By Valyrie Laedlein - In any setting, what is it that compels hard work, extension of self, high performance, commitment of time?
Mission and purpose, certainly. Satisfaction and pride in a job well done, of course. Another key ingredient: a sense of a community to which one is committed and for and with whom one is willing to work.
One of the hallmarks of our sector is the sense of mission and commitment to shared purpose that is pervasive among the staff members of community-based nonprofit organizations. CRE’s research into the leadership qualities of nonprofit executives has shown that nonprofit leaders outpace their counterparts in other sectors in their abilities to establish goals, forge teams, and create inspired work environments in which staff are compelled toward high performance.
Alas, that sense of team and community is less prevalent in some of our sector’s Board rooms, where our dependence on volunteers to fulfill roles of critical importance should suggest an even greater need for non-monetary motivations.
- In an interview this week with one client organization’s Board member, I heard the member lament that his Board colleagues don’t feel a sense of connection and familiarity with the organization and its people: they don’t visit, don’t know the staff, and don’t feel ownership.
- In an organization with whom I’m about to do a Board training that has been “mandated” by contracting agencies and the NY State Attorney General’s office, I find that the Board members can’t match faces with one another’s names and know virtually nothing about each other’s business, life or source of commitment to the organization.
By contrast, when working with board members of a community health organization a few weeks ago, I was struck by the sense of ease, bonding and shared sense of purpose among board members and the ED. These elements of their relationships allowed them to challenge one another, take risks with their suggestions, and laugh together – thus making a tough day’s work both productive AND rewarding.
Similarly, a Board on which I serve, as an elected lay leader of my faith community, is made up of people I know, whom I enjoy working with, and with whom I have a shared history and journey. We can argue with one another over choices for cutting our budget, and we can support one another in meeting the demands that our roles require of us.
The most recent book by one of my favorite management gurus, Peter Block, is entitled, Community: The Structure of Belonging. In it, Peter cites the research of Robert Putnam and Lewis Fieldstein, who point to the importance of social capital, the quality of relationships and the cohesion that exists among citizens, in distinguishing successful communities and towns, even more significant than geography, history, or financial resources. Their research shows that “social networks, norms of reciprocity, mutual assistance, and trustworthiness” are what compel involvement in neighborhood activities.
So also is this ingredient of social capital critical for successful Boards.
Our nonprofit leaders are conscious of the importance of “community” and do the work of building community well among their staffs. Less successful are we in making this happen within our Boards of Directors, whose relationship with the organization is largely defined as “arms-length” and whose members’ relationships with one another are even more distant. The structure of the Board’s functioning – highly orchestrated Board meetings of 1-2 hours, once per month or per quarter – often obstructs the formation of relationships among Board members or between Board members and staff. The “hub-and-spokes” nature of most Board members’ relationships with their Executive Directors renders interactions among Board members or between Board and other staff less frequent and less substantive. And the reality is, we are conscious of how busy our volunteer Board members are, and we are reluctant to make demands upon them beyond only the most critical of business.
This, however, is self-defeating. In CRE’s work, we have found that the greater the interaction and comfort level among Board members and between Board and staff, the more effective the Board is in governing and supporting the organization. The stronger the relationships, the more inclined Board members will be to give up some extra time and effort to address organizational business. And the greater the bond among its members, the more willing they will be to engage in the tough conversations that lead to good decisions in hard times.
Making time and creating the space and safety to allow Board members to cultivate relationships with one another and with staff is critical to Board effectiveness, for it creates the social capital important to community and important for engendering interest, commitment, and ownership for successful Board work.
As you consider your and your staff’s relationship to your Board members and your Board members’ relationships with each other:
- How well do Board members know key staff -- their names, the roles they play, the work they do – and vice versa?
- How familiar are Board members with one another, with the motivations for why each serves on your Board, and with the nature of one another’s involvement in the issues your organization addresses?
- Have Board members had the opportunity to work together in small groups (e.g., committees), where they might grow more familiar with one another and with the staff who serve those committees?
- Is Board members’ regard for one another strong and can they comfortably disagree with one another in the course of a discussion?
If your response to these questions is not optimal, consider what steps you and an ally or two on the Board might pursue to build the social capital within your Board. Make this a conversation that, in itself, opens the door to community-building within your board room.
Subscribe via RSS feed 
Comments
Post has no comments.