August 1, 2019 | Read Time: 5 minutes
After spending two decades working for nonprofits and now in my role as a consultant to them, I keep hearing stories about nonprofit leaders encountering friction with their boards.
Most recently, a friend who works as the executive director of a small nonprofit complained to me that the organization’s board members are interfering in her management of the staff, despite the board’s having made clear that it was her responsibility. She’s learning about the interference from her employees, and I hear the panic in her voice. The questions in her mind are swirling.
Is the board turning against her? Why won’t it let her do her job? Why is the board subverting the proper chain of command, and why does it seem to trust the staff more than her, the top executive? Is her job in danger, despite all her great work for the organization? Should she get a lawyer?
This kind of situation seems to be surprisingly common among nonprofit leaders. It can leave them exasperated and paranoid about losing their jobs without cause or warning. I have seen clashes between high-performing nonprofit executives and their boards. In some cases the executives have lost their jobs, so the fears are not unwarranted.
When situations like this happen, it’s not just jobs that are threatened but also important charitable causes. Many nonprofit executives are in their roles because they’re driven by a sense of mission. Given the life-changing implications of their work, many have a strong degree of emotional and intellectual engagement in their jobs.
Sadly, however, these dedicated workers often have little career protection because they’re at the mercy of boards whose members may be marginally involved in governance and do little beyond donating to the organization and attending occasional meetings. Sometimes their financial support is not even that large, and yet they have a great deal of sway in the careers of highly seasoned professionals.
To be sure, many board members are hardworking volunteers who generously support the charities they govern and truly look out for the best interests of the employees. I have worked for some of those board members. But I’ve also been in my friend’s shoes more than once over the years, and have witnessed a range of capricious and inappropriate behavior by board members. It’s given me an appreciation of why so many nonprofit leaders live in dread that they will lose their jobs. They have no protection and no recourse if they lose the board’s backing for some reason that may be unfair.
Borrow the ‘Shop Steward’ Approach
This system needs to change. Nonprofit executives need an independent third-party advocate, like a union’s shop steward, to whom they can go for resolution of problems and conflict with their boards.
As it stands now, many executive directors are faced with a tough situation in which it’s hard to speak directly to their boards about treatment that seems unjust or harsh because they risk, in effect, complaining about their supervisors. Under such a scenario, it’s hard to prevent bad blood, or even perhaps jeopardy to an executive’s professional life and reputation.
In some highly functional nonprofits, an executive director may feel comfortable approaching the board with concerns about the charity’s volunteer leaders. There’s still a risk, however, that board members may take offense at any suggestion they’re falling short on their commitment. An auxiliary position like the one I’m proposing would enable executive directors to advocate for themselves without putting their jobs in peril, and would provide a mechanism for boards and the staff leaders to work out their concerns.
Sure, boards should continue to have the ability to dismiss an executive director for misconduct or other reasons. But there must also be a way to handle grievances and resolve conflicts between the two parties.
Mutual Evaluations
One approach is to arrange a period of mediation with an outside party agreed to by both the executive director and the board. Another idea is to allow mutual evaluations by executive directors and their boards every year at the same time, with the understanding that the executives can provide such feedback without the threat of retribution.
The system as it’s set up today is skewed in a way that encourages turnover among nonprofit executives, who deserve better. They are highly skilled professionals who should be left to run their organizations without fearing that honest two-way communication with their boards could be a land mine for their careers.
Research shows that many nonprofit leaders don’t get proper evaluations from their boards. BoardSource, the nonprofit organization that offers advice on effective governance, says its 2017 “Leading With Intent” study found that 40 percent of chief executives had not been evaluated in the prior year; 28 percent had not had an evaluation in the previous two years. This breakdown of protocol and failure of boards to communicate with their top employees is likely to worsen relationships.
Such input is essential not just for the chief executive but also for a well-run governance system. BoardSource said in its “Leading With Intent” study that “boards that assess their performance regularly perform better on core responsibilities.”
Unfair System
My hope is the nonprofit world, which is full of dedicated and compassionate people, will take action to curb the sense of vulnerability that so many executive directors endure. Today’s balance of power is simply not fair.
Right now, boards have a disproportionately dominant status over organizations, even though the members may have limited involvement and knowledge compared with the talent of those whose positions hang by a frayed thread. This faulty system allows for gross mistreatment of skilled professionals who run nonprofit organizations. What’s more, it puts at risk important missions and deters talented people from pursuing careers at charitable organizations.
Rob Blizard had held several executive and fundraising management positions in the past 20 years. He works currently as an independent consultant.
