These are complicated, if not chaotic times for a lot of nonprofit boards. Volunteer leaders are charged with steering their organizations through a strategic plan. But culture eats strategy for breakfast, as the adage goes, and right now the country is dealing with a White House that has a ready-fire-aim approach to leadership. Responding to the immediate challenges presented by that approach—Is this federal grant serving members still going to exist? Does that regulation still apply to our industry? What about our DEI initiatives?—can send long-range plans into disarray.

Writing in Forbes, lawyer Michael Peregrine suggests that now is the time when boards can best serve their organizations by holding the line on mission, and providing a support role to staff leadership. “[Support] means offering an extra set of eyes and ears in support of management’s executive order issue-spotting, adjust strategic direction as may be necessary, supplementing the executive team’s natural sensitivity to the concerns of the workforce, encouraging the addition of special advisors where necessary to broaden perspectives,” he writes.

It’s up to boards to play a support role, while acknowledging that they’re still a collaborative body—and not management.

Of course, there’s a needle to thread here. In times of confusion and crisis, certain people like to proclaim themselves the One True Expert on the matter. It’s up to boards to play a support role, while acknowledging that they’re still a collaborative body—and not management. As Peregrine writes: “Boards must engage more proactively, deeply, and frequently on entirely new and fast changing drivers of strategy and risk, while respecting the traditional oversight and operations division between governance and management. This is a tall but necessary order and especially relevant given today’s circumstances.”

The current environment can make a lot of associations wonder what kind of temperament is fit for purpose now. There’s no one correct answer that will apply to every association, but a strong, transparent relationship between boards and CEOs is essential. In a recent piece at Harvard Business Review, business scholars Stevo Pavicevic and Thomas Keil reveal some insights from board directors with military experience.

Their research suggests that a military background provides a rigor in assessing the CEO and a culture of transparency about processes. For instance, they write, “Roles and responsibilities for officers in the military are defined with precision, which ensures accountability for successes and failures in their domains of responsibility.” And when it comes to the CEO, the board needs to be candid about where the organization might be falling short, with an eye on long-term strategy. “Rather than moving from challenge to challenge without ever stopping to reflect, boards should instill a culture of reflecting what has gone wrong and taking corrective action before the problem escalates, let alone re-occurs,” they write.

None of which should be interpreted as a call to bring more retired military officers into your fold, of course. But the findings are another reminder that, much like during the pandemic, boards need to be sources of support and direction in complicated times.

Note: I am actively seeking out stories from associations about how they’re responding to White House policies and their impact on members—grants, agency closures, regulations, DEI policies, and more. If you have a story to share, email me at mathitakis@asaecenter.org.

[ilkercelik/iStock]