The Blurry Third

In my work, I see patterns emerging through the muddle leaders manage as they navigate so many complex relationships.

One of the jobs of leadership (and their coach, as it works out) is to simplify complexity so that wonderful stakeholders can see through the murkiness to the most important issue or at least the outline of one off in the distance.

In the name of simplifying, we spout generalizations or use frameworks that are true … or true enough to point us in the right direction.

One of the ones I use often is one-third X, one-third Y. one-third Z. The issues leaders face may not often fall neatly into three similar sized categories, but I see more nodding heads than quizzical looks when I use this approach.

One of my favorite “one thirds” involves dissecting what is governance vs. management.

My incredibly sharp readers will immediately note that governance and management are two categories, not three. I owe you more context.

Across very high-performing organizations, I hear leaders and leadership teams state as fact that board members are too involved in the details.

At the same time, I hear board members remind me that they have fiduciary obligations and need more information.

Sound familiar?

Here’s where the third category comes in: my One-Third Rule.

• About one-third of the work of the nonprofit is unquestionably management.

•  About one-third of the work of the nonprofit is unquestionably governance.

•  About a third of the work occupies a blurry space – it isn’t clearly management or governance and likely has elements of both.

The line between governance and management is not a clear one. It’s more like the morning fog where night eventually becomes day. If there is fog and how long it lasts depends on complex factors that we call “the weather.”

That blurry third – the fog – consumes most of our attention and causes most of our frustrations.

To make sure I name it, work that is unquestionably governance includes:

• Hiring and evaluating the CEO

• Recruiting and onboarding new board members

• Evaluating its own performance as a board

• Ensuring financial sustainability through strong stewardship and expanding the organization’s network of funders and partners

• Approving the organization’s annual budget

• Helping develop and then approving strategy

• Evaluating and mitigating risk

• Protecting mission and reputation

At the end of the day, the board is accountable for these matters, so it is critical that they make the final decisions. Of course, your volunteer board needs you to be an excellent volunteer manager who makes sure they attend to all these matters.

The work that is unquestionably management includes fun things like:

• Hiring and evaluating staff

• Designing and evaluating programs

• Running events

• Day-to-day execution of strategy

• Soliciting donations and thanking supporters

The fact that these duties sit clearly with staff or board does not mean that a spirit of partnership isn’t advisable (and a time saver, in the long run).

For instance, we may give our board staffing updates and include them in final round interviews when we are hiring a senior team member who will need to work with them. Ideally, board members feel good about being included while acknowledging that the final decision belongs to the executive director.

Board members will want staff expertise to inform and drive strategy but need to ensure that their questions and concerns are addressed so that they are fully invested in the organization’s direction. Still, strategy is ultimately their decision.

When work clearly falls within governance or management, it’s helpful for both parties to affirm that they understand their roles. A board member might say, “This is your call, but here are my thoughts on these candidates.” An executive director might ask, “What else can I do to support your board member recruitment efforts?” 

Now that may sound blurry enough to most, but there is an even blurrier place where there are strategic or fiduciary consequences to how the organization operates. It’s the third where a surprise to management or board could have serious consequences.  

Take fundraising, for instance.

Imagine a nonprofit that is preparing for a major campaign that needs high engagement from board members. Staff has built an ever-so-thoughtful strategy: prospect lists, compelling messaging, and staffing plan.

Now imagine the meeting where a few trustees suggest rewrites for the messaging or different layouts for the prospect lists. High engagement, but not what staff is hoping for.

Staff feel micromanaged. Board members feel underutilized and ignored.

So much of fundraising lives in the haze of the blurry third – staff and board bump into each other, seeking clarity.

The board has fiduciary responsibility for financial sustainability (and usually holds key donor relationships). Management owns strategy design, execution, and staff management.

There is rarely villainy at hand. Helpful people look for a place to help. Some people take feedback as an affront.  

Rather than view this as dysfunction, strong staff and board teams acknowledge the inherent interdependence of the work. They get past the fog by walking through it, not around it.

The guides through this blurry third are the board president and the executive director. They are co-pilots, deciding who takes the controls at different moments. When a situation has elements of governance and management, they untangle that together and decide who will lead. And they decide together how to encourage a strong culture of positive interactions and productive discourse within and between staff and board.

• They shape board meetings collaboratively, deciding which issues belong on the agenda and which stay with staff

• They agree on which items are for decision, discussion, or information

• They agree on how much information is enough for good oversight

• They openly discuss when they cross into each other’s areas of responsibility

• They decide in advance how they will manage conversations that go off course

Staff and board will follow this partnership’s lead. Board members look to the president for governance cues. Staff look to the executive director for operational guardrails. Everyone learns how to engage across roles, by example.

The same approach holds true for committee meetings – a microcosm of full board meetings. Effective committee chairs and staff leads also operate as partners. They co-design agendas, clarify roles, and prevent oversight from becoming interference.

Before diving in, they clarify whether an issue is oversight, advisory, or management. Naming the category helps the partnership clarify the goal of the meeting and each agenda item.

Committee meetings become labs for testing boundaries and navigating the blurry third together.

The research nerd in me can’t resist adding something here. Governance research reinforces what strong staff and board leaders know from experience.

I have always loved how Peter Drucker described boards and executives as colleagues with distinct but complementary responsibilities. Neither substitute for the other.

Studies consistently show that role ambiguity (not personality difference) is the strongest predictor of board-executive tension. When expectations are unclear or information seems insufficient, everyone (over)compensates. Directors ask more detailed, operational questions. Staff get defensive in the face of perceived micromanagement.

Healthy governance doesn’t thrive by setting rigid boundaries. Good people will occasionally cross boundaries, especially when the terrain is foggy.

The work of building a strong board-staff partnership is not to eliminate the blurry third. It’s to acknowledge the blurriness and navigate it with mutual respect. If we’re not sure what the governance question is, we might get up in each other’s business.

The stewards on this journey are the board president and the executive director. Everyone is following the flag they are waving.

The next time you hear, “The board is too involved,” or “Staff don’t understand governance,” pause before focusing on personalities or deciding you need a governance training.

Look straight into the fog – the blurry third – and lead through it.

If you’re lost in the fog right now, let’s talk. You can email me at gary@garybagley.com or DM me on LinkedIn.