Train more or expect less?
Two weeks ago, C. David Gammel, CAE, discussed the pros and cons of the annual cycle that most associations follow. A primary element of that cycle is the yearly turnover of volunteers and board members. Whether you view that as a positive or negative likely depends on your own experience.
Around the same time, The Chronicle of Philanthropy blogger Rick Moyers posed a question: "Do We Expect Too Much From Boards?" This was based on data from the "Daring to Lead 2011" report, which showed that just 20 percent of nonprofit executive directors said they were "very satisfied" with the performance of their boards of directors.
That's a pretty sad number, so Moyers' question is an appropriate one. Given a structure in which a nonprofit organization must be led by a group of volunteers with widely varying interests, motivations, and levels of skill or comfort in organizational leadership, perhaps it is indeed foolish to expect much.
So, as the association executive in that situation, you have two options:
- Accept the ineffectiveness of the board, and lower your expectations accordingly.
- Train the board with the skills needed in order for it to meet your expectations.
Judith Lindenau shared a story on her Off Stage blog recently about a grantmaking foundation that requires its beneficiary organizations to display skill in leadership and execution—or go through training to develop it—before receiving a dollar. The foundation wants to see its grants spent well, of course, but, as Judith notes, it is also a reflection of the its belief that effective leadership comes first.
"The interesting part of this solution … is that the foundation's process begins with a trained leadership and staff—not with the money or the strategic plan," she writes.
In other words, if you don't have your proverbial ducks in a row, don't bother with anything else.
I think that applies to this question of board expectations. If you don't make board training (and perhaps structure) your first priority, then of course your high expectations won't be met.
I'm no executive though, so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying. What's the nuance here? Why else is the mismatch between expecations and reality for association board performance so persistent?
| | Permalink |
Comments
There is much to talk about here Joe, and I look forward to what others might comment. I'll limit my response to two areas:
1. Boards are a part of the overall ecosystem for how work gets done in the association. As such, their performance (good or bad) is also influenced by factors other than the board's composition or training, most obviously being how staff and other volunteer components do their work and the overall processes and systems in place.
2. If a board meets 3-4 times/year, discusses strategic mega-issues or the like as part of each meeting, attends to normal business, and engages in some form of planning, we're left with a limited amount of time for training. Perhaps we need to work backwards, first identifying what amount of training can be done during a board's term and then what implications that has for board recruitment, pre-screening/training (as the blog post you reference suggests), and more given the limitations acknowledged and the real-time performance desired.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | July 14, 2011 8:18 PM
I think it's important to point out that effective board "training" begins long before the new board member attends his/her first orientation session. The pre-meditated selection and grooming of individuals in the membership with the approriate skills for board leadership is essential. There's enough to learn about any organization and the way it does things, that if you also have to teach leadership comptencies, you'll be hard pressed to get everything accomplished.
Posted by: Eric Lanke | July 15, 2011 1:31 PM
I'm with both Jeffrey and Eric here. I agree that the training begins long before the board member attends that first orientation session or is even selected.
The association's that I've seen that have successful leadership start with volunteer training. They offer it every year and anyone that serves on a committee must attend. That's where the basics are covered along with directions from current leadership about where the organization is headed.
The ineffective associations that I've seen miss this critical part of the ecosystem as Jeffrey calls it. They don't even provide basic Nonprofit 101 Board/Committee training so even the staff is unclear of everyone's roles and expectations.
Posted by: Jeff Hurt | July 18, 2011 11:25 AM
Thanks Jeffrey, Eric, and Jeff. Nice to see that no one has spoken up directly in favor of "expecting less." You all make an excellent point about the depth to which training and development of leaders must reach. That's no easy task, particularly if the governance structure itself is problematic, but it's the challenge that must be faced one way or another.
One thing that Jeffrey mentioned that jumped out at me: the "limitations acknowledged." That's not directly equivalent to "expecting less," but it's a way to frame that conversation in a way that makes expecting less OK. Having a conversation with the board in which everyone acknowledges both the possibilities and the limitations of the governance process can help the board focus on what it can realistically do and what is beyond its reach or scope. It can get everyone on the same page about roles and expectations, as Jeff mentions, and in the end, I guess that's just one facet of good training.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | July 18, 2011 1:49 PM