How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 4 of 7

Well, we can't really go on to Example #2 before we give Board members their due. After all, they're human beings, too! Right?

So what do we hear around the Board table when the subject of "Board giving" comes up? Well, we hear things like: "You can't force me to give" or "I give my time, isn't that enough?" and "The approach you're using to get this done really turns me off." and "not everyone can give at the same rate?" and "nobody ever told me I'd have to be a fundraiser to serve on this board" and then there's the all-time favorite reaction "we've never had any rules about board members giving before; we don't need them now."

And each of these points of view does have a kernel of truth in it. That's what is so confusing to development staff and their executives. Each board member does have a point to make. There really can't be any force involved – it's counterproductive. Yes, people really do sacrifice other kinds of goals to give time to our non-profit and they deserve recognition of that because without that service we couldn't, as nonprofits, achieve what we do.

And, yes, there are some ways I've seen some board members lay it on their fellows in such a demanding, almost obnoxious way that the rest of the board is pretty much turned off to the idea of giving or of setting a board giving goal just as a way of reacting to that demand.

And, yes, not everyone can give at the same level. No doubt about it, some are more capable than others of both giving and "getting." Of course, if you go around the table and analyze who is likely, because of their profession or other factors, to have more capability than others, no one wants to admit they really COULD give more. But, generally speaking, you can figure that the attorneys and the business owners on a board will have greater capacity than the social workers, right?

And, yes, it is probably the case that when the board member took on this assignment he/she was NOT told they'd have to give a certain amount or at a certain level, or go out and cultivate and solicit gifts. Nonprofit staff tend to recruit anything that can fog a mirror as a board member. $500 gift? Make him a board member. Volunteered last year for the auction and did a great job? Make her a board member. Expressed interest in the cause? Make that one a board member, too! It's no wonder board members think they can be on the board without giving at leadership levels! We just put 'em on the board for the slightest of reasons, tell them "you won't have to take much time, you won't have to do anything very much." And we let it go at that, thankful that we filled the board roster again this year, now let's go on to all the other things we have to do.

So all these reactions have half a grain of truth in them. And the other half grain is more or less an excuse, a reaction to process, an internal response to the operation of the psycho-dynamics and other pressures within the board and within each board member. This is a mixture of internal and external "stuff" that mostly resides in the mind of each board member, but which also has a very real effect on the work of the whole body.

Point is, if we're going to make an intelligent decision and come up with a workable long-term solution that truly benefits the ORGANIZATION itself, we have to get beyond the half-truths and analyze the full situation, get all the issues out on the table, expose them, delve into them, find out the facts. But boards typically can't do that. They don't have the time – they're in a rush to get out of there and back to work or wherever it is they need to go after the meeting (golf, anyone?).

They don't have the inclination, either – they've got an agenda they need to accomplish before they leave the room early for their next appointment. And, even if they had the time and the inclination, you could put them in a room together all day and still not come up with a resolution on board giving that was fair, equitable and just, and that focused on the long-term good and welfare of the organization. It's just not something they're able to do because they are a group of people, and they tend to operate with the dynamics of a group, rather than being able to do deliberative thought, as an individual can do when working alone or with one other person.

Question: if all this is the case, then why do we persist – as development staffs and executives – in trying to get our boards to make decisions like this? If we know it's impossible, if we suspect there's another way to do it, why do we just waltz in there with this kind of an agenda item and hope and pray something positive happens? That's a mystery we'll delve into further tomorrow.

Your comments are appreciated. This blog is designed to be a little sharp and provocative, so if you're dander is up, that's good, and let's hear from you. Give us your thoughts.