A letter to hospice board members
Board wars Richard W. Williams
In this installment to, letters to the board,’ we are going to address a problem every not-for-profit organization faces at one time or another. Friction between the chief executive and the governing board.
Richard W. Williams is the Executive Directorof the Hospice of Southwest Missouri. He is experienced in hospital administration and was formerly the CEO of~wobusiness enterprises.
6
Of course there is typically an instant assumption that friction between an executive director and a board is always instigated by an uncaring, unknowledgeable or egotistical board. Not so! Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that the majority of such problems stem primarily, if not entirely, from the chief executive. Problems with board and executive relations originate as variables of two common problems, both of which stem from lack of communications. The first of these two general problems can usually be traced directly to the interviewing of the chief executive candidates. The problem is that there was likely no detailed discussions of what was expected, by one or the other. The board is usually so frantic to fill the position, and the executive so eager to get the job, that detailed communication is overlooked in the mad scramble to seal the deal. Whereas, if both participants would have frankly discussed their goals and
expectations early in negotiations, potential conflicts in ideology or expectations would have surfaced and could have been dealt with. Unfortunately, too many governing boards
Problems with board and executive relations originate as variables of two common problems, both of which stem from lack of communications. and executives have never really defined their own goals, perceptions and expectations. And when they do come together, they seem to automatically assume the other knows what he or she should know about the other. I liken this to what we have labeled, “love at first sight;” which is terrific
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992
Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
for the short run, but is definitely not what we want to build the rest of our lives, or an organization on.
The board needs to have their organizational ideology, mission and management expectations delineated prior to ever advertising for an executive. Hence board search committees for hospices and potential candidates alike, work very hard to be exactly what the other wants them to be. And granted, the ability to be flexible is indeed essential to a successful board! executive relationship, and should be carefully considered. More importantly, the knowledge of each other’s core concepts, ideology and professional expectations, are paramount to its long term success. Failure to address these sometimes difficult issues, can waste both participants valuable time and energy, and is extremely unfair to the hospice organization’s staffand its service recipients. Too many governing boards, and chief executives alike, make assumptions about the other. The board needs to have their organizational ideology, mission and management expectations delineated prior to ever advertising for an executive. Any executive candidate, “worth their salt,” will wantto see these concepts, in writing, at some point early in the interview process. By the same token, candidates should be ready to present the same information to a search committee at some early point in the process. This frank information may indeed scare off some less experienced search committees. On the other hand, this type of disclosure will probably assure contact
by fewer, but more conceptually compatible organizations. As frightening as this type of disclosure is, dealing with this type of information head on, wili assure a better board/executive relationship in the long run. Often these critical issues are not broached, with everybody assuming that the “details” will be worked out down the road when everybody feels comfortable with each other. Too often this waiting to work out details backfires when either the board or the executive director finally do take a stand on a management issue that was NOT delineated at the time of hire. The
As frightening as this type of disclosure is, dealing with this type of information head on, will assure a better board/executive relationship in the long run. usual reaction by an unprepared board is, that the ED is attempting to, “lead a revolt,” or, “usurp” the board’s established authority or position. This miscommunication generally leads to a messy management struggle simply because management or control issues were not discussed at the beginning of the relationship. Or more commonly, the executive director will have allowed a large amount of board involvement in the early stages ofworking in theorganization. And when the ED feels comfortable with, and knowledgeable of, the organization and begins to “flex” their operation’s management muscles, the board naturally reacts with anger at suddenly being left out of day-to-day management and instinctively fights to maintain the level of involvement it’s used to.
To prevent such a situation,it should be discussed at the time of hiring, that the new executive director will need a learning period, with board involvement in operation’s management. It should also be determined what that period of time will be (30 to 90 days) before the ED will assume total responsibility for day-to-day management. Hence, at the point when the ED does feel comfortable assuming full authority, there will be no misperceptions of a “power grab” between the two. The second ofthe two problems that usually shake the board/executive relationship are based in ownership or vestment inthe organization. Typically, most chief executives operate the organization as if it were their own. And to a large extend this is natural and probably even expected. The problem arises when the board and the ED are not aware of each other’s perception of ownership. In newly formed organizations, the governing board is likely to also be the initial founding board. Hence it’s members have usually vested substantial time and energy in the start-up, and consequently feel personal ownership
The second of the twoproblems that ususally shake the board/executive relationship are based in ownership or vestment in the organization. and pride in the agency. Whereas, a well established organization will probably have a governing board several generations removed from that founding board. In this situation, the new board’s perception of ownership and vestment is going to take on a different impetus.
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992 Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
The current board will likely be less emotionally attached to the organization and make decisions based on more objective standards. Ostensibly this sounds good, but it can take on negative, or even destructive consequences if not closely monitored. In the early days, the founding board was unified to do anything necessary to assure the survival of the organization and they made their decisions accordingly. Start-up effort and operational survival was the common and unifying bond between those early board members. But with later generations of boards, this Start-up, or survival bond, rarely exists, leaving individual board members more able to act on their own agendas. This lack of a unifying bond can, if unmonitored, be the beginning of the end for an organization that has no goals for the governing board to apply themselves toward. Like the old saying, “An idle mind is the devil’s workshop,’ idle boards present a great opportunity for operational problems to occur. Without a defined direction to take, they have an amazing propensity to justify their existence by getting involved in organizational management. With this in mind, the chief executive should always push for a strategic plan/goal at which a board may strive toward. With these newerboards also comes the problem of, “vestment understanding,” in that boards typically do not realize the basic difference between their and the ED’s motivations. In general, new board members of older notfor-profit organizations are serving as part of an advisory and policy making body for a community service agency. This limited involvement typically requires little operational knowledge of the service provided, minimal time involvement, and little effort. Also there is rarely any personal dependence on organization funds, as they are generally employed elsewhere in the commun...
ity, and serve voluntarily on the agency board. Hence the operational success or failure of the organization represents little impact on them professionally, and absolutely no impact at all on them financially. On the other hand, a professional executive’s (and staff’s) entire professional career(s) andfuture employment hinge on the performance and fiscal viability of that organization; not to mention their very livelihoods. The operational failure of a hospice rarely if ever, has any tangible effects the governing board. Conversely, such a failure for a hospice ED is not only devastating for them financially, it will likely be a large black mark they will carry on the professional record for a long time. When this type of comparison of motivations is made, it is suddenly very easy to see who has the most vested in the success of the hospice, and where that authority for operational matters should lie. It also demonstrates that detailed communication, instigated by an ED candidate during the hiring process, can eliminate many of the problems that could surface in the long run. It also emphasizes the need for governing boards and chief executive candidates, to carefully delineate their goals, perspectives and expectations early in the interview process. And in those alltoo common instances where none of this communications ground work was done, and the board and the ED may now be locked in a mortal power conflict, a calm review and discussion of the topics contained in this article, could be the start of the communications necessary to allow an understanding of each other’s frustrations and perceptions. In the end, the question will not be who is right, or who is wrong; the question is: Can we learn from our misunderstandings to better understand each other through regular, frank communications? C~
AMERICAN JOURNAl OF
Alzheimer’s Care I & Research u AND RELATED DISORDERS
The primary source of information about Alzheimer ‘s disease If you work with or simply care about Alzheimer’s patients you can’t afford to miss The American Journal of Alzheimer’s Care and Related Disorders & Research® The first bi-monthly professional journal dedicated to bringing you the latest national information about Alzheimer’s care and research — including: book reviews, news briefs, conferences and more. Articles have focused on • research updates • environmentaldesign for dementia legal issues private long term care insurance
the need for family support the risk of Alzheimer’s for relatives
• recording neurological symptoms •
therapeutic interventions
•
communication with Alzheimer’s patients medications and Alzheimer’s sleep disturbances and more
To subscribe call 1-800-869-2700
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992
Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
Board wars Richard W. Williams
In this installment to, letters to the board,’ we are going to address a problem every not-for-profit organization faces at one time or another. Friction between the chief executive and the governing board.
Richard W. Williams is the Executive Directorof the Hospice of Southwest Missouri. He is experienced in hospital administration and was formerly the CEO of~wobusiness enterprises.
6
Of course there is typically an instant assumption that friction between an executive director and a board is always instigated by an uncaring, unknowledgeable or egotistical board. Not so! Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that the majority of such problems stem primarily, if not entirely, from the chief executive. Problems with board and executive relations originate as variables of two common problems, both of which stem from lack of communications. The first of these two general problems can usually be traced directly to the interviewing of the chief executive candidates. The problem is that there was likely no detailed discussions of what was expected, by one or the other. The board is usually so frantic to fill the position, and the executive so eager to get the job, that detailed communication is overlooked in the mad scramble to seal the deal. Whereas, if both participants would have frankly discussed their goals and
expectations early in negotiations, potential conflicts in ideology or expectations would have surfaced and could have been dealt with. Unfortunately, too many governing boards
Problems with board and executive relations originate as variables of two common problems, both of which stem from lack of communications. and executives have never really defined their own goals, perceptions and expectations. And when they do come together, they seem to automatically assume the other knows what he or she should know about the other. I liken this to what we have labeled, “love at first sight;” which is terrific
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992
Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
for the short run, but is definitely not what we want to build the rest of our lives, or an organization on.
The board needs to have their organizational ideology, mission and management expectations delineated prior to ever advertising for an executive. Hence board search committees for hospices and potential candidates alike, work very hard to be exactly what the other wants them to be. And granted, the ability to be flexible is indeed essential to a successful board! executive relationship, and should be carefully considered. More importantly, the knowledge of each other’s core concepts, ideology and professional expectations, are paramount to its long term success. Failure to address these sometimes difficult issues, can waste both participants valuable time and energy, and is extremely unfair to the hospice organization’s staffand its service recipients. Too many governing boards, and chief executives alike, make assumptions about the other. The board needs to have their organizational ideology, mission and management expectations delineated prior to ever advertising for an executive. Any executive candidate, “worth their salt,” will wantto see these concepts, in writing, at some point early in the interview process. By the same token, candidates should be ready to present the same information to a search committee at some early point in the process. This frank information may indeed scare off some less experienced search committees. On the other hand, this type of disclosure will probably assure contact
by fewer, but more conceptually compatible organizations. As frightening as this type of disclosure is, dealing with this type of information head on, wili assure a better board/executive relationship in the long run. Often these critical issues are not broached, with everybody assuming that the “details” will be worked out down the road when everybody feels comfortable with each other. Too often this waiting to work out details backfires when either the board or the executive director finally do take a stand on a management issue that was NOT delineated at the time of hire. The
As frightening as this type of disclosure is, dealing with this type of information head on, will assure a better board/executive relationship in the long run. usual reaction by an unprepared board is, that the ED is attempting to, “lead a revolt,” or, “usurp” the board’s established authority or position. This miscommunication generally leads to a messy management struggle simply because management or control issues were not discussed at the beginning of the relationship. Or more commonly, the executive director will have allowed a large amount of board involvement in the early stages ofworking in theorganization. And when the ED feels comfortable with, and knowledgeable of, the organization and begins to “flex” their operation’s management muscles, the board naturally reacts with anger at suddenly being left out of day-to-day management and instinctively fights to maintain the level of involvement it’s used to.
To prevent such a situation,it should be discussed at the time of hiring, that the new executive director will need a learning period, with board involvement in operation’s management. It should also be determined what that period of time will be (30 to 90 days) before the ED will assume total responsibility for day-to-day management. Hence, at the point when the ED does feel comfortable assuming full authority, there will be no misperceptions of a “power grab” between the two. The second ofthe two problems that usually shake the board/executive relationship are based in ownership or vestment inthe organization. Typically, most chief executives operate the organization as if it were their own. And to a large extend this is natural and probably even expected. The problem arises when the board and the ED are not aware of each other’s perception of ownership. In newly formed organizations, the governing board is likely to also be the initial founding board. Hence it’s members have usually vested substantial time and energy in the start-up, and consequently feel personal ownership
The second of the twoproblems that ususally shake the board/executive relationship are based in ownership or vestment in the organization. and pride in the agency. Whereas, a well established organization will probably have a governing board several generations removed from that founding board. In this situation, the new board’s perception of ownership and vestment is going to take on a different impetus.
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992 Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
The current board will likely be less emotionally attached to the organization and make decisions based on more objective standards. Ostensibly this sounds good, but it can take on negative, or even destructive consequences if not closely monitored. In the early days, the founding board was unified to do anything necessary to assure the survival of the organization and they made their decisions accordingly. Start-up effort and operational survival was the common and unifying bond between those early board members. But with later generations of boards, this Start-up, or survival bond, rarely exists, leaving individual board members more able to act on their own agendas. This lack of a unifying bond can, if unmonitored, be the beginning of the end for an organization that has no goals for the governing board to apply themselves toward. Like the old saying, “An idle mind is the devil’s workshop,’ idle boards present a great opportunity for operational problems to occur. Without a defined direction to take, they have an amazing propensity to justify their existence by getting involved in organizational management. With this in mind, the chief executive should always push for a strategic plan/goal at which a board may strive toward. With these newerboards also comes the problem of, “vestment understanding,” in that boards typically do not realize the basic difference between their and the ED’s motivations. In general, new board members of older notfor-profit organizations are serving as part of an advisory and policy making body for a community service agency. This limited involvement typically requires little operational knowledge of the service provided, minimal time involvement, and little effort. Also there is rarely any personal dependence on organization funds, as they are generally employed elsewhere in the commun...
ity, and serve voluntarily on the agency board. Hence the operational success or failure of the organization represents little impact on them professionally, and absolutely no impact at all on them financially. On the other hand, a professional executive’s (and staff’s) entire professional career(s) andfuture employment hinge on the performance and fiscal viability of that organization; not to mention their very livelihoods. The operational failure of a hospice rarely if ever, has any tangible effects the governing board. Conversely, such a failure for a hospice ED is not only devastating for them financially, it will likely be a large black mark they will carry on the professional record for a long time. When this type of comparison of motivations is made, it is suddenly very easy to see who has the most vested in the success of the hospice, and where that authority for operational matters should lie. It also demonstrates that detailed communication, instigated by an ED candidate during the hiring process, can eliminate many of the problems that could surface in the long run. It also emphasizes the need for governing boards and chief executive candidates, to carefully delineate their goals, perspectives and expectations early in the interview process. And in those alltoo common instances where none of this communications ground work was done, and the board and the ED may now be locked in a mortal power conflict, a calm review and discussion of the topics contained in this article, could be the start of the communications necessary to allow an understanding of each other’s frustrations and perceptions. In the end, the question will not be who is right, or who is wrong; the question is: Can we learn from our misunderstandings to better understand each other through regular, frank communications? C~
AMERICAN JOURNAl OF
Alzheimer’s Care I & Research u AND RELATED DISORDERS
The primary source of information about Alzheimer ‘s disease If you work with or simply care about Alzheimer’s patients you can’t afford to miss The American Journal of Alzheimer’s Care and Related Disorders & Research® The first bi-monthly professional journal dedicated to bringing you the latest national information about Alzheimer’s care and research — including: book reviews, news briefs, conferences and more. Articles have focused on • research updates • environmentaldesign for dementia legal issues private long term care insurance
the need for family support the risk of Alzheimer’s for relatives
• recording neurological symptoms •
therapeutic interventions
•
communication with Alzheimer’s patients medications and Alzheimer’s sleep disturbances and more
To subscribe call 1-800-869-2700
The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care July/August 1992
Downloaded from ajh.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on March 30, 2015
