In Milwaukee, the Potowatomi tribe operates a huge hotel and casino complex and markets itself as the “Keeper of the Fire” in reference to its responsibility to maintain the hearth fire of the Council of Three Fires. The Potowatomi were the “younger brothers” in a three-way alliance along with the Ojibwa and Ottowa tribes. Keeping the Council fire burning signified the on-going continuation of the alliance.
In a similar manner, the nonprofit board of directors is the “keeper of the mission.” Through its governance leadership, the board is responsible for adopting and supporting a mission – usually stated in a short and concise sentence – and approving the programs and services that express that mission to populations it serves. The board, through its fiduciary duty, makes sure that there are sufficient human and financial resources to execute the mission with quality. This usually requires the engagement of staff and management to operate and administer various support functions to make sure programs and services are appropriately delivered. Through its strategic duty the board adopts plans and strategies to ensure continuity of the mission and to monitor that plan through the achievement of measurable goals and objectives. Finally, the board has a generative duty to apply its intellectual capital by inquiring into questions and issues that pervade its functioning as a board and that impinge upon its effectiveness.
In my previous article, I explored ways in which the CEO can provide executive support to these principal duties. In this article, I am going to move beyond these broad duties and discuss ways in which the CEO can make use of the board and individual directors to provide additional resources and support for the organization. Although the board exists authoritatively only when it is in session, individual directors possess capacity in their own right to help advance the mission. Within their personal, business, and community circles, individual directors can be called upon to provide local publicity, community partnerships, policy advocacy, connections to clients and families, professional awareness, political influence, financial resources, and access to talent. However, I will argue that the extent to which individual directors are engaged in such activities is directly proportional to the amount of leadership provided by the CEO to recruit, equip, support, motivate, and actively employ them in ways that are commensurate with their skills, talents, interests and resources.
Such executive activity by the CEO with individual directors takes a lot of time and attention. But, as I have previously asserted, meaningful engagement of directors, both inside and outside the board room, is necessary and, frankly, is the primary reason most directors desire to be part of the board in the first place. Therefore, it is up to the CEO to engage directors in ways that both advance the mission of the organization and help bring fulfillment and meaning to each director.
In a previous article dealing with “Who’s on the Board?” I suggested that identification and management of board candidates should be a process that is parallel to donor management. Identification, cultivation, engagement and solicitation of donors is a type of constituent relationship management (CRM) process that can also be applied to current directors. Assuming that a director file has been created by the CEO through the recruitment and election process that contains data around education, profession, skills, connections and other information, I would suggest that this file be expanded once the individual has been elected to the board to include data around connections, resources, and the other assets I described above.
Such data could come from a survey completed by all current directors in which they self-identify talents, giving capacity, donor prospects, political and corporate connections and a host of other resources and assets. Additional data should come from notes the CEO would enter around dates and reasons for contacting the director, giving records, referrals of donors and potential staff and board members, director evaluations from the governance committee, correspondence, etc. In other words, every director should have a “personnel” file, electronic or otherwise, which can be used as a resource by the CEO to manage board member engagement.
I’ll elaborate on a few specific ways the CEO can utilize and manage individual directors to advance the organization’s mission. In each case, I will illustrate how such engagement is an executive action unique to the CEO as part of my suggested model of reciprocal governance.
Community Relations
While most organizations have some type of communication or public relations function that can send out press releases and generate information on the organization’s website and other social media, there are times when organizations need personal connections with their support groups in ways that can’t be managed by the CEO or his/her staff through blanket communication. This is especially true in nonprofit organizations that have church or religious roots. For example, if an association of congregations founded a social ministry organization, provides financial support and these congregations are in turn served by the organization, then communication from a director who is a member of one of those congregations can be a more effective way to build and maintain support. In such a case, the executive director can provide talking points, resources and connections to link the director to the church.
In larger organizations, especially those which are geographically dispersed, building community connections in areas where services are provided is an important function that can be supported by an individual board member. Take the example of a large, multi-state agency that provides services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Local program management staff should be asked by the CEO to contact any directors who live within that service area to discuss community issues, perceptions, needs, and barriers and who the local leaders are who can be contacted by the director to address such issues as needed.
Local media outlets should be contacted and if information about the organization needs to be shared, board members living in the area can be tapped to provide interviews or quotes. In an instance in which we had to cease operations in a particular area, a local board member provided an important perspective (albeit coached with talking points) to a local television station that questioned the move. In another instance, a former board member provided assistance and communication with his congregation in an area into which we were going to expand and for which we needed participation from welcoming churches.
The bottom line is that current and former board members can be asked by the CEO to represent the organization in their church, business and residential communities. The key to effective engagement comes from the duty to provide the board member with the needed information, guidance, contacts and resources in order to perform the task requested of them. This has to come at the initiative of the CEO and his or her staff.
Donor Development
Individual directors are key players in identifying, contacting and involving potential donors. My experience, however, is that directors don’t automatically jump into this process. They have to be trained and the process has to be managed. Depending on the size of the organization, development staff can be of great assistance to the CEO in connecting directors to donors, in sharing processes and strategies for donor connection, and in managing donor information once it is obtained.
In many small organizations, however, the executive director is the principal fund-raiser and, frankly, needs all the help he or she can get. In such a case, board members can function as allies in raising money. So how can the ED/CEO use board members to support the development function?
I think this begins with a practice of visiting with each director each year to determine if there are individuals in their circle of influence who could potentially be approached for support. This conversation could take place in the context of the CEO’s solicitation of the director’s annual fund contribution, and discussions around deferred giving, legacy gifts and possible trusts. If the board has expectations of its members that include a “give, get or get off” requirement, then identifying potential donors is a significant fulfillment of that expectation and should not be considered obtrusive.
This expectation for board members has to be more than a mere drive-by checklist item, however. “Do you know anybody who could be a donor?” is a question that could be quickly answered with a “nope.” However, delving a bit into family relationships, business contacts, church connections, foundation opportunities, professional associations and other organizations and individuals might yield a valuable contact. In contrast to the generic “who do you know?” question, a focused “who is the most influential person in your congregation?” or “who, in your professional association, could I tell the organization’s story to?”
Another way to expand your donor base is to ask board members to host information meetings, either in their homes or in a local venue. I saw this work to great effect when the college president I worked with conducted “dog and pony” shows around the country hosted by regents in those areas. Using board members, as well as key alumni, small dinner or cocktail reception events gave the president the opportunity to share the story, present information and invite participation. After the event, the host regent and the president reviewed the evening and qualified the attendees. Development staff helped schedule follow-up visits, add prospects to the mailing lists, manage invitations, and, when the time was right, arranged for the president to make a solicitation visit.
Finally, it is my opinion that directors themselves should never do a direct ask for a gift – even if the donor is Grandma Harriet’s favorite cousin. Invariably, directors lack sufficient information about the donor’s capacity to make an informed request. Second, any gift asked for as a “favor” takes away from the motivation to support the mission on its own merits. Third, directors – unless they are fund raising professionals – don’t usually know how to “ask.”
At the same time, having a director accompany the CEO on a donor visit can be incredibly helpful. Asking the director to help set up an appointment for a visit from the CEO carries a lot of weight that the CEO, a stranger, would probably not have.
So, making a personal financial commitment, identifying potential donors, hosting donor events, introducing the CEO to prospective donors, and accompanying the CEO on a donor visit – these are all ways in which a board member as an individual can help financially support the organization. And because these are all activities that are not usually explicit in a listing of board member expectations, it is up to the CEO to manage this process by working with each individual board member. In my experience, this is an executive function that has to come from the CEO and cannot be delegated to staff, no matter how large the organization.
Advocacy
Most nonprofit organizations are engaged in human service work for which some type of government support is needed. Furthermore, such agencies are always under some type of regulatory control. Consequently, it is important that organizations remain alert to changes in either funding or regulations that might have an impact on their ability to deliver services. Maintaining a passive posture toward government is the best way to become a victim of change. I always believed it was far better to be an agent of change, convinced first of all, that government regulatory and funding agencies truly do want to do what is best for the majority of people, but also believing that having a seat at the table is better than waiting for a funding reduction or a new onerous regulation to befall us.
How can the CEO use board members to advocate on behalf of the organization? Advocacy, as a science, is the demonstration of a position on behalf of others as a way to influence decision making. Most often, this is a political issue, and as I will explain in subsequent paragraphs, requires an understanding of political processes and who holds which government position.
Advocacy which involves board members does not mean asking them to show up on the steps of the state capitol with a placard demanding equal treatment for people with disabilities or an increase in the minimum wage. It may mean writing letters to elected officials concerning pending legislation that would impose discriminatory regulations or calling a legislator regarding a proposed budget cut that would hurt client services. In these instances, the impetus for such direct advocacy has to be directed and supported by the CEO and may include providing names, numbers and addresses of legislators, letter templates or talking points, and background information on the issue in question. Discussion in board meetings about political issues that could affect operations should be initiated by the CEO as a way to prepare them for requests to directly advocate on behalf of the organization.
Political Influence
Politics consists of the activities and affairs involved in managing a government. Officials elected or appointed to perform these activities are engaged in the political process. Because every citizen, resident and organization in our country is subject to the laws of the land, we are necessarily involved in the political process. Although we sometimes confuse this fact with the divergent philosophies and positions of opposing political parties, politics and political processes are how we function as a society of laws.
On the surface, it may seem that engagement in the political process is synonymous with advocacy. Certainly, advocacy is a form of political engagement. However, there are so many other aspects of government control and regulation that have to be navigated by a typical nonprofit that a discussion of how to use board members to influence the political process is warranted. A few examples will illustrate the point.
Local governments control things like zoning, building permits, property maintenance, parks and recreation, utilities, fire and police protection, garbage removal and many other aspects of operation. Working through aldermen, the mayor, city planner, city attorney and other local boards and committees can be more a matter of who you know than what you know.
As the dean of a small liberal arts college in a residential area, I experienced the importance of political influence in a number of “town and gown” controversies. My college was seeking to expand its campus by building a recreation center on property it owned, but which was zoned residential and not institutional. Our foray into local politics ignited a firestorm of protest from surrounding neighbors. After numerous setbacks, we learned how to work through our local aldermen to engage with our neighbors, and how to leverage local leaders who supported our project to contact their government representatives to urge their support. Eventually, zoning was obtained, but not without significant influence from local board members and community leaders.
At the state level, my college desired to have a sign on the freeway indicating which exit to take to get to our campus. I’m sure you’ve seen these large green highway signs for other schools. The Department of Transportation was not willing to honor our request. In this case, a former board member who happened to be a major contributor to the sitting governor and an individual with significant international trade connections went to bat for us. We got the signs. Please note that at no time did we ask or expect board members to contribute to any politician’s campaign. Maintaining political neutrality is also important because the political winds can change very quickly – as we saw in 2016. The point is that individual board members may have political connections which can be used when necessary to work through the political process.
Identifying Talent and Opportunity
Board members should be constantly on the lookout for talent – both for the board and for the staff. I wrote previously about the role board members can play in identifying and nominating qualified candidates for the board of directors. However, CEO’s must constantly be on the lookout for potential staff members who can bring outstanding knowledge and experience to the organization. In this regard, board members may have knowledge of such individuals in the same or related fields who they believe would be a great fit. Such a recommending process doesn’t have to be elaborate, nor should it be the only way talent is identified. In the case of key executive positions, the organization will most likely use a search firm to manage the process. Board members should be included, however, as possible sources of names and encouragement to board members to recommend individuals to the search firm should be made.
If the organization has made the strategic decision to expand and is looking business opportunities, board members can be invaluable sources of connection to local agencies that offer related or adjacent services. On a number of occasions, board members tipped me off to organizations that were struggling or in which the founding CEO was planning to retire, and which might be open to acquisition or merger. From my standpoint as the CEO, holding up this growth goal, talking about it at board meetings and actively soliciting identification of potential targets provided enough incentive for directors to keep their eyes open for opportunities.
In addition, I’ve had board members suggest to me alternative methods of financing such as through tax-exempt bonds, opportunities to investigate the creation of single purpose entities (SPEs) for sale and lease-back of property, funding opportunities through foundations and corporations, and leveraging stock options and real estate holdings to obtain capital using other people’s money (OPM) to build endowment or fund building projects. These suggestions, accompanied by connections to experts in the field, led to serious study of alternative forms of financing.
Tapping into the talent of individual board members and their contacts can go a long way in supporting the mission of the organization. The CEO must have an open ear and an open mind when such opportunities are presented.
Client and Family Relations
Nonprofit organizations hold their tax exempt status because they provide services that meet human needs. Therefore, clients and their families rely on the organization to provide compassionate care in whatever form that might take. From serving the homeless, hungry, abused and disabled, to providing early-childhood education, private elementary, secondary and post-secondary education, or offering housing and support services to the aged population, nonprofit charitable organizations meet the full spectrum of human need.
Board members, as “keepers of the mission,” should be provided with regular points of contact with populations supported by the nonprofit organization whose board they sit on. The CEO can facilitate these points of contact in numerous ways. For example, on my board, we included in each agenda a “mission moment.” This fifteen minute presentation was often provided by someone we supported, a staff member who was involved in direct care, a short video from one of our international partners, or a short presentation by a family member of someone we supported. These presentations connected board members with the actual services we were providing and provided tangible evidence of mission impact.
Another way we created points of connection came from scheduling one of our quarterly board meetings (usually in February so we could get out of Wisconsin and in a warmer climate where we provided services). Tours of facilities, meals with clients and families, presentations by local staff – these put board members in direct touch with our programs and services and the people we served.
While board members were free to interact with clients, family and staff, there were a few times when a staff or family member would want to use the occasion of a visit to complain or, at very least, to raise a concern. This wasn’t discouraged but debriefing the board after the site visit was important to make sure they understood the situation or to make sure they knew we would address the concern. The CEO and his/her staff must plan and execute such site visits being mindful of the possibility for such interactions. My experience was that benefit of such direct exposure far outweighed any negative experience – and if there was a negative interaction, the board and my staff shared an understanding of how it would be addressed.
A Word About Staff/Board Relationships
As organizations grow in size, it is quite natural for board members to develop connections to key staff members. For example, the treasurer of the board will naturally spend time with the chief financial officer. Board members from areas in which the organization provides support services may have a natural point of connection to the chief operations officer over matters of local concern. Development staff may be very engaged with board members around donor events or major donor prospects. In my experience, such natural connections are to be encouraged.
However, a word of caution is in order. The CEO is the only employee of the board. Therefore, only the CEO is accountable to the board. Failure to honor this distinction can cause things to go off the rails on one of two ways. First, board members do not have influence over any aspect of the operation as individual board members. Remember my general rule that the board exists only when it is in session and ceases to exist as an authoritative entity once it adjourns? Individual board members cannot tell staff what to do and expect their unquestioning obedience. This undermines the authority of the CEO and exceeds the authority of the board. It also puts staff members in a very awkward position. Who’s the boss?
The second way things can go off the rails is that staff members may believe they have direct access to the board through such contacts. Going around the CEO is a form of insubordination in my mind. Even if the motive is appropriate as in the case of seeking the professional expertise of a board member with unique qualifications in a particular area, direct approach of a director by a member of the staff, unless otherwise authorized by the CEO, creates the appearance of independence and autonomy from the supervision of the CEO.
So, how can one avoid these pitfalls while still maximizing the strengths and talents of the board and providing them with information when they need it? My predecessor had expressly forbidden any contact between board and staff. I did not find this approach to be constructive. For me, it was simply requesting that the I be copied on all communication with staff. When this approach was proposed as a board policy, I explained that board members were always welcome to contact staff with questions or concerns, but that they copy me with their correspondence. This was very easy when email was used. If communication was by phone, I asked that board members and staff inform me of the substance of the conversation. I rarely had a problem.
Conclusion
Individual board members bring talent and resources to your organization. Most directly, these are expressed in the context of the board meeting. However, outside the board, they also have connections and expertise that can and should be tapped by the CEO. Active involvement of directors in the ways described above brings a great deal of benefit to the organization and provides meaning and fulfillment to the board member. The point of this article is that making appropriate use of the resources provided by individual board members is something the CEO must make an explicit part of his or her executive suite of practices, thereby helping board members individually and collectively serve as “keepers of the mission.”
