Governance Growing Pains

I have had the privilege of (and a ton of fun) working with boards at very different points in their development.

• Some support entirely volunteer organizations. They do everything from balancing the books to planning next season's programming. They put the “working” in working board.

•  Some have crossed into the next phase: there’s an executive director, maybe a small staff, and a board that is learning to govern more than do the work.

•  Some govern larger, more established organizations. Their boards are more seasoned, have formal structures, and carry lots of institutional memory.

Through it all, I’ve experienced anew how the work of governance is contextual and should continually evolve. Just like the people who serve on them, boards need to learn and care for themselves differently as they age.

I’ve also seen that governance can be handled ably at any stage.

I have worked with all volunteer organizations whose governance was every bit as effective as better funded and more established groups. Still, most of the smaller groups are apologetic about not being more “sophisticated.”

And I have sat with boards full of experienced professionals, still trying to ease their grip on practices that served them beautifully five years ago and now get in the way. They may even find it difficult to imagine where they need to improve.

Isn’t it just like groups of people to act like … well … groups of people?

At every stage of growth boards are asked to let some aspects of the work go to make space for a different level of fiduciary oversight, more highly developed strategic foresight, and room for generative conversation.

The new definition of governance at each stage requires the board to adopt a new perspective on its own service and manage the ever-murky relationship with professional staff differently.

As questions rattle around my head, they eventually fall out on the page, at which point I categorize, analyze, and share whatever insights I’m having with all of you. Thanks for putting up with me.

In this instance, I’ve been picturing a board, a composite of the many I have gotten to know. At each stage in its development, there is a letting go that enables it to govern better. That growth is spurred by honest reflection and candid conversation.

What boards need to let go of falls into four categories, I've found:

• Identity (how the group perceives its role and manages its collaboration)

•  Monitoring (where it needs to exert loving control over direction and operations)

•  Connection (how it expands the organization’s networks and resources)

•  Tasks (the stuff they need to get done)

Because no two organizations are the same, no two boards need to function the same to be effective (my composite notwithstanding).

Rather than be prescriptive about how boards should approach each category, I suggest looking at questions they can ask themselves to build their unique plan and approach.

An annual discussion for smaller and new groups, a biannual discussion for mid-sized groups, and review by a governance committee for large groups can help formulate these plans and ensure that the board stays focused on its own performance.

Here are the questions I would ask, followed by a recommended way to turn that into a plan the board can agree on.

Identity

• How do we need to evolve as a board to support the organization it has become and whose growth we want to support moving forward?

• How do we define a valuable board member at this stage of our growth?

• What is one thing we need to let go of as a group to make space for the new board we need to become?

 

Monitoring

• What structures and processes can keep us informed while day-to-day operations run on their own?

• Where might our current level of oversight exceed what the organization truly needs? When do we feel like we might be in the weeds?

• Is there anything the full board does that might be better managed by committee and then reported back on?

• Do we make time to understand trends affecting organizations in our cause space and nonprofits more broadly (especially risks)?

Connection

• How do we introduce staff and leadership to relationships that individual board members bring to the organization?

•  Are there networks that this board does not have access to, but should?

•  Does the board enable key relationships to outlast any single board member's tenure?

Tasks

•  Which decisions are currently made by the board that staff should be able to make on their own? Could this move from “doing” to “monitoring?”

•  Are the board’s decisions more about policy and strategy or operations? Where would its time be better spent?

•  What decisions do we routinely make that require more detailed information than we should probably need access to?

The four categories don't carry equal weight at every stage, but the questions themselves are evergreen. In an all-volunteer organization, task and connection dominate, since the board is doing the work and survival often depends on whose networks it can draw on. As professional staff comes on board, identity moves to the center alongside task, and monitoring starts to matter as the board builds muscles it hasn't used before. In a larger, established organization, monitoring and connection lead, though connection is less about any one board member's personal network and more about institutional relationships built to outlast them.

Deciding which questions deserve the most attention is the first and most useful step in launching your next evolution.

Does the thought of all this evolution make you a bit nauseous?

It might. The line from letting go of old habits to fully inhabiting new ones is rarely straight. I think of this as healthy discomfort, proof that the group is focused on evolving to better serve the mission and organization. Many times when I hear of a board or staff member behaving badly, I see evidence of that uncomfortable, adolescent-like stage of growing into a more mature relationship. If your board feels divided or wobbly right now, it may be evidence that something is in the middle of going right. Leaning into the debate steadies the board and organization.

No stage in this journey is a lesser version of another, and I don't think the wobble is either. It is not a flaw in the people or the process. It is the process. The volunteer reconciling books at her kitchen table and the seasoned committee chair reviewing an audit are doing different work, yes, but they are answering the same call.

The boards I admire most are not the ones that found their balance once and stopped moving. They are the ones that let themselves wobble in service of a steadier version of the same commitment that got them there in the first place.

Of course, boards are made up of human beings (alas), so sometimes letting go of a behavior or practice means letting go of the person who cannot stop themselves from engaging in it. Those transitions are hard, but not making them inevitably holds the organization back. More on that in a future post.

If you serve on a board, or work alongside one, I leave you with three questions to ponder:

• Where does your board feel destabilized right now, and what question could help bring stability back?

• What is your board still holding onto from a stage it should have already left?

 What can you do to acknowledge when you’re wobbling and use that awareness to have an important conversation at your next board meeting?

If one of these questions lands for you, I'd love to hear about it. Reply and tell me where your board is wobbling right now.