So now we come to this aspect of our thread on board performance: What are appropriate elements of measurement for a board's work? What kinds of ingredients should we put into a job description and performance standards that can helpfully and effectively be used in board performance evaluation?
First, I would say that any board performance measurement vehicle needs to comprise two distinct parts: The job description and standards of performance for the board as a group; then also the standards of performance for each member of the board.
For the performance evaluation of the board as a group, we might delineate the following areas of performance to be measures:
1. Strategic planning on a regular basis to reaffirm the social aims desired by the board for the institution and to update and provide mid-course corrections for the strategies that the board believes will bring about those social aims. This is also a good time to make sure that the policies the board has set are really achieving the results they thought would happen.
2. Management of the executive director – a regular procedure should be developed for the performance evaluation of the executive.
3. Program overview -- the board should be kept abreast of happenings locally and nationally, and within the organization to make sure that the strategies delineated in the strategic plan are actually working the way the board hoped they would. Otherwise mid-course corrections should be programmed into the board’s strategic planning review process. Staff should be providing regular reports on the agency’s programs and on local and national trends in the field of service.
4. Financial overview – the board should be reviewing the financial condition of the organization at least quarterly to ensure proper financial management. Staff should be providing regular reports to the board.
With regard to performance evaluation of individual board members, I think there would be at least the following specific areas:
1. How much money has the board member given personally or been able to raise from others?
2. Attendance at board and committee meetings should be well above 50%.
3. The extent to which the board member has advocated for and publicly supported the organization throughout the geographic area in which the charity is situated. board members should be attending gatherings of other organizations in order to promote their nonprofit in the most appropriate ways.
4. Each board member attending board training sessions. These sessions should be a regular part of board meetings and should be programmed by the executive working with the board president. Topics might range from the latest strategic planning techniques to program developments, to fundraising techniques and strategies, to government and policy concerns in the field of service. Training sessions should be short but packed with information the board members need to know to do their work effectively.
More on this tomorrow.
Showing posts with label Standards of Performance for Boards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Standards of Performance for Boards. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Board Evaluation Attracts Good Leadership
Having done that little diversion, we come back to our consideration of why performance standards, and performance evaluation procedures are a good thing for nonprofit boards. And we said in a previous post that there is sometimes a fear, both among board members and among nonprofit executive staff, that a board that uses such standards of performance might get a reputation around town for being “tough.”
As for getting a tough reputation around town, that’s not likely to be problematic. Most people appreciate when they know there are two qualities to doing a job they're being asked to do as volunteers: One is the yardstick by which they know when they will succeed, and the other is the "light at the end of the tunnel" by which they know when they have successfully completed the job they were asked to do.
Consequently, if a nonprofit gets a reputation in town for evaluating the performance of its board fairly, on a regular basis, and with lots of recognition for good performance, then people of merit, people with money and connections, are going to flock to get on that nonprofit's board. This is a good reputation to have among the community's leaders.
So this means that a nonprofit organization that has thoughtfully conceived and well-written standards of performance is going to attract capable, giving, connected leadership more easily than a charity that doesn't use such measurement. In today's overcrowded philanthropic marketplace, having this ability to measure board performance and reward members can distinguish nonprofits and give them a leadership advantage that puts them ahead of the pack. That alone should serve to motivate both boards and their executives of organizations that don't have performance standards for their boards to start immediately to devise them.
One could think about it this way: Suppose we eavesdrop on three company executives having lunch together in a local restaurant. Besides reviewing the local economy and playing a quick round of one-upmanship, they're getting into the subject of corporate giving. Harry, Mary and Joe have all been asked for contributions to several local charities, and they're getting together, among other reasons, to chat a bit about what they're going to do. Joe might say he's tired of giving to the particular charity that asked him; he might complain that several people from that charity approach him many different times a year for small amounts, and he wishes they could get their act together and consolidate their "ask," which would make it a lot easier for him to justify the contribution to his board or financial committee or management team. And, besides, aren't there other charities in town to give to?
Then Mary pipes up to say that she has just been asked to sit on the board of one of the community's nonprofits, and she knows that this brings with it a commitment to raise or give $10,000 each year she is on the board. She also tells Harry and Joe that this board has pretty high performance standards, and that they are all very enthusiastic and committed people. She cites various other community leaders who are part of this group, and says that despite the requirement, she feels honored to be part of that board. She also gets around, in the discussion, to asking both Harry and Joe for a contribution that can be logged against her quota! Smart woman!
And then Harry chimes in with a comment about how if there were any board on which he would serve it would be that one on which Mary is about to be installed, because not only are the "movers and shakers" all over there, but he would feel much more comfortable being a part of something where the leadership was excited and enthusiastic about doing something really significant for the community. He cites the fact that this board does have performance standards as a reason he would seek membership on that board.
So you see, in this little example, how word spreads, how one comment spurs another, and eventually the positive word gets around that happy, productive people on a board that does performance evaluation according to specific standards of performance, are not only doing a good job, but are part of an organization seen throughout the community as effective, progressive and a true community asset.
As for getting a tough reputation around town, that’s not likely to be problematic. Most people appreciate when they know there are two qualities to doing a job they're being asked to do as volunteers: One is the yardstick by which they know when they will succeed, and the other is the "light at the end of the tunnel" by which they know when they have successfully completed the job they were asked to do.
Consequently, if a nonprofit gets a reputation in town for evaluating the performance of its board fairly, on a regular basis, and with lots of recognition for good performance, then people of merit, people with money and connections, are going to flock to get on that nonprofit's board. This is a good reputation to have among the community's leaders.
So this means that a nonprofit organization that has thoughtfully conceived and well-written standards of performance is going to attract capable, giving, connected leadership more easily than a charity that doesn't use such measurement. In today's overcrowded philanthropic marketplace, having this ability to measure board performance and reward members can distinguish nonprofits and give them a leadership advantage that puts them ahead of the pack. That alone should serve to motivate both boards and their executives of organizations that don't have performance standards for their boards to start immediately to devise them.
One could think about it this way: Suppose we eavesdrop on three company executives having lunch together in a local restaurant. Besides reviewing the local economy and playing a quick round of one-upmanship, they're getting into the subject of corporate giving. Harry, Mary and Joe have all been asked for contributions to several local charities, and they're getting together, among other reasons, to chat a bit about what they're going to do. Joe might say he's tired of giving to the particular charity that asked him; he might complain that several people from that charity approach him many different times a year for small amounts, and he wishes they could get their act together and consolidate their "ask," which would make it a lot easier for him to justify the contribution to his board or financial committee or management team. And, besides, aren't there other charities in town to give to?
Then Mary pipes up to say that she has just been asked to sit on the board of one of the community's nonprofits, and she knows that this brings with it a commitment to raise or give $10,000 each year she is on the board. She also tells Harry and Joe that this board has pretty high performance standards, and that they are all very enthusiastic and committed people. She cites various other community leaders who are part of this group, and says that despite the requirement, she feels honored to be part of that board. She also gets around, in the discussion, to asking both Harry and Joe for a contribution that can be logged against her quota! Smart woman!
And then Harry chimes in with a comment about how if there were any board on which he would serve it would be that one on which Mary is about to be installed, because not only are the "movers and shakers" all over there, but he would feel much more comfortable being a part of something where the leadership was excited and enthusiastic about doing something really significant for the community. He cites the fact that this board does have performance standards as a reason he would seek membership on that board.
So you see, in this little example, how word spreads, how one comment spurs another, and eventually the positive word gets around that happy, productive people on a board that does performance evaluation according to specific standards of performance, are not only doing a good job, but are part of an organization seen throughout the community as effective, progressive and a true community asset.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Games Board Members Can Play
At the end of last week, we were discussing the question of why board members would resist the use of performance standards and performance evaluation. We brought up the subject of Eric Berne’s mid-1960s book “The Games People Play,” and were suggesting the one of the reasons board members of nonprofits can and do play games is that through those types of interpersonal transactions they can and do derive personal psychological aggrandizement, or achieve advantages over other members through a series of “adult-to-child” or “child-to-adult” transactions during the process of the board’s conduct of its business. But what, exactly, does such a transaction look like?
You may remember that one of the “games” Berne identified was called “Now I’ve got you!” (Actually, Berne called this game “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch!” and gave it the acronym NIGYYSOB. But we’ll shorten to NIGY, for now.) In this game the object is to embarrass the other person by catching him/her out. The person playing the game sets up the other person for a fall or an indiscretion, then springs the trap and catches the other person as he/she stumbles.
In the board room, Harry might set up the situation with Phyllis by suggesting that “the auction this year really needs to have travel packages.” And Phyllis might reply, “But those are so mundane, I don’t like them and many of my friends don’t like them. Let’s just skip that for this time.” To which Harry replies, “I’ll bet you didn’t know that a recent survey by the American Travel Agents Group found that 85% of people who go to charity auctions think travel packages are the best items offered.” So this makes Phyllis and her friends look either stupid or uninformed. Harry’s inner parent is satisfied that he has “one-upped” Phyllis, and Phyllis’ inner child responds with frustration and rage.
The psycho-dynamics are never directly addressed, never said out lout, and may not develop to a conscious level. But they are operating all the same. The gain Harry has experienced comes at the expense of Phyllis and thus is, so to say, “ill gotten.” That is to say, the gain for one person happens at the expense of another person. For more on this, I recommend you get Berne’s book.
The significance of this for setting standards of board and individual performance in preparation for regular (annual) performance evaluation is this: If the board members are playing transactional games with one another, they are not going to be sanguine about the presence of objective standards by which their conduct and their contribution to the organization’s governance and mission might be judged. They are going to want to continue to get away with their various games, instead.
So, for example, if they’re involved in micro-management, and thus putting aside and procrastinating on their strategic planning responsibilities, they are going to want to continue their micro-management games because this is where they’re getting their inner personal fulfillment – in the illicitly gotten personal gains of game playing. They are not going to want to be held accountable as “adult-to-adult” for having done a good job in strategic planning, because they haven’t found out how to play their games in that kind of arena, so it will seem foreign to them.
Performance standards, and the application of those standards during performance evaluation, will have the effect of breaking through the games board members play, and getting to the heart of the real reason these board members have been assembled: nonprofit governance.
You may remember that one of the “games” Berne identified was called “Now I’ve got you!” (Actually, Berne called this game “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch!” and gave it the acronym NIGYYSOB. But we’ll shorten to NIGY, for now.) In this game the object is to embarrass the other person by catching him/her out. The person playing the game sets up the other person for a fall or an indiscretion, then springs the trap and catches the other person as he/she stumbles.
In the board room, Harry might set up the situation with Phyllis by suggesting that “the auction this year really needs to have travel packages.” And Phyllis might reply, “But those are so mundane, I don’t like them and many of my friends don’t like them. Let’s just skip that for this time.” To which Harry replies, “I’ll bet you didn’t know that a recent survey by the American Travel Agents Group found that 85% of people who go to charity auctions think travel packages are the best items offered.” So this makes Phyllis and her friends look either stupid or uninformed. Harry’s inner parent is satisfied that he has “one-upped” Phyllis, and Phyllis’ inner child responds with frustration and rage.
The psycho-dynamics are never directly addressed, never said out lout, and may not develop to a conscious level. But they are operating all the same. The gain Harry has experienced comes at the expense of Phyllis and thus is, so to say, “ill gotten.” That is to say, the gain for one person happens at the expense of another person. For more on this, I recommend you get Berne’s book.
The significance of this for setting standards of board and individual performance in preparation for regular (annual) performance evaluation is this: If the board members are playing transactional games with one another, they are not going to be sanguine about the presence of objective standards by which their conduct and their contribution to the organization’s governance and mission might be judged. They are going to want to continue to get away with their various games, instead.
So, for example, if they’re involved in micro-management, and thus putting aside and procrastinating on their strategic planning responsibilities, they are going to want to continue their micro-management games because this is where they’re getting their inner personal fulfillment – in the illicitly gotten personal gains of game playing. They are not going to want to be held accountable as “adult-to-adult” for having done a good job in strategic planning, because they haven’t found out how to play their games in that kind of arena, so it will seem foreign to them.
Performance standards, and the application of those standards during performance evaluation, will have the effect of breaking through the games board members play, and getting to the heart of the real reason these board members have been assembled: nonprofit governance.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Games Board Members Can Play
When we first started this thread, we asked the question “Why is it that we are reluctant to provide our nonprofit governance boards with standards of performance and regular performance review?”
Well, another thing we know about human nature is that humans sometimes like to involve themselves in “game playing” behavior. Some of you readers may hark back, as I do, to the mid 1960s when a fellow named Eric Berne came out with a book called “The Games People Play.” His book was a popularized version of what at that time was called “transactional analysis,” which was developed as a way to explain the interactive behavior of humans as a series of “transactions” between our inherent “parent,” our “child” and our “adult.”
You might also remember that for a variety of reasons our inner child and parent tend to skew a transaction in such a way as to rather illicitly derive or force something for themselves out of the interchange at the expense of the other person, whereas our adult tends to deal straight-up, without such manipulations that favor self at the expense of the other.
In my practice, I have seen numerous nonprofit boards where both board members and staff would be horrified at the thought of performance standards for the board because they were involved in a series of games from which the members of these boards were deriving “illicit” personal aggrandizement – of a purely psychological nature, please understand – from the various transactions that go on in the course of doing a board’s business.
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, these leaders of the community, business owners, institutional heads, self-giving volunteers 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?"
This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. Most of them 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.
Second, every Board member around the table is also very interested in "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 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 assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in the particular Board member's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.
Into this arena, then, the individual board member’s “child” or “adult” find it easy to interject itself in a variety of ways that are designed to bring to that person ill-gotten psychological gains at the expense of others in the group or at the expense of the nonprofit and its mission. Resisting that temptation takes a powerful conscious ability to deal consistently with others on an “adult-to-adult” level of transaction. And this is the thing that Berne pointed to in his book.
Let’s see how this might work in Monday's post. Have a great weekend!
Well, another thing we know about human nature is that humans sometimes like to involve themselves in “game playing” behavior. Some of you readers may hark back, as I do, to the mid 1960s when a fellow named Eric Berne came out with a book called “The Games People Play.” His book was a popularized version of what at that time was called “transactional analysis,” which was developed as a way to explain the interactive behavior of humans as a series of “transactions” between our inherent “parent,” our “child” and our “adult.”
You might also remember that for a variety of reasons our inner child and parent tend to skew a transaction in such a way as to rather illicitly derive or force something for themselves out of the interchange at the expense of the other person, whereas our adult tends to deal straight-up, without such manipulations that favor self at the expense of the other.
In my practice, I have seen numerous nonprofit boards where both board members and staff would be horrified at the thought of performance standards for the board because they were involved in a series of games from which the members of these boards were deriving “illicit” personal aggrandizement – of a purely psychological nature, please understand – from the various transactions that go on in the course of doing a board’s business.
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, these leaders of the community, business owners, institutional heads, self-giving volunteers 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?"
This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. Most of them 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.
Second, every Board member around the table is also very interested in "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 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 assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in the particular Board member's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.
Into this arena, then, the individual board member’s “child” or “adult” find it easy to interject itself in a variety of ways that are designed to bring to that person ill-gotten psychological gains at the expense of others in the group or at the expense of the nonprofit and its mission. Resisting that temptation takes a powerful conscious ability to deal consistently with others on an “adult-to-adult” level of transaction. And this is the thing that Berne pointed to in his book.
Let’s see how this might work in Monday's post. Have a great weekend!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
No need for Fear when Evaluating Board Members’ Performance
Continuing on this thread, one of the other things we know about human nature, and particularly the executives and staff of nonprofit organizations, is that they are deathly afraid of anything that might affront or challenge the board or a board member.
Why is this? Well, probably for fear of losing their jobs, or losing the board member with all that influence and potential money. And for fear of getting a reputation as the only charity in town that evaluates the performance of its board.
But let's examine this fear a little more deeply. Fear of losing a job suggests that the nonprofit organization is somehow the last bastion of the old fiefdom system, where the executive and staff are working for the knights and royalty of the realm and are little less than indentured servants. Such an attitude further suggests that some board members are acting in the manner of tyrants – unable or unwilling to take responsibility for holding up their end of the workload at the charity.
However, the nonprofit organization is a public trust. The board of directors is appointed or elected on behalf of the whole society (even though the board may be self-perpetuating, for the purpose of providing governance for the nonprofit on behalf of the whole community. They have a specific charge to perform, and they are accountable. Granted, there is as yet no formal method by which they are regularly and public held to account, but it's coming, and performance standards are a way for each charity to hold its board accountable for performing their responsibilities justly, wisely and with prudence.
What is their job? They are in charge of steering the nonprofit in the right strategic direction in order to accomplish some specific social aims that this board has told the society this charity will accomplish. Then they're job is to do the strategic planning, hire the executive, and make sure that program and finances are going in the right direction. No one else can do that. The executive can't do that; the staff can't do that; and outside people or agencies can't do that.
So the only people who can perform that task are the board members. So why shouldn't there be specific performance standards in place that measure how well the board is doing its job? That, as we said above, is the way to help human beings really do a good job, have a wonderful feeling of success, and feel proud of their organization.
The mere fact that it might have been the executive or staff person who came up with the suggestion of performance standards, and may have created the first draft of those metrics, should in no way be held against them. Board members should, rather, be grateful that they have an executive and staff smart enough and creative enough to come up with this governance tool that will aid them in their work. There should be no question of fear in this, whatsoever.
Why is this? Well, probably for fear of losing their jobs, or losing the board member with all that influence and potential money. And for fear of getting a reputation as the only charity in town that evaluates the performance of its board.
But let's examine this fear a little more deeply. Fear of losing a job suggests that the nonprofit organization is somehow the last bastion of the old fiefdom system, where the executive and staff are working for the knights and royalty of the realm and are little less than indentured servants. Such an attitude further suggests that some board members are acting in the manner of tyrants – unable or unwilling to take responsibility for holding up their end of the workload at the charity.
However, the nonprofit organization is a public trust. The board of directors is appointed or elected on behalf of the whole society (even though the board may be self-perpetuating, for the purpose of providing governance for the nonprofit on behalf of the whole community. They have a specific charge to perform, and they are accountable. Granted, there is as yet no formal method by which they are regularly and public held to account, but it's coming, and performance standards are a way for each charity to hold its board accountable for performing their responsibilities justly, wisely and with prudence.
What is their job? They are in charge of steering the nonprofit in the right strategic direction in order to accomplish some specific social aims that this board has told the society this charity will accomplish. Then they're job is to do the strategic planning, hire the executive, and make sure that program and finances are going in the right direction. No one else can do that. The executive can't do that; the staff can't do that; and outside people or agencies can't do that.
So the only people who can perform that task are the board members. So why shouldn't there be specific performance standards in place that measure how well the board is doing its job? That, as we said above, is the way to help human beings really do a good job, have a wonderful feeling of success, and feel proud of their organization.
The mere fact that it might have been the executive or staff person who came up with the suggestion of performance standards, and may have created the first draft of those metrics, should in no way be held against them. Board members should, rather, be grateful that they have an executive and staff smart enough and creative enough to come up with this governance tool that will aid them in their work. There should be no question of fear in this, whatsoever.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Why Would Board Members Resist Standards of Performance?
Why is it that we are reluctant to provide our nonprofit governance boards with standards of performance and regular performance review? During more than a quarter century in the fundraising profession, with 10 of those years in my own practice, I have come across maybe two or three nonprofits that have devised performance standards for their boards of Directors. Why do you think that is? For one thing, it flies in the face of all we know about human nature, and best practices in board governance.
For instance, one of the things we know about human beings, and board members especially, is that they really enjoy the feeling of success. They like to do the job that is required of them and know they've been successful at it.
The sway people achieve a feeling of success to have their work measured as they go along. It makes life simpler and easier. It tends to discourage deviation from the norm and saves time and aggravation. If you've been assigned the task of governance of a nonprofit, that's an awesome responsibility that has several rather complex sublevels within it.
For example, there's the strategic planning task, the job of managing the organization's executive, the task of financial oversight, and the job of overseeing program goals and objectives and keeping those in line with the strategic plan. That's a lot to keep track of on a week-in-week-out basis through many board meetings. It's easy to get bogged down and lose sight of where we are in the process.
Consequently, any board member could be expected to welcome specific standards of performance as the easiest way to stay on track in terms of fulfilling the assignment for which he/she was selected. The job performance standards are going to point out the limits of board deviance from a certain norm of tasks and how they should be performed. And these, in turn, are ultimately going to be set by their peers – their fellow board members – as a way to express the greatest success as the board has defined that term for itself and its work.
Of course this is all within the context of the full realization that the board of directors of a nonprofit (which is, after all, a public trust) are responsible to the public for providing a well-managed, efficient, cost-effective social good or service to the community at large. Standards of performance, for the board as a group and for individuals within the board, are, therefore, something most people are going to welcome as a way to help them see, through the complexity of doing their jobs, that they are doing that job well. And that leads to a sense of being successful.
Another thing we know about human nature is that most of us can tend to slack off and take the easiest way out of particularly sticky situations if someone isn't keeping our feet to the fire. Board members are no different. If you don't point out to them that they need to stay with the more difficult tasks of strategic planning and measuring progress programmatically and financially toward the strategic goals, it won't be too long before they've lapsed back into micro-managing the organization and tinkering with day-to-day operations.
Consequently, a set of well-written performance standards, keyed to the four main jobs of a nonprofit board, can be expected to be a welcome reminder of what the board is NOT supposed to do, and of how easy it is to slip into the mire of micro-management.
Since this kind of deviation detracts from the management of a nonprofit, and since such activity robs the nonprofit of the kind of strategic planning that allows it to fulfill its commitment to the public, board members could be expected to welcome such yardsticks as will keep them from diverting time and attention away from their governance tasks.
More on this tomorrow.
For instance, one of the things we know about human beings, and board members especially, is that they really enjoy the feeling of success. They like to do the job that is required of them and know they've been successful at it.
The sway people achieve a feeling of success to have their work measured as they go along. It makes life simpler and easier. It tends to discourage deviation from the norm and saves time and aggravation. If you've been assigned the task of governance of a nonprofit, that's an awesome responsibility that has several rather complex sublevels within it.
For example, there's the strategic planning task, the job of managing the organization's executive, the task of financial oversight, and the job of overseeing program goals and objectives and keeping those in line with the strategic plan. That's a lot to keep track of on a week-in-week-out basis through many board meetings. It's easy to get bogged down and lose sight of where we are in the process.
Consequently, any board member could be expected to welcome specific standards of performance as the easiest way to stay on track in terms of fulfilling the assignment for which he/she was selected. The job performance standards are going to point out the limits of board deviance from a certain norm of tasks and how they should be performed. And these, in turn, are ultimately going to be set by their peers – their fellow board members – as a way to express the greatest success as the board has defined that term for itself and its work.
Of course this is all within the context of the full realization that the board of directors of a nonprofit (which is, after all, a public trust) are responsible to the public for providing a well-managed, efficient, cost-effective social good or service to the community at large. Standards of performance, for the board as a group and for individuals within the board, are, therefore, something most people are going to welcome as a way to help them see, through the complexity of doing their jobs, that they are doing that job well. And that leads to a sense of being successful.
Another thing we know about human nature is that most of us can tend to slack off and take the easiest way out of particularly sticky situations if someone isn't keeping our feet to the fire. Board members are no different. If you don't point out to them that they need to stay with the more difficult tasks of strategic planning and measuring progress programmatically and financially toward the strategic goals, it won't be too long before they've lapsed back into micro-managing the organization and tinkering with day-to-day operations.
Consequently, a set of well-written performance standards, keyed to the four main jobs of a nonprofit board, can be expected to be a welcome reminder of what the board is NOT supposed to do, and of how easy it is to slip into the mire of micro-management.
Since this kind of deviation detracts from the management of a nonprofit, and since such activity robs the nonprofit of the kind of strategic planning that allows it to fulfill its commitment to the public, board members could be expected to welcome such yardsticks as will keep them from diverting time and attention away from their governance tasks.
More on this tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Performance Evaluation Standards
So now we come to this aspect of our thread on board performance: What are appropriate elements of measurement for a board's work? What kinds of ingredients should we put into a job description and performance standards that can helpfully and effectively be used in board performance evaluation?
First, I would say that any board performance measurement vehicle needs to comprise two distinct parts: The job description and standards of performance for the board as a group; and the standards of performance for each member of the board.
For the performance evaluation of the board as a group, we might delineate the following areas of performance to be measures:
1. Strategic planning on a regular basis to reaffirm the social aims desired by the board for the institution and to update and provide mid-course corrections for the strategies that the board believes will bring about those social aims. This is also a good time to make sure that the policies the board has set are really achieving the results they thought would happen.
2. Management of the executive director – a regular procedure should be developed for the performance evaluation of the executive.
3. Program overview -- the board should be kept abreast of happenings locally and nationally, and within the organization to make sure that the strategies delineated in the strategic plan are actually working the way the board hoped they would. Otherwise mid-course corrections should be programmed into the board’s strategic planning review process. Staff should be providing regular reports on the agency’s programs and on local and national trends in the field of service.
4. Financial overview – the board should be reviewing the financial condition of the organization at least quarterly to ensure proper financial management. Staff should be providing regular reports to the board.
With regard to performance evaluation of individual board members, I think there would be at least the following specific areas:
1. How much money has the board member given personally or been able to raise from others?
2. Attendance at board and committee meetings should be well above 50%.
3. The extent to which the board member has advocated for and publicly supported the organization throughout the geographic area in which the charity is situated. Board members should be attending gatherings of other organizations in order to promote their nonprofit in the most appropriate ways.
4. Each board member attending board training sessions. These sessions should be a regular part of board meetings and should be programmed by the executive working with the board president. Topics might range from the latest strategic planning techniques to program developments, to fundraising techniques and strategies, to government and policy concerns in the field of service. Training sessions should be short but packed with information the board members need to know to do their work effectively.
These are some of the yardsticks we can use to measure board performance. You might be able to think of others. If so, I invite your comments.
First, I would say that any board performance measurement vehicle needs to comprise two distinct parts: The job description and standards of performance for the board as a group; and the standards of performance for each member of the board.
For the performance evaluation of the board as a group, we might delineate the following areas of performance to be measures:
1. Strategic planning on a regular basis to reaffirm the social aims desired by the board for the institution and to update and provide mid-course corrections for the strategies that the board believes will bring about those social aims. This is also a good time to make sure that the policies the board has set are really achieving the results they thought would happen.
2. Management of the executive director – a regular procedure should be developed for the performance evaluation of the executive.
3. Program overview -- the board should be kept abreast of happenings locally and nationally, and within the organization to make sure that the strategies delineated in the strategic plan are actually working the way the board hoped they would. Otherwise mid-course corrections should be programmed into the board’s strategic planning review process. Staff should be providing regular reports on the agency’s programs and on local and national trends in the field of service.
4. Financial overview – the board should be reviewing the financial condition of the organization at least quarterly to ensure proper financial management. Staff should be providing regular reports to the board.
With regard to performance evaluation of individual board members, I think there would be at least the following specific areas:
1. How much money has the board member given personally or been able to raise from others?
2. Attendance at board and committee meetings should be well above 50%.
3. The extent to which the board member has advocated for and publicly supported the organization throughout the geographic area in which the charity is situated. Board members should be attending gatherings of other organizations in order to promote their nonprofit in the most appropriate ways.
4. Each board member attending board training sessions. These sessions should be a regular part of board meetings and should be programmed by the executive working with the board president. Topics might range from the latest strategic planning techniques to program developments, to fundraising techniques and strategies, to government and policy concerns in the field of service. Training sessions should be short but packed with information the board members need to know to do their work effectively.
These are some of the yardsticks we can use to measure board performance. You might be able to think of others. If so, I invite your comments.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Board Evaluation Attracts Good Leadership
Having done that little diversion, we come back to our consideration of why performance standards, and performance evaluation procedures are a good thing for nonprofit boards. And we said in a previous post that there is sometimes a fear, both among board members and among nonprofit executive staff, that a board that uses such standards of performance might get a reputation around town for being “tough.”
As for getting a tough reputation around town, that’s not likely to be problematic. Most people appreciate when they know there are two qualities to doing a job they're being asked to do as volunteers: One is the yardstick by which they know when they will succeed, and the other is the "light at the end of the tunnel" by which they know when they have successfully completed the job they were asked to do.
Consequently, if a nonprofit gets a reputation in town for evaluating the performance of its board fairly, on a regular basis, and with lots of recognition for good performance, then people of merit, people with money and connections, are going to flock to get on that nonprofit's board. This is a good reputation to have among the community's leaders.
So this means that a nonprofit organization that has thoughtfully conceived and well-written standards of performance is going to attract capable, giving, connected leadership more easily than a charity that doesn't use such measurement. In today's overcrowded philanthropic marketplace, having this ability to measure board performance and reward members can distinguish nonprofits and give them a leadership advantage that puts them ahead of the pack. That alone should serve to motivate both boards and their executives of organizations that don't have performance standards for their boards to start immediately to devise them.
One could think about it this way: Suppose we eavesdrop on three company executives having lunch together in a local restaurant. Besides reviewing the local economy and playing a quick round of one-upmanship, they're getting into the subject of corporate giving. Harry, Mary and Joe have all been asked for contributions to several local charities, and they're getting together, among other reasons, to chat a bit about what they're going to do. Joe might say he's tired of giving to the particular charity that asked him; he might complain that several people from that charity approach him many different times a year for small amounts, and he wishes they could get their act together and consolidate their "ask," which would make it a lot easier for him to justify the contribution to his board or financial committee or management team. And, besides, aren't there other charities in town to give to?
Then Mary pipes up to say that she has just been asked to sit on the board of one of the community's nonprofits, and she knows that this brings with it a commitment to raise or give $10,000 each year she is on the board. She also tells Harry and Joe that this board has pretty high performance standards, and that they are all very enthusiastic and committed people. She cites various other community leaders who are part of this group, and says that despite the requirement, she feels honored to be part of that board. She also gets around, in the discussion, to asking both Harry and Joe for a contribution that can be logged against her quota! Smart woman!
And then Harry chimes in with a comment about how if there were any board on which he would serve it would be that one on which Mary is about to be installed, because not only are the "movers and shakers" all over there, but he would feel much more comfortable being a part of something where the leadership was excited and enthusiastic about doing something really significant for the community. He cites the fact that this board does have performance standards as a reason he would seek membership on that board.
So you see, in this little example, how word spreads, how one comment spurs another, and eventually the positive word gets around that happy, productive people on a board that does performance evaluation according to specific standards of performance, are not only doing a good job, but are part of an organization seen throughout the community as effective, progressive and a true community asset.
As for getting a tough reputation around town, that’s not likely to be problematic. Most people appreciate when they know there are two qualities to doing a job they're being asked to do as volunteers: One is the yardstick by which they know when they will succeed, and the other is the "light at the end of the tunnel" by which they know when they have successfully completed the job they were asked to do.
Consequently, if a nonprofit gets a reputation in town for evaluating the performance of its board fairly, on a regular basis, and with lots of recognition for good performance, then people of merit, people with money and connections, are going to flock to get on that nonprofit's board. This is a good reputation to have among the community's leaders.
So this means that a nonprofit organization that has thoughtfully conceived and well-written standards of performance is going to attract capable, giving, connected leadership more easily than a charity that doesn't use such measurement. In today's overcrowded philanthropic marketplace, having this ability to measure board performance and reward members can distinguish nonprofits and give them a leadership advantage that puts them ahead of the pack. That alone should serve to motivate both boards and their executives of organizations that don't have performance standards for their boards to start immediately to devise them.
One could think about it this way: Suppose we eavesdrop on three company executives having lunch together in a local restaurant. Besides reviewing the local economy and playing a quick round of one-upmanship, they're getting into the subject of corporate giving. Harry, Mary and Joe have all been asked for contributions to several local charities, and they're getting together, among other reasons, to chat a bit about what they're going to do. Joe might say he's tired of giving to the particular charity that asked him; he might complain that several people from that charity approach him many different times a year for small amounts, and he wishes they could get their act together and consolidate their "ask," which would make it a lot easier for him to justify the contribution to his board or financial committee or management team. And, besides, aren't there other charities in town to give to?
Then Mary pipes up to say that she has just been asked to sit on the board of one of the community's nonprofits, and she knows that this brings with it a commitment to raise or give $10,000 each year she is on the board. She also tells Harry and Joe that this board has pretty high performance standards, and that they are all very enthusiastic and committed people. She cites various other community leaders who are part of this group, and says that despite the requirement, she feels honored to be part of that board. She also gets around, in the discussion, to asking both Harry and Joe for a contribution that can be logged against her quota! Smart woman!
And then Harry chimes in with a comment about how if there were any board on which he would serve it would be that one on which Mary is about to be installed, because not only are the "movers and shakers" all over there, but he would feel much more comfortable being a part of something where the leadership was excited and enthusiastic about doing something really significant for the community. He cites the fact that this board does have performance standards as a reason he would seek membership on that board.
So you see, in this little example, how word spreads, how one comment spurs another, and eventually the positive word gets around that happy, productive people on a board that does performance evaluation according to specific standards of performance, are not only doing a good job, but are part of an organization seen throughout the community as effective, progressive and a true community asset.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Games Board Members Sometimes Play
At the end of last week, we were discussing the question of why board members would resist the use of performance standards and performance evaluation. We brought up the subject of Eric Berne’s mid-1960s book “The Games People Play,” and were suggesting that one of the reasons board members of nonprofits can and do play games is that through those types of interpersonal transactions they can and do derive personal psychological aggrandizement, or achieve advantages over other members through a series of “adult-to-child” or “child-to-adult” transactions during the process of the board’s conduct of its business. But what, exactly, does such a transaction look like?
You may remember that one of the “games” Berne identified was called “Now I’ve got you!” (Actually, Berne called this game “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch!” and gave it the acronym NIGYYSOB. But we’ll shorten to NIGY, for now.) In this game the object is to embarrass the other person by catching him/her out. The person playing the game sets up the other person for a fall or an indiscretion, then springs the trap and catches the other person as he/she stumbles.
In the board room, Harry might set up the situation with Phyllis by suggesting that “the auction this year really needs to have travel packages.” And Phyllis might reply, “But those are so mundane, I don’t like them and many of my friends don’t like them. Let’s just skip that for this time.” To which Harry replies, “I’ll bet you didn’t know that a recent survey by the American Travel Agents Group found that 85% of people who go to charity auctions think travel packages are the best items offered.” So this makes Phyllis and her friends look either stupid or uninformed. Harry’s inner parent is satisfied that he has “one-upped” Phyllis, and Phyllis’ inner child responds with frustration and rage.
The psycho-dynamics are never directly addressed, never said out loud, and may not develop to a conscious level. But they are operating all the same. The gain Harry has experienced comes at the expense of Phyllis and thus is, so to say, “ill gotten.” That is to say, the gain for one person happens at the expense of another person. For more on this, I recommend you get Berne’s book.
The significance of this for setting standards of board and individual performance in preparation for regular (annual) performance evaluation is this: If the board members are playing transactional games with one another, they are not going to be sanguine about the presence of objective standards by which their conduct and their contribution to the organization’s governance and mission might be judged. They are going to want to continue to get away with their various games, instead.
So, for example, if they’re involved in micro-management, and thus putting aside and procrastinating on their strategic planning responsibilities, they are going to want to continue their micro-management games because this is where they’re getting their inner personal fulfillment – in the illicitly gotten personal gains of game playing. They are not going to want to be held accountable as “adult-to-adult” for having done a good job in strategic planning, because they haven’t found out how to play their games in that kind of arena, so it will seem foreign to them.
Performance standards, and the application of those standards during performance evaluation, will have the effect of breaking through the games board members play, and getting to the heart of the real reason these board members have been assembled: nonprofit governance.
You may remember that one of the “games” Berne identified was called “Now I’ve got you!” (Actually, Berne called this game “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch!” and gave it the acronym NIGYYSOB. But we’ll shorten to NIGY, for now.) In this game the object is to embarrass the other person by catching him/her out. The person playing the game sets up the other person for a fall or an indiscretion, then springs the trap and catches the other person as he/she stumbles.
In the board room, Harry might set up the situation with Phyllis by suggesting that “the auction this year really needs to have travel packages.” And Phyllis might reply, “But those are so mundane, I don’t like them and many of my friends don’t like them. Let’s just skip that for this time.” To which Harry replies, “I’ll bet you didn’t know that a recent survey by the American Travel Agents Group found that 85% of people who go to charity auctions think travel packages are the best items offered.” So this makes Phyllis and her friends look either stupid or uninformed. Harry’s inner parent is satisfied that he has “one-upped” Phyllis, and Phyllis’ inner child responds with frustration and rage.
The psycho-dynamics are never directly addressed, never said out loud, and may not develop to a conscious level. But they are operating all the same. The gain Harry has experienced comes at the expense of Phyllis and thus is, so to say, “ill gotten.” That is to say, the gain for one person happens at the expense of another person. For more on this, I recommend you get Berne’s book.
The significance of this for setting standards of board and individual performance in preparation for regular (annual) performance evaluation is this: If the board members are playing transactional games with one another, they are not going to be sanguine about the presence of objective standards by which their conduct and their contribution to the organization’s governance and mission might be judged. They are going to want to continue to get away with their various games, instead.
So, for example, if they’re involved in micro-management, and thus putting aside and procrastinating on their strategic planning responsibilities, they are going to want to continue their micro-management games because this is where they’re getting their inner personal fulfillment – in the illicitly gotten personal gains of game playing. They are not going to want to be held accountable as “adult-to-adult” for having done a good job in strategic planning, because they haven’t found out how to play their games in that kind of arena, so it will seem foreign to them.
Performance standards, and the application of those standards during performance evaluation, will have the effect of breaking through the games board members play, and getting to the heart of the real reason these board members have been assembled: nonprofit governance.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Games Board Members Can Play
When we first started this thread, we asked the question “Why is it that we are reluctant to provide our nonprofit governance boards with standards of performance and regular performance review?”
Well, another thing we know about human nature is that humans sometimes like to involve themselves in “game playing” behavior. Some of you readers may hark back, as I do, to the mid 1960s when a fellow named Eric Berne came out with a book called “The Games People Play.” His book was a popularized version of what at that time was called “transactional analysis,” which was developed as a way to explain the interactive behavior of humans as a series of “transactions” between our inherent “parent,” our “child” and our “adult.”
You might also remember that, for a variety of reasons, our inner child and parent tend to skew a transaction in such a way as to rather illicitly derive or force something for themselves out of the interchange at the expense of the other person, whereas our adult tends to deal straight-up, without such manipulations that favor self at the expense of the other.
In my practice, I have seen numerous nonprofit boards where both board members and staff would be horrified at the thought of performance standards for the board because they were involved in a series of games from which the members of these boards were deriving more or less “illicit” or manipulated personal aggrandizement – of a purely psychological nature, please understand – from the various transactions that go on in the course of doing a board’s business.
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, these leaders of the community, business owners, institutional heads, self-giving volunteers 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.
Your reaction, dear reader, 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?"
This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. Most of them 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 each person in any group of people is asking during a meeting? The first internally asked question is, "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. These images are the sum of the "role" this person has elected to play in the life of the group. They will, quite naturally, keep this set of self-images in good repair, and it is through this role that they derive what they want from the group's interaction.
Second, every person around the table is very interested in "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? What is their role regarding me"
Third, every person at the table is also asking "What is my image of that other 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 person at the table 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 assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in the particular board member's or staff person's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.
Into this arena, then, the individual board member’s “child” or “adult” finds it easy to interject itself in a variety of ways that are designed to bring to that person rather ill-gotten or manipulated psychological gains at the expense of others in the group or at the expense of the nonprofit and its mission. Resisting that temptation takes a powerful conscious ability to deal consistently with others on an “adult-to-adult” level of transaction. And this is the thing that Berne pointed to in his book "Games People Play."
Let’s see how this might work in a typical interpersonal transaction during a board meeting in Monday’s post.
Well, another thing we know about human nature is that humans sometimes like to involve themselves in “game playing” behavior. Some of you readers may hark back, as I do, to the mid 1960s when a fellow named Eric Berne came out with a book called “The Games People Play.” His book was a popularized version of what at that time was called “transactional analysis,” which was developed as a way to explain the interactive behavior of humans as a series of “transactions” between our inherent “parent,” our “child” and our “adult.”
You might also remember that, for a variety of reasons, our inner child and parent tend to skew a transaction in such a way as to rather illicitly derive or force something for themselves out of the interchange at the expense of the other person, whereas our adult tends to deal straight-up, without such manipulations that favor self at the expense of the other.
In my practice, I have seen numerous nonprofit boards where both board members and staff would be horrified at the thought of performance standards for the board because they were involved in a series of games from which the members of these boards were deriving more or less “illicit” or manipulated personal aggrandizement – of a purely psychological nature, please understand – from the various transactions that go on in the course of doing a board’s business.
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, these leaders of the community, business owners, institutional heads, self-giving volunteers 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.
Your reaction, dear reader, 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?"
This isn't something they necessarily do consciously. Most of them 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 each person in any group of people is asking during a meeting? The first internally asked question is, "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. These images are the sum of the "role" this person has elected to play in the life of the group. They will, quite naturally, keep this set of self-images in good repair, and it is through this role that they derive what they want from the group's interaction.
Second, every person around the table is very interested in "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? What is their role regarding me"
Third, every person at the table is also asking "What is my image of that other 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 person at the table 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 assessment and adjustment mechanism goes on at a subliminal level or a more conscious level depending on many factors in the particular board member's or staff person's life at that moment. Lots of factors influence that. But it is operating nonetheless.
Into this arena, then, the individual board member’s “child” or “adult” finds it easy to interject itself in a variety of ways that are designed to bring to that person rather ill-gotten or manipulated psychological gains at the expense of others in the group or at the expense of the nonprofit and its mission. Resisting that temptation takes a powerful conscious ability to deal consistently with others on an “adult-to-adult” level of transaction. And this is the thing that Berne pointed to in his book "Games People Play."
Let’s see how this might work in a typical interpersonal transaction during a board meeting in Monday’s post.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
No need for Fear when Evaluating Board Members’ Performance
Continuing on this thread, one of the other things we observe about the general attitude of many nonprofit executives and staff members about setting standards of performance for their boards, is that they are deathly afraid of anything that might affront or challenge a board member.
Why is this? Well, probably for fear of losing their jobs, or losing the board member and all that influence and potential money. After all, the board members serve in a volunteer capacity for which the nonprofit ought to be grateful. Even many board members seem to harbor internal thoughts like, "Who are these staff people to come along and try to impose some kind of performance standards and then force an evaluation process?! Whatever I give out of my busy day should be satisfactory enough!" And then there's the secondary fear of maybe getting a tough reputation around town as the only charity that evaluates the performance of its board.
But let's examine this a little more deeply. Fear of losing a job suggests that the nonprofit organization is somehow the last bastion of the old fiefdom system, where the executive and staff are working for the knights and royalty of the realm and are little more than indentured servants. And it further suggests that some board members are acting like a bunch of tyrants – unable or unwilling to take responsibility for holding up their end of the workload at the charity. So that may seem to make performance standards seem like an imposition and an indication of ungratefulness. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
As for the board members who give generaously of their time and talents, no question, but what these are needed, and welcomed. But it's not the executive and staff who should be suggesting that the board have performance standards and evaluation; it's the board members themselves who should be mandating performance standards for themselves and their peers, and who should be devising and executing a regular performance evaluation on themselves. This is the genius behind the establishiment of the whole charitable sector: that volunteers do a good job of policing the organization so that government doesn't have to do that job.
You see, the nonprofit organization is a public trust. The board of directors is appointed or elected on behalf of the whole society for the purpose of providing governance for the nonprofit on behalf of the whole community. They are in charge of steering the nonprofit in the right strategic direction in order to accomplish some specific social aims that this board has told the society this charity will accomplish. Then they're job is to do the strategic planning, hire the executive, and make sure that program and finances are going in the right direction. No one else can do that. The executive can't do that; the staff can't do that; and outside people or agencies can't do that.
So the only people who can perform the tasks board members are asked to do are the board members themselves. So why shouldn't there be specific performance standards in place that measure how well the board is doing its job? And why should it not be the board members themselves who insist on having, and go through the process of devising and enforcing, performance standards, so that they know, objectively and publicly, when they have done a good job?
That, as we said above, is the way to help human beings really do a good job, have a wonderful feeling of success, and feel proud of their organization. The mere fact that it might have been the executive or staff that came up with the suggestion of performance standards, and may have created the first draft of such standards, should in no way be held against them. Board members should, rather, be grateful that they have an executive and staff smart enough and creative enough to give them some assistance in coming up with this kind of governance tool.
There should be absolutely no question of fear in this, whatsoever.
Why is this? Well, probably for fear of losing their jobs, or losing the board member and all that influence and potential money. After all, the board members serve in a volunteer capacity for which the nonprofit ought to be grateful. Even many board members seem to harbor internal thoughts like, "Who are these staff people to come along and try to impose some kind of performance standards and then force an evaluation process?! Whatever I give out of my busy day should be satisfactory enough!" And then there's the secondary fear of maybe getting a tough reputation around town as the only charity that evaluates the performance of its board.
But let's examine this a little more deeply. Fear of losing a job suggests that the nonprofit organization is somehow the last bastion of the old fiefdom system, where the executive and staff are working for the knights and royalty of the realm and are little more than indentured servants. And it further suggests that some board members are acting like a bunch of tyrants – unable or unwilling to take responsibility for holding up their end of the workload at the charity. So that may seem to make performance standards seem like an imposition and an indication of ungratefulness. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
As for the board members who give generaously of their time and talents, no question, but what these are needed, and welcomed. But it's not the executive and staff who should be suggesting that the board have performance standards and evaluation; it's the board members themselves who should be mandating performance standards for themselves and their peers, and who should be devising and executing a regular performance evaluation on themselves. This is the genius behind the establishiment of the whole charitable sector: that volunteers do a good job of policing the organization so that government doesn't have to do that job.
You see, the nonprofit organization is a public trust. The board of directors is appointed or elected on behalf of the whole society for the purpose of providing governance for the nonprofit on behalf of the whole community. They are in charge of steering the nonprofit in the right strategic direction in order to accomplish some specific social aims that this board has told the society this charity will accomplish. Then they're job is to do the strategic planning, hire the executive, and make sure that program and finances are going in the right direction. No one else can do that. The executive can't do that; the staff can't do that; and outside people or agencies can't do that.
So the only people who can perform the tasks board members are asked to do are the board members themselves. So why shouldn't there be specific performance standards in place that measure how well the board is doing its job? And why should it not be the board members themselves who insist on having, and go through the process of devising and enforcing, performance standards, so that they know, objectively and publicly, when they have done a good job?
That, as we said above, is the way to help human beings really do a good job, have a wonderful feeling of success, and feel proud of their organization. The mere fact that it might have been the executive or staff that came up with the suggestion of performance standards, and may have created the first draft of such standards, should in no way be held against them. Board members should, rather, be grateful that they have an executive and staff smart enough and creative enough to give them some assistance in coming up with this kind of governance tool.
There should be absolutely no question of fear in this, whatsoever.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Why Would Board Members Resist Standards of Performance?
Why is it that we are reluctant to provide our nonprofit governance boards with standards of performance and regular performance review? I think in more than a quarter century in the fundraising profession, and 10 years in my own practice, I have come across maybe two or three nonprofits that have devised performance standards for their boards. Why do you think that is? For one thing, it flies in the face of all we know about human nature and about boards.
For instance, one of the things we know about human beings, and board members especially, is that they really like to achieve, and enjoy the feeling of success. They like to do the job that is required of them and know they've been successful at it.
That means that people like to have their work measured as they go along. It makes life simpler and easier. It prevents deviation from the norm and saves time and aggravation. If you've been assigned the task of governance of a nonprofit, that's an awesome responsibility that has several rather complex sublevels within it. There's the strategic planning task, the job of managing the organization's executive, the task of financial oversight, and the job of overseeing program goals and objectives and keeping those in line with the strategic plan. That's a lot to keep track of on a week-in-week-out basis through many board meetings. It's easy to get bogged down and lose sight of where we are in the process.
Consequently, any board member should welcome specific standards of performance as the easiest way to stay on track in terms of fulfilling the assignment for which he/she was selected. The job performance standards are going to point out the limits of board deviance from a certain norm of tasks and how they should be performed. And these, in turn, are ultimately going to be set by their peers – their fellow board members – as a way to express the greatest success as the board has defined that term for itself and its work.
Of course this is all within the context of the full realization that the board of directors of a nonprofit (which is a public trust, don't forget) are responsible to the public for providing a well-managed, efficient, cost-effective service to the community at large. Standards of performance, for the board as a group and for individuals within the board, are, therefore, something most people are going to welcome as a way to help them see through the complexity of their jobs that they are doing that job well.
Another thing we know about human nature is that most of us will slack off and take the easiest way out of a situation if someone isn't keeping our feet to the fire. board members are no different. If you don't point out to them that they need to stay with the more difficult tasks of strategic planning and measuring progress programmatically and financially toward the strategic goals, it won't be too long before they've lapsed back into micro-managing the organization.
Consequently, a set of well-written performance standards, keyed to the four main jobs of a nonprofit board, will be a welcome reminder of what the board is NOT supposed to do, and of how easy it is to slip into the mire of micromanagement. Since this kind of deviation detracts from the management of a nonprofit, and since such activity robs the nonprofit of the kind of strategic planning that allows it to fulfill its commitment to the public, board members would be expected to welcome such a yardstick as a way to keep them from diverting time and attention from their governance tasks.
For instance, one of the things we know about human beings, and board members especially, is that they really like to achieve, and enjoy the feeling of success. They like to do the job that is required of them and know they've been successful at it.
That means that people like to have their work measured as they go along. It makes life simpler and easier. It prevents deviation from the norm and saves time and aggravation. If you've been assigned the task of governance of a nonprofit, that's an awesome responsibility that has several rather complex sublevels within it. There's the strategic planning task, the job of managing the organization's executive, the task of financial oversight, and the job of overseeing program goals and objectives and keeping those in line with the strategic plan. That's a lot to keep track of on a week-in-week-out basis through many board meetings. It's easy to get bogged down and lose sight of where we are in the process.
Consequently, any board member should welcome specific standards of performance as the easiest way to stay on track in terms of fulfilling the assignment for which he/she was selected. The job performance standards are going to point out the limits of board deviance from a certain norm of tasks and how they should be performed. And these, in turn, are ultimately going to be set by their peers – their fellow board members – as a way to express the greatest success as the board has defined that term for itself and its work.
Of course this is all within the context of the full realization that the board of directors of a nonprofit (which is a public trust, don't forget) are responsible to the public for providing a well-managed, efficient, cost-effective service to the community at large. Standards of performance, for the board as a group and for individuals within the board, are, therefore, something most people are going to welcome as a way to help them see through the complexity of their jobs that they are doing that job well.
Another thing we know about human nature is that most of us will slack off and take the easiest way out of a situation if someone isn't keeping our feet to the fire. board members are no different. If you don't point out to them that they need to stay with the more difficult tasks of strategic planning and measuring progress programmatically and financially toward the strategic goals, it won't be too long before they've lapsed back into micro-managing the organization.
Consequently, a set of well-written performance standards, keyed to the four main jobs of a nonprofit board, will be a welcome reminder of what the board is NOT supposed to do, and of how easy it is to slip into the mire of micromanagement. Since this kind of deviation detracts from the management of a nonprofit, and since such activity robs the nonprofit of the kind of strategic planning that allows it to fulfill its commitment to the public, board members would be expected to welcome such a yardstick as a way to keep them from diverting time and attention from their governance tasks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
