Welcome back! I hope you are enjoying my content. Subscribe to the RSS feed here. Feel free to drop me a line anytime! Thanks for visiting!
I’m working with a Board of Directors that is proving most challenging! This particular Board is a chamber of commerce composed of business owners. Every meeting is a marvel of micro-management. Should our web site have a blue banner or green? Which vendor should we use to host our annual meeting? Tactical decisions like these, which should be left to staff to decide, become all-consuming conversations for this Board.
The root problem is a lack of trust between the Board and executive director. I’ve tried to create systems to build trust. I facilitated the development of a clear and comprehensive business plan. We have developed a performance scorecard. I have talked to the Board about the importance of letting things play out, to see whether the executive director and his staff are up to the task. But no sooner do I make this speech, when I turn around and witness a Board member who wants to talk about the choice of vendors at a cocktail reception!
Boards that truly want to make a difference, that want to generate lasting, sustained success in their organizations, need to stay focused on the things that Boards should do: clarifying and communicating the strategic focus of the organization. This will build trust and enable the executive director and staff to act nimbly and effectively in the face of constant change.
But members of this Board seem only interested in what’s in it for them, today. Part of it stems from the unique way that the organization is funded and structured. Each Board member represents a specific constituency that pays into a central fund that supports the organization. Board members are intrinsically motivated to make sure they get their “fair” share of the kitty.
What I’ve come to realize is that I haven’t done enough to build a collective sense of stewardship on this Board. They still see their job as steering the ship, rather than setting the course. We need to spend more time on long-range vision and specific measures of success tied to that vision.
People often ask me which of the quantum leaps described in my new book “Leading at Light Speed” is the most important. All ten are important. But I would say that aligning people around a clear strategic focus is the most important. It is the framework and the vehicle that enables a Board like this one to build trust and start moving at light speed.
Here’s the text of an email I sent today to the president of the Board of Directors of a non-profit. I think it speaks to how to do streamlined strategic planning for a non-profit.
“Hi, Meg – The best way to make this process go expeditiously is to prepare a draft plan for the Board to look at. The work we do before hand with the executive committee should be oriented to creating that plan. We’ve already decided on the format for the plan.
“The key decisions the Board needs to make revolve around reaffirming the mission of the organization – and then deciding the specific goals/priorities to achieve – within its resources. The key questions to ask are: ‘What’s our underlying strategy in terms of how we will achieve each goal? How will we re-allocate resources to assure we have the capacity to achieve it?’ Don’t make the mistake of setting goals and then starving the organization of resources to achieve them!
For example, if raising money from grants is a priority, then you’ll need capacity to research and develop grants. If generating revenue from fee-for-service programs is a priority, then you’ll need capacity to manage those programs. You have to work through the options, decide where the impact will be greatest, and make choices.
For each potential goal, keep asking, do we have the capacity? If not, how will we get it? At what cost? What will be the benefit? Is the return to our mission significant?
I look forward to seeing you all and helping you lead this to a successful conclusion.
Yesterday was a good day with a client in Los Angeles. It’s a non-profit association with two dozen branch offices. The process was good – I helped them see the situation clearly. They had some key issues to deal with. The authority has traditionally been vested in the local branches, not in the central association office. The first issue they needed to tangle with was how to construct a more rational system that devolved sufficient authority to the central hub to enable the organization to operate efficiently.
Wrapped around the governance question was a financial issue – the organization, though profitable, was declining financially. Something needed to be done to create a sustainable business model. Happily, they had the answers at their fingertips. Many of the pieces were already being conceived – a much bigger fund-raising operation, more vertical oversight of back office operations. But several pieces of the puzzle were missing – most importantly, a strategy for front-loading the investment in new capacity. Where was the money going to come from? Second, they needed to agree on what oversight by the central association office really meant? Did it mean true performance management with consistent expectations tied to both positive and negative consequences? Or did it mean something else?
By the end of the two days, we had the puzzle completely assembled. We figured out which assets would be sold to raise the cash. We figured out a new framework for flexible governance and oversight, rewarding high performing branches with more autonomy, penalizing low performing branches with more oversight. We had the performance assessment piece in place. We’d sharply defined the role of the branch directors. We had worked on the vocabulary and messages to describe the strategy effectively. By the end of the second day, everyone had their assignments. The team was aligned. They were ready to go.
