This Discussion Corner item was submitted by Blue Avocado readers like you.
I serve as Vice Chair of a private college Board of Trustees. The President of the college filed a complaint to the board that the Chair be removed from office, stating that the Chair’s behavior was causing a work environment where the President could not get his work done—a hostile work environment.
The Chair was asking questions about hiring processes, nepotism policies, personal expenditures that were not documented, disrespectful behavior of the President to current Board Members, and the list goes on. The Chair was performing his role as a fiduciary of the college, not micromanaging.
After much discussion, the whole Board voted not to remove the Chair, but did provide instructions for the Chair to follow. The only instruction to the President was to not communicate at all with the Chair for the remaining term of the Chair—June 30, 2020. The President would not mediate. The President would not compromise. And the temper tantrums continue.
What can I do to help the Board see and understand that the real problem is the leadership management style of the President? Thank you so much.
—a Blue Avocado reader in Texas
All to often, these types of situations arise and escalate over time, within many nonprofits. Part of the challenge lies in the decades-old, nonprofit governance model that is outdated. Another key piece is that it appears there are unclear, blurred lines of respsonsibility between the Board Chair (responsible for governing as one body) and the President (responsible for overall operations. use of resources and organizational management).
Governance and management are very different “animals” that require clarification and ongoing communications. Too often, management gets confused with governance and vice versa. Effective boards typically include directors who are seasoned with no more than 10% of the directors being first-time directors. Diversity of directors also includes looking at gender, industry, nonprofit, funding sources, government, community members similar to those served, etc.
That said, when boards and nonprofits experience escalating problems between people, it often begins with the lack of a clear definition of “the problem we are trying to address.” Without the problem being clarified and shared by concerned parties, it becomes more difficult for the organization to come to a clear, constructive solution with specific steps and timeline for resolution.
Bottom line, the over-arching responsibility of a nonprofit, its staff and board of directors is to put the mission-based services and outreach FIRST, and to use the limited resources wisely, in order to deliver impactful, social change that benefits the community. Egos need to be checked at the door, to serve the noprofit effectively.
When undefined conflicts continue over time, and worsen, they unnecessarily drain precious resources. which ultimately misuses resources designated to serve the public.
A few questions. Is the Board Chair asking for these things as an individual or has the Board determined that it wants to have evidence of the hiring processes and so this is a “board request” being conveyed by the Board Chair. Just because one is a board member doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to ask the CEO/President whatever you want to know whenever you want to know it as that is exactly the kind of blurred Board/Staff line that leads to trouble no matter what the leadership styles are of those involved. If the board has issues with the behavior and performance of the President they need to formulate a strategy for those issues to be addressed either during an annual appraisal or sooner if warranted. Otherwise it’s quite possible the Board Chair is part of the problem. Instructing the President not to communicate with the Board Chair is …. pardon my frankness… absurd.