Nonprofit Board Crisis

Employee Wrongdoing #NonprofitBoards

It is my and many consultant's view that a board has one employee: its CEO/Exec/President (just soooo many titles, oh my!).  As such, it is rare that the board has direct contact to the staff except perhaps at an event or during a board meeting mission moment.  So what to do with the following case where a staff person reaches out to the board to let them know about the doings of the exec and to go the next step, bring their grievance to the press.

My thoughts: the board should have a process in place, as part of their policies, where staff can indeed make a formal, NOT INFORMAL, expression of concerns about the perceived "bad" doings of the executive.  The board should have in its policies a clause that says they will only receive complaints after the exec has heard a complaint.  The board or a committee should decide on the quality of the complaint and then call on the exec to understand their ''side" and then communicate back to the complainer and then decide what if any next steps should occur.  Perhaps when all staff agree and the exec and the board do not respond, perhaps and perhaps only then, might the staff go to the media understanding that this could have its own consequences with customers, the public and most importantly, donors.

One thing I will note that truly exists in this nonprofit: no trust.  Please read and come to your own conclusion and send your thoughts.

 

At least two former employees complained to the nonprofit’s board of directors in the last eight months to share their concerns about how Mehnert treats staff. Mehnert is the reason for the agency’s “clear and undeniable pattern of high turnover,” wrote a former staff member in the most recent, Sept. 16, complaint. The person urged the board to investigate Mehnert’s management.

The complaint named 17 people who have left the organization since March 2018. NAMI Maine, a chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, employs between 20 to 25 people at its office in Hallowell, former staff said. Its work is primarily funded by government grants, according to its website.

 

In response, NAMI Maine’s board of directors said it would hire an outside consultant to evaluate the culture of the organization, according to a Sept. 23 email to staff.

“When trying to problem solve with Jenna or think critically about the work we do, I have frequently been met with aggressive, unprofessional and emotionally abusive communication,” which has resulted in “a culture of fear of speaking up about frustrations, asking clarifying questions, or brainstorming,” wrote the former staff member in the most recent complaint to the board.

From the Bangor Daily News:

 

“Jenna fosters a toxic work environment and manages staff in such a demoralizing manner that I have seen many leave this organization in order to preserve their own mental health, including myself,” said the former staff member, whom the Bangor Daily News is not naming because the person declined to be interviewed.

A former employee decided to share the complaint with the BDN because of how the board addressed it with staff internally. The former employee was unsure anything would change as a result of the consultant’s review.

 

“We want to be clear that we hold Jenna accountable for the performance of each one of you,” the executive committee wrote to NAMI Maine staff when it announced it would evaluate the agency’s culture.

“We also want the staff to know that every year we evaluate Jenna on her performance and over the [last] seven years, her performance reviews have been exceptional. She holds a difficult role, but her actions are always in the best interest of the agency,” the committee’s letter concluded.

 

In a phone interview, Mehnert said she had never created a hostile work environment, “could not legally comment” on employees’ performance, and warned against any story built on “people’s perceptions.” After abruptly ending the phone call, she did not respond to a list of emailed follow-up questions, instead writing to say that her leadership style should be judged by the results of NAMI Maine, “not by some employees who did not come to me or the board to work through their challenges.”

Diversity at the Leadership Level #NonprofitBoards

What follows are 10 steps on "how nonprofits can make space for black male leadership" from the Nonprofit Quarterly.  I view these steps particularly helpful advice for white lead organizations but believe they may also apply for others who's status or difference makes them outsiders (e.g. persons with lived experience or persons with disabilities.

For Black men, some specific steps might improve their recruitment, retention, and mobility in the sector. The list below details some of these themes. It is a compilation of original ideas and adapted suggestions from diversity and inclusion advocates, with attribution.

1. Recruit and coach Black male interns and fellows from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) and pair them with professional coaches to add more diverse talent to the philanthropy pipeline and support their acclimation to the sector.
2. Use your privilege to affirm the voices of the Black men and women. When a Black person shares a good idea in a meeting, repeat it and credit them properly. Even when your views differ, affirm the importance of their contribution to moving the conversation forward.
3. Be honest about bias by taking a look at your organization’s rate of hiring and promoting Black men and women. Analyzing their progress helps you see if you are creating a diverse leadership bench.
4. Lead by example and mentor Black men and women by sharing your knowledge, demonstrating behaviors, and talking about the performance habits that lead to success in your organization and the sector.
5. Check in regularly with Black men and women in your organization to build professional rapport rooted in mutual accountability. This will also help build trusting relationships and reinforce an inclusive workplace culture.

Sean Thomas-Breitfeld and Frances Kunreuther, Co-Directors of the Building Movement Project and co-authors of Race to Lead Revisited, offer a complimentary set of recommendations:

6. Focus on Structures and the Experience of Race and Racism. Structural analysis of race and racism, especially for white-dominant groups, is a critical foundation for race equity work. However, focusing on structural racial issues will only be meaningful if coupled with efforts to understand and validate the individual and collective experiences of people of color in nonprofit organizations and institutions.
7. Policies Have Meaning…If Enforced. It is essential to consistently model and reinforce the organization’s commitment to racial equality. A realignment of policies and practices is only effective if they are acted on consistently and universally.
8. Put Your Money… Organizations led by people of color simply need more funding. [Funding to these groups is] even more critical as organizations led by people of color, which have smaller budgets on average than those led by white people, manage financial losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic that also disproportionately affects communities of color.
9. Reflect the Community: Racial Diversity in Action. Recruiting and retaining racially diverse staff and board leaders requires setting and meeting targets for bringing on candidates, instituting effective onboarding and support for new staff and board members, and being willing to shift power—that is, to listen to the observations and recommendations of staff and board members of color, and to change the organization’s policies and practices accordingly.
10. Responsibility and Results. Diversity, equity, and inclusion requires ongoing commitment and investment. This includes establishing thoughtful ways to assess progress based on a widely shared plan for what should change, who is responsible, and how results will be documented. Transparency of results and organization-wide annual reviews can help guide course corrections and ongoing goals.

Truth About Recruiting for Diversity #NonprofitBoards

 

Female representation on hospital boards: 4 research findings

Morgan Haefner - 19 hours ago Print  | Email

 

Really?  I have just read the following findings from this study of why gender diversity remains a challenge to hospital/health care system boards.  The simple answers: there's a lack of qualified female candidates and a lack of "serious" action from these boards to recruit women.  

So, unfortunately I really buy both arguments, at least as perceived by these board members, and would broaden the field to be inclusive of all nonprofits.  I must of course begin by asking what are the "qualifications" that are so difficult to match.   Boards must have serious conversations about what they believe to be a "qualification" fit and not hold up a standard that is exclusive but inclusive.  Yes, it takes many years to become a health care provider, MD specifically, but is being and MD THE qualification for an individual who would make an effective hospital board member?  I think not.  And I would pose that consumers bring significant knowledge to the table to help inform decisions and where training is needed, like the crazy budgeting, hospitals are obligated to train.  And this story again is not singular to hospitals.  But all of these excuses lead into the next which is lack of intent.  Again, fixable.

 

Here's a review of the study from a publication titled Becker's Hospital Review.

 

While diversity benefits the boards of nonprofit hospitals and health systems, barriers to joining these governing bodies remain substantial for women, according to joint research from the Women's Nonprofit Leadership Initiative and Nonprofit Issues.

The research was based on 59 semistructured, confidential phone interviews with board members of nonprofit educational and medical institutions. Thirty of the interviews represented nonprofit hospitals and health systems. The study represented both male and female viewpoints from 14 states and the District of Columbia.

Four findings from the research: 

1. While interviewees say 30 percent should be the minimum presence of women needed to diversify a board, most medical boards in the research fell short of that threshold. The average percentage of women on nonprofit hospital and health systems boards included in the study was 27 percent.

2. Interviewees categorized underrepresentation for women at the nonprofit board level as one of two issues: a lack of qualified female candidates or a lack of serious action from boards to add women. Several interviewees "commented that it is difficult to find women and minorities with high levels of experience and sophistication [particularly for hospitals] who haven't already joined other boards, leaving a limited pool of people who get asked by multiple boards," according to the study.

3. Women of color face tougher barriers to entering board seats than white women. Women of color represent only 18 percent of female board members in the research's group.

4. The study authors note that "presence alone does not guarantee inclusion. This is particularly the case on large boards, where committees do the real work and executive committees often make most decisions. Exclusion from power positions or committees, or appointment in small numbers, can mute women's voices."

Access the full report here. 

Nonprofit Board Recruitment #NonprofitBoards

The following Forbes article singularly focuses on recruiting women to corporate boards. The article begins with what proved to be the impetus for gender diversity: the world's largest investment company said it would not invest if the corporate board didn't have at least 2 women on the board And California made it a law that corporate boards had to have 40% of their boards comprised of women. And yes, someone somewhere created the wave that resulted in this movement - perhaps not as long as it took to give women the right to vote but long enough.

Meanwhile this article offers "8 tips for how women can position themselves for the board pipeline. Why do I bring this up? I believe the recommendations and the whole storyline is pertinent for people of color and folks who are LGBTQ and folks who have disabilities and even lived experience. No these folk are not in the same barrel except that they are generally excluded from opportunities simply by their difference (noting that difference is much more subjective than objective depending on who is asking).

So, here's the tips while I suggest that those who are seeking board members might consider the same 8 tips while on the lookout for diversity; you know, having a board that is inclusive of those it seeks to serve.

1. Get in the networks of male CEOs and corporate board directors: “I know from looking at the data that, without the partnerships of men who hold the vast majority of board seats, we wouldn’t make progress,” she said. The men she spoke with consistently said they found or referred new board members through their personal networks.

2. Work your own network: Mangan suggested, “Look inside your own word-of-mouth network and ask yourself, ‘how many CEOs and how many sitting board members do you know?’ Have you gone to them and asked for time to, one, express your interest, two, to remind them of what it is you bring to a board, and three to ask them to keep you top of mind?” Also, ask questions about the company and their goals, because they want directors who bring interesting questions to their board.

3. Make it easy to find you: The CEOs know that adding women to their board is “the smart thing to do,” but they find it hard to find qualified women. So, organizations like Mangan’s can help you make those connections.

4. Understand what boards need: “The boardroom is in need of operational skills that aren’t highly present today. That’s marketers, that’s CHROs, that’s engineers, who can understand the challenges of today and strategically guide to the future,” Mangan explained. But…

5. Realize every board is unique: “If you’ve seen one board, you’ve seen on board….Focus on the competencies that are lacking on those boards (you’re interested in). Every board is its own ecosystem made up of the CEO and the sitting board members, so really identify where those gaps are.” That’s why asking questions is crucial.

Company growth stages from Soup For The Startup Soul
Company growth stages, from Soup For The Startup Soul SOUP FOR THE STARTUP SOUL
6. Identify the growth stage of the company: Mangan said that serving on the board of an early stage startup is not going to be the same as serving on the board of a Fortune 50 company. So, if you’re interested in a particular board, find out what stage the company is in and figure out the specific value you can add for their circumstances.

7. Face the reality that serving on a board is hard work: The role of a board is “the boss of the boss,” is how she explained it to her small children. “At a certain level the responsibility is fiscal, but it’s also guiding the CEO.” That’s one reason why the company stage determines which competencies each board needs.

8. Write a biography specifically for board service: You need a different biography for a board seat than you do for a job. “I think the framing of positioning yourself for a board, is what do you bring to the board,” as opposed to what you can do operationally.

Nonprofit Internal Conflicts Chronicled #NonprofitBoards

In what I would label a case study, the Vassar student newspaper, the Miscellany News, has reported on "revolutionary-level" struggles between a community-wide nonprofit and Vassar students engaged as interns in a program managed by the nonprofit.  Claims by the interns of failings in diversity, equity and inclusion at multiple levels including assignments, management and programming has led to very public conversations with an intent by the students to make permanent change that counters if not eliminates the DEI failings.  

I am interested in this matter because of of its elements are what I believe to be a board failing beginning with having the "listening" be the task of the exec (apparently through policies and action source of the challenge and white to boot).  While on the one hand one might indeed argue that this is singularly the purview of the exec but I would counter that noting that when an exec can't really see to listen (eg "what has 4 eyes and can't see" ans. "Mississippi") and the culture doesn't make room for responsiveness and change, it is on the board to intervene and be directive.  

Anyhoo, read the story to get more details and reach your conclusion.

Should Core Values Take a Back Seat to Revenue? #NonprofitBoards

Last month Mr Trump concocted an executive order that would bar nonprofits receiving federal funding from participating in training that “promotes race or sex-stereotyping or scapegoating.” It limits the use of implicit or unconscious bias training “to the extent it teaches or implies that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, sex, and/or national origin, is racist, sexist, oppressive, or biased, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Such training isn’t prohibited if it is designed to foster discussion about stereotypes that people, regardless of their identity, may hold toward people different than themselves, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Now consider: you are a board member of a nonprofit that receives federal money for one or more of your activities.  One of the board-developed core values is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (actually 3 core values but...).  The feds have just told you you won't get money if do training that includes the topic of implicit or unconscious bias among other concepts.  What do you do?  First, might there be an active and possibly multiple generative conversations to help members even understand the order?  Second, might it be time for an assessment of just how much and what DEI training is conducted?  And, finally, might there also be an assessment of just how much money and it's proportion to total budget and its purpose is received by the feds?  And, after all this, would it not be time to think about what action to take?  

Options for action might include significantly to insignificantly altering current DEI training activities;  ramping-up training; giving money back or not accepting any more money.  Many actions to consider.  Many core values to consider.  No time to waste.

Responding to Constituent's Ideas #Nonprofitboards

HOW DO NONPROFIT LEADERS MANAGE UNSOLICITED “GREAT IDEAS?”

Dr. Fram recently posted the following as a process for how boards and execs can respond to the unsolicited (and I would pose solicited too) ideas coming from "outsiders" who have a special relationship with your nonprofit.  I would offer that this type response would serve similar purposes when either the board or board member goes to staff and visa versa.  The key: a rubric.

 

How Do Nonprofit Leaders Manage Unsolicited “Great Ideas?”

By: Eugene Fram                                                                                  

What does a board member or CEO do when a donor or valued volunteer approaches him/h with a great idea that needs to be implemented at once? Since most of these ideas are what a Stanford professor terms bad ideas, the board chair and CEO are often between a hypothetical rock and a hard place!  To agree to a proposed project that is impractical or irrelevant to the mission will put the nonprofit at risk. But to reject an eager volunteer or potential donor could have serious donor related financial or interpersonal consequences.

When bad ideas are suggested, nonprofit directors and CEOs traditionally have hastily reviewed them—then prolonged the evaluation process hoping the presenter will lose interest in it. When an immediate reply is called for, a full review of the project will involve board and management time and effort to provide a fair assessment. If the verdict is negative, everyone hopes for the best!

Professor Jonathan Bendor of Stanford University, who studies tech organization, proposes a solution that can be effectively used by nonprofit directors to address this “wicked” type of problem. *  (Persons in tech organizations are constantly generating new ides, only a handful of which meet customer requirements.)

Example of such a “wicked” problem

The CEO of an association received the following e-mail, with a cc, to the board chair from a major donor. In addition the donor immediately left a voice mail for the CEO, “Did you get my important e-mail?”

As you know, we are trying to get more people to our association’s evening lecture series on aging. I have noted that we have very few people attending who appear to be in the above the 65+ age cohort.   Obviously these persons could benefit from participating. The group is our most important tool to meeting the association’s mission.   I suggest we hire a bus to bring them to the meetings and to return them home.   To avoid having the bus going to each of their homes, we could establish easily accessible locations in various neighborhoods where they could meet and depart the bus.

The CEO then sent the following targeted rubric to his three senior managers and to four senior board directors, asking for their evaluations of the suggestion. Along with the board chair he wanted to be ready for a hostile response, if the suggestion is rejected.

Using A Rubric

A rubric is a format that uses established criteria for evaluating ideas and hopefully highlights innovative ones.   Following is one that has been formatted for the hypothetical situation described above in italics.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with one being low and ten being high, judge the above idea against all these criteria. Place a number value in the space after each item.

Example: Potential levels for each of the of the ten criteria: Little- one through four; moderately-five and six, and substantially-seven through 10.

1. Supports the organization’s mission ______
2. Is consistent with our vision and cultural values._____
3. Can be implemented with no more than XXX in direct costs _____
4. Can be implemented with no more than XXX in indirect costs ______
5. Can require additional capital expenditures _____
6. Can be implemented within the current staffing or board structure_______
7. Can require a long trial period before it can be validated as having impact_____
8. Can be supported by the CEO and/or a majority of the board_______
9. Can be viewed by others in our field as being innovative______
10. Will have significant positive impact for our clients.______

Comments: (Please express a summary opinion briefly.)

The form is then compiled anonymously. The CEO reviews the results with the board chair, and then reports to the donor or valued volunteer. If the idea is rejected but presented with sensitivity, it allows the originator to feel his/h idea has had a fair hearing. If accepted, the Chair and CEO can suggest plans for further study and challenges (perhaps additional financial support?) for implementation.

Bendor’s approach* can be well applied in both the tech and nonprofit environments. Most importantly, it provides a venue to help identify innovative ideas with the greatest potential for nonprofit mission success.

* https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/jonathan-bendor-why-criticism-good-innovation

Nonprofit Board: Self-Managing? #Nonprofitboards

In my consulting practice I regularly hear execs complain that they must do EVERYTHING for the board from agenda setting to minute taking to everything in-between.  The following excerpt from a recent Forbes article offers some suggestions on steps a nonprofit board can take to be more responsible for its own existence and as a result, more engaged.  I fully buy the suggestions and would encourage others to offer more ideas.

From Forbes:

How can board effectiveness be improved? Studies suggest possible approaches. A follow-up study to the Urban Institute found that encouraging board members to influence the board agenda was associated with higher engagement.[iv] Chuck Blakeman’s Crankset Group uses a shared online document that allows team members create a monthly meeting agenda.[v] In such as system, team members can take ownership of their self-selected agenda items and facilitate discussion of those items. Boards of Directors could fashion similar structures to drive engagement. Given the prevalence of board member role dissatisfaction, some researchers argue that directors should pursue a generative mode beyond finance and strategy to probe topics like value and purpose.[vi]

Open social technologies like Open Space and World Café can be thoughtfully and selectively employed to energize, augment, and expand traditional board discussions around fiduciary and strategy topics. These social technologies have the added benefit of ensuring that every voice is heard, contributing to better decisions.

For that matter, why not invite directors to creatively sculpt board roles that fit their interests, so long as the board collectively fulfills its mandatory responsibilities and effectively allocates decision rights? While not obviating the role of standard committees, an open invitation process would encourage directors to think deeply about aligning their personal board roles and areas of interest.

While the complex agency relationships and decision rights of boards will continue to present challenges and tradeoffs, there is no reason to silently suffer director disengagement and lethargy (which surely affects recruitment). There are social technologies readily available to engage directors and align their interests with the principals they represent.

Fully engaged, self-managing board members creating their own agendas together, learning together and invitationally leading together while simultaneously fulfilling vital legal, fiduciary, and strategic responsibilities would seem to be an experiment worth trying.Self-M

Nonprofit Constituents\ Present Proposals For Change #Nonprofit

If you ever dabbled with corporate stocks you know that one benefit is the ability as a shareholder to present, usually along with other shareholders, proposals that can change the way the business does business.  The corporate social responsibility movement is dependent on this capacity.  Big social changes affecting corporate environmental, social and governance matters have resulted from this exercise of right.  Not surprisingly the Trump administration, in its infinite wisdom informed by the "haves" has authored through the US Securities and Exchange Commission, to amend SEC Rule 14a-8 to limit the ability of shareholders to exercise their voice.  For all you whose nonprofit (church, academic institution, or government entity) has significant investments, PAY ATTENTION AND ASK TRUSTEES To TAKE ACTION!!

Meanwhile, though, why isn't there some IRS rule or State rule that requires nonprofits to enable their constituents to express their own feelings?  Yes, funders and donors can express their concerns by just not giving money or even writing into their donation, terms that define expectations and terms.  But what about constituents?  Just not show up?  Oftentimes that is just not an option.  So.....

The Dysfunctional Board #Nonprofitboards

The Stanford Social Innovation Review recently published an article titled "Spotting and Fixing Dysfunctional Nonprofit Boards".  I generally believe that dysfunction is in the eye of the beholder but also subscribe to the premise that a dysfunctional board is one that is neither efficient (if dysfunction refers to process) or effective (if dysfunction refers to results) noting that there are boards that are radically inefficient but miraculously effective.  One more thought: I believe also that, as psychiatrists state, the patient has to want to change not unlike the lightbulb (a reference to how many psychs are needed to change a lightbulb: none, the lightbulb has to want to change itself).

Anyway, there are some thoughts in the article worth considering around the issues of dysfunctional boards.  First is the question as to what are indicators or behaviors of unsuccessful boards with the answer:

• Micromanaging - takes on key management functions in addition to its proper governing role. ,
• Rubber stamp - approves whatever management proposes and often plays the role of cheerleader
• Balkanized Board. These boards consist of people who are concerned about only one part of the organization—often the program they support financially. 

I would say ok to these but I think other indicators to include never showing-up for meetings, not participating in meetings when does show.

And what to do about this?

"Healthy boards of directors can magnify mission-driven organizations' positive impact on social progress, but they are more of an exception than a norm. Given the multiple crises facing our world—from COVID-19 to climate change—this must change to help achieve the solutions we need. It's more important than ever that every governing body regularly assesses its performance, goes outside its comfort zones, embodies professional standards, and puts the success of an organization as a whole above anything else."

Um, ok but the process of staking these steps?  Not so simple.