Board Committees: Boon or Bane?

By Mitch Dorger, EMBA
Win-Win Senior Consultant

“A camel is a horse designed by committee.”
— Anonymous

Although there are a lot of derogatory jokes about committees, the truth is they can be extremely important to the success of your board. Why? Basically, there are two reasons. First, by transferring much of the “roll up the shirt sleeves” work to committees, the full board can keep its meetings shorter, more focused, and aimed principally at the strategic and policy related matters that it needs to be working on. Second, important issues are often complex. They require research, consideration of alternatives, extensive discussion, and even brainstorming. These activities are not routinely the type of things you want to have your full board engage in. I am a big fan of effective committees and have seen them accomplish truly excellent work on behalf of the full board.

Then again, if they are so good, why not have a whole bunch of committees — maybe one to address every aspect of the organization’s operations? That’s a really bad idea for several good reasons. First, committees create work, which means some of your board members are going to have increased workload. Remember most of those folks are volunteers who are trying to earn a living while at the same time helping your organization meet its goals. Organizational leaders need to be very sensitive to the time demands on their board members.

Second, if not properly chartered and managed, committees can get involved in micromanaging operational affairs. This is not something the board, in full or part, should be involved in. This micromanagement can lead to (1) dissatisfaction on the part of operational managers, (2) bad or less than optimal decisions if the committee members are not experts in matters being examined, and (3) undermining the CEO or executive directors by creating confusion as to who is issuing instructions to the staff.

So what do organizational leaders need to know about the proper use of committees on their boards?

First, it is important to understand that there are often a variety of committees within an organization. I often wish that there were more terms used to describe the workings of various groups of people in an organization because a lot of confusion is created when very different organizational entities share the same name — committee.

The primary focus of this article is board committees that help the full board accomplish its governance responsibilities. Because these committees are doing the work of the board, they are more often than not made up of board members. Some state laws even require that these committees be made up of only directors. Such is the case in my home state, which requires board committees (with the exception of the Audit Committee) to be made up entirely of board members.

There are two other types of committees that I want to mention but not spend a great deal of time with. The first are advisory committees. These are committees which, as the name implies, provide advice or counsel to the board. Advisory committees are not chartered to do the work of the board, and they do not have any specific membership requirements. In fact, it may be a good idea to get individuals from outside the organization to serve on advisory committees in order to bring an outside perspective to the group. Two quick points about advisory committees. First, if you are going to have them, use them. Why create a group and ask people to serve on it if you have no intention of listening to their advice? That’s bad management and bad human relations. Second, make sure any advisory committee understands its charter. I once inherited an advisory committee that thought their job was to actively solve operational problems for the organization. That’s not normally the function of an advisory committee.

That brings us to the second type of non-board committee, what I call an operating committee. Some sources refer to them as “organizational” committees. These are groups of people, consisting of volunteers or staff or some combination thereof, that are responsible for accomplishing some operational function for the organization. They may put on events, run programs, or conduct studies for the organization. The point is they are carrying out some operational activity. That is not the role of the board, and these committees should not be organized as part of the board. To help avoid confusion with board committees, think about naming these groups “task forces” or “teams” or “groups” or something else to differentiate them from governing committees. I have been associated in the past with organizations that had a wide variety of operational groups and board groups all called “committees,” and frankly it was very confusing to the membership of the organization. I used to have to spend a fair amount of time explaining to even members of the committees the difference between committee types and what the different roles were for each.

Now back to board committees. Board committees can be of two principal types: standing committees or ad hoc committees. The former exist on a permanent basis and are often required and defined by the organization’s bylaws. Examples of standing committees might be an executive committee or an audit committee. Ad hoc committees are assembled for a particular time-limited function, and they dissolve when that task is completed. Examples of this latter type might be a strategic planning committee or a chief executive search committee.

In the past, there was more emphasis on standing committees. Today, as boards are shrinking in size, there is a move away from standing committees, because of the workload they create. More emphasis is now being placed on the use of ad hoc committees to meet time-limited requirements.

So what committees do you need? Frankly, that depends on the organization; but here are some statistics on what other nonprofits are doing. The BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index 2010 reports that the average number of committees on a board was 5.6. However, there were only four committee types that were reported on more than 50% of boards. These were executive committees (78%), finance (including audit) committees (83%), governance (and nominating) committees (83%), and development/fundraising committees (55%). (1:24–25)

The two committees that are receiving the most attention in the literature I am reading these days are governance committees and audit committees. In an earlier article, I talked about the changing governance environment and the increased emphasis being placed on governance in both the for-profit and the nonprofit arenas. As part of this, many boards are creating governance committees, or expanding the duties of what used to be known as nominating committees to cover other governance functions.

These governance committees are typically being charged with responsibilities such as these:

• Determining the skills and expertise that the board needs to carry out its responsibilities and the organization’s mission.
• Seeking out and cultivating potential new board members with the needed skills, abilities, and personality and nominating them for full board consideration.
• Providing orientation and training to newly elected board members.
• Working with the board chair and chief executive to provide on-going education and growth for board members.
• Assessing board member participation, commitment, and contributions to the board.
• Spearheading board and committee assessment.
• Evaluating and recommending changes to board structure, processes, and guiding document. (2:60-61)

Audit committees are also being created in response to the changing governance environment. In fact, some states now require organizations over a certain size to have audit committees separate from the finance committee. Typically, audit committees are charged with the following responsibilities:

• Developing financial accounting policies for the organization.
• Developing and modifying corporate policies on such policy topics as conflict of interest, whistleblower protection, and document retention and destruction.
• Establishing internal control policies and investigating potential violations of these controls.
• Recruiting and selecting an audit firm.
• Establishing the audit policies within the organization.
• Gathering data on potential conflicts of interest and presenting these situations to the entire board.
• Meeting privately with the auditors to understand audit findings.
• Reviewing audit results as well as comments in letters to management and management’s responses to the comments.
• Reviewing Form 990 preparation and presenting it to the board.
• Ensuring the true financial situation of the corporation is appropriately presented.
• Ensuring organizational compliance with appropriate financial rules, regulation, and laws.

Another popular board committee is the executive committee. Executive committees used to be extremely widespread and almost essential in the era of larger boards. The basic purpose of an executive committee is to have a smaller group of individuals that can meet when necessary between regular board meetings or in emergency situations. Executive committees are often delegated the power to act for the full board in all but a handful of matters that are often defined by state law.

Executive committees can be very efficient. Remember in an earlier article I mentioned that researchers had determined that a group of five to eight was about right size for a board. As it turns out, the size of most executive committees falls within that range. So it is not surprising that executive committees work well. In fact, they may work too well. What I mean by that is that the effectiveness of executive committees often leads to more reliance on them, which in turn creates several problems.

First, it can create two classes of directors — those “in the know,” on the executive committee, and those not “in the know.” A few years ago as part of a governance audit, we tested the organizational knowledge of executive committee members versus other directors. The results were almost staggering. The executive committee knew a great deal more about organizational issues and practices than regular directors. This is not uncommon.

A second problem is that the overuse of an executive committee can leave other directors feeling disenfranchised. It can create a “we/they” conflict within the board. This, in turn, can lead to apathy or even resignation from the board.

Finally, a common disadvantage of executive committees is that it is easier for “group think” to set in. Sometimes the larger group of the full board is needed to get the full diversity of opinion that effective board debates need.

Even though a significant majority of all nonprofits still have executive committees, some boards are altering the mission of these committees away from their acting in effect as the full board. One source reported that some committees are recasting their executive committees in more limited roles, such as chief executive–evaluation committees or even as board “think tanks” for future, strategic issues. (2:64)

In closing, let me offer a few ideas to help your board committee structure be a boon to the organization rather than a bane:

• Minimize the number of committees defined in the bylaws. Bylaws are the governing rules of the organization, and they may require committees that either are no longer needed or have changed responsibilities. Most experts are now recommending that very few committees be defined in bylaws. A better way is for the bylaws to authorize the board to create committees as specific needs arise.
• Make sure you understand the nature of the task involved. Board committees should only be created to perform board functions. Advisory or operational matters should be dealt with by groups that are not to be confused with groups that are performing governance roles. If possible try to call these other groups something other than a committee, such as “council,” “group,” “task force,” etc.
• Make sure you know what the law in your area requires with regard to board committees and their membership. Consult with an attorney to learn whether specific committees (such as an audit committee) are legally required for your organization and what the law says about the membership composition for various committees.
• Only create committees that have a real governance purpose. In the past, there was a philosophy that committees should be created so everyone on the board can have committee assignments and feel useful. That is an interesting thought. However, on the other side of the coin, I have heard far more directors complain about being overworked than underappreciated. Be sure to consider board member workload when creating committees.
• Make sure each committee has a board-defined charter with specific responsibilities. In addition, the charter should delineate which, if any, matters the committee is empowered to act on for the entire board. For example, an executive committee may be empowered to act for the board on all but a few issues that legally require action by the full board.
• Don’t establish committees to oversee or assist with staff functions. This invariably results in micromanagement and all sorts of other management issues. Keep board committees doing board level work.
• Make sure the committee chair is strong. Over the years I have seen the same committee flourish and then flounder as strong chairs were replaced by weaker chairs. For this reason, I do not recommend an automatic rotation system for committee chairs that allows individuals to assume certain responsibilities simply by virtue of their tenure on the board. Committee chairs should be selected based on their organizational and human relations skills. Their job is to make the committee work right, and not everyone is equipped to do this well.
• Each committee should establish an annual work plan and then work through that plan over the course of the year. It is often helpful if these work plans for the year are shared with other committees and the full board during a retreat or other kick-off event for the board. In this way the full board has an appreciation for what is going to be examined and considered by the committees in upcoming months.
• Have committee chairs prepare periodic reports for the full board to report on progress for the year. I do not recommend taking up precious board meeting time to cover these. Rather they should be attached to the agenda as a consent agenda item unless specific questions are raised on the report by other board members.
• The best product that a committee can prepare for the full board is a well-researched set of policy options and implications which address a particular issue. This work should then serve as the basis for a fully informed board debate and decision. In this regard, good committee work can be thought of as “pre-board” work.
• The committee should conduct an annual evaluation of its work for the year and include accomplishments as well as work left undone. The report should also address whether any changes are needed to the charter. It might even address whether the committee needs to continue to operate. In the literature, there is discussion that many boards are approaching committees on a zero-based basis. That is, no committee has a continuing role unless it proves itself needed and productive.

Remember, board committees can be either a boon or a bane to your organization depending on a variety of factors. Hopefully the above ideas will help your committees add productively to the work of your board.

Notes

1. BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index 2010, BoardSource, 2010. Available at www.boardsource.org.
2. Dambach, Charles F., Melissa Davis, and Robert L. Gale, Structures and Practices of Nonprofit Boards. BoardSource, Washington DC, 2009.

Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion: The Three Dimensions of the Interpersonal World

By Sam Alibrando, Ph.D.
Win-Win Senior Consultant

Just as there are three dimensions of the physical world — height, width, and depth — there are also three dimensions of the interpersonal world. And just as we need to learn how to navigate the three dimensions of the physical world with balance and coordination, we need to learn how to navigate the three dimensions of the interpersonal world as well.

So far, I have written two other newsletter articles based on principles from my book, Follow the Yellow Brick Road: How to Change for the Better When Life Gives You Its Worst (www.YellowBrickRoad-book). My first Win-Win article was Follow the Yellow Brick Road: The Royal Road to Managing Change (October 2010 Newsletter), based on book book’s first principle, “We change in Oz not Kansas”; and my second article was Munchkins, Monkeys, Toto, & Glinda: Why Leaders Can’t Lead Alone (December 2010 Newsletter), based on the fifth principle, “Use Your Resources.” Today I want to introduce you to the third principle — the centerpiece of my book — “Integrate Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion.”

Nearly half a century after L. Frank Baum enriched the lives of countless children, and inspired one of the most popular movies of all time, by writing The Wizard of Oz, the German-American psychoanalyst Karen Horney, M.D., enhanced the psychological world with her book, Our Inner Conflicts. This now-classic work introduces the three primary ways people move relationally: We either move toward, move against, or move away from others. Across the ocean — and independent of Dr. Horney — the British psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion, M.D., used three different terms to describe how we emotionally “link” or connect to one other: He said that people connect interpersonally through either love, hate, or knowing.

Although their terms differ, these two psychoanalytic giants independently and essentially identified the three fundamental ways in which we interpersonally move or connect to others: Horney’s moving-toward is the same as Bion’s love; moving-against is the same as hate; and in order to know something, in an unbiased way, you have to move some distance away. I consider these three relational movements the three dimensions of the interpersonal world.

And similar to passage through a three-dimensional geometric “coordinate” system, each of these movements in interpersonal relationships can be either positive or negative, in their impact (as we will shortly see, in an example below).

Over the years, I have relied on this tripartite system to guide me as a therapist, as a teacher, and as an organizational consultant. As I have worked with these concepts, I’ve gradually developed a model that I call the Interpersonal Triangle. The Interpersonal Triangle is strongly confirmed throughout psychological literature as well as in such other fields as systems theory, biology, organizational psychology, philosophy, religion, literature, and even pop culture (in far too many instances to speak of in this article). But what does all this have to do with the Wizard of Oz?

Just as the ideas of Karen Horney and Wilfred Bion followed L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz by roughly 50 years, my epiphany in connecting the three came after another half-century had passed. It was during a chance observation of children watching a video of The Wizard of Oz that it hit me: There they were — all three dimensions of interpersonal movement — and in, of all places, a children’s story!

Early in her journey Dorothy meets three companions: Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion. Each of these companions has some characteristic that is underdeveloped and in need of fulfillment. Each joins Dorothy to find the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, who will presumably give them those things they lack. But as it turns out, the Wizard has little to give them that they have not already developed themselves along the Yellow Brick Road.

Let’s look at Baum’s analogy in terms of Bion’s links and Horney’s movements. The Tin Man, who cares about having a heart, represents “love,” or “moving toward.” Lion, who battles for courage, represents “hate,” or “moving-against.” Finally, Scarecrow, preoccupied with having a brain, symbolizes “knowing,” or “moving away.”

So what does this have to do with leadership? I argue that an effective leader is someone who manifests the maturely developed (positive) aspects of each character — all at the same time — with anyone he or she interacts with. Otherwise, if a leader is weak or immature in one or more of these core characteristics, they will inevitably overcompensate with the other “companions”; and whenever we overdo a strength, it becomes a weakness. Let me give you an example based upon my own professional experience.

Mary (not her name) owns her own small firm. Ever since she was a little girl she had a hard time dealing with her inner “Tin Man” — her capacity for loving, moving toward. She believes that all the “touchy-feely stuff” is a display of weakness, and that being vulnerable is utterly dangerous. So she tends to overdo Scarecrow (being distant and cold) and Lion (being impatient and domineering). I was hired to help Mary find out why she was having such a difficult time retaining talent in her company. A quick (anonymous) survey of her employees, along with some personality testing, soon brought the answer clearly into focus.

Based on the feedback that I gave her, she reluctantly agreed to a series of coaching (even though she had always considered the “need” for coaching — a form of moving-toward — as  a sign of weakness). Based on the theory of the Interpersonal Triangle, we did not focus on her overdone Lion behaviors (her impatience and micro-management) nor did we consider her overdone Scarecrow (her cold disposition regarding employees). Instead, we focused on Tin Man. At first we experimented with safe Tin Man behaviors: for example, giving compliments to employees who did a good job. Later we worked on more difficult Tin Man behaviors, like seeking input from her project managers on how to run a project. And finally we worked on how to build an effective, dependable team around her, so she did not have to do everything herself.

Even though I mostly focused on Tin Man, my goal in this coaching assignment was to move her toward full positive functioning in all three of the characteristics. As she began to improve in her Tin Man behaviors, a wonderful thing began to happen. Not only did she begin to exhibit more positive Tin Man behaviors — which was greatly welcomed by her employees (thus making retention much less of an issue) — but she also no longer manifested the overdone, negative Lion and Scarecrow. Instead, Lion transformed into its positive manifestation — effective assertiveness and confident honesty — and Scarecrow expressed itself in a more thoughtful and knowing demeanor.

In this very brief introduction of the Interpersonal Triangle, it is enough to raise awareness of the three ways that we can relationally move, either positively or negatively, and to appreciate that when we are weak in one mode, we will go out-of-balance in the others — making us less effective in how we relate to and impact others. Conversely, when we develop a “synergy” of all three tendencies — moving towards, against, and away — we can move powerfully and effectively through all three dimensions of the interpersonal world.

Size Matters

By Mitch Dorger, EMBA
Win-Win Senior Consultant

OK, I admit the title was a cheap trick to get your attention. But I am not going to write about what you thought the subject might be. Instead, I am going to write about how size affects the quality and effectiveness of a board of directors.

I recently attended a seminar by the president and CEO of BoardSource, Linda Crompton. As you might imagine, Linda lives and breathes boards of directors and talks all over the country about nonprofit-board effectiveness. She said when she talks to people about boards, the most common question she gets is, how big should my board be? Linda said she always responds to this question by saying, “It depends.” (Endnote 11) That’s a good answer, but just what are some of the things that it depends on?

The first thing is human nature. After all, a board is nothing more than a group of human beings trying to work together to create the best results for the organization they are charged with directing and protecting. Human beings work best in groups of a certain size. Over the years a number of studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of group decision-making. One such study, by the authors of Decide and Deliver: Five Steps to Breakthrough Performance in Your Organization, determined that the optimum size for a decision-making group was seven people; and that for each person added above this, the group’s decision-making effectiveness was reduced by 10%. (Endnote 3) Another study found that the most effective number was five, but then noted that the effectiveness of decision-making neither increases nor decreases in groups between five and eight. (Endnotes 7 and 8) Drawing from these studies, it would seem that the ideal board size for human decision-making is somewhere between five and eight. But it’s not that simple.

Another factor in determining board size is the depth and complexity of the issues facing the corporation. In a recent panel discussion of board governance, William Hawfield — a founder of The Board Group, a consulting firm that has helped create more than 100 boards for both private and public corporations — recommended that for small- to medium-size corporations with relatively straightforward missions, the board size should be no more than five people. (Endnote 12) Note that this corresponds to the number recommended in one of the two academic studies mentioned above.

But as corporations grow in size and complexity, it is likely that the board will also grow. That was the finding of a group of scholars in 2005. Specifically they noted that the complexities of the new regulatory environment created after the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002 had a tendency to increase the size of boards. This same study indicated that corporations increasing the complexity of their operations by introducing new product lines or expanding into new territories had a tendency to increase the size of their corporate boards. (Endnote 4) Also impacting the size of public-corporation boards has been activist investors such as TIAA-CREF and CalPERS, both of which have shown an interest in increasing the percentage of independent outside directors on corporate boards.

So what size are the boards of the big, complex, publicly held corporations? A study of 473 public companies between 1988 and 1999 indicated that most public companies have had boards in the range of eight to 11 members, with the mean being 9.5 and the median being nine. (Endnote 7) More recently, a book by Cornelis de Kluyver, dean of the University of Oregon business school, stated, “Today the average Standard & Poor’s 500 board of directors has 11 directors.” This is slightly more than the nine board members indicated in the pre–Sarbanes-Oxley study, but substantially lower the than the average of 18 board members that de Kluyver indicates was the case 25 years ago. (Endnote 2) Clearly, despite the increasing complexity of the post–Sarbanes-Oxley corporate environment, for-profit corporation boards are tending to be relatively small, manageable groups — a finding that generally conforms to the studies of effective decision-making by groups cited earlier.

So far all this seems relatively straightforward but now comes the more difficult part. Specifically, what about the boards of nonprofit corporations? The data here are quite interesting compared to for-profits. BoardSource’s Nonprofit Governance Index for 2010 indicates that the overall average for the hundreds of nonprofits involved in their study was 16 members (Endnote 1) — almost 50% larger than the current average size of large public-corporate boards, and more than three times the recommended board size for smaller private corporations. Why is this?

In management literature, there is something known as the “law of nonprofit complexity.” This “law” was proposed back in 2000 by a scholar named H. K. Anheir. In essence, Anheir theorizes that the management of nonprofit corporations is more complex than the management of for-profit corporations of comparable size:

As a result of this diverse list of constituents, stakeholders, obligations, and revenue sources, nonprofits have, in effect, multiple bottom lines. A recognition of nonprofits as uniquely complex suggests one problem with incorporating ready-made management models from the business world, where prices, wages, profits, and taxes drop down into a single bottom line. In sum, the for-profit model may be too unsophisticated to meet the needs of the non-profit organization. (Endnote 9)

If we accept the law of nonprofit complexity and refer back to the tendency of corporations to increase their board size in the face of increasing complexity, it seems logical that there would be larger boards for nonprofits than in the for-profit world.

And yet we know from those studies cited earlier that the effectiveness of the group decision-making process decreases as the size of the group gets larger. Why then would nonprofits deliberately choose to create more inefficient boards? Elaborating on Anheir’s remarks, above, I believe the answer lies in the nature of what nonprofit boards are asked to do.

First, nonprofit boards often assign themselves more responsibilities that do corporate boards. There are a couple of key reasons for this. The first is the nature of the business. Many nonprofit boards take on responsibilities like fundraising that are not board responsibilities in the for-profit world. Nonprofit boards also have a tendency to grow because of the diverse nature of the stakeholders in the organization. Indeed, many boards believe it is critical to give all stakeholder groups a voice in board deliberations.

These added responsibilities are compounded by the fact that many nonprofits have relatively small staffs to support them. While I am certainly not recommending that boards take up operational responsibilities, it is a fact of life in many nonprofits that there are limited resources to carry out the tasks needed to support the deliberations of the board. Whereas for-profit companies would likely either have the staff in house or sufficient resources to secure outside consulting help, the board of a nonprofit may not have this luxury; and some of the detailed work of the board will need to be carried out by board members themselves.

I should also note that nonprofit corporations are not all the same. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some are huge organizations that look and act more like a for-profit corporation than a nonprofit, while others are small organizations that do not even have staffs to carry out the organization’s operational responsibilities. The nature of the organization will clearly have a significant impact on the size and shape of any particular nonprofit organization’s board.

It is also important to note that there are different types of nonprofits under the law. The missions of these organizations can vary as can the composition of their boards. For example, while most of the nonprofits in the previously cited BoardSource survey were public charities, there are other forms of nonprofits, like foundations, whose missions and operations can vary significantly from those of public charities. A 2010 study of the Council on Foundations indicated that among all foundations, the average size board was 12. This is 25% below the average size of nonprofit boards reported by BoardSource. And within the world of foundations, the size of boards varied from a low of seven, for family foundations, to a high of 16, for community foundations. (Endnote 5) I believe this difference is directly related to the issues of complexity involved and constituencies served.

“OK,” you say, “this is all very interesting; but it does not answer the question we started with: ‘What size should my board be?’” Here are a few suggestions that might help:

1. Build a board that is sufficiently large to carry out your board’s responsibilities, without unnecessarily adding excessive numbers, which will degrade board effectiveness, by inhibiting engagement and involvement by individual members.
2. If you want to take advantage of the benefits of deliberative group decision-making, I recommend a minimum of five to seven board members, particularly if your organization is a for-profit corporation. Seven is probably the right minimum number for nonprofits — at least that is what the Minnesota Council on Nonprofits recommends. (Endnote 13)
3. On the high end, I would limit the governing board to somewhere in the vicinity of 15 members. If you think you need more than 15 on your board for one reason or another, consider separating the governing functions from the representational and relationship functions, by creating such nonfiduciary groups as advisory boards. Operating committees of nonboard members may also be created to carry out specific functions under the policy guidance and oversight of a board; such a group might address fundraising, for example.
4. Within the range of five to 15 members, the board should carefully examine its responsibilities to determine precise size. Factors to consider include:
   1. Functional requirements — in terms of professional capabilities to help with strategic priorities or to bring needed proficiencies to the board (for example, financial expertise to handle audit-committee responsibilities).
   2. Diversity requirements — in terms of age, ethnicity, or gender. What balance is needed for the board to have a respectable variety of viewpoints and a respectful dialogue on critical issues?
   3. Representational requirements — in terms of the stakeholders in the organization. This might include geographical representation, beneficiary representation, governmental representation, community representation, etc. As with diversity, the question is what representation is needed to help the board fully understand the issues and options it is facing. This question is particularly critical for community nonprofits.
   4. Regulatory requirements — such as the need for independent outside directors or the need for certain types of expertise to perform certain functions, like audit-committee duties. (Endnote 10)

So what does all this mean? It means there is no outside expert who can arbitrarily tell a board up front what size it should be. The board itself needs to determine its right size. After considering all the points above, the board needs to sit down and carefully examine its own situation and determine an appropriate size. Then, before settling on a final number, the board should ask itself two final questions: 1) “Have we designed a board that can carry out all of our functions, including committee work, without overburdening the individual volunteer board members?” And 2) “Have we designed a board that will allow all board members to stay personally involved and interested in the activities of the board?” If the board can answer yes to both these questions, you have probably arrived at the right number for your board.

Good luck in your endeavor!

Mitch Dorger can be reached at mitch@winwinworkplace.com.

Endnotes

1. BoardSource, Nonprofit Governance Index 2010 (p. 19), BoardSource, Washington, DC, 2010. Available at http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=4.1503.
2. De Kluyver, Cornelis A., A Primer on Corporate Governance (p. 58), Business Expert Press, New York, 2009. Available at http://www.businessexpertpress.com/books/primer-corporate-governance.
3. Blenko, Marcia W., Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers, Decide & Deliver: Five Steps to Breakthrough Performance in your Organization, Bain and Company, 2009, as cited in “Stat Watch,” Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 2011. Available at http://hbr.org/2010/01/stat-watch/ar/1.
4. Boone, Audra L., Laura Casares Field, Jonathon M. Karpoff, and Charu G. Raheja, Determinants of Corporate Board Size and Composition: An Empirical Analysis, Version 3-0-23, Oct 17, 2005; final version published in the Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 85, Issue 1, Jul 2007, pp. 66–101. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X07000311.
5. Council on Foundations, What is the Best Size for Your Board, 2010. Available at http://www.cof.org/files/documents/governing_boards/board%20briefs/boardsize.pdf.
6. Ning, Yixi, Wallace N. Davidson III, and Jifu Wang, “Does an Empirical Corporate Board Size Exist? An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Applied Finance, 20: 57–69. Available at http://69.175.2.130/~finman/Publications/JAF/2010/Ning.pdf.
7. Margolis, Sheila, What is the Optimal Group Size for Decision Making? Available at http://www.shielamargolis.com/2011/01/24.
8. How to Design Small Decision-Making Groups. Available at http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/SmallGroups.
9. Landsberg, Bill E., “The Nonprofit Paradox: For-Profit Business Models in the Third Sector,” The Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, Vol. 6, Issue 2, January 2004. Available at http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol6iss2/special_7.htm.
10. List derived from a discussion of functional staffing approaches by Carter McNamara in How Many Members Should We Have? Available at http://managementhelp.org/blogs/boards-of-directors/2010/04/04.
11. Stated at a seminar on board governance sponsored by the Center for Nonprofit Management and attended by the author of this article, June 17, 2011.
12. Stated during a panel discussion at a seminar sponsored by the Association for Corporate Growth, ACG101 Chapter, June 1, 2011.
13. Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, Board Composition and Structure. Available at http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/nonprofit-resources/leadership-governance.

Eight Cringe-Worthy Networking Blunders

It seems like everyone is “networking” these days whether it’s to make business or social connections.  However, networking isn’t for everyone and not everyone is good at networking.

This Bloomberg Business Week blog post really states the obvious and I’m not sure that it will save those people who have/or would commit one of these eight blunders.  On the other hand, for those of you who network for business you’ll be able to say, “oh yeah, that one happened to me too”.

I thought you might enjoy reading this as I did.

Gail Schaper-Gordon, Ph.D.

Vistage CEO Group Chair, Win-Win Senior Consultant

How an NFL Team’s Offseason Can Strengthen Your Organization

By Toni Roldan
Senior Consultant, Win-Win Workplace Solutions and Managing Partner, Rolmay Solutions

After each NFL® season, teams begin the offseason process of intense self-evaluation, in order to prepare for the next season’s kick-off, in the fall. Part of this process is following a somewhat standardized blueprint to build and improve the success of each team.

What makes up this blueprint? While there are lots of steps in between, at a high level teams typically focus on three core steps:

1. They conduct a detailed self-evaluation of their team.
2. They identify key positions and areas of need.
3. They look for ways to augment and develop their players and other personnel.

During the self-evaluation process, teams break themselves down to identify gaps in talent and skill. Where do they need to get stronger? Where do they have the most talent? Where are they at risk in the next few years? They layout each position, grade each, and identify a plan to get better.

Key positions are coveted. NFL teams typically place a premium on core positions like quarterback (QB) and ensure they always have a successor in place for this position. Oftentimes they will draft a QB out of college in preparation for that player to contribute to the team two to three years into the future.

What value does an NFL team’s approach have to you and your organization?

The short answer is, commitment and methodology. NFL teams are multimillion-dollar organizations that are committed to this process year after year, like clockwork. They do not consider these steps as actions they will take “only when time permits.”

Of course, not all teams succeed from year to year; and there are a number of factors that contribute to their success. But teams that maintain a consistent vision and philosophy (mission) typically have the most success year after year. Their methodology, core values, and strong leadership serve as the foundation for their decision-making and future planning.

With that in mind, you can draw parallels in the business world at large to what NFL teams in particular are doing: “SWOT Analysis,” Succession Planning, and Organizational Checkups.

SWOT Analysis

A team’s self-evaluation is similar to a SWOT Analysis in the business world. A SWOT Analysis will help you uncover valuable details about your organization that can influence current and future direction.

• Strengths
  • Do you know your organization’s top five to ten strengths?
  • How can you exploit and build upon them?
• Weaknesses
  • Do you know your organization’s top five to ten weaknesses?
  • How can you neutralize them?
• Opportunities
  • What trends outside the organization are likely to affect it in a potentially positive way in the next one to five years?
• Threats
  • Do you anticipate losing any key personnel in the next one to five years?
  • How well positioned is the organization presently to respond to any adverse effects of future trends?

Succession Planning

One definition of succession planning states that it is the ongoing process of identifying and developing future leaders in an organization. Succession planning is similar to an NFL team’s identifying key positions and ensuring they have successors in place. Potential candidates are selected based on their competencies, skills, and readiness.

Succession planning helps to ensure that your organization can …

• Identify and prepare future leaders.
• Maintain business continuity.
• Prepare for business growth and expansion.
• Retain and develop its employees.
• Create opportunities for advancement.

Succession planning will help you answer the following questions (among others):

• What performance capabilities are needed to carry out the business strategies within the next three to five years?
• Are there any new skill sets or talent gaps that will require you to pursue external sources to build your strength?
• What key positions in the organization are likely to emerge in the future?

A recent study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) and the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) revealed that more than half of the study participants said their companies did not have a formal succession planning process in place.

If your organization is facing any of the following circumstances, a solid succession plan could be a critical component in sustaining the success of your organization:

• Is someone in a key position retiring in the near future?
• Do only a select few individuals have all the knowledge in certain areas of your organization?
• If one person left the company, would you be able to sustain production? Or would something significantly suffer?

Organizational Checkups

Just like an NFL team, your organization has its own unique brand. An NFL team has multiple departments with specific areas of expertise that contribute to their overall self-assessment process. You may not have each area of expertise covered in the self-evaluation of your organization; you may, therefore, benefit from an objective outside viewpoint. Look for a provider like Win-Win who can provide a professional Organizational Checkup.

Some core items that could be included in this type of checkup are:

• Strategic/Tactical assessment. Is the strategic focus defined? What is the balance between strategic and tactical actions?
• Leadership assessment, including board governance and executive director leadership.
• Structural/Organizational assessment.
• Cultural assessment. Does the culture of your organization align with its own mission and value proposition statements?
• Fiscal / Profit and Loss assessment.
• Sales and Marketing assessment.
• People assessment. Do you have the right people onboard? What is the retention rate?
• Human Resources assessment, including HR policy and procedures review.
• Training and Development assessment.
• Hiring and Firing assessment.
• Risk assessment.
• Business practices assessment (overall), including accounting, risk management, procurement, HR, and facilities management.

With commitment to the self-evaluation process and partnership with trusted providers, your organization can continue to position itself for future success.

Becoming a Nonprofit Board Member (Part 2)

By Mitch Dorger, EMBA
Win-Win Senior Consultant

In my column last month, I created a hypothetic situation in which the reader has been invited to join the board of a local nonprofit organization. I discussed what a board is responsible for and what its duties are. This month I want to build on that foundation by describing the duties of a director of a nonprofit.

In their excellent book, Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations, the American Bar Association states that a director of a nonprofit organization owes the organization two duties: the “Duty of Care” and the “Duty of Loyalty.”

“The duty of care calls upon the director to act in a reasonable and informed manner when participating in the board’s decisions and its oversight of the corporation’s management.” To meet this requirement, the director must (1) stay informed of the affairs of the organization, and (2) discharge his or her duties in good faith, acting with the care that a reasonably prudent person in a like position would believe appropriate. (1:19) But what exactly does this entail?

The most basic requirement of the Duty of Care is to attend meetings. In general, the director himself or herself needs to be physically present at meetings and vote. Directors are not normally able to vote on matters by proxy, as organization members might be; and repeated absence from board meetings can expose the director to the risk of not fulfilling the Duty of Care to the organization. (1:20) Many high-functioning boards establish attendance criteria that can result in the removal of a director if their attendance is shoddy. Attendance at committee meetings (which are an extension of the board) is included under this requirement; and failure to attend committee meetings could also result in sanctions of some type, including removal.

A second requirement of the Duty of Care is to exercise independent and informed judgment on organizational matters. Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the organization, and no decisions should be made simply because a matter is recommended by the staff or even by the board chair. Each director must exercise his or her own judgment about what is best for the organization. This responsibility applies even if the board member represents some particular group or interest on the board. The director’s legal duty is to the organization as a whole and not to the group or interest they may be “representing” on the board. (1:20–21)

Obviously, to carry out the responsibility of care, the board member must be properly informed. Normally in an organization, the information supplied to the board is prepared by the staff or by a committee working on behalf of the board. The director must individually evaluate whether this information is sufficient to make an informed decision. If he or she deems that it is not, additional information should be requested. (1:22) Do not hesitate to exercise this right as a new board member! Sometimes boards get complacent with the way things are going, and it takes a new set of eyes with a fresh perspective to see that they are not receiving all they should be getting, in terms of information and/or options.

In hindsight, board decisions may turn out to be right; or they may turn out to be wrong. The correctness of any given decision does not create a liability for the directors involved, so long as they acted to ensure that they were properly informed and they then acted in good faith. This protection is called the “Business Judgment Rule,” and it basically says that courts may not second guess the judgment of the board “if such director’s action was undertaken in good faith, in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation, and based on the director’s independent and informed judgment.” (1:28) This rule is well established in law and is one of the key protections that directors have.

Naturally, there are exceptions to any rule. For the Business Judgment Rule, it is not applicable in cases where basic breaches of duty have occurred, such as criminal activity, fraud, bad faith, or willful and wanton misconduct. There is another special exception that might apply: if a board chooses to cease the operations of a charitable organization. If this action is being contemplated by a board, the board should consult legal counsel before making any decision in this regard. (1:29)

“The duty of loyalty requires directors to exercise their powers in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation, rather than in their own interests or the interests of another entity or person.” (1:29) This duty applies to three areas: (1) conflicts of interest, (2) corporate opportunity, and (3) confidentiality.

A conflict of interest occurs whenever a director has a material personal interest in a proposed contract or transaction to which the corporation may be a party. Importantly, such conflicts of interest are fairly common and are not necessarily unlawful or unethical. (1:30) For example, a director may contract with the corporation for a service and provide that service at a substantial discount to the organization. This sort of arrangement makes good sense for all concerned, and the arrangement does not have to be terminated just because a conflict of interest is occurring.

However, in such a case, the conflict does need to be fully disclosed and then reviewed and approved by “disinterested” members of the board (or by a designated committee of the board). “Disinterested” means that the director has no financial interest in the matter at hand. Normally the board will ask itself (1) if the arrangement is in the corporation’s best interest, and (2) if it is fair to the corporation. In my last organization, we had a few conflicts of interest arise each year with regard to professional services. Thorough reviews of the circumstances were made, and in each case it was determined to be in the best interest of the corporation to continue the arrangements. This is perfectly appropriate. The key to preventing unethical conflicts of interest is for the board to establish a system allowing full disclosure of any conflicts and then having documented procedures in place to review the circumstances. Because this is a legal matter, I recommend organizations seek legal counsel in setting up procedures for identifying and handling conflicts of interest.

The second area of the Duty of Loyalty is “corporate opportunity.” Corporate opportunity is a fairly straightforward concept compared to the conflict of interest rules. Essentially, this rule states that if a director learns of a business opportunity that might reasonably be of interest to the corporation on whose board the director serves, then the director must disclose the opportunity and allow the corporation to take advantage of it, before the director pursues it on his or her own. (1:34)

The third obligation under the Duty of Loyalty is confidentiality. Again, this obligation is fairly straightforward. A director should not disclose information about the corporation’s activities outside of the board unless the activities are already known by the public or are already in the public record. (1:34) High-performing boards might amplify on this basic guidance by specifically stating exactly what type of information may be revealed by board members and under what circumstances. But if there is any doubt, the director should maintain the confidentiality of board room information. Simple, right? Well to be quite candid, nothing could be further from the truth! In my experience, maintaining the confidentiality of the board is one of the hardest things to achieve in an organization. It seems in some organizations people view their status as determined by how much information they know and can leak to their friends. I sometimes sarcastically say that “inside information” that can be leaked is the “coin of the realm” in some organizations — the more inside information you know and can leak, the more important you are (or think you are).

Some might say, “What harm is done if the information is shared with members of the organization?” Frankly, a lack of confidentially can absolutely cripple the effectiveness of a board. A board depends on individual board members being able to state their positions candidly. If information about what a director says or believes is leaked out, that information can come back to haunt them in a very personal way. I have seen breaches of confidentiality take all candor out of board discussions and leave only cursory discussions within what should be the confines of the board room. This is devastating for the effectiveness of a board. Confidentiality must be preserved, even if that means sanctions against, up to removal of, the offending director.

There is one final element of the Duty of Loyalty that must be mentioned. That is, if a director obtains knowledge of illegal or suspected illegal action within the organization, that director has an absolute requirement to disclose that information (regardless of whether the activity has been approved by the board). If suspicions exist, they must be revealed to the board chair or chief executive (or both) with a demand that the circumstances be investigated. If this investigation fails to occur to the director’s satisfaction, the matter should be taken to the full board. And if the full board does not take appropriate action, the director involved should clearly express his or her dissent and ensure that dissent is recorded. The director should also strongly consider consulting personal legal counsel. (1:36–37)

Although the American Bar Association guide lists only the two duties above, other sources discuss a third duty: the “Duty of Obedience” (BoardSource, The Handbook of Nonprofit Governance). So what is that? Essentially, the Duty of Obedience has three aspects: It says that directors must (1) comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws; (2) they must adhere to the organization’s bylaws; and (3) they must serve as a guardian of the mission. (2:131)

It is easy and rather obvious to say that a director must obey all applicable laws and regulations, but how do you as a new incoming director know what they are? The laws and rules applying to nonprofit organizations are not something that most of us deal with on a daily basis. Indeed, we need help. In my view, it is the obligation of the organization to provide new directors with a thorough indoctrination in the duties as well as the laws and regulations that apply to the organization. If the organization doesn’t offer that as a matter of course, demand it as a new board member. If you don’t, you might find yourself being sued — individually — for organizational actions or having to personally contribute to the payment of employment taxes if the organization fails to do so. Knowledge and effective oversight of organizational dealings are the best course of action for a director.

The same is true of complying with whatever the organization itself produces in terms of legal documents. Directors need to be fully informed on their organization’s bylaws and other legal policies and work to make sure that the actions of the board remain true to their own set of rules. Legal recourses available to members who believe their board is not complying with its own rules may vary from state to state; but attorney friends have told me over the years that the first things an opposing attorney will look at are the bylaws, to see how an organization says it will conduct its business; and if it is not complying with its own rules, the organization is exposing itself to various sorts of legal action.

Finally, the Duty of Obedience requires being true to the mission of the organization. Remember, the defined mission of the organization can have consequences beyond the bounds of the organization itself. In the case of a tax-exempt nonprofit, the justification for its tax exemption is related to the mission of the organization. The mission in effect becomes a promise to the taxpayers to conduct operations in accordance with the tax-exempt purpose of the organization. Failure to confine activities to those included in the mission could expose the organization to a loss of its tax-exempt status, which of course could have profound ramifications for the continued viability of the organization.

That concludes my discussion of the duties of a director. Take a deep breath. I recognize that this discussion was long; and admittedly, there were simplifications made in the interest of brevity. Also, I need to emphasize that I am not an attorney, and much of the information above is related to the law. It can be tricky and complex. I strongly recommend that every board have its legal counsel meet with the members of the board every year or two to discuss these duties and to ensure that all directors are aware of the legal nature of their duties to the board on which they serve as well as the latest changes in the rules and laws affecting the organization.

And lest the most important point be lost, congratulations on your decision to join the board of your organization. Despite the complexity of the topics above, please don’t lose sight of the fact that you are embarking on a responsibility that is going to contribute to the well-being of your community and enrich the lives of those around you. Ultimately, that is important and satisfying!

Manage Yourself First: The Key to Managing Others

By Sam Alibrando, Ph.D.
Win-Win Senior Consultant

Several years ago a woman told me the following story. While in a grocery store, shopping for family provisions, she accidentally and painfully ran over her toe with a heavily laden shopping cart — at which time, under her breath, she yelled at her husband, “You idiot!” She told me that it was at that moment she knew it was time for her to get into therapy. She realized with much embarrassment that not only did her husband not violate her big toe, but he wasn’t even in the store! Her story is humorous but probably not too far from our own experiences in which we blame someone else for our unhappiness. In the part of her mind where most of us live out our lives — the subconscious — the problem was and will always be … someone else.

One of my first goals when facilitating a workshop on the topic of “Managing Difficult People” is to dispute the very myth of the “difficult person.” The difficulty with the concept of a difficult person is establishing exactly who the difficult person is. We almost always experience the “other person” as difficult. In the case of the woman in the grocery store, she saw her husband as the difficult person, when in fact he wasn’t even there.

Often when facilitating this topic at a workshop, I will ask the participants a simple question: “Is 50°F cold or hot?” I almost always get the same response: “It depends.” And so it does. If you were at an outdoor dinner party in Los Angeles in June, 50 degrees would be very chilly. If you were in Chicago in February, you would be enjoying a welcome warm spell. I use this to illustrate the subjectivity with which we identify the difficult person. “Is the problem the other person, or is it me?” Usually it is both. Few people would argue that zero degrees Fahrenheit is cold, and that some people are truly and exclusively problematic. Likewise, most would agree that 100 degrees Fahrenheit is hot, and that you or I are sometimes an insufferable ass (without provocation from anyone else). But most often a difficult relationship is a complex, subjective interaction between two (perhaps more) triggered, reactive people.

I define a “difficult person” as anyone who makes us into a difficult person. In other words, anyone who “makes us” react or get thrown out  or off-balance. Otherwise, the person or the situation is just a challenge, to which we have to respond.

You have more than likely heard the story of a realtor saying, “What are the three most important things to consider in buying a property?” The answer is always, “Location, location, location!” Similarly, the first three principles of managing “difficult people” are equally compelling. In order to manage a so-called “difficult person,” you must:

1. Manage your self first,
2. Manage your self first, and (yes, you guessed it)
3. Manage your self first!

There are a few good reasons for this. First and foremost, we have actual control only over ourselves. Like in driving, we really have access only to our own steering wheel, gas pedal, and brakes. When we try to drive another person’s car from the passenger’s side, we will usually cause an accident.

Secondly, when we change ourselves and respond positively, we actually change the interpersonal dynamic of an interaction. When we are different, the dynamics of the interaction change.

Lastly, managing yourself first is simply the right thing to do. It is a generally accepted principle in our society that a person of integrity is a person who takes responsibility for his or her own actions. It is hard to respect a person who is constantly making up excuses and blaming others for their own woes and poor behavior. On the other hand, we honor a person who stands up and takes responsibility for their side of the equation.

So what does this have to do with business success and profitability? Everything. As much as we’d like to think that the success of a business is entirely about “business,” the truth is that success in business is significantly impacted by relationships; and how we address relationship challenges informs everything about the culture and leadership of our organizations. It is easy to handle relationships when they are going well. The real challenge — what divides the stars from the seat-warmers — is how you handle relational challenges. So how you lead a derailed team, discipline a wayward employee, motivate an under-productive sales force, or handle your “difficult” boss or board determines a great deal about your success. If you are able to manage yourself and your reactivity — by responding with calmness, clarity, and respect — even under trying circumstances, you will more than likely enjoy a positive outcome.

In order to successfully manage the many and unavoidable interpersonal challenges — previously referred to as “difficult people” — we start and perhaps end with our own responsibility — or, if you will, “response-ability.” You see, the problem essentially comes down to first managing our own reactivity. And if you find that difficult to do in spite of all your best efforts, then don’t be afraid or too prideful to:

• Get Honest … about your reactivity; owning it is the first step to fixing it.
• Get Feedback … from trusted advisors who know you; often we have blind spots.
• Get Help … read a book, take a class, find a mentor, or hire a coach; as human beings, we were not designed to do this alone.

Wishing you a response-able life.

Create Results-Driven Training Using the TARGET Model

By Toni Roldan
Managing Partner of Rolmay Solutions

With resources — money and people — strained and limited in this economy, training is under more scrutiny than ever to achieve results, fix problems, and build the most effective workforce. Oftentimes, the training department or other personnel tasked with this function are the catch-all for an organization’s unresolved issues; the adage that “training can solve anything” surfaces as organizations struggle to hit the mark.

So how can you ensure that your next training deployment will meet business needs and help your organization move forward? Being able to make sense of all the information in front of you — putting together the pieces of the puzzle — is critical for the success of your deployment in training.

The TARGET Model

There are four factors that should be addressed in every training and performance endeavor. The combination of these factors represents the totality of your training need. They provide clarity to what is needed; and just as importantly, they point you in the best direction to achieve the optimal solution you define.

The TARGET model sequences the factors in an order such that they build on one another, creating a blueprint that outlines the 1) business results, 2) competencies, 3) total (immediate and long-term) solution, and 4) delivery type of your training.

Get down to business.

The first question to ask yourself when faced with a new learning/training need is, what business need am I trying to affect? In order for training to be effective it should align to a specific business outcome, e.g., reduce errors, increase sales, improve productivity, increase speed to proficiency. All too often the answer to why we train is, well, we just need it. As a training professional or someone tasked with creating and delivering on this mandate, your first goal is to understand the details. Ask questions like:

• What change should we see as a result of this training? Will people start/stop doing something in particular?
• What measurement will we see change as a result of this training? For example, will employees commit fewer errors? Will their call time shorten?
• Will revenues be increased or costs, decreased as a result of this training? If so, which ones and by how much?

Defining those results will lay the foundation for your post-training measurement strategy.

Competency Model

With results in mind, you can move to the next step in defining your training need. At this point, a “competency model” helps move you away from a more general, “topic-centered” approach. For example, instead of simply saying, “They need training on sales skills, finance, and communication,” you ask the key question, “What in particular should someone be able to know or do after a training event?”

A competency model focuses on the key factors that impact performance. If the business result, say, is to increase sales by six percent within two months after training, then what specific knowledge and skills are required for someone to achieve this goal? If new customer service representatives are expected to answer 300 calls in their first month, what particular skills and knowledge do they need in order to reach that level of proficiency?

The list of skills and knowledge needed to achieve your well-defined results should be as specific as possible. For instance, to increase sales skills by six percent within two months:

• Don’t say something like, “They need to know how to use our sales system.” That statement is too broad and not specific enough to be very helpful.
• Do say something like, “They need to know how to use the pricing, lead-generation, and product-offering components of our sales system.” That statement targets specific components that are critical for the agents to learn, in order to reach your goal.

Make training an event, not an activity.

Highly successful training is not a singular instance; rather, it is an enduring series of near-term events, to meet immediate need, and future events, to maintain it. The best way to approach this is to determine what are the immediate (critical and core) needs and what are the future (sustaining) needs?

To determine what needs are critical and core, ask:

• What business results are you training to achieve, and by when?
• What do people need to be able to know or do in the next 30 days?
• What tasks do they do every day?
• What tasks make up 80% of their work?
• What are the key things top performers are doing? Teach others those things now.

To determine what can be future needs, ask:

• What tasks are performed less frequently?
• What tasks or knowledge fall outside the defined business outcome window? In the example above, the new customer service representatives may need additional training, past the initial 30 days, to fully teach them all aspects of their job.
• Which skills or knowledge need reinforcement past the initial training event? Would repetition, additional hands-on activities, or reference guides that are readily available benefit the learners?

Adopt a blended approach.

Now that the business results desired as well as the skills and competencies required have been defined, the next step is to determine how the training will be delivered. Technology has provided us options to think beyond traditional classroom and instructor-led training.

New interactive technologies present more opportunity for collaborative learning. Social media, blogs, and wikis enable learners to share knowledge with each other long after a formal training event is completed. Individuals can converse online about real-life situations and problem-solve with their peers.

When looking at the totality of what needs to be covered in a training event, consider the following questions to help determine your optimal delivery method:

• Does the material require lots of interaction and discussion? Then instructor-led training, either classroom or virtual, would be optimal, since learners will be able to interact with their instructors.
• Is the material foundational, simple enough that no interaction is needed? For instance, teaching the basics of system navigation. Then, a Web-based option would be best.
• Are there scenarios that learners will encounter on the job that could not be covered in training? Then social media, blogs, or wikis may be good options, to help learners share their experiences with each other.
• Does information change frequently, like laws and regulations? Then, podcasts or Twitter messaging may be best, since they can be updated and delivered regularly and readily.
• Are your learners mobile? For instance, sales agents on the road. Then training delivered via mobile devices, podcasts, Twitter, or social media can be best, to reach these employees who are always on the move, not in a central location.

In Conclusion

The TARGET model gives you a logical sequence to approach any potential training or learning endeavor. It challenges business leaders to target why they are asking for training and to provide clarity on what they hope to achieve.

As a training professional or someone tasked with solving this need, you should find the TARGET model helpful in uncovering your true training needs and in providing you with a blueprint for delivering the best solutions aligned to the goals of your organization.

Becoming a Board Member (Part 1)

By Mitch Dorger, EMBA
Win-Win Senior Consultant

You are a community-minded citizen who has just been asked to join the board of a local nonprofit organization that contributes in a significant way to the betterment of your city. You are pleased and honored — as you should be — by the invitation; but as you think about the situation, you begin to wonder to yourself what this “board member” business is all about. What do you need to know, and what do you need to do? Well, I’m glad you asked.

The first thing you need to understand is that while being a member of a nonprofit board of directors is indeed an honor, it is also a job — and sometimes a difficult, time-consuming job. If the organization is well governed, your fellow directors already recognize this. Your candidacy will have been vetted before the existing board of directors, who will have decided that you have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality to contribute in a positive way to the future of the organization.

The first question that might come to your mind is, what does the board do? The short answer is that the board guides the strategic direction of the organization; it is the keeper of the mission, vision, and values of the organization. The board also oversees the performance of any chief executive hired to carry out the activities of the organization.

Like its counterparts in the for-profit arena, the board of a nonprofit is responsible for representing the “owners” of the organization and ensuring that it meets their expectations of performance. The big difference, of course, is that the mission of your nonprofit is not to earn a financial return for the owners; instead, the mission is to perform some positive service for the community.

Another major difference between nonprofit boards and their for-profit counterparts is that the ownership of the organizations is not as clear as it is for businesses, whose owners are defined by the ownership of stock in the corporations. In the nonprofit world, your “owners” are community “stakeholders.” Stakeholders would include the membership of your organization (if applicable), your volunteers, the beneficiaries of your service, and the public at large. If your organization has been certified by the Internal Revenue Service as “tax exempt” under the terms of Section 501(c) of the IRS code, you are considered a “public charity” and any assets held by the organization are held in public trust. The rights of your “owners” may thus be represented in your state by the Attorney General, who speaks on behalf of the organization’s stakeholders with regard to the management of the organization.

So how does a nonprofit board carry out this responsibility? A leading source of knowledge regarding the management of nonprofit organizations is (not surprisingly) a nonprofit organization: BoardSource. In their book The Nonprofit Board Answer Book, BoardSource lists 10 basic responsibilities of a nonprofit board:

1. Determine the organization’s mission and purpose.
2. Select the chief executive.
3. Provide proper financial oversight.
4. Ensure adequate resources.
5. Ensure legal and ethical integrity and maintain accountability.
6. Ensure effective organizational planning.
7. Recruit and orient new board members and assess board performance.
8. Enhance the organization’s public standing.
9. Determine, monitor, and strengthen the organization’s programs.
10. Support the chief executive and assess his or her performance.

To this list I would add that boards can, and often do, assign other responsibilities to themselves if they deem it appropriate. Some of the additional responsibilities that boards commonly assign themselves are risk management, fundraising, and investment management. You will want to learn exactly what responsibilities your board has assigned itself.

The most important thing to note is that nowhere in this list does it say that the board manages the day-to-day operational details of an organization. Those functions are not within the purview of the board. The role of the board properly includes governance, strategic direction, and oversight. By contrast, the operational management of a nonprofit organization falls to either a professional staff or volunteers, working under the guidance of the board.

If you are coming to the board from its operational ranks, you need to leave the world of operations behind. Take with you your knowledge and experience in the organization, but resist the temptation to continue trying to manage the operational details — regardless of how much fun and how rewarding that aspect of organizational activity can be. A failure to distance yourself from day-to-day operations can result in a serious distraction of the board from its mission of governance.

To be sure, there may be instances where individual board members or groups of board members have to perform management or operational functions because of the sheer size of an organization. When this occurs, it is important for the board members to remember that they are not performing as board members when performing those duties. Instead, they are serving as volunteers for the organization, by performing operational responsibilities. This may entail the board members reporting to other volunteers or to a staff executive for the performance of those duties.

As a new board member, you also need to clearly understand that you have legal responsibilities to the organization. Yes, legal responsibilities! Responsibilities that can have significant personal ramifications if you fail to carry out your responsibilities in a reasonable and prudent way. But do not despair. In my next two columns, I will discuss these duties as well as the rights you have as a director, and how you can avoid any problems associated with being a nonprofit board member.

Please take special note of our upcoming, affordable workshop on “Improving Nonprofit Governance.” I’m looking forward to being the key presenter at this event. It will be held on Friday, May 20th, from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. at the Women’s City Club of Pasadena. It will be free to the first 25 attendees, $12 each thereafter. Please see the announcement in this month’s newsletter; and to reserve a spot or to receive additional information, contact Gail Schaper-Gordon, Ph.D., at 323-259-9449 or gail@winwinworkplace.com.

Could it be that we are coming out of the Recession?

By Gail Schaper-Gordon, Ph.D.  Senior Consultant, Founder

I must admit that the past two and a half years have been a very challenging time for me, both personally and professionally. This has been the first recession in my 63 years of life in which 100% of my work and income has come from working with businesses, and I have really felt the difference.

When we work with others who are struggling, it’s a lot easier to handle their stress and anxiety if we can come home to a safe and secure life, in which we’re not suffering any losses or challenges of our own. It’s a lot harder to stay focused, balanced, and confident when our own financial well-being is threatened or significantly reduced. It has taken a lot of conscious effort and self-awareness for me to stave off catastrophic thoughts and to maintain a positive outlook while in very real ways sharing my clients’ pain.

I met a young woman from the insurance industry at a networking event a couple weeks ago. Explaining how the downturn in real estate had radically changed her market and customer target, she felt that her family had permanently slid from “upper” middle class to “lower” middle class; she feared there soon would be no middle class at all. She talked about how much she had given up and how difficult it was to work while also taking care of two young children without any household help. I saw how her reaction to her current financial situation, including the belief system that she has developed, could all-too-easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Since then, however, I’ve noticed a significant change in my consulting business environment. It seems as if almost suddenly, there’s a renewed interest in employee development and strategic planning. After contracting for three employee communication workshops, writing a proposal for a strategic planning initiative, and consulting with a furniture-manufacturing client who just received their largest order ever (for 3900 rooms in Las Vegas) I felt distinctly different — as if a very heavy sack of flour had been lifted off my shoulders. It reminded me of how much easier things were before August and September of 2008, and what a better economic climate feels like.

Could it be that we are actually coming out of the (very big R) Recession? I certainly hope so. And it’s a pretty safe bet you do, too.

I hear more and more stories from our Win-Win clients and my Vistage members that do suggest the worst is behind us. I’d love to hear your stories, too. Please use the Comments section below to share with us how things are showing signs of improvement for your business as well.