A nonprofit board of directors has an important job: providing governance, oversight and strategic leadership while supporting the organization’s chief executive.
But when board members begin getting involved in the organization’s day-to-day operations, they can unintentionally undermine the very organization they are trying to help.
Micromanagement is a common challenge for some nonprofit organizations. Board members may become involved in hiring and firing decisions, equipment purchases, staff salaries, job descriptions or other operational matters that should generally be handled by the chief executive and staff.
Some board members may even contact employees directly, bypassing the chief executive. While their intentions may be good, this can quickly create confusion among staff about who is actually in charge.
Employees who receive direction from multiple sources may become uncertain about their responsibilities and less willing to exercise their own professional judgment. Over time, that confusion can weaken morale, erode trust and damage the organization’s effectiveness.
A healthy nonprofit board understands that governance and operations are different responsibilities.
The board’s role is to focus on the big picture: establishing policies, ensuring financial accountability, overseeing the chief executive, helping set strategic direction and building relationships that strengthen community support and donor investment.
The chief executive, meanwhile, is responsible for implementing the board’s policies and managing the organization’s daily operations.
When those roles are clearly understood, the board and chief executive can function as partners rather than competing centers of authority.
Why boards get involved
There are several reasons a board may begin drifting into operational matters.
Sometimes it starts with a single board member who becomes overly involved and persuades others to join in. In other cases, the problem stems from a lack of confidence in the chief executive’s abilities.
If the chief executive is not performing effectively, the board has a responsibility to address the problem.
That may mean providing feedback, establishing a performance improvement plan or, when necessary, making a leadership change. In some circumstances, an executive coach can help strengthen the chief executive’s skills.
But replacing proper oversight with constant intervention is not a solution.
Another reason boards become overly involved is a lack of training. Board members who do not understand their fiduciary and governance responsibilities may naturally gravitate toward areas that seem familiar.
For example, a board member who manages people professionally may feel comfortable weighing in on personnel decisions. Another may enjoy discussing purchases or programs because those activities provide an immediate sense of accomplishment.
Operational work can also feel more rewarding than the less visible work of governance. Reviewing policies, monitoring financial performance and planning for the organization’s long-term sustainability may not be as exciting as participating directly in its mission.
Regular board training can help prevent this drift. Board chairs, governance committees and chief executives can work together to ensure members understand their roles and receive ongoing education about effective nonprofit governance.
There is one important exception. Very small nonprofits sometimes lack enough staff to handle all of the organization’s operational responsibilities. In those circumstances, board members may need to perform tasks that would normally belong to employees. Even then, it is important to distinguish between the governance role and the operational role.
Effective boards know where to focus
The strongest nonprofit boards understand their greatest value comes from staying focused on governance and relationships.
These boards establish committees to address areas such as finance, fundraising and advocacy. Committees do the detailed work and report their findings and recommendations to the full board. The board then makes decisions at the appropriate level.
Effective boards also avoid becoming involved in routine personnel matters. With the exception of the chief executive, employees generally report through the organization’s established management structure.
If a staff member approaches a board member with a complaint about a supervisor or a personnel decision, the board member should respectfully direct that employee back to the chief executive rather than becoming involved.
The same principle applies to financial decisions. Once the board has approved an operating budget, the chief executive should generally have the authority to make routine spending decisions within that budget.
The board’s responsibility is to provide appropriate financial oversight rather than approve every purchase.
Ultimately, strong nonprofit organizations depend on a productive partnership between the board and the chief executive. That partnership requires clearly defined responsibilities, mutual trust and consistent communication.
Boards that stay out of the operational weeds are not disengaged. They are doing the job they were asked to do.
By focusing on governance, accountability, strategic direction, community relationships and donor support, board members can provide something far more valuable than day-to-day management: the leadership and oversight that allow the chief executive and staff to do their jobs effectively.
When everyone understands their role, and respects the roles of others, the entire organization is better positioned to fulfill its mission and serve its community.