Working boards don't work!

(The Wonderful World of Associations – Chapter 8)

?

Admittedly, this is a provocative title. While working boards are justified in certain situations, they can become nothing less than a plague in others. The problem can derail so much as to poison the relationship between staff and board members and disrupt the operations to such a level of toxicity that puts the organization's future at risk.

Of course, things are rarely that clear-cut in life. In the case of associations with no paid staff, the statement in the title hardly applies since, by default, board directors are doing the day-to-day work necessary for the organization to fulfill its mandate. Respect and kudos to all these volunteers who invest their time and often their financial resources into the activities of their preferred non-profit.

The story is different in cases where you have a paid CEO and paid staff. Despite what the management textbooks suggest, the theory often distorts reality. With paid staff, you expect them to perform management duties in line with the goals and objectives set in the strategic or business plan approved by the board.

Unfortunately, working boards reflect another frequent reality found in non-profits. Some board members like to intervene in the day-to-day operations of their association. They are so invested in their mission on the board that they forget they are part of a collective. While done with a desire to help, it often reflects a desire to focus on self-interest, if not a blatant conflict of interest.

There is a red line that directors on a board must not cross. While the association's employees work for the organization, they report to the CEO. In return, the CEO reports to the board. This means that the board only has one employee: the CEO. That's the rule.

The CEO must have a detailed view of all the tasks and sub-tasks required to advance the work plan and meet goals and objectives. As indicated by its title, the chief executive officer, or the executive director, is the executive arm of the association.

On the other hand, the directors should instead have a global view of the plan. If they start interfering with the staff and focus only on the projects they are interested in, they can only have a skewed vision of what needs to be done, how, and when. And the staff will be at a loss, not understanding whom they should report to. Staff cannot have eight, twelve, or fifteen bosses. They cannot take marching orders from several directors or have different people setting up short-term working priorities.

Directors cannot directly approach employees and ask them to perform tasks and work without consulting with the CEO and deciding what is reasonable and if the tasks will contribute to implementing the strategic plan. In short, this should not happen unless it is in a specific project where the direct involvement of board members is not only expected but desirable and under the direction of the CEO.

To be efficient, a CEO needs the flexibility to accomplish his management work without feeling the chairperson's breath on his neck. Providing guidance and general directions does not mean constantly holding someone's hands, and it does not mean interfering with the CEO's work.

In my career and while observing the operations of other associations, I have seen cases where staff resigned because the board was literally out of control, with each director acting as if the staff was at their service. Such cases often happen with a CEO with very weak leadership. Consequently, staff cannot rely on anyone to organize the work, and they are heading straight into the brick wall of a burn-out. Quitting their job was the only solution.

As mentioned above, situations should not occur if the communication channels between the CEO and the board are open and transparent. There is no place in this relationship for game-playing. As volunteers, board directors hold the livelihood of the association executives and staff. Being a director on a board requires a mix of empathy, rigor, understanding, and a small dose of psychology.

I have a message here to my fellow CEOs. Be attentive to how board members will try to find ways to sneak into your daily life.

When the workload increases, and you must realign priorities, they may tell you something like, "If you need help, please let us know" or "Do you need help?" When you hear that, it shows your board cares about you and your staff's mental health. These are questions, and they expect an answer based on your judgment.

However, if your board tells you something like, "You need help, and we are here to help," beware. This is not a question but a statement that questions your judgment. And when a board starts questioning your judgment, the bond of trust between the CEO and the board of directors begins to crumble.

Then, it is time to do yourself a favor and look for another job.