Nonprofit boards often seek to recruit board members with professional knowledge of the organization’s programs. For example, if the organization deals with child nutrition, they may want to have a nutrition specialist from the school district or the local hospital as a board member.

As that board member, however, one of the hardest things to do is to step away from the things you know how to do well, so that you are governing rather than managing - ensuring rather than doing.

Issues often arise that are frustrating for the program-knowledgeable board member, as most people aren’t used to governing - they are used to doing the work. But as the discussion gets deeper into the fine points of getting the job done, the situation is likely to lead to the following classic consequences of micromanagement:

• Lack of Overall Board Accountability:

A great deal of what could be labeled as “micromanagement” concerns items about which most board members have at least a cursory knowledge - the price of a copy machine, for example. But program-specific micromanagement leaves board members who are not in mission-related professions at the mercy of the board’s few program-knowledgeable board members. Decisions made under these circumstances are generally made by a small number of board members, who lead and participate in the discussion to the virtual exclusion of those who are not in the know. This deeply affects the accountability of the board as a whole.

• A Cycle of Increased Anxiety for the Program-Knowledgeable Board Member:

Concern for the program is what motivates program-knowledgeable board members. Their knowledge of the industry gives them an understanding of what could go wrong, and they are using the tools they are comfortable with to hopefully prevent problems from arising. However, the more the board comes to rely on those few board member for all matters related to the program, the more anxiety those board members feel. It becomes a cycle - the more the program-knowledgeable board member tries to “manage,” the more anxious that board member becomes, which leads to more micromanagement.

• Directors & Officers Insurance:

The more the board “does” vs. “ensures,” stepping into the realm of management rather than remaining in the realm of governing, the less likely it will be that the board’s actions are covered by their Directors and Officers Insurance.

Take the Quiz

The following simple questions can help determine whether the discussions at your board table are “governance” discussions focusing on ensuring accountability, or “micromanagement” discussions focusing on the nitty gritty of how the program staff does its job.

1) Does this issue relate to the overall health or effectiveness of the organization (overall personnel policies, overall finances or overall impact on the community, for example)? Or does it relate to the details of running a specific program (spending on a particular program line item, qualifications of program staff, etc.)?

☐ Overall organizational health

☐ Program specifics

2) If the issue is program-specific, is each board member able to participate in the discussion knowledgeably? Would each board member feel competent to make the decision on his/her own, without guidance from the program-knowledgeable board members?

☐ Yes

☐ No

If the issue is program-related, and every single board member cannot feel competent to speak knowledgeably about the topic, then there’s a good chance it is micromanaging.

Example:

Using the example of the Child Nutrition Organization noted above, one of the 12 board members is a nutritionist with the school district, while another is a child nutritionist from the local hospital. The 10 remaining board members come from various walks of life that are in no way related to child nutrition.

The mission of the organization is to provide nutritional assistance to other community organizations that serve children - the crisis shelters, the food bank, etc. There is therefore substantial liability in doing the job correctly.

The program-knowledgeable board members are concerned that a lack of detailed program knowledge is keeping the board from ensuring the program is consistent with the latest research. They therefore request that the board receive details about the program at every meeting, as well as job descriptions for the staff in charge of creating and monitoring the program, so that annually the board can analyze and evaluate the programs.

Asking the quiz question - “Would every board member feel competent to know what they were looking for as they read / listen to these program descriptions and job descriptions?” - the answer is, “Probably not.” And would every board member then feel they understood the issues enough to do that annual evaluation? Again, probably not.

And that’s a good clue that the board is heading into micromanagement.

The Solution:

It is absolutely appropriate that the board focus its attention on ensuring that the program is providing the most benefit to the community, and ensuring the staff is qualified to provide that benefit. However, given that not all board members are in the nutrition profession, their methods must ensure they all feel confident that the job is being done right. The board needs to know their evaluation will be just as effective when those program-knowledgeable board members rotate off the board, on the chance their knowledge may not be immediately replaced.

Therefore, the board might hire an outside program evaluator to determine if the program is effective overall, and to also determine the qualifications of the staff. Or they might direct the Executive Director to perform an annual review of national standards, comparing the organization’s program and staffing with the national average, and reporting any discrepancies to the board.

The more you start thinking along these lines, the more you will see that there are numerous ways to ensure to the best of the whole board’s ability that the organization is on the right course - ways that allow all board members to feel comfortable in their accountability for ensuring a top notch program with top notch staff, regardless of their level of professional expertise.

The goal of your efforts should be that UNknowledgeable board members can be accountable, without having to rely on the knowledge of a few allied professionals. This will do more than make your whole board more accountable. It will simultaneously help you avoid the pitfalls micromanagement can bring.