Who should serve on your advisory board?
My takeout:
Here is another easily read article from Joan Garry this time focusing on Advisory Boards. I’ve been asked about Advisory Boards on several occasions after having chaired one some years ago.
Advisory boards can be very helpful, short term, governance tools providing you know why you are establishing them. As Joan Garry says, ‘  The big problem is that most advisory boards have no clear purpose and those asked to serve have no clue what the responsibility or obligation of service is because no one else knows either.
Advisory boards can actually cause more harm than good.’
She identifies four potential forms of Advisory Board such as:
Emeritus Board
Kitchen Cabinet
 “Celebrity” Boards
Leadership Circle
But the area she doesn’t cover and which I think is the most valuable for an Advisory Board  is that of strategic guidance. When you have an on-going governance board you would look to that board for strategic thinking, but if you’re in a start-up mode or small company mode, an Advisory Board can be invaluable in providing that strategic input.   



Recently I had a long conversation with a CEO client of mine. The topic of our session: her advisory board.

Her question was straightforward enough: Who should serve on our advisory board?
She then began to rattle off names – suggesting the founder, former board members.
I held up a metaphorical stop sign and asked her to tell me the purpose of her advisory board. She was stumped.
She said something like, “I’m not totally sure – I think the organization uses the advisory board to connect valuable folks to the organization who can’t afford the fundraising obligation.”
You know, personal giving or solicitation – what is commonly known as the ‘give/get’.
So I gently pointed out that we can’t identify the ‘who’ until we figure out the ‘why.’
And it goes further than that. You can’t talk about the ‘why’ until you figure out the ‘should’. Should an advisory board even exist at your organization?
Let’s get some clarity here. Advisory boards should not be formed to solve a particular problem. We either need to make them really count or we should not create them at all.
In fact, a poorly constructed advisory board can cause more problems than the one it may have been created to solve.
So how can you make an advisory board really count?


 THE 3 REASONS ORGANIZATIONS CREATE AN ADVISORY BOARDMy belief is that most of the time an advisory board is created without consideration of strategy and context. Here are questions organizations face that lead them to creating an advisory board.

• You Just Instituted Board Term Limits. And the way you got the vote to go this way was to talk about how former board members will stay connected. The board fought for some kind of formal structure or else they will slip away from the organization. Board members claimed they must keep their institutional memory. We want them to continue giving and we surely don’t want them to feel like they have been put out to pasture.
• Great Folks Who Can’t Meet the Board Requirements. “So-and-so would be amazing but can’t meet the obligations – too busy, not a person of means.” What if we found folks like that and put them on an advisory board?
• Well Known Folks in Your Sphere of Influence. Again, folks that are seen as too much of a stretch for board service (“Oh, we’ll never get HER!”) but maybe someone who would be willing to lend her name to the organization?

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH ADVISORY BOARDSThe big problem is that most advisory boards have no clear purpose and those asked to serve have no clue what the responsibility or obligation of service is because no one else knows either.
There’s collateral damage that falls from that lack of clarity, and it’s the real problem. One that few consider.
Advisory boards can actually cause more harm than good.

1. People asked to serve think the board has some real value and find out it doesn’t. Then they feel undervalued. You are actually more likely to lose them by putting them on a board with no responsibility or authority than if you just brought them together quarterly to appreciate and cultivate them.
2. Add terrific folks to the advisory board who can’t meet the obligations of board service and you risk demotivating the actual board. Then you have smart and engaged folks on an advisory board and governing board that feels useless and neither of them will engage in fundraising.
3. An advisory board with no fundraising responsibility could be way more appealing to folks than a governing board.
4. Let’s not forget that formal bodies require management and staff time. There’s nothing more frustrating than assigning a staff member to be the liaison to an entity with no real charge or goals. Yikes.

AN ADVISORY BOARD THAT MAKE SENSEAmbassadors of XYZ.org / Emeritus Board / Board of Governors
This is made up of former board members and lead volunteers. The cream of the alumni crop. They are an elite bunch. They are asked to make a minimum contribution and attend X number of events. They are invited to one annual board meeting a year that is tailored to tapping into the institutional memory of the advisory board and makes full use of their observations and insights. They are acknowledged at events and listed in organizational materials.
Kitchen Cabinet
Call it something with a bit more heft if you want, but this is a group of folks who bring very specialized skills to your organization. It could be some kind of pro bono team that offers legal, HR, or PR advice and is tapped into with such regularity that it would present an undue burden for these folks to serve on board committees. This group would also be appreciated and recognized in some way that would offer attribution to them as individuals or to their companies.
“Celebrity” Boards
Note that the word “celebrity” is in quotes. Here we are looking at well-known folks in your community, CEO’s who will clearly not join your board, and others whose name adds credibility and gravitas to your organization. In this situation, the only obligation is that the organization may use your name on its branding, on gala invites, etc. These can be helpful in bringing high profile folks to your events. When asking folks to ‘serve,’ be sure to say that we use the names of the ‘celebrity’ board members as ‘honorary host committee members’ for big fundraisers. Make it clear that attendance at the event would be fantastic but is not required. As with any of these entities, steward and appreciate often.
Board Farm Team / Leadership Circle
This is a different take on the idea of a separate entity. Here, the idea is less of a high-profile group that has a special status and legitimate responsibilities but instead is a way to test drive the relationship between the individual and the board. Think of it as a junior board – few responsibilities, a focus on engagement and fundraising with a lower set of obligations. These can be very effective if they are branded as special and attractive.
FINAL THOUGHTSIf you have or are considering any kind of advisory board or council, circulate this post to make sure the conversation you have is a three dimensional one. Remember that every entity you create that is affiliated with your organization must be of value to those who agree to serve and to those who will provide staff support.
Not only is a conversation important to maximize the participation and the sense of satisfaction and reward that stakeholders receive from the gift of service, but you also want to preempt problems that a lack of strategy may create.
Ironically, I’ve seen far too many organizations lose important stakeholders by trying so hard to hold on to them.

7 essential attributes of the future director
There is only one constant in the world – change. While some directors may have achieved successes in the boardroom with certain attributes, the endlessly changing world is now asserting demands for new attributes of future directors to meet tomorrow’s challenges.

• Eddie Chung
  Partner, Tax & Advisory BDO

This is largely driven by economic, technological, and demographic changes, which have created more complexity in the boardroom. Directors are now shifting from a predominantly technical focus to finesse their ’soft skills’ to effectively manage difficult situations such as social movements and public relations crises that spread like wildfire due to the pervasive use of social media.The following is my view of the seven essential attributes future directors need to have to safeguard their organisation’s success:
1. Strong values and ethicsWe live in an environment where communication is almost instantaneous and the world has a much lower tolerance for unethical behaviour. While having strong values and ethics should be innate within any director with personal integrity, the spotlight is quick to fall on directors whose values and behaviour are out of the step with community expectations of what is considered to be ethical and socially acceptable. Cultivating strong value-based ethics and culture in the boardroom is critical to ensure that your organisation does not end up on front page news – in a bad way.
2. High level of emotional intelligenceIn the past, businesses tended to focus on productivity and outcomes first. Humans came second. This position is now shifting. As businesses increasingly rely on technology and automation to deliver their goods and services, being human and aware of how others feel about your interaction with them have now become the prized commodity. Understanding other people, whether they are internal or external stakeholders, is an essential ingredient for collaborating with others and achieving mutual goals. A brute-force approach is now considered by many as counter-productive and out of step with modern practices.
3. Low egoAccording to Ryan Holiday, author of Ego is the Enemy, ego is the inner-voice that tells us we are better than we really are, which prevents us from having a direct and honest connection with the world around us.
In the boardroom, ego can adversely influence one’s views and decision-making and may result in a fundamental conflict of interest as it seeks to protect the ‘self’, while directors are required to protect the interests of the organisation they serve. Unless the ego is surrendered, sub-optimal decisions that are not necessarily in the interest of the organisation may continue to emerge from the boardroom.
4. High level of technical skillsMany organisations now embrace the skills-based board as a board composition approach, ie, each director is chosen for the boardroom because of the unique set of skills they possess. To serve the board well, the future director needs to have expertise in the skillset for which they are recruited, which requires not only education and professional qualifications – continued professional education and learning are indispensable to ensure that they remain useful to the organisation they serve. In contrast, technical complacency creates risks and leaves the organisation vulnerable to adverse changes in its environment where a strong technical response is required.
5. Broad generalist knowledgeWhile specific technical skills are non-negotiable, all directors around the board table should also have a good level of generalist knowledge of what is happening in the world around them and how their specific skillset is inter-connected with the wider world.
In David Epstein’s Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, the importance of being a generalist and the ability to identify patterns and nuances in the boardroom are well articulated: “Tactics are short combinations of moves that players use to get an immediate advantage on the board. When players study all those patterns, they are mastering tactics. Bigger-picture planning in chess – how to manage the little battles to win the war – is called strategy”.
And strategy is the primary domain of the board.
6. High degree of creativityEffective and innovative problem solving requires creativity. Otherwise, any solution conceived would lack imagination at best or be ineffective at worst. While creativity requires lateral thinking and is not shackled by ‘how things have always been done’, having the right tools to supplement your creativity drives innovation. These tools include a good understanding of technological trends and developments, especially during the current unprecedented era of digital transformation. Without creativity, the organisation you serve would constantly play second fiddle to emerging and leading competitors who are ground-breaking and agile.
7. Strong governance skillsCorporate governance does not come naturally to most people and needs to be learned. The Tricker’s model provides a good description of the board’s role in an organisation with which every director should familiarise before they join a board, in my view. Without a good understanding of corporate governance, a board has to expend significantly more time and energy in educating and re-directing directors from operational concerns back to a strategic focus at the expense of quality board discussions and decision-making. A board that is bogged down in operational detail renders it ineffective and causes frustrations to everyone around the board table.
In summary, to succeed in the boardroom, the future director needs to have a good mix of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills devoid of ego. They need to be resourceful and adaptable, as well as have a strong sense of strategic direction to cogently lead the people and organisation they serve.

Welcome to the LinkedIn group 'tony@boardsense' articles.

I set up this public group and also a private group as a way of providing a conversation medium on current governance issues.

In this section of my website the aim is to create something in the nature of a chat place. I'll raise the topics by way of the LinkedIn posts. Over to you whether you just want to read the posts and any comments, or say your bit by way of comment.

At the moment the comments are open. If necessary I'll moderate them, but I would prefer to not have to do that, That means we are are all going to have to be sensitive and respectful types!

Let's see what flows.

Cheers,
Tony

The four questions to ask when serving on a nonprofit board
December 2017 | Article
By William F. Meehan III and Kim Starkey Jonker
Sooner or later, you may follow in the footsteps of countless business leaders onto the board of one or more nonprofit organizations. Maybe it’s the board of a local institution you care about personally, such as a small-scale theater, public radio station, or your child’s school. It also could be a national or even global organization—an international development group, a major university, or the like.
Whatever the board, it’s an opportunity to make a difference, provided you’re prepared. Some of that opportunity stems from the growing potential of these organizations to generate social impact. Even as the cash-strapped public sector retrenches, nonprofits are poised to enjoy new sources of financial support: some $59 trillion will move from US households into other hands between 2007 and 2061, according to one estimate. Nonprofits also can leverage new sets of tools, including robust digital infrastructure.
The nature of the opportunity runs deeper, though. Our research, as well as that of others, shows that a great many nonprofit boards are underdelivering. A majority of respondents to a 2015 survey on nonprofit governance, conducted by researchers at Stanford University, said they did not believe that their fellow board members were very experienced or very engaged in their work. More than two-thirds of directors said their organization had faced one or more serious governance-related problems over the years—a finding reinforced by a survey we conducted with more than 3,000 stakeholders in the nonprofit sector, 56 percent of whom indicated that their organizations struggled with board governance.
If you know how to probe, nudge, and prod, you can help your board perform better. Doing so starts with courage. In our experience, nonprofit board members are often reluctant to contribute actively to discussions for fear that they will appear uninformed or cause an embarrassing ruckus. To be effective, you must overcome that fear. And then you must ask questions. Ask all your questions, even ones you fear might seem stupid, and keep asking them until you figure out what the smart questions are. Then demand answers to the smart questions. If you don’t get good answers to your smart questions, or if you don’t get support from your fellow board members when you ask those questions, then resign.
While many questions will be specific to your organization, there are four crucial ones that apply to all nonprofits. We’ll lay those out in this article, which builds on a model of strategic nonprofit leadership we’ve distilled our book, Engine of Impact: Essentials of Strategic Leadership in the Nonprofit Sector. As we show in the book, board effectiveness is a critical enabler of all the components that, collectively, are indispensable to the achievement of a nonprofit’s potential. Happily, it’s one that you can start helping with the moment you get on a board.
Question 1: Are we succumbing to mission creep?
Companies in the private sector have a built-in sense of focus: they exist to maximize shareholder value. Because nonprofits lack that clarity of purpose, they need a crystal-clear mission statement that can unite stakeholders with different—and often competing—goals and expectations. When a mission statement is clearly formulated, it guides decisions about which programs and projects to undertake, which to avoid, and which to exit.
In too many cases, though, nonprofits develop mission statements that are vague or too lofty. In fact, many board members do not know or fully understand their organization’s mission. When BoardSource asked nonprofit board members and CEOs to “grade your board’s performance in understanding your organization’s mission,” only 50 percent of respondents gave their board an A.
An unintended consequence of such fuzziness is mission creep, a debilitating virus that takes nonprofits far beyond their core competencies. It’s worth remembering that a fundamental axiom of strategy in the corporate sector is that more focused strategies outperform less focused ones. If a for-profit bakery decided to begin making not just bread and pastry but also tennis rackets, software, and pianos, people would raise an eyebrow. When that kind of expansion happens in the nonprofit sector, no one blinks. Often mission creep arises from a compelling funding opportunity. For example, a neighborhood after-school tutoring organization that decides to offer midnight basketball can invariably trace that decision to a top donor’s special enthusiasm for midnight basketball.
Helping an organization avoid such problems is one of the main duties of a nonprofit board. Too often, board members just accept that a nonprofit’s mission “is what it is.” Even in cases where an organization has a clear and well-focused mission statement, board members and senior staff should thoroughly review that statement every three to five years. In doing so, they will sharpen both their understanding of the mission and their commitment to maintaining it.
The board of Helen Keller International (HKI) periodically reviews its mission in this way as part of its strategic planning. According to its mission statement, HKI “saves and improves the sight and lives of the world’s most vulnerable by combating the causes and consequences of blindness, poor health and malnutrition.” (The interventions are linked; malnutrition is a leading cause of blindness.) President and CEO Kathy Spahn says the organization requires board members to visit programs in Africa and Asia at least once every three years, allowing them “to come back not only inspired and passionate about our mission, but also with a deep understanding of what is involved in executing on that mission.” That approach has paid off. When a devastating cyclone struck in Bangladesh, for example, the HKI board ensured that the organization limited its role to helping villagers reestablish home gardens and did not attempt to provide emergency food supplies. Emergency relief is not HKI’s mission or core competency.
Question 2: How is our ‘theory of change’ informing our strategy?
Board members who are used to robust strategy formulation in the private sector are often surprised by how nonprofit organizations struggle to translate their mission into a concrete plan for marshaling and deploying resources. In many cases, boards themselves are part of the problem. Only 20 percent of respondents in the BoardSource survey said that they would give an A to their board’s ability to adopt and follow a strategic plan.
One way to make the strategic conversation more concrete is to probe on a nonprofit’s “theory of change.” A theory of change is a rigorous description of exactly how an organization’s work—its portfolio of initiatives and interventions—will help achieve the given mission. Often discussed in the nonprofit world, but infrequently employed as a tool for ensuring strategic coherence, a theory of change is a step-by-step outline, ideally informed by empirical evidence, of how organizational activity will translate into impact for beneficiaries.
When reviewing any proposed activity, you should ask the executives and program officers of the nonprofit, “How does this activity align with a logical, achievable theory of change?” When you are clear on the answer to that question, you can do a better job of assessing that individual initiative. You are also better able to have a coherent conversation about big-picture strategic issues that may be rumbling beneath the surface, such as the degree to which your strategy incorporates a clear-eyed view of potential competitors and collaborators, or the sustainability of your revenue model. These are critical issues that a business leader naturally would ask about in a corporate setting but that can seem out of place unless they are integrated with a theory of change.
Landesa, an organization that has worked in more than 50 countries to obtain land rights for the rural poor, consciously divides its theory of change into five discrete steps, each of which is informed by empirical evidence. Here, for example, is how it articulates the final step: “A small group of focused professionals working collaboratively with governments and other stakeholders can help to change and implement laws and policies that provide opportunity to the world’s poorest women and men.” Landesa also developed a graphical picture of its theory of change that uses arrows depicting causality to delineate specific goals, activities, outcomes, and impact.
For Landesa, as for most organizations, the process of developing and obtaining stakeholder agreement on its theory of change has been as important as the end product. Tim Hanstad, former president and CEO of Landesa, who is now a special adviser to the organization, explains: “Some of our richest discussions as an organization—with management, staff, board members, and donors—have occurred during the process of developing . . . our theory of change. . . . We are forced to ask ourselves as a group, ‘What evidence do we have that our intervention will bring about the intended results?’” Landesa not only has a sound theory of change; it also uses that tool. “We have an internal process—called the Project Life Cycle process—that requires every new project concept and design to be justified by our theory of change,” Hanstad says.
Question 3: How are we evaluating our impact?
Corporate boards enjoy the benefit of a range of financial metrics, including a company’s share price, to help them evaluate their performance. Without them, nonprofit boards unsurprisingly tend to fall short in this area: in the 2015 BoardSource survey, for example, only 13 percent of respondents gave their board an A for monitoring organizational performance and impact, and 38 percent gave their board a C or worse.
If you are serious about helping your nonprofit achieve its mission, you need to insist on regular impact measurement, not as a pro forma obligation but as part of a dynamic feedback loop that helps drive organizational strategy. Far from being a mere box to tick, evaluation can drive a virtuous cycle in which an organization tests its theory of change and strategy and then improves its programs in response to what it learns.
In recent years, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—studies that test an intervention against a counterfactual case in which it is not in effect—have emerged as a powerful way to demonstrate whether a nonprofit intervention actually works. Boards should encourage this approach. Pratham, an organization that works to improve learning outcomes among children in India, has embraced RCTs with the full support of its directors. Over a 12-year period, the organization completed 11 such evaluations. “The RCT process is expensive, but the value is enormous because it builds internal capacity,” said Madhav Chavan, Pratham’s founder. “After we started doing the RCTs, our entire organization started understanding data much better, and we acquired down the line a better understanding of how to think of impact.” Through its investment in this approach, Pratham has shown a definitive, causal link between its program and the impact on beneficiaries—and in turn this has helped unlock millions of dollars in funding.
Question 4: Do we have the right ‘fuel’ to drive our organization?
A nonprofit is more than its mission, strategy, and impact. It’s also a living, breathing organism that requires “fuel”—great people, an effective organization, sufficient funding, and the like—to operate. As a nonprofit board member, you need to check your organization’s “fuel gauges” on a regular basis.
This should start with a clear-eyed view of the board itself. Significant mismatches between a nonprofit’s mission and the composition of its board are common. An egregious example arose on the board of an international poverty-alleviation organization that, for more nearly a decade, consisted only of a handful of the founders’ childhood friends, all of whom were based in the United States and none of whom had any substantive experience or relevant professional expertise in international poverty alleviation. How could such a board operate as anything other than a rubber stamp for the decisions of the organization’s executives?
If you find yourself on a board like this, you have a duty to speak up, and to vote with your feet if you don’t see progress. You may be surprised at the receptiveness of your fellow directors, whose time is valuable and who may be harboring similar feelings but remaining quiet out of politeness or habit. As you work through these issues, heed the venerable principle of the three Ws: work, wisdom, and wealth. You and your fellow board members should ask, “Do we have members who offer their time, energy, and insight to committee work, fund-raising events, outreach to donors, and the like? Do we have members whose special talent or area of expertise will help us achieve our mission? And do we have members who can and will support the organization financially?” While this last topic may be uncomfortable, helping your organization to raise money—whether through direct giving, providing introductions to prospective donors, or continually examining your organization’s overall approach to fund-raising—is the only way to sustain its impact.
Keeping an eye on the fuel gauge also means regularly asking at board meetings, “Does our organization have the people needed to achieve our mission?” Board members have a special duty to insist on both paying highly effective executives appropriately, so they can be retained, and ensuring that underperforming employees move on. The latter is an area where nonprofits particularly struggle. In our Stanford survey, only about half of nonprofit executives, staff, and board members agreed with the assertion that underperforming employees “do not stay for long in my organization.” But as every manager in the for-profit sector knows, removing laggards, when done responsibly, not only improves organizational efficiency but sends a powerful signal about organizational values.


Serving on a nonprofit board in the years ahead represents an extraordinary opportunity for impact on society, and on the nonprofit itself. But if you want to be an effective strategic leader, you can’t settle for a regimen of reading board books and showing up for quarterly meetings. You must engage fully on your organization’s mission; seize opportunities to observe frontline work; and, at each board meeting, take every chance to confront the big, long-term issues by asking tough questions. The best quip that we ever heard on this subject conveys a vital truth: “I have no objection to a good discussion breaking out in the middle of a board meeting.”
 

My takeout:
How would you feel if in 2000 your company had been approached by Netflix with a buyout offer and you turned them down?
How good is your ability to peer into the future?
Here’s a short article by William Horton that outlines what happened to Blockbuster when they laughed Netflix out of the room and how you can minimise the risk of doing the same.
 
The Art of Strategic Thinking By William A. Horton
What is strategic thinking?
 In Becoming a Strategic Leader, the authors state that strategic thinking can be defined as,
“The collection, interpretation, generation, and evaluation of information and ideas that shape an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage.”
Similarly, T. Irene Sanders in Strategic Thinking and the New Science, says thinking strategically involves a combination of an idea such as identifying issues, connections, and patterns. Thinking strategically is working ON, instead of working IN the organization. It can be easy to get caught up in the day-to-day work and forget to look at the big picture. Sanders points out that thinking strategically as a leader helps you anticipate where the change is going to happen within your field and then get their organization there before it happens.
Thinking Strategically: A Case Study
In The Strategic Triumvirate, David Wimberly writes that CEOs and executives should always have strategic thinking on the forefront of their minds. This is because thinking strategically is a mindset that is continually thinking of what strategic goal best fits the needs of the organization.
Blockbuster busted in 2010 and went bankrupt. The former CEO of Blockbuster, John Antioco, is considered now by many to be a fool. Reed Hasting co-founder of Netflix had approached Blockbuster less than a decade before. Hastings proposed a partnership between Netflix and Blockbuster and was laughed out of the room. Would strategic thinking on the part of Blockbuster have kept them from bankruptcy less than ten years later?
When Netflix met with Blockbuster, Blockbuster was the industry leaders with over a 9000 retail stores and millions of customers. Blockbuster neglected to look at the future trend in the internet. Strategic thinking leaders look at emerging trends and consider whether they represent opportunities or threats to the organization, per Merlin Switzer in her article Strategic Thinking in Fast Growing Organizations.
Hastings was thinking strategically of the future when streaming over the internet and subscription models would resonate with customers. Blockbuster is the classic case of not strategically thinking, and ended up competing with a company that they had previously completely ignored.
It is important to point out that Blockbuster CEO John Antioco was considered one of the most successful retail geniuses up to the fall of Blockbuster. And yet, he still failed to see how technology would be the downfall of Blockbuster. If Antioco had strategically thought out his meeting with Netflix, Blockbuster could have had a piece of the now 28-billion-dollar company.
Why should leaders strategically think before making decisions? Because change is constant.  As my mentor, Dr. Johnson says, “Ignorance has a price.” Thinking strategically puts you on the offense rather than on defense.
Steps to Thinking Strategically
Thinking strategically is non-linear, but this still does not give you any steps to strategic thinking. If you were looking for me to provide you with a simple five-step plan to strategic thinking, you have come to the wrong place. What I will leave you with is this image: strategic thinking is a process. In fact, the process can be compared to a river. As organizations flow, there will be active periods of onrushing, white-waters progress as well as days of calm, steady currents. There will also be times of drifting, being stuck, floods and droughts. It is the leader’s job to think about and point out these seasons and obstacles strategically.
Switzer says that thinking strategically are always on alert for the obstacles ahead. Being alert in your organization may look different than in others, but it might involve scanning the news, literature, trade journals, social networks, and other sources of information for emerging trends.
Blockbuster failed to look at the patterns of change that were on the horizon. The internet had a profound impact on the world of business and the global community. Netflix was not a giant when they started. The founder’s strategically thought about the future and believed the internet would have a central role. People hated Netflix when they launched their streaming-only service, yet again through thinking strategically, they anticipated where change was going to take place and they made sure their organization got there first.
Keys to Thinking Strategically
The key to strategic thinking is to be open-minded. Ask questions about your organization without any preconceived notions. Open-minded thinking leads to creative solutions, and opportunities never thought of before.
What doors are you closing within your organization by not thinking strategically? How many potential millions are you losing your company by neglecting to think strategically before making decisions?

My takeout:
Joan Garry, the author of this article has a passion for governance and particularly non-profit governance. In this article, which comes with an accompanying video, she offers a board chair three techniques for getting the board more engaged and what I liked about her suggestions are that they imply that  one of the roles of the board chair is as a coach and what that necessitates.Hi, I’m Joan Garry, and I’m here answering questions that board and staff leaders of nonprofits ask me, everything from occasionally to all the time.
Here’s a big one. I think of these as kind of like cases, like I’m Nancy Drew. Today we tackle the case of the disengaged board.
Are you hungry for a board that’s more engaged? I bet you are. So here’s three practical ideas and a bonus suggestion. Whether you’re the frustrated Board Chair that feels like you’re knocking and nobody’s home, or the frustrated Executive Director who feels like every request is met with crickets.

1. Remember that no board is monolithic, so find your stars and bring them together in an alliance. Take your list of board members, divide them ones, twos, and threes. Your ones are your rock stars. Find one or two of them. It doesn’t take much. Bring them together, make them feel like a million bucks, and engage them in the process of working with you to tip the board in the direction you want to go.
2. Make board meetings count. They are your best opportunity to create first-rate ambassadors. You want to do several things. You want to enrich them, something that gives them context about the sector or why the work matters. You want to engage them. Ask them legitimately and authentically for their advice, ideas, and suggestions.
3. Keep them informed enough so that they can share accomplishments of the organization with the people they encounter. If you can enrich, inform, and engage you can ignite your board members to be engaged ambassadors for your work.
4. Keep things alive between board meetings, and by this I do not mean nag them to sell tickets to the next event. You can nag them, but it has to be mixed up with some enrichment, a victory, a story they can tell, a mission moment some people call it. You’ve got to give them. You’ve got to feed them between board meetings if you want them at the next cocktail party to say, “Hey, you know, my job is great but boy am I loving board service. Let me tell you about something recently that happened at XYZ org.” That’s how it works.

Now, here’s the bonus. At your next board meeting try something.
Ask your Executive Director, maybe it’s an executive session with just the ED and the board, ask your Executive Director to offer his or her thinking about what he or she needs from the board in order to be successful.
Ask her to be specific and flip chart it, then turn the tables. Ask your board, “What does the board need from the Executive Director and the staff in order to be successful?” Flip chart that, too.
Take those two flip charts and make that the primary central focus of the next agenda for your ED, Board Chair check in.
How do those things come together in a way in which the ED gets what is needed from the board and the board gets what it needs to be successful, because you as copilots of this twin engine jet that is your nonprofit have to really make those engines work in sync. I think an exercise like that could be really, really valuable.

How to "Host" a Successful Board MeetingPosted by Natalie Hanlon on Jun 29, 2016 11:36:31 AM

My takeout:
This article by Natalie Harmon is a BoardSource blog providing a valuable check list for the logistics contributing to a successful board meeting.
Does you location suit board members, is the venue conducive to a board meeting, how about the refreshments, the timing of the meeting? I’ve sat in on board meetings where some attendees have had to get up at 4 and 5am, travel, source their own breakfast and then spend a day in a room with poor lighting and air conditioning and then be expected to add value to the organisation.
Included in the article are a couple of tables from ‘Leading with Intent – A national index of nonprofit  Board practices’ – there’s some useful lessons from that research.


The board meeting was only at the 30-minute mark, but eyes were already starting to droop. The AC was out, and the small fans whirred in the background like a white noise machine. Prior to the meeting, board members were treated to a 4-course lunch, and the rich food was adding to the sleepiness. There were two board members calling in, and sound issues caused their voices to be muted and fuzzy. The board chair looked around the room and wondered if it was worth addressing the important issues later in the agenda. How could they get meetings back on track?
Let’s be frank: board meeting logistics are not fun. Not even close. But they are important to pay attention to if you want your board meeting to have a maximum impact. Logistical details can often make or break a board meeting.  Think about it. Have you ever lost focus during a meeting because it was too cold (or too hot)? Or because you were hungry? No one can focus on budgets when it’s been hours since his or her last meal. What about missing a meeting due to personal conflicts or being out of town?
Choosing the right date, time, and location is important to ensure sufficient attendance, and paying attention to the smaller details, such as meeting length, the meeting room, and feeding the board, is important to ensure that the materials you have worked so hard on can be received by attentive and engaged board members.
There are several aspects of board meetings logistics and they essentially boil down to where, when, and how the meeting will take place.
Where For organizations with a broader geographical reach (such as national or international organizations), consider the following when selecting a board meeting location:

• How much are board members investing (in time and money) to get there?
• Are there certain members who benefit more than others (or are significantly more burdened than others) in having the meeting at this location?
• Can the meeting be held in your offices, or does an off-site space need to be obtained? If renting out a space, factor this into your board meeting costs.
• Can one of your meetings be held virtually? This may save board members (and the organization) time and money.

 If you always hold your meeting in the same place, think about changing your location every so often to accommodate board members who are further away and to increase attendance. If you change your meeting location, be sure to give your members plenty of notice. You can and should use off-site meetings as an opportunity to have “mission moments” that demonstrate the organization’s impact.
For regional or local organizations, the question of “where” is more about whether the meeting is on-site or off-site.  If you have conference space available at your office, hosting the board meeting can be beneficial as it allows the opportunity for staff to meet the board. If you do not have conference space, think creatively. Where can you meet so that the board members can get closer to the mission and to where your daily work has an impact? Potential off-site meeting locations include: hospitals, schools, museums, libraries, or the facilities of a major funder.  
WhenBoard members are very busy people, and finding dates and times that work for everyone can be quite the challenge. To get the maximum turnout, try to schedule meetings at least a year in advance.  The more notice you can give your board members, the better. Not a master scheduler? Try an online resource, such as Doodle, to allow members to select the times that work best for them. Pay attention to religious holidays and major vacation periods, and think about what kind of commitments your board members have. Do they have full time jobs? Are they students? Do they have families to take care of? All of these factors may impact the times they are available. Lastly, be sure to get feedback from your board about generally what works best for them. You will not be able to accommodate everyone, and some members will have to make compromises. Think about alternating the timing to accommodate different members.  If some members are not as able to compromise, stick with the schedule that accommodates the majority to ensure maximum attendance.  Don’t forget to solicit additional feedback as time goes by, as the composition of your board changes.




HowWhether it’s a cold room, an awkward table set up, or hunger pangs; the smallest details can impact the attentiveness of board members at a meeting. Remember, they are human after all. Plan ahead so that once your board members are physically at the meeting, they can stay actively engaged in the conversation.
Meeting LengthIf a board meeting is too short, members may feel like their time is being wasted and important items are missed. If it is too long you may lose momentum and attention towards the end. To ensure your meeting length is just right, consider the following:

•  How often does the board meet?

If you meet monthly, normal meetings may only last an hour. However if you only meet a few times a year, meetings could take a full day (or more). It’s important to regularly evaluate your meeting frequency and length to ensure that there is sufficient time to address all of the work.

• What is the purpose of the meeting?

Annual retreats and other special meetings might need to be longer than normal board meetings.

• Is the agenda appropriate?

The agenda determines the length of the meeting, so be sure that everything on the agenda is necessary. To save time for strategic discussions, adopt a consent agenda (a compilation of items that the board approves with one vote).

• Is the board chair a skilled facilitator?

It is the board chair’s role to lead and facilitate the meeting.  He/she should be able to keep the discussion focused, follow the agenda, respect the predetermined length of the meeting, and keep everyone appropriately engaged.

• Do board members do their homework?

Coming well prepared to board meetings is not only an essential board responsibility, but helps board meetings run smoothly. It is important for staff to make sure board materials are sent out (or available on an online portal) with sufficient time (at least one week) for board members to prepare.
Meeting RoomThere is a reason that a broad rectangular table setup is known a boardroom table. This set up is considered ideal for facilitating productive conversation. The board chair should be seated at the head of the table to better facilitate discussion, and the chief executive should sit next to him or her. This will help the board chair and the chief executive to build their partnership.  It may be a good idea to assign seats for the rest of the board members as well, although be sure to switch it up for each board meeting to encourage interaction among the board. Potential attendees with no role in the meeting should be seated on the periphery, while guest speakers should be invited to sit with the board.
Test the meeting room for comfort and functionality issues before the meeting starts. Remember, the board members will be sitting in this room for several hours- anything you can do to maximize their comfort will be sure to improve the overall meeting experience.
FoodWhether food should be provided at a board meeting is determined by the timing of the meeting. If it starts before 10:30 in the morning, it is a good idea to provide at least a light breakfast. Serving lunch is a must if the meeting runs through noon. If you do a board dinner, think about doing it the night before the meeting and invite the senior staff. This is a great way to foster relationships between the board and staff and set the mood for the following day.
Make sure to survey board members so you are aware of any food allergies or restrictions. Keeping this information on file with other board member demographics will make planning just that much easier.
If you want to be widely praised for your hosting skills, the key is to remember the little things. Think about the where, the when and the how. Remember that your board members are volunteers, and they have time commitments and basic needs just like the rest of us.

22 Signs Your Board Meetings Suck

Good boards have good board meetings.
Great boards have… well, you get it.
So riddle me this Batpeople… how are your board meetings? Do your members leave feeling energized and ready to be the best ambassadors they can be for your organization? Are they properly prepared ahead of time? Do they understand their roles and responsibilities and stay engaged between meetings?
Or maybe there’s some work to be done.
It’s time to introduce more accountability to board chairs and Executive Directors who kinda dread board meetings. So I have designed a checklist filled with indicators of a board meeting gone bad.
I have seen most of these with my own eyes and then there are the stories that go on for days.
After your next board meeting, your E.D. and board chair should sit together and review this list. If you’re showing more than a few of these signs, you have some real work to do.
Here we go…
THE 22 SIGNS OF BOARD MEETINGS GONE BAD

1. 15 minutes in, a stranger has no idea who is running the meeting.
2. Or the stranger presumes the E.D. is running the board meeting (news alert: the board meeting should be run by the board chair).
3. The meeting seems to go beautifully – staff presentations are clear and there are no questions. Actually, the board does not ask a single question (with the possible exception of, “I’m sorry – what time are we scheduled to end the meeting? I may need to leave early.”)
4. You can tell there is a group text going on among board members – and there is enough mirth to suggest that it is not board-related business.
5. Your board meeting is a conference call and there’s no video.
6. The agenda is identical to the last meeting; in fact, so identical that someone forgot to change the date.
7. Board members leave feeling that absolutely nothing is a challenge.
8. Board members leave feeling that absolutely EVERYTHING is a challenge.
9. No one pays attention and you run out of time before getting through your agenda.
10. There is no reference to any productive activity of a committee.
11. The word “committee” is never uttered.
12. Someone speaks for longer than 2 minutes and is not asked to wrap up.
13. Someone else speaks for longer than 2 minutes, is not asked to wrap it up, and repeats everything in the prior 2+ minute monologue.
14. A board member who never attends actually shows up but the only evidence of his attendance is his empty bowl of M and M’s.
15. The words, “I would love to hear your thoughts” are never uttered by the E.D.
16. The voting process is so awkward that people start laughing. The board chair joins in the merriment and says, “I’m sure there are some rules we should be following. Joan (E.D.) can you put that on your list.”
17. A cell phone rings more than once.
18. A board member leaves the room because of a call and does not apologize. She simply says “Oh, I really have to take this.”
19. There is a conversation about the upcoming gala and the word “centerpiece” is uttered at least once.
20. At least one board member falls asleep.
21. Staff in attendance are relegated to a corner of the room and are not seated (like partners) at the conference table. Your meeting really sucks if the staff have their own kids’ table.
22. Not a single story is told about a life your organization has touched recently.

SO, DO YOUR BOARD MEETINGS SUCK?OK so my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I wrote this. But this is the reality at many board meetings.
How many of these signs felt familiar? If you checked a lot of these boxes:

• You have work to do.
• You are not treating board members with respect.
• You simply cannot expect them to be effective ambassadors for your organization, inviting people to know and do more.
  

Great list! Here a few more, based on my 20+ years of NFP and FP Board experience:
1. 15 minutes in, a stranger thinks that someone other than the Board Chair is running the meeting – and the stranger is right!
2. The Board doesn’t realize that someone other than the Board Chair is actually running the meeting.
3. The Board does realize that someone other than the Board Chair is running the meeting and doesn’t do anything about it because the person actually running the meeting is (i) a former Board Chair, (ii) a friend of the current Board Chair or (iii) someone who thinks she should be running the organization herself.
4. Board members complain about the amount/kind/lack of food and beverages at the meeting.
5. The board meeting is a conference call, there’s no video and Board members enter and leave the call throughout the meeting.
6. Board members leave feeling that absolutely EVERYTHING is a challenge and there is no action plan to address those challenges. No one asks why.
7. There is no reference to any productive activity of a committee and no one asks why.
8. Someone speaks for longer than 2 minutes, is asked to wrap up but keeps on talking for several more minutes anyway.
9. Board members continually interrupt each other.
10. A board member who usually never attends actually shows up and no one knows who she is. The Board member sitting next to you asks who “the stranger” is.
11. The words, “I would love to hear your thoughts” are never uttered TO the E.D.
12. There is a conversation about the upcoming gala and the word “fundraising” isn’t uttered even once.
13. Staff are never invited to attend Board meetings.
14. Board members argue about the minutes, and use the minutes as a means to advance their personal agendas.

How to Blow Yourself Up at a Nonprofit
Joining a local nonprofit can help you build business, but proceed with caution.
By Bryce Sanders | June 20, 2019 at 04:25 PM
 
You believe community involvement can lead to business. You’ve joined a small local nonprofit in your area. It’s prestigious. It has a noble mission. It’s run almost exclusively be volunteers. They even invited you to join the board.
These people are generally polite. They won’t vote you out, boo or throw rotten vegetables. Instead, they can exclude you or work around you. Here’s what not to do
1. Take over. You realize they are nice people, but haven’t a clue how to raise money or run a business. You tell them. You try to force through changes.
Outcome: They freeze you out.
Why: The Old Guard may not be good at running an organization efficiently, but they are masters at getting rid of someone they don’t like.
Instead: Look and listen. Identify relationships in place. Get close to one of the Old Guard leaders. Ask questions. Make suggestions. Try to get support for your ideas before you voice them publicly.
2. Volunteer, then never follow though. You join committees. You don’t show up. People think you are all talk and no action.
Outcome: They assume you joined to get some nonprofit experience onto your resume. They marginalize you, not taking you seriously.
Why: You’ve demonstrated you don’t follow through.
Instead: Pick one project you’ve carefully thought through. Bring it to a successful conclusion. Build your reputation.
3. Prospect every board member. You ask each one “I would like to go over your finances sometime. What time is good for you?”
Outcome: They look at you funny. No one wants to have lunch or socialize.
Why: They think the only reason you joined is to get business. You are marginalized.
Instead: Tactfully ask the board member who got you involved: “I would like to raise my professional visibility. What do you suggest?”
4. Talk about your clients by name. “You want to do business with me. Everyone else does. I just did a great job for Charlie. Ask him.”
Outcome: They will not become clients. Ever.
Why: You violated client confidentiality.
Instead: “I can’t disclose or talk about my clients. However, the rule doesn’t work both ways. Clients are certainly allowed to talk about their advisor. We hope they do! If you ask around in town, you can probably get some feedback about me.”
5. Drink to excess. Free booze! What could be better? No, I am not slurring my words.
Outcome: He will not be my advisor. Ever.
Why: Some people assume a person who doesn’t know their own capacity and drinks too much is exercising poor judgment. They assume this carries over into their professional life.
Instead: “I’m just having one. I’m driving tonight.”
6. Assume business will come to you. You join. You attend the occasional event. You keep to yourself. No business comes. You think: “This social prospecting thing is a big bust.”
Outcome: When members of the group need a product or service, they don’t think of you in that context.
Why: Everyone needs to know Who you are, What you do and Why you are good. You aren’t making the effort.
Instead: “I don’t think we’ve met before. I’m Bryce. So, what’s your connection to the organization?”
7. Be a cheapskate. “Thanks for inviting me out. It’s my turn to pick up a round? Sorry, I’ve got to go. Catch me next time.”
Outcome: People avoid you or think negatively. You are out for what you can get.
Why: If the world were divided into givers and takers, these philanthropic folks (givers) see you as a taker.
Instead: “Thank for including me. Let me buy the first round. Oh, we don’t do it that way, we just split the bill at the end? That’s fine by me.”
8. Not show up for meetings. You join, but you don’t attend the group’s monthly meetings or support scheduled events.
Outcome: People don’t accept you into the group, because you are never there.
Why: They assume you only want to claim you are an active member.
Instead: “That was a good event. I’m hungry. Want to join me for a bite to eat before heading home? I hear that new Italian place is pretty great.”
Yes, it may be true. Many people in the organization do business with each other. The business flows through a shared commitment to the mission of the organization. They see a kindred spirit. People do business with people they like. These same people are wary of people who join, then appear to put their own interests first.

Open the Wall Street Journal on any given day, and you are likely to find at least one story about how technology is disrupting yet another industry, and the pressures companies face to innovate. And yet, for board members of companies around the world, technology and innovation don’t make the top three on their list of concerns.
That’s the surprising finding in a new survey of boards of directors conducted by Harvard Business School professor Boris Groysberg and doctoral student Yo-Jud Cheng. “The concerns that ranked at the top for them were things like the regulatory environment and attracting top talent,” says Cheng. “I don’t want to discount the day-to-day concerns board members deal with, but they don’t seem to match up with the critical issues we see covered in the popular press.”
The researchers wrote up their findings in a Harvard Business Review article, Innovation Should Be a Top Priority for Boards. So Why Isn’t It? In their survey of some 5,000 board members around the world, only 30 percent ranked innovation in their top three concerns, and only 21 percent ranked technology trends—making these issues fifth and seventh respectively.
Even more telling was when the researchers asked board members what activities they thought their boards were good at. Technology and innovation ranked 17th and 18th, with only 42 percent of board members listing their handling of those issues above average—far below the proportion ranking of activities such as compliance, financial planning, and staying current on the company, all of which scored above 60 percent.
"I don’t want to discount the day-to-day concerns board members deal with, but they don’t seem to match-up with the critical issues we see covered in the popular press.”“Not only do board members not think of innovation and technology at the top of their lists, but it’s also not something that they do well,” concludes Groysberg, Richard P. Chapman Professor of Business Administration. The two findings, adds Cheng, “go hand in hand. If they don’t see innovation as a strategic imperative, they won’t be investing the time or recruiting people to improve those processes.”
The researchers conducted the survey over nine months between October 2015 and June 2016, in partnership with the membership organization WomenCorporateDirectors Foundation, then led by Susan Stautberg; leadership consulting firm Spencer Stuart, directed by Julie Hembrock Daum; and independent researcher and management consultant Deborah Bell. The team worked for over a year before that to identify board members from more than 60 countries, in industries including consumer staples, energy and utilities, finance, health care, information technology, and telecommunications.
Inside the mind of a director“It’s rare to get such a comprehensive look into what board members are thinking, due to the difficulties in accessing such high-level individuals,” says Groysberg. “There has not been nearly as much research on board directors as there has been on CEOs and managers,” he says. Boards are an essential factor in whether companies do well.
“There are many examples of companies that had great strategies but were completely disrupted by other firms,” Groysberg says. “You can look at CEOs’ and managers’ roles in that, but you also have to ask whether the board was asking the right questions or looking at the right factors to be innovative.”
He blames a lack of diversity on corporate boards for sometimes impeding their ability to be innovative. “Their backgrounds are often very homogeneous, and this is not really positioning boards to think outside of the box,” Groysberg says.
Recent research has backed that up, says Cheng. “So many directors are recruited through social networks and informal channels,” she says. “Directors tend to recruit people similar to themselves, and our survey results suggest that many boards are not proactively evaluating potential gaps in their knowledge or addressing their shortcomings.”
In addition, Groysberg and Cheng’s survey found that age can be a factor in keeping up with new technology. Among older directors, 39 percent admitted that keeping up with technology was one of the top three areas where they struggled, compared to 27 percent of younger directors.
A focus on innovation also seems to be lacking in specific industries. Board members in the fields of health care, IT, and telecommunications were more likely to consider innovation a top strategic challenge—not surprising given the disruptions in those fields. But other industries scored more dismally in this area; for example, only 13 percent of directors in energy and utilities ranked innovation to be of top importance.
Groysberg finds that complacency disturbing.
“With the surge in renewable energy and the use of things like drones [for monitoring energy production], how could you possibly not think your industry is going to be disrupted?” he asks. In fact, with the rapid rate of societal and technological change today, no industry is immune from disruption. “Just ask all of the companies that woke up to find that they were now competing with Amazon.”
Reversing the trendWhat should boards do to improve their focus on innovation? Making that strategic change starts with a frank analysis of the skills and expertise that may be lacking among directors.
“Too much emphasis is put on industry knowledge or expertise,” Groysberg says, “but if your company is going to be disrupted, that may very well come from a player from outside your industry.”
Having a diverse board, both demographically in terms of gender, racial background, and age—but also regarding diversity of perspective—can help inject a range of ideas into debates that can be used to formulate questions and strategic directives for management.
Those conversations can’t happen if boards aren’t making time for them, however. “There can be a tendency for longer-term discussions about innovation, technology, and strategy to be squeezed out by more immediate, short-term issues,” says Cheng. Their survey showed, however, that those companies that routinely took a longer-term view did better on innovation overall. “It’s necessary for boards to carve out and protect time on the agenda for these long-range discussions.”
That analysis can then filter down to the hiring and recruiting process when it comes time for the board to pick the right CEO to lead the company. Groysberg and Cheng point to the example of Cisco, the subject of a recent Harvard Business School case study they wrote with case researcher Annelena Lobb. After a period of intense reflection, Cisco’s board determined that they would need a more innovative mindset to compete in a rapidly changing industry, and leapfrogged over the company’s two presidents to name the head of sales its new CEO.
“When they thought about what the company would look like in five to 10 years and what skills they needed to compete, they decided to skip a generation” in selecting a new CEO, Groysberg says. Cisco minimized the disruption by setting up a rigorous and transparent process laying out what the board thought the company would need to compete, and then inviting each candidate to present their vision and demonstrate the set of the skills required to make it happen.
Finally, if boards are going to focus on what it takes to be innovative in the long term, then they will need to be able to devote the resources necessary to do so. Too often, Groysberg says, boards can stifle innovation by worrying too much about short-term returns and thwarting management initiatives that require an outlay of investment. “Boards can encourage innovation, but they can kill innovation as well,” he says.
If they are to compete long term, board members may need to be able to take short-term hits in revenue and be able to explain to analysts the reason they are doing so. In all of these ways, Groysberg and Cheng say, boards can ensure that they are focused on the long-term innovation of a company and preparing for any signs of disruption on the horizon.
Rather than leaving it solely up to management to ensure a company retains its competitive edge, a proactive board can help to provide the guidance needed for the future.