Get the basics right.
Make decisions to do things.
In a very small organization, the board is a board of management. It actually runs the activities of the organization, and most board members are probably also operational staff anyway. This kind of organization is usually too small and new to separate leadership from management.
As soon as practical in the life of an organization, it is desirable to separate leadership and management. In a board of governance (also called policy governance), the board's responsibilities are clearly separated from management and implementation:
CEOs sometimes feel they should lead and control the board rather than be subject to it, and you will often have to strike a balance between the board's role and the CEO's role. In practice, CEOs are responsible to inform the board of operations; they know more than anyone else about them, and often have most to lose if something goes wrong. However, beware CEO bias; they naturally want to cast themselves in a good light and their view of the organization, even when complely honest, is idiosyncratic and others might see it differently.
Mixing board leadership and management is toxic. Executive officers need the freedom to handle problems and adjust strategies when current activities are not on track to meet the objectives set by the board. Board members normally should not be involved in the everyday operations, which are entrusted to the chief officers. Consequently, it is very tricky for board members to both be on the board supervising the CEO, and working in the organization subject to the CEO. Few people can do it successfully, and it normally causes such problems of role conflict that it is not good practice.
As organizations grow, boards naturally go though a series of changes, all of which are quite traumatic. It's worth noticing here because board members get frustrated by the transitions but often don't know what is frustrating them.
Stage 1: The Great Leader
Community and non-profit organizations tend to be founded by a strong person who acts as the Great Leader. These are often strong, charismatic people who can gather other people around them. Boards at this early stage are usually support teams who follow the guidance of the leader.
Stage 2: Board of management
If the organization survives, the board members eventually start to realize that one person can't do everything. The board starts making real decisions and they become a board of management. They manage the organization together. If they are good, they make good decisions and the organization grows. And if the board members are all new to making decisions for an organization, they probably waste lots of time and make some bad decisions.
The transition from being simply a support team to real decision-making is usually quite traumatic:
• It's not our job. We're used to the Great Leader making those decisions.
• What if the Great Leader disagrees?
• What if the Great Leader is clearly wrong?
Stage 3: Board of governance
If the organization grows, the board starts to realize that the board is not an effective place to make all management decisions. Spending an hour talking about the color of paint in the office kitchen is not good. So they separate the role of the board from management. The board decides strategy and policy, and managers decide on implementation.
This is also a traumatic transition. Board members are used to feeling that they have a right to make all implementation decisions, and don't like losing the power to do so. If something comes up, they dislike being out of the loop. Too often, they feel they have authority to intervene in implementation; and their interventions often have negative consequences.