6
Leading Up
The CEO's Opportunity
A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.
—John C. Maxwell, author, speaker, and pastor
As the preceding case of the American Geophysical Union illustrated, a healthy partnership between CEO and board members is one of the ingredients for successful board change. The best partnerships are those in which the CEO facilitates a more strategic board. Chris McEntee, AGU's executive director (ED), described her responsibility to the board:
From my perspective it is really important for me to think through how I can best put the background information to make it come alive for discussion and decision making. The processes and systems needed to fulfill what you really mean by strategic governance. This does start with a partnership with the board chair in creating the agendas and with the staff and pulling together the necessary background for agenda items.
CEO-led board change sounds odd or perhaps vaguely threatening, except to those who have experienced it. Some people believe a board has the fiduciary duty to lead itself. However, nonprofit research clearly suggests that such normative ideas of governance, emphasizing the board's unequivocal leadership role, create unrealistic expectations for boards (Heimovics and Herman 1990; Jäger and Rehli 2012; Miller-Millesen 2003; Stone and Ostrower 2007).
Rather than consider CEO action to improve the governance model a “failure” of the board, it is better to accept it as a common and realistic situation for many associations. Often CEOs have more information—and perhaps more management training—than the board chair or the board as a whole and will see a need for change earlier and more quickly than others simply by virtue of their place in the organization. And sometimes the timely need for change or improvement can be at odds with the ability to work on these given the constraints of volunteer time and board meeting schedules. CEO-led change also occurs because the repercussions of a weak board fall most heavily on staff. Therefore, the “psychological centrality” of the CEO to organizational success cannot be denied (Heimovics and Herman 1990, p. 70).
CEO-led change does not happen in a vacuum, however. In a case that follows this chapter, Susan Keating, president and CEO of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, played a crucial role in leading a major governance change process. Keating observed the need for stakeholder involvement in the process at all levels of the organization, as well as the importance of listening to critics and having the courage to compromise. And many of our interview subjects also observed the need for the board to trust the CEO through a change process.
Concepts and Application
Boards that embrace rather than feel threatened by staff-initiated change do a great service to themselves and their organizations. They also reduce their risk of losing good staff. But most importantly, many experts suggest the strongest organizations are built on principles of complementary partnership between the CEO and board (Chait, Ryan, and Taylor 2005; Cornforth 2012; Harris 1993). As Williams and McGinnis (2007, p. ix) explain:
The qualities of a true partnership—support, trust, honesty, forthrightness, respect, and understanding—must belong to both the chief executive and the board. Just like building any relationship, the process calls for hard work by both parties. But the rewards, including success for the organization and the chief executive, are worth the effort.
When a CEO is “leading up,” the activity is often not the direct influencing of action but rather recognizing that a specific change is needed and then building the necessary consciousness-raising with key players in an organization. While at times a CEO will be a governance group facilitator, there are also times when a CEO has the opportunity to lead from behind the scenes. “Leading up” does not mean “controlling up” or even “managing up.” Primarily it means establishing one's position to be trusted so that one can have appropriate influence (for example, in the words of one interviewee, building up “social capital”). Over and over, the CEOs and executive directors whom we interviewed observed that successful board change occurred only after the staff had earned the board's trust.
“Leading up is the act of working with people above you—whether one boss, several bosses, a chief executive, a board of directors…to help them and you get a better job done. Organizations need more overall direction from below to think strategically, communicate persuasively, and act decisively” (Useem 2001).
As a chief executive, to establish trust means to show evidence to your board chair and your board that you act with integrity. You say what you mean and you mean what you say; your words and comments are respectful and positive at all times. You follow through on your commitments and you demonstrate your ability to make things happen; you can be counted on to provide value. Other qualities that are needed to successfully lead up (as well as lead sideways and down) are showing initiative that benefits all, handling the hard stuff in addition to the easy stuff, being prepared and facilitating the preparedness for others, knowing which battles to take on and which to let go, sharing the limelight, and helping others to look good. Individuals who work on personal growth for themselves are often those who earn the trust of others and who are influencers. As you will see in the case of the Northwest Association of Independent Schools later in this chapter, its former executive director, Meade Thayer, often invoked two mantras to nudge thoughtful change dialogue: “Does this rise to the level of governance?” and “Help me understand.”
The board–chief executive relationship is about personal dynamics. No one enjoys conflict or confrontation, especially with regard to a professional colleague. As we have observed in Chapter 5, successfully working in a group context is highly dynamic and can engender great passion and emotion when disagreements or conflicts erupt. Paying attention to these dynamics and actively honoring the human element requires commitment and work (Kissman 2009). One way to make that happen is to involve key professional staff in some of the board's team-building activities. As the athlete Michael Jordan once said, “Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.”
In another case that follows this chapter, Mary Bayat, the 2014 chair-elect of the Northern Virginia Association of REALTORS®, observed:
A lot of [our success] is a credit to how our CEO works with the board. She promotes good dialogue. We have a lot of gatherings to talk to each other if we see problems. She is not afraid and she helps us think ahead. The board identifies needs in our profession, the staff comes up with great ideas, the board discusses them, and we come up with great solutions.
Summary
Nothing is more critical to the success of an organization than a positive and constructive relationship between the board and its paid staff leader. While at times one may be out in front of the other, true and effective change leading to transformational governance change or governance high performance requires mutual trust and respect through teamwork between these two partners.
The three cases that follow this chapter demonstrate association boards that had the vision to seek not only new expertise through a CEO hire but also a real change agent who was able, through the trust built by a track record of success in one area, to help orchestrate a complete governance change.