MAXIMIZING BOARD ENGAGEMENT & EFFECTIVENESS. Stop guessing and start addressing the needs of your board.

Transcription

1 MAXIMIZING BOARD ENGAGEMENT & EFFECTIVENESS Stop guessing and start addressing the needs of your board.

2 INTRODUCTION An engaged board is vital to the sustainability of a nonprofit from fundraising to community rela9ons to governance. Unfortunately, many organiza9ons suffer from low board engagement. A 2013 survey conducted by StreamLink SoGware and the Axelson Center for Nonprofit Management uncovers the mo9va9ons and drivers of board members. In this report, we outline the symptoms (and underlying causes) of disengaged board members, debunk myths, and share steps you can take to increase engagement and future- proof your nonprofit board. Stop guessing, and start addressing the needs of your board.

3 CONTENTS Sec9on 1: Methodology Sec9on 2: Symptoms of a Disengaged Board Sec9on 3: Myths & Misconcep9ons Sec9on 4: Causes Sec9on 5: Future- Proofing Your Board

4 METHODOLOGY StreamLink SoGware partnered with the Axelson Center for Nonprofit Management to conduct a na9onwide survey to be&er understand how board members perceive engagement within their organiza6ons. The survey consisted of 30 mul9ple choice and short answer ques9ons. Responses were solicited through LinkedIn Groups, Facebook, Twi]er, Axelson Center and BoardSource, and collected via SurveyMonkey. FiGy- eight individuals serving on one or more boards responded to the survey.

5 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE The respondents form a convenience sample. There is no margin of error or measure of sta9s9cal significance using this sampling technique, as it is not a random sample of the popula9on studied. Actual board engagement levels may be lower, as engaged board members are more likely to voluntarily complete a survey. Through this sampling of individuals, we can begin to understand, anecdotally, the underlying percep9ons of engagement and mo9va9ons of board members.

6 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Organiza6on sector: Respondents serve on boards across sectors, with the two most common sectors being educa9on (25.0%) and human services (16.1%). Board par6cipa6on: 44.6% of respondents currently serve on two boards; 37.5% serve on one board. Commi&ee par6cipa6on: 37.5% serve on one commi]ee; 25.0% serve on two commi]ees. Respondents Organization Sector (shown by %) Arts Organization Association Economic Development Education Environmental Faith-Based Organization Government Agency Healthcare Housing Human Services Law Enforcement/Safety Library Social Justice

7 SYMPTOMS The board is the lifeblood of a nonprofit organiza9on: hiring and evalua9ng execu9ves, spearheading fundraising efforts, mi9ga9ng risk through compliance oversight and good governance, ensuring the long- term sustainability of the organiza9on, and ul9mately shaping the strategic direc9on of the organiza9on and fulfillment of the mission. So when a board suffers from low engagement, it puts the en6re organiza6on in jeopardy. According to survey results, one in four board members aren t fully engaged with the mission of the organiza6on.

8 MEASURING ENGAGEMENT The reasons behind joining a board are varying and complex, with each board member having unique reasons for joining and shiging mo9va9ons for staying on the board long- term. But all board members should be united by one core mo9va9on: belief in the mission. However, when given a list of possible op9ons and asked the reason(s) behind becoming a board member, one in three respondents (34.0%) did not select belief in the organiza6on s mission, and 19.1% did not select belief in the organiza9on s mission or desire to further organiza9on s strategic direc9on. Instead, answers included being asked to par6cipate by someone in the organiza9on, wan6ng to work with a specific person on the board or within the organiza9on, or board service being an employment requirement.

9 Comparing these ini9al reasons to board members current mo9va9ons, conversion is minimal. Twenty- eight percent s6ll did not list belief in the mission as a mo6va6ng factor, and more than one in ten board members (14.9%) are not serving the mission or strategic direc9on of the organiza9on. Reason(s) given for joining the board: Reason(s) given for staying on the board: 19% 15% 81% 85% Legitimate (i.e. mission or strategic direction) Illegimate (i.e. non-mission centric factors) Legitimate (i.e. mission or strategic direction) Illegimate (i.e. non-mission centric factors)

10 HOW CAN YOU SPOT LOW ENGAGEMENT? Low mee6ng a&endance, poor punctuality and absenteeism. If board members are frequently missing board and commi]ee mee9ngs, this is a red flag. It s ogen a sign that a board member is becoming less engaged. High turnover. If you re seeing new faces each passing year, it s going to be equally difficult to maintain consistency in strategic vision, organiza9onal leadership or donor base. Stabilizing the board is the first step in building a strong founda9on for your organiza9on s future. Image Credit: markhillary Low produc6vity. One of the more subtle symptoms, low produc9vity can be seen in frequently missed deadlines, diminished fundraising success, dwindling volunteer and donor bases, and fewer new member referrals. In our survey, 36.4% of respondents had never recommended or personally recruited new board members.

11 MYTHS & MISCONCEPTIONS Before you can address low board engagement, board leaders need to understand the drivers behind board member complacency. These signals are difficult to interpret because they re ogen counterintui9ve. Myth #1: I expect too much of my board already. Myth #2: Board members don t volunteer because they don t want to. Myth #3: I don t have high turnover, so my board members must be happy.

12 MYTH #1: I EXPECT TOO MUCH OF MY BOARD ALREADY. Contrary to human ins9nct, low board engagement is usually not because you re asking too much of board members, but too li(le. More than 8 out of 10 board members think expecta6ons are reasonable. The number of mee9ngs board members are expected to a]end seem reasonable to 68.1% and too few to 14.9%. The dura9on of board mee9ngs seem reasonable to 74.5% and too short to 6.4%. The number of meetings you are expected to attend: In general, board meetings are: 17% 15% 19% 6% Too Few Reasonable Too Many 68% 74% Too Short Reasonable Too Long

13 MYTH #2: BOARD MEMBERS DON T VOLUNTEER BECAUSE THEY DON T WANT TO. If board members are ambi9ous, proac9ve professionals, they would speak up if they had an idea right? Wrong. According to survey respondents, board members don t always know how to plug in to an organiza9on, where or how to offer sugges9ons, how their skills might solve current organiza9onal challenges, or how to track success. Do you believe your skills are being used effectively? 27% 2% 50% 20% Always Often Sometimes Never When asked, Do you believe your skills/talents are being effec6vely used by the board and the organiza6on? approximately 70% believed they were being used effec9vely always or ogen. The other 30% some9mes or never feel their talents are being used effec9vely. Are you was9ng 30% of available board talent? In order to maximize board impact and produc9vity, board leaders need to tap into available talents and encourage board members to u6lize their skill sets for the be]erment of the organiza9on.

14 MYTH #3: I DON T HAVE HIGH TURNOVER SO MY BOARD MEMBERS MUST BE HAPPY. While 70% of respondents were sa9sfied or very sa9sfied with their contribu9ons as board members, this s9ll leaves nearly 30% that were unsure or dissa6sfied. Board members might s9ck around out of obliga9on, but if they aren t sa9sfied with their contribu9ons, the organiza6on is missing out on their full poten6al. Are you satisfied with your contributions as a board member? 9% 2% 23% Very Satisfied Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 18% 48%

15 CAUSES As addressed in the previous sec9on, low board engagement ogen isn t a product of excessive expecta9ons on the board leader s part or apathy on the board member s part. Instead, it s ogen one of the following: Misalignment of mission: Does everyone share the same goal? Passively managed expecta6ons: Are objec9ves clear, acted upon and evolving? Communica6on silos: Is transparency expected and engagement easy? Unplugged talent: Is full poten9al being realized?

16 CAUSE #1: MISALIGNMENT OF MISSION Board members engage with an organiza9on for a variety of reasons, with those mo9va9ons ogen shiging over 9me. Ideally, regardless of why they originally joined either because they were asked, board par9cipa9on is an employment requirement, or they truly believed in the mission over 9me, board members should become engaged and stay on the board because they believe in and want to further the mission. Unfortunately, too ogen this is not the case. Sixty- six percent of respondents decided to serve for the mission and 73% of respondents con6nue to serve for the mission. Misalignment of mission is a central cause of low board engagement and a major concern because it undermines the fundamental purpose for the existence of the organiza9on and the board. The ques9on then comes, is it in the board s best interest to have members that aren t serving for the original goal and direc9on? Why aren t 100% of board members commi]ed to the cause?

17 HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THEY CARE? Conduc9ng a self- assessment is a simple yet effec9ve way of gauging board member engagement and their perceived effec9veness, but most boards (54.5%) never assess whether their organiza6on is achieving its mission. Does your board conduct a self-assessment? 11% Never Semi Annually Annually Every Two Years 30% 5% 55%

18 CAUSE #2: PASSIVELY MANAGED EXPECTATIONS As addressed in sec9on 3, board members are more accep9ng of the expecta9ons set for them than board leadership assumes, and seek greater structure and invita6ons to engage. If board members don t feel engaged, heard and effec9ve, the problem may be that board leadership is passively managing expecta9ons. Expecta6ons are rarely addressed and not ac6vely agreed upon, evaluated and evolved by board members. Image Credit: roland

19 WHAT ARE THE PERCEIVED RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARD MEMBERS? Survey respondents were asked to rank what they consider to be their top board/commi&ee responsibili6es as well as what they think the organiza6on considers to be top board/ commi&ee responsibili6es (1 being the most important; 9 being the least important; listed in order by average rank). Board Members Top Priori6es Boards Percep6on of Organiza6ons Top Priori6es Help shape strategic direc9on (2.13) Help shape strategic direc9on (2.60) Fundraise and obtain sponsors (3.71) Fundraise and obtain sponsors (3.58) Provide financial oversight (3.73) Provide specific skills/services (4.28) Provide specific skills/services (4.78) Provide financial oversight (4.36) Evaluate the CEO (5.02) Serve as a sounding board (4.76) Serve as a sounding board (5.59) Make personal contribu9ons (5.76) Make personal contribu9ons (6.26) Evaluate the CEO (6.00) Community rela9ons (6.32) Educate the public (6.39) Educate the public (6.76) Community rela9ons (6.60)

20 Because board members ranked both lists of perceived responsibili9es, this makes discrepancies even more telling. It suggests that board members are aware of differences in priori9es, but fail to communicate this or a&empt to realign expecta6ons with the organiza9on. The less consensus there is between board members priori9es, the organiza9on's priori9es and board members perceived expecta9ons, the more likely board members will feel confused, frustrated and, eventually, less engaged.

21 TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTION Equally discouraging as miscommunicated expecta9ons is a lack of reinforcement or response. 59% don t believe there are good processes in place for collec9ng, implemen9ng and evalua9ng the effec9veness of board and commi]ee sugges9ons. 13% feel the organiza9on welcomes and makes an effort to implement sugges9ons from board and commi]ee members every 9me. This leaves 87% that are failing, on some level, to evaluate and act on sugges6ons. It s important to establish a proper founda9on for feedback, not just opera9onally, but also opportunis9cally. Are processes in place to collect, implement and evaluate board effectiveness and suggestions? 15% 59% Yes No I Don t Know 26%

22 THE INFLUENCE GIVEN TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN DETERMINING THE AGENDA AT BOARD MEETINGS WAS POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH GREATER ACTIVITY IN EVERY BOARD ROLE. - URBAN INSTITUTE NATIONAL SURVEY OF NONPROfiT GOVERNANCE

23 CAUSE #3: COMMUNICATION SILOS Less than half of respondents (46.8%) agree that board resources are accessible, logically organized and easy to use. While 61.7% believe that mee9ngs are focused, produc6ve and closely follow the agenda, 38.3% disagree. Nearly half (46.8%) feel that informa9on and materials necessary for board/commi]ee mee9ngs aren t delivered in a 6mely manner. General information, archived meeting materials, organizational data and other resources are accessible, logically organized and easy to use. 9% 15% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 34% 11% 32%

24 MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS More than half of board members (56.8%) do not feel that their board is currently structured for maximum effec9veness. Please state the degree to which you agree with this statement: Our board is currently structured in a way that allows for maximum effectiveness. 5% 16% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 32% 20% 27%

25 CAUSE #4: UNPLUGGED TALENT One of the primary purposes for establishing a board of directors is to solicit a variety of perspec9ves and insights, by bringing together a diverse group of professionals with varying backgrounds and skill sets. In an ideal organiza6on, the mission would benefit from the board members skills, knowledge and networks being leveraged to their full poten6al. However, survey results demonstrated a different reality. Thirty percent don t believe the board and the organiza9on are fully and effec9vely using their skills and talents. The same percentage is unsure of, or dissa9sfied by, their contribu9ons. Image Credit: Samuel M Livingston

26 FUTURE-PROOFING YOUR BOARD Low board engagement threatens the sustainability of the organiza9on and viability of the mission. In order to future- proof your board, you need to be&er engage today s board, effec6vely recruit tomorrow s board and leverage technology for maximum impact.

27 ENGAGING TODAY S BOARD The causes of low board engagement must be addressed using both top- down and bo&om- up approaches; through clearly defined vision, structure and expecta6ons as well as transparency, invita6ons to engage and empowerment. Realign mission: Conduct bi- annual self- assessments to evaluate board effec9veness, morale and alignment with the mission. Have a high- level discussion of the results with board members. Ac6vely manage expecta6ons: Make sure board and commi]ee expecta9ons are clearly ar9culated to all members. Track individual contribu9ons and progress so members know if they are mee9ng expecta9ons and how they can improve. Make them feel like they are cri9cal to the organiza9on s success, and hold them accountable. Break down communica6on silos: Make resources, mee9ng informa9on, minutes and mo9ons easily accessible. Encourage transparency. Plug in talent: Document each board member s background, educa9on, skills and connec9ons. Invite them to par9cipate when you see relevant opportuni9es.

28 RECRUITING TOMORROW S BOARD Part of avoiding misalignment of mission, passively managed expectadons, communicadon silos and unplugged talent is recrui9ng the right individuals to become the future leaders of your board. Gauge passion: Certain factors in low board engagement can be easily rec9fied with be]er processes and tools; misalignment of mission is not one of them. If one in four current board members are not serving the board for the sake of the mission, be wary of recrui9ng new members that feel a sense of personal obliga9on or other mo9va9ng factors outside of the mission. Be honest about the commitment: It can be temp9ng to downplay the level of commitment necessary and expected in order to gain new board members, but it s more important to be honest. Address board a]endance, commi]ee leadership, fundraising and personal contribu9on expecta9ons.

29 RECRUITING TOMORROW S BOARD Assess skill sets: Get to know prospec9ve board members and think crea9vely about how they can fit organiza9onal needs. They don t all have to be fundraisers; a lot of skills and personali9es can contribute to development opportuni9es and organiza9onal goals. Quality a&racts quality: Encourage your most engaged board members to refer poten9al candidates. Plug in talent: Make a good first impression by assigning a mentor and providing an orienta9on packet. Try to schedule an on- site visit within the first month so new members can see the mission in ac9on. Image Credit: morgantis

30 LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT In addi9on to the causes of low board engagement explained in sec9on 4, another shig in human behavior will soon separate effec9ve boards from ineffec9ve ones: As informa9on sharing and communica9on behaviors become increasingly integrated with technology, board members of the present and future are going to hold these same expecta9ons in the boardroom. Board leadership can leverage technology to be]er engage board members while paving the way for future member recruitment.

31 What technologies does your organization use? (shown by %) Online Calendar Webinars/Video Conferencing Smartphone ipad/tablet Mobile Device Apps Document Management Software Project Management Software Board Portal What technologies should your organization consider? (shown by %) Online Calendar Webinars/Video Conferencing Smartphone ipad/tablet Mobile Device Apps Document Management Software Project Management Software Board Portal No Additional Tools Needed

32 Today, is by far the most commonly u9lized form of technology for board communica9on (93.3%). However, most respondents indicated that other forms of technology could be implemented, with the most popular being document management sogware (ex. Google Drive, Dropbox) (44.4%), online calendar (40.0%), webinars/video conferencing (35.6%), board portal or other board management sogware (24.4%), and (24.4%).

33 BENEFITS OF A BOARD PORTAL The value of a board portal is its ability to incorporate and integrate the features of , online calendars and document management sogware into one comprehensive system. A board portal can also increase board engagement through collabora9on and interac9ve tools. Manage board and commi&ee mee6ngs. Use a shared online calendar for board and commi]ee mee9ngs. Schedule reminders. Post interac9ve marke9ng agendas and online board packets. Centralize communica6ons. Make resources easily accessible to all members. Assign tasks, post- mee9ng minutes and mo9ons. Make engagement easy. Create ballots and polls to encourage interac9on and solicit feedback. Match skills to needs. Keep a detailed member profile with background, skills and connec9ons, with designated levels of access for sensi9ve informa9on.

34 BENEFITS OF A BOARD PORTAL Implement sugges6ons. Link strategic sugges9ons to commi]ee and board mee9ngs to track and show progress. Track board performance and responsibili6es. Measure member involvement using report cards, mee9ng RSVPs and a]endance within the board portal, and have more educated conversa9ons with members. Drive good governance. Foster transparency, manage and track board member terms, and house detailed profile informa9on. Help ensure regulatory compliance. Track board demographics and comply with IRS regula9ons by managing 990s, conflict of interest policies and procedures, and independent director requirements.

35 ADOPTING A BOARD PORTAL Easy to implement Requires no addi9onal technology infrastructure or addi9onal IT resources. Delivers a secure, fully hosted web- based solu9on. Includes all ongoing product upgrades. Easy to adopt Offers a simple, intui9ve interface. Provides all the tools board members need in one place. Learn more about StreamLink SoGware s board portal BoardMax:

36 ABOUT STREAMLINK SOFTWARE StreamLink SoGware offers grant and board management platorms that connect disparate systems and processes crea9ng dynamic ecosystems that drive performance and compliance. StreamLink SoGware s products, AmpliFund and BoardMax, enable nonprofit and public sector ins9tu9ons to systemize complex tasks, secure addi9onal revenue, and increase efficiency to be]er serve their communi9es. AmpliFund and BoardMax provide accurate, immediate, and accessible repor9ng to ensure public trust and protect the reputa9on of the organiza9on to the board and other stakeholders. Founded in 2008, StreamLink SoGware helps solve different management challenges including board member and leadership volunteer management. Connect with StreamLink SoGware on Facebook, Twi]er, LinkedIn, YouTube and on its blog.