The “Psycho-Dynamics” of Nonprofit Boards

First, our quote for the day from Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary"

ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution.
"My accountability, bear in mind,"said the Grand Vizier
"Yes, yes,"said the Shah: "I do — 'tis the only kind of ability you possess."
—Joram Tate

You've heard the saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"? Does your nonprofit's Board exemplify that cliché? A lot of them that I have seen and worked with over the past 10 years certainly have. What's the dynamic that's operating to make this be the case? Why do groups of people, many with the best of intentions and some with considerable governing experience, turn out decisions that are convoluted, multi-faceted and hard to administer?

Essentially, the heart of the problem is: "Psycho-dynamics." Boards that don't function well have that dysfunction because it is almost impossible for any group of three or more people who get together relatively infrequently to do any kind of productive deliberative thinking. This is due to the fact that every member of the group, often unconsciously, has tons of other agenda they're trying to accomplish for themselves personally that simply override any agenda for the nonprofit. Would Board members of a nonprofit organization really do that? Would they really have their own agenda that would override consideration of the agenda the Board is supposed to be working on?

Sure they would... and do; regularly. Yes, even these stalwart pillars of the community who are brought together to govern a public trust, which is what a nonprofit is; they can and do bring their own agendas into the meeting and press those agendas, in some cases, to the exclusion of all else. And your reaction may be "But wait a minute, John, I've been to lots of Board meetings and the people on those boards are quite serious and down to earth and ready to help. After all they're volunteering their time to help the nonprofit. How can you say that?"

Back to "Psycho-dynamics." This isn't something they do consciously. They don't come into the meeting and purposively give the charity's agenda short shrift. They are intelligent, for the most part well-educated, frequently very dedicated people. They don't really set out to sabotage the work at hand. If you asked any person around the table, they would stoutly deny that there's anything untoward going on in their heads. But here's how it works.

We must look at the sub-conscious questions any person in any group of people is asking, first and foremost. First, "What do I think of myself in this group, how do I see myself, what is my image of myself in this context?" Each person around the table has a set of self images upon which they draw, depending on the group they're in, the role they have to play, and what they want from the group.

Second, every Board member around the table is also very interested in the question "What is the image that the other person (each other person at the table) has of me? How do they see me? What do they want/need from me?"

Third, every Board member at the table is also internally asking "What is my image of that person – what do I think of them? What do I know about them? What do I think they want of me, what do I think I can give to them?"

Fourth, again, every Board member is sub-consciously going to go to the next level, which is "How can I either alter that person's perception of me, or confirm that perception? What do I need to do or say to bring my images of myself, my image of what that other person thinks of me, and what I think about that other person into some kind of harmony that I can accept?" And this goes on around the table ad infinitum throughout the Board meeting.

This internal mechanism of "other" assessment and behavior adjustment goes on at either a subliminal level or a more conscious level, and it depends on many factors operating in the particular Board member's life at that moment. But this assessment and adjustment mechanism continues operating nonetheless.

Given that kind of internal psycho-dynamic that is operating in each and every Board member, and in every staff member around the room, is it any wonder that there is little room left to engage in "deliberative thought" about matters that concern the nonprofit? Each person in the room is busy sorting out and finding ways to act appropriately for their own benefit as determined by their assessment of the group context in which they find themselves.

Deliberative thought is practically impossible in this situation. In fact, and you'll hear me say this frequently: "People in groups can only do two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought." And I am indebted to my mentor in organizational dynamics Dr. Paul Dietterich for having expressed the phenomenon that way. But here we have a situation where we expect, and we have set this up in society, that groups of volunteers are asked to come together as "governance boards" that are given charge of a public trust: governing a nonprofit charitable institution. Yet their heads, by nature, are so jammed with the psycho-dynamics of interpersonal relationships that they can only really brainstorm and tell stories.

Ah, but there's more to the story… because I know you're asking "What's this about deliberative thought? What's with that?" And there's also more internal agenda that isn't necessarily very subliminal. We'll take that up in the next few posts on this subject.