Nonprofit Board Dysfunctions

  1. Failure to have a quorum. People tend to show up for things that they value or where they feel valued. Even busy people will make time for the things that give them meaning and purpose. Busy people tend not to commit to an organization (e.g., board service) if they do not intend to truly engage with that board in a meaningful way. Unless something unavoidable interferes, failure to have a quorum at a meeting means that your board members do not find value in that meeting.
  2. Micromanagement. In general, boards should stay focused on organizational strategy and long- term thinking while the staff directs the daily operations of the enterprise. In a few areas, the two overlap and, in times of crisis, the board might help with some of the daily work. However, the board should not routinely, for example, deal with staff issues, review every financial transaction, or interfere in the minutia of program operations. When board members micromanage, it often means that they do not understand their roles or do not feel comfortable executing those roles.
  3. Failure to make a decision or worse, rehashing old conversations rather than moving on. This dysfunction generally emanates from an ineffective board leader, a board chair who does not move the conversation along, call for a vote when appropriate, cut conversation off before board members feel they have had their say, or allow board members to rehash decided items. It can also emanate from poor attendance at board meetings when members miss the meeting when the discussion occurred. Too often boards rotate their chair or elect the person who has the longest tenure on the board, not considering whether they have the talent to effectively lead the board. Compounding the problem, often board chairs do not receive training to assume the role, learning instead from osmosis or the previous (often ineffective) chair.
  4. Relitigating committee work. Having strong committees can actively engage members in the work of the board, but if the board re-examines every decision that the committees make, it wastes everyone’s time. It can also demoralize committee members as it signals a lack of trust in their fellow board members or the process or, like #3, a weak board chair who allows this to occur.
  5. Making “bad” decisions. While the quality of the decisions a board makes lies in the eyes of the beholder, a board who routinely goes against the advice of staff or whose decisions put the organization in jeopardy signals board members who either do not have sufficient knowledge to make a “correct” decision or who do not trust their staff. It can also mean that the organization does not have the right mix of individuals on the board – by temperament, expertise, and experience – to have a healthy discussion to arrive at the best decision for the organization.
  6. Unwillingness to help with development or fundraising. Few people like to ask others for money and even fewer land on your board. Staff and boards try many approaches to encourage board members to help with development work, often to no avail. Most of this dysfunction comes from a disconnect between staff and board members’ expectations and understanding of development work.
  7. General lack of engagement. A generally disengaged board has many of the traits noted previously, but it also manifests itself in “crickets” whenever someone asks for volunteers for a project or for discussion on an issue. The board member may show up for meetings but just kind of sits there, occupying space but not really engaging with the organization. While they don’t really do anything “wrong,” they also don’t move the organization forward.