Poor board member performance can harm your nonprofit's mission, reputation, and fundraising. How do you address this sensitive issue without damaging relationships or causing conflict? Here are some tips to help you deal with underperforming board members and improve your board's effectiveness.
The first step is to identify the problem and its causes. Poor board member performance can have different manifestations, such as lack of engagement, attendance, contribution, or accountability. It can also result from unclear expectations, inadequate orientation, personal or professional challenges, or misalignment with the nonprofit's vision and values. You need to understand the nature and extent of the problem before you can address it.
The whole issue of board performance requires a very elaborate plan starting with defining the roles and responsibilities of board members ensuring proper boundaries between board and executive management roles are kept strictly. Once this is done in a charter or other document Key performance indicators can be developed and approved by the board which are then used to measure performance at regular intervals. In my view a member of management should never appraise performance of board members which process should be through a well structured board evaluation ideally facilitated by an external consultant. One on one feedback should be given by the Chairman of the board or other director appointed for this role.
It’s critical that the organization want an active board. For my extensive experience with being a board member, most organizations really do not want a board that governs. That is a major concern for me. The roles and responsibilities have to be clearly defined to include the reporting relationship of the chief financial officer, the chief audit officer, the president, and the chief operating officer within the board structure. It is also essential that the board be predominantly independent, and that they understand their fiduciary responsibilities
In my experience, who identifies and explains the problem is important. Organisations engage me when there are “engagement” issues which is normally employee focused, what I often find is leadership who struggle to create followship. By creating practices & metrics that hold leaders accountable for creating the right environment for success that involve listening to and fulfilling organisational needs we shift from a direction leaders know best, to collaboration on shared purpose, if you include diverse perspectives & support the needs of others, you get to facilitate shared problem solving. So, the “problem” to solve is connecting to collaborate which is the best way to find out what the real problems are and to create a followship
The process should provide for peer reviews. Board members should be able to evaluate each other, confidentially, during the process, using a well-structured guideline. The evaluation must be objective with one aim of making the board more effective. This process should be undertaken under guidance of an external consultant/party. The scores are averaged to provide for an all round perspective of the individual member. The Chairman must be included in this evaluation. Feedback is provided to enable each individual board member to know their areas of improvement as well as areas of strength.
Facilitate anonymous peer reviews using secure platforms, allowing board members to provide feedback about each other's contributions. Consider "Board Health Surveys", periodically assessing the well-being, motivation, and alignment of members with organizational goals. Host "Vision Alignment Workshops" using gamification to reiterate the nonprofit's mission and values. Incorporate VR-based training modules, enabling immersive orientation experiences for new members. Leverage sentiment analysis tools on meeting transcripts to understand underlying conflicts or motivational issues. Engage professional facilitators for "Conflict Resolution Sessions" if interpersonal issues surface.
The next step is to communicate clearly and respectfully with the board member. You can do this through a one-on-one conversation, a formal evaluation, or a written feedback. The goal is to share your observations, express your concerns, and listen to their perspective. You should also remind them of their roles and responsibilities, and ask them about their motivations and goals for serving on the board. Be honest, constructive, and supportive, and avoid blaming or shaming.
Volunteers are our treasures, and many sensitive. It's an art. In person conversations about a missed gift, challenges with participation and responsiveness are key. Good Board Orientation is key - work with the Board Chair and Officers to set firm guidelines for giving, participation expectations and Board culture.
Understanding your audience sets the foundation for effective communication. Tailoring your message to the listener's perspective ensures relevance. Recognizing group dynamics helps navigate potential pitfalls or leverage influential members. Clear objectives guide the structure of your message, prompting the desired action. Being concise, using relatable examples, and confirming comprehension further ensures your message is not only heard but understood and actionable. Remember, communication isn't just about talking; it's about ensuring understanding and fostering connections.
Isto só será possível se n?o houver uma obje??o subjetiva, ou se a indica??o deste conselheiro foi por um motivo de uma escolha política ou seja por ser um relevante acionista ou de um grupo de interesses. Se houve uma escolha equivocada pelas qualifica??es o problema é maior. Uma forma objetiva e indireta é realizar por terceiros profissionais uma a alia ao de desempenho do Conselho. Este terceiro pode em entrevistas individuais dar objetivamente retornos, de tal ordem que o conselheiro em quest?o entenda o seu performance e pode reagir sem ferir. Na indica??o por interesse de grupo o mesmo pode receber de maneira objetiva retornos de seu escolhido para em época de recondu??o ou antes tomar as devidas providências
True, remembering to adapt the technical, etc., aspects of the topic being covered to a level that meets the board members understanding. Additionally make sure you are communicating information that is of interest/ relevance to the board members, e.g. project schedule, financial considerations, resourcing consideration, major issue, etc. Otherwise you will loose their interest. You may also need to do some follow up sessions with specific board members to clarify points, provide additional focused details relevant to then rather than the board as a whole.
It often happens that a Board Chair thinks they don't have 'communication issues', because there's a lot of communication taking place. The key is effective communication. I've experienced Boards where culture plays a major part, and decisions are made from the heart instead of the head. It's beliefs, values and/or religions that drive people. But in a boardroom filled with diversity the Members need to put their personal preferences aside, and put the entity first. This needs to be communicate at Induction, and also at every meeting, until it becomes a way of (Board) life. Feedback goes two ways, so the sender must encourage input from the receiver, in order to build trust and foster a culture of open communication.
The third step is to explore options and solutions with the board member. Depending on the problem and the board member's response, you can suggest different ways to improve their performance, such as providing more training, mentoring, or resources, assigning them to a different committee or task, setting specific and measurable goals, or creating a performance improvement plan. You should also agree on a timeline and a follow-up process to monitor their progress and provide feedback.
As atividades de cada membro do Conselho no seu conjunto e que formam o grupo de excelência para a institui??o. Pode haver excelências mas que n?o se combinam bem no jogo conjunto. às vezes muitas estrelas pelo ego ou por estrelismo n?o s?o bons jogadores de conjunto. Nesta circunstancia a lideran?a do Grupo é que é muito solicitada em reposicionar, conversar, e refazer as táticas e dinamicas de grupo para trazê-las de volta. é a arte de liderar com times de alta performance. Mas se destoarem por competência é necessário mudar e aí o grupo em si precisa saber tomar as medidas. Se for pelo propósito fica mais fácil, se for pelo ego mais difícil
Beyond your regular board training, a struggling board member may need something additional based on their background and performance. Board members who are not engaged may need another board mentor as a buddy/mentor, or an exit from the board if the fit is incorrect and they cannot commit.
Non exec and Trustee training is invaluable and there are often free or subsidised courses. The best non-Exec training I received was when I sat on an NHS Board here in the UK. It improved how I showed up on other Boards as well.
Would disagree that this comes just like this. This component is part and parcel of a respectful and eye level conversation with a non-effective board director, if done at eye level. You cannot separate it out.
Only if this is the procedure specified in the Board Charter. This suggests you’re making things up as you go along. Boards should trained regularly not just when things go wrong. Where feasible, most Board members should be appropriately qualified as professional directors
The fourth step is to implement consequences if needed. If the board member fails to improve their performance after you have communicated and explored options with them, you may need to take more serious actions, such as suspending or removing them from the board. You should follow your nonprofit's bylaws and policies, and consult with your board chair and other board members before taking this step. You should also document the process and the reasons for your decision, and communicate it to the board member in a respectful and professional manner.
Again, this is not a group of kiddies. All board directors are mature individuals. So, to follow on from the previous point, the process should actually be to agree to periodic review based on as objective as possible parameters. Consequence, as in 'sacking' the directors, is only an approach if such person really does not progress AND does not admit the absence of progress. In any other case such 'stick' style consequences should in principle not be needed.
In the UK we hate conflict so poor performance on Boards can fester for a long time. Board members and Chairs need to come up with the language to respectfully say things that need to be said. And sometimes that means someone needs to go, or other action needs to be taken.
The fifth step is to prevent future problems by improving your board's governance practices. You can do this by reviewing and updating your board's roles and responsibilities, expectations, and evaluation criteria, and communicating them clearly to current and potential board members. You can also improve your board's recruitment, orientation, training, and recognition processes, and foster a culture of accountability, transparency, and collaboration among board members.
A few ways to prevent problematic board members from messing with your governance: - One year, renewable terms. When directors have to be renewed every year, it's a lot easier to get rid of the ones that are taxing the organization. - Accountability to a code of conduct. It's not enough to spell out a code of conduct for board directors (although it's essential!), there must be clear accountability processes included that are triggered by a lack of compliance. - Two-way vetting process. When you recruit, look for values compatibility and a growth mindset from all new directors, and get insight from past board roles whenever possible.
Assessment grids and performance reviews are in principle state of the art. Fair Leadership Process is a key approach in the board to prevent problems, not just in the future, but also in the present. By and large, board members have gone through a recruitment process. So, if anything needs to change for the future, it is without a doubt the recruiting process first and foremost.
One Board I served on introduced performance reviews for Members. At first, most Members were against it (I thought it was an excellent idea), but after it happened and changes were implemented, they saw the positive impact it made on the Board's deliveries, and encouraged bi-annual reviews to be done. It's a known fact that Board Members will have conflict during meetings. And in some cases that conflict brings about major changes, for the greater good of the organisation/NPC. So allow the conflict to happen, but be sure to manage it effectively during that meeting so that it doesn't derail the meeting (which is sometimes the instigator's intention, as they are trying to avoid an Agenda item. Be proactive and always exercise fairness.
Board Development Days are underrated. The best Boards I've sat on dedicate at least a day a year or maybe a quarter to look at how effective they are and also bring in external perspectives e.g. on strategy, governance, and industry trends.
Addressing poor board member performance in a nonprofit requires a strategic approach. First, conduct a performance review with clear, measurable criteria. Provide constructive feedback, highlighting areas for improvement. Offer relevant training or mentorship to enhance their skills. Example: In the education sector, if a board member struggles with fundraising, offer targeted training on donor engagement and organizing community events. Establish a mentorship program connecting experienced fundraisers with newer board members. This proactive approach fosters continuous improvement and strengthens the board's overall effectiveness.
The final step is to learn and improve from your experience. You can do this by reflecting on what worked and what didn't, and what you can do better next time. You can also solicit feedback from other board members, staff, and stakeholders, and use it to inform your future actions. You should also acknowledge and appreciate the board member's contributions, and maintain a positive and respectful relationship with them.
True, as you better understand the board members level of knowledge and interest in certain topics you can evolve how you present details on those topics. By customising the material you present to the board to meet their level of understanding and interest you should increase the boards 'buy-in'.
Sometimes the answer is not in what is being said, but rather what is not. Listen to Members attentively and pay close attention to their non-verbal cues. This may indicate conflict or familiarity between Members, and may also help to address smaller concerning matters before they become big issues. It would also be advantageous to nominate the Members to take turns to chair a meeting (just once each should suffice). This will certainly change their perspectives on how to run meetings, and may also encourage a new found respect toward the Chair and other Board Members, once they experience first-hand what it is like to be in the Chair's seat.
Continuing board development programs equips board members to understand their role in the company and should be part of the board annual work plan. This should cover all necessary areas from Corporate Governance, risk management, strategy, current trends, and other aspects relevant to the sector that the business operates in. Armed with this knowledge it will be easier for a director to not only appreciate their deficiencies in performance as well as feedback to other members on their performance.
From my experience, the very first thing that gets a board member excited is to get the members involved in different ways in work the nonprofit is doing. Some such ways could be involving them in volunteering, carrying out impact trips, engaging them in projects where their expertise is put to use or even making them part of other occasions where they start bonding with the organization and owning the cause... Despite all these, there will be some who may not effectively perform the role expected of them. The article has explained very concrete steps, only thing I would add is being open and transparent with the member and discussing the bottlenecks. It may be something completely unrelated to the nonprofit work that may be the reason.
Interesting subject and I am thinking how to share it with my board members. I would like to divide the discussion in three headers; 1. Director by dint of her own shareholding. Low performance will impact her own investment value. 2. A nominee Director. The company or the shareholder on whose nomination she is appinted should be responsible for her performance. 3. An Independent director. These directors are nominated mostly for their experience and capabilities. They need to make all out effort to perform and if required go through necessary trainings. As in my understandung or in my jurisdicrion for such a situation the Board Chairman needs to take charge. Unless the non performing director is Independent and Chairman of the Board.
Addressing poor board member performance involves a multifaceted approach. Begin with a review of their qualifications and expectations. In a board meeting, openly discuss concerns and provide a platform for the board member to explain their challenges. Conduct individual discussions to understand their needs and offer resources and support. Implement board development training to enhance their skills. Recognize and celebrate staff achievements to motivate the board. Additionally, evaluate the board's results and gather insights for strategic recruitment, ensuring the board is aligned with the organization's goals and can perform effectively.
Throughout this process, it’s essential to maintain respect and professionalism and to ensure that any actions are in line with the organisation's legal requirements. These are my general advice and suggested steps: - Identify the issue - Review board expectations and policies - One-on-one discussion - Provide support and feedback - Set clear objectives and a timeline for Improvement - Follow-up - Consider reassignment, resignation and formal action. - Always document