Improving culture of board aids nonprofits in long run

Published in the May 12, 2006 edition of Columbus Business First

The time of year is upon us when nominating committees are busy assembling lists of candidates for nonprofit board positions.

As you consider the characteristics you need from these candidates, it is a good time to take a hard look at your board’s profile. Particularly, what is the culture of the board you are asking them to join, and is it a help or a hindrance to the effectiveness and sustainability of your nonprofit organization?

Your board has worked hard over the years to assemble a membership that brings diverse skills and perspectives to the table. Yet diversity has value only to the extent that it is drawn upon. The structure of meetings and the tone of discussions are key determinants of how that diversity is utilized.

Board meetings frequently have little informed discussion. Agendas can be filled with endless presentations, brief committee reports and votes that are mere formalities. And, unfortunately, some boards may frown on members who ask questions and “slow down the meeting.”

The ideal culture of a nonprofit board is one of supportive inquiry and openness. It welcomes questions, values diversity of opinion and constructive disagreement, and insists the tone and substance of meetings convey support and a keen desire to assist management. 

This culture does not come without watchful attention. In fact, human nature is often its foil.

Sharp contrasts

Jim Collins, author of the well-known book “Good to Great” applied his successful techniques to the nonprofit sector and found some adjustments were necessary in order to implement his framework. His findings are published in a short monograph “Good to Great and the Social Sectors” (his term for the nonprofit sector). Let me loosely quote two entries from his summary of differences between the business sector and the nonprofit sector:

• In the business sector, he sees that “competitive market pressures force failing businesses to confront the brutal facts.” In contrast, in the nonprofit sector, he sees instead a tendency toward a “culture of ‘niceness’ that inhibits candor about the brutal facts.” 

• In the business sector, he sees that “the profit mechanism makes it easier to say ‘no’ or to stop doing (something that doesn’t) fit ...  .”  In contrast, in the nonprofit sector, he sees instead that a “desire to ‘do good’ and the personal desires of donors and funders can (cause undisciplined decision-making).”

It is important to remind ourselves that the same type of people occupy both business and nonprofit board seats, yet Collins sees that the different cultures of those sectors can lead to different behaviors by board members unless a conscious effort is made to counter the less desirable differences. 

Collins’ observations are not a surprise to anyone who has worked in the nonprofit sector. What is refreshing is that such a visible advocate of excellence has openly acknowledged that good intentions can have very different consequences in a business board room than in a nonprofit board room.

But tendencies don’t have to lead to outcomes. It is important that nonprofit boards take Collins’ cue and acknowledge that good boards in the nonprofit sector require a proactive discipline that his “market forces” tend to impose automatically on a business board. 

Engaging the board

I serve on both business and nonprofit boards and I see this difference at every meeting. There are many good, even great, nonprofit boards, but they constantly must work at it and vigilantly counter any tendency to ignore, excuse or foster poor decision-making.

I urge you to consciously examine the culture of your board to see if it encourages questions, values diverse perspectives and readily tackles challenging issues. 

• Do you see board members who say nothing during a meeting? 
• Do you ensure that each member’s opinions are known and that each member has a sufficient understanding of the issue at hand and its importance to the organization? 
• Do you actively seek out board members’ doubts, concerns or worries about a strategy, policy or course of action? 

Define a successful board culture as one that puts existing or emerging problems on the table for open discussion and resolution. Scan board members’ eyes during a meeting to see where confusion or concern may appear and be sure no board member still has that look by the time the meeting ends. 

If you do this, the board will be more engaged, it will view each meeting as an opportunity to make a positive contribution, the staff will look forward to each meeting as a helpful time to overcome problems and your nonprofit can move from good to great.

Allen J. Proctor was chief financial officer of Harvard University and is the author of “Linking Mission to Money, Finance for Nonprofit Board Members.” Reach him at www.proctorconsulting.org.

Copyright 2006. Reprinted with permission, Business First of Columbus Inc.