The Common Thread

I spent yesterday afternoon at a dynamic program sponsored by Women in the Boardroom. The two-hour program focused on assisting women who are interested in preparing for board service. While the primary goal of the program is to provide attendees with the tools, resources and networks to serve on for-profit boards, the panel also talked about serving on not-for-profit boards.

The panel included four women who have all served on both for-profit and not-for-profit boards.  Their experience included serving on boards of publicly held companies, privately held companies and not-for-profit boards.  As they reviewed their own personal stories and the lessons learned, I was struck by the overlap between for-profit board service and not-for-profit board service.

My experience in working with, and serving on, not-for-profit boards dovetailed with all of the points the panel covered.

The discussion included the role of being a director; the differences between non-profit, private and public board service; the board selection process; being an effective board member; and positioning yourself for board service. An important point was matching your skill set and credentials to board service.

All four women talked about the time commitment involved in board service. And, all four also talked about the risks and rewards associated with board service.  One panelist also provided insight into exit strategies.

After the program, there was a brief meet and greet. It provided an informative overview of the many talented women who made up the audience and were interested in board service.  It left me wishing for more time and looking forward to next year’s program.

I just got back from a week at one my client’s annual meetings. It’s a big event–1100 people, tons of sessions, four separate Board meetings for me to attend, plus managing staff, committee meetings, and trying to make it to the various receptions, parties and of course those sessions at the bar where all the “real” work gets done.

It’s a lot to juggle, but the bottom line is there is no other way for me to really understand this organization. I’ve read their strategic plan, bylaws, and conference manual. I’ve read the newsletter (okay I haven’t read the Journal; sorry it’s just not my field. But I promise to read it eventually). I read the Board minutes, business meeting minutes, and I even had phone conversations with various Board members. But you don’t really know a client until you see them in action and watch them talking about what really matters to them.

I imagine the same goes for them to some extent. Until they see how I react to them in their context, they’re still guessing about me. They’ve read my resume and maybe even some articles or blog posts I’ve written. But they won’t really know what to do with me until we are able to interact over some time in a context with which they are familiar.

I think we tend to over estimate how well we know the “other” simply by gathering non-experiential information about them.

One of my clients recently asked me to weigh in on what would be the “right” composition of the Board. They are considering adding permanent positions to the Board (via a bylaws change) so that four different publications editors would be Board officers (they currently have two).

So what do you think? Is this “wrong”? I will admit my initial reaction is a wrinkled brow–why would you need all those editors on the Board? Doing the work of the association (publications) and the ultimate decision making authority (the Board) are two different things. Though I know enough about associations to know that there are probably examples in the industry of every “strange” composition you can think of. I’m not sure there is a “best practice” here (not to mention my general issue with the concept of best practice).

So here’s my advice to this client. Make sure you are answering the right question. The question is not how many editors should have voting rights. The question is, what structure will enable the Board to do its job most effectively. Form follows function. You have to decide what the function of your Board truly is, because only then will you be able to determine the appropriate composition. Like much in association management, our current systems, structures, and processes exist simply because that’s how we’ve always done it. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they might need to be re-examined.

Does your Board set a direction for the organization, or does it manage competing interests of functional units? Does it make strategic choices, or does it manage the implementation of programs. Depending on how you answer these questions, you could compose your Board in a variety of different ways.

Personally, I think most associations would benefit from a strategically focused Board of directors. For this particular client, publications are very important. But I think there are plenty of ways to ensure the strategic importance of publications is reflected in Board decisions–outside of changing the bylaws and adding permanent director positions.