Last month, I wrote about working with a volunteer board of directors who were having challenges functioning. This was part of my assisting a friend of mine in a volunteer consulting project for Management Advisory Services (MAS). I paraphrased an interaction between A and B that illustrated that, at least unilaterally, the “benefit of the doubt” being extended was zero. Obviously, this makes for a difficult, if not unworkable, situation. This past week, we returned to work with a larger group that included the board and other interested volunteers.

From the outset of the engagement, it was clear that much of the tension and frustration that had driven the board’s challenges arose from delays and non-responses from stakeholders, which included different levels of government. Large bureaucracies can take time to navigate, so the delays and the frustrations are understandable. Unfortunately, the delays continue, and the frustration remains. Interestingly, the focus of the frustration shifted completely.

The group had had interactions over the past few months that did not include myself or the MAS representative that I was working with, but the group dynamic was almost unrecognizable. In their book “Inside the Boardroom,” Richard Leblanc and James Gillies examine the architecture of an effective board in light of governance requirements. The governance stakes are a bit lower for this group than in many of the cases from the book; however, as subtle as the shift from “you” to “we” can be, this particular board’s effectiveness was greatly increased, in my opinion, by the development of an in-group mentality. This shift provided an external focus for frustration, which tends to bring motivation rather than tension.

I was thrilled to be able to observe this shift. Like the parent who is less aware of changes in the children they see everyday, the members of the board may not be aware of when it changed, but it certainly did. The good news is, it’s much easier to maintain an in-group dynamic than it is to win it back.

Tags: Tags: Board of Directors, In-group/out-group, Management Advisory Services, Richard Leblanc —

I recently had the opportunity to work with a group of volunteer board members. A friend of mine and I were also volunteering our time to help in making the board work more effectively together, especially in their meetings.

As individuals, they were all lovely people who shared a common passion for the cause that the association was furthering. As a group, however, the meeting and general interactions had deteriorated to the point where one of the group members suspected they had become a dysfunctional board. The “volunteer” dynamic is fascinating in these instances because, conceivably, it would be easier to walk away from a dysfunctional volunteer situation than it would be to leave a dysfunctional company.

We were leading a discussion on what entails an effective meeting. There were no surprises, and, yes, Robert’s Rules were raised and quoted. There was an interesting dialogue at the end of the session that illustrated in large part the problems that the group faced. The following dialogue from a discussion on an opportunity to meet with a municipal group:

A – When did you get the e-mail?
B – I got the e-mail yesterday, maybe it was Thursday, and it said that we could send a couple of people to the meeting. I think that we can decide who those people are.
My friend – Does that sound reasonable, A?
A – Well, I would have to have to see the e-mail.

Robert’s Rules are no match for a meeting where past interactions have driven “benefit of the doubt” to the point of zero. It may take long time for my friends A and B to work together. Acknowledging that benefit of the doubt is absent, and giving it anyway, could provide opportunities to gain benefit of the doubt faster. It is a tough one, and it takes a big person to start, but there is sometimes very little standing in the way of two people working together more effectively.

Tags: Tags: Board of Directors, Dysfunctional Board, Robert's Rules, Volunteer —

• November 2011
• October 2011
• February 2011
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008