Inclusive Governance Practices in Nonprofit Organizations and Implications for Practice

An inclusive board seeks information from multiple sources, demonstrates an awareness of the community and constituents that benefit from and contribute to the organization's services, and establishes policies and structures to foster stakeholder contributions. This research investigated the prevalence of inclusive governance practices and its relationship to board composition, diversity attitudes, and recruitment practices. Fifty‐six executive directors and forty‐three board members representing sixty‐two nonprofit organizations returned a mailed survey (29 percent response rate). The study profiled two organizations that represented different styles of inclusive governance. The survey, part of a larger study, contained questions about inclusive practices, board composition, attitudes toward diversity, and recruitment practices. Most organizations indicated that they operate with inclusive governance practices. The organizational profiles provide a picture of boards that used different strategies to accomplish the goal of inclusivity. Boards that use more inclusive practices were not necessarily heterogeneous in board member composition. Inclusive boards were more inclined to be sensitive to diversity issues and used recommended board recruitment practices. The existence of a task force or committee on diversity was also significantly associated with a more inclusive board. Nonprofit organizations must consider their philosophy on stakeholder involvement, recognizing that different strategies lead to different levels of stakeholder involvement.     

Female leaders and board performance in member‐serving nonprofit organizations

Despite an active stream of “good governance” research, there is not yet much nonprofit scholarship examining how the gender composition of a board or its leadership relates to board performance. This article helps to fill this gap, focusing on the governance practices of US‐based nonprofits serving a domestic or international membership. A structural equation model finds that the presence of female leaders relates to the performance of nonprofit boards both directly and indirectly through these leaders' presumed influence on board characteristics and operation. This research advances the field by empirically testing a longstanding theory that board performance is both multidimensional and contingent on the market and labor environment, organizational capacity and other characteristics—in this case, gender dynamics. We find there are some positive relationships between female board leadership and clearly defined measures of board performance. These findings also suggest that a strategy to balance a board's gender may serve many nonprofits, but gender representation works in tandem with other board characteristics.     

Behavioral Determinants of Nonprofit Board Performance

There is an increased awareness that the performance of boards (good governance) is not only determined by structural determinants but by behavioral determinants as well. These behavioral determinants might be particularly important for public and nonprofit governance, where the role of the board is more diffuse and heterogeneous than in corporate governance. Here we investigate how social dynamics within boards in secondary education influence their performance. We follow a concise model that includes cognitive conflict, the use of expertise, effort norms, and social cohesion as determinants of board task performance. A survey among all secondary schools in the Netherlands serves as the empirical underpinning for this process‐oriented model of good governance. We show that the behavioral determinants have different effects on the control task and advice task of boards. Also, we find that cognitive conflicts in supervisory boards do not lead to less but rather to more social cohesion within boards. Building on these findings, we suggest a revised model of the behavioral determinants of nonprofit board performance.     

A contingency approach to nonprofit governance

A number of contingency factors may be relevant for effective nonprofit organizations and their boards. Although all boards must fulfill certain critical roles and responsibilities, strategic choices can be made about adopting different governance configurations or patterns. These choices can be meaningfully informed by understanding organizational contingencies such as age, size, structure, and strategy—and, even more important, by external contingencies and environmental dimensions such as degree of stability and complexity. This article extends or layers contingency thinking beyond its traditional focus on an alignment between the external environment and the organization's structure to focus as well on the alignment of the organization's governance configuration with its structure and environment. Structural contingency theory in general, and specifically within nonprofits, is reviewed. Two cases are presented of organizations that used an approach based on contingency theory in an action research process to examine and change their governance configurations. The steps they followed may help other nonprofits adapt their governance structures and practices and fulfill their responsibilities for board assessment and reflection.     

What Nonprofit Executives Want and What They Get from Board Members

In theory, nonprofit boards of directors exist to perform mission‐setting and oversight functions that help to ensure organizational accountability. Yet there is evidence that board behavior often falls short of this ideal. Using survey data from a sample of 241 executive directors of nonprofit agencies, we investigated whether nonprofit boards are meeting executive directors’ expectations, and if not, what factors explain this? We find that although board behavior tends to align closely with executive directors’ preferences for involvement in administration and management tasks, there is a greater disconnect between board behavior and executive directors’ preferences for involvement in mission‐setting and oversight duties. Factors that mitigate this gap include organizational professionalization and stability, whereas more extensive reliance on government funding exacerbates it. Female executive directors experience a greater disconnect in their preferences for board involvement and actual board involvement than male executive directors. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for both theory and practice.     

Effective boards: how executive directors define and develop them

There is growing recognition in the nonprofit field that the executive director has a key role in determining whether the board of directors will function effectively. To aid executives in this vital role, two recent studies defined a "good board" from the point of view of two samples of executive directors of community agencies, then sought factors related to board performance as measured by this definition. In interviews, executives whose boards scored higher than their peers on this performance measurement related how they work with their boards in such areas as recruitment of new members, financial management, fundraising, and leadership development.     

Scarce as hen's teeth: Women CEOs in large nonprofit organizations

This study examines an underlying mechanism behind the gender gap in nonprofit executive leadership, focusing on the link between the representation of women on governing boards and the hiring of female CEOs. The analysis of 340 human services organizations with gross receipts greater than $10 million in GuideStar's database reveals that organizations where women make up between one third and half of the board are more likely to have a female CEO compared to organizations where women account for less than one third or a majority of the board. The findings suggest that nonprofit organizations are more likely to hire a female CEO when women constitute a “substantial minority” of the governing board.     

Training Policy Governance in Nonprofit Boards of Directors: The Views of Trainer‐Consultants

Although scholars widely discuss John Carver's (1990) Policy Governance model for nonprofit organizations, they have conducted little formal research on the implementation of the model. For this study, the researchers surveyed ninety‐two trainer‐consultants who graduated from Carver's Policy Governance Academy. The goal was to learn three things from their experiences: (1) whether trainer‐consultants maintain the model as a coherent whole or teach only parts of it; (2) what they perceive as the major challenges for nonprofit boards in implementing the Policy Governance model; and (3) what contextual factors, if any, they feel affect implementation of the model across nonprofit boards with different characteristics. Survey responses indicated that (1) consultants predominantly teach the model as a whole, (2) particular policy areas appear to be problematic for nonprofit boards of directors that implement the model, and (3) two contextual factors may negatively affect the ability of a board of directors to successfully implement Policy Governance boards larger than fifteen members, and organizations with no hierarchy, where the board also functions as staff. Overall, consultants' responses indicated that they feel Policy Governance is far superior to other models, but they recognize the problems and challenges that boards face in trying to implement it.     

Contracting and Patterns of Nonprofit Governance

Executive staff and board members in nonprofit organizations that operate with government grants and contracts often work together to perform important governance functions. This shared responsibility can be predicted by strong executive leadership of the board, a board with highly regarded members, and affiliation with an influential statewide or regional association. The results of our research suggest that the distribution of governance responsibility in nonprofit organizations with government revenues should command the attention of researchers and activists.     

What you don't know can hurt your community: Lessons from a local United Way

This paper describes how a controversial executive compensation package approved by a local United Way agency eclipsed the agency's long‐standing record and reputation of being a top fundraiser and pillar of the community. Using the framework developed by P. Connelly and York (2003), this case study illustrates how the lack of leadership and adaptive capacity within the board of directors, coupled with questions and speculation about managerial capacity, contributed to a highly visible scandal that resulted in the loss of the agency's chief executive officer, the resignation of the chairman of the board of directors, an internal investigation, and ultimately, a federal investigation. Not only did these events hurt the agency, which was forced to eliminate programs and cut staff, but these events hurt the annual campaign, which declined by more than 30 percent, resulting in substantial cuts in funding to dozens of nonprofit organizations. The findings from this study illustrate the importance of building strong governing boards that focus on both organizational processes and performance outcomes. They also highlight how important it is for the flagship charitable institutions to model best practices and invest in their own capacity.     

Board members' influence on the government-nonprofit relationship

This study examines whether, how, and under what conditions nonprofit boards of directors influence the government and voluntary sector relationship. The survey responses of executive directors and board presidents in a randomly selected sample of 400 nonprofit organizations indicate that boards are not bystanders in the contracting relationship with government. Rather, many boards play multiple roles, simultaneously enhancing interdependence and maintaining the boundary between state government and nonprofits.     

Revisiting Agency and Stewardship Theories

Using principal–agent theories, this study examined differences in the perceptions of nonprofit chief executive officers (CEOs) and board chairs on key governance aspects, including board performance, leadership, satisfaction with diversity, and board meetings. Using data from the CEOs and board chairs of 474 nonprofit organizations, we found statistically significant differences in the governance perceptions of these leaders of nonprofit organizations. The findings provide support for an agency theory explanation about the differing interests of principals (board chairs) and agents (CEOs). The findings suggest that these two sets of nonprofit actors frequently operate from different perspectives, potentially affecting the governance of their organizations.     

Responsibilities and roles of boards in nonprofit organizations: The Israeli case

In this study, nine roles and responsibilities of boards of directors in nonprofit organizations in Israel are examined and perceptions of these roles and responsibilities by chairpersons of the boards and the executive directors are compared. Four groupings of board roles were found: senior human resource management, maintenance of relationships with the task environment, policymaking, and fiscal management and fundraising. The findings show that in most organizations boards fulfill all these roles and play a significant role in decision making. A significant consensus exists between chairpersons and executive directors in respect to most of the boards' roles, whereas significant differences in perceptions were found in respect to financial matters and maintenance of relationships with the task environment.     

Resignation or Dismissal?: When a CEO and a President Clash

In the executive director's opinion, Bluehills Family Services' board of directors had serious problems with their organizational governance. These difficulties came to a head in an apparently unresolvable clash between the executive director and the board president. Given the preexisting board and organization perceptions, could an emergency board meeting produce a positive outcome, and would the executive director's participation be counterproductive?     

Power in and around nonprofit boards: A neglected dimension of governance

In this article we propose five patterns of board governance based on the distribution of power in and around boards of nonprofit organizations. The typology proposed grew out of our findings in in-depth case studies in which the dispersion of power became the critical variable for making sense of the patterns of governance observed. These governance patterns were then incorporated into a survey of boards in the voluntary sector. We present the results of this latter phase of the research by focusing on the associations between the five patterns and the background characteristics of board members, organizational and environmental variables, and board and organizational effectiveness. The results of the study suggest that power is an important while largely neglected aspect of board governance in the not-for-profit sector.     

Into the Fire: Boards and Executive Transitions

Managing the transition an organization undergoes when one chief executive leaves and another is hired is both a defining responsibility and one of the most critical jobs a governing board faces. CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, which consulted to twenty‐eight organizations going through such transitions, found that three characteristic threats to successful transitions for nonprofit boards emerged: (1) boards underestimate the risks and costs of bad hires; (2) boards are typically unprepared for the task; and (3) boards too often focuson the problems in hiring new CEOs and fail to make full use of the opportunities in CEO transitions. This article describes the development of services to help organizations in transition, gives results from the first two years of work, and offers suggestions for support to boards and for future research.     

Leadership within Australian voluntary sport organization boards

This article applies leader‐member exchange theory to the study of dyadic relationships between leaders (board chairs and paid executives) and members (volunteer board members) within the boards of Australian voluntary sport organizations. The article specifically examines leader‐member exchanges within a sample of six Queensland State sport organizations and their relationship with board performance. It was found that leadership within voluntary sport organization boards emanates from either board chairs or executives and that when the individuals fulfilling these roles are able to develop a mature working relationship, the board's ability to perform is enhanced. These findings extend our understanding of the importance of leadership roles held by volunteers and paid professionals for the achievement of organizational outcomes.     

Cooperative power relations between nonprofit board chairs and executive directors

Nonprofit organizations face increasing pressure to change their governance practices. Some scholars propose a check‐and‐balance relationship between the board chair and the executive director. However, empirical evidence for this proposition remains lacking. Employing actor‐centered institutionalism, this comparative case study analyzes the preferences and capabilities of the board chair and the executive director given environmental and organizational pressure. The article compares the results of two main and two replicated cases that underwent significant processes of governance change, which led to a replacement of the board chair and the executive director. After the replacement we observe in all cases a similar pattern in the governance power relation: This power relation is characterized by the actors' equivalent capabilities and complementary preferences. The article concludes by introducing a cooperative power relation model that specifies the concept of checks and balances between the board chair and the executive director.     

Redefining the board's role in fiscal planning

Board approval of an operating budget, a traditional exercise of board authority, can trivialize board leadership and stultify managerial prerogatives. Considered within a new governance paradigm, conventional budget approval is not only unnecessary, but dysfunctional. This article argues that boards should proactively establish policy for financial planning and then require administrative budgeting throughout the year to meet the policy criteria. The result is that boards stay focused on the bigger issues, particularly program priorities and goals, leaving managers the authority to create and adjust budgets within policy boundaries.