No Really, Look Before You Leap

Whether or not you have ever served on a board, most of us recognize that these bodies have significant influence over the strategic decisions that organizations make. For-profit enterprises typically reward those who serve on their boards through remuneration. Not-for-profits, however, rely on volunteers to fill their board slots. 

In all situations, organizations devote time and energy to selecting board members for a very good reason: the quality of the outcomes of the board’s efforts will, of course, be greatly influenced by the quality of the individuals it selects. By ensuring that a structure of orientation, on-boarding and time for input and reflection is in place, the potential of each board member chosen can shine. For both the new trustee and the board their mutual effort and forethought might actually mean the fulfillment of the promise that made the match in the first place. 

How an enterprise identifies what it needs in its board members may be tightly defined by its rules of governance or by the match between open board assignments and candidates’ areas of competence, but in many smaller, newer or less formal settings, driving forces include less well-documented considerations including its priorities at a given point in time, an individual’s visibility and degree of influence and access, who else is already serving and the preferences of the organization’s chief executive. In some boards, particularly not-for-profits, the ability to contribute financially and help the enterprise raise funds from others is also a key qualification. 

Sadly, we see many board engagements that don’t work out. And they are painful for all involved. In SmarterWisdom’s experience, problems arise most typically in areas which have NOT been utilized (by either side) as selection screeners. Candidate qualities such as emotional intelligence (for example,  reading a room or dealing with difficult people,) creativity, strategic thinking, ability to work collaboratively, tolerance for difference or frustration, etc. often don’t surface until the board members attempt to perform their jobs and work with management and/or each other. Clearly, there are also “watch outs” based on an enterprise’s leadership team personalities, its culture, goals and situation.  Selection processes which identify and take these qualities into account when choosing board members, have a leg up from the get-go; the same is true when board candidates proceed similarly when considering whether to accept an offer to join a board. 

If we could give a single piece of advice to nominating committees in search of board members, it would be to turn the tables on their perspective. Without question, the needs of the organization must be a priority; individuals under consideration for board roles should be equipped to meet the  priorities set out for the board. Equally important---and a key predictor of how good the match between board member and board seat will turn out to be---is what the candidate wants. 

As in any “hire,” the best arrangements are reciprocal: they serve the needs and wants of both the hiring entity and the individual. In the press to meet an array of selection criteria put forth by the organization, however, the candidate’s fundamental motivation is an oft-neglected item on hiring entities’ scorecards. 

And this can be a fatal flaw in the case of selecting board members for not-for-profits. Without the benefit of financial remuneration, what rewards on offer from an organization will be enticing? Why will an uncompensated board member “turn it on” to accomplish the goals the organization has identified?  The answer lies in two areas: (1) understanding what motivates that individual, and (2) the willingness/ability of the enterprise to offer the board member opportunities in alignment with those motivators.

The classic American musical Guys and Dolls featured a song entitled, “Marry the Man Today (Change his Ways Tomorrow)”, a tongue-in-cheek reflection on the low-potential strategy deployed by many individuals who are feeling great pressure to secure a life partner. The song cleverly points out the folly of deciding to marry to seal the deal in spite of the obvious areas in which the newly-captured prey is lacking, with a plan to adjust the fit with the newly-acquired spouse following the wedding. S//W posits that the same dynamic can be in play in board selection. Hiring for the qualities that are important to the organization is only the first step. The partnerships that succeed are those in which there is a dynamic of reciprocity: what the individual wants to do and what the organization wishes that person to do are aligned. Once that dynamic is in place, there is a continuing virtuous cycle of effort and reward that keeps both sides satisfied and refueled to tackle the next challenge.  Without it, one side or the other gets frustrated and/or depleted. Simply jumping ahead in order to fill the quota might not pay off in the long run.

As we all know, when dealing with the complex entity that is a human being, there are few guarantees. When potential partnerships and colleagueship are involved, it will likely take effort from both sides to make the arrangement successful, sustainable and productive. Sometimes the people involved may be duplicitous, uninformed about the opportunity and concurrent responsibilities or simply not self-aware: any of these makes it unlikely that a choice to join forces will be successful as the “opting in” will be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. The odds on whether a potential board candidate will “walk the talk” once on the board can, however, be enhanced by careful reference checking, formal and informal background checks and the use of effective interviewing techniques. In fact, we suggest that candidates and board interviewers both use those (or similar) tactics in the course of considering---and, certainly, before closing--- the deal. While an invitation to join a board may be flattering and seductive from the candidate’s side, and similarly appealing to a board in need of the candidate’s skills and other qualities, this is not the time to be either an overly gracious invitee or an enterprise in heavy “sell mode.” 

It is well worth going through the trouble to do whatever possible to stack the deck in favor of a good match between board member motivations and organizational expectations. Dissolving bad board appointments is time consuming, messy and damaging to the reputation and morale of all involved. S//W strongly suggests not signing on or engaging a board member either in haste or uninformed hope: the cost is simply too high. The role of a nominating committee consists of a set of tasks and a program to support and retain good board members; governance, not just nomination ought to help with this looking, and keeping watch, before and after the leap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                          

 

 

 

 


ADDITIONAL BLOGS THAT COULD BE OF INTEREST