7 Common Board Dysfunctions
As I work with different organizations and their boards, I have found that many organizations have less-than-functional boards – some would even qualify as dysfunctional, meaning they have a negative impact on the organization.
Those dysfunctions seem to fall into the following 7 categories. Perhaps you see your board in one of the descriptions below.
Failure to have a quorum. I believe – and have witnessed – that people tend to show up for things that they value or where they feel valued. Even busy people will make time for the things that give them meaning and purpose. I also find that busy people tend not to commit to an organization (e.g., board service) if they do not intend to truly engage with that board in a meaningful way. Most often, I find that unless something unavoidable interferes, failure to have a quorum at a meeting means that your board members do not find value in that meeting.
Micromanagement. In general, boards should stay focused on organizational strategy and long-term thinking while the staff directs the daily operations of the enterprise. In a few areas, the two overlap and, in times of crisis, the board might help with some of the daily work. However, the board should not routinely, for example, deal with staff issues, review every financial transaction, or interfere in the minutia of program operations. When board members micromanage, it often means that they do not understand their roles or do not feel comfortable executing those roles.
Failure to make a decision or worse, rehashing old conversations rather than moving on. This dysfunction generally emanates from an ineffective board leader, a board chair who does not move the conversation along, call for a vote when appropriate, cut conversation off before board members feel they have had their say, or allow board members to rehash decided items. It can also emanate from poor attendance at board meetings when members miss the meeting when the discussion occurred. Too often, I see boards rotate their chair or elect the person who has the longest tenure on the board, not considering whether they have the talent to effectively lead the board. Compounding the problem, often board chairs do not receive training to assume the role, learning instead from osmosis or the previous (often ineffective) chair.
Relitigating committee work. Having strong committees can actively engage members in the work of the board, but if the board re-examines every decision that the committees make, it wastes everyone’s time. It can also demoralize committee members as it signals a lack of trust in their fellow board members or the process or, like #3, a weak board chair who allows this to occur.
Making “bad” decisions. While the quality of the decisions a board makes lies in the eyes of the beholder, a board who routinely goes against the advice of staff or whose decisions put the organization in jeopardy signals board members who either do not have sufficient knowledge to make a “correct” decision or who do not trust their staff. It can also mean that the organization does not have the right mix of individuals on the board – by temperament, expertise, and experience – to have a healthy discussion to arrive at the best decision for the organization.
Unwillingness to help with development or fundraising. If I earned a nickel every time I heard this complaint, I would have a lot of nickels! Few people like to ask others for money and even fewer of those people land on your board. Staff and boards try many approaches to encourage board members to help with development work, often to no avail. I think most of this dysfunction comes from a disconnect between staff and board members’ expectations and understanding of development work.
General lack of engagement. A generally disengaged board has many of the traits noted previously, but it also manifests itself in “crickets” whenever someone asks for volunteers for a project or for discussion on an issue. The board member may show up for meetings but just kind of sits there, occupying space but not really engaging with the organization. While they don’t really do anything “wrong,” they also don’t move the organization forward.
The bad news: most of these dysfunctions emerge because of how the staff interacts with the board. Yes, staff, they are your fault.
The good news: that means that you can “fix” them by adjusting your behavior and how you work with your board.
Because the health of our nonprofit boards in many ways determines the health of the agency and the sector, I will use the next seven Nonprofit Tips and Tidbits blog posts to outline ways that you can improve your board to help them overcome these dysfunctions to become an actively engaged board who moves your organization forward instead of a drain on your energy and resources. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen with a few relatively simple steps.
If you do not receive our blogs in your email, sign up today so you don’t miss any of this important series.
See you in 2 weeks!
