Nonprofit Board Crisis

Marketing On Board #NonprofitBoards

A nonprofit board's Theory of Change traditionally asks & answers 3 questions: who/what do we care most about and what are the conditions that drive us to want to act; what approach might we take that will address the conditions we want to address; and, what outcome or result will satisfy our motives to be engaged?  

These questions and their commitments drive what happens next and going into the future for the nonprofit.  Understanding or translating these commitments into action though requires experience and expertise and boards rightly hire staff they believe will be capable of developing and implementing a plan that will work.  As the article from Boards and Directors illustrates though, understanding what can work requires competent staff but also competent board members.  And one of the core competencies (and as a professor of this subject I certainly have to concur) is marketing.  And by marketing, I mean marketing strategy, not just marketing communications.  Marketing by simple definition is "the identification and satisfaction of needs, wants and/or behavioral change".  There are five marketing strategies that comprise a marketing plan: offering benefits and features; cost to the consumer; access or how the consumer gets the offering; how the consumer learns about the offering; and, finally, how the consumer views the offering and the offeror in relation to other options.  In classic marketing lingo, these strategies are labeled product, price, place, promotion and position.  

In my experience, using a marketing strategy lens can raise the likelihood of success for nonprofits.  Having folks who understand marketing on your board could help keep your Theory of Change "ship" steering in the optimal direction.

 

From Boards and Directors

Good Decision-Making Starts with Knowing Your Customers

By Jennifer Davis

 

Listen to article

 

The inclusion of chief marketing officers on boards could lead to a better connection to company consumers.

Given the complexities of the modern corporation and the challenges of the ever-changing economic, technological and regulatory environment, boards would do well to remember enterprise value is created when the business creates value for its customers. 

All business strategies and investment decisions should begin intentionally with the end customer in mind. At Amazon, we used a process called “working backwards,” through which each new idea was fleshed out in a written press release format, in which the key value proposition and even a draft quote from a customer would illustrate the value of the endeavor before a single dollar was spent on design or development. I have seen this approach in the executive suite lead to marked improvement in the quality of the decisions, broader inclusion of in the process, an increase in the value delivered to customers and improved velocity of decision-making. How can directors implement this same thinking in the boardroom?

Who Are Your Customers and What Do They Value?

Despite organizations’ desire to live up to their aspiration of customer-centricity, many boards have a clumsy approach to advocating for customers and ensuring that the risks associated with brand reputation, customer churn, new product development or rising customer-acquisition costs are addressed. Some rely only on financial results as a substitute, or perhaps they might address customer needs and trends at a cursory level in the context of approving the strategic plan. In contrast, a board that is truly advocating for customers seeks to understand who the company’s customers are and what they value most. 
 

Carolyn Everson is a nonexecutive director of The Walt Disney Company, Under Armour Inc. and The Coca-Cola Company and has served in executive roles at Microsoft, Facebook and Instacart. She says that boards should be asking what is right for the customer on a consistent basis. “There needs to be a cultural and compass orientation toward doing the right thing by the customer. Nothing matters unless the company is delivering value for its customers.”

Boards should request and examine customer satisfaction data, win/loss analysis and other drivers of market share. They should understand the risks associated with customer revenue or channel concentration. Beyond that, they should know what the company is hearing from customers, what unsatisfied needs are being identified and prioritized, and how customers view the company on a number of dimensions, including brand trust, perceived value and innovation. This should not happen periodically or after there is a problem, such as a product recall or when public sentiment flares and impacts the share price, but regularly and consistently.

With regard to customer insights and experience, it is critical for boards to ask questions like “How do we know what we think we know?” or “Why do we what we do?” and to realize that their own experience with the company and brands is not the same as the experience of the company’s consumers or partners. This kind of questioning ensures there is rigor behind the insights before any action is taken. For instance, it is common for companies that rely only on feedback from their sales organization to overemphasize the importance of competitive pricing in their results and underestimate pain points around customer experience, from the buying process to the performance of the product after the sale. If you are hearing this feedback in your board discussions, get curious.

Similarly, board members who rely on their own Internet searches to gauge the quality of the company’s marketing or the standing of the brand, can parade their lack of understanding of digital retargeting and the importance of ideal customer profiles.
 
In this way, boards can help management achieve a higher standard regarding the use of customer data and insights to drive decision-making. This kind of inquiry will keep the company on the forefront of solving the customers’ highest-value problems in differentiated ways, building a sustainable advantage.

The Importance of Board Composition

If boards are not prepared to ask these questions, it stands to reason that they may be ill-prepared to process the answers in a way that is helpful to leadership and best advocates for shareholder interest. This is why the transformation of boardroom conversations can be accelerated by the composition of the board itself. 

Although the role of directors is certainly different than that of employees, there is a parallel in the boardroom and building a great leadership team. “Diversity of thought, perspective and experience is key and requires a conscious effort,” says Everson. 

“There is a real opportunity in boardrooms to challenge the status quo and transform marketing to take advantage of the new platforms and technology,” she says. An informed voice in the boardroom can help the company use technological advances like mobile, social media and generative AI to fully benefit its customers. 

According to analysis by Spencer Stuart, only 79 board members among the Fortune 1000 have a marketing background, up from 22 a few years ago. Despite positive momentum, this still represents less than 1% of sitting board members. In Everson’s estimation, “CMOs can be extremely valuable on a board because a lot of companies are recognizing that the way they reach their customers is fundamentally changing.”
 

Greg Welch, who specializes in placing CMOs on boards at Spencer Stuart, sees the same. “I view it as a positive trend that boards are now talking more about brand reputation and their engagement with consumers. No doubt, companies will continue to be under increased scrutiny for their marketing and branding choices. As it turns out, clearly the most valuable asset of a business is its brand, and smart boards are ensuring its protection.”
 
The recognition by boards of the risks and rewards of brand and customer-centricity is still trailing the need. According to KPMG’s 2023 Private Company Board Survey Insights, only 21% of private companies have identified “brand and reputation management” as the greatest opportunity for improvement in oversight, while 49% identify it as a key driver of the board’s consideration of environmental and social issues.
 
This new business reality requires a new approach. The old formula for board composition, which prioritized general managers with P&L experience as nonexecutive directors, is no longer the only or most important perspective among the board, according to Welch. “Those with marketing expertise are improving the dialogue and sparking new, innovative ideas in the boardroom,” he says. This is despite CMOs not historically having been groomed, nor welcomed, for board service. 

“It is common for a CMO to attend a periodic board dinner and, if the agenda allows, they may be in the room for a moment, but generally they don’t get a lot of board exposure,” Welch observes. However, this is starting to change as leaders recognize the value a marketing executive can bring to the boardroom. 

To this end, CEOs can develop their CMO’s business acumen and strategic understanding by giving them visibility and by coaching them through the responsibilities and needs of board members, which are not the same as the executive leadership team to which the CMO might be more accustomed to presenting. Boards have a responsibility for customer advocacy as the decisions they make and the future of the business depends on it. This requires representation. 

The KPMG study identified “customers” as the third-most-important stakeholder for the engagement of management and directors, following closely behind “equity owners/shareholders” and “employees.” This is a positive indication and could be the foundation upon which future board matrices, priorities and meeting agendas are built.

A fundamental building block of what I call “hospitable leadership,” creating room for true engagement around decisions, is to foster empathy for the customer. It is a motivating and unifying purpose that allows boards to gel and fulfill their duty to their stakeholders.

The Way Forward

In the future, boards should make sure measures of customer success are on the agenda regularly and that the methodology is understood. Board matrices should include marketing competencies, aligned to business strategy in recognition of the importance of customers and brand reputation on enterprise value. Directors should actively seek exposure to the businesses’ customers so that they can be more empathic advocates. And by providing more board-facing exposure for their CMOs, executives bring valuable and much-needed insights to their boards today and better develop their leadership teams. 

Jennifer Davis is an advisory board member of both Relations Research and The Players’ Lounge. She has served as chief marketing and communications officer of LEARFIELD, head of product marketing management of Amazon Web Services and CMO of Honeywell International Inc. She is the author of the book Well Made Decisions: Pro Tips for Finishing the Decisions You Start.

Inclusive Language: A Tool To Responsiveness & Empowerment #NonprofitBoards

As we know, pretty much everything, particularly in a nonprofit, comes from the top - maybe not always the board but for sure the executive as minimally sanctioned by the board.  The DEIB movement has brought on many subtle and extreme awareness and action throughout the nonprofit sector.  Getting there is definitely a journey and one that has many more miles.  One effort I believe that can be really helpful, effective and not onerous is described in this book by Jackie Ferguson as reviewed below by Donald Thomson in WRAL Tech Wire.  

The premise and a reasonable foundation for behavioral change is embodied in the subject of language.  The recommendation, modify the nonprofit's institutional language and open-up a whole lot of doors to inclusivity.  I suggest picking-up the book and have the board read it and engage (in a generative conversation) akin to a book club.  And subsequent to that, let policy and procedure and training and - well, you get the idea.

Inclusive language’s importance at work: Unlocking a brighter future

DIVERSITYDONALD THOMPSONEQUITYEXCLUSIVEINCLUSION

by Donald Thompson — July 26, 2023 .

Editor’s note: Veteran entrepreneur and investor Donald Thompson writes a weekly column about management and leadership as well as diversity and other important issues for WRAL TechWire. His columns are published on Wednesdays. Thompson of The Diversity Movement was named an Entrepreneur Of The Yea 2023 Southeast Award winner. 

Note to readers: WRAL TechWire would like to hear from you about views expressed by our contributors. Please send email to: [email protected].

+++

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK – One of the nation’s great strengths is the essential work shouldered by 1.3 million nonprofit organizations. More than just the sum of their accomplishments in their communities, nonprofits also employ more than 10% of America’s private workforce, more than in other – seemingly larger – industries like finance, construction and manufacturing.

According to the National Council of Nonprofits, these groups “feed, heal, shelter, educate, inspire, enlighten and nurture people of every age, gender, race and socioeconomic status, from coast to coast, border to border and beyond. They foster civic engagement and leadership, drive economic growth and strengthen the fabric of our communities. Every single day.”

Donald Thompson

WORDS TO ACTION – HARNESSING POTENTIAL OF INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE IN NONPROFITS

I have seen the power of nonprofits firsthand, as well as their tremendous impact in communities locally and statewide, which has been an impetus for The Diversity Movement to team with Easterseals UCP to publish The Inclusive Language Handbook, Easterseals UCP Nonprofit Edition. The new book written by Jackie Ferguson focuses on the power of words to either build bridges or create barriers in a world where language carries great power.

As Easterseals UCP President & CEO Luanne Welch writes in the foreword, “Words matter. They can heal or hurt, encourage or discourage, and connect or divide the very people at the heart of any organization. Choosing the right words can build better relationships, better companies and better communities.”

Following the successful publication of The Inclusive Language Handbook, which has reached tens of thousands of readers across more than a dozen countries, we created this handbook to focus on the nonprofit sector, delving into the profound impact of language on relationships and organizational culture. Whether you are a nonprofit leader, a team manager or a person committed to fostering a more inclusive society, The Inclusive Language Handbook provides practical tools and actionable steps for leveraging the power of words to effect meaningful change. That final point is important – thought-provoking prompts, self-guided questions and exercises that will drive home the power of using inclusive language in the user’s day-to-day work and home life. 

Inclusive Language Handbook

EMPOWERING VOICES, INSPIRING CHANGE – DRIVING NONPROFIT IMPACT

Recognizing that inclusive language is not just a matter of correctness, but an embodiment of respect and empathy, Ferguson offers guidance on utilizing inclusive language within the nonprofit sector and in the communities they operate. By employing thoughtful and inclusive language, readers can foster stronger relationships, nurture productive teamwork, and create a culture of inclusivity that attracts and retains talented individuals.

“Easterseals UCP understands the power of words on inclusion and the power of inclusion on daily life,” Welch explains. “Our mission is to provide meaningful, exceptional services so that children, adults and families living with disabilities and mental health challenges can live, learn, work and play in their community.” 

For those of us working as board members or raising funds, the idea is that embracing inclusive language is not a short-term trend. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of building sustainable nonprofit organizations. By prioritizing inclusive language, nonprofits lay the foundation for long-term growth, positive impact and continued community support. One of the first steps we can take as leaders is to communicate with one another in ways that model the language we want to adopt.

RESPECT AND EMPOWERMENT THROUGH INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE 

Despite what you might think from political rhetoric or what you hear on news channels, inclusive language is so much more than a checklist of politically correct terms. As leaders, we engage with others this way as a display of respect and commitment to our colleagues, teammates and communities. 

Inclusive language is a reflection of our respect and commitment to honoring diverse backgrounds, identities and experiences. In this way we create a safe environment where all our stakeholders feel valued, heard and encouraged to contribute their best ideas. The results derived from communicating more respectfully range from fostering mutual respect and better collaboration to creating a culture-centric organization that thrives on excellence.

The rewards for using inclusive language are felt at the individual level and across the organization, according to Ferguson. “You’ll clear the path for everyone to do their best work. As a matter of fact, inclusive language will strengthen and transform the whole culture for the better.”

As executives, we have the ability to transform organizations through language by serving as role models for the kind of communication we want to see and everyone to adapt. My own experience as a nonprofit board member and running philanthropic programs has demonstrated that embracing inclusive language today will shape a more inclusive and successful future for our teams and businesses. 

We can certainly commit to learning, growing and leading with intention and authenticity. Together, we can unlock the true potential of our teams and create workplaces that inspire excellence and drive lasting change. The time for inclusive language is now – let’s make this our legacy.

About the Author 

Donald Thompson, EY Entrepreneur Of The Year 2023 Southeast Award winner, founded The Diversity Movement to change the world. As TDM CEO, he has guided work with hundreds of clients and through millions of data touch points. TDM’s global recognition centers on tying DEI initiatives to business objectives. Recognized by Inc., Fast Company and Forbes, Thompson is author of Underestimated: A CEO’s Unlikely Path to Success, hosts the podcast “High Octane Leadership in an Empathetic World” and has published widely on leadership and the executive mindset. As a leadership and executive coach, Thompson has created a culture-centric ethos for winning in the marketplace by balancing empathy and economics. Follow him on LinkedIn for updates on news, events and his podcast, or contact him at [email protected] for executive coaching, speaking engagements or DEI-related content. To further explore DEI content and issues impacting your work and life, visit TDM Library, a multimedia resource hub that gives leaders a trusted source of DEI content.

Mission & Values Oh My! #NonprofitBoards

The latest Forbes Nonprofit Council post focuses on the integration of mission and values with all aspects of your nonprofit.  Keeping mission first and foremost is or what I believe should be what most distinguishes the pursuit of value-focused outcomes and daily activities from the for-profit world.  I think what is offered here frames well this concept.

 

FORBESLEADERSHIP

Aligning Your Organization With Its Values

 

Gloria Horsley

Forbes Councils Member

Forbes Nonprofit Council

COUNCIL POST| Membership (Fee-Based)

 

Jul 26, 2023,06:00am EDT

 

Dr. Gloria Horsley is Founder of the Open to Hope Foundation, an open community where people can find hope after loss.

Your official job description as a leader may outline responsibilities, deliverables and metrics-based targets you’re expected to meet each year. However, organizational leaders are also charged with one critical function that’s less often documented: inspiration.

If this conjures a vision of standing up in front of your team and delivering rousing orations, don’t worry. What successful organizations know about inspiring their teams is much simpler, and it involves less stage time than you’d expect. The key to developing an engaged, productive and inspired organization centers around how you align your people with your organization’s values. Here are a few simple ways you can get started.

1. Integrate Your Values And Mission Into Your Language

Some organizations naturally adopt jargon, taglines and colloquialisms associated with their industry. However, integrating your values and mission into your organization’s vernacular shouldn't require a dictionary.

Consider your official purpose and vision or mission statement as well as how you use it today. Many organizations include this statement on their website and in their annual report but fail to revisit it elsewhere. If this sounds familiar, you have the opportunity to integrate this well-crafted language into your narrative.

Weave your mission statement into your materials in a way that feels natural and approachable. Update your internal channels, like your intranet, message boards and signage. Provide teams with desktop backgrounds, printed takeaways and branded swag that reiterates your purpose.

Begin meetings with icebreakers that review key mission moments, aligning them with what the group is working on. For example, your development team may be updating back-end systems, which sounds unexciting, but the result is a better experience for clients. Deepen this connection by sharing how their work makes a difference in your clients’ lives, which can facilitate stronger vision alignment.

 

2. Connect Every Team Member’s Purpose To Your 'Why' From The Outset

When a new team member joins your organization, how are they welcomed? If your new employee orientation is the same slide deck and office tour from a decade ago, it’s time to make changes.

Successful leaders know that aligning team members with company values starts far before an employee’s first day. Ideally, identifying well-aligned talent begins with the recruitment process. Recruit for the skills your team needs, but integrate key components of values-based hiring.

Increasingly popular, this human resources approach provides a framework for teams to identify the characteristics of engaged employees they want to target. To identify this in your organization, you’ll need to assess the team you have today. Partner with your HR team to evaluate the information you have on file and determine whether more is needed.

Identify the key values your top performers possess, and update your job descriptions, interview questions and onboarding journey to elicit and underscore those values. Bring this update full circle and train your existing employees in these values, too. Get your whole team on board with this approach, adding relevant assessments and metrics into your performance appraisal process. Finally, integrate values alignment into your career development plans to solidify its importance among emerging leaders.

3. Set The Gold Standard For Values-Based Leadership

As a leader, your behavior sets the tone for your team. Conduct a self-assessment of how well you align your work and workplace behaviors with your organization’s values. You might even meet separately with an executive coach to get an unbiased opinion. Level-set your behavior to match what you expect of your organization.

Be present in discussions about values and how your leadership team can be instilling and reinforcing values-based behavior. Start and end meetings by reviewing your organization’s purpose, which can be centering and encourage a focus on the core issues.

Celebrate values-based wins large and small. Acknowledge values in action as they happen, which can reinforce their importance in the moment. Use formal appreciation and award opportunities to cement your organization’s commitment to its values, which can further motivate teams to perform.

Train junior leaders on these principles, giving them ample leeway to acknowledge and award values-based behaviors as they see fit. Use storytelling to connect your team to the organization’s values in a way that surpasses metrics. By taking this approach to values alignment, you can connect people, departments and purpose.

Shared Values Lead To Shared Success

There’s a reason why high-performing teams seem to work together effortlessly. Synchronized talent aligned with a shared purpose leads to better results, engagement and retention. Elevate the importance of your organization’s values in every facet of your business, fostering and reinforcing desired behaviors along the way. The natural rhythm of your team’s “why” will emerge, leading to stronger connections with one another and your shared purpose.

Much ado about Nothing: Fanfare for the Executive Committee #NonprofitBoards

One of the structures within a board that I find relatively unproductive is an executive committee.  As most will attest, executive committees generally usurp the role of the board essentially limiting if not removing the full board's authority although not its responsibility remembering that a board, wholly and severally has fiduciary responsibility for the organization.  But the Metal Roofing Alliance appears to put great stock (get it 😁) in not only having an executive committee but trumpeting its latest appointments (note by the way - all white men although maybe that's reflective of the metal roofing industry?).  Any way, as the Alliance's newsletter announces, being a member of this group appears to be a big deal.  I would have to know the Alliance's by-laws or practices to say more but I will stick to my one point - why isn't this hoopla about the full board and what is the executive committee doing?

 

July 21, 2023

 

The Metal Roofing Alliance, the nonprofit trade organization representing the North American residential metal roofing market, recently announced its new board leadership and executive committee positions in a July 17 news release.

The reshuffle comes on the heels of last week’s unexpected departure of Dick Bus, longtime MRA trustee and most recent past president. 

“The MRA executive committee has always represented strong, dedicated and experienced leadership,” said Renee Ramey, MRA’s executive director. “We are thrilled to have this team’s tremendous knowledge and expertise on board as we continue to drive success and significant growth for the overall residential metal roofing industry.”

The new Executive Committee includes:

MRA President 

Todd Miller | Isaiah Industries

As president of Isaiah Industries, Inc., Miller works with homeowners and contractors across the globe, helping them understand the powerful benefits of smarter roofing decisions. Having spent most of his career in residential metal roofing, Miller previously served as MRA vice-president and replaced Dick Bus of ATAS as president of the MRA executive committee. In addition to the MRA, Miller has served on the boards of the Metal Construction Association, Cool Metal Roofing Coalition and numerous nonprofit and religious organizations in his community. 

 

MRA Vice-President

Ken Gieseke | McElroy Metal

As Senior Vice President for McElroy Metal, Ken has spent his entire career in sales and marketing positions within the building materials industry. Ken has served on the MRA board of directors for several years and as a board member of the National Frame Building Association from 2008 – 2019, including as chairman from 2014 – 2016. 

MRA Secretary

Philippe LaPlante | Ideal Roofing

LaPlante is co-owner and vice president of sales at Ideal Roofing, Canada's largest independent steel roofing manufacturer and industry leader. With an active interest in helping educate customers, roofers and homeowners about the merits of metal roofing, LaPlante participates in various metal roofing industry associations and the MRA, including the Canadian sheet steel building institute, CSSBI, and Metal Service Center Institute MSCI.

 

MRA Treasurer

Brian Partyka | Drexel Metals 

President of Drexel Metals and a 23-year industry veteran, Partyka will remain MRA treasurer as an executive committee member. Partyka also chairs and co-chairs multiple boards dedicated to the progression of the metal construction industry, including the Metal Construction Association, National Roofing Contractors Association and more. Recently, he was an honoree of the “Metal Construction Association Industry Champion of the Year Triumph Award,” a peer-nominated award given to an individual that has had a significant overall impact on advancing the metal construction industry.

 

MRA At-Large Member 

Mark MacDonald | Sherwin-Williams

MacDonald manages regional sales and leads new product innovation for Sherwin-Williams Performance Coasting Group, Coil Building Products North America. A strong industry advocate, MacDonald has been involved in a leadership role with MRA for more than six years and will continue to serve as an at-large member of the MRA executive committee.

 

 

 

Psych 101 and Board Decision-Making #NonprofitBoards

The following Psychology Today article asks the question: why do folks who have plenty of experience and knowledge act so differently when sitting on a board?  Why do they also not based decisions on evidence?  I fully concur that this is most often a reality  It may be worth a subscription to learn from the rest of this five part series but just the thinking offered in this first part offers something to consider.  Take a look please.

 

Why Don’t Nonprofit Boards Base Decisions on Evidence?

Trustees do it in their day jobs. Why not when they volunteer?

Posted July 17, 2023 |  Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• Share
• Tweet
• Share
• Email

 

KEY POINTS

• As volunteers, trustees can't always give board decisions the time and attention they really require.
• Nonprofit boards are political settings where power often shapes decisions more than evidence does.
• To counteract these tendencies, boards need to develop a culture of accountability.

This article is part 1 of a five-part series about evidence-based decision-making in nonprofit organizations.

As many studies have shown, human decision-making is often flawed. Even the professionals we most expect to base their decisions on evidence can be led astray by irrelevant factors. For example, judges hand out harsher decisions when they’re hungry or after their local sports team loses, and go easier on defendants whose birthdays coincide with their court appearances. Such failures to stick to the evidence have led recently to calls to replace judges in some areas with artificial intelligence (AI), which is less susceptible than humans to interference of these kinds.

At least judges (and doctors and lawyers and CEOs) attempt to base their decisions on evidence. In my work as an executive coach and consultant to nonprofit boards, I am often surprised by how few even try. This is especially surprising given that many board chairs and trustees have day jobs (as doctors and lawyers and CEOs!) in which their evidence-based decision-making is critical to their success.

Why, then, do so few nonprofit boards base their decisions on evidence? It’s not just because relevant data are hard to collect and analyze or that relevant experts are difficult to find. It’s due also to three additional factors, all of which are especially prevalent in nonprofit settings.

First, those doing the deciding often consider themselves just as expert as any professional they might hire to diagnose the problem, propose solutions, or oversee their implementation. For example, every school board trustee was once a student herself, and most have also been parents to school-age children. This familiarity makes trustees feel more confident in their ability to decide educational questions than they would in their ability to make medical or legal decisions without consulting a relevant expert.

article continues after advertisement

Second, board chairs and trustees are generally volunteers, and most of them have demanding day jobs. However committed they are to the cause of the nonprofit they are helping to steer, few have the time and energy to bring to their voluntary work the same rigor and concentration they bring to their full-time occupation. Moreover, many of the decisions nonprofit boards make will not be implemented by the board itself but by the professional staff of the organization they oversee. If something goes wrong, therefore, it is not the board who will be held directly responsible. This limited liability enables board members to give themselves a “discount” when it comes to standards and quality of evidence. If it looks and sounds reasonable, they say to themselves, it’s probably good enough.

 

Third, the makeup of most nonprofit boards is such that power is distributed highly unevenly within them. Following the “three Ws” maxim, effective board chairs try to ensure that their board contains a good mix of trustees, some of whom are hard workers, some of whom are wise, and some of whom are wealthy. In practice, the wealthy are often granted a more-than-equal share of authority in decision-making. Even where this specific bias is absent, nonprofit boards are highly political, and potentially volatile settings. To ease tensions, board chairs often take the path of least resistance, allowing some decisions to go the way of the loudest shouter rather than that most clearly suggested by the evidence.

 

To counteract such tendencies and support evidence-based decision-making, a nonprofit board needs at least three things: a culture of accountable talk, consensus about what counts as better and worse forms of evidence, and transparent systems of governance that enable trustees and professionals to review evidence together without trustees feeling duped by professionals or professionals feeling micromanaged by trustees.

 

I will be addressing each of these conditions, respectively, in subsequent articles. But first I’ll be asking the more basic question: What is evidence and how is it useful? This might seem like an easy question to answer. But it’s harder than you might think. Stay tuned!

 

References

Chen, D. L., & Philippe, A. (2023). Clash of norms judicial leniency on defendant birthdays. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 211, 324–344.

Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892.

Eren, O., & Mocan, N. (2018). Emotional judges and unlucky juveniles. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(3), 171–205.

Frederick Pinto. Can AI Improve the Justice System? The Atlantic. February 13, 2023.

Morereferences

• Share
• Tweet
• Share
• Email

About the Author

Eli Gottlieb, Ph.D., is a cognitive psychologist at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at The George Washington University and a visiting professor at Télécom-Paris.

Online:

 Dr. Eli Gottlieb - Cognitive Psychologist & Executive Coach, LinkedIn, Twitter

Non-Jews On-Board #NonprofitBoards

Forward offers a very insightful and thoughtful article on non-Jews serving on a synagogue board.  So what might you ask?  To jump to the end of the article for a moment, a non-Jew at the center of the article reflected on his first board meeting where a discussion as to whether the synagogue was "haimish" had him looking through his Yiddish dictionary to understand what indeed was the focus of the conversation.  Hamish according to a number of sources I googled means "home".  

Why do I start with the idea of home and boards?  Well, many people who do not have the lived experience or professional board experience or even technical knowledge but have never served on a board often report their initial discomfort being on a nonprofit board.  Some of this is about relationships - that is not having any with those already at the table.  Some of this is about protocols and experience - not knowing them or having them explained.  And some if not a lot of discomfort is about culture.  Yes, culture or the norms practiced by those in the "know" seated at the board table when newbies join can often alienate the newbies because the norms - that which is practiced and expected but not necessarily in writing - are unknown.  

The Forward article principally focuses on how non-Jews who are practicing the spirituality are being welcomed onto Synagogue boards to add to and round-out the leadership needs.  This is a good practice in general.  But, caution flags must be raised for not just these but all boards where not all is shared or obvious while those with good intention are being asked to serve.  Orientation and ongoing training matter greatly AND work to build relationships plays an equally important role.

Bad Practices-Can Board Really Be Unaware? #NonprofitBoards

Northwestern University football players are upset and likely have been for quite some time.  It appears that hazing (you can look this up) has been a regular and perhaps sanctioned activity.  That this practice has been sanctioned is essentially the focus of a lawsuit being brought by players against the team's ex-coach and University leadership following in-turn an independent investigation that verified incidents and allegations.  Note, that a recent survey by the NCAA (college sports association) has found that 74% of players experienced hazing at some time in their "career".

One question to be answered: if this is such a common practice then do Boards and Administrations actually believe hazing to be acceptable and even one of the core values?  And if the answer is "no" then why don't Boards and Administrations make a change (which is now more likely to happen now that this is a legal matter)?  

Like the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts USA, private schools, the girls USA Olympic Team, no one can actually believe that practices that are surely not officially part of the core values aren't known by those who establish the core values and practices.  Evidence for both the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts USA confirm this to be true.  I believe money plays a big part.  College sports are big ticket items generating huge revenues for schools.  Similarly, donors line-up to support the Boy Scouts and well, there's church and clearly not just the Roman Catholic denomination.  

Money!  Justifiable and acceptable?  Certainly not.  And here's where law suits may be the only recourse given that in most cases the psychological and emotional and even physical damage has been done.  Here's where I must call on nonprofit boards to say: ask the questions.  Are your claimed values being lived on the ground.  Ask for proof.  Ask your customers.  Ask annually at minimum.  Ignorance and reliance on written reports is just not enough.  And let's be real: you likely know when "things" aren't as they seem.  Remember your fiduciary duties.

Legal Solutions to HR and Governance Problems? #NonprofitBoards

The following Sportico story describes a board that has had to manage a problematic director and chose to call-in legal counsel to conduct an investigation that in the end resulted with no punishment for the exec and a fired whistleblower.  What this case should remind all is that what the board had to address was a human resource, organization culture, governance and mis-management set of problems.  And yes, there may have also been legal issues but that's not what the case is really about.  I would pose that firms like mine, built on understanding organizational development, human resources and nonprofit culture and management are far more equipped to address these type of challenges facing a board than a legal firm.  Essentially, while there could be legal issues, that's not the foundational starting point.  I can assure you that based only on the descriptions offered by the Sportico article, the outcomes of an investigation would have likely been different.  Nonprofit Boards, start by understanding what is the nature of your challenges and don't believe everything is a legal solve.  Fiduciary is not defined by the word legal.

From Sportico:

A recent outside investigation into a whistleblower’s complaints against the head of the Giving Back Fund, the fiscal sponsor for Damar Hamlin’s and other pro athlete charities, resulted in no punishment for the executive. The employee who spoke up, however, was dismissed.

In late May, the organization’s board of directors retained the Boston-based law firm, Rubin and Rudman, to probe a number of claims made about founder and CEO Marc Pollick. The investigation followed a Sportico story published earlier that month that brought to light numerous controversies within the 26-year-old nonprofit, which has handled tens of millions of dollars in charitable contributions over the years and plays host to a high-profile annual fundraising event at the Super Bowl’s host city.

What emerged was a behind-the-scenes picture of an organization that, despite its four-star Charity Navigator rating, has long struggled to carry out some of the basic functions of a philanthropic fiscal sponsor, often promises more than it can deliver and is routinely impaired by the combative and wayward tendencies of its leader. 

While the story’s reporting encapsulated issues and anecdotes dating back many years, and was based on the accounts of dozens of sources, GBF’s recent investigation focused exclusively on allegations made by a single complainant, Pollick’s one-time executive assistant.

Earlier this year, that employee sent whistleblower letters to board members detailing examples of what they claimed was Pollick’s “erratic and unprofessional behavior” in his dealings with employees, clients and vendors.

The upshot of the investigation appears to maintain the status quo, with Pollick having weathered it without so much as a slap on the wrist.

On June 30, the whistleblower was fired, with the whole GBF staff called into an emergency meeting to be informed of the termination. According to multiple sources, the staffer had been put on paid leave for the five weeks the investigation took place.

“The leadership of The Giving Back Fund has always operated ethically, appropriately, and legally, and any allegations to the contrary are simply not true,” Pollick said in a statement. He went on to criticize the airing of GBF’s internal dynamics.

“We find it deplorable that Sportico feels it appropriate to publicize private personnel issues,” Pollick said. “We would not comment about an employee’s termination but feel forced to do so given the false conclusions that will be drawn if we fail to answer Sportico questions and the gross falsehoods and inaccuracies in the first story.”

Pollick did not specifically identify any perceived errors in the May 1 article, and neither he nor any GBF representative have requested factual corrections since its publication.

In light of the investigation’s conclusion, GBF’s board chair Prashanth Palakurthi reiterated his faith in Pollick’s leadership.

“Marc has had to make tough, unpopular decisions,” Palakurthi said in an email. “Bearing the angst of terminated employees and contractors, sometimes malicious, is the price of leadership.”

Alfred Gray, the attorney at Rubin and Rudman who led the board’s investigation into Pollick, said in an accompanying statement that after reviewing “dozens of documents” and conducting interviews with GBF staff, his findings did not substantiate the allegations the whistleblower raised.

“Many of the issues set forth in the letter consisted of only a portion of the referenced situations,” Gray said. “Looking at the issues in their entirety, a conclusion was reached that there was no illegal, unethical or improper action with regard to the issues raised.”

Gray added that while he believed the whistleblower initiated the complaint to the board “in good faith,” other behavior of theirs warranted disciplinary action. Pollick, however, said the complaints raised in the letters were “baseless” and that the whistleblower had previously committed “egregious and unlawful actions and fireable offenses.”

Neither Gray nor Pollick elaborated, but multiple sources told Sportico it was their understanding that the firing had to do with the whistleblower sending a heads-up message about the investigation to their co-workers’ personal email accounts.

When asked about this, Pollick would only say the termination was “for legitimate reasons.”

The whistleblower declined repeated requests for comment. Sportico is not naming the individual because they are understood to have signed a nondisclosure agreement that would inhibit their ability to speak publicly about the situation.

The investigation and firing raise further questions about the governance of an organization that has been criticized by numerous insiders for its lack of board oversight and rigor. Previously, in the mid-2010s, multiple GBF staffers had leveled complaints against Pollick to the board at the time with the expectation that there would be a change in leadership.

Pollick remained, but within a year, most of those board members had quit, one of many exoduses of staff or directors at GBF. Pollick chalks up the internal criticism of his leadership as the unfortunate byproduct of having to make “tough decisions in pursuit of what is best for our clients.”

He added, “I can be very frugal, and hold strong convictions for doing it right, perhaps to a fault, but always in pursuit of service to these amazing charitable organizations making the world a better place.”

Lisa Greer, the author and philanthropist who, at Pollick’s behest, became the Giving Back Fund’s board chair in 2021, quit three months into the role, later telling Sportico she felt repeatedly stymied by Pollick in her efforts to procure “any kind of quantifiable information” about GBF.

In the wake of the whistleblower’s complaint, one board member, Joanne Pasternack, resigned from her seat on March 23, writing in her resignation letter that the “organization is broken.”

Up until then, Pasternack had been an active board member who worked closely with Pollick, and was a key point of contact with the Hamlin’s. She wrote that her experience had provided an “insider’s view” that “opened my eyes to serious issues with the Giving Back Fund.” 

Pasternack was the first board member to receive the whistleblower’s complaint on Feb. 19 and subsequently pushed for the organization to conduct an anonymous employee survey. However, this effort was scuttled after Pollick had secretly listened into an all-staff meeting Pasternack joined on March 9 to discuss their interest in doing the survey. It was only afterward that many of the staffers learned that Pollick—who was traveling overseas at the time—was on the call. In a subsequent meeting Pollick did not attend, multiple staffers complained to GBF leadership about what they perceived to be an effort to try to catch them saying critical things about him.

Eventually, the staff was instructed to stop talking openly about the issue in meetings, according to internal minutes, and the survey was permanently shelved.

Pollick told Sportico the survey had not received proper board approval, and blamed Pasternack for causing “strife in our organization.”

In early March, two weeks after the whistleblower went to Pasternack, Pollick circulated copies of nondisclosure agreements for his employees to sign. Pollick says their timing owed to “a minor glitch in our typical onboarding protocol,” suggesting that this was not done in reaction to any specific concerns about information leakage. The whistleblower was among those who signed an NDA, according to several sources familiar with the situation.

On March 20, the whistleblower addressed their concerns directly to Palakurthi, the board chair, who in 2020 sold his workforce software company, Reflexis Technologies, for $575 million.

“Thank you for reading my concerns,” the whistleblower wrote in an email, “and although I expect to experience backlash from Marc should he be informed of my concerns, I feel it is my ethical duty to report what I have seen and heard.”

Despite Pollick’s and Gray’s characterizations, several sources who worked with the whistleblower described them as a hard worker who was well thought of in the organization—at least prior to their raising concerns. Internal emails show they were lauded with “shoutouts” in the weekly roundup emails leadership sent to staff.

During the investigation, Gray sent email messages to a list of current and former GBF staffers that the whistleblower said could substantiate their claims about Pollick.

The emails, copies of which were obtained by Sportico, asked the potential respondents to provide a “statement setting forth your knowledge and information regarding the issues being investigated.” Gray also solicited their recommendations for what actions, if any, should be taken against Pollick.

“I will review your response and if need be schedule a follow-up communication which may include a virtual interview,” Gray wrote, adding that it was his “goal” to maintain their anonymity.

One source who received Gray’s email told Sportico they declined to provide input for fear that their anonymity would not be preserved and because they didn’t trust the investigation’s impartiality.

Another person who was contacted said they provided Rubin and Rudman a substantive response, confirming several of the whistleblower’s claims, but to their surprise received no follow-up communication from Gray. The lawyer declined to comment about this, citing attorney-client privilege.

Pasternack, for her part, confirmed last week that she was not contacted as part of the investigation, although multiple sources said the whistleblower had provided her name to the law firm.

“I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements from the whistleblower,” Pasternack told Sportico. “They included corroborating evidence to support it.”

In her resignation letter, she had recommended that GBF’s board do a 12-point, top-down review of the organization, from its finances to various critical postings that had been made  over the years on employment websites like Glassdoor and Indeed. Additionally she urged the board to “create structure and process” for an annual review of Pollick, and a succession planning strategy. (Pollick turned 70 earlier this year.)

Asked about Pasternack, Gray said in an email: “I will acknowledge that I was aware of who the board members are or were. However for purposes of confidentiality and integrity of the investigation I am not at liberty to identify who I communicated with.”

On May 1, the day Sportico‘s story published, Pollick messaged his staff decrying the piece’s revelations as being “completely false or based on false information.”

“It is the first time in 26 years anyone has written a negative story about us,” he wrote. “We are a strong and resilient organization and we will survive the unwarranted and unfortunate attack…”

A week later, Damar Hamlin appeared to publicly distance himself from the fiscal sponsor while announcing an update in the plans to establish his own 501(c)(3). Hamlin’s family had partnered with GBF following his on-field collapse, which spawned an overnight multimillion-dollar bonanza for a dormant GoFundMe campaign the player had established two years earlier.

“My charity is not connected to the challenges being faced by the leadership of the Giving Back Fund,” Hamlin said in a statement to the Associated Press on May 9. The next day, Pollick sent a letter to most of GBF’s current clients addressing the media fallout, saying that the organization had been “victimized” by a “false and unfair story.”

The Hamlin’s continue to work with GBF, though the current extent of the relationship is unclear.

“We are grateful to the Giving Back Fund team for their work,” Damar Hamlin’s father, Mario, said in a statement on Friday. “Since January, they have been important partners of ours as we have moved to launch and transition to our own nonprofit, The Chasing M’s Foundation.”

Neither Mario Hamlin nor a family spokesperson responded to questions about what their partnership with GBF currently entails.

Meanwhile, the Giving Back Fund’s revolving door has continued to spin. In late March, it retained its most recent accounting firm, Jitasa Group, after parting with the Golden Group—the latest in a trend of firings and resignations of CPAs. According to its public tax filings, GBF used different accountants for each of its last three returns.

Pollick, in his statement, blamed that turnover on the inability of the outside accountants to keep up with his organization’s increasing demands.

“We have liked working with smaller firms because of the personal touch,” he said. “But they haven’t had the bandwidth to handle our growing needs. Instead, we are investing in in-house staff to manage our accounting needs and working with a larger firm to oversee this important function.”

In early June, GBF advertised for a new position of finance director, which would be responsible for helping to facilitate its consolidation of responsibilities.

The job posting invited applicants to come and work at a place with a “sterling reputation” for “integrity-led philanthropy.”

PGAA Tour and Saudi LIV Merger #NonprofitBoards

The Professional Golfing Association Tour and the Saudi LIV have agreed to merge their organizations.  The PGA TOUR is a 501(c)(6), that is structured to promote its members’ interests (members=PGA TOUR players),” “While charitable nonprofits must serve a public good and be supported by the public, a trade association and similar organizations do not have to, necessarily although the PGA TOUR has been dedicated to charitable impact throughout its history, to the tune of more than $3 billion generated for the communities in which we play, and beyond, since 1968.”

More facts.  "In 2019, the PGA took in $1.5 billion in total revenue. That same year, Commissioner Monahan received compensation of $8,880,000. Had he been a player on tour, Monahan’s income would have ranked him second in official PGA Tour money winnings, behind Brooks Koepka at $9.7 million and ahead of Rory McIlroy, in third place at $7.8 million.  The Tour’s seven top executives received annual compensation of $2,026,000 in 2019 while the average Tour golfer on the money-winning list received $1,225,000. In other words, the executives were paid 65 percent more than the athletes."

Meanwhile, "PGA Tour officials faced their first public questioning Tuesday since their controversial agreement with Saudi-backed LIV Golf, repeatedly asserting the deal was essential to the survival of professional golf.

If LIV Golf had managed to snag five players annually, then “they can gut us,” said Jimmy Dunne, board member of the PGA Tour who has been credited with sealing the deal."

Good governance?

Nonprofit Board Barriers? #NonprofitBoards

Dr. Fram offered to me some intriguing statements in his latest blog titled "Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers".  I must admit that I did not walk away 100% clear as to what barriers Dr. Fram was referring to but I'm guessing it's on the reader to discern.  That said, Dr. Fram's wisdom is always worth considering even though, not unusual for me, I have inserted some questions/statements that do not perfectly reinforce Dr. Fram's own statements.  Please read-on.

REVERSING TRADITIONAL NONPROFIT BOARD BARRIERS

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

By: Eugene Fram          Free Digital Photo

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.  I am honestly unclear how these two examples even took place.  Was there really no board except the Exec Committee?

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:

• A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years.   This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.  So this might be a barrier - recruiting within member's networks - certainly a habit that leads to failed diversification if that's a goal.  At the same time I'm not seeing why this makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate - a good chair and meaningful data are keys to good debate, not the composition.  And planning beyond term limits?  I'm not sure I understand the why not given only a portion of members will turn-over in any given strategic planning life.
• The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.  I agree that stage of board development has a huge difference in terms of the focus of members.  It is not easy to ensure a transition if the same members are still on the board (although maybe that means not having left the early stage?).  But once staff are hired, board stage of development will change - planned or not.  This focus can only last so long.
• The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.  Executive team?  Isn't this the paid staff?  Executive Committee - that's the board, no?  And I really don't agree the exec committee is legally responsible to act for the board at any time, ever.  Board members are always fiduciarily responsible for all actions with or without Exec Committee making decisions.  But really, for what purpose an Exec Committee anyway?

Mitigating Oversight Barriers: There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four directors, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.  I believe one board member can change the direction - but of course they have to come with a different DNA.

• Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.  Lots to unpack here but basically, yes to a fiduciary, strategic and generative topic for every board meeting.  Makes the board wise and healthy.
• “New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 43- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.

Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21^st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.

• Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.  OK
• NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.  OK but barriers to boards?

Conclusion: Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the three overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.  UM, OK.