5
Leading Sideways
Influencing Change within the Board
The key to successful leadership is influence, not authority.
—Kenneth H. Blanchard
Carol Finn, former president of the board of directors of the American Geophysical Union, heard the question loud and clear: Why would we even think about doing anything? She recalls:
When I became secretary/treasurer in 2008, we had a solid foundation: a good balance sheet, publications, staff, and a world-class meeting. But we weren't prepared for the future. I heard, “Why would you even think about doing anything?” But the flipside to all the “good” was the fact that there was no direction. We were living in the past. We were the world's largest association of earth and space scientists, with over 60,000 members in 140 countries, and we were stuck.
“Stuck” was characterized by a governing board unaware of its responsibilities and therefore not strategic, with little fiduciary oversight and no foresight. The strategic plan sat on a shelf. Overall, the organization was unresponsive to member issues. Because decisions were made and information was held by one or two people (out of a staff of 200), volunteers were often uninformed about how AGU worked. There were an unusual number of staff complaints. Staff and volunteers did not have the right tools for the job; the organization had outgrown the internal systems it was using. There was no succession plan or knowledge management.
As you will see demonstrated by AGU's case at the end of this chapter, when boards lead their own transformational change, they face at least two challenges: They must be able to make successful collective decisions, and they must be able to disassociate themselves from the more emotional aspects of the change, particularly in those instances when their personal preference is not part of a decision. Neither of these skills may come naturally to board members. To support the process, this chapter introduces theories of team dynamics and briefly describes the two best opportunities board members have to educate themselves about their responsibilities: through the orientation of new board members and through ongoing board development.
Ideally, a board has invested in team-building and governance education well ahead of any challenging, wholesale change. Our interviews suggest strongly that these boards had more successful change processes. However, when compared to team-building, it is formal board development and training that is likely to be the more familiar aspect of “good governance” to board members. The general nonprofit evidence suggests that team building and other efforts to build a culture of shared governance are lagging.
For example, Gazley and Bowers (2013) found 62 percent of membership associations had a formal orientation for new board members, but only 17 percent had a mentoring system to match new and experienced board members. And 30–40 percent of association boards invested in training, professional development of the CEO in good governance, or grooming of future board officers. BoardSource (2013) found that 71 percent of surveyed members had a structured board member orientation. But half of these nonprofit organizations reported boardroom conversations were dominated by a few individuals, and only half of board members effectively coached one another to develop their strengths.
Concepts and Application
Supporting Board-Led Change through Team Building
A board is not a natural team. It comprises a disparate group of individuals who don't necessarily have much in common and, aside from serving on the board, may never have crossed paths (Kissman 2006). Further, a board's composition and responsibilities may change at stages of the organization's lifecycle. As Chait and colleagues (2005) observe, external events may require boards to frame stronger fiduciary, strategic, or generative ways of governing depending on circumstances. The need for a board to evolve and to work collectively is why a proactive understanding of team theory is helpful (see also the Tools section of this book's appendix).
Team theories can be used to describe many elements of board dynamics. We address here just one theory of teams with close associations to change management. Experts describe team formation as a process of group development that has patterns of productivity and conflict that can be managed if understood (LaFasto and Larson 2001; Whelan 2005). These clear patterns have helped experts on team dynamics produce easily understandable frameworks for helping team managers achieve higher productivity (see, for example, Tuckman and Jensen's 1977 “Forming, Storming, Norming” framework in the Tools section of the appendix).
Successful teams of all kinds also hold their members accountable by using team ground rules and communications guidelines. Rules help team members take ownership of results, prevent misunderstandings, and avoid conflicts. Applying this lesson to governance, boards also develop formal agreements among members about the process of governing (Eadie 2004). While a sample board member agreement is included in the Tools section of the appendix, experts would recommend using this as a starting place only and dedicating additional board time to reflect on what is actually needed of each other in service on a particular board.
The process of team-building within boards is best understood as an ongoing, not intermittent effort. This feature of strong boards was reflected in some of our cases. Borrowing lessons from the champion coach, Phil Jackson (Jackson and Delahanty 2014):
Basketball is a great mystery. You can do everything right. You can have the perfect mix of talent and the best system of offense in the game.…But if the players don't have a sense of oneness as a group, your efforts won't pay off. And the bond that unites a team can be so fragile, so elusive. Oneness is not something you can turn on with a switch. You need to create the right environment for it to grow, then nurture it carefully every day.
Orientation and Education
After a new member is elected, orientation offers a valuable opportunity to acculturate the new member to the board and clarify expectations (Eadie 2004). Kissman (2006) has observed that difficult board member behavior often originates in failures of the recruitment, orientation, onboarding, and ongoing training process. To make the most effective collective decisions, boards should be guided by up-to-date bylaws, a board manual, a regularly reviewed conflict-of-interest policy, and a code of ethics. Most surprising to Kissman (2006, p. xi) in her research was that “most boards and CEOS readily acknowledge that boards had not done this work due to time constraints or fear of insulting already-courted board member candidates.”
Board member orientation is one of the easiest and most effective ways not only to ward off potential challenges but to best position an incoming board member to acclimate to a high-performing team. Now an established best practice, many of the organizations interviewed in this study reported implementing formal board orientation opportunities as part of their journey to high performance. (BoardSource's Board Orientation chart is included in the Tools section of the appendix.)
Board training can include not only the initial formal orientation but also job descriptions, hiring of consultants and trainers, mentoring, retreats, and other forms of board development. Board development can also include training for chief staff in supporting board members effectively (Gazley and Bowers 2013). The case of the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM) emphasizes the possible payoff. Beginning with a planning retreat, NATM's board invested heavily in training and learning. As Pam O'Toole Trusdale, NATM executive director, observed, this relatively young organization realized that to professionalize its membership the board had to professionalize itself. They achieved this goal through active membership in BoardSource, webinars, and workshops, including adapting elements of the Policy Governance® model. Trusdale described the result as “dramatic” as the board “turned from reactive to proactive” in its duties.
To professionalize its membership the board had to professionalize itself.
Summary
The lessons we heard from our interviews reinforce the point that team building, orientation, and education of board members create strong board cultures that facilitate governance change and prevent problems. All of the cases in this book, not only those following this chapter, describe board education activities. But only some describe board-building efforts. As the cases of Delta Sigma Phi and the American Geophysical Union illustrate, establishing a common vision for excellence pulled the board together to want to “be the best” and this started with understanding and implementing governance best practices. The Tools section of the appendix of this book includes a number of helpful resources for board members to increase governance effectiveness such as active team-building to set expectations of one another.