The Power of Social Media

The power of social media is a two-edge sword for those of us who serve on nonprofit boards. The very institutions which we serve as trustees, are the result of a social context of immense freedom, democracy, and incredible voluntary engagement. When we see the power of social media in fueling unrest albeit revolutions that overthrow autocratic regimes (thinkLibya) we give thanks for the power of social media in fueling dissent and forging resistance.

However, as trustees we also know the power of social media in challenging the decisions made in board rooms. The recent dilemmas faced by the Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation illustrate this. The board believed, key word believed, that they had made a reasoned decision in light of conflicting issues. Outraged with the board’s judgment to discontinue funding of Planned Parenthood was inflamed through massive use of social media, this is just one illustration. Think of the massive power of social media as cyber space swirled around the governing board ofPennStateas they tried to navigate issues around the possible sexual misconduct of high-profile leaders in the athletic department.

I have felt this. I chair a board. One of our decisions was highly contested by a variety of external and internal stakeholders. Again, social media was used as a way to galvanize thousands of expressions of dissent with the board’s judgment. In that case, we agreed to review and after careful study agreed to re-direct our decision.

My purpose is not to dissuade us as boards and CEOs from making tough decisions. Nor am I recommending that we always do deep polling/litmus tests to determine what decisions we should make to simply ameliorate potential adverse reactions. However, we must be increasingly vigilant about the power of social media. We serve in a media-saturated environment. We must weigh this reality carefully as we design our listening, define our decision-criteria, communicate and implement our decisions.

What’s been your experience?

Board Work is “Group Work”

I continue to be impressed with the adage that board work is “group work”. I think we often fail to give enough thought to what it means to create social cohesion in the board room. We certainly know that many trustees will say that one of the greatest satisfactions of their board service was interacting and learning with great people. In other words, not only was the agenda engaging, the mission meaningful, but the social chemistry of the board was good. Sure, we can all think of circumstances when that wasn’t true. I am recalling as I write, one board in which tensions between some members was so high that conflict erupted, feelings were deeply hurt, and there were some resignations. This was not pretty.

However, what can be done to build cohesion. Let me offer a few thoughts – - – First, think about it. Second, make no assumptions. Third, do something! How’s that? More seriously, there are some things that can contribute to creating social glue.

First, be sure that new members are fully introduced to their colleagues and their colleagues to them. This takes some preparation and some time. But it is time well spent. Second, assign all new board members a mentor. It’s the mentor’s job to walk and sometimes even sit alongside of the new member. The mentor is helping the new member understand the implicit as well as explicit expectations of board member engagement. Third, the chair and CEO can prepare the agenda in such a way that there is time for some meaningful inter-personal exchanges to be built into the flow of the meeting. Many boards use board meeting openings as an opportunity for various board members to reflect on some dimension of their personal life that they think helps other members connect the personal with the professional. Finally, some boards build occasional social gatherings into the annual board schedule. These are all simple activities that can strength the quality of social connection in the board room and may lead to deeper trust, more candid engagement, and helpful discernment.

What has been your experience? Do you have suggestions?

The Leadership Energy of a Board Chair

I have commented on other occasions about the role of a good board chair. I have worked with two different boards over the last few months that had to face incredibly complex matters with many layers of political and psychological complexities in the board room and with senior staff. In both circumstances I came away with the highest regard for the two women who were chairing the respective boards. The details of the circumstances don’t matter. What does matter is that these chairs leaned into the complexity. They did not know what the outcomes should be. They often didn’t know the wise and prudent thing to do. They were aware that the CEOs couldn’t address these particular challenges and complexities. But like Jim Collins has offered…”Leadership matters!” It does indeed. These chairs did not sit back, but engaged. They sought to bring their executive committees and boards into real conversation. The chairs put their own comfort on hold and went into emotionally distressful stuff. Neither usurped the role of the CEO. But they brought real leadership energy to bear with the board.

How Boards Verify Reports are Credible

One of the tried and true euphemisms of nonprofit board work is that boards should monitor performance against agreed upon targets or expectations. I have probably said that several hundred times in workshops over the years. Yes, boards that are practicing their fiduciary responsibility do monitor organizational performance against targets. Opinions abound on what constitutes the right things to measure. There are many different types of dashboards. However, I want to speak to the issue how boards verify that the reports they receive are credible. After all, executives are masters at communication and spin. I know—I am one!

Certainly, independent analysis and direct corroboration is one way of verifying information. The very purpose of an independent audit is to do this. Employee, client, and other stakeholder satisfaction reports can be another source of independent corroboration. However, at the end of the day, the critical issue is whether the CEO and board have developed a culture of high transparency and trust in their work together. There is probably nothing more basic to a good board/CEO relationship than trust born of confidence that the board and CEO are being honest with each other. This means that boards and CEOs have to create the times and places to be as candid with each other as possible. To be sure, boards need to hold executives accountable for performance. But when performance falls below target, leaning in to listen, learn, and support (not second-guess or criticize) invites non-defensive communication. Through this kind of communication, new possibilities to advance the organization’s work can emerge.

Letting Go

I was recently working with a board. The board and executive wrestled with some very difficult matters over this past year. Sometimes there was great alignment. Other times there was some tension between senior leadership and the board. The board was weary. The executive and senior leadership was feeling pressed—that is the board had been leaning in…perhaps at some points a bit too much. Both parties were frustrated.

I asked, “What would be lost if the board just stayed at home for a year?” After we laughed at what seemed to most a ludicrous idea, we moved into a really significant conversation. It was essentially about “recalibrating” the way in which the board and CEO intended to engage with each other for the new year. Each party offered some ideas to deepen trust and advance the way in which the board could add value.
Sometimes letting go frees us to explore new and more helpful ways of working together.

Collaborating with Others

Many organizations are seeking new ways of collaborating with others. In some cases this results in tight affiliations such as joint ventures or complete asset integrations or mergers. The various models of collaboration seem endless. However, each requires some measure of “letting go” or sharing of power and authority with others. The track record for deep affiliations is mixed. Some work and work well. Others fail and fail profoundly.

I recall an article I read several years ago that addressed the issue of deep “cultural learning.” The point of the article is that it is hard to over-do learning about “the other.” What on the surface may seem to be self-evident overlapping markets, synergies in integrated operations, even possibilities for leveraging each others strengths in new ways…can go south if careful attention is not given to studying culture at deep levels. What’s been your experience in collaboration or even deeper integration efforts? What have you learned about the important of learning about the culture of “the other”?

Executive Sessions: Good Practice

I’m often asked about executive sessions. Let me offer a few principles. I think they can be translated into good practice.

The principles:

• Boards need to feel their “ownership” of the organization without the constant presence of the CEO. Often boards act as is the organization really belongs to the CEO.
• Board members need opportunity to speak into the process of governance without careful editing.
• CEOs that are doing well are not threatened by the prospect of the board having conversations that do not immediately involve them.

The following are a few practices that should be considered:

1. Plan for an executive session regularly (not sporadically). If regular, they are more routine and not necessarily a sign of problems.
2. Begin the executive session with the CEO present to provide a safe place for the CEO to communicate his/her issues, concerns, questions. Often this deals with the very issues that some board members may think they can’t discuss with the CEO for fear of how she/he will respond. Such safe conversation between board/CEO is sacred space and builds trust.
3. Dismiss the CEO routinely so that the board can interact briefly if there are lingering concerns or matters that board wants to address.
4. Have the chair report back to the CEO within a few hours the core theme(s) of the discussion—even if nothing of substance was addressed.

You might ask, “How frequently boards should do this?” If a board is meeting monthly, then every meeting is far too frequent. I recommend two to four times a year.

I have encountered a few boards and CEOs who are strongly opposed to the practice of executive sessions without the CEO. There are some boards that never use executive sessions and are healthy and high functioning. However, over 25 years I have found that boards that use them wisely usually find it a helpful and healthy practice.