Terrie on Nonprofits
April 2005
EXCLUDING THE E.D. FROM
BOARD MEMBERSHIP
DECISIONS IS GOOD PRACTICE – REALLY!
Q: Our board is making decisions
about who should be asked to serve and who
should be asked to resign without getting
input from the executive director. Is this
common?
A: Is it common? No. But, while I sense that you are a bit
uncomfortable with this, I wish more boards
took this approach.
There is little question that executive directors typically have
a better idea than do most board members
of the skills, experiences and characteristics
needed on their boards. The most obvious
reason is that they are immersed in their
organizations’ day-to-day operations. This
tends to give them a greater grasp of the
totality of issues than even the most dutiful
directors can garner from reading their updates,
attending meetings, and participating in
the myriad of organizational activities. There
are other equally valid reasons. For instance,
if the executive director wrote the vision
statement – which I am not recommending,
though it is common – s/he would be better
able to articulate the needs than anyone
else. Executive directors are often the
first to see or hear of those interested
in serving because they almost always have
their organizational hat on while out in
the community. And, most executive directors
have worked their way up the industry’s career
ladder and have experience with a number
of boards or have at least read the literature. So
presumably they are aware of the roles and
responsibilities that are most appropriate
and effective.
Conceding all of the above, executive directors still should not
be influencing the decisions around who should
be asked to serve and who should be asked
to leave. And, they certainly shouldn’t
be doing the recruiting. The overpowering
reason is that boards are responsible for
supervising their executive directors. Board
members often forget or overlook this when
they’ve been brought on by the executive
director. Their allegiance tends to lean
toward their executive director rather than
the organization and the community they serve,
and this can lead to a conflict of interest
with the potential for disastrous results.
This does not mean that executive directors should stand aside
and do nothing. There are four critical
steps they should be taking on an ongoing
basis:
1. Ensure
their boards understand their responsibility
to their organizations’ mission and vision.
2. Help
their boards draw up a plan for strategically
recruiting new leadership.
3. Guide
their boards in defining both accountability
measures related to board service and a list
of consequences for not meeting those measures.
4. See
that their boards review their bylaws so
that topics such as term limits, the definition
of “cause,” and procedures for removing people
from office are specified in line with current
thinking.
If the right parameters are in place, executive directors should
be able to feel confident about the choices
being made around board membership. They
should also feel a sense of relief as this
time-consuming burden is lifted from their
shoulders.
Terrie
Temkin, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized
governance and planning expert. She is
president of NonProfit Management Solutions,
Inc.,
a principal in CoreStrategies for Nonprofits,
Inc., and a longtime member of AFP. Contact
her at terriet@nonprofitmanagementsolutions.com,
954-985-9489, or 866-985-9489.
|
