DRG is a national Executive Recruitment Firm working exclusively
within the Nonprofit sector. Learn about DRG's services, resources,
recruitment strategies and current search assignments at our
website www.drgnyc.com
En route to executive retention: the board's role in retaining the
chief staff leader.
By Barbara
Kaufmann, Ph.D.
Reprinted
with permission, copyright January 2005, American Society of Association
Executives, Washington, D.C.
WHY
IS IT THAT so many executive director trains leave the station full
of enthusiastic supporters only to be derailed by the end of the
first contract term? Two factors are often at play: 1) failures
on the chief staff leader's part, such as inadequate relationship
management, lack of flexibility in style, or the inability to operate
in a dynamic environment and 2) the board's ambivalence toward addressing
these potential performance issues early enough to allow for constructive
course corrections. Boards that address values conflicts, performance
expectations, and style differences in a positive manner can keep
their CEOs on track and on staff. After all, frequent changes in
top staff leadership are clearly detrimental to the organization.
Research
published by Compass-Point Nonprofit Services, San Francisco, in
its 1999 study "Leadership Lost: A Study on Executive Tenure
and Experience" indicated that, in most cases, nonprofit organizations
benefit from executive tenure of at least three to five years. A
series of successive, short-term executives can do lingering harm
to an organization's culture and performance. Thus, taking the time
early in the CEO's tenure to nurture effective relationships can
help the association avoid chaotic disruptions further down the
line.
"The
cost of executive derailment is tremendous in terms of both organizational
disruption and lost leadership potential," confirms Rita Harmon,
president of Harmon Consulting, LLC, and former executive director
of Fight for Children, which has offices in Vienna, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C. "Often the executives who lose their jobs
are highly talented leaders who were simply not given the tools
they needed at the right time to maximize their effectiveness,"
she says of her experiences working with numerous youth service
organizations both locally and nationally.
1.
Neglecting to give timely and candid performance feedback.
Multiple reasons explain this oversight. Board members may be eager
to avoid conflict, preferring to give the staff leader an extended
honeymoon in the hope that he or she will somehow read the tea leaves
if things aren't going well. Or perhaps the executive is a friend
of a key constituent or supporter--or has a wide sphere of influence,
a fact that may generate fear that any action will snowball into
a public relations crisis. Or the problem may be as simple as the
board's unwillingness to admit making a hiring mistake.
At
the same time, performance reviews, at best, are difficult instruments.
However, when used properly, the board can make them into a valuable
tool. "Organizational review processes in most cases miss the
mark because they are too perfunctory," says Harmon. "They
don't drill down to the level of detail that is going to give the
staff executive the straightforward feed back he or she needs to
operate effectively. I've heard stories about executives receiving
glowing reviews only to find themselves in hot water six months
later. Many organizations have become so concerned with the legal
ramifications of personnel reviews that they have lost the ability
to talk straight. No one wants to give tough feedback, but that's
the role of board leadership." And that starts with early,
informal discussions of performance issues. You don't have to wait
for a scheduled appraisal.
2.
Failing to renegotiate goals. "Although
boards are usually good about defining their expectations initially,
as circumstances change in the organization or environment, they
don't always go back to address the necessary change in direction,"
says veteran board member and association executive Pamela Hemann,
CAE, president, Association Management Services, Inc., Pasadena,
California.
If the
board fails to address early performance shortfalls or articulate
changing goals, a new staff leader can be lulled into a false sense
of security--reinforced by superficial cordiality and a lack of candid
feedback. The likely result is an inability to build the coalitions
necessary for effective problem solving and decision making.
3.
Expecting a jack of all trades.
The typical CEO rarely has skills in every area. The CEO's talents
must be balanced by the strengths of others in areas where the new
leader is weak or has inadequate experience.
4.
Taking too little time to orient the new staff leader to the organizational
culture.
In my work with nonprofit organizations, when staff executives are
asked about the one point they wish that they had known when they
first arrived, many state that they could have benefited most from
a deeper understanding of organization and community culture.
TASKS
FOR BOARDS
Don't let your
board make these mistakes. Even the most highly qualified, widely
experienced staff leader needs coaching and support in a new role.
To get past the first contract term, it is critical for boards to
take an active role in these areas:
Provide
orientation.
Start with a comprehensive orientation for the new CEO. Set expectations
and provide him or her with information about the role, culture,
and performance-review process. Newly appointed administrative leaders
need to know about the realities of decision-making and problem-solving
processes. They also need to be informed of any conflicting management
styles or unwritten behavioral norms.
The board chair
of one professional leadership development association, for example,
gave the new CEO documents covering the history of the organization
and the roles of the board, the chair, and the staff leader, in
addition to meeting with the new CEO over an extended lunch. In
this informal meeting, the board chair reviewed institutional and
board culture, the need for style flexibility, unwritten norms and
expectations, pros and cons of the association's current problem-solving
processes, political issues relating to each board member, and the
communication style preferences of individual board members.
Offer
role support.
Schedule periodic role-support sessions so that the executive director
and board chair can have frank discussions about expectations and
requirements of mutual support. "One of the disconnects that
occurs early on, usually in the second year, is insufficient discussion
and clarity about the roles of the board and the executive director
and the boundaries of their respective responsibilities," says
Harmon. "Obviously these issues are discussed in the abstract
when a new staff CEO is first appointed, but they must be periodically
re-examined to allow course corrections based on real-time circumstances.
The disconnect happens most commonly around strategies for achieving
the organization's mission. The executive director may be pursuing
strategies which, for whatever reason, are not in line with board
expectations or within the scope of the executive director's responsibilities
as perceived by the board." In these cases, "role and
shared responsibility charting is helpful," she says.
Give
feedback.
Provide timely and direct feedback about performance issues. And
do so in a way that will be perceived as coaching or mentoring rather
than punitive. Develop a clear plan of action and measures of success.
For instance,
the board of an educational nonprofit association successfully uncoupled
its CEO's annual performance review (tied to salary) from the professional
development performance review. Based on feedback the staff leader
had received, the board chair and staff leader customized professional
development action plans using a format that tied the professional
development strategy to specific actions and desired goals. Such
a strategy-action-goal format is simple to use. If the goal is style
flexibility, for example, a strategy might be to complete a leadership
style inventory, and a related action might be to practice various
leadership styles with board members.
The
last two recommendations suggest that there is a "virtuous cycle"
when the succession system supports corporate strategy in a tangible
way. Obviously, senior executives are much more supportive when the
system gives the achievement of their strategies a higher probability
of success.
Don't
wait for the annual performance review to make mid-course corrections.
Action coaching must occur at the time a problem is spotted. For example,
if the staff leader responds combatively or defensively to questions
in a meeting, the board chair should take him or her aside for immediate
coaching after the meeting.
Develop
and mentor.
Early coaching and informal mentoring are imperative. A mentor can
create a safety zone in which the new leader is shown the ropes and
can ask questions. Never assume that a new staff CEO knows how to
lead the organization based on prior experience.
In smaller organizations,
the board chair may serve as mentor, and the mentoring process can
be as simple as the board chair meeting with the staff leader over
coffee on a regular basis. If the mentor is not the board chair, it
should be someone whose deep knowledge in the field fills a gap in
the staff leader's repertoire. For example, a staff leader who is
not proficient in government relations or public policy may be paired
successfully with the head of the advocacy committee or an external
lobbyist. Because the mentoring agenda evolves from the CEO's needs,
the mentor must have the expertise and portfolio to fill those needs.
Never assign a mentor on a random basis.
I've observed
the board chair of one association use a particularly creative approach
to mentoring. She helped the CEO develop a personal advisory council
consisting of eight professionals that the CEO had met previously
and come to admire. The group's wide range of expertise provided the
CEO with rich resources for framing and solving challenges. Never
hesitate to invite qualified people to serve on such a council. People
are flattered to be asked--and it's simply good practice for a CEO
to have an external sounding board available to provide opinions on
complex issues or experiences with best practices.
Develop
rules of engagement for the CEO and the board chair or full board.
It takes a serious dialogue to decide what the board and CEO are willing
to commit to in order to maximize their effectiveness in working together.
Examples of rules of engagement include getting issues on the table
early enough to make course corrections; being open to shared problem
solving; respecting confidentiality; letting go of assumptions; tackling
the problem, not the individual; commiting to active listening; and
taking ownership of decisions. "There has to be a good deal of
trust between an executive and a board," says Hemann. "Board
meetings must be a forum [in which] to speak freely and get to the
heart of things. The culture has to be one of honest dialogue, not
gamesmanship."
Keep
the staff CEO informed.
"Both the board and the executive director need to make a commitment
to continually scan the environment and have a dialogue about it,"
says Hemann. "Board members particularly are in a good position
to see new developments in the profession or industry that may not
be visible to the executive or the staff. They have to be the eyes
and ears in the field and be diligent about relating that information
to the executive director. Without an eye on the current environment,
the organization can all too easily focus on the past rather than
on what lies ahead."
Hemann also suggests
that the board chair encourage the CEO to step back occasionally from
the day to day and take time for creative thinking. Says Hemann, "Finding
time for reflective and strategic thinking is difficult, but absolutely
essential. I use my time on airplanes to read a new book, catch up
on Harvard Business Review, or just sort out ideas. Others I know
schedule reflection time at their offices, even if it's on weekends."
ADD
AN EVALUATION ELEMENT
Assessment is
a critical tool for keeping staff leader trains on track. Unfortunately,
nonprofit boards often resist testing assumptions, deep-seated beliefs,
and traditions. Reasons for this neglect may include a desire to maintain
the status quo or overconfidence in board members' knowledge of the
organization's history upon which they base future direction and goals.
Customized self-assessment programs such as those published by the
Leader to Leader Institute, New York City (www.leadertoleader.org),
can be invaluable in gauging the board's and the organization's effectiveness,
as well as in identifying ineffective strategies that can no longer
be justified in today's dynamic leadership environment. Used on a
regular basis, assessment tools can help boards and staff keep strategic
organizational objectives up to date and lay out the clear plan of
action, including measures of success, that sets the direction for
the staff leader's execution of organizational goals.
Assessments can
result in dramatic changes. For example, as a result of its self-assessment,
one board clarified board and staff roles and developed a new committee
structure, a new format for the agenda for board meetings, and more
effective communication feedback loops. Qualitative measures of success
included lack of conflict, the degree to which committees were accomplishing
their work within established time frames, and greater speed of moving
through agendas.
Another organization's
assessment resulted in new vision and mission statements, an entirely
new strategic plan, and new priorities based on rethinking the group's
client base.
By focusing on
swift orientation and early relationship building, providing support
and mentorship, and mustering up the courage to conduct frank discussions
when issues dictate, the board can have much more control in keeping
the staff leadership train on track.
Is your
board-executive relationship a wreck waiting to happen? Answer
these questions to find out:
* Do you
sit in board meetings with your arms folded across your chest,
trying your best not to make eye contact with the staff leader?
* Do you
or other board members leave the room while the staff leader
is talking or making a presentation?
* Are there
lots of sidebar conversations while the staff leader is speaking
or presenting?
* Do you
no longer ask questions of the staff leader?
* Has the board
withheld resources tied to the chief staff executive's execution
of the strategic plan?
* Have you
or other board members heard reports of passive resistance from
staff?
* Do subordinates
go around the staff leader and come directly to the board to
complain?
* Is the
board going directly to the staff and leaving the CEO out of
the loop?
* Are you
or other board members reluctant to approve a previously discussed
raise or bonus for the staff leader?
* Has the
board delayed the CEO's performance review or provided only
a perfunctory review?
If you answered
"yes" to more than a couple of these questions, your
association may be on its way to turnover in the top position.
#
# #
Barbara
Kaufman, an executive coach and educator who specializes in leadership
effectiveness and organizational development strategies, is president
of ROI Consulting Group, Inc., located in Rancho Mirage, California.
E-mail: info@roiconsultinggroup.com.