How Nonprofit Boards Can Make Good Decisions -- Part 12 of 12

Should the CEO have his head examined? The size of his headache resulting from the discussion so far might give a clue that at least his method might need to be adjusted.

What will the CEO do next time there's something he wants from the Board? Bury it in the budget? Make a formal proposal? Take a board member to lunch? What are the learnings from this situation?

Will the CEO avail himself of the learnings? Will he sit down and write down what he has learned? Probably not. He doesn't see himself as a student, here, in the learning process. He sees himself as put upon, as underdog, continually having to wrestle the slightest advancement for the organization out of the Board's discussion.

What would you do different in this situation, dear reader?

You know what I would do? I would make or find a way to do the deliberative thinking necessary to make a good decision, but use the board's brainstorming and story telling capability to help board members have input to and develop ownership of the decision.

First, I'd take my idea to each and every Board member individually, long in advance of the board meeting, and in advance of making up the budget that would include the proposed infrastructure expense. I would demonstrate the situation now and what it is producing; I would show the need our organization has to raise more money; I would clearly state what we could expect in the way of results from an infrastructure investment.

Then I would demonstrate the financial facts of the case, the situation as we now have it and how the financial picture could change significantly for the positive. Then I would show each board member the vision of what could happen in our organization with new revenue and why this is important to do. And then I would demonstrate how that vision could become if we had that donor software and somebody to enter and massage the data.

In short, I'd build a case for support with each of those Board members, tailor-made to each board member's personality and understanding. I would make sure any questions they have are answered first. I'd ask each one whether they were ready to support the proposal unanimously, and if any said "no" I would not bring it to the Board until all objections were fully satisfied. I would wait until I knew I had board approval before even bringing it to a discussion.

At the board meeting, I would present the issue with a one-page summary of what I had told each board member privately, detailing the need, the vision and the solution. I would bring this as a separate issue before the budget discussion, so that the issue could be addressed on its own as an infrastructure issue, not as a budget issue. By the time we got to the board meeting every board member would understand the relationship between budget and infrastructure clearly and completely, and would be assenting to the conclusion of my one-page description that the infrastructure was needed and would promise to produce effective results.

But you'll probably say, "John, that's a pipe-dream. It'll never happen. It takes up too much of the CEO's time and too much of each board member's time." Perhaps you're right; perhaps you know whereof you speak. But if you don't take this route to an affirmative headache-free decision by the board, tell me, send me an email, how else would you get a decision that's based on deliberative thought, one that involves the Board members around the issue of infrastructure and engages them where they are? How would you get a decision that will move the organization ahead in a positive direction?

Boards only do two things well: they can brainstorm and they can tell stories. Boards cannot do deliberative thought. There are too many impediments in the group's process to allow deliberative thought and sound reasoning.

Tomorrow we'll see how this works in more detail.