Forum - January/February 2011

When they’re fully charged, strong boards make great things happen. They use tre- mendous positive energy to address chal- lenging constraints and achieve ambitious goals.

Unfortunately, board unity is not standard fare. Because confusion about what boards do and how they create value abounds, splintered leadership is common, as are distraction and dysfunction. For that reason, some executive directors would be hard pressed to complain were their boards to altogether disappear.

Despite the harsh realities of board work, however — which can easily stymie effective leadership — conflict often fuels creation. To harness boards’ frustrations and make them fruitful, executive directors should consider these three common board conflicts, which high-performing association boards can use to their advantage in pursuit of fulfilling their unique leadership charge.

1. Representation vs. Trusteeship Boards often struggle to define their role. Like politicians with their constituents, some feel they were elected to represent individuals, others that they were elected to serve the collective organization. Indeed, balancing the need for democracy with the need for strategic decision making can be difficult. This is not an “either/or” dilemma, however; instead, it is a good example of “both/and.” A two-way conversation between the board and the membership is needed, as it creates a shared understanding of the members’ perspectives and the association’s strategic direction. The board is not a customer service agency, which can be hard for new members to accept. Once priorities and feedback mechanisms are in place, high-performing boards stay focused on results, resist-ing the temptation to react to spontaneous concerns from individual members. Board members are not representatives; they are trustees, charged with the long-term welfare of the organization. The board is the only body that can guide the association to its preferred future.

2. Management vs. Governance

Diligent boards are passionate, knowledgeable and skillful, ready to accelerate their association’s success. What’s more, they recognize that they are accountable for their organization’s long-term performance.

Still, even the best boards have trouble balancing the desire to help and be accountable with the desire to stay out of the executive director’s hair. This conundrum hinges on important distinctions: means (staff work) versus ends (board work), board members as volunteers (task forces) versus board members as trustees (governance), and perception (opinion) versus data-driven (fact-based) accountability.

To help them address these distinctions, boards should
consider the following guidelines for successful board gover-
nance:
• Association outcomes are the board’s charge. Boards should
be concerned with why, what and by when. The director
and staff, on the other hand, should be concerned with
how. Because it’s easier and more obvious, new board
members tend to want to do staff’s work. As new members
rotate on, however, boards should have a recurring conver-
sation about their direction, priorities and status in order
to clarify the board’s work and pre-empt the attraction
toward staff-appropriate tasks.

3. Today vs. Tomorrow

Although board members come to the table full of ideas, focus and consistency are critical to the execution of the thoughtful initiatives already in play. If the executive director is distracted by individual members, then the leadership engine starts to idle. This is one of the central challenges for executive directors, who are the liaisons between the association’s present and its future. They lead staff attention to current priorities and issues while teaming with the board as trustees. This is not to say that plans shouldn’t be dynamic. As long as debate is grounded in consensus on the data that matters most, the board can adjust its course as it sees fit. In this way, the board can balance the call of today with its responsibility for the future.

Board members come with unique ideas of how to best serve — sometimes without realizing what it takes to fulfill their unique strategic leadership charge. Luckily, with due diligence on the front end, all the board’s energy can be harnessed to the benefit of the association. Tackling these three conflicts, in particular — the natural, healthy tensions of effective board governance — can help organize board chaos into board performance.