John Bauer Consulting

How Should the Board Hold Me Accountable?

John Bauer March 24, 2020 blog, News

If one of the principal duties of a nonprofit board is to hire the best person for the job, then it follows that it is also responsible to make sure their employee is performing according to their expectations. This responsibility begins with the search process and continues throughout the duration of their leader’s service to the organization. On the surface, this may seem to imply a superordinate/subordinate relationship in which the board (or in most cases, its executive committee) conducts an annual performance review with the CEO and determines whether they will receive an increase in compensation. In such a view, the board is the boss which does the hiring and the CEO is the board’s employee who needs regular performance evaluation, just like any other employee.

In some cases, such evaluation is conducted using roughly the same performance evaluation criteria that are used on all other employees. These may include such things as punctuality, effectiveness in working with others, ability to complete tasks, etc. I’ve seen some boards actually write performance reviews of their CEOs on criteria that have little or nothing to do with the responsibilities and duties that are unique to the chief executive position.

At the very least, it is hoped that the CEO’s performance is measured against the expectations described in the position description. Unfortunately, many such descriptors of expectation are framed in subjective terms such as “is able to effectively communicate with constituents in written and spoken forms.” Or, “is able to think analytically and solve problems.” I recently reviewed a position description used in the search for an interim CEO that required “demonstrated effectiveness in executive leadership.” I couldn’t help but wonder, “And just how is that going to be measured? Who is going to determine what that looks like?”

As you know from the previous articles in this ten-part series, “Who’s the Boss?” I don’t believe the relationship is quite as simple as selecting general criteria on which to base a performance evaluation. Nor should a single annual performance review really serve as the primary basis for holding the CEO accountable. The mutuality of accountability requires a reciprocity between the board and the CEO. Having previously described ways in which the CEO can help the board hold its own members accountable for their performance as board members, the CEO can also do much to help the board hold him or her accountable in ways that benefit the CEO, the board and, ultimately, the organization.

In this article, I will explore what this accountability relationship looks like from the CEO’s perspective and suggest ways in which the CEO can provide executive leadership to the board around the various ways in which he or she is held accountable for their job performance.

Prerequisites

For reciprocal governance to work effectively, mutual accountability demands mutual respect and support between the CEO and his or her board of directors. Such respect is not something that can be written into a job description, bylaws, or an operations and policy manual. It has to be earned. Of course, carefully crafted procedures can establish a framework for working together, and expectations for such a relationship can be articulated, but accountability that is grounded in the mission of the organization and its preferred future requires trust – trust on the part of the CEO that the board truly desires to support him or her and to have them succeed, and trust on the part of the board that their one employee has the best interest of the organization and not just themselves in mind at all times.

Building mutual trust requires a significant level of vulnerability and honesty on everyone’s part. As Patrick Lencioni (2002) has pointed out, the absence of trust is the first and most destructive dysfunction of any team and, conversely, the presence of trust built on honest vulnerability is the first and most prepotent quality of effective teams. Such vulnerability demands honesty, open-mindedness and willingness to learn and change. It implies an acceptance that nobody is perfect and that imperfections are opportunities for growth. Social researchers like Brene¢ Brown (2010) go so far as to say that our shortcomings are actually gifts that help us stay connected to our humanness, allow us to grow in humility toward others, and become better versions of ourselves in every aspect of our lives. In the nonprofit world, such humility borne out of realistic self-awareness and honesty is a highly desirable trait for any chief executive officer. At any rate, such vulnerability does not exist where mutual trust and respect are absent.

Of course, openness and honest vulnerability can’t be used as excuses or offsets to incompetence. Chief executive officers will want to own their limitations and shortcomings, take responsibility for mistakes, but not expect a pass from the board for serious deficiencies that stand in the way of meeting job expectations just because they admitted their failings. I am reminded of the time one of my teenaged sons was caught smoking and expected leniency because, as he said, “At least I told the truth!”

Whether withholding personally damaging information from the board on the one hand, or sharing every foible and failing on the other, such CEOs in my view exhibit their insecurities, ineffectiveness and ineptitude as a leader and should consider another line of work.

The kind of trust I am describing grows from working together in the trenches of the board room and is characterized by mutual deference and consultation. It finds richness in subordinating one’s personal views or interests to the needs of the organization. It grows wings through a sense of partnership in which the CEO and his/her Board collaborate to find solutions to problems and answers to questions. It gains substance through frequent communication both to and from the CEO. Trust of this type is reinforced when word is given and kept, when everyone is honest and responsive to others, and when the organization’s mission and its success is the pervasive theme around all working relationships.

Most boards of directors or their executive committees conduct the evaluation of the CEO’s performance themselves using various measures and tools. While such a practice can be effective, depending on the time the board takes, the resources available to them, and the cooperation and participation of the CEO and his or her staff, an increasing number of boards are using outside evaluation consultants to conduct the annual evaluation. In most cases, such consultants utilize objective measures that obtain data from staff, directors and other stakeholders and are usually accompanied by interviews with selected individuals from different positions in the organization. Generally, CEOs are more likely to accept the results of such evaluations and have a greater voice in selecting the consultant to conduct the evaluation. Whether the board is able to conduct an effective evaluation itself or a consultant is used, it still requires the confidence of all parties that the process is fair and objective and that shared trust undergirds the activity and the results.

Strategic Plan as the Basis for Annual Evaluation

The first principle of mutual accountability is derived from a shared commitment to the mission and vision of the organization, especially as that mission and vision are described in the organization’s strategic plan. Simply stated, if the organization has rigorously evaluated its position and has identified its preferred future, then it makes sense that the CEO’s primary responsibility is to lead the organization toward the attainment of that vision. The CEO does this on a daily basis when he or she leads the staff toward accomplishing the goals and objectives stated in the plan, by ensuring that resources are appropriately allocated and used to fulfill strategic aims, and that the progress toward achieving the organization’s preferred future is regularly measured and reported to the board.

It can be argued that this is the primary duty of the CEO. Issues of how the CEO manages staff, how they interact with the board, and even how they connect with constituents – while important to the overall culture of the organization – are all secondary to the real reason leaders lead, namely, to advance the mission of the organization. All the various ways in which this can be accomplished have been described in previous articles, but at the end of the day, the board needs the CEO to lead the enterprise toward fulfillment of the mission and toward attainment of the vision. It stands to reason, therefore, that how well the CEO has accomplished this task should be the primary subject of any kind of performance evaluation.

How can the CEO help the board keep its focus on the strategic issues facing the organization and, as part of that focus, evaluate the CEO’s performance? The first and most obvious way is to make sure that the organization does, in fact, have a strategic plan. What this looks like and how it is structured depends upon the organization’s context, but at minimum, a workable strategic plan should articulate the organization’s current situation, what and how it delivers its services, what its internal and external environments look like now and what they will probably look like in the future, and where the organization prefers to be situated in that future. That “preferred future” is usually described in terms of position statements, goals, objectives, strategies, initiatives or other terms that state the desired direction and outcomes. Ideally, such statements are in some way measurable so that progress over time can be monitored and reported. If such a plan exists, and if it is annually updated, and if performance data are regularly reported to the board, then it would seem logical that the substance of the CEO’s performance evaluation should be derived from how well the organization has been able to achieve its objectives.

(For a more comprehensive explanation of my thoughts on strategic planning, I would refer you to my book, Your Preferred Future. Achieved.: Ten Critical Questions for Nonprofit Strategic Planning (2019), available from Amazon.com.)

In the last few years of my service as the CEO of a large social service organization, I was able to discuss my performance as CEO almost exclusively in terms of how I was leading the organization toward attainment of the objectives described in our strategic plan. This began with my facilitation of the annual cycle of planning and budgeting, with an updated iteration of the strategic plan presented to the board for review and ratification six months before the beginning of the new fiscal year. That updated plan provided the foundation for budget planning and associated annual initiatives flowing from the strategic goals. At the end of each fiscal year, not only I, but all senior leaders, had a performance review based on the assigned goals and objectives. Although formalized in an annual process, the performance review discussion was really just one of numerous conversations that were held regularly, both with my board’s executive committee, but also with senior leaders as we monitored our performance against measurable goals.

While I am a strong advocate for data-driven decision making, monitoring key performance indicators, and developing and reporting measurable goals, there are various goals and activities that do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement. For example, a strategic goal that addresses interchurch relations and describes important actions intended to strengthen partnerships and collaboration with others can only be measured in terms of whether those actions were taken or not. The relative success or failure in building such partnerships is hard to quantify. In my company, the decision to grow was supported by a strategic goal to actively pursue acquisition opportunities which in turn led to various activities and eventually culminated in the affiliation and acquisition of another small nonprofit agency. No Likert scale I have ever devised could measure performance in that goal. Growth in the number of people supported – yes. Activity which might or might not yield increase – no, other than to note its accomplishment.

At the same time, acknowledging the importance of strategic movement, whether measurable or not, and monitoring activities around such strategies is reportable and should be reviewed by the Board. The CEO is primarily responsible for making sure the organization is thinking and acting strategically in such areas of activity and should be held accountable for their accomplishment. This can be done on a regular basis when strategic goals are reviewed at every board meeting. Such a report from the CEO might go something like this: “With respect to our stated goal of expanding our presence in the State of Minnesota through acquisition of other nonprofit agencies, we have been in active conversation with the CEOs of three small church-related agencies, and while we haven’t reached the point of proposing a legal affiliation, transfer or outright acquisition, we are optimistic that at least one of them will result in a formal proposal before the end of the year.”

Whether provided in the written CEO’s report to the board (my preference), or stated orally in the board meeting, such reporting keeps the strategic issue in front of the board and invites both support and questions around progress. The CEO thus places himself/herself on the line to explain progress toward achieving a strategic goal.

Continuous Accountability

This practice of conducting performance evaluations based on the organization’s strategic plan leads me to the next principle of mutual accountability, namely, that performance evaluation must be an ongoing process. While an annual formal review may be required in order to provide justification for adjustments in compensation, it should not be the primary reason for conducting such reviews. The primary purpose, as stated above, is to ensure accountability for moving the organization forward according to how the strategic plan defines its preferred future.

Because internal and external environments may undergo change, and because mitigating circumstances may emerge which either enhance or hinder the ability of the organization to achieve its goals, ongoing measurement and evaluation are critically important to the board and the CEO. How the CEO leads the organization through such changes and navigates the various challenges which arise are substantial performance issues which effect the organization’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives. Such issues cannot be deferred to the annual evaluation conference. They must be dealt with in a timely manner and the results of actions reported. This requires an ongoing dialogue between the CEO and his or her board, first in board meetings as opportunities to share critical issues and responses, second in working closely with an executive committee, and third between the CEO and his or her board chairperson.

If such discussions are ongoing, open and honest, then responsibility for the organization’s success is shared. Neither the CEO nor the board is solely responsible for the circumstances and the outcomes of actions. Together, they collaborate to ensure the best possible outcomes. To be sure, the board invests the CEO with the responsibility to execute strategies and to keep them informed of their success or failure, but the board must also provide support for the CEO and if necessary, back up the leadership decisions of the CEO.

The CEO can assist the board in holding them accountable for his or her strategic and leadership actions by building and maintaining effective means for regular communication. For me, that evolved into a process of publishing board briefing books that were sent between board meetings and which contained reports from myself and my leadership team. These briefing books provided a great deal of information around activities, accomplishments, performance, and other management issues dealing with a wide range of subjects. In other words, we provided a quarterly story book of what we were doing and why. The briefing book accomplished a number of things. First, by sharing a great deal of management-related information, it completely removed any management-related issues from the board meeting agenda. Questions regarding anything contained in the briefing book were to be directed to the respective executives. Second, it allowed the board to focus its regular meeting agenda around the strategic priorities of the organization. The strategic plan provided the organizing structure for the agenda and the Board Book focused on our efforts to accomplish strategic objectives. Third, it afforded the board with enough time to engage in generative discussions in board meetings around the really important stuff. And last, in the context of holding the CEO accountable to the board, it created an environment in which discussions were based on shared knowledge about how the organization was performing and for which I was ultimately responsible.

Informal Accountability for Leader Behavior

Notwithstanding the formal processes for conducting ongoing performance monitoring based on strategic priorities and key performance indicators, there are numerous informal checks and balances around CEO leadership behavior that are also very important for the board to utilize. Just because these may not be quantifiable does not mean they should not be considered as serious means for overseeing the CEO’s leadership behavior to make sure that good morale is maintained, employee loyalty is supported, turnover of key employees is within reasonable limits and for acceptable reasons, and interpersonal relationships with the board and constituents are positive and supportive. While I could argue that it is highly unlikely, it is conceivable that draconian and coercive leadership may lead to the accomplishment of strategic objectives. However, the human cost under such leadership styles should never be sufficient justification for unethical or inappropriate behavior just because it results in positive outcomes. The end does not justify the means.

This is a distinction which is especially important for mission-driven nonprofit organizations. The CEO should model the behaviors that are exemplified in the organization’s core values. The “model-in-chief” stands as the representative of everything the organization professes about itself and how it relates to its employees, clients and supporters. When behaviors stand in contradistinction to expected norms and values, the organization is at considerable peril of losing its mission and its support. I don’t care what the key performance indicators may say, the future of the organization will be compromised by bad leadership.

I recall reading a book a number of years ago entitled Bad Leadership by Barbara Kellerman (2004) in which she described a number of national and international leaders, most of them political, who had risen to power, but who exhibited glaring defects of character that eventually led to their demise. The defects she identified included the traits of being incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular or evil. After describing case studies of individual leaders who exhibited one or more of these traits, she concludes with this observation. “I claim that placing bad leadership along two different axes – ineffective and unethical – clarifies how the word bad is being used. Ideal leaders and followers are, at the same time, effective and ethical. But as we have seen, it’s possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously effective and unethical…. And it’s also possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously ethical and ineffective….In other words, effective behavior and ethical behavior are not joined; nor is the distinction between them always crisp (pp. 219-220).”

So, how can the CEO make sure that his or her board of directors is holding them accountable for both being effective and ethical? I have already described ways in which the organization’s strategic priorities can be used to measure the effectiveness of CEO performance and how the CEO can construct systems and processes to ensure ongoing discussion around measures of effectiveness. But a different set of variables and a different mindset are required to measure ethical conduct.

The first and most important process to have in place is a confidential whistleblower or complaint system. In the organization of which I was the CEO, this consisted of an anonymous online, third party reporting system in which complaints were initially sent to the chair of the Audit Committee. (I have previously described the expanded role such committees should have if organizations followed the Sarbanes-Oxley recommendations.) The website was set up to guarantee the impossibility of tracking the source of the complaint. Complaints about lower level staff were forwarded to the CEO. Complaints about the CEO were forwarded to the board chair. An alternative telephone interface was also provided which left a message for the committee chair without the possibility of identifying the caller. This sophisticated whistleblower system, although rarely used, provided assurance to employees at every level that complaints would be heard and taken seriously and would not lead to retaliation against them by supervisors.

In smaller organizations less formally structured processes may be sufficient, so long as anonymity is preserved. It might consist of an email address to which complaints can be sent and to which only the board chair or CEO has access. It might consist of a post office box number to which anonymous letters can be sent. Whatever the means, it is important that the CEO and the board be accessible to employees, clients and constituents to voice concerns about leadership. And of course, in instances involving the CEO – which is the primary focus of this article – the board chair must be contacted.

One example will suffice to illustrate why such tools are necessary. Early in my career as a CEO, I had a regional director who appeared to be very effective. She was a leader in implementing quality measures, oversaw a territorial expansion, was successful in adding new programs, and was increasingly entrusted with broader management responsibility. After about a year, however, I was beginning to receive complaints from some of her subordinates who described her angry outbursts, threats of termination, and imposition of rules such as “contacting anybody at corporate for any reason will be viewed as insubordination.” According to our procedures, such complaints were to be sent to the CEO. After investigation confirmed the veracity of the complaints, I met with her to review their substance and to offer alternatives including a three month leave during which she would have to receive counseling and training, or if she refused, she would have to resign. Sadly, she chose the latter path.

Corporate America has many tales to be told of CEOs who fit Kellerman’s category of “effective, but unethical.” Extra-marital affairs, untreated alcoholism, embezzlement, misuse of company assets, inappropriate investments for personal gain, and more recently, sexual harassment and abuse are a few examples of bad leadership. Fortunately, much less tolerance is being exhibited by the public for such behavior that, in previous decades, might have been overlooked. Today, public exposure in the press and prosecution in court are raising the bar of accountability for CEO behavior.

Another way in which CEOs can help their boards hold them accountable is by using evaluation tools such as an anonymous 360-degree evaluation process. This allows subordinates and super-ordinates alike to communicate important information related to leadership and management style to the board. Whether someone on the board has the skill and expertise to facilitate such a process or whether an external agency conducts the 360-degree assessment should be determined by the board in consultation with the CEO who may have knowledge of available resources. Size of organization, the cost of external consultants, and board commitment to the process should also be considered.

Regardless of which methods of reporting are used, it is important that the CEO support systems and processes which provide the board with accurate information and which ensure the anonymity of those who report CEO misconduct.

The Context for Leadership

Leadership in any nonprofit organization is not the sole responsibility of the CEO, although that individual is usually identified as the single most influential person to affect the overall leadership culture of the organization. CEOs function in a complex system comprised of company values, board dynamics, employee competence, service and product delivery, management processes, and a host of other factors. Using family systems theory, the performance of a nonprofit organization and its executive leadership should be viewed in terms of all the factors, each of which has an influence on the other constituent parts. Interdependence among all responsible parties (e.g., CEO, board, staff, clients, constituents, donors) creates a type of quantum field in which the behavior of one part influences the behavior of others in the field. Rarely is any critical event the result of only one person’s behavior. Of course, there are times when unethical behavior such as the CEO having an extra-marital affair can be assigned solely to the individual. But in most cases when people are not intentionally acting inappropriately, that is, when they are conscientiously trying to do their jobs but act either out of misguided assumptions or mistaken beliefs about what constitutes the right action, then the dynamics of the entire environment should be considered.

An example of how this plays out can be found in professional sports. How often have we seen a losing team fire the coach as the solution to its problems? Of course, the coach might have been a poor leader, but the team owners, the players and even the fans could have contributed to the losing record, poor team morale, or a drop in ticket sales. If appropriate accountability exists which is based on measurable indicators, such action may be warranted, but should never be done without considering the dynamics of the entire organization.

An example from the nonprofit world might be found when a dysfunctional board which is unable to respond appropriately to situations or fulfill its basic legal and ethical duties chooses to scapegoat the CEO when things go off the rails. Subversive donors or other constituents with their own agendas may wield influence over the CEO or the board and create pressure to act in certain ways that are not in the best interest of the organization as a whole. Power dynamics among management staff may also create conflicts and lead to poor leadership decisions.

It is important that the CEO and the board leadership understand these complex dynamics, not to assign blame for mistakes, but to address the diverse factors that contribute to negative situations and to identify ways to remediate them. The CEO can help the board identify the factors contributing to such complex and dynamic relationships and actually reinforce his or her effectiveness by laying out a course of action that accounts for those disparate factors – not as an excuse for why negative conditions exist, but as a way to inform and educate the board about the challenges the leader faces and to seek good advice on how to navigate its complexities.

The Culture of Leadership

I have spoken to this point mostly with regard to formal and informal ways to evaluate the leadership effectiveness of the CEO. I would be remiss if I didn’t address this issue from a positive and proactive perspective and offer advice to CEOs on how to assure their boards that effective and ethical leadership is the norm. Much of this can be accomplished by implementing and supporting professional development activities and team building measures that strive to build a positive working environment and which cultivate and maintain a corporate culture which emphasizes ethical and effective leadership at every level of the organization.

When I first became the CEO of a large social service organization, I became acutely aware of a significant disparity between the company’s philosophy of client services and the policies around employee relations and management. While clients (in my case, those with intellectual and developmental disabilities) were viewed as valued children of God capable of individual growth and development and that our services were to be guided by person-centered planning, we treated employees and their work as expendable commodities. Aberrant behaviors by clients were treated as opportunities for redirection and education while mistakes or underperformance by employees were causes for corrective action, last chance agreements and termination. Changing the culture to bring our beliefs about people of all abilities and status into alignment took a lot of work. Using “people first” language was a start, but words alone don’t bring about change. We needed to be more intentional about changing the culture which previously supported unhealthy values. Using Cameron and Quinn’s work described in Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (2006), we assessed our organization’s culture, correctly confirming through quantitative measures our suspicions of draconian management practices, and over six years of effort, successfully instilled more appropriate and consistent cultural values that extended to our employee policies and HR practices.

The point of my sharing this experience is to point out how keeping the board apprised of our work by regularly reporting our efforts and the progress we made gave them the assurance that my leadership was not only effective, but was aimed at embedding affirmative ethical values throughout the organization, along with behavioral standards and expectations that were consistent with our organization’s values.

Another process I employed to further advance ethical leadership was through team building exercises using Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002). Understanding the critical need of each prepotent level of skill (i.e., building trust, using constructive conflict, obtaining commitment, being accountable, and attending to the results) our executive team assessed its attitudes and behaviors and actively worked to overcome areas of perceived weakness. Sharing this process with the board provided assurance to them that we were serious about how we obtained results and not just with what was accomplished. The end goal was a cohesive leadership team that grew significantly in its ability to work together honestly and collaboratively. Sharing this process with the board invited it into our corporate leadership world and provided opportunities to explore the implications of our work for how the board worked as a team.

A Word on Executive Sessions and Other Board Conversations About CEO Performance

Some boards of directors are in the habit of holding regular executive sessions for the specific purpose of discussing the CEO’s performance without the CEO being present. In my opinion, regular sessions WITH the CEO about the CEO’s performance can be very healthy, provided there is a climate of mutual trust and support. In fact, the CEO can exercise executive leadership in such sessions if he or she takes the initiative to raise questions or solicit advice and counsel around some aspect of leadership. Going into executive session merely removes the reporting of the discussion from the corporate minutes. The only time I can think of in which the CEO would not participate in such executive sessions would be those annual discussions about the CEO’s compensation and benefit package. I would argue that even discussions about the CEO’s annual performance review should include the CEO. What could possibly be shared in such a closed session that shouldn’t also be shared with the CEO?

However, I have encountered too many instances of boards excusing the CEO to discuss his or her performance as a regular aspect of every board meeting. In my experience, this produces a number of negative results. First, I believe it contributes to an erosion of trust between the CEO and the board. The last thing a nonprofit board needs is a paranoid CEO who is left wondering what they are talking about and feeling helpless about not being able to explain or defend his or her actions.

Second, if there is information to be shared with the CEO, it is left to the board chair to communicate the content or results of such discussions. This creates the opportunity for interpretation by one individual that may either understate or overstate any issues that were discussed. Imagine a half hour executive session after which the board chair merely reports that “everything is fine.” I know I would wonder what they had been talking about for a half hour. Even worse is when the board chair overstates or misrepresents the discussion by infusing his or her own opinions, reporting discussion outcomes such as “The board agrees with me that you spend too much time visiting programs,” or “We all think you shouldn’t talk so much in board meetings.” When boards engage in such activity, they are actively cultivating Lencioni’s first dysfunction of a team, namely, “absence of trust.”

Conclusion

Every CEO I have ever met sincerely wants honest feedback from their board of directors. Men and women who aspire to leadership positions in mission-driven nonprofit organizations don’t, in my experience, do so for personal aggrandizement or reward, notwithstanding the many perquisites that usually do come with the job. They are led to serve the people who receive benefit from the organization. At the same time, they are imperfect human beings with their own strengths and limitations, their own assets and deficits. Nonprofit boards of directors have the challenging responsibility of seeking and hiring the best possible person to fill the chief executive position, recognizing in doing so that they also have a responsibility to make sure their only employee is supported and has the best possible opportunity for success.

Part of such support is providing honest and accurate performance evaluation feedback. While such evaluations are required as part of an annual review process to determine compensation and benefits, effective nonprofit boards are more concerned that their chief executive grows and flourishes, performs effectively, models the organization’s values and achieves strategic objectives. These all directly impact the ability of the organization to fulfill its strategic mission of service.

I have tried to argue that it is in the CEO’s self-interest, as well as in the interest of the organization and its mission fulfillment, that executive leadership by the CEO for how he or she is held accountable is a necessary demonstration of the kind of reciprocal governance I have been advocating. Ultimately, the CEO and his or her board must share the process by which the CEO is held accountable, but for that sharing to be managed appropriately requires initiative and leadership on the part of the CEO.

References and Resources

Bauer, John E. Your Preferred Future. Achieved.: Ten Critical Questions for Nonprofit Strategic Planning. (2019). John E. Bauer Consulting, LLC. Greenfield, WI.

Brown, Brene, The Gifts of Imperfection. (2010) Hazelden Publishing, Center City, MN.

Cameron, Kim S. and Quinn, Robert E. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. (2006). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. San Francisco, CA.

Kellerman, Barbara. Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why it Matters. (2004). Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Lencioni, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. (2002). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. San Francisco, CA.

How Can the CEO Lead Strategic Planning With the Board?

John Bauer May 14, 2019 blog, News

One of the most important responsibilities of a nonprofit board of directors, besides hiring the CEO, is adopting a strategic plan. I make this assertion based upon my belief in what a properly developed and executed strategic plan should look like, how it should be used, and how it can help move an organization toward is preferred future. Rather than discuss the content, process and mechanics of strategic planning, I intend to explore in this article how a nonprofit CEO can use the strategic planning process to lead the board in fulfilling its various duties. Those who are interested in knowing more about effective strategic planning can read my recently published book on the subject, Your Preferred Future. Achieved.¹,in which I describe how to conduct strategic planning using ten critical questions – all of which, I argue, must be answered in some fashion for the plan to be of maximum usefulness. In this article, I am going to describe how the CEO and his/her staff should drive this effort in all its aspects while respecting the unique role and responsibility of the board to set the mission and vision and ensure that plans and resources are organized to turn the vision into a future reality.

Assuming the board has committed itself philosophically and tangibly to conducting strategic planning, I intend to identify numerous ways the CEO can support the process. I don’t take such commitment as a given, however. I have encountered boards that do not see the value of having a strategic plan, opting for less burdensome or expensive courses of action. These may include the belief that a weekend board visioning retreat is sufficient to direct the organization’s future. Or, the board may conclude that the focus should be on strategy development and execution, rather than on setting long range goals. Or still another scenario I’ve seen is that in which boards of small and underfunded organizations think they can’t afford to spend money on planning for the future when they can hardly keep the doors open in the present.

I also don’t take it for granted that CEOs themselves believe in the value of strategic planning, regardless of what their boards may think. I’ve met nonprofit leaders who consider strategic planning a waste of time and resources, preferring to spend their time and energy focused on managing the delivery of key services or responding to issues as they arise. Such a limited mission-fulfillment attitude, while short-sighted, is understandable given the pressures that exist every day to keep their organizations operating smoothly. Others have been burned by planning consultants who extracted a lot of money in exchange for a boiler-plate plan that quickly gathered dust because of its lack of depth, relevance or adaptability. Still other CEOs don’t have the necessary knowledge or experience to understand the essential value and utility a good strategic plan can bring. In my experience, these are often individuals who grew up in the operations area of the organization, are passionate about the mission, but lack leadership experience and knowledge of best practices in strategic planning.

I am convinced, however, that by engaging in a theoretically sound and pragmatically grounded strategic planning process, CEOs and their boards can shape an aspirational, yet achievable, vision for the future. As I argue in my book, such an approach to strategic planning should be based on the best available research about what the future environment is likely to look like. It should be grounded in an understanding of current operating realities and an assessment of the sustainability of the current business model. And before launching into goal setting and action plans, a sound comprehensive strategic planning process should include an analysis of the capacity of the organization to actually move into its preferred future while responding to changing conditions along the way. Strategic thinking, planning, learning, adapting, developing, executing – these all must be considered.

So, how should the board be engaged in this process and what leadership roles should the CEO play in supporting the board in this regard? Before diving into the various ways in which the CEO can lead the board in strategic planning, it is first of all essential that the CEO have a deep, working knowledge of what constitutes effective nonprofit strategic planning. This may be the old college professor speaking, but most often nonprofit CEOs will have to “go to school” to get the knowledge that is required if they are going to lead the board toward and through the best approach to planning for the organization. Unless you have an individual on your board who does this kind of thing for a living, CEOs are going to have to lead the board to adopt an approach that is of most value and relevance to their organization. However, it should not be assumed that, just because you have someone on the board who has done business planning or strategic planning in the public or private sectors, they understand the nuances of best-practice strategic planning for nonprofit charitable organizations. Nor should it be assumed that CEOs can read a book or two and effectively facilitate this complex and multi-dimensional process.

Board Duty

Let’s first establish the fact that nonprofit boards of directors cannot NOT engage in strategic planning. It is an inherent duty that is closely tied to their fiduciary responsibility. In the process of ensuring that sufficient resources are obtained and effectively managed, planning for the future is required in order to align budgets and fund-raising efforts with future needs and conditions. CEOs should never assume that boards understand these duties and continuous efforts to educate and train board members in nonprofit governance should be an essential component of a board development plan.

In addition, effective boards are those which spend a considerable amount of time engaged in strategic thinking in their meetings. As argued by Richard Chait, et. al.², engagement in strategic thinking, planning and decision-making is one of the most essential forms of leadership through board governance. This vital mode of intellectual discourse requires board members to understand and commit to the long-range vision and to provide continuous high-level direction and support to ensure that the organization can in fact achieve its preferred future. And when performance data, unexpected incidents, changes in the environment, or major disruptive forces throw up challenges to achieving the goals of the plan, boards must be able to respond strategically. Such thinking and acting must come from a basis of knowledge that is grounded in reliable data and which uses decision-making processes that align with the overarching framework of the strategic plan.

All too often, boards and their CEOs are faced with a crisis and respond on the basis of emotion, limited data, anecdotal impressions, or the gut response of a few key leaders. Strategic leadership and governance require dispassionate objectivity which can be gained and maintained when the board’s method for working through challenges is guided by a coherent and dynamic strategic plan that frames their discussions and guides their decision-making.

While the board chairman is ultimately responsible for guiding such strategic thinking in the course of the meeting, the CEO must support his or her leadership by developing meeting agendas that align with the strategic plan. The CEO should be providing updates, progress reports, key performance data, focused reports on one or more aspects of the plan, and recommendations for changes to the plan, and should be willing to share successes and failures regarding the goals and objectives articulated in the plan. Such support and leadership actions by the CEO will be fleshed out in the paragraphs which follow. Suffice it to say, the CEO can and should help the board meet its duties and support its strategic leadership role.

Choosing the Right Approach

There are many different models of strategic planning that have been used over the years. Most of these consist of adaptations from business planning models, modified to suit the needs of nonprofit organizations. Such traditional approaches to strategic planning consisted of techniques such as vision-casting, SWOT analysis, quantifiable objectives, and tactical action plans. Borne out of military strategizing, such approaches defined the ultimate goal or objective, and then developed linearly arranged steps to achieve it. Numerous variations have emerged over the last 50 years or so, all with accompanying flow charts and diagrams and decision trees to map the process.

More recently, strategic planning as a discipline has been challenged and considerable debate has swirled around the concepts of strategy, strategic programming, strategic thinking and strategic planning. Critics of strategic planning argue that it is static and forces decision-making into categorical modes of thinking that inhibit creativity and responsiveness.³Organizations should focus instead on strategic thought processes that operate without prior constraint or structural restrictions. The value of such an approach comes from recognizing the need for nimble responsiveness in rapidly changing environments. The downside is that a larger “story arc” is missing which describes the vision of the organization in the long term.

I believe that the evolution of strategic planning in the nonprofit world is moving into the realm of strategic thinking and deciding WITHIN the framework of a larger and longer view of strategy.⁴Such a dialectical view finds a middle ground which values the complex dynamics of a living organization/organism. If one can analogize strategic planning to human growth and development, it would be something like existentially choosing a daily course of action within the context of one’s larger life goals. Having the freedom to choose an action today is both built upon previous experiences and is also free to modify a life trajectory. Consequently, daily decisions can both move toward a life goal or can alter the life goal. Such a dynamic and interrelated view of life is supported by quantum science which states that everything is related to everything else; an action in one arena effects behaviors in other parts of the universe. Similarly, with strategic decision-making, acting tactically today affects strategies tomorrow which alter our vision of reality in the long term. And yet, actions today are also aimed at some higher purpose or end and consequently, are not totally free, but are conditioned by the expectations of that end. Nonprofit organizations, therefore, should plan their futures mindful of the dynamics of change.

The CEO’s Leadership Role

Moving beyond this cosmological blathering, the fact is that the CEO must be conversant in the theory and practice of strategic planning to the extent that he or she can recommend an approach that is best suited to the needs of the organization. The board should be educated as much as is necessary in this field so an appropriate decision can be made to select, approve, support and participate in the recommended approach. Preferably, this choice is mindful of the need for both nimble strategy development AND long-range strategic thinking. In order to assist the board in the selection process, the CEO and his or her staff must do the necessary research and study, and provide sufficient resources to the board so they can affirm the recommendation of the CEO about the best approach. My view was always that, since I and my staff were going to be heavily invested in making this process work, we needed to steer the selection process through the board to make sure we were going to be following the methodology we believed was the most appropriate fit.

Leading the Process

Once a strategic planning method has been determined, I believe it is the CEO’s responsibility to drive the process forward. This can be done in several ways. In most cases, some kind of planning task force will be assembled, comprised of key board members, staff, and perhaps other stakeholders. Selection of participants on such a task force should not be left to the discretion of the board chair or, even worse, to a call for interested volunteers. Great care should be exercised in choosing task force members with an emphasis on skills, experience and knowledge.

If a consultant is used – something I strongly recommend and about which I’ll speak later – the CEO should do the investigation and vetting of consulting firms with experience and expertise in working with nonprofit organizations. The CEO should prepare a request for proposal (RFP) which defines the intended outcomes, the nature of the organization and its context, the preferable process it wishes to utilize, timelines and budget parameters. Once proposals are received, the CEO and selected task force members should interview the top two or three respondents and recommend their selection to the board. Because this will require a financial commitment, and because the board must ultimately approve the strategic plan, the board should be asked to formally adopt the CEO’s consultant recommendation.

To emphasize the importance of having the CEO provide leadership, I was once hired to facilitate a comprehensive strategic planning process for a large nonprofit organization over the objections of the CEO. While the project was ultimately successful, navigating the initial political dynamics between the CEO and the Board’s Strategic Planning Committee was very delicate. In the end, the CEO became a champion of the process and continues to use the model today. But forcing him to accept a consultant and support a particular planning process prolonged the effort and exposed some unhealthy power dynamics that had to be resolved.

Once a consultant is hired, the methodology is agreed upon, the task force is established, and staff assignments are made, the CEO plays a critical role in driving the effort forward. Holding staff members accountable for meeting deadlines and completing work assignments may require the CEO’s oversight and motivation. Holding the consultant accountable for achieving key deliverables by established deadlines is critically important. This is especially important if consultants are being paid on an hourly, rather than a project, basis.

Finally, the CEO is the one individual in the organization who can articulate to staff, donors, board members and other key stakeholders the value of strategic planning, the role it will play in moving the organization into the future, and how the quality of services and its service reach will be affected. The CEO as “chief story teller” can begin to tell the tale before the process begins, while it is underway, and most important, when it is completed. Strategic planning should never be an end in itself. It is only a tool to help move the organization into the future. How that future is described and what actions are required to achieve that future are the elements in a story of the organization’s past, present and future.

Who Owns the Plan?

A nonprofit’s board of directors is responsible for approving a strategic plan which describes the organization’s intended or, as I like to say, preferred future. Because the strategic plan informs the board’s fiduciary duty, maps the course for fulfilling its mission and achieving its vision, and provides the basis for continuously evaluating the organization’s performance, the board of directors must “own” the strategic plan. In my experience, the result of the initial comprehensive planning process should be formally adopted by the board. If the board asks to have annual updates or iterations of the strategic with extended horizons (something I strongly recommend), then the annual presentation of the updated plan should also be adopted by the board.

What the strategic plan looks like when it is submitted to the board for approval should be carefully determined. I recommend that boards be given a plan which at least contains the following essential elements. Failure to include any of these potentially sets the organization up for failure to achieve the desired outcomes.

A review of the mission and vision statements
An assessment of the sustainability and impact of the current business model
Research into what the future operating environment will look like
An internal environment scan, focusing on strengths and opportunities
A capacity assessment to determine if the organization can move forward
An articulation of high-level strategic positions and associated measurable goals
Key performance indicators to track progress

Boards of directors should NOT, however, be in the business of approving every strategy, tactic or action plan developed to move the organization toward achieving its articulated positions and associated goals. It is my belief that the CEO and his or her staff are responsible for developing annual action plans that direct the work of the staff toward achieving the measurable goals. Involving the Board in such granular planning crosses the line, in my opinion, between governance and management.

The process of developing annual initiatives or action plans is a great way for the CEO to accomplish two things. First, the strategic plan becomes a dynamic and living document that focuses staff on priorities and high-impact activities. Engaging staff in the development of annual action plans also affords the opportunity to communicate to the entire organization where it is headed and everyone’s role in getting there. One organization I worked with published the annual initiatives and posted them throughout the organization’s facilities, alongside the mission, vision and strategic position statements. Such transparency made everyone accountable for achieving the desired future.

Budgets and Annual Planning

When an organization adopts an annual planning cycle which follows approval of a comprehensive strategic plan, several very good things ensue. First, if annual review of the strategic plan precedes the budgeting process, then the goals and initiatives drive the budget and are not post hocvictims of the budget. Second, an annual cycle formalizes planning activities into the framework of the calendar of board and staff activities. For example, if the organization is on a July to June fiscal year and budgeting begins in March of each year with board approval in May, then the strategic plan review should occur in the fall with the board being asked to adopt the revised strategic positions and goals in early spring so the staff can develop initiatives as part of the budget process.

A third benefit of using an annual planning cycle is that the board then has a clear basis for evaluating the performance of the CEO with respect to his or her ability to move the organization toward the fulfillment of the strategic goals. I would argue, in fact, that the basis of the CEO’s performance evaluation should bethe strategic plan, rather than looking only at tasks, responsibilities, style or relationships. These are only means, not ends.

Integrating the Strategic Plan into Board Meetings

Strategic planning, thinking and acting must be incorporated into the work of the board of directors at every meeting. In fact, I would argue that the strategic plan, its implementation and adaptation should be THE agenda for every board meeting. How can this be accomplished and what is the CEO’s role in making sure the strategic plan receives primacy in board meetings?

First, it should be common practice that the board meeting agenda is jointly constructed by the CEO and the board chairperson. In my experience, allowing one or the other to solely take responsibility for this task ignores the important governance partnership that should exist between the chair and the CEO. As reflected in other articles in this series, the CEO is an active executive participant in what I call “reciprocal governance” and is the key player in determining “Who’s the Boss?”

To make sure that sufficient time is allocated for the board to discuss the organization’s position with respect to its strategic plan, several things have to occur. These are suggestions I offer from my own experience as a CEO in trying to keep my board focused on the larger strategic issues and away from the routine managerial aspects of operations.

To make sure sufficient time is allocated to discussing strategic issues, I believe strongly in a timed agenda. My old mentor used to frequently intone, “Work expands to fill the time allotted to it.” If your agenda is open-ended with respect to time, you can expect to run out of time to discuss bigger and more important issues.
I dumped just about every managerial approval item into a consent agenda. This works especially well if recommendations are published in advance. I even gained approval for a million-dollar capital construction item through the consent agenda because the board had ample time and orientation to the request ahead of time. Any board member can take any item out of the consent agenda for consideration, but generally, this tactic freed up a lot of time in the meeting for strategic discussions.
Other than a very brief presentation of the current finances, no program reports should be given in the board meeting. These reports were all distributed ahead of time in the form of a board briefing book which was sent out mid-way between board meetings. This also helped keep the lines between governance and management very clear.
Supporting strategic discussion requires adequate information ahead of time. In our board books, published a couple of weeks in advance of each board meeting, key staff members who were responsible for an aspect of the strategic plan, reported out in narrative and with measurable performance indicators, their progress toward achieving strategic objectives. The expectation, of course, was that board members came to the meeting prepared to discuss the big issues.
The agenda could be structured around each of the key strategic goal or positions statements with guiding questions such as: “How are we doing?” “What can we be doing differently?” “What have we learned?” “What new opportunities exist?” etc.
The focus of such an agenda should be on producing a deliverable of some kind and not just the absorption of information from reports. Strategic thinking is by its nature creative, open-ended and hypothetical. Each board meeting should be considered as an opportunity to correct the trajectory, change direction, consider new solutions.

By thinking in these terms, the strategic plan as the overarching roadmap can become dynamic and flexible and can serve as an engaging basis for exciting conversation. I like to use my phone’s GPS-based navigation app as an analogy. If the strategic plan describes the beginning and ending points, then when accidents or traffic jams occur, or when road construction is going to create a delay, alternative routes are offered up by the app which save time. The board’s strategic discussions should be thought of in the same way. A plan is only a plan. It is the actions that are taken as the plan unfolds that comprises the real strategy.

Feeding the Board

For the board to exercise its duty to plan, it needs a lot of feeding. In this regard, the CEO is the person best positioned to provide the knowledge they require to make good decisions. This “feeding” should be in terms of both process and content. As I discussed earlier, there are many different approaches for strategic planning and the CEO should provide leadership for the board in recommending an approach and, if necessary, a consultant to facilitate its use. Ultimately, just about any approach to planning can work, provided the process has board engagement and support and strong leadership from the chief executive. However, the approach I developed over years has broad application in just about any nonprofit setting. In organizations I worked with that had strong executive leadership, the model provided the organization with a sustainable process that continues to support strategic thinking and planning to this day. In a couple of instances in which senior leadership was less than enthusiastic or committed, their plans languished from misuse or nonuse. As in just about every case, a nonprofit organization’s success is dependent upon effective leadership and strategic planning is no different.

Once an approach to strategic planning has been adopted, the initial process has been successfully completed, and the organization has embedded strategic thinking and learning into its governance and management systems, continuous input of information is needed to sustain the content of the planning process. You might have the most beautifully designed and engineered lawn mower engine, but if you don’t put gas in the tank, it is of no use. In the same way, strategic planning, thinking and acting require the input of data relative to the goals and objectives articulated in the plan. Such data might be called “key performance indicators” or a “balanced score card” or “business intelligence” or “benchmark data.” Regardless of the terminology, someone has to be continually answering the question, “How are we doing?” It is not sufficient to provide anecdotes or generalizations to the board. Especially in larger organizations, data which tracks performance over time for key variables is essential if the board is to understand the viability of plan goals and objectives. Good information is needed if alternative strategies need to be developed to adjust the strategic direction described in the plan.

The bottom line for all this is that the chief executive officer is the individual who must feed the board what it needs to understand the organization’s performance to date, to consider alternative futures based on relevant data, and to make strategic decisions to try a different path. This executive role of the CEO over against the board’s duty to plan cannot be overstated.

To get a consultant or not?

So, why should you NOT do this on your own? Why should you at least consider using a consultant to facilitate this process? Here are five reasons you should consider when deciding whether or not to obtain outside counsel.

Using someone else to facilitate the process allows you to maintain a measure of objectivity and ensures a high degree of integrity. Of course, you are the final arbiter of what advances to the board for approval but having someone else manage the process helps to insulate you from the kinds of bias that can creep into strategic planning. If you are too integrally involved in managing the process, then you run the risk of unwittingly imposing your own prejudices into the outcomes as opposed to letting data and research inform the story and direct the outcomes.
Comprehensive strategic planning is a challenging task. You and your staff will be engaged in extra work no matter who manages the process. It is much easier for a third party to hold your team members accountable for meeting assignments and deadlines without the additional ties to everyday working relationships within the organization. Your team is accountable to you for enough already without adding an extra set of expectations. And if one of your team is failing to meet assignment deadlines, a consultant can bring that to your attention, so you don’t have to be responsible for one more thing.
You don’t have an adequate amount of time to devote to the process. Regardless of the size of your organization, and regardless of your capacity for work, you were hired to provide executive leadership. I know from my years as a CEO what that entails, and you will protect your own health, well-being and effectiveness by delegating the management of this process to someone else. In other words, don’t let a process like this compromise your ability to provide the kind of leadership your organization deserves on a day to day basis.
It is unwise to delegate this process to a subordinate. Unless you are so large that you already have a vice president of strategy, it sends the message that you aren’t sensitive to the amount of work and the priorities of your top executives. If your organization is anything like mine was, every one of my senior administrators was already overworked. To add a project of this magnitude to their plate sends conflicting messages: either I can delegate more work to you and I don’t care, or I don’t think you have enough to do.
Finally, it isn’t helpful for you to be perceived by your board as expert in everything. There is considerable value in being seen as the manager of the expert instead of beingthe manager of the process. It says to the board that strategic planning is so important to the future of the organization that is it worth investing in expertise to make sure it is done right. Even if you are capable of leading and managing the project yourself, your board won’t view the outcome in the same light as if an expert guides the organization to the end.

~0~

A Concluding Thought (or two)

One of the most important duties of a nonprofit board of directors is to plan for the organization’s future. I have argued that this is an essential aspect of the board’s fiduciary responsibility. To assume, however, that every nonprofit board has the internal capacity to engage in strategic planning is naïve. It is almost always the case that the chief executive officer has to lead this effort with the board. Governance of this type is truly reciprocal in the sense that the board needs the CEO to provide knowledge and skill leadership with respect to planning, and the CEO needs the board’s buy in and active engagement in the process – especially when most of the CEO’s performance review is based upon attainment of goals and objectives described in the strategic plan.

Finally, reciprocal governance which uses the strategic planning process effectively is characterized by mutual accountability. The strategic plan and its continuous use as a tool for monitoring performance, adapting to change, and altering the organization’s vision of its preferred future requires a mutual commitment from both the CEO and the board. It is the CEO who must provide the structure and process to make that mutuality work.

References and End Notes

1.Bauer, John. Your Preferred Future. Achieved.: Ten Critical Questions for Nonprofit Strategic Planning. John Bauer Consulting. 2019. https://www.amazon.com/Your-Preferred-Future-Achieved-Questions/dp/109181225X/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=your+preferred+future&qid=1556890523&s=books&sr=1-2-spell)

2. Chait, Richard; Ryan, William; Taylor, Barbara. Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. 2005 (See especially Chapter IV – Type II Governance: Strategic.) This book has done more to shape my thinking about nonprofit governance than any other. Many of the suggestions about how to organize board meetings were developed after reading this book.

3. LaPiana, David. The Nonprofit Strategy Revolution: Real-Time Strategic Planning in a Rapid-Response World.Fieldstone Alliance, an imprint of Turner Publishing. New York, NY. (2008). I have used LaPiana’s model for strategy development as a way to keep the organization’s strategic plan alive and dynamic, especially as a way to fuel board meeting discussions.

4. Mintzburg, Henry. The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review. (January-February 1994). This article has been cited as a classic argument both for and against long-range strategic planning. Mintzburg’s measured opinion points out the factors that can undermine effective strategic planning, while also describing the intellectual framing that supports strategic thinking, planning, managing and acting.

5. Martin, Roger L. et.al. The Big Lie of Strategic Planning: Webinar Summary. Harvard Business Review. January 18, 2018). I actually resonated with much of Martin’s argument and, in fact, have incorporated similar thoughts into my model of strategic planning. Many of the caveats and concerns he expresses are shared by me in my book, Your Preferred Future. Achieved.

How Can I Lead the Board to Help Me With Fundraising?

John Bauer April 9, 2019 blog, News

In this series of articles entitled “Who’s the Boss?” I have been discussing the CEO’s executive role with respect to the nonprofit board’s various governance functions and have argued that providing explicit and active leadership – what I call “reciprocal governance” – is an essential responsibility of the CEO. You need your board and it needs you in order to provide the best possible leadership through governance. In this article, I am going to explore how the CEO can draw upon the knowledge, resources and connections of board members to help them fulfill their individual and collective duty to support the fund-raising goals of the organization.

In most nonprofit organizations, the chief executive officer is also the “fund-raiser-in-chief.” This is especially true in smaller organizations and those for which the CEO was the founder or first chief executive. However, even in very large organizations with large development staffs and a chief development officer, the CEO usually plays a key role in major gift fund raising and in providing overarching direction for fundraising efforts.

The board of directors represents a corps of volunteers that can be mobilized to help achieve fund raising goals for the organization. However, one cannot expect such support without direction or clearly defined expectations. Therefore, CEOs must work with their boards to establish clear expectations and board policies accompanied by education, training, and coaching in how to perform those duties.

A review of the literature on board engagement in fund raising will typically yield lists of tactics and activities for engaging directors in fund raising. What such lists typically do NOT do, however, is clearly describe the CEO’s executive role in making sure these various board engagement activities related to fundraising are systematically carried out. What I will do in this article is provide a list of what I have found to be the most common strategies for board involvement in fundraising and how the CEO can ensure their execution.

Gleaned from numerous sources, some of which have been referenced below, I have consolidated over 30 different strategies into a “baker’s dozen” of ways board members can help raise money without asking. These are explained and then followed by my brief commentary on how the CEO can facilitate each particular activity. The activities are addressed to board members, so I’d go ahead and share the list with your board and encourage discussion about how they can become engaged. The commentary, however, is addressed to chief executive officers and consists of advice on how you can activate your board members to actually do the deed.

In every case, there is an underlying assumption that board members are expected to support the philanthropic efforts of the organization. If such expectations have not been stated and, ideally, codified in some type of board policy and procedure manual, then discussions with the board around this issue should be held first before diving into these tactical activities. The last thing a CEO wants is a disagreement about what being a board member means in his or her organization.

Make a proud, personal annual gift

I have written previously about the importance of having the CEO take the initiative to visit each member of the board each year to solicit their support for the annual fund. An alternative for larger boards is to visit each board member at the beginning of their term to solicit an annual fund commitment for the number of years of their term. For most nonprofits, this would mean securing a three-year commitment, with another personal visit if the director is elected to a subsequent three-year term.

While such visits will likely also include discussions of donor prospects and general advice and counsel around other organizational matters, having each board member make a personal – not corporate – gift should be the explicit expectation the board has for each of its directors. Commitments to a capital campaign, discussions around legacy planning or deferred gifts may also take place. However, this isn’t ultimately about the amount of money raised from each director. Rather, it is giving them the opportunity to personally invest in the organization they are helping govern.

I know of organizations in which board members themselves ask their peers on the board for their annual pledge or commitment to the organization. While this may work in some instances, this practice hardly guarantees consistency and can promote lack of confidentiality. Few board members have the ability to “make an ask” of fellow volunteer board members. I am also aware of some boards that set a collective goal and then challenge themselves to meet it. Regardless of how board members are involved, the more they can own the process, the better, so long as the CEO is comfortable and involved.

One additional thought in this regard. It costs a fair amount of money to support a board of directors, especially if the board is dispersed and must travel to board meetings. Some boards make a commitment each year to collectively contribute enough money to the annual fund to offset their expenses. In other words, the board’s cost to the organization is net neutral. By doing this, they can track their own commitments and challenge each other to meet their obligation.

Understand Your Organization’s Fundraising Program

Beyond asking each director for a personal annual gift, the chief executive officer has a responsibility to make sure every member of the board understands the overall fundraising philosophy and program of your organization and the various approaches and strategies that are employed. If individual board members are going to be asked to support and participate in fund raising activities and events, they need to know what those methods are in order to understand the importance of every aspect of the program. Board education might consist of presentations by development staff around specific fundraising programs such as direct mail, events, legacy giving, deferred giving, and other opportunities.

Such knowledge of the larger fundraising context is important insofar as board members are often asked about where the money comes from to support the mission. Helping them to understand the big picture of fundraising is a form of engagement and contributes to their own cultivation as a donor. For example, if board members are educated in the steps of “moves management” and understand the five I’s of donor cultivation, they not only see donors at different points of development, but they can see themselves as part of a process that leads toward higher levels of involvement. Therefore, education in donor cultivation might include presentations and discussion about those steps, namely, identifying, informing, building interest, involving, and inviting to invest.

Thank Donors

An easy way to engage board members in supporting fundraising is to ask them to help say “thank you” to donors. This can be done by phone, with cards, or with letters. I know of some organizations which schedule a “phone-a-thon” session in conjunction with board meetings in which phone banks are set up, lists of contributors are printed, scripts and training are provided, and board members make calls thanking donors for an hour before or after a board meeting.

Another way in which to engage board members is to have them hand-write personal notes in thank you cards or in short letters. Sample transcripts can be provided along with all the tools and materials needed to accomplish the task. Little things like hand addressing the envelope and using stamps instead of running them through the postage meter make the note more personal and impactful.

Finally, board members may be asked to visit a major donor to personally express appreciation for the gift and to talk about how it made an impact on the organization. Ideally, such a visit would be in the company of the CEO, who has the greatest responsibility for saying thanks, but board members with unique relationships to the donor can certainly be employed in such cases. The CEO must be the person who requests such a visit from the board member and should be followed by a debriefing on how the visit went. Remember, every donor contact is a piece of an overall cultivation strategy, and saying “thank you” in a personal and meaningful way has been shown to be of tremendous significance when it comes to both sustaining on-going support and in eventual solicitation of a major gift.

In all the foregoing examples of how to say “thanks,” board members are not typically going to take the initiative and will require encouragement, organization, direction and materials to carry out the function. Because the CEO is in the singular position of accountability to the board and has the most significant interactions with the board, he or she must lead this effort.

Tell Your Story

Board members who are comfortable talking to acquaintances about their experience serving on your board, the nature and quality of the work you do, and the difference you make in the lives of the people you support can become real champions in the cause. I would go so far as to say that if board members are not enthusiastic about the organization and their involvement on your board of directors, they should excuse themselves from the board. The CEO, as the promoter-in-chief, can reasonably expect that board members are sharing their excitement and support with others.

I know from my own experience how often I spoke about the organizations on whose boards I served. It was easy to share the knowledge I had gained about health care, social services, television ministry, aging services, and developmental disabilities with others. And the experience of working with other like-minded individuals with whom I had an affinity was personally and professionally enriching. Why wouldn’t I talk about that experience?

On the other hand, I have also had the unfortunate experience of serving on a few church councils and small organizational boards that were as close to Purgatory as one could find. Either the organization lacked leadership, had lost its mission, or had a dysfunctional board. Attending meetings was agony. So, the message to CEOs is to make sure your board members are meaningfully and productively engaged and that their experience on your board is personally and professionally enriching. They will tell others about their experience as a board member if the story is exciting and worth telling.

Being properly motivated to share the story with others is a matter of heart and attitude. Turning motivation into effective action, however, requires support and encouragement. CEOs who work with their boards to make them partners in fundraising also have to provide tools with which to tell the story. These tools may consist of talking points, organizational publicity, and how to use social media. Some of these I’ll address later. How and when to speak to civic groups, churches and local media are also aspects of communication that require direction and support. When used effectively, however, the voice of known local board members can go a long way to support an image of an agency whose mission is worth supporting financially.

Open the Door to Prospective Donors and Partners

This two-part activity asks board members to recommend prospective donors to the organization and to introduce them to the CEO. Board members must be asked to plumb the depths of their business and personal relationships and be willing to share such prospects with the CEO. The nature of the relationship and how those businesses and individuals can be invited to financially participate in the organization’s mission should be explored.

Some might react to this expectation with a certain amount of fear and trepidation because it could possibly expose them to negative backlash. After all, these presumably are friends, relatives and business associates with whom the board member has built a relationship of trust and honesty. Asking these acquaintances now to support the organization of which one is a board member poses a certain amount of risk. However, even though there may be possible aversion to making such referrals, the CEO has a responsibility to help board members live up to this commitment.

Assuming the board member has helpful connections and is willing to make introductions to the CEO, it is important to emphasize that the board member is not asking their acquaintance for money. That may come later, but the board member’s only task is making the connection, and then supporting the CEO’s work. This kind of “non-ask” activity should not be difficult or onerous if the board member is properly coached in how to make introductions.

Some models of donor development call for investigation of donor capacity and/or developing intelligence around a prospective donor’s business, investments, wealth, connections, and other information about their capacity and propensity to give. When board members are actively making referrals to the CEO of people who they believe should be contacted, it is most likely that they also have information about the prospective donor that can help the CEO build a file to determine two critical factors: capacity and willingness. Capacity can be objectively determined by using a variety of data analytic tools. Willingness, however, is more subjective and board members often possess key insights that can help the CEO and the development team qualify prospective donors. Such insights can help set cultivation priorities and can help calculate the best use of the board member in approaching the potential donor.

There are many times when board members represent industries or professions that can bring value to the organization, or at the very least, help reduce overhead costs. Lawyers may have colleagues who can provide pro bonoservices to a needy client. Contractors may offer heavy equipment for capital projects, employees from supporting companies may be organized to do clean-up or painting. I know of a group of firemen in Oregon who prepare and deliver a meal to a group home of disabled gentlemen because a board member was a retired fireman.

Finally, the expectation for board members to “open doors” can extend to the board area of business opportunities. Such business opportunities might include anything from favorable vendor rates or fees, opportunities to consolidate back office operations, and all the way up to possible mergers or acquisitions. Again, the CEO should promote this kind of entrepreneurial thinking by specifically asking the board to consider who, among their business and professional associations, might be able to provide such opportunities.

Help cultivate donors

Donor cultivation is the systematic process of moving a donor through the progressive stages of engagement. When board members have a personal or professional relationship with prospective donors, the CEO can make those board members partners in moving such prospects up the ladder of support. Called “moves management” in the fundraising profession, the process of developing donors into becoming major supporters of the organization requires knowledge and strategy – both of which board members can help supply.

Let’s use the example of a business associate who works with a board member in the same profession. The first point of contact between the prospect and the organization might come about when the board members invites the prospect to join him in the organization’s annual golf outing. Four hours on a golf course can provide a lot of opportunity to talk about the organization and its work. A meal or social hour after the event provides an opportunity for introduction to the CEO. A review of the participant by the CEO could involve a discussion with the board member about potential and strategies for engagement. If a gift is forthcoming, the board member should be involved in personally thanking the individual.

Over time, if such an individual becomes a regular contributor, the board member should be involved in strategizing ways to “move” the donor to greater levels of engagement, perhaps as a volunteer, referral partner, event host, future board member, or other form of direct engagement. Ultimately, the goal – in partnership with the board member – is to gain as much financial support as possible from the donor. The CEO has to be the manager of this process with each board member and should lead the way in building a relationship with the donor.

When appropriate, ask for contributions

OK, so I lied. There may be some very rare occasions when it is appropriate to ask a board member to directly solicit a gift from a donor. Of course, these would depend on the nature of the relationship of the director to the donor and the existence of extenuating circumstances that would preclude either the CEO asking for the gift or having the board member accompany the CEO on the call. Such an occasion may also present itself if the board member has previously solicited financial or material support from the donor and has a successful track record of engagement. Finally, it may depend on the size of the gift being solicited. If it is a major gift, it would be highly unusual for a director to make the ask. If it is a much smaller contribution, such as an initial annual fund gift, then it might be appropriate.

To determine whether or not a board member should solicit a contribution is something that must be determined by the CEO in conversation with development staff and the board member. It would be most unwise to allow board members to make this determination on their own. The CEO must own this discernment process and must manage all director activities when it comes to soliciting contributions by board members.

Support and encourage all fundraising activities and the fundraising team

It might seem outside the scope of the CEO’s influence to engender this kind of action from board members. However, if appropriately educated about the entire scope of fundraising activity and appropriately engaged in some or all of the activities discussed in this article, board members are in a position to offer encouragement and support in a number of helpful ways.

Fund raising is not an easy profession and development staff, the CEO included, must possess the capacity to withstand being told “no.” When board members understand this and have opportunities to interact with staff, they can do a great deal to advance the cause by expressing positive support to them and by offering assistance to help with fundraising activities. Volunteering to help with the annual golf outing or gala, participating in auctions or walks, or just being present at a donor development event – these all are expressions of support for the team. The CEO is in a position to both model and ask for such support from board members.

Ensure that fundraising has adequate resources and support

In its fiduciary and strategic role, the board as a whole is responsible for making sure that sufficient resources are budgeted for the organization to fulfill its mission. This includes the resource development function as well. When the temptation arises to cut development staff and positions in the face of declining resources, boards must understand the potential for creating additional diminishing returns.

A quick case will illustrate the importance of making sure the development function has the necessary resources. This example comes from a private high school that needed to ramp up for a campaign to provide scholarships. The superintendent was reluctant to add additional staff – even though the ability of the school to conduct a large campaign was dependent on having more development professionals – because it “wasn’t in the budget.” I tried to undo this faulty thinking by asking him what he thought a reasonable return from a development officer should be. In other words, should a fundraising professional be able to raise three or four or five times his or her salary in a year? When he responded that the staff generally raised about three times their salary, I told him he should hire a hundred more. While not practical, I hope you see the point. People raise money. People have to ask people to invest.

Another aspect of resource support comes from the technology side of things. In today’s fundraising world, the fact is that manual management of donor records is virtually impossible, and while not every organization needs to invest tens of thousands of dollars in the highest version of BlackBaud, there are donor management systems available that can greatly improve efficiency of prospect file management. Investing in such support – whether human or technological – may be a big gulp on the front end, but you can’t expect continuing results on the back end without them. It is up to the CEO to state the case to the board, and to demonstrate through pro forma scenarios why such investments and supports are important.

Attend public events and bring prospects and friends

Many nonprofit organizations hold large public events to call attention to their work and to serve as a platform from which gift solicitation can be conducted. A very good example of this is the Leukemia and Lymphoma Association and the regional galas they hold. Another wonderful example comes from a former client of mine, the Independence Fund, which hosts concert events at which tracked wheelchairs are presented to wounded veterans. Having attended these events, I can attest to their emotional power and the impact they have on raising money for the organization.

CEOs should not only invite board members to such events but should model how to include prospects and friends. Seating board member next to major donors or long-time patrons of the organization puts them in a position to support the organization with people who are already on board. The CEO can actively encourage board support by giving them public recognition at the event, asking them to provide a testimonial at the event, and ask them to introduce you to their friends in attendance.

A word of caution is in order, however. It has been my experience that some nonprofit board members gladly attend as many organizational events as they can. Attendance at galas, concerts, award ceremonies and the like are a lot of fun. Of course, these board members also submit expense vouchers for their travel and lodging. To avoid a net loss to the organization from having board members attend functions, the CEO must explicitly articulate the expectations for such attendance. Ultimately, if there is no financial return on the investment in a board member’s attendance, such activity should be discouraged. Feeling good about the organization is one thing. Making sure it has the money to carry out its mission is another – and, in this regard, it is ALWAYS about the money.

One way to address this issue is to ask them to sponsor a group at fund-raising event. First, this is a way for board members to honor their financial commitment to the organization. Second, it is a way to invite prospective donors for a “free” event. Third, it is a way for board members to tell the story of their involvement to their guests. If the event is a banquet or gala, the CEO can ask board members to sponsor a table. If the event is something like a golf outing or other team event, the CEO should offer opportunities to sponsor a foursome or sponsor a hole.

Host a Small Gathering at Your Home

Whether a component of a major gift fundraising campaign, or just another way to expand the donor base for annual fund support, asking board members to host small gatherings in their homes is a great way to engage board members in the fundraising process. It should not be assumed, however, that board members will intuitively know how to do this well. If board members are going to host such events, the CEO must provide the tools and support to make this effective.

This meant that I or my staff had to do a number of things. First, the purpose for the event had to be made very clear. For example, “We would like you to host a small event in your home to give us a chance to tell the organization’s story, after which we will follow up with calls and visits to solicit ongoing support for our annual fund.” The last thing you want to do is mislead your board member about the real purpose of the event. The language they use to invite their friends and associates is very important in order to avoid any appearance of a “bait and switch.”

Second, if such small events are going to reflect the organization in the most favorable light, logistics cannot be left to chance. If cocktails and hors d’oeuvres are going to be served, they should be catered. There are two good reasons for suggesting this. First, the host should not have to worry about food or beverage preparation. They should be focused on making the invitations. Second, as well-intentioned and generous as some board members and spouses may be, the quality and service of food is of critical importance. Serving burned pigs-in-the-blanket can embarrass the host, the guest and the CEO. Besides, hosting an event in one’s home is stressful enough without having to worry about food. Third, the CEO should coach the board member on his or her role, and how they can introduce the CEO. Such events, to be successful, need to be “choreographed” in order to make guests feel at ease and for the event to flow efficiently.

Having attended many such events over the years, I have seen them work exceedingly well and I have seen disastrous bombs. While not everything is in the staff’s control (imagine the pet dog jumping up on an elderly lady), trying to anticipate potential challenges is the staff’s job and board members should be apprised of such possibilities if possible.

Go out and ask for advice and counsel

An old mentor of mine, a phenomenal fundraiser in his own right, used to tell me that the most effective way to develop a sincere and meaningful relationship with a donor was to ask for advice. People love to talk about their own experiences and how they might help another person. Being a board member isn’t a whole lot different. While CEOs should be skilled at doing this, board members can approach individuals they consider potential donors with questions about how to be a good board member, what that individual’s experience on boards was like, what he or she would recommend as far as the involvement of board members in fundraising. This same mentor also used to say that only friends give to friends. Therefore, developing a personal and authentic relationship was essential. Some even call it “friend-raising.” I guess that’s fine so long as it doesn’t become an excuse not to ask for money. But the point is clear. CEOs can model for board members how to engage donors authentically by asking for advice. They may even come back with some very good ideas on how to improve the board’s functioning.

Speak and Write

I do this all the time with clients I support as a consultant. I am honored to be of service to them and, because I have the luxury of choosing who I wish to work with, can select nonprofit organizations whose missions I can fully embrace. Even after my engagement has ended, I try to stay connected to these organizations through social media. One of the easiest ways for board members to publicize the good work of the organization is to like or share posts on FaceBook and LinkedIn. Retweeting tweets – not something I’m very adept at – is another way to share information from and about the organization.

The CEO and his/her staff can facilitate this by first making sure every board member is connected to the organization. This can be done in a number of ways. Assuming the organization has Facebook and LinkedIn pages, sending an invitation to like or join to every board member gives them the immediate connection they can share with others. Whenever a noteworthy even is posted on the organization’s social media platforms, board members can immediately share and repost. I have used this method to introduce some of my favorite clients to my friends.

Board members can be asked to write an article for the organization’s newsletter or annual report. If the organization has a blog on its website, written contributions or reactions to blog posts can be written by board members. The importance of having such endorsers can’t be understated. Anyone looking at an organization’s website expects to read glowing reports and to see stories that cast the organization in the best possible light. But when volunteer board member write on behalf of the organization, their words carry weight.

~0~

I don’t pretend to be a development professional. At the same time, as a CEO I had to engage in many of the foregoing practices because of my role. I had the privilege in my early academic career to work with a truly outstanding fundraising president and gained a lot of knowledge and insight about different aspects of this process. I was able to implement many of the things I learned when I became a CEO and even though I could never claim the success of my mentor, came to believe that working with board members in the ways I have described is something the CEO must actively manage if they are to be of assistance in raising revenue for the organization.

I’d like to conclude with a final thought around board member expectations with respect to supporting the philanthropic efforts of the organization. Some have called this the “give, get, or get off” condition of board membership. These three G’s have been derided by some recently in various journals and blogs as reflecting antiquated and limited perspectives on board recruitment, expectations and involvement. To be sure, the most important role the board and its members play is to govern. I have argued that such governance practice to be effective requires people with the needed skills, knowledge, expertise and experience to ensure sufficient depth and breadth of intellectual capital so that the board can effectively exercise its fiduciary, strategic and generative governance responsibilities.

But the reality for just about every nonprofit social service organization is that the ability of the organization to carry out its mission is dependent upon its ability to raise nonoperating revenue, usually in the form of gifts. One could argue that part of the board’s fiduciary responsibility in making sure that revenues are sufficient to carry out the mission goes beyond just overseeing the expenditure of resources. It must include attention to the revenue side as well. Therefore, it is inherently incumbent on board members to be knowledgeable and involved in generating revenue, and this means supporting the fundraising efforts of the organization.

Of course, not all board members have the same level of giving capacity. Of course, their recruitment to the board wasn’t done primarily because they had deep pockets. Of course, their talents lie in diverse areas and most likely not in the area of fundraising. But if the expectations are clearly articulated that board members are to personally and generally support the philanthropic efforts of the organization, then they should GIVE. And if they don’t have the means to give (although everyone has some capacity to give something!) then they should work to open doors, support fundraising in other ways, and thereby to GET financial support from others. And finally, and frankly, if they can’t or won’t do either of those two, then they should GET OFF your board.

None of the tactics I have described above should be onerous. The important thing for CEOs to keep in mind is that their success in engaging board members is to be open, clear, explicit and make sure that the values that support the board’s involvement in fundraising are written, talked about, and understood by everyone.

References and Resources

Edgington, Neil. https://www.socialvelocity.net/2012/01/27/9-ways-board-members-can-raise-money-without-fundraising/

Garecht, Joe. https://bloomerang.co/blog/5-different-ways-your-board-can-help-with-fundraising-without-making-asks/

Hass, Len Al. https://www.gcn.org/articles/what-role-do-boards-and-individual-board-members-have-in-nonprofit-fundraising

Koenig, Marc. https://nonprofithub.org/fundraising/transform-your-board-of-directors-into-fundraising-champions/

Perry, Gail. https://www.gailperry.com/fundraising-responsibilities-every-board-member/

Price, Nick. https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/how-nonprofit-boards-fundraising/

How Can Board Members Support the Mission?

John Bauer March 15, 2019 blog, News

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.”