Beyond Hand to Mouth

Thoughts on governance

A Harvard Business Review article, “Managers and Leaders:  Are They Different?” distinguishes between managers who embrace procedure, compromise, consensus, and a passive attitude toward goals arising from necessities rather than desires; from leaders who adopt a personal and active attitude toward goals, develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options.

Another HBR article I read in graduate school (and for the life of me, I cannot find the title) discusses the application of situational management: a more autocratic “leadership” style for organizations in a transitional environment, versus a democratic, consensus style during relative equilibrium.

In my opinion, the single greatest impediment for many, if not most, independent schools will be the need to dynamically adapt in a new world order, from within the traditional not-for-profit culture of procedure, consensus, and, well, resistance to change.  But it does not take a Harvard Business Review study to address problems and solutions that are more easily approached with common sense.

Anyone genuinely interested in serving on a not-for-profit board does so for one reason:  a desire to contribute.   To work with a like-minded group toward a common vision.  To achieve definable goals.  To accomplish something.

And what are the universal complaints?  Getting nothing done.  Wasting time.  Being constantly pestered to write checks.  No purpose.

Symptoms of dysfunction

• The prima donna board.  In the corporate world, board membership is based on expertise, relationships, or some specific attribute that directly contributes to the management of the organization.

    In contrast, the assembly of most not-for-profit boards is somewhat random:  a friend of a friend, a lawyer/stockbroker/accountant/ banker (who often join to network for their own business), and anyone who looks like they can write a check.  Absent a discrete board structure, too often such members individually contribute little, but nonetheless gum up the collaborative decision-making process by adding one more voice to accommodate.

    More is not the merrier, more can be less, much less.  It is better to leave a seat unfilled and work with a smaller board, than to invite someone who will not provide tangible value.

• Power struggles.  Leadership is most effective when originated within a strong headmaster (executive director, or whatever the principal executive is called).  Or, said differently, I have never met a strong school with a weak headmaster.  It is a difficult role.  The headmaster is the standard bearer; and must engage and develop the board to mutually work toward achieving concrete objectives. Without a distinct and shared sense of purpose, the headmaster is usually eaten alive by the board.

• Too many decisions made collectively.  A productive board is a structured board, divided into sub-committees, each with its own mandate, objectives, and timetable.  An unstructured board is managerially sloppy; prone to paralysis by analysis, passing the buck, and ultimately dumping on the staff.

• The board ends up writing all the checks.  There should be no such thing as a non-fundraising board.  However, fundraising is a systematic process, and something is wrong if the board (and their friends) are routinely pressed for the preponderance of contributions.  A common flaw is the stockbroker board member who heads up planned giving, but no one wants to point out that good old Charlie hasn’t originated a gift in five years.

• Over-reliance on board consultants.  A board development consultant is generally someone who asks the board a lot of questions, and then delivers a report outlining everything the board just told him. They will not provide leadership.