I have waxed poetic in terms of disruptive board members calling them "mavericks"and been taken to task for the label, and for pointing out behaviors which I consider disruptive but that others believe are appropriate.  If you remember my initial post, it was about board members who overstep their authority, cause executive directors to lose sleep and in general are problematic.    In the non-profit sector these disruptive board members are not alone in wrecking havoc  - some executive directors have been known to be troublesome as well.  

While most of the executive directors I know are capable, hard-working, people-oriented, mission-driven individuals, every now and then you bump up against one who is self-aggrandizing, tyranical or simply inept.  Executive directors who excel in their positions are expert tightrope walkers with an uncanny ability to balance volunteer and staff needs, attract donors and keep the organization and its programs mission driven.  It takes a unique skill set to do this well and I tip my hat to the million plus men and women who perform this delicate dance on a daily basis. 

While the board sets values and vision, the executive director is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the organization.  Earlier posts have outlined the characteristics and capabilities necessary to be an effective director(See - In Pursuit of the Executive Director - Part One) so I won't repeat them here because this post is about the lack of those characteristics.  I would point out, however, that some boards hire the wrong person to begin with and this is the beginning of tension, trouble and turmoil.

A fairly common symptom of an ineffective E.D. is high staff and board turnover - almost a revolving door effect because at both levels individuals are unable or unwilling to work with this person.  When assessing this for your organization remember  it is not just a numbers thing as people leave for a variety of reasons - a better opportunity, a move, family responsibilities - that have nothing to do with the executive director.  Exit interviews with departing board members would be one source for identifying problems at the board level.

Another symptom that there is trouble in paradise is if the executive director consistently withholds information from the board or makes decisions that rightfully belong to the board, or brushes aside questions posed by board members.  The board should never be blindsided by the executive's actions or commitments he or she has made for the organization.

Other indicators of a dysfunctional executive include declining funding, low staff morale, an absence of systems and procedures and a lack of timely information and financial reports.  Troublesome executives often insert themselves into situations where they do not belong or take credit for the good works of others. They have been known to micro-manage or at the other extreme to offer little in the way of staff supervision.

One way to ensure that this doesn't happen, or to bring it to light sooner if it is happening, is through yearly performance goals and an annual performance evaluation.  Many boards are lax in terms of communicating their expectations to the director, and don't always get around to the annual performance evaluation.  Then when the rumblings start, the evaluation becomes a high priority.  Don't wait until there's a problem  - ensure that goals are set yearly and the director is accountable for meeting them. 

I can think of one director that was adored by her board, did and said all the right things to the board, but was a tyrant when it came to dealing with staff.  It took a long time for this particular board to understand the damage that was going on behind their backs.  Since the executive works for the board and the rest of the staff work for the executive it can be difficult for board members to really understand the executive/staff dynamics. Typically all of the board's information comes from the executive and if he or she is the culprit you are not going to hear it from them. Some organizations bring in an outside HR firm to assess the organization's work environment through confidential staff interviews.  The outside firm reports to the board and the results can not be shaded by the director.

Unfortunately, inept executives can remain in place for a long time. If the agency's cause is especially worthy, some funders may hold the organization to a lower standard and let them "skate" as it were on required reporting.    When faced with the issues identified above, boards are reluctant to take action as the prospect of open conflict with the executive director is dismaying.   It may take months or even years,  but eventually a board member or group of board members will say - "This isn't right and we have to take action to remedy the situation."  Recognizing the problem is the first step in solving it and there will be further posts on possible strategies once the board decides to act. 

This post, and everything written in this blog, is not intended as legal advice. I am merely expressing my thoughts and opinions and offering suggestions on how to avoid the problems in the first place.

Until next time,
Pat

Visit us on the web at www.management-strategies.org