Very often the only time a board member is given the "microphone" at a board meeting is when he or she is making a committee report. But wait a minute! Why do we ask people onto boards because of their knowledge and perspectives, but never give them a chance to share their knowledge or perspectives with us?
Instead, at each board meeting schedule a 7x7 ("seven by seven") Board Briefing: a board member makes a 7 minute presentation, followed by 7 minutes of questions/answers/responses. Friendly-but-fierce timekeeping is required to keep to the 7 minutes each and the whole thing takes 15 minutes.
An example that will spark ideas for your organization is a list of 7x7 Board Briefings given at one AIDS organization, each by a board member:
A marketing executive at a bank gave a presentation on marketing principles that the board and staff should know when planning awareness campaigns.
A doctor told the moving story of working with his first AIDS patient.
A pharmaceuticals manager used PowerPoint to present on trends in the drug industry and what impacts they might have on patients
A client told about her experiences using the services of the organization, with both praise and problems
A major donor (to this organization and to others) talked about how he and other wealthy individuals have similar -- and different -- preferences on how they like to be approached and recognized
Several problems get solved in one fell swoop with the 7 x 7 ("seven by seven") Board . . .
Occasionally, a board member needs to be removed from the board. In some cases, a conflict of interest or unethical behavior may be grounds to remove an individual from the board. In other cases, the behavior of a board member may become so obstructive that the board is prevented from functioning effectively.
The best boards often have strongly felt disagreements and heated arguments. Challenging groupthink and arguing for an unpopular viewpoint are not grounds for getting rid of a board member. But if a board member consistently disrupts meetings or is otherwise destructive and demoralizing, it may be appropriate to consider removing the individual from the board:
1. Personal intervention
One-to-one intervention by the board president or other board leadership is a less formal solution to managing problem board members. If a board member has failed to attend several meetings in a row, or has become an impediment to the board's work, the board president can meet informally with the board member in question. In person or on the telephone, the board president can request a resignation. Examples:
"I respect your strong opinion that we have made the wrong decision about . . .
When times are tough, funders start to think that mergers are a good idea for nonprofits. And sometimes nonprofits themselves agree, but don't know how to think about it or how to go about it. Here's a short article by merger consultant David La Piana, and a link to a free downloadable comprehensive booklet on nonprofit mergers.
Should your nonprofit be considering a merger or some other way to combine formally with another organization? Mergers, joint ventures, fiscal sponsorship arrangements, and virtual nonprofits are all examples of "strategic restructuring." This goes beyond collaboration to bring organizations into formal, deeper forms of alliance. Nonprofits are viewing these options with increasing interest in an economic downturn.
Your organization and your board might be interested in these intense partnerships:
If your organization is, alas, weak, (unable to find or keep an executive director, unable to maintain an active board, or too small to compete effectively in a particular market), you might seek to merge into a larger organization that has what you lack or with other smaller organizations with whom you can develop the necessary strengths.
We're talking here about something even easier than what's on the agenda: here are three instant ways to improve meetings simply by what you put on the piece of paper titled "Board Agenda:"
1. Put your mission statement at the top of every agenda. It quietly reminds people of your organization's purpose throughout the meeting. If you have a business model statement, place it there as well.
2. Right under the date, place a list of what individuals agreed to do at the last board meeting. See example to right:
3. At the end of the agenda, keep a running list of topics coming up. For example, at the end of the May agenda, the following might be noted:
Review line of credit policies: June
Executive director evaluation discusssion: August
Overall critique of fundraising strategies: September
By keeping this running list, everyone knows what is scheduled for future meetings, and will neither forget them nor worry that they will be forgotten by others. The Upcoming Discussions list also serves to keep the board accountable for its plans.
None of these quick improvements will fix major problems, but they will go a surprisingly long way in strengthening a good board's ability to stay on track.
Use this method to recruit 3 - 5 new board members in the next 6 months:
"Who do we know?" When board nominations comes up on the meeting agenda, this plaintive question is usually not far behind. While some boards have highly detailed matrices of recruiting priorities and others just have a sense of wanting someone "good," everyone tends to default to thinking of people that they know.
But how do we recruit people we don't know?
This question is especially important in nonprofits where new board members are needed to lead change, such as the following:
A bicycle coalition that needs board members with clout in City Hall
Board members of modest means who want to recruit some "heavy hitter" donors to increase the scholarship fund
A mostly white board that wants to recruit some Latino community leaders to help shape strategy for an increasingly Latino community
A board of baby boomers who want to find next-generation leaders to take the helm of the community arts center
Here's how the Blue Ribbon Nominating Committee works:
1. Identify potential committee members.
Develop a list of about 25 people that you would like to have on the board but who . . .
Here is Part 1 of a two-article series on strategic planning and alternatives to strategic planning.
Strategic planning swept into the nonprofit sector in the mid 1980s. Nonprofits were becoming seriously interested in management techniques, and strategic planning -- along with meeting facilitation and fundraising training -- was a focal point for that interest. Twenty years later, today no organization would dare say it doesn't have a strategic plan.
As the recession deepens, many nonprofits now have strategic plans that they can't move forward on. Those plans aren't helping them figure out what to do instead.
And even before the economic crisis, there has been widespread grumbling about strategic planning. Too often dozens of meetings fail to produce new insights. Nonprofit staff are often frustrated that "the strategic plan is never used," while many board members feel the strategic plan is simply a validation of what the staff is already doing or has decided. Executive directors often get going on new ideas long before the strategic plan is adopted, and by the time the document is finished, it can feel like old news.
Organizations often undertake strategic planning "to get board members engaged" or "to get everyone on the same page," objectives which could be reached in much more efficient, productive ways. Meanwhile, consultants make money (one nonprofit consulting firm charges $200,000 for a strategic plan), and foundations -- for whom the plans are mostly written -- read the plans with eyes glazing over.
Boards of directors tend to fall into one extreme or another when it comes to dissatisfaction with the executive director. Some boards let their dissatisfaction simmer for years without resolution. Other boards are too hasty and fire an executive at the drop of a hat or, more often, abruptly conclude a long period of silent dissatisfaction with a sudden termination. Sometimes just knowing more about how boards fire their EDs can help you relax into working more proactively with yours.
Sometimes it's necessary for a board to fire the executive director. In instances of embezzlement or unethical behavior, the need to terminate is clear to everyone. More often it’s a little fuzzier: board members may get indications over time that the ED is either not doing her job or . . .
Sounds like a trivial question, but where everyone sits not only reflects organizational philosophy, it sends a strong, visual message to everyone about authority, participation, and the role of the board. (Bonus: cartoon about nonprofit boards at end)
How is a board meeting affected by where the board chair and the executive director sit? Where each sits, particularly in relation to each other, sends a message and influences how the meeting goes. Some board chairs and execs make a point of sitting next to one another at the head of the table: a clear signal about their authority and their partnership.
Reader M.K. Wegman of the National Network is even more detailed: "The board chair sits between the CEO and the COO at the top of the U." And executive director Roger L. explores the idea but rejects it: "Most board presidents have wanted me to sit right next to them so that I could provide tidbits of information as necessary or write a brief note regarding another member's comments. I have always found these activities a bit disconcerting. . . I prefer . . .
If you aren't on a nonprofit board yet, you should be (especially if you are a nonprofit manager)! And if you are already on a board, there's another board in your future. First we have questions to ask yourself before seeking a board, and then how to find the right next opportunity for making a difference:
Imagine you were about to make a major donation, say $100,000. You would start by thinking about which areas mean the most to you -- perhaps care for the elderly, or civil rights, or the environment. After settling on a cause, you might then look into several different organizations in that field and investigate ones that seem to have high impact and where your donation would mean a lot.
Contrast this with how we often choose which board to join: someone asked us! While on a board you'll be making a huge donation of time, attention, and your heart (and maybe money). It's worth being proactive.
In the age of social electronic media, media expert Holly Minch dares to defy the Twitter evangelists and makes the case for the power of traditional print and radio:
There's tremendous strategic value in traditional media . . . yes, still! Three reasons why writing press releases and pitching reporters are still worth it:
1. Third-party validation. As pithy as your latest tweet is, as fun-filled as your latest Facebook update is, there's one thing that social media simply can't give you: third-party validation. Don't forget that more than 58 percent of people get their news from television and 34 percent read the newspaper. Face it: an article about you in the Chicago Times will impress your funders and donors; a post on your Facebook page won't.