Submitted by: Elizabeth B. Bolton, Ph.D.

PDF File

Hillel, S. (2006). “Leadership Styles and Leadership Change in Human and Community Service Organizations” Nonprofit Leadership and Management. 17(2). 179-194.

Introduction

This article deals with leaders who must be able to adapt their style to the changing environment of the organization and understand the circumstances that are occurring in each phase of the organization’s development. This is the main argument of the author who notes that if they fail to adapt the goals of the organization will not be attained. Further, if a leader is highly effective at one phase in the organization, he/she may not be able to transfer this effectiveness to another phase in the organization’s development. From these perspectives, the author develops a tool to assist organizations in determining what type of leadership is needed based on the environment at each stage in the organization’s life cycle. In order to use the tool, it is necessary to first analyze the current environment in both the external and internal dimensions.

Methodology

Using many studies on leadership, the author proposes a theoretical model, which classifies leadership types into four quadrants: Task versus people orientation and internal versus external orientation. Four types of leadership emerge: Task oriented internally focused, task oriented externally focused, people oriented externally focused, and people oriented internally focused. To use this methodology, an organization should first determine the current state of the organization and then decide which of these leadership types if the best fit for the time. The selection of an effective leader can be made based on this analysis. The author looks at four types of organizations and suggests which type of leadership would be the most effective.

Main Ideas

The major concepts are defined as follows. Task orientation "relates to the leader’s emphasis …on functions that are perceived as instrumental aspects of the leader’s role and enable him to focus on goal achievement with minimal consideration of the human factor" (p. 185) These tasks include planning, organization and budgeting. People orientation, in contrast, relates to the leader’s emphasis on functions such as motivating workers, training and development, listening and empathy, interpersonal communication…”(p. 185). People orientation includes “the expressive aspects of the leader’s role, including the leader’s body language and facial expressions, which convey the leader’s expectations of their followers and reflect the relationships that develop between them” (p. 186). The second concept of the theory based model, internal versus external orientation, refers to “the importance of external environment in influencing the organization and structural behavior…versus the leader’s orientation to the organization’s internal affairs” (p. 186).

The task oriented internal leader:

Places emphasis on achieving organization goals, taking the organizational structure and internal work procedures into account.

Gives emphasis to the roles of planning, coordination, administrative communication, budgeting and decision making.

The leadership style is authoritative, centralized; no delegation of authority and no involvement of organization members in decision making.

There is a tight control and supervision closely linked to processes and outcomes.

The leader does not tolerate deviations from the rules and processes that regulate the life of the organization. Very low tolerance for ambiguity.

The task oriented external leaders

Focus on achieving organizational goals and attaining legitimization and resources from the external environment.

Leadership style is authoritative, centralized, directive, and focused on attaining resources establishing and expanding the organizational domain, improving the organization’s competitive ability in an attempt to accumulate an organizational and personal power advantage over other organizations.

Leader is task oriented, without considering the human factor which is a means to achieving his goals.

Decision-making and problem-solving processes are based on the leader’s formal authority.

The people oriented internal leaders:

The main focus is on people. He or she motivates, provides incentives, delegates authority, empower, consults, and involves others.

Efforts focus on selecting, developing, building, and guiding the staff and co-opting them to achieve the goals of the organization.

Emphasis on division of labor and roles, including enlargement and enrichment.

The leader motivates workers to seek self-fulfillment, sets challenging goals, and encourages self-development.

The leader develops tools, mechanisms, methods, and technologies for problem solving and conflict resolution.

People oriented external leaders:

The emphasis is on managing the external environment, reducing the organization’s dependence on agents in the environment, and increasing the dependence of others on the organization.

Considerable investment in developing human resources, training, and preparing staff to copy with constraints imposed on the organization by the external environment.

The leader and the administrative staff engage in political activity and form alliances and coalitions with various elements in the environment. The emphasis is on alleviating pressure from interest groups and constituencies; screening the environment to identify opportunities, risks, and threats.

Emphasis on the importance and contribution of the human factor; invests in developing the functional maturity and professional competence of the staff in order to allow for development of relations with the external environment and management by exception.

Conclusion

The main conclusion from this article is that leader should be able to adapt his or her behavior as the organization transitions from one stage to another. Obviously this does not always happen and often the leader’s style is at cross purposes with the organization’s needs and life cycle. If the leader is not able to adapt his/her style to the organization’s life cycle, then it is best to choose a new leader. This model can be useful for boards of directors to assess where the organization is and what it needs before choosing a leader. A congruence between the organization’s life cycle and the leader’s style can result in more effective leadership for the organization. The author proposes that “individuals have to make adaptations in their leadership pattern—whether they are autocratic, democratic-participatory, charismatic, task-oriented, or person oriented—if they which to be effective and achieve their goals “ (P. 192).

Implications for Extension Programs

Extension county faculty deals with leaders in many environments, some of which are local and others regional and statewide leaders. It is not often that anyone has control of enough variables in the environment to change it substantially. The value of this research then is for county extension faculty to see themselves in one of the four leadership styles and determine if there is any congruence between their leadership style and the organizations they work with. When there is an uncomfortable fit, strive to change your style so that it is appropriate for the environment known as the workplace.

Submitted by: E.B. Bolton, Ph.D., Professor, Community Development
PDF version

Frictionless Fundraising: How the Internet can Bring Fundraising back into Balance. Michael C. Gilbert, January, 2003. Nonprofit Online News is a program of The Gilbert Center at http://news.gilbert.org.

Michael Gilbert reaches the nonprofit community with his electronic newsletter containing articles, workshop opportunities and solicitations for his organization. This article seemed particularly appropriate for faculty involved with community based organizations working on fund raising campaigns. It emphasizes a back-to-basics approach that combines technology with the four elements of professional fund raising.

Gilbert starts with the caution that it is inappropriate to start with explaining the technology but to begin with defining fundraising. He uses a mapping concept as a four part diagram that depicts a series of stages of communication with a potential donor. The map beings with moving the donor through the first stage called “prospecting” which is the act of “initiating a relationship with a prospective donor.” (p. 2). This stage includes marketing and promotion. “Cultivating” follows the prospect stage and here the relationship is developed with the donor so that the appeal might have a better chance to be successful. “Asking” follows the cultivate stage and this is the formal request for a donation. “Stewardship” is the process of nurturing the relationship with the prospect or the donor over time.

Gilbert’s point is that modern fundraising is not working as well as we are led to believe, i.e. it is out of balance. Fundraising for most organizations involves costly communications with donors which creates an environment that is in a state of constant friction. He says that the communication stages are out of alignment because the emphasis in on the “ask” part of the equation. Most fund raisers are obsessed with the asking part of the equation and give very little attention to the other three parts, particularly the processes of cultivation and stewardship. The “ask” becomes increasing urgent with every new campaign and it increases as the goals get higher. Only the major donors have a balanced relationship with the organization because they are treated with respect. All other donors are treated as sources of money. Balanced means that the four parts of the equation are equal although not necessarily the same with all donors.

Accepting credit card transactions is a great way to increase online fundraising but it does little to give balance to the four-part fund raising equation. Gilbert says that the capability to raise funds through the internet could be limiting to the organization because it gives little attention to the donor’s need for cultivation and continued stewardship and therein lies the danger of relying exclusively on technology as a fund raising. Letting technology drive the fund raising effort put an emphasis on the capabilities of technology and ignores the human aspects of the organization primarily the donors and the staff who deal with them. Gilbert notes this emphasis shifts the fundraising to technology support staff and away from the fund raising professionals.

He makes the point that credit card transactions are not fundraising and the perception that they are creates an imbalance by combining the worst aspect of fundraising with available technology. This approach will raise funds but because of the scale of unsolicited email, it also has the potential of creating spam and throwing the fund raising equation further out of balance. The use of internet technology is the direction many nonprofit are going rather than creating a system of communication with their stakeholders that goes far beyond receiving an email solicitation. Gilbert says this is the philosophy of a quick return on the dollar similar to that of direct mail campaigns. Both of these practices will be detrimental to the organization because it erodes goodwill of the public and prevent online fundraising from being successful to the extent it might be otherwise.

The potential exists, according to Gilbert, to treat every donor like a major donor. “Prospect” them with respect and permission. “Cultivate” them in a personal way. “Ask” for the right amount at the right time. “Steward” the relationship in such a way that loyalty from the donor is created and lasts for a long time. This balanced equation decreases two costs, communication and personalization. He proposes the integration of email, the web, and selected databases will reduce the cost to reach potential donors. The nonprofit incurs the cost of email, web sites and building databases. The donor will supply the stewardship to sustain the relationship through email and web site visits. He says this plan maintains the four stages of the fund raising equation and reduces the friction of fundraising by restoring equilibrium to the process.

No longer will “prospecting” be on just new donors. The emphasis will be on developing lists of donors that have been approached with respect and permission. This will be done through a process called “chaperoning” rather than renting email lists. Nonprofits will “cultivate” these relationships by redesigning websites and the messages they send out so that it is not campaign on fundraising but on developing relationships. The “ask” becomes much easier because the prospecting and cultivation stage has been carefully crafted and carried out. All this work will be rewarded as the nonprofit develops and maintains a stewardship approach to the donors. Funding solicitations will not be combined with news about events or birthday greetings. From this process it will be learned how the donors want the nonprofit to be stewards of their donations.

Gilbert says nonprofits need to get back to basic theory of successful fundraising that does not lose sight of the human element. Technology is a wonderful tool but it should be used effectively to create communications with real people on the other end. In that way it will seem frictionless because all the elements in the equation are balanced and operate in harmony. Relationships are the most important part of fund raising and technology will not replace these but if used appropriately and effectively it will enhance nonprofit donor relationships.

Nonprofit Organizations as Bridges and Mediating Structures: How
They Work Within the Community.

Submitted by: Elizabeth B. Bolton, Ph.D. Professor of Community Development

Mendel, Stuart C. “The Ecology of Games between Public Policy and Private Action.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, vol 13, no. 3 Spring 2003.

Introduction

The number of nonprofit organizations has increased dramatically in the United States since the 1950s. The exact cause for this increase is attributed to the reaction of people to large scale federal programs after World War II affecting urban renewal, civil rights, welfare, and mortgage lending. In the 1980s these community based organizations began to assume a role of mediating structures between federal, state, and local policy and the people in the communities. Many of these nonprofit organizations became very adept in their ability to identify, accommodate and use the constituencies at primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

Methodology

Mendel uses the bridge metaphor to explain the rise in the number of nonprofits and the process leaders use to make changes in and protect the assets of their communities. Nonprofits as a bridge between constituencies, community issues, institutions and as a mediator in the environment of interrelationships is the theme of Mendel’s article in which he explores the concept of games as the connector for public-private partnerships. In this context games are described as interrelationships in which one group uses the goals and objectives of another group to achieve their own goals and objectives. For example, the real estate developer may use the goals and objectives of the banker to achieve his/her goals and objectives and the banker may use the goals and objectives of a politician to achieve his/her goals. This article looks at nonprofit organizations as the mediating structures that provide a bridge between the private individual and the large institutional structures. There are multiple bridges and multiple games going on at one time and new bridges are being formed as nonprofits change their focus, mission and funding.

Main Ideas

Mendel’s concept of nonprofits as a bridge and as a mediating structure is similar to Warren’s (1978) description of the community’s vertical pattern that provides ties to the larger society and culture and his horizontal pattern which provides the ties that bind the local units to each other. “A community’s vertical pattern was defined as the structural and functional relationship of its various social units and subsystems to extra community systems. Its horizontal pattern was defined as the structural and functional relationship of the community’s various social units and subsystems to each other “(Warren, p. 243).

Mendel and Warren seek to explain the interconnection between organizations and the larger culture and the relationship these organizations have to each other. Mendel sees these connections as bridges and Warren sees vertical and horizontal connections within the community and external to the community. Using Warren’s vertical and horizontal connections or Mendel’s bridges is useful in seeing the potential of community based organizations to the larger culture and to each other. Understanding the connections and the “bridges” is useful in forming coalitions and building relationships with public and private partners that will benefit both the as well as the nonprofit sector. For the most part, the nonprofit organization literature treats these entities as good for the community because they provide services that are needed but not otherwise provided for. However Gus Newport (2005) says that many times these organizations inhibit community development and provide a disservice to the very constituency they seek to serve by obscuring from view the real issues. Instead of focusing on policy that could sustain their missions, they focus on competing for funding and publicity.

The ecology of games is described as the process whereby nonprofit organizations develop a web of interconnections with other institutions, both public and private and with other nonprofits. People in various communities are brought closer together by common goals on a shifting playing field that involves secondary and tertiary allies.

Nonprofits are also seen as mediating structures. Mendel cites the work of Berger and Neuhaus (1996) in describing mediating organizations as “structures that stand between people and impersonal institutions, for example, the neighborhood, the family, the church, and the voluntary associations”(p. 231). Three reasons are given for endorsing mediating structures. These mediating structures represented the work of the classical thinkers concerned with the ideologies of community. These mediating structures were at the center of the philosophy of the Great Society. “These mediating structures provided rallying points for people who challenged the size of government and its support of a welfare state in a society that was committed to private property, low taxes and individual effort” (Mendel, p. 232.)

Mendel provides a case history of the Union Mills Community Coalition (UMCC) to illustrate the ecology of games and the mediating influence of nonprofits. The UMCC area was a community composed of steel workers. The community’s property and vitality were directly related to the steel industry. As the steel industry began to decline and consolidate into fewer operations, the neighborhood population shifted. White working class residents who moved out and lower-income black residents moved in. The constituent groups shifted in their significance in the community. The community changed in its relationship to the larger region and to institutions within the community. The churches in the neighbors became meeting places for community organizers striving to connect the concerns of the people to the local government and most specifically to the economically important and powerful corporate interests of the area.

In the 1980’s the emphasis shifted from the welfare state of the Great Society to providing economic opportunity in the private sector. “Corporate leaders and private grant makers, tired of endless demands for operating support by increasingly strident grassroots neighborhood organizations like UMCC, began to fund economic development corporations whose mission was to preserve and enhance neighborhood wealth” (Mendel, p. 233). Eventually the neighborhood coalitions gave way to development corporations that emphasized housing in the community through rehabilitation, development and preserving older homes.

Implications for Extension

As communities change so do the constituencies within them. When working with community based nonprofit organizations, the implications in this article for extension are as follows:

• Consider multiple constituencies rather than a single group which may lose its political and or economic influence over time.
• The concept of mediating structures as bridging strategies between policy makers, private enterprise and community organizations is a useful tool for extension educators who work nonprofit boards and community leaders.
• Practicality can be a guide for the nonprofit organization in that strategic thinking is required to determine where the organization fits into the community and how it is governed. Extension educators can help the nonprofit think strategically using the goals of other groups and organizations to reach their own.
• Nonprofit organizations have an obligation to remember that they are part of the larger system that delivers services, utilizes resources and protects the wealth and assets of the community. Extension educators can help these nonprofits see their important role in the community.
• Decision makers in nonprofits should understand the relevance of their organization to the larger environment and how it functions.
• Extension faculty have an obligation to understand the community and its functions, the institutions and how they relate to each other and the larger society in addition to the target audience to which we direct our programs.
• Look for, and at, the big picture. You will be amazed at what is there and how it operates.

References

Newport, G. (Winter, 2005). “Why are we replacing furniture when half the neighborhood is missing?” The nonprofit quarterly. (pp. 32-40).

Warren, R.L. (1987). The community in America. Third Edition. University Press of America: Lanham, Md. (pp. 240-304).

Submitted by: Elizabeth Bolton, Ph.D. Professor of Community Development

Newport, Gus. “Why Are We Replacing the Furniture When Half the Neighborhood is Missing?” The Nonprofit Quarterly, Volume 12, Issue 4, Winter 2005.

Introduction

“If we are truly concerned about the effectiveness of community-based nonprofits, a central question we must absolutely ask ourselves is whether the governance of individual community organizations enhances or interferes with good governance on a community-wide level” (Hall, p. 32). This article is provocative in that it challenges the view that the more non profit organizations there are the better it is. Gus Hall writes from the perspective of being the Vanguard Foundation program director in charge of ground efforts in New Orleans in response to the Katrina disaster. During the time since the Katrina hurricane, nonprofits have been seen at their best and their worst. This article suggests that as a community resource it is appropriate to examine their mission and the accountability of their board to the mission. Including client groups in the board membership increases the probability that the board will be accountable to its mission and to the public on a continuing basis. This is important whether the funding comes from grants made by local, state of federal government or voluntary contributions.

Main Ideas

Does the governance of individual community organizations interfere with good governance on a community wide level? Gus Hall believes it does. He says that nonprofits were created to serve communities in a great variety of ways to include health care, food security, child care and jobs and more. The nonprofit sector fills in the gap between the deficits of the public sector and the private sector. But what about the negative effects of all these nonprofit organizations? Hall says that when bad public policy and poor governance are covered up by creating more and more nonprofits, this allows issues that should be connected or joined together to be handled as separate issues because the nonprofits will be competing with each other for limited public funds and private donations. Another effect is that some of the issues that get attention cannot bring about beneficial change because they are limited in scope. The effect of working on an issue through the efforts of many organizations rather than as a system wide issue is that the beneficiaries get short changed in the process. Some people are served but many are not.

Hall calls for inclusiveness of the recipients of services in the decision making process. This is important because boards change, conditions in communities change and without a constant outreach and communication to the target audience, the real message may get lost. The interpretation of this is that the mission may get side tracked. This happens all too often and what was once a mission with focus and purpose becomes a new mission with only a nuance of the former one remaining. Large foundations that were funded by wealthy benefactors with clear ideas about how their funds should be spent have been known to redirect the mission and the subsequent use of the funds.

It is well known that policies change and strategies must be in place to recognize which policies change and in what ways they change. When this is known, then determine how these policy changes might affect the governance of the organization and most particularly the client group. If these policy changes do not become connected to the issue they are supposed to influence, nonprofit boards become entrenched and separated from the issue and ultimately their mission.

Before being the program director of the Vanguard Foundation, Hall was the executive director of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DNSI) in Boston which was one of many nonprofits serving different issues, ethnic groups and personal or organizational histories. He notes that despite all the nonprofits working the area it was a profile of urban devastation with vacant lots, dangerous playgrounds, and widespread evidence of lack of public interest and investment. The Mable Louise Riley Foundation led the way to organize the nonprofits into a coalition that would engage the community in the decision making process to determine what the residents determined as the greatest need and how they might be met. Initially, the Foundation visited Dudley Street with the idea of funding the purchase of office furniture. They were shocked by the vacant lots and empty buildings. One board member remarked that it seemed strange to replace the furniture when half the neighborhood was missing. From this observation emerged the theme that the presence of a great many nonprofit organizations does not necessarily mean that the situation will improve. Rather, it might indicate that the governance of these organizations may well be interfering with the governance on a community wide basis.

Through the efforts of the Riley Foundation and nonprofit leaders in the community, the element of inclusiveness became a major factor in uniting the nonprofits in the community development initiative. Hall describes the rebuilding and redevelopment process that occurred in Boston’s Dudley Street neighborhood as the stages of an organization’s growth. He ends by challenging nonprofit boards to rethink the role they could play in rebuilding neighborhoods and whole communities. He calls for forming more partnerships, creating interlocking agendas with more players, learning from and working with one another in new and different ways. Hall is a visionary who sees the potential in community based nonprofit organizations working together through their boards and client group representatives to become more responsive to the needs of the citizens who live there.

Implications for Extension

During the past few years Florida has had more than its share of hurricane disasters that have caused major damage in practically every part of the state. Community responses have ranged from organized plans to waiting for help to arrive. Community based organizations are called on to provide volunteer services, rebuild infrastructure, and deliver food and supplies to families and many other tasks. Community leaders are always proud to cite the efforts of these organizations in times of need.

The message in this article for extension is to seek to organize the nonprofits to act in a cohesive and collaborative way with some overlapping mission or goals. Be prepared to help the community organizations meet and form some common bonds. Assist the supporting organizations to work in unison rather than in competition with each other. Help the participating organizations form an ad hoc board of directors to represent the immediate need and the interests of their group. Stay in touch with policy makers and policy changes that may affect the local situation. Be prepared to include the targeted groups in the membership of the ad hoc board or on the permanent boards of local organizations. Extension county faculty work with community based organizations in every aspect of extension encompassing agriculture, family and consumer sciences, community development, sea grant, and 4-H. No other local resource has a greater knowledge of the community and its needs. Further extension has an existing network of personnel, technology and organization that can make a lasting difference before and during a natural disaster such as a hurricane.

nonprofits, hurricanes, disaster relief, Extension

Elizabeth Bolton, Ph.D. Community Development

Alexander, J. (Fall 1999). The Impact of Devolution on Nonprofits: A multiphase Study of Social Service Organizations. Nonprofit management and leadership. Vol. 10, no. 1. p. 57 – 70.

Devolution affects every organization that serves the public in the state of Florida. The author defined the term in this study to mean the process of changing organizations’ funding resources from government focused to block grants and state regulated funding. Also known as, “the new federalism,” the intent of devolution is to shift funding and oversight responsibility from the federal government and to individual states. The reality that gives wings to devolution is that programs financed by the federal government, particularly welfare programs, have been wasteful and ineffective. According to the author, devolution is part of a larger movement aimed at both government and nonprofit organizations. The assumption underlying this movement is that private sector practices and technologies are better and more effective than those in the public sector are.

The article points out that the goals of devolution were to make nonprofits central in providing services and to make government agencies a fallback. As the funding from government fluctuates the number and strength of nonprofits also fluctuates. This is evident as many organizations choose not to serve low-income groups, but rather the needs of persons they choose to serve. There is a correlation between the audience served and the presence of government funding.

Organizations that serve children and families in Cayahoga County, Ohio completed a survey to determine how devolution was affecting them. 124 surveys were completed and focus group results were included to determine possible ways for the organizations to survive. The results of the study showed that larger organizations already operating like a business entity were not likely to find themselves affected by changes due to devolution; while smaller organizations found it hard to adapt to these practices induced by devolution. The small organizations found it necessary to spend more of their limited resources on required management tasks and procedures and reduce the amount available to programs and client services. As the need to generate measurable outcomes grew, smaller organizations had to deal with changing their mission to survive in a new milieu of business operations rather than altruistic practice. One example showed that small organizations had to hire highly qualified and expensive personnel in order to be able to receive and maintain certain licenses.

Implications for Extension Programming

The implications of this article for Cooperative Extension suggest that the business model is the order of the day if public organizations are to survive and flourish.

The boundaries between for profit and nonprofit will continue to blur as competition becomes more intense and government funding decreases. Organizational leaders will need to be effective in lobbying and political involvement to ensure they are aware of events that might influence their funding or programs. The funding of welfare programs, how these changes affect the client groups, and the sponsoring organizations, are an example of how devolution works and the results of it. The question is: do we, in Cooperative Extension, ignore it and just hope for the best, or do we accept that it is happening and adapt our strategies to the changing realities of “new public management” which assumes that the efficiency of markets and the value of competition are the best way to serve many public needs

nonprofit, devolution, organizations

Submitted by: Dr. Elizabeth Bolton, Professor, Community Development

(Summer 2005). The Nonprofit Quarterly. Pages 58- 62. Written by Owen Heiserman

Heiserman discusses community action agencies that receive public funding. He points out that because of this board of directors frequently fail to establish adequate policies and procedures for handling public money. This kind of protocol is most frequently required when there is a contract or grant in place. The conclusion was that the passivity of the board and access to public money were linked. Many organizations have the same executive director and board of directors in place for years without ever questioning or evaluating the service of the members or the achievements of the board. It is quite common for executive directors and board members to stay “on” for many years after the organization was founded.

This article presents the results of a study by Mid-Iowa Community Action (MICA) on the crisis intervention services to community action agencies. The following factors were instrumental in the intervention by the MICA consultant group when they were called on to help stabilize the community action agencies. The loss of monetary control was the factor cited most often that required help from outside experts. This was followed by the departure of long serving individuals or the need for their departure. Community action agencies, like most nonprofits have seen increases in their budgets over the years. The increase in funding has not been followed by and increase in oversight or compliance with policies and procedures that have been implemented by the IRS or by state governments.

This study describes 23 community action agencies that experienced a breakdown of governing board oversight. A list of 26 warning signs of a board that might be in trouble was devised by Mel Gill (2001) and cited by Heiserman as the signs of boards that are in trouble. Gill’s warning signs of a board in trouble are shown below with the items under each category heading indicating a sign of trouble. The signs of an effective board are not given in the article reviewed although they have been studied and documented elsewhere.

Human Resources

• Difficulty recruiting credible board members

Financial and Organizational Performance

• Chronic unplanned or unmanaged deficits
• Call for outside audit/operational review by funders
• Persistent failure to meet individual or organizational performance targets
• Role confusion between board and CEO

Meetings

• Low attendance at board, committee meetings
  
• Low level of participation in discussions at meetings
• Poor meeting management: Lack of focus, no agendas, unprepared members
  

Board Culture

• Underground communication
• Poor communication between CEO, Chair, Full board
• Unresolved conflicts within the board
• Members feel removed from “What’s going on”
• Board divided into competing factions

Decision Making

• “Rubber Stamping” of CEO recommendations
• Focus on operational detail not big picture
• Poor communication with funders, key stakeholders
• Decision deadlock or paralysis
• Members ignoring, circumventing organizational policies and procedures
• CEO ignoring, circumventing organization policies and procedures (p. 59).

These warning signs often manifest in factions and deadlock among board members and they are not exclusive to Community Action Agencies. Rather they represent an all too common phenomenon in community nonprofit organizations that receive funds from the public or from selected donors.

The author makes recommendations for working with boards of agencies in crisis. These recommendations also serve for agencies and organizations that are not in a state of crisis but want to insure that their boards are functioning effectively.

Select and socialize board members for the mission of the organization. Boards too often act as a collection of individuals/constituencies, unless they are educated and supported in their functions and responsibilities as a group. The executive and leadership staff in a nonprofit of any size must take responsibility to nurture and support their board. (p. 60).

The author goes on to suggest that the middle of a crisis is not the time to begin board recruitment, development or change. The people who started the trouble or were the cause of it cannot usually deal with the crisis enough to make the problem go away. The author, citing the crisis intervention team, noted that the largest hurdle is for the executive and the board to understand that there is a crisis, the nature and severity of it and the options for resolving it.

Board members can and should understand their legal responsibilities and those defined in the bylaws of the organization. Executive officers should realize that board members need training and constant education to perform to their best ability that will serve the mission of the organization and the community.

Implications

This article has implications for any Extension county faculty that works with nonprofit boards, advisory committees, voluntary boards, executive officers, trustees or any of the many and varied leadership positions in community-based organizations that serve Florida citizens. The board is the leadership nerve center of the organization, no matter how large or small. The board hires the chief executive officer and although the executive may have wide leeway in terms of authority and responsibility, the quality and implementation of those decisions affects the board.

In small nonprofits, the board may actually carry out all the functions of the organization. The same principles apply. It is important to note that board development is available as Extension training through the Focus Team 5.5: Nonprofit Organizations in Community Settings. Board development and other training appropriate for work with community-based organizations are available through the annual Extension in service trainings programs.

References

The works of Mel Gill as cited by Owen Heiserman include:
“Governance in the Voluntary Sector: Summary of Case Study Findings.” The Institute on Governance, 2001, http://www.iog.ca.

nonprofits, non-profits, NGOs, boards, community-based organization, governance