My orginal quest to identify or create new organizational models as alternatives to the traditional 501(c)3 not-for- profit (NFP) led me inevitably to leadership design. The most perfect organizational design is worthless without a strong accompanying leadership schema. My recent posts have identified core problems related to leadership design. In this week’s post, I want to lay out core leadership principles so that I can incorporate and compare them with organizational ideas, and see if there are alternatives (to the NFP).
I’ll isolate 3 leadership principles: one for the CEO, one for the artistic leader, and one for the board.
The CEO must be vested with authority to run the organization, reporting to the board on clearly set measurable goals. H/her strategies and tactics to achieve these goals are for h/her to determine. The board must recognize that the CEO needs to understand the organization’s art form and must insure that this understanding is intentionally deepened through means developed in collaboration between the board and the CEO.
The artistic leader must report to the CEO and must develop for approval by the CEO and the board, clear artistic goals with accompanying rationale and accountability measures (set in collaboration with the CEO). I know that both the reportability and the setting of measurable goals are both radical departures from tradition, but my experience, as well as that of countless other boards and CEO’s demand them.
The board sets policy, provides fiduciary governance and collaborates with the CEO in securing financial resources. The board also supervises the CEO. The evaluation fo the CEO should be done by a special committee appointed by the chair, not by the chair alone, or the executive committee.
The real weakness that remains as I sum up these leadership principles and turn back toward organizational design lies with the board, which, of the 3 entities, has “no skin in the game.” Board members are volunteers and can walk away from their positions at any time. The potential dynamic between the professional staff and board members that this sets up can damage, and does damage organizational effectiveness. For this reason, as I look at new organizational designs, the one so far that offers promise is the L3C, in that the “board” consists of investors.
Surely if you are an investor, you are not likely to walk away when internal and/or external challenges come your way. You are also much more likely to seek a highly competent CEO, and insure that h/she have all the necessary conditions for success. I’m thinking that the L3C or a further variation of it may offer a truly effective alternative to the traditional NFP.
Leave a Reply