Two Powerful Forces Operating in Nonprofit Boards

Would board members of a nonprofit organization 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?"

There are two significant and powerful factors operating in our nonprofit leaders as they gather around the board table. The first is the "psycho-dynamics" operating between board members. The second is the reward system operating in voluntary associations of any kind. Let's take them in order.

You've heard the saying "A camel is a horse designed by a committee"? Does your nonprofit's Board exemplify that cliche? A lot of them that I have seen and worked with over the past 10 years certainly have. What's the problem? "Psycho-dynamics."

This isn't necessarily something board members 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.

What are 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. This happens in any group of people, not just boards, but it is of concern here because we're trying to understand the behavior of nonprofit board members. One's image of self is a high priority concern.

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 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 image 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 emotionally and psychologically?" And this goes on around the table ad infinitum throughout the board meeting.

This internal assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in any particular board member's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.

Given that kind of internal psycho-dynamic that is operating in each and every board member (also in every staff member and visitor 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 themselves and yet also for the context of the group in which they find themselves.

Deliberative thought is practically impossible. In fact, and you'll hear me say this a thousand times: "People in groups can only do two things well, and I learned this early on in my sojourn with group dynamics from my first mentor in process: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories; but they cannot do deliberative thought."

But, nevertheless, we expect, and we have it set up in society, that groups of volunteers coming together like this are given charge of a public trust; they have a responsibility for governing a nonprofit charitable institution. We set up agendas that call for decisions that cannot be made without deliberation and careful, analytical thought, yet the psycho-dynamics of such a group of people frequently seem to militate against making good governance decisions.

Ah, but there's more…

Here's the second of these two factors that contribute to the inability of nonprofit boards to stay with strategic planning, governance and providing the resources an organization needs to function.

There are basically four "rewards" or benefits that actors in voluntary associations experience. These are the benefits derived from the exchange in which these actors give time, money or meaning. In return for their participation and their gifts, these actors receive the rewards of personal satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, meaning in life, and companionship and mutuality.

But these are relatively “soft” rewards, rather easily obtained by most people. For example, if you buy a car, you give the dealer your money, and you walk away with a car you can use to drive to work or the grocery store or to grandma's on Thanksgiving. It's a bit different from the board member who gives time, and maybe an annual contribution and walks away with satisfaction or peer approval and recognition. The latter's reward is not as tangible a product.

But what happens when a person’s need for the rewards of voluntary association is satisfied? Their search for exchanges that yield these rewards stops. Satiation is experienced. The person is at equilibrium. There is no perceived need to give more because the person has received the reward that he or she needs.

Perhaps this is why board members who, for example, clearly face the urgent need for their organization to raise money, and sometimes even in the presence of both the organizational capability and the need to do fundraising, nevertheless make decisions contrary to the good of their organizations. It's not only that psycho-dynamics get in the way, it's also because they have what they need from association with the group, and they are not pressed by internal need to stretch further to reach reward. There's no pressure to get involved in significant giving, or in cultivation and solicitation. They have enough of what they wanted when they agreed to get involved with the organization in the first place.

Potential discomfort – both personally (in terms of having to participate in the raising of funds) and corporately (in terms of the changes needed in the organization and the work of planning, organizing, investing in infrastructure, and carrying out strategies of cultivation and solicitation) – is too great an obstacle to overcome in light of the fact that these rather “soft” rewards are all too easily obtained without going to such lengths.

There are, of course, people in voluntary associations who are highly motivated. These may be founding executives, former service recipients or others with powerful personal, religious, apocalyptic or apocryphal direction. Indeed these individuals may be strongly driven by an internal passion, and will continue to seek rewards long after others are satiated. These persons seem to thrive on driving on through towards success for their organizations, giving everything that is needed for success. These are the people of whom we say, “He/she is not afraid to ask anyone for anything for our cause.” These actors exhibit charismatic behavior and seem so captivated, compelled or motivated that they are fearless on behalf of their cause. These are the people who get things done in a voluntary association. But these are not the kinds of people nonprofits generally choose for board members.

There are also those organizations whose executives are trained managers, and whose internal professional standards are so highly developed that they strive continually for the betterment of the organization in all respects, including leading the charge in fundraising. These persons know, or seek out knowledge of what is needed to make the organization’s fundraising efforts successful, and they energetically, and sometimes patiently, proceed to go about gathering the personal, facility and budget resources necessary to accomplish that fundraising job. But in this case, these nonprofit actors get the job of fundraising done despite the board's lack of ability to step up to the plate and make significant gifts while cultivating and soliciting others.

The way our nonprofit leadership structure is typically created, the governance board is composed of those who are rather more easily satiated. while our executives, and maybe one or two other volunteers, are those who are driven and highly motivated.

Yet we leave it up to the board to make the budget decisions about investment in fundraising infrastructure, and whether or not the Board will make an annual gift to the organization, and whether the board will be involved in fundraising by cultivating and soliciting major gifts. These are the people who will tend to be least passionate about these fundraising objectives, and who have the least to gain personally, even though the organization and its health stand to gain substantially. These are the people whose needs for satisfaction, peer recognition and thanks, personal meaning in life and companionship and mutuality are satiated just by the process of being on the board and attending board meetings, regardless of the details of what is happening.

Even when personal discomfort is involved, such as instances where the organization’s health and well-being are in such as state as to be seriously threatened, such board members will continue to make decisions that push fundraising tasks to the lower end of the priority scale.

It must be acknowledged, however, that there are times when we see highly capable board leaders who do clearly perceive a need within the organization to mount a campaign to build or renovate a building or take the organization to the next step of programmatic excellence. These leaders seem to be motivated to put aside personal pleasure seeking and mobilize themselves and their colleagues for intense and often strenuous programs of fundraising, including the investment of organization resources in the fundraising infrastructure necessary to mount such an effort.

Would this, then, constitute some other truly insightful, compelling and motivating internal force acting within such leaders to put aside personal reward satiation in favor of sacrificing one’s personal comfort to act for the good of the organization’s present and future capacity to carry out its mission? It may be that reward, then, is sought by these leaders at a much higher level, involving considerable personal self-sacrifice, and mobilizing such internal leadership capability as will motivate others to act on behalf of their organization rather than in the interests of self. These leaders receive, then, a higher quality peer recognition, greater personal satisfaction, meaning, and mutuality as a result of their more intense involvement.

So here you have these two forces operating in nonprofit governance boards: the psycho-dynamics going on at any board meeting, plus the reward system of voluntary associations. Perhaps this explains the tendency of many boards to micro-manage rather than sticking to strategic planning, governance and giving, and their propensity to shun fundraising activity and investment in resource development infrastructure.

In a day when we have an over-crowded, under-funded philanthropic marketplace, that kind of board activity will sooner or later spell disaster for the charity they're trying to help.