Why is this article important? It has some interesting points to make about the difference between tokenism and really embracing diversity on a board.
The majority of people on nonprofit boards, acknowledge that board diversity is important. But even as research shows the intention to improve board diversity, the 2017 report, Leading with Intent, shows that “boards are no more diverse than they were two years ago.”* Meanwhile, as boards continue to talk about diversifying, the definition of what constitutes diversity has evolved.
From tokenism to inclusion
Society has moved from tokenism to ensuring that people of diverse age, gender, ethnicity, orientation and background not only fill important roles with their skills and talents, but are also valued for the diversity that they bring.
The perspective of this article from Harvard Business Review, When and Why Diversity Improves Your Board’s Performance, is that of a for-profit corporation. But there are valuable lessons for nonprofit boards that want to both encourage diversity and take advantage of that diversity. To quote the authors:
“Diversity doesn’t matter as much on boards where members’ perspectives are not regularly elicited or valued. To make diverse boards more effective, boards need to have a more egalitarian culture — one that elevates different voices, integrates contrasting insights, and welcomes conversations about diversity.”
What might that mean for your Governance or Nominating Committee? More pointedly, what might that mean for how your board approaches ambitious or controversial decisions? How might having different voices around the table change not only the decisions that you make, but how you make those decisions?
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about governance and recruitment, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation, governance or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
– Susan Detwiler
*Leading With Intent 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Why is this article important?
The title of this Nonprofit Quarterly article, The Sensemaking Mindset: Improvisation over Strategy, implies an either/or relationship between improvisation and strategy. But buried in this Nonprofit Quarterly article is the caveat that structure is necessary for improvisation to work. There needs to be a framework. Using Karl Weick’s jazz as a metaphor, you can interpret, embellish, do a variation, or improvise from a basic melody. But you still need that basic melody.
Looked at this way, you might consider crafting a strategic framework, rather than a formal, step-by-step plan. This gives your organization – and the talented people in it – the latitude to respond to opportunities that come your way.
It takes courage to give people this kind of latitude. They need to know the ultimate vision you are all working toward. They need buy-in. And they need to trust that YOU trust THEM.
Can you build flexibility into your strategic planning? Do you allow improv?
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about planning, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
I’m not writing any more blog posts! At least not for a while. But that doesn’t mean you won’t hear from me.
Building and nurturing relationships is at the heart of how I work with nonprofit boards and executives. A blog post cannot recreate the one-on-one conversations that develop into trusted working relationships.
But in my work I read many great articles that convey important food for thought for nonprofit organizations. Some are written directly for board chairs. Others focus on the for-profit world and carry lessons for nonprofit executives.
So instead of writing my own posts, I will curate the articles I read and give you my take on why they are intriguing, or important, or how to use them.
I hope you enjoy this new format. Here’s the first one.
WHY IT’S IMPORTANT: Lessons Learned as Board Chair
Rick Moyers recently stepped down as chair of the board of BoardSource, As you can imagine, he had a lot riding on his time there. In this article, he offers three important lessons he learned during his time as chair. While only one explicitly talks about building one-on-one relationships, the other two have at their heart the need to recognize that you are always dealing with people. Always. And understanding that everything you do affects people is a great life lesson – whether as a formal leader or someone in the middle of the pack making routine decisions.
I hope you appreciate Moyers’ words as much as I do: Lessons Learned as Board Chair
Watch for more curated articles from me. If you find one you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes – more articles – more wisdom!
What a question! The mere fact that you’re asking says that you’ve had bad experience with consultants coming in and telling everyone what they ‘should’ be doing.
That is such a wrong approach, it’s no wonder board training has such a bad rap. Even the word ‘training’ is demeaning. It sounds like you’re training animals in a zoo or a circus.
The secret to getting board members to know and be responsible for their duties is to
get them to figure it out for themselves.
As with anything else, start with the end in mind. Then you can reverse engineer to find the steps that will lead you there.
You say you need board education. Why? What’s the end result of board education? It’s not having board members know their roles. That’s only a stepping stone.
Board members knowing their role is a means to having a thriving organization.
If you want board members to know and be invested in their role, engage them in a robust conversation around what you need to have a THRIVING ORGANIZATION. not a thriving board.
The conversation will be generative, and include many things. But ultimately, while every organization may be unique, they each need these 3 things**:
- An eye on the future and a plan for embracing that future
- Resources to conduct business right now and resources to support that plan for embracing the future
- A way to ensure the resources are being used wisely
**Note: One of the first things to come up will be ‘money.’ Money is a red herring. Money, just like an effective board, is a means to an end. Counter that with ‘What does money make possible?’ or, if necessary, ‘Besides money…’
The board has a role to play in each of them.
The first is the future orientation – the long view. Board members have a responsibility to watch the world and consider how it will impact the organization.
The second is finding the resources – fundraising, relationships, hiring the executive, ensuring the talent is there. Board members have a responsibility to make sure the organization has what it needs to fulfill the mission, whether it’s treasure or talent.
The third is oversight and evaluation – are we being careful with the resources, are we following the law, are our programs the best way of fulfilling our mission. Board members have the responsibility to ensure that the organization is putting its resources where they’ll do the most good, and not jeopardizing the mission with poor or illegal practices.
Once you have these established, the next step is for the group to generate the HOW.
How will you make sure you have a future orientation? What will it take to generate the different kinds of resources? What will make it possible to ensure that resources are wisely used, and we’re following the law? In the conversation, you may suggest some recommended practices.
It’s at this point you can tell the board members that they, themselves, have come up with what their roles and responsibilities are. You can present the usual checklist of responsibilities and show them that they’ve generated most of them themselves.
Board education doesn’t have to be deadly – or demeaning. A retreat to engage your board members in the whys and wherefores of a board makes the role of board member meaningful, and uses their passion to generate their own individual roles.
An external facilitator can often make this retreat flow more easily. Let me know if you want to explore that possibility. To learn more about nonprofit boards and facilitation, you can follow me at The Detwiler Group.
Professional Development is for Staff, Not Boards.
Imagine you have an ailment that takes you to the doctor. On the wall is her diploma from 20 years ago. “Ah!” you think. “She has a lot of experience. Hmm, I wonder if she’s kept up with the latest thinking in caring for my ailment.” In 20 years, there have been ag lot of medical advances.
Keeping up in your field is important.
Companies invest in training and development for their managers and staff. Bar associations require Continuing Legal Education credits; American Medical Association requires Continuing Medical Education; school systems require Continuing Education credits for teachers.
With so many examples of professions requiring continuing education, why do board members say they don’t need to keep up with trends in board service?
I already know what I’m doing!
They give a lot of reasons:
- Hubris – “I don’t need any training. I’ve been on boards for 20 years, and I already know what I need to know.”
- Cost – “Why are we spending money on our board when our programs need the money?”
- Disdain – “I’ve been through board training so many times, and it’s never been useful.”
- Time – “We have to spend our time taking care of business; we don’t have time to waste on training.”
- Assumption – “I’d like to get some training, but I don’t think anyone else on the board would.”
Underlying all of these is a basic misunderstanding. They believe board service is simple, static, and hasn’t changed in 20 years; there’s nothing new to learn. Even if there is something new, it’s not going to make a difference.
Actually, the field of board service is changing.
The fields of sociology, organizational dynamics and neuroscience have upended some longstanding ‘best practices’ and received wisdom. Organizations that put the new ideas into practice are more successful than those that do not.
Last year, I gave a series of seminars around board relations and governance. As I set the curriculum for this year’s cohort of attendees, I’ve been spending almost as much time updating the materials as I did creating it in the first place. Articles from Nonprofit Quarterly; BoardSource; Standards for Excellence; Harvard Business Review and more have supplied fodder for high level discussion around governance and building a board into a team. In many cases, the new research have been a complete surprise; in others, they’ve demonstrated nuance where absolutes have reigned.
The bottom line is that these discoveries have made board service richer, more robust, more enjoyable, and, perhaps most importantly, more effective.
Boards with contemporary training spend less time on the past and more time focused on the future. Boards built into teams spend less time infighting, and more time figuring out how to better deliver their mission. Boards with good relationships amongst members have rich discussions around substantive issues. Boards that have developed an inclusive mentality have the advantage of diverse viewpoints and experiences around the table, with all the creativity that inspires.
All of these have been the result of continuous professional board education.
And their organizations are stronger for it.
Get in touch for a conversation about board education and how facilitating professional board development can make your work easier. Or sign-up here for more ideas about managing boards and planning.
Everyone talks about collaboration, but when collaboration fails, do we really analyze what happened? Or do we pretend we’re analyzing what happened, but are actually assigning blame?
I love this article. In this 2014 Harvard Business Review article by Nick Tasler, he points out two simple explanations for how things go wrong. Simple, of course, once you hear them.
First – do you all agree on what you’re trying to do?
You may think you all know what you’re collaborating for, but have you really stated it explicitly? I’ll take it further. Have you defined what success looks like? You may be saying, “we need to fix the student problem,” and everyone will nod and get to work. But what does a ‘fixed student problem’ look like? Unless you all agree on what it looks like, then you won’t be able to make decisions between multiple alternatives.
Second – how are you going to make a final decision?
Tasler’s article puts it in terms of who will make the decision, but the more universal way of looking at is how will you make a decision. With multiple collaborators, you need to decide that up front, before you get into the weeds.
To answer these two basic questions, your group may need an external person to guide the conversation – someone from another department, another organization, or a professional facilitator. You want to make sure everyone is heard and there’s a final agreement.
Nick Tasler wrote from the perspective of multiple teams in the same corporation. But what he says is valid within nonprofits, as well. And all the more so when you’re talking about collaborating with other organizations.
- Be explicit about what you’re collaborating about.
- Agree on how final decisions will be made.
Until you have both of those, expect a lot of time spent spinning wheels.
Interested in hearing how a facilitator can help smooth the way? Send me a note and we can have a conversation.