Starting a Charity? Board's Role May Deteriorate if Proper Roles Are Not Understood

Continuing with the problems that occur when the Board of a nonprofit develops and inability to fulfill its roles…

4. Board remains ignorant of, or eschews their true governance role. As they are micro-managing daily operations and not doing any strategic planning, the Board, by this time, has lost sight of its governance function. They no longer know what that role is, if they were ever so informed by the founder – most I've seen really don't have any idea. Since it was the founder "roped us into this," they have no sense of themselves as a body responsible to the general public for getting a specific kind of mission done for and in the community. They have little sense of "achieving a greater social good" and, much less, a willingness to be held accountable for the organization's performance of its mission.

5. Board members give up public advocacy when organization falters in fundraising. As revenue decreases, while there may be considerable pressure for increased expenditures to enhance and deepen the organization's missional effectiveness, the Board members cringe when it comes to vocal public advocacy for the organization's cause. No more passionate speeches at Rotary and Kiwanis meetings; no more going around to the local churches; no more political advocacy and lobbying local officials on behalf of the cause and the mission. Board members who may have once vociferously defended the founder's motives and program, now quietly take a back seat and let someone else take the advocate's role. And that someone else is most likely going to be the founder/executive.

6. Board members let founder/executive do as he/she pleases. As the organization gets deeper and deeper into financial trouble, the Board members are much less likely to be able to devise new corrective measures or suggest specific changes in management methods. The result is that the Board members will step back, let the founder/ executive carry the ball, alone, on every front. The end result is that the founder/executive, who by this time urgently needs board backing and needs the board to do its work and be part of the team, finds he/she has to do it all – from service delivery, to fundraising to governance. That's ultimate trouble, because what started out looking like "a team" is now really a one-person show. And if that person gets sick, wants to retire, or shift roles significantly, there is no way the organization can handle any of those possibilities without significant intervention or possible collapse and re-building.

So this is how the Board of Directors of a nonprofit find themselves unable to fulfill their appointed role when the organization is in the grip of a real case of "founder-itis."