Resources

By William Pawlucy, CAE and Bob Harris, CAE

An executive director walks into a board meeting expecting a discussion about strategy and vision. Instead, the conversation drifts into staff timesheets, task lists, and who was supposed to buy the raffle tickets. Then someone at the table suggests board members should be able to call staff directly if they need anything.

This scenario is not rare. It is one of the ways boards unintentionally drive away association or chamber professionals.

Most boards do not realize they are pushing good people toward the exit. But when oversight turns into interference, when authority is blurred, and when projects arise without support, staff start asking, "Why should I stay here," and "what’s in it for my future?"

As Peter Drucker famously said, “Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things.” Boards are responsible for governing. When they slide into unrealistic goals, they diminish board performance and discourage staff.

When Oversight Becomes Micromanagement

Boards have a duty to exercise oversight. They should understand finances, review performance, assess risk, and hold the chief executive accountable. But there is a clear line between oversight and micromanagement, and many boards cross it without realizing the damage.

A board meeting should not become a clerical review session. If directors are spending their time questioning hours on a timesheet, debating who answered a phone call, or second guessing how staff organized a project, they are operating far below the level of governance or "in the weeds."

This happens often when volunteer leaders are uncertain of their roles, maybe never having a thorough orientation. Instead of strategy, directors move into details where they feel more confident.

This comes at a cost. The CEO hears suspicion instead of confidence. Staff hear that their work is being over-analyzed by volunteers who think they can "do it better."

Apply this test: Is the board discussing mission and goals, or listening to reports and commenting on administration. Boards that drop to micromanagement are rarely effective.

Going around the CEO

One of the fastest ways to destabilize a nonprofit is for board members to delegate work directly to staff. We call this "snupervision," a mix of supervision and interference.

For instance, a board member emails the communications manager asking for a draft. Another asks the meeting planner to change a deadline. A third tells the membership director to pull a report by Friday. None of them may think they are causing harm. In their minds, they are just being helpful. In practice, they are going around the CEO.

The CEO should be the primary connection between the board and staff. That chain of command protects clarity, accountability, and priorities. When volunteers bypass the chief executive, staff are left trying to guess whose instructions matter most. The result is distraction, mixed messages, and quiet resentment.

Bob Harris, CAE has long warned that boards should govern through policy and strategy, not through direct management of staff. That principle matters because people need clean lines of authority to do good work.

Breaking the chain of command is not a minor issue. It tells the CEO that the board does not respect the role it hired the executive to perform.

Special Projects without the Resources

Another frustration is the unfunded mandate. The board approves a major initiative, signals urgency, and talks about importance. Then, when it is time to fund the initiative, hesitation sets in. ("I don’t think I could write another check," or "maybe staff will find the funds.")

The board wants a new strategic priority, a stronger digital presence, more advocacy, better member or stakeholder engagement, improved systems, and measurable results. But it does not want to invest in staffing, technology, outside expertise, or reserves to support execution.

That is not disciplined governance. It is wishful thinking.

We often see this. Directors enthusiastically approve a new direction, praise the ambition, and then act surprised when staff say the work cannot be done with current capacity. The unspoken expectation is that the CEO and team will simply absorb it. Work longer. Stretch harder. Figure it out.

Have you ever heard, “we have the assets in our bank account,” says the treasurer. But a board member proclaims the funds are for a “rainy day,” and cannot be spent.

Financial Weakness

Many nonprofit organizations live with a financial structure that is more fragile than the board wants to admit. A common pattern is heavy dependence on dues and one major annual event. It may not be exactly 80/20 in every case, but the pattern is familiar. Many organizations are dependent on an income of one or two small revenue streams.

The risk is not that boards fail to see the danger. Often, they do see it. They know conference attendance has dropped. Sponsors are tired of investing. They know dues pressure is real. Many boards recognize the financial fragility but fail to address it. They better read the “dissolution clause” in their bylaws.

A resilient organization diversifies revenue, invests in growth, and makes hard decisions before a crisis forces them. Boards that keep postponing those decisions are not preserving stability. They are draining confidence from the people they most need to retain.

Words Matter

Words in the boardroom matter more than many leaders realize. Language reveals assumptions. It signals respect, or the lack of it.

When a board refers to a chief executive as an “administrator” or an “executive secretary,” it says something about how that board views the role. The same is true when staff are treated as support help rather than professionals with judgment, expertise, and leadership responsibility.

Association and chamber professionals manage budgets, advise volunteer leaders, navigate legal and policy questions, lead teams, manage vendors, and protect the organization’s reputation. That is professional work. It requires experience, discretion, and skill.

William Pawlucy, CAE has often emphasized that governance culture is shaped not only by policy, but also by language and behaviors. A board that uses dismissive labels should not be surprised when staff feel diminished. Staff who listen to how boards refer to staff may leave for an environment in which they are respected as growing professionals.

Boards that Want to Retain their Staff

Boards that want to retain strong professionals should act like it.

1. Respect the CEO – Don’t leave the CEO out of decisions or go around them.
2. Professional Development – Invest in the staff through educational opportunities.
3. Focus on Mission and Strategy – Design meeting agendas built on mission, value and growth.
4. Professional and Collegial – Be sure the board and committees understand they have a professional collegial relationship to staff; they are not their bosses.
5. Fund Priorities – If the board says something matters, the budget and investments should reflect it.
6. Professionalism – Titles and descriptions should match the level of responsibility people actually carry.
7. Diversify Revenue – Do not leave the organization dependent on dues, one conference, or one vulnerable income stream.
8. Evaluate Board Behavior – The board should monitor its behaviors and adapt as needed.

Be sure your board does not drive off the staff. An honest look at the organization, governance, and budgets may leave room for corrections.