Many Boards Fail to Fully Support Executives or Coffers, New Study Finds

As nonprofit chief executives seek to cope with the challenges posed by the economy and other tough issues, they find little support from board members, according to a new study of 3,000 executives.

“Daring to Lead,” the third edition of a national study, comes down hard on governing boards that are neglecting key practices that would improve their hiring skills and make them better employers, the report says.

The survey found, for example, that nearly half of organizations’ boards neglected to conduct a performance review of their group’s chief executive last year. And among the executives who had such a review, only 30 percent reported finding it useful.

Chief executives felt their boards underperformed in other ways, too. For example, a majority of charity leaders said that none of their board members helped with fund raising, such as identifying potential donors or asking for gifts. And at nearly half of the organizations, not every trustee made donations of his or her own—what the report calls a “fairly standard expectation of board support.”

Such weaknesses were a big reason only 20 percent of the leaders described themselves as very satisfied with their boards.

But that assessment may be a bit harsh, says Sally Wortman, executive director of Pets Unlimited, an animal care and adoption group, in San Francisco.

“We hope and assume and trust that volunteers in the community with good intentions will magically know what to do once they are in the boardroom, but that’s just not always the case,” she says.

Sherill K. Williams, who for 26 years has served as chief executive of Prevent Blindness Ohio, in Columbus, says even the most supportive, accomplished boards need direction and what she calls “inspiration” to do their best work. When it comes to her annual performance evaluations, for example, Ms. Williams says it is up to her to “set the table.”

“I make sure it’s on the calendar. I give them the information, the salary surveys, the contacts they need,” she says. “If I just sat back and waited for it to happen, I might have had just a few reviews over the years instead of 26.”

A Board Pledge

David Wooll, a solar-energy executive who is leaving the board of Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco after seven years, says simple guidelines and prompting like that go a long way.

Members of his board sign a pledge each year that outlines basic expectations, such as for fund raising, committee work, and meeting attendance. And as board chair for the past 18 months, Mr. Wooll says, he has kept in close contact with Habitat’s executive director, Phillip Kilbridge, to make sure trustees were meeting his needs. (See the board pledge for Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco.)

Still, Mr. Wooll says, expectations are high, and most board members could use some guidance or training.

“When you join a board, there’s nothing out there that says these are your responsibilities,” he says. “There’s definitely room out there for the definitive book on how to be a trustee and how to be one in different situations—when it’s pure fund raising, when it’s strategic planning, whatever.”

According to the new report, one of the best ways for boards to become more effective is to spend time with the chief executive.

The report notes other studies that have demonstrated that executives who spend 20 percent of their time on board-related activities have high rates of satisfaction with board performance.

Yet the largest group of executives in the latest survey (39 percent) reported spending between 5 and 10 hours a month—only about 6 percent of their total work time—on board-related activities. Sixteen percent of the leaders spent five hours or fewer in such a way.

For many charity officials, putting more time into the board is just not practical.

Valarie Ashley, in her third year as executive director of Southeast Ministry, which provides education and employment services to low-income people in Washington, describes her board as very supportive but says it has taken almost until now to figure out how it can be most effective. She says she doesn’t have time to spend more than three to five hours a month working with trustees.

“Even when you have board members saying, ‘How can I help?,’ when you’re a small nonprofit it’s almost more work to assign things out,” Ms. Ashley says. “I’m operating with a lot of deadlines, so it’s hard to take time out from what’s happening day-to-day.”

One of the responsibilities the board has taken on, she says, is producing a quarterly newsletter. And a new personnel committee of the board is reviewing the charity’s personnel policies.

“These are things that are incredibly helpful that the board can take on pretty much without me being too involved,” Ms. Ashley says.