Nonprofit boards of directors are often criticized for evidencing too little interest in their organizations, or -- the opposite problem -- for micro-managing. In the first case, the board is not doing enough for the organization: not raising enough money; not evaluating the executive director; not setting policy; not giving direction. In the second case, the board is interfering with day-to-day management: remaking decisions of the executive director regarding how a policy is carried out; giving staff directions without checking with the director to see if staff have the time or skills to carry out the task; purchasing equipment or materials; or wanting detailed reports from staff about a particular project without going through the executive director.
Particular nonprofit cultures contribute to these maladies. The uninvolved or rubber-stamp board, working with a strong executive director (possibly the founder) simply okays almost all requests, budgets and agendas presented to them. The overly involved board may have run the organization before any staff was hired, and they may continue to maintain proprietary interest in the running of the nonprofit. This malady is exacerbated if the executive director is not a strong leader. The personalities of the members of both the board and the staff can play a role that encourages either extreme, and the organization suffers because the board is not focusing on what it should be doing.
What can be done in this situation?....(to read full
article).
