institutions must learn to do better with its language.

 

Qualities of a Nonprofit Board Member #NonprofitBoards

From the Tyler Morning Telegraph I saw this reference to an individual who has identified four qualities "an individual should understand before they agree to join the board of directors of a nonprofit fifteen years ago."

The four qualities: Focus, Fidelity, Foresight and Friendship.  As described in the article: Focus requires board members to understand the unique mission of the organization they lead. With fidelity, they accept the responsibility of ensuring financial accountability and sustainability of the organization. Foresight means to look ahead to the future and to be strategic as the mission and vision of the organization evolves and expands. Critical thinking is essential. Ask questions and analyze answers. Finally, friendship means far more than meeting for lunch or catching up on vacations in the parking lot. This kind of friendship is a partnership between board members and staff. It means honest evaluation, positive criticism and respect for individual strengths and competencies.

I must say kudos to the inventor of the four "fs" as they do encompass an easy and memorable reference.  Now whether these "fs" really do a good job at capturing the essential qualities that should be embodied in nonprofit board membership, well....maybe.  Certainly mission-focused is essential but so too is a commitment to values and really not a commitment to but beyond this, a firm belief in these noting that the US is now in a war of values with long-term decisions being made built around a core set of fundamental beliefs in how the world aka the USA should be for the believer.  Mission is the expected result but what informs mission is values. 

Fidelity in this definition refers to the fulfillment of fiduciary duty and specifically the duty of care but I don't know that an individual's work in fulfilling their duty of fiduciary care is as much a quality as it is, a duty, a responsibility, the obligation that comes with taking on the mantle of being a board member.  And foresight: board members benefit from thinking strategically so maybe this is a quality but more importantly, it's one of the approaches a board uses to fulfill its duties and further mission.  Quality, not so sure? 

And finally, friendship.  This one threw me off altogether.  Now I do believe that boards are both relational and transactional and the former informs and facilitates the later.  If this is the friendship reference ok but I'm not liking the term, friendship.  This is not a quality I would value as much as ensuring that there is trust between members so that again, transactions are shored-up by positive relations.

All-in-all, ok but not really my cup of tea as a framework for defining board member qualities.

 

 

 

How Long A Board Chair #NonprofitBoards

I am absolutely certain, without a doubt and without ever having observed him in action or had a discussion, that Alan Fishman, retiring Board Chair of the Brooklyn Community Foundation, knows what is the job of a nonprofit board chair.  Or should I have doubts?  

Mr. Fishman has just announced he is stepping down as chair having been in the position 19 years.  Yup, 19 years.  He should know the job one might think - true?  But should an individual, no matter how dynamic or smart, really be in the position of top volunteer leader for 19 years?  After all, there are paid CEOs in that position (which I often ponder as well).  We of course don't know Mr. Fishman's leadership style which could have contributed to his tenure.  We don't know why there appear to be no term limits which might have made it possible for others from the community to come on-board.  We don't know any details but one - 19 years as the volunteer leader is a very long time and raises many, many questions.

Something to think about, no?

PS Mr. Fishman will be replaced by co-chairs, one from a private equity firm and the other from a law firm.

 

Nonprofit Board Dysfunction? #NonprofitBoards

There is a fairly common understanding that nonprofit boards struggle to achieve efficiency and effectiveness with "struggle" being the operative word.  The degree and components of struggle are multi-dimensional and I would pose distinctive given the nonprofit board's stage of development (infancy, juvenile, adolescent and mature).  

Dr. Fram offers three levels of board dysfunction in his blog today.  I think some of it fair but again, depending on the board's stage of development essentially asking and answering the question that asks when are specific behaviors really defined as dysfunctional.  One might argue for instance singularly focusing on getting and providing product or service out the door is not dysfunctional for an infancy staged nonprofit board but is most certainly so for a board in its mature stage.  Stage matters when grading.   This then to further question whether the signs of dysfunction posed by Dr. Fram is all there is or is even accurate.  Dr. Fram places a heavy emphases on the relational elements of governance where I might pose that so-called "bad" relational activity leads primarily to ineffectiveness and inefficiency as there is a direct impact on the transactions a board is called upon to enact.  

Bottom line, I believe Dr. Fram has offered a good starting point for the discussion about dysfunction but I believe there is more discussion to be had.  Here's his blog:

Dysfunctional Levels in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations.

By: Eugene Fram

Article and studies from a Google search on “Dysfunctions in Nonprofit Boards & Organizations,” yields 4,330,000 items in .53 of a second. These items show dysfunctions on charter school boards, church boards, healthcare boards, trade associations, human services boards etc.

Rick Moyers, a well-known nonprofit commentator and nonprofit researcher, concluded:

“A decade’s worth of research suggests that board performance is at best uneven and at worst highly dysfunctional. ….. The experiences of serving on a board — unless it is high functioning, superbly led, supported by a skilled staff and working in a true partnership with the executive – is quite the opposite of engaging.”

These data and comments can lead one to conclude that all nonprofit boards are dysfunctional. I suggest that nonprofit boards can generate a range of dysfunctional behavioral outcomes, but the staff can muddle through and continue to adequately serve clients.

Mildly Dysfunctional: Board meeting attendance can be a problem, left unattended by the board chair and CEO. Agendas are not completed within the meeting time frame. Strategic planning takes place once a year with little reference to it between annual meeting retreats. Goals are established without measured outcomes.
On the other hand, budgets and finances are reasonably well handled. Incremental growth each year is modest. Board recruitment takes place largely based on board contacts and friendships, with a few recommendations by the CEO. Most everyone on the board is mildly or fully dedicated to the organization’s mission.

Moderately Dysfunctional: Many of the above dysfunctions, plus one or more of the following ones:

• The board chair and/or the CEO receive heightened deference in board discussions.
• Important decisions are made without full participation by all board members. One of two directors set the tone for the discussions and the outcomes.
• Either the board chair or CEO has inadequate backgrounds to develop a robust board. Nearly all agenda topics center on operational issues.
• The board does not trust the CEO but is unwilling to take action to remove him or her.
• The mission is not clearly defined and “mission creep” can be a problem. In this instance, the staff can be productive, if some managers are able to isolate staff from the board dysfunctions.

Highly Dysfunctional: Many of the following board behaviors are exhibited:

• The board is divided into unyielding factions, a la the current US congress.
• Board discussions go beyond civil discourse into personal barbs, often disguised as humor.
• Board committees are not functioning properly. Important decisions are often delayed for a year or more.
• Rumors about the board conflicts are reaching funders, who are asking questions about the rumors.
• It is becoming difficult to recruit talented board members or professional personnel.
• The board chair and other board directors refuse to acknowledge the problems.

There is little that the staff can do in this situation, except to hope for a funding angel to cover the financial problems that will develop. However, I did observe one organization that recovered from such highly dysfunctional board behaviors and finally succeeded in recruiting more talented board members. It also adopted a new governance format. The change led to some board members to resign. (One was insisting that the board members should evaluate individual staff personnel!) However the mistrust between the board and staff, as a result of the dysfunctional board behaviors, continued for decades.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Board Development #NonprofitBoards

Given the "white" nature of the  majority of nonprofit boards and particularly those whose customers are people of color and/or facing any number of challenges because of their socio-economic condition or "class", it makes sense to me that diversity, equity and inclusion training can go a long way toward improving the ability of the organization and thus its board in driving positive outcomes and change in society.

Meanwhile, the current Federal supposedly non-racist Administration, through its (no, now our) "Justice" Department has been conducting investigations and issuing mandates toward when DEI training is "appropriate" or otherwise.  One such investigation is being conducted in Seattle and in the mynorthwest.com I found the following statement within a story on this topic:

I’m also on nonprofit boards and one of the boards I’m on put the whole board through and their staff through diversity equity and inclusion training. I will admit that at moments I felt a bit uncomfortable learning about the ways that whites can be racist and at the same time I learned a ton, and I feel better for the experience,” he said

“I feel like I’ve got a ways to go, having grown up in a largely white culture. But the path to enlightenment starts with a single step, right? It’s not gonna be one training, not by any means.”

I blanched a bit at the quoted individual citing they had been "put through" a training as it really is up to a board to determine what it will and will not do.  In my opinion, these folks accepted the principal that the effort was worthy.  Kudos to them anyway and kudos to all nonprofit boards that see the value of DEI development.

Duty of Loyalty A Deeper Definition #NonprofitBoards

A nonprofit board member's Duty of Loyalty is one of the three duties of which members are held responsible and accountable severally and collectively particularly by courts but also by all others, including board members. 

Traditionally, the go-to actionable definition of duty of loyalty is associated with Conflicts of Interest.  When a member puts their own, often financial, interests ahead of the organization, they are failing their duty of loyalty.  Not telling the board (non-disclosure) of a possible or substantive conflict is included in this fail.  A simple example: a new roof is needed.  A board member offers that he knows a firm that will do the job for a "reasonable" price in a "reasonable" way.  Recognize of course that all bidders being equal, a board member's word carries a bit further in the group's decision just because he is a board member.  The member gains added authority by being a board member.  What the board member does not mention is that the roofer in question is a relative (e.g. sister or sister-in-law) which in turn provides a benefit, albeit not specifically direct, to the board member.  Indirect and direct conflicts must be declared to the board so the board is fully informed in its decision-making.  The roofing job maybe perfectly fine and price perfectly competitive but by declaring the relationship, the board can determine if their decision in some way lessens the benefit to the organization.  The organization benefit, for a duty of loyalty, must always remain the primary objective of every decision.

Now, if you would like to take the concepts of duty of loyalty to an even higher level, check--out Forbes Advisory Council member Christopher Washington's thoughts on this subject where he offers 

     ....the idea in the manner expressed by Josiah Royce, in his book The Philosophy of Loyalty. Royce defined loyalty as "the willing and practical and     thorough going devotion of a person to a cause."

My takeaway is that a simple legalistic view of Duty of Loyalty produces just that, playing by the rules.  But cultivating a deep loyalty to the organization, particularly in board members, results in a proactive set of actions that produce uber positive outcomes for the organization.  Rather than just believing that mission development is enough, take steps to build a loyal fan base in the board - one that in itself results in action in the best interest of the nonprofit.

 

Duty of Loyalty A Deeper Definition #NonprofitBoards

A nonprofit board member's Duty of Loyalty is one of the three duties of which members are held responsible and accountable severally and collectively particularly by courts but also by all others, including board members. 

Traditionally, the go-to actionable definition of duty of loyalty is associated with Conflicts of Interest.  When a member puts their own, often financial, interests ahead of the organization, they are failing their duty of loyalty.  Not telling the board (non-disclosure) of a possible or substantive conflict is included in this fail.  A simple example: a new roof is needed.  A board member offers that he knows a firm that will do the job for a "reasonable" price in a "reasonable" way.  Recognize of course that all bidders being equal, a board member's word carries a bit further in the group's decision just because he is a board member.  The member gains added authority by being a board member.  What the board member does not mention is that the roofer in question is a relative (e.g. sister or sister-in-law) which in turn provides a benefit, albeit not specifically direct, to the board member.  Indirect and direct conflicts must be declared to the board so the board is fully informed in its decision-making.  The roofing job maybe perfectly fine and price perfectly competitive but by declaring the relationship, the board can determine if their decision in some way lessens the benefit to the organization.  The organization benefit, for a duty of loyalty, must always remain the primary objective of every decision.

Now, if you would like to take the concepts of duty of loyalty to an even higher level, check--out Forbes Advisory Council member Christopher Washington's thoughts on this subject where he offers 

     ....the idea in the manner expressed by Josiah Royce, in his book The Philosophy of Loyalty. Royce defined loyalty as "the willing and practical and     thorough going devotion of a person to a cause."

My takeaway is that a simple legalistic view of Duty of Loyalty produces just that, playing by the rules.  But cultivating a deep loyalty to the organization, particularly in board members, results in a proactive set of actions that produce uber positive outcomes for the organization.  Rather than just believing that mission development is enough, take steps to build a loyal fan base in the board - one that in itself results in action in the best interest of the nonprofit.

 

Nonprofit Board Practices and Covid #NonprofitBoards

I invite you to take a look at BWB Solutions and Cause & Effect's recently distributed study on the impact on nonprofit board practices.  Here's the conclusion and summary:

 

Conclusions

Our survey responses aligned with past research which showed that nonprofit boards become more engaged during a crisis.2

Five months into the pandemic, responding boards are largely adapting well to the new online meeting environment. Half of respondents reported no change in meeting frequency, attendance, meeting preparation, meeting participation or board giving or getting. Yet large minorities, up to a third of respondents, did report a little to a lot of improvement in these areas.

Under the pressure of COVID response, or possibly thanks to the nature of online meetings, almost half of responding boards have seen improvements in their understanding of organizational finances and operations, teamwork, disciplined use of time and elevated importance of board discussions. It’s possible that some of these gains came at the expense of the board’s attention to strategic planning and fundraising which were the board and board member activities most likely to be paused.

COVID restrictions and related challenges in many dimensions will affect us all for the balance of the year. We’ll continue to follow how the boards we serve professionally and those we serve on as volunteers adapt and change.

Our closing recommendation: Take time to reflect, question all assumptions and start planning for the next disruption

Like the fish who never mentions the water when asked to describe its environment, the pandemic exposed the danger in rarely questioning our core operating assumptions.

As organization development and governance consultants, we believe and promote the power of reflection, strategic thinking and intentional action. Within the realm of governance, we recommend that boards and CEOs/Executive Directors set aside time for two separate dialogues, one focused on board practices and the other on core organizational assumptions.

Under the heading of board practices, here are a few questions to get you started:

1. What would define excellence for your board? Given that as the benchmark
2. What worked better in the new environment? Why? What would you need to do to hold onto that practice?
3. What didn’t work that you’d like to change? How?

 

2 “Is governing board behavior cyclical?” Miriam Wood, Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Winter 1992. And “Here we go again, the cyclical nature of board behavior.” Julia Claussen. Nonprofit Quarterly. May 2018.

 

4. What else would improve the way your board functions?

In the area of challenging core organization assumptions, you’ll find much written in the past and present about scenario planning. But few of those processes envisioned confronting the unprecedented, widespread disruption in all of our lives, both personal and organizational.

So we encourage your organization to engage in brutally honest questioning through

disruption planning.

At the center of disruption planning is the skill and courage to honestly challenge everything a nonprofit takes for granted about the way it operates. With open thinking, you’ll likely find opportunities to move forward from disruption that you hadn’t considered before.

You might consider questions like these if you haven’t already discussed them:

• What are the three or four most critical assumptions on which our programs, finances and operations rely?
• If those critical assumptions did not prove true, what would cause the biggest disruptions to our current way of being?
• What can we put in place now to avoid, mitigate or adapt to potential disruptions?

Common sense and prudence are generally recognized standards for a board to fulfill its basic fiduciary duty. But before the next disruption shakes your reality, it’s time for bold questioningand thinking, what has been labeled generative conversation3.

To contact the authors:

Mike Burns, BWB Solutions (www.bwbsolutions.com): [email protected]

Gayle L. Gifford & Jon Howard, Cause & Effect, Inc. (ceffect.com) [email protected] [email protected]

Replacing the Founder #NonprofitBoards

Marian Wright Edelman is stepping down from her position as leader of the Children's Defense Fund - the organization she founded - and has served as its leader for some forty-seven years.   She will, upon her retirement, take-on the position of President Emeriti where I presume she will be compensated for her work as advocate and fund raising, both tasks she has demonstrated she is more than capable of and a position that relieves her of the day-to-day organization's oversight.  Ms. Edelman has effectively chosen her replacement who it appears will not skip a beat in carrying Ms Edelman's banners for children and her organization.  

The idea of the position of President Emeriti does appear as a worthy solution for a board that knows the person it is replacing is linked so prominently to the organization's name and reputation.  By keeping the founder close a transition can occur over a few years without some of the likely bumps that can otherwise result both internally and externally.  Yes, there are different challenges and it will be on the board, Ms. Edelman, and the new Exec to ensure all is smooth and everyone knows and adhere's to their role.  The board is largely responsible for this and I would pose needs to have regular if not initially frequent conversations to monitor progress.  Also, it will be up to Ms. Edleman to be introducing the new exec to her network, in a way giving a blessing and in another way handing off the relationship.  This will all be as much as ensuring that trust of the organization and mission continues and even grows.

And yes, such a transition is likely made more possible because the Fund and Board has been smart about building reserves - it can afford to take this step.  Few nonprofits, particularly in these times, have this level of resources.