Excellent. Timely. The notion that a board is responsible for both understanding the organization’s impact within and upon an ecosystem and that it should interrogate ways in which they have fallen short in the past on racial equity are especially important. Will use this with many partners.
In our work with Boards, we have observed that trade and professional association Boards tend to be more adept than charitable Boards at:
Vision: the desired future state
Mission: an organization’s role in working toward its vision
Values: the principles and beliefs that guide how an organization enacts its mission
Purpose: an organization’s reason for being in the world, which is a melding of the concepts of mission and vales in pursuit of vision.
Also, because membership organizations have to constantly prove their value to members , we find more purpose driven boards than traditional boards. (As Anne says:" A traditional board asks: What do we* think is best? A purpose driven Board asks: Are we doing all we can to listen to what our programmatic stakeholders tell us is most important?") This is an area where the process for planning strategically makes all the difference in the world.
Yes AND YES. Authorized Voice and Power has the potential to change the fabric of the sector and align us with the reason we do this work. YES. Thank you.
Well written, Anne. Demonstrates a great deal of thought and reflection! It reminds me of the substantive work done by the IMD Global Board Center (GBC) in Lausanne, Switzerland.
From a practical point of view, GBC argues that board member roles can be characterized in a matrix: internally/ externally and support/mentoring.
Internally, the board advises/coaches in supporting operations and monitoring their progress. Monitoring includes, assessing performance in job performance, accounting, investments, physical assets, and cyber security.
Externally, the boards focuses on steering the organization forward in support of the business model and supervising how some of the social, economic, and business may affect the organization’s longer term strategy.
The results can be dramatic. Internally, staff members will have have confidence in the clear vision of the why, what, and where the organization is going. Externally, donors will have more confidence in the viability of the organization, enhancing fundraising, especially in pursuing the "big ask".
As you have clearly articulated, purpose driven board leadership “…is a the shift in thinking and orientation towards the board’s role.” I would argue that nonprofits can learn from for-profit organizations who are seeing their own paradigm shift in implementing the tenants of ESG as part of their own purpose driven enterprises.
I would add: 5) Continual articulation of purpose as an anchor; and 6) Using purpose as an anchor for practice, structures and systems. In relation to point 6, the Dutch seem to be leaders in thought and practice. Readers might be interested in Wouter Hart’s excellent little book: ‘Lost in control - Refocus on Purpose’. And to read more about the Dutch social care organization Buurtzorg.
And Anne, it might be more consistent with the purpose-driven approach to describe yourself as "a leader" - not "the leader" - at BoardSource", recognising that leadership comes at different ‘levels’.
Great article Anne. I particularly like the paragraph …. Our American system is rife with inequities that are the outcome of intentional and systemic choices designed to advantage some and disadvantage others.
Specifically, the most impactful sentence of the paragraph to me was…. Conversely, a lack of understanding can lead to flawed strategies and a damaging effect on programmatic participants and the community as a whole.
When we talk about inequities, many of us have been conditioned to think in racial terms, and to discuss inequities at that level – simply because it easier to define things that way, or because that is the contextual foundation that many arguments, positions and/or research studies are based on now.
However, we should always strive to look beyond those limitations (when possible) to the underlying issues. In the food bank community, I often see people discussing food insecurity in terms of color. While there are disparities in food insecurity related to color, it’s a presenting factor of the underlying issue of poverty, but not the primary problem itself. Poverty is indiscriminate and affects all colors – some more so than others – but all, none the less.
If we simply say we have a systemic racial issue with food insecurity and accept that as the problem, we never advance to resolving the true stimulus of the presenting factor. In other words, if we accept the problem as stated, and design an intervention to address it, we will have a flawed strategy and we won’t be serving the community as a whole – because we addressed an indicator of the underlying problem only.
This ties into your ecosystem concept also. As board members, when we look at problems, we need to look into the larger ecosystem beyond the symptom that is presented to us. We should resist the urge to resolve the presenting factor – no matter how politically correct or virtuous it may seem – and work towards resolving the underlying issue that serves the community as a whole. Doing otherwise (in my opinion), ensures the continuation of many other presenting factors; including the reappearance of the original presenting factor.
Beautiful! Fits hand-in-glove with the Arbinger Institue’s Outward Mindset. We’ve wasted far too much time, energy and resources considering ourselves first.
when social good organizations try to behave lie a business they start to operate like a business their Boards start to think like a business. The focus is on growth of the organization rather than impact on those served.
Anne, I would love to explore with you at some point what this means in terms of how Boards evolve their conceptual frame for data and information that recognizes what the current paradigm protects and privileges and move to one that more accurately embraces the complexity and nuance of the work and world.
Looking forward to how all these provocations and invitations land and what shifts. What we have now is unstainable, ineffective and some might also say cruel and shortsighted.
Having now read this piece nearly a dozen times (call me a slow learner) I come away with the question: why is this paradigm an "either/or" versus an "and"? And really, based on nearly 45 years of consulting with boards, I firmly believe that most boards, no matter their stage of development, honestly believe their work to be an "and" or perhaps more so, using the language of the article, the traditional as a means to achieve the mission. Yes, eye IS on the mission while the day-to-day (or month or quarter) does require attention.
Finally, one other challenge to this piece for me is best framed in this thought: if you’ve seen one board, you’ve seen one board. Generic, all-inclusive premises fail in their ability to capture every nonprofit board while possibly informing the behavior of every nonprofit.
I think these are outstanding goals to strive for.
However, with 1.5 million nonprofits in the USA, competing for scarce resources, and high quality board members who can do the work described, is the dependence on voluntary boards part of the problem?
The depth of understanding of an organization’s purpose and history, as well as a depth of understanding of the history of racial discrimination requires years of learning, along with hands-on experience, especially since organizations working in different fields have different histories to learn.
I led a small nonprofit for 18 years and finding board members who fit the profile of this article who could also help find the dollars needed to operate was an on-going, and never very successful, effort. I certainly could be the blame for that, but I suspect I’m not alone.
I always wished that there were a formal learning program, beginning when people were in middle school are high school, and continuing through college and into the workplace that taught people the things this article describes so that there was a wide source of people willing and able to serve on boards of my own organization and hundreds of others like mine. While many universities teach philanthropy which ones teach board roles, and an in-depth understanding of issues that different social organizations try to address?
Ann, thankyou.
This is precisely the perspective we have been teaching, preaching, and helping not for profits achieve and sustain for 35 years. Bravo for a elegant explanation of how an outcome orientation is integrated through out purpose driven governance. As you note, the distinction between core purpose and mission (a distinction popularized by Jim Collins) is a subtle but fundamental difference between strategy in for profit and not for profit enterprise.
Interesting read; but I take issue with the typical ‘questions’ a traditional board asks itself. I’ve worked with board for over 30 years and found that most of them want to talk about who they serve - not the organization. The training I often provide discusses how groups can take better care of the organization so they are better able to deliver on their purpose. Few organizations today think only of themselves. I equate mission with purpose as do many organizations I work with. This is a distinction without a difference.
COMMENTS
BY Paula Kiger
ON March 11, 2021 12:40 PM
There’s so much food for thought here. I appreciate how it is laid out and the example of the Museum of Us.
BY PAUL SCHMITZ, Leading Inside Out, LLC
ON March 12, 2021 10:56 AM
Excellent. Timely. The notion that a board is responsible for both understanding the organization’s impact within and upon an ecosystem and that it should interrogate ways in which they have fallen short in the past on racial equity are especially important. Will use this with many partners.
BY Glenn Tecker
ON March 13, 2021 02:15 PM
In our work with Boards, we have observed that trade and professional association Boards tend to be more adept than charitable Boards at:
Vision: the desired future state
Mission: an organization’s role in working toward its vision
Values: the principles and beliefs that guide how an organization enacts its mission
Purpose: an organization’s reason for being in the world, which is a melding of the concepts of mission and vales in pursuit of vision.
Also, because membership organizations have to constantly prove their value to members , we find more purpose driven boards than traditional boards. (As Anne says:" A traditional board asks: What do we* think is best? A purpose driven Board asks: Are we doing all we can to listen to what our programmatic stakeholders tell us is most important?") This is an area where the process for planning strategically makes all the difference in the world.
BY Colsaria Henderson
ON March 15, 2021 02:47 PM
Yes AND YES. Authorized Voice and Power has the potential to change the fabric of the sector and align us with the reason we do this work. YES. Thank you.
BY Robert Patterson
ON March 16, 2021 11:58 AM
Well written, Anne. Demonstrates a great deal of thought and reflection! It reminds me of the substantive work done by the IMD Global Board Center (GBC) in Lausanne, Switzerland.
From a practical point of view, GBC argues that board member roles can be characterized in a matrix: internally/ externally and support/mentoring.
Internally, the board advises/coaches in supporting operations and monitoring their progress. Monitoring includes, assessing performance in job performance, accounting, investments, physical assets, and cyber security.
Externally, the boards focuses on steering the organization forward in support of the business model and supervising how some of the social, economic, and business may affect the organization’s longer term strategy.
The results can be dramatic. Internally, staff members will have have confidence in the clear vision of the why, what, and where the organization is going. Externally, donors will have more confidence in the viability of the organization, enhancing fundraising, especially in pursuing the "big ask".
As you have clearly articulated, purpose driven board leadership “…is a the shift in thinking and orientation towards the board’s role.” I would argue that nonprofits can learn from for-profit organizations who are seeing their own paradigm shift in implementing the tenants of ESG as part of their own purpose driven enterprises.
BY Alan Hough
ON March 18, 2021 01:48 PM
A valuable contribution.
I would add: 5) Continual articulation of purpose as an anchor; and 6) Using purpose as an anchor for practice, structures and systems. In relation to point 6, the Dutch seem to be leaders in thought and practice. Readers might be interested in Wouter Hart’s excellent little book: ‘Lost in control - Refocus on Purpose’. And to read more about the Dutch social care organization Buurtzorg.
And Anne, it might be more consistent with the purpose-driven approach to describe yourself as "a leader" - not "the leader" - at BoardSource", recognising that leadership comes at different ‘levels’.
BY Bill Gibbs
ON March 22, 2021 12:03 PM
Great article Anne. I particularly like the paragraph …. Our American system is rife with inequities that are the outcome of intentional and systemic choices designed to advantage some and disadvantage others.
Specifically, the most impactful sentence of the paragraph to me was…. Conversely, a lack of understanding can lead to flawed strategies and a damaging effect on programmatic participants and the community as a whole.
When we talk about inequities, many of us have been conditioned to think in racial terms, and to discuss inequities at that level – simply because it easier to define things that way, or because that is the contextual foundation that many arguments, positions and/or research studies are based on now.
However, we should always strive to look beyond those limitations (when possible) to the underlying issues. In the food bank community, I often see people discussing food insecurity in terms of color. While there are disparities in food insecurity related to color, it’s a presenting factor of the underlying issue of poverty, but not the primary problem itself. Poverty is indiscriminate and affects all colors – some more so than others – but all, none the less.
If we simply say we have a systemic racial issue with food insecurity and accept that as the problem, we never advance to resolving the true stimulus of the presenting factor. In other words, if we accept the problem as stated, and design an intervention to address it, we will have a flawed strategy and we won’t be serving the community as a whole – because we addressed an indicator of the underlying problem only.
This ties into your ecosystem concept also. As board members, when we look at problems, we need to look into the larger ecosystem beyond the symptom that is presented to us. We should resist the urge to resolve the presenting factor – no matter how politically correct or virtuous it may seem – and work towards resolving the underlying issue that serves the community as a whole. Doing otherwise (in my opinion), ensures the continuation of many other presenting factors; including the reappearance of the original presenting factor.
BY Bob Peters
ON March 23, 2021 07:32 AM
Beautiful! Fits hand-in-glove with the Arbinger Institue’s Outward Mindset. We’ve wasted far too much time, energy and resources considering ourselves first.
BY Glenn Tecker
ON March 23, 2021 10:28 AM
when social good organizations try to behave lie a business they start to operate like a business their Boards start to think like a business. The focus is on growth of the organization rather than impact on those served.
BY JARA DEAN COFFEY
ON April 5, 2021 11:08 AM
Anne, I would love to explore with you at some point what this means in terms of how Boards evolve their conceptual frame for data and information that recognizes what the current paradigm protects and privileges and move to one that more accurately embraces the complexity and nuance of the work and world.
We believe that the Equitable Evaluation Initiative https://www.equitableeval.org/ offers a way in to new ways.
Looking forward to how all these provocations and invitations land and what shifts. What we have now is unstainable, ineffective and some might also say cruel and shortsighted.
BY MICHAEL BURNS, BWB Solutions
ON May 14, 2021 07:52 AM
Having now read this piece nearly a dozen times (call me a slow learner) I come away with the question: why is this paradigm an "either/or" versus an "and"? And really, based on nearly 45 years of consulting with boards, I firmly believe that most boards, no matter their stage of development, honestly believe their work to be an "and" or perhaps more so, using the language of the article, the traditional as a means to achieve the mission. Yes, eye IS on the mission while the day-to-day (or month or quarter) does require attention.
Finally, one other challenge to this piece for me is best framed in this thought: if you’ve seen one board, you’ve seen one board. Generic, all-inclusive premises fail in their ability to capture every nonprofit board while possibly informing the behavior of every nonprofit.
BY Daniel Bassill
ON August 5, 2021 01:00 PM
I think these are outstanding goals to strive for.
However, with 1.5 million nonprofits in the USA, competing for scarce resources, and high quality board members who can do the work described, is the dependence on voluntary boards part of the problem?
The depth of understanding of an organization’s purpose and history, as well as a depth of understanding of the history of racial discrimination requires years of learning, along with hands-on experience, especially since organizations working in different fields have different histories to learn.
I led a small nonprofit for 18 years and finding board members who fit the profile of this article who could also help find the dollars needed to operate was an on-going, and never very successful, effort. I certainly could be the blame for that, but I suspect I’m not alone.
I always wished that there were a formal learning program, beginning when people were in middle school are high school, and continuing through college and into the workplace that taught people the things this article describes so that there was a wide source of people willing and able to serve on boards of my own organization and hundreds of others like mine. While many universities teach philanthropy which ones teach board roles, and an in-depth understanding of issues that different social organizations try to address?
BY Glenn Tecker
ON December 22, 2021 12:23 PM
Ann, thankyou.
This is precisely the perspective we have been teaching, preaching, and helping not for profits achieve and sustain for 35 years. Bravo for a elegant explanation of how an outcome orientation is integrated through out purpose driven governance. As you note, the distinction between core purpose and mission (a distinction popularized by Jim Collins) is a subtle but fundamental difference between strategy in for profit and not for profit enterprise.
BY karen doyle
ON January 17, 2022 01:16 PM
Interesting read; but I take issue with the typical ‘questions’ a traditional board asks itself. I’ve worked with board for over 30 years and found that most of them want to talk about who they serve - not the organization. The training I often provide discusses how groups can take better care of the organization so they are better able to deliver on their purpose. Few organizations today think only of themselves. I equate mission with purpose as do many organizations I work with. This is a distinction without a difference.