How Structure creates transparency and makes power sharing possible
In our last piece, we wrote about three key areas for nonprofit boards: Structure, Connection, and Action.
In a time when boards are facing increased pressure, the goal of this series is to help all of us understand:
what boards do, and
what needs to be in place for inclusive, equitable board work.
What Boardsource still gets wrong
Let’s start with a reminder of what inclusive, equitable board work means: it’s collaborative, structured work that incorporates multiple perspectives—especially those closest to the work—to help nonprofit organizations move forward thoughtfully, equitably, and with clarity.
It’s hard to believe that even experts like Boardsource are still talking about boards providing “strategic oversight” while staff focuses on day-to-day operations, a very traditional (and antiquated) view.
This may be part of the story, but this traditional view does not work if we hold the vision that our organizations should be a microcosm of the world we’re seeking to build; a world in which all people’s perspectives are honored and people have the power to weigh in on their collective future.
There are other ways to think about the relationship between the board and staff, perhaps most notably in terms of “power with” rather than “power over”.
Explaining governance
There’s also this weighty word—governance—that comes up in clarifying the work of boards.
What is governance? As I wrote a few years ago, “The Reimagining Governance project describes governance as, ‘a framework of responsibilities, requirements, and accountabilities within which organizations operate, including regulatory, audit and reporting requirements, and relationships with key stakeholders.’”
In other words, governance clarifies: “Who is in charge? Who makes the decisions? Who has power? What is required for this work to happen, and who can do this work?”
Equitable governance = Shared governance
“Power with” instead of “power over” is a reframe supporting our belief that a board doesn’t own governance. It can be shared between the staff and board.
If we want to move towards organizations with shared power rather than a hierarchical structure, it requires talking about who has power and making decision-making more visible.
That’s how we arrive at Structure!
ID: Three circle Venn diagram, two circles in back are green and front one is orange and labeled Structure
As I shared in the introduction to this series, Structure answers the question: What needs to be clarified, made visible, and reflected on for us to do the best work we can?
So a key first step is to answer:
What kinds of decisions are we making?
Who is making those decisions?
How do the board and staff make decisions collaboratively?
And a key thing to clarify within that is: What is the role of the board?
The answers to these questions guide the structure of how the board can best work with leadership and staff to support the organization, including but not limited to:
Orientation for new members
Sharing board bylaws with all board members
Board member contract with clear board responsibilities
Term limits
Committee assignments and work outside of board meetings
Strategic meeting agendas
Next steps and meeting minutes shared after meetings
Clarity about board fundraising responsibility
Board goals and/or strategic plan
Yearly Board Assessment
Moving from role clarity to structure
Here are some examples of how Structure plays out in practice:
If the role of the board is to amplify the work of the organization in the community or represent the organization at community events, that should be included in the board member job description and contract.
If leadership believes in bringing new people on to the board as a way of ensuring the vitality of the organization, the bylaws should include term limits.
If board members are needed to partner with staff leadership to manage financial risk, board members should know this and have the time and resources to work on this.
What about checks and balances?
Checks and balances is a concept we learn about in elementary school social studies, but gets a bad rap in practice, because they seem to often break down and because bad actors often take advantage.
Nevertheless, I advocate checks and balances as one of the best systems we have, and it fits squarely within a "power with" model, not against it.
Shared governance doesn't mean no accountability—it means accountability runs in both directions. The board has a role in making sure staff is acting ethically and managing resources responsibly. Staff, in turn, needs a way to hold the board accountable to its own commitments: showing up, doing the work it signed up for, and following the decision-making structure it agreed to.
Checks and balances, done well, isn't the board policing staff—it's both parties holding each other accountable for the promises they’ve made.
We can help you get Structure right
Once again, Structure means answering: What needs to be clarified, made visible, and reflected on for us to do the best work we can?
Having open conversations that enable shared decision making through an inclusive strategic planning process incorporating multiple perspectives—especially from those closest to the work—will help your organization get specific about roles, decisions, and accountability, and is what will lead to a structure that allows for a board and staff to actually share power.
Are you seeking to strengthen the work of your board? We are currently supporting several boards in this work, and have a few more slots open. Reach out, we would be interested to learn more about what you’re seeking and would love to support your board to do better work.