Strong governance is essential to an organization’s success. However, I’m seeing more and more organizations facing challenges due to inappropriate board behavior. I’ve encountered several cases recently that illustrate this all too well. For example, one nonprofit with a board member who was also a founder told a local funder who provides half of their operating funds that they wouldn't disclose the organization’s financials. Such disclosures are standard practice. Their refusal, based seemingly on ego, cost this organization half of its budget. As a five-year-old nonprofit, this does not bode well for their future. I've also seen nonprofits where the board was caught off guard, shocked to learn they didn’t have enough funds to pay staff. Another organization had board members serving for over 15 years without term limits, creating stagnation and limiting new ideas. These situations arise more often than they should, and while there are many contributing factors, I’ve noticed two common roots: ego and a lack of board management by the executive director (ED).
Board Egos
Board members often come with strong opinions and the best of intentions, but unchecked egos can steer an organization into troubled waters. Founders, for instance, may feel particularly attached to their vision, and long-serving members can feel entitled to hold power. When these dynamics are not carefully managed, board members may act in ways that endanger the organization's mission. However, the responsibility to manage the board falls largely on the executive director.
The Executive Director’s Role in Board Management
While it’s easy to point fingers at problematic board members, and I’m going to hold your hand when I say this because nonprofit leaders have enough to do, but the greater accountability often lies with the executive director. The ED is the bridge between the board and the staff, and is responsible for fostering a productive relationship with the board. If the ED does not effectively manage that relationship, issues like board overreach, financial oversight problems, and outdated governance can fester. This isn’t to say that a board member may not be in the wrong, because that does happen, but, based on my experience, 85% or more of problems stemming from the actions of a board member could have been avoided if the ED has set up good relationships with board members, communicates with them regularly, is always transparent without being overly share-y, and knows when and how to work around touchy issues or votes.
For example, an ED must know their board members well enough to anticipate concerns and manage egos and expectations. If a motion is coming up for a vote that could stir debate, it's critical to identify which board members need a personal phone call before the meeting to discuss their concerns. It’s also essential to understand who influences the board and who might block a vote.
By building individual relationships with board members and being transparent about challenges and initiatives, EDs can avoid surprises and steer the organization toward thoughtful, well-informed decisions.
But Those Board Members are Pains!
Let’s use, as an example, an organization whose staff and board members recently learned that there was no money to make payroll. In this instance, the staff were told by the executive director, and one of the staff members informed the board. The board had absolutely no idea the organization was in dire financial condition. So, you might look to the board as the culpable party. After all, they do have ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the organization. It’s their fault for not doing their due diligence. And to that, I cautiously agree. A board of directors SHOULD know their responsibilities, and finances are certainly at the top. However, how is a board member supposed to know their responsibilities? While board education materials exist, most board members are on-boarded by the organization’s executive director and learn about all their responsibilities from the ED. If the ED doesn’t do a good enough job training them, board members cannot do their jobs properly. The board is, however, responsible for hiring an executive director who knows how to do the above.
I’ll also caution against building an adversarial opinion of your board or individual board members. I get it. Every now and then, you get a board member who is especially difficult. Maybe their beliefs go against the mission. Maybe they want every meeting to be about them. Maybe you feel they are overly critical of you when they only know about 5% of the organization's operations. I give all of these examples because I’ve faced them all. And for each of these examples, it was up to me to educate, put my ego aside, and help the board member align with the mission or better understand the finances or the thousand other things that may need to be shared. It was up to me to take the high road, be the bigger person, and squash my desire to tell that board member exactly what I thought because that would not help the organization, and, in the end, that’s the goal. Not being right. Not being vindicated. Which may feel good, but does nothing regarding forwarding your mission. Instead, we have to put on our big-person pants and be the person our organization needs us to be. Someone who thinks long-term. Who roots themselves in the idea that board members are partners, not enemies, and who is willing to shepherd the board, the staff, and the organization in a level-headed way.
With that said, I also acknowledge that board management is hard. Especially if you have a large board. Making time in an already packed schedule for phone calls, having coffee, considering the ways a vote may go sideways and how to prevent that, etc., is difficult. However, the alternative is worse. Organizations live and die on the relationships between the executive director and board members.
And, with that said, sometimes there does exist a board so problematic, either because of one person or personality clashes or misalignment with the mission or other issues that make it impossible for the executive director to thrive and do good work in the setting they provide. When that is the case, your only choice - after trying all the above ways to align the board - is to protect the staff as much as you can and make other career plans.
Navigating Board Dynamics for Long-Term Success
Managing a board takes skill, but it’s one of the most critical aspects of nonprofit leadership. A well-managed board, even with varying opinions and strong personalities, can become a powerful asset. But, without proper board management, the organization risks dysfunction. Board members must be partners, not obstacles, and it’s the ED’s job to guide that partnership.
If you’re an executive director, ask yourself: Am I investing enough time in understanding my board members' needs and motivations? Am I addressing concerns before they become problems? Am I building a governance structure that encourages fresh perspectives while honoring the organization's history?
Ultimately, successful board management starts with an ED who recognizes the value of relationships and communication. When nonprofit leaders take this approach, they set the stage for long-term growth, sustainability, and mission fulfillment.
Amber Parker is the President & CEO of Ijams Nature Center and Principal Consultant at RootSpark Consulting. With more than 31 years of experience in the nonprofit field, she is passionate about helping organizations thrive by aligning their financial strategies with their missions.
Comments