The proliferation of volunteer driven community organizations across our country is a really telling indication of how things ‘get done around here’. They are the backbone of this country and a driving force in our economy. Ethnic groups, special interest groups, cultural societies, philanthropic associations, educational and political organizations and trade associations are all maintained by volunteer boards as are countless other groups too numerous to mention. These groups range in size and scope from small sports organizations that struggle every year just to keep their children playing to organizations with a specific mandate to provide services to a target group and budgets that can run into millions of dollars. This article is really intended to address only those organizations that are overseen by an elected board of volunteers but managed by a professional staff on a day to day basis.
It is a given that the focus of the board of directors should really be governance and policy. Realistically, why would a board pay for an executive director or CEO if they want to do that person’s work themselves? Of course, that individual cannot be left with carte blanche and should still report to the board on a regular basis. Unfortunately, although this is great theoretically, there are often some encumbrances to applying the notion in reality.
Firstly, if the organization has a well written, solid constitution and an engaged management team, policy and governance issues will be few and far between. Board members who are giving up their evenings to meet will become, pardon the pun, bored members and simply stop coming. This creates a situation where the paid director and other board members may have to actively recruit people who want to sit on that board and then, of course, providing some training relative to the mandate of the organization and existing policy.
Secondly, new board members often have a difficult time recognizing boundaries and knowing that interference with day to day work is not only detrimental to the organization, but often a violation of the by-laws. These scenarios can be even more difficult for the paid director because the onus will be on him/her to draw the attention of the entire board to the situation, thereby risking the ire of one or more of the ‘bosses’.
Thirdly, a less than scrupulous paid manager can get a lot of mileage out of reassuring board members that everything in the day to day realm is fine and that they don’t need to concern themselves with issues that are not policy or governance. Again, the organization is risking the potential tyranny of that individual equating too much freedom to act with power.
So, what steps can the organization take to avoid these pitfalls? The first suggestion that comes to mind is active recruiting of board members. Recruiting, however, can have its’ own downfalls and the savvy manager and board should remain aware of them.
I want to preface the remainder of my commentary with these two notes. I believe that anyone willing to sacrifice his or her time to sit on a community board deserves the gratitude and respect of the community. There are occasional exceptions wherein the individual has a personal agenda-- whether it be an axe to grind with management, some delusion of power, or some misguided sense that they stand to profit financially by serving, but they are the minority and for the most part board members are there because they care about what the organization is doing. Also, I was taught by one of my mentors a number of years ago that a volunteer board can be an organization’s greatest strength and greatest weakness at the same time. I have had to work for a board for a number of years to realize the truth of that statement. A grassroots board is the organization’s greatest strength because it truly is democracy in action. No one can deny that the board members speak for the membership of the organization. That same board can be the greatest weakness of the organization by simply not learning the policy, not working towards professional standards or possibly having ulterior motives for being in place. The landscape can be rife with possibilities for failure. This, in fact, leads me back to my original suggestion: active recruiting.
If one wants to be successful with recruiting then certain concerns should be addressed up front:
- What exactly does the organization need
- What skills and or experiences can the individuals being approached bring to the table
- What relationships currently exist between individuals being recruited and current board or management members
Clearly, if the organization has found that capacity is lacking in certain areas, those would be skill sets to recruit. If financial reports and documentation are a foreign language to most of the board, then they might want to look for someone with a background in accountancy or financial services. If the constitution is full of loopholes, there may be someone with a legal background or constitutional experience available and willing to serve.
Previous experience with other boards will most likely provide the recruit with some knowledge of what issues the board is there to address. Professional experience in areas like those listed in the previous paragraph should most surely be welcomed by existing members. A couple of things that are essential and really dependent on the new person are: a sincere desire to be part of the team and help and a personal stake in the goals of the organization. Simply, all of the professional designations in the world aren’t going to matter a whit if the individual is viewed as being not part of the community that board is mandated to serve.
Existing relationships between current board members and management with any new recruit will turn out to be a huge issue. If the perception in the community is that management is stacking the board with supporters, that manager and the board won’t last beyond the next election. Most likely, nepotism and conflict of interest guidelines already exist within the constitution and should be adhered to zealously. This can be a very difficult issue to address, particularly in small communities where the talent pool might be quite limited. One must bear in mind that an interest and willingness to serve are the first criteria.
Thus, those people who are compelled by personal interest to serve that specific board, have no possible conflict of interest issues with current directors or employees and have professional backgrounds that best serve the board’s needs are just sitting at home waiting for the phone call. Perhaps not. In any case, boards should have a practice in place of being willing to review letters of interest from organization members who may want to serve and should review those letters as a group. That way if there are board resignations between general elections of the organization, the seat can be filled by the best possible candidate.
Many community boards will struggle along as best they can because those perfect candidates simply do not exist. The next suggestion to enhance board productivity is training. The organization can certainly direct management to seek out cost effective training in areas such as governance, constitutional law, human rights legislation, financial planning, or proposal development. The last one can be especially helpful if the paid staff is already working to capacity. Board members can help find the dollars necessary for their own training or other projects as well. Networking with other non-profit agencies is another good way to find the types of training that one may require. Generally, similar organizations are going to face similar issues and there’s a lot of hard work and a distinctive lack of glory in being the second guy to invent the wheel.
Of course, there is something to be said about the organization that doesn’t know anything is wrong to begin with. This is often the case with organizations where the board has not had any new faces at the table in some time. I would suggest that any board of directors regularly schedule a review of their own processes and achievements. It doesn’t hurt to ask if the organization is meeting its’ mandated goals and if not, what can the board do to improve the process? It may be replacing employees, but more likely will involve re-focusing board energies. It would behoove anyone following this path to engage a neutral outsider to help.
Most probably, a combination of recruiting for skills and training current members will resolve a lot of concerns. Certainly the growing pains as the organization moves forward through some of these issues are an object lesson on their own. The other possibility is that experienced managers and board leaders have found this entire article redundant or irrelevant, in which case feel free to line your parakeet’s cage, but hopefully some readers out there will find a bit of what their organizations are seeking. They are, after all, the backbone of this country.
Stuart Alcorn
2011-09-02
Portage la Prairie, MB
Wordcount: 1,513
copyright
No comments:
Post a Comment