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?

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?

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.

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.

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”?

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.

I was with a board recently and was observing the way that chair was leading a thirty minute breakout discussion. He began by sharing his sense of the task. He asked the other board members if he had understood and framed the task clearly. He looked each in the eye and offered them a chance to respond. All engaged. Some spoke. Some nodded. One offered a helpful re-direction. Others supported. The board chair accepted the feedback without defense. He then proceeded to ask a series of questions that allowed the board to engage at increasingly deeper levels on the topic. Near the conclusion of the time he asked, “Who can sum up our sense of direction on this matter?” He didn’t insist on having the final word. He didn’t feel compelled to use his words to summarize the discussion. He then asked all board members to respond to this summary.

I was impressed. I later described the sensible leadership the chair demonstrated. He chuckled and said, “It didn’t begin that way!”. The CEO said that when the chair began his assignment, he assumed a very high energy and fairly directive style of leadership. While it was well-intentioned, the CEO noted that board participation was sliding. Further, executive staff became increasingly anxious about board meetings. The CEO, at some risk, decided to ask what the chair was observing. He said he noticed that people weren’t engaging much. The CEO offered that perhaps the chair might experiment by seeing his leadership role as one of setting the stage for conversation, using questions as a way of advancing the conversation, and inviting every board member to contribute. The chair agreed to try it.

It is working!

As I read further, I realized the point of the article was to emphasize getting in touch with motivation. What might motivate an individual to say “yes” to serving on a board?

I would suggest that for many faith-affiliated nonprofits it is very important to query how a board prospect might view their talent or perspective being a contribution to the board’s “vocation’ of advancing the organization’s mission. This is perhaps a more appropriate framing of the pitch to prospective board members than “legacy” issues. What do you think?