The Governance of Nonprofit Organizations
Professors Harrison and Murray
January 30, 2015
Practical Application Semester Project: Option 2
These notes are for those course participants who are registered for the Coursera Verified
Certificate designation and who therefore must complete all course assignments AND/OR those
who simply wish to undertake assignments to enhance their learning. There are two practical
application options for this course. Option 1 requires that you work with an actual nonprofit
organization of your choice and is described elsewhere. Option 2 allows you to apply your
learning to an artificial nonprofit organization created by the course developers, Profs. Harrison
and Murray. The following notes apply to Option 2.
For this option, you will be provided with raw data obtained from two unnamed nonprofit
organizations drawn from our research database of hundreds of nonprofits that have taken the
Board Performance Self-Assessment Survey at www.boardcheckup.com. This raw data consists
of background information on the organization and board along with two reports of survey
results after board members and others that related to the board completed it.
Nonprofit Organization A: End of Life
Organizational Characteristics
o End of Life is a Hospice organization that has existed for 31 years
o It has a staff of nine employees and a network of over 300 volunteers.
o It runs a thrift store, which employs two people and brings in a significant amount of the
organization’s revenue.
o In addition to providing end of life care to individuals with advanced illnesses, it also
provides a number of grief and other counseling services to family and friends of the
deceased. They offer one-on-one visits, end of life vigils, canine therapy, children’s
grievance counseling, and other types of support for people dealing with death and illness.
o It has an operating budget of about $500,000 per year, and is largely dependent on volunteers
to provide much of its services.
o About one fifth of their annual funds come from the thrift store. Other major sources of
income come from government funding, contracts with local health providers for volunteers
and counseling services, and general fundraising from private gifts and donations.
o End of Life Care places its clients in a nearby Community Hospital, allowing them to have
access to comfortable living facilities close to home.
Board Characteristics
o The Executive Director describes the board as actively involved in the work the
organization does, although in different ways. She clarified that the board is not
involved in the day-‐to-‐day running of the organization, but that the board members are
divided into working groups that work on special projects, like building the residence
program, writing policy, evaluating programs, as well as monitoring general governance
issues involving financial and strategic decisions.
o There are members from the community who are included in some of the working
groups as well. The ED reports that the Board is very effective and is willing to work
very hard to support and improve the organization.
o The Board meets monthly. Meetings are generally well attended, and it is rare that any
member misses a meeting. Meetings tend to be short, about two hours, unless there is
also a working group meeting or some other unusual event occurring at the same time.
o The ED is the main link between staff and Board, reporting to the Board at each meeting,
reviewing major operations and financial events. According to their past minutes, she is
an active participant in the meetings, answering questions and providing information
for the Board. However, the Board does not get involved in direct service delivery,
general management or personnel issues, or minor decision-‐making.
o The Board Chair has been with the organization for three years. The ED reports that
she has a very candid and supportive relationship with the Chair, and that finds him to
be extremely dedicated to the success of the organization.
Challenges Facing the Organization
o The organization has faced some challenges in the past because it has had a high
turnover rate of Executive Directors in recent years. The ED has been with the
organization for one year, and previous EDs had short tenures as well. This instability
has led to some stagnation in the organization, where projects and improvements were
put on hold due to a lack of leadership.
o The current ED is certainly taking an active leadership role with the Board, and it looks
as though new programs and projects are in the works. However, the size of the Board
might be considered by some to be small for an organization of this size, with only eight
members. The ED mentioned that she is looking forward to filling two or more spaces
on the Board, and that they are in need of fundraising and communications experts. She
believes a small board can be a drawback for the organization, especially if they are
missing some key roles.
o Other challenges include the need for active communication with the larger community
to make it aware of the services the organization provides. The ED spent a significant
amount of time explaining the different services they provide, as well as detailing the
importance of grief support services, and how those kinds of skills will benefit the
community in the long-‐term. Hospice organizations often run into misconceptions
about their services because many people believe that they only provide services for
the dying. However, the ED is quick to point out that much of their work focuses on
aiding the living, helping people to live and die with dignity and comfort, and teaching
grief management for adults and children. They also work to distinguish themselves
from the Community Hospital, because their relationship can cause some confusion.
o Despite these challenges, End of Life Care has many opportunities for growth and
development. A new walking bereavement program has been implemented within the
past year, and the ED mentioned several other opportunities for growth, including a
branding and communications strategy, a capital project, and staff development
opportunities.
o During a recent Board meeting, a consultant gave a detailed presentation on program
creation and implementation, which illustrates that the organization is interested in
smart growth. In all, this organization appears to be rebounding from a period of
instability by embracing its new Executive Director and moving forward with new ideas
and plans.
Nonprofit Organization B: Food For All
Background Information
Organizational Mission and Vision
• Food for All is a 31-year-old coalition of over 50 food pantries.
• There are 7 paid staff members and one volunteer.
• The mission is “to address hunger through food pantries operated by member
organizations.” To fulfill that mission, the Coalition provides support to member food
pantries through funding, and delivery, food drives, volunteers, and support for
participating pantries' staff and volunteers.
• The vision is to create “A dynamic network of well stocked food pantries nourishing
hungry neighbors.”
• The cost of membership in the Coalition is free.
• There are a number of criteria that must be met to become a member. These include:
being a registered non-profit organization, serving a minimum annual and monthly
amount of food, regular operating hours, adherence to sanitary regulations, submission of
monthly statistics, attendance at monthly coalition meetings (for education and
information), and provision of organizational support when possible.
Organizational Characteristics
•
•
Food for All is in alliance of a number of smaller local organizations, which have their
own internal cultures and governing/managing bodies.
The priorities of this organization coincide with these objectives. As indicated in the
organization's by-laws they are:
o To work together, in a spirit of cooperation, to do together what no one of us
could do alone;
o To support the efforts and services of member pantries and other emergency food
providers and hunger organizations;
o To provide documentation of hunger and nutritional issues; encouraging
emergency food providers; and
o To work cooperatively and network with each other and other local service
providers;
o To increase access and participation in food and nutrition programs and self help
projects;
o To provide information and technical assistance for self help projects which may
alleviate the need for emergency food; and
o To foster community awareness of hunger.
Board Characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
The board of this organization has seventeen members, three of whom are required to be
affiliated with a member feeding program as specified in the by-laws.
The board members' term of office is three years, with a required one-year absence
between terms.
There are currently five standing committees: the executive committee, a governance
committee, a nominating committee, a personnel committee, and a finance committee.
The Board governs and oversees operations through committees established along
functional/management lines such as personnel and finance similar to a traditional type
board.
The Executive Director now carries substantial influence over policy making and is given
freedom of direction and managing to achieve the objectives established by the board
similar to other results based boards.
Challenges, Threats, and Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
There is a constant need for communication and consensus among many moving parts
and often there are cultural clashes between organizations despite their common mission
and goals.
The Board faces a unique opportunity to improve their governance model by
strengthening good governance practices that further the work of the coalition and their
membership.
The challenges are to balance the board's engagement in governance with the pull of
becoming mired in management and operations matters.
The Board's relationship with their Executive Director is at times complicated;
There is a need to strike a balance between how the executive director and the board.
There is a lack of clarity about involvement of the ED in developing policy and managing
the organization.
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Introduction
It is important to emphasize that the purpose of the Self-Assessment exercise is NOT to suggest that mistakes have
been made or that people are at fault in some way. They are intended to suggest issues that need further exploration
in the same way that medical tests provide doctors with information on how to improve your health.
This instrument measures the extent to which the respondents perceived the board as effective in each of five
general areas in which board performance might be changed. The areas are:
•
The clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in carrying out its basic due diligence responsibilities—
those of policy setting, planning, fiscal and legal oversight, risk mitigation and performance assessment.
•
The adequacy of the board’s formal structures and operating processes—size, committee structure and
meeting effectiveness;
•
The suitability of the make-up of the board’s membership and the quality of the orientation and
development of board members;
•
The degree of support provided by the informal culture of the board (shared, taken-for-granted ways of
thinking and acting that members might not be conscious of).
•
The effectiveness of the leadership provided by the board chair and the organization’s CEO.
Note that if a significant number of board members “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat” that an item applies to
their board, this merely suggests a need to investigate further to establish whether a serious problem actually exists
or not. Sometimes what is seen to be a problem turns out to be due to a misperception or lack of knowledge of the
situation which can be easily corrected through better communication. It is also the case that not all boards are the
same and a problem in one may not be much of a problem in another. However, genuinely serious problems may
well be identified and it is these that you should focus on.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Results
Response Rate
The number of completed questionnaires received was: 15
This translates into a response rate of 67 % based on the total number of people you said would be asked to
complete the questionnaire.
If the response rate to the questionnaire is lower than 50%, the validity of the results could be questionable. When
only a small number participate it is less possible to generalize about what the full group thinks. This should be
pointed out when discussing results with the whole board.
Number of items answered as "Not Sure"
Percentage of respondents who checked "Not Sure" for 20 or more items: 0.0%
Checking an item as "Not Sure" indicates that the respondent was either quite new to the board and didn’t have a
sense of how it works yet, or had not received adequate orientation to being a board member or to working with the
board. If 25% or more of all those responding to the questionnaire have 20 or more items checked as ‘Not Sure’ a
red warning button appears beside the number. This indicates a need for a major board development effort. This
effort should include both board members AND those whose work relates to the board in any way. A formal board
orientation program in which the topics covered by the questionnaire are discussed can go a long way toward
creating a team with a common understanding of how the board works.
Overall Score
The total score for the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ) is calculated as follows: An
“agree strongly” answer is scored 1; “agree somewhat”—2; “disagree somewhat”—3; “disagree strongly”—4. “Not
Sure” is scored 0. Adding together the scores for all items and dividing them by the number of respondents
provides an average total score for your board. In general, the higher the total average score, the greater the
probability that the board is carrying out its governance function well.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
The Average Total Score for this board is: 181.74
Interpretation:
222 – 272: Very likely to be a highly effective board. Only minor ‘tune ups’ needed to maintain high
performance.
171 – 221: A moderately effective board. May need to make some changes and undergo further
development.
120 – 170: A board that is probably facing a number of major challenges in many areas. A large scale
effort at reform should be undertaken.
68 – 119: A board that is probably experiencing extremely serious difficulties in carrying out its role in the
governance function. Wholesale efforts to change in all the dimensions of board effectiveness are likely necessary.
Top 10 strengths in board performance
These are the questions that had the highest “Total Average Scores”. That is, they are seen by most as being well
performed, needing little change. To get a clearer picture of the strengths in board performance, try reading the
statements below in a positive, rather than negative light. For example, " the board seems to be unclear about what
its role and to be" would read, "the board is clear about what its role ought to be".
•
As far as I know the relationship between the CEO and board chair is quite formal.
•
The CEO seems to be trying to dominate or control the board too much.
•
There seems to be a lack of trust between the CEO and the board.
•
The information that the CEO provides the board to help it make decisions is sometimes inadequate or too
slanted.
•
The board chair is a bit too passive and disorganized in his/her leadership style.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
•
The board chair’s meeting leadership skills are not as strong as they could be.
•
There is too much unconstructive arguing among some members during meetings.
•
As far as I know the CEO rarely consults with individual board members for informal advice or assistance.
•
Individual board members with skills and knowledge that might be of use to the organization are rarely
approached.
•
There is a kind of inner group that seems to run things on the board and those who are not part of it
sometimes feel left out.
Note that there may be more than ten items in the list if items shared the same total average score.
Top 10 (based on total average scores) greatest challenges for effective board performance
These are the questions that had the lowest “Total Average Scores”. That is, they are the items identified as
challenges to board effectiveness that should be discussed:
•
Finding high quality board members is a problem for us.
•
There is not enough “new blood” coming on to the board to bring it fresh energy and ideas.
•
The board does not regularly and systematically assess its own performance and change itself if it thinks it
can improve.
•
The board has not approved an overall strategy for fundraising.
•
The board has problems engaging in fundraising activities.
•
We don’t have a board policy manual or we have one which is badly in need of revision.
•
The board seems confused about its role in fundraising for the organization.
•
We don’t do a very good job of orienting and training new board members.
•
Board members are unclear about their legal liabilities and what protection they have against them.
•
Board had not developed a clear well-researched strategic plan that sets out the broad goals and establishes
priorities for the organization.
•
The board does not ensure that an analysis is done of serious risks that the organization might face.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Note that there may be more than ten items in the list if items shared the same total average score.
Scores for the Component Parts of Board Effectiveness
Of greater importance than the overall score on the BPSAQ is the scores obtained in the various topic areas that
make it up. These groupings of questions represent the various dimensions of board effectiveness. It is possible for
a board to score well in some of these but have challenges in others. It is therefore critical that the areas of possible
weakness be identified and special emphasis be placed on discussing them.
Note: The first number below refers to the average score for all those responding to the questions. The color beside
the number indicates how serious the situation might be for that area of board effectiveness.
= A very serious problem
= A moderately serious problem
= Few serious problems
A red or yellow light will indicate not all respondent perceived the items in the same way. In order to ensure
confidentiality, it is not possible to show here the extent to which the perceptions of board members differed from
those of non-board members. However, in discussing degree of difference level, it is very important to raise the
matter of the extent to which it represents differences in the perceptions of these two groups. One of the most
serious problems of governance occurs when board members and members of the management team or others they
deal with have widely differing expectations of one another.
Clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in meeting basic due diligence responsibilities
Total Average score: 13.82
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
These items represent how much clarity there is about what the board should be responsible for and the proper role
of the board. It is important here to look especially at how the perceptions of board members differ from those of
members of the management team.
15 – 20: The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be
10 – 15: The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be,
but some differences exist that may need some work.
5 – 10: The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity regarding its basic responsibilities and what
its role ought to be. This is a high priority problem that requires considerable attention.
Board responsibilities for planning and policy oversight
Total Average score: 20.94
28 – 36: The board is seen as quite clear about its role in planning for the organization’s future and feels it is doing
a good job of it.
20 – 28: The board may be doing a moderately good job of carrying out its planning function but there are some
areas that need work.
11 – 20: Many major problems are seen as existing for the board in grappling with its role in planning.
Board’s role in performance assessment
Total Average Score: 12.58
15 – 20 The board feels it is doing a very good job of tracking how well the organization is doing.
10 – 15 The board feels it is doing a moderately good job in this area but needs some work.
5 – 10 Major problems are seen to exist for the board in carrying out its planning function.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Board’s role in fundraising
Total Average Score: 5.46
9 – 12: The board is seen as quite clear about its role in fundraising and is doing a good job of it.
6 – 9: The board is seen as either uncertain about its role in fundraising or there are problems in the way it carries
out that role.
3 – 6: There appear to be major problems for the board in dealing with its role in fundraising.
Issues related to the formal structure of the board
Total Average Score: 27.17
33 – 44 The board is seen as having very satisfactory structural arrangements.
21 – 33 The board is seen as having a moderately satisfactory structure but with some problems that need
addressing.
11 – 21 The board is seen as having many major problems with it structural arrangements.
Issues Related to Board Meetings
Total Average Score: 33.09
33 – 44: The board’s meetings are seen as running very effectively.
21 – 33: The board’s meetings are seen as moderately effective but with some problems that need to be addressed.
11 – 21: The board is seen as having many major problems with the way its meetings are being run.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Issues related to the composition of the board and board development
Total Average Score: 11.49
19 – 24: The board’s composition and level of development is seen as satisfactory.
13 – 19: The board’s composition and level of development is seen as moderately satisfactory but with some
problems that need to be addressed.
6 – 13: The board is seen as experiencing major problems with how it is made up and the quality of orientation and
training provided to its members.
Issues related to the informal culture of the board
Average score: 16.99
21 – 28: The board is seen as having an informal culture that contributes well to its effectiveness.
14 – 21: The board is seen as having an informal culture that moderately contributes to its effectiveness but there
are some cultural issues that need to be addressed.
7 - 14: The board is seen as having a seriously dysfunctional informal culture.
Board leadership issues
Average score: 39.68
33 – 44: The board is seen as having strong and effective leadership from its chair and CEO.
21 – 33: The board is seen as having moderately effective leadership but with some problems in that area that need
to be addressed.
11 – 21: The board is seen as experiencing many serious leadership problems.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
Where Do You Go From Here?
The results of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire summarized above will
give you some ideas about possible difficulties that could be keeping your board from
performing at its best as well as provide a benchmark for measuring improvement effects. How
these results are used will determine how valuable they might be in helping to make the
governance function of your organization as effective as it can be. Here are some suggestions
for processing the information generated from your board performance assessment
report.
1. If possible, create a small "Board Self-Assessment Implementation Task Force” to take the
lead in this final phase of reviewing results. (Alternatively, this job could be taken on by an
existing board committee such as a Governance or Executive Committee).
2. This committee should choose a chair -- possibly the person who acted as Project Coordinator
in getting the questionnaire completed.
3. It should review the findings and discuss the best way to present them to the board as a
whole.
4. A special board meeting, or retreat, should be organized to review the findings. If possible, all
those who were originally asked to participate should be invited, e.g. in addition to board
members, ask top managers, senior volunteers, etc.
5. The special board meeting should proceed as follows:
A. The Chair of the meeting should begin by reviewing the reasons for engaging in this self
assessment exercise and go on to make the following points:
• The discussion should not take the form of blaming anyone for any of the issues
identified.
• It is possible that some problems, on further discussion, will be found to be simply the
result of lack of knowledge or experience on the part of some participants. These can be
corrected by better communications.
• When there is a strong consensus that certain issues are real problems it is important not
to jump to conclusions about why they exist or what should be done about them.
Instead, they should be carefully analyzed. We therefore recommend that this special
board meeting not be used to make decisions but only to seek consensus on issues and
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
FOOD FOR ALL BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS
identify possible solutions. The Task Force would promise to take this input and return
later with well thought out formal recommendations for change, if needed.
B. Discuss the significance of the results obtained in each of the topic areas covered in this
Final Report.
Response rate
Total score
The 10 things we do best
The 10 things we do the least well
Results for each of the nine distinct elements of board effectiveness.
C. If the group is large enough, consider breaking into smaller groups to discuss the following
questions, otherwise pose them in a plenary format:
•
•
•
What are the issues that the most need working on in terms of importance and
immediacy?
For each of the top priority issues, why do they exist? (The meeting should be reminded
that the reasons may not always be simple. For example, if there is strong agreement that
board meetings are too long, this could be for many reasons: a failure to establish and
enforce time limits for agenda items, board members being unprepared, poorly prepared
committee reports, too much time spent on routine leaving important policy issues until
late in the meeting, etc.)
What positive, future-oriented changes might be made to end the problems?
6. The Implementation Task Force should take the input provided at the special board meeting
and use it to prepare a series of recommendations for change along with supporting arguments
for them. These would be brought to a formal meeting of the board for discussion and approval.
7. Finally, responsibility for tracking the outcomes of these changes should be allocated to a
person or committee who will report at the end of a year on the degree of improvement in the
governance process. This should signal the beginning of a process of board self-evaluation that
occurs every year.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Introduction
It is important to emphasize that the purpose of the Self-Assessment exercise is NOT to suggest
that mistakes have been made or that people are at fault in some way. They are intended to
suggest issues that need further exploration in the same way that medical tests provide doctors
with information on how to improve your health.
This instrument measures the extent to which the respondents perceived the board as effective in
each of five general areas in which board performance might be changed. The areas are:
•
The clarity of the board’s role and its effectiveness in carrying out its basic due diligence
responsibilities—those of policy setting, planning, fiscal and legal oversight, risk
mitigation and performance assessment.
•
The adequacy of the board’s formal structures and operating processes—size, committee
structure and meeting effectiveness;
•
The suitability of the make-up of the board’s membership and the quality of the
orientation and development of board members;
•
The degree of support provided by the informal culture of the board (shared, taken-forgranted ways of thinking and acting that members might not be conscious of).
•
The effectiveness of the leadership provided by the board chair and the organization’s
CEO.
Note that if a significant number of board members “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat” that
an item applies to their board, this merely suggests a need to investigate further to establish
whether a serious problem actually exists or not. Sometimes what is seen to be a problem turns
out to be due to a misperception or lack of knowledge of the situation which can be easily
corrected through better communication. It is also the case that not all boards are the same and a
problem in one may not be much of a problem in another. However, genuinely serious problems
may well be identified and it is these that you should focus on.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 1
Results
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Response Rate
The number of completed questionnaires received was: 10
This translates into a response rate of 80 % based on the total number of people you said would
be asked to complete the questionnaire.
If the response rate to the questionnaire is lower than 50%, the validity of the results could be
questionable. When only a small number participate it is less possible to generalize about what
the full group thinks. This should be pointed out when discussing results with the whole board.
Number of items answered as "Not Sure"
Percentage of respondents who checked "Not Sure" for 20 or more items: 0.0%
Checking an item as "Not Sure" indicates that the respondent was either quite new to the board
and didn’t have a sense of how it works yet, or had not received adequate orientation to being a
board member or to working with the board. If 25% or more of all those responding to the
questionnaire have 20 or more items checked as ‘Not Sure’ a red warning button appears beside
the number. This indicates a need for a major board development effort. This effort should
include both board members AND those that relate to the board in any way. A formal board
orientation program in which the topics covered by the questionnaire are discussed can go a long
way toward creating a team with a common understanding of how the board works.
Overall Score
The total score for the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ) is
calculated as follows: An “agree strongly” answer is scored 1; “agree somewhat”—2; “disagree
somewhat”—3; “disagree strongly”—4. “Not Sure” is scored 0. Adding together the scores for
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 2
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
all items and dividing them by the number of respondents provides an average total score for
your board.
In general, the higher the total average score, the greater the probability that the board is carrying
out its governance function well.
1. Total Average Score for Board Effectiveness—207/272
222 – 272
Very likely to be a highly effective board. Only minor ‘tune ups’ needed
to maintain high performance.
171 – 221
A moderately effective board. May need to make some changes and
undergo further development.
120 – 170
A board that is probably facing a number of major challenges in many
areas. A large-scale effort at reform should be undertaken.
68 – 119
A board that is probably experiencing extremely serious difficulties in
carrying out its role in the governance function. Wholesale efforts to
change in all the dimensions of board effectiveness are likely necessary.
2. Board Challenges—top Issues for the board (lowest scores).
These are the items in the survey that had the highest “Average Scores”. That is, they were the
items respondents generally disagreed with. The items below are seen as being well performed
compared to the average scores of other items. To get a clearer picture of the strengths in board
performance, the statements below are presented with positive wording, rather than in their
original form, which were worded as “challenges”.
1. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - Finding high quality new board members is a problem for us.
2. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - There is not enough ongoing development and training for regular
board members.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 3
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
3. Board responsibilities for planning - The board rarely holds creative thinking
sessions aimed at trying to find new ways the organization could develop.
4. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - The diversity of publics with an interest in this organization is not
well represented in the make-up of the board.
5. The board’s role in fund raising - The board has problems engaging in actual
fundraising activities.
6. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - We do not pay enough attention to making sure we get the mix of
skills and backgrounds we need in the
7. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - We don’t do a very good job of orienting and training new board
members.
8. Issues Related to the Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members - Looking at the board as a whole there is not enough new blood
coming on to it to bring fresh energy and ideas.
9. Issues Related to the Informal Culture of the Board - Little effort is made to
help board members get to know one another and develop a team spirit as a
group.
10. Issues Related to the Board’s Formal Structures and Operating Processes - The
formal structure of the board - We don’t have a board policy manual or we have
one that is badly in need of updating.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 4
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
3. Perceived Board Strengths—bottom Issues-- (highest scores). Try to think of these as nonissues (reframe the items below in a positive light).
E.g. the board is not too large and
cumbersome; acts as an effective decision-making body.
1. The board’s role in performance assessment - The board does not do a very good job of
ensuring that the organizations finances are being managed soundly.
2. Board meetings - There is too much unconstructive arguing among some members during
meetings.
3. Board meetings - Meetings are run too informally for example with more than one person
talking at once no time limits on discussions etc.
4. Board meetings - Meetings stick too much to formal rules of order so that thorough
probing discussions are discouraged.
5. The board’s role in performance assessment - The board does not regularly and
systematically carry out assessments of the CEO’s performance (e.g. Executive Director
President etc.).
6. Board Leadership Issues - The board chair tends to be overly controlling.
7. Board Leadership Issues - As far as I know the relationship between the CEO and the
board chair is quite formal; they don’t talk much off the record.
8. Board responsibilities for planning - The board has not developed a clear well-researched
strategic plan that sets out broad goals and establishes priorities for the organization.
9. Board responsibilities for planning - Plans exist on paper but they don’t get implemented
at the operational level i.e. other concerns drive what actually gets done.
10. Issues Related to the Board's Overall Role and Responsibilities - Basic board
responsibilities - The Board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO or Executive Director)
sometimes seem to have different ideas about the authority each should have.
4. Total Average Scores for Dimensions of Board Effectiveness –along with issues that were
perceived as less and more problematic for the advisory board.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 5
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Note: The first number below refers to the average score for all those responding to the
questions. The color beside the number indicates how serious the situation might be for that area
of board effectiveness.
A very serious problems
A moderately serious problem
Few serious problems
Board Effectiveness Dimension #1: Basic Board Responsibilities
Total average score: 14.60
These items represent how much clarity there is about what the board should be responsible for
and the proper role of the board. It is important here to look especially at how the perceptions of
board members differ from those of members of the management team.
15 – 20
The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and
what its role ought to be.
10-15
The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic
responsibilities and what its role ought to be, but some differences exist
that may need some work.
5-10
The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity
regarding its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. This is a
high priority problem that requires considerable attention.
Board Effectiveness Dimension #2: Board Responsibilities for Planning
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 6
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Total average score: 26.68
28 – 36
The board is seen as quite clear about its role in planning for the
organization’s future and feels it is doing a good job of it.
20-28
The board may be doing a moderately good job of carrying out its
planning function but there are some areas that need work.
11-20
Many major problems are seen as existing for the board in grappling
with its role in planning.
Board Effectiveness Dimension #3: The Board’s Role in Performance Assessment
Total Average Score: 17.20
15-20
The board feels it is doing a very good job of tracking how well the
organization is doing.
10-15
The board feels it is doing a moderately good job in this area but needs
some work.
5-10
Major problems are seen to exist for the board in carrying out its
planning function.
Board Effectiveness Dimension #4: The Board’s Role in Fundraising
Total Average Score: 7.71
9-12
The board is seen as quite clear about its role in fund raising and is
doing a good job of it.
6-9
The board is seen as either uncertain about its role in fund raising or
there are problems in the way it carries out that role.
3-6
There appears to be major problems for the board in dealing with its role
in fund raising.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 7
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Board Effectiveness Dimension #5: The Formal Structure of the Board
Total Average Score: 34.82
33-44
The board is seen as having very satisfactory structural arrangements.
21-33
The board is seen as having a moderately satisfactory structure but with
some problems that need addressing.
11-21
The board is seen as having many major problems with its structural
arrangements.
Board Effectiveness Dimension # 6: Board Meetings
Total Average Score: 35.82
33-44
The board’s meetings are seen as running very effectively.
21-33
The board’s meetings are seen as moderately effective but with some
problems that need to be addressed.
11-21
The board is seen as having many major problems with meetings.
Board Effectiveness Dimension # 7: The Composition of the Board and Development of Board
Members
Total Average Score: 12.15
19-24
The board’s composition and level of development is seen as
satisfactory.
13-19
The board’s composition and level of development is seen as moderately
satisfactory but with some problems that need to be addressed.
6-13
The board is seen as experiencing major problems with how it is made
up and the quality of orientation and training provided to its members.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 8
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
Board Effectiveness Dimension #8: The Informal Culture of the Board
Average score: 20.08
21-28
The board is seen as being quite clear about its basic responsibilities and
what its role ought to be.
14-21
The board is seen as being moderately clear about its basic
responsibilities and what its role ought to be, but some differences exist
that may need some work.
7-14
The board is seen as experiencing a considerable lack of clarity
regarding its basic responsibilities and what its role ought to be. This is a
high priority problem that requires considerable attention.
Board Effectiveness Dimension #9: Board Leadership
Average score: 37.78
33-44
The board is seen as having strong and effective leadership from its
chair and CEO.
21-33
The board is seen as having moderately effective leadership but with
some problems in that area that need to be addressed.
11-21
The board is seen as experiencing many serious leadership problems.
Where Do You Go From Here?
The results of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire summarized above will
give you some ideas about possible difficulties that could be keeping your board from
performing at its best as well as provide a benchmark for measuring improvement effects. How
these results are used will determine how valuable they might be in helping to make the
governance function of your organization as effective as it can be. Here are some suggestions for
processing the information generated from your board performance assessment report.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 9
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
1. If possible, create a small "Board Self-Assessment Implementation Task Force” to take the
lead in this final phase of reviewing results. (Alternatively, this job could be taken on by an
existing board committee such as a Governance or Executive Committee).
2. This committee should choose a chair -- possibly the person who acted as Project Coordinator
in getting the questionnaire completed.
3. It should review the findings and discuss the best way to present them to the board as a whole.
4. A special board meeting, or retreat, should be organized to review the findings. If possible, all
those who were originally asked to participate should be invited, e.g. in addition to board
members, ask top managers, senior volunteers, etc.
5. The special board meeting should proceed as follows:
A. The Chair of the meeting should begin by reviewing the reasons for engaging in this self
assessment exercise and go on to make the following points:
•
The discussion should not take the form of blaming anyone for any of the issues identified.
•
It is possible that some problems, on further discussion, will be found to be simply the result of
lack of knowledge or experience on the part of some participants. These can be corrected by
better communications.
•
When there is a strong consensus that certain issues are real problems it is important not to jump
to conclusions about why they exist or what should be done about them. Instead, they should be
carefully analyzed. We therefore recommend that this special board meeting not be used to make
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 10
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
decisions but only to seek consensus on issues and identify possible solutions. The Task Force
would promise to take this input and return later with well thought out formal recommendations
for change, if needed.
B. Discuss the significance of the results obtained in each of the topic areas covered in this Final
Report.
•
Response rate
•
Total score
•
The 10 things we do best
•
The 10 things we do the least well
•
Results for each of the nine distinct elements of board effectiveness.
C. If the group is large enough, consider breaking into smaller groups to discuss the following
questions, otherwise pose them in a plenary format:
•
What are the issues that the most need working on in terms of importance and immediacy?
•
For each of the top priority issues, why do they exist? (The meeting should be reminded that the
reasons may not always be simple. For example, if there is strong agreement that board meetings
are too long, this could be for many reasons: a failure to establish and enforce time limits for
agenda items, board members being unprepared, poorly prepared committee reports, too much
time spent on routine leaving important policy issues until late in the meeting, etc.)
•
What positive, future-oriented changes might be made to end the problems?
6. The Implementation Task Force should take the input provided at the special board meeting and use it
to prepare a series of recommendations for change along with supporting arguments for them. These
would be brought to a formal meeting of the board for discussion and approval.
7. Finally, responsibility for tracking the outcomes of these changes should be allocated to a person or
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 11
BOARD CHECK-UP RESULTS: END OF LIFE DEMO BOARD
committee who will report at the end of a year on the degree of improvement in the governance process.
This should signal the beginning of a process of board self-evaluation that occurs every year.
Professors Harrison and Murray © 2010-2015
Page 12
Purchase answer to see full
attachment