Board Power

Every organization operates in a different manner, especially when it comes to the power distribution of their board. As discussed in an earlier blog, many things surrounding nonprofit board governance is based on contingency theory. Nonprofit boards however, typically distribute power in one of five ways, they are:

• CEO-Dominated Board 
• Chair-Dominated Board
• Fragmented Power Board
• Power-Sharing Board
• Powerless Board

The CEO-Dominated board is an example of a rubber stamp board. This occurs in an organization with chief executives that have a long tenure with the organization and is more knowledgeable about the organization. The chief executive typically has an executive team that assists him in the operation of the organization. The chief executive and his team performs tasks that are later reviewed by the board and signed off. When a serious issue arises in these types of organizations, the board quickly blames the director for the issues that come up.

The next type of power distribution comes from a Chair-Dominated board, this is evident in organizations that have founder's syndrome. A chair-dominated board is when the elected chair is the clear leader of the organization. In this type of setting the executive director simply carries out the strategic direction of the chair. The problem with these types of boards is that it leads to the poor development of teams. As discussed in a previous blog, in order to form a diverse board you must select individuals based on the needs of the board and the organization. In this setting the chair selects individuals based on who he knows, to ensure he is able to lead without question.

The next type of power distribution is Fragmented Power Board. A fragmented board is when there is a clear divide between the board on most issues surrounding the organization. Each side argues their point without truly hearing the other sides argument. This can occur when a board tries to create a more diverse group within the board. By bringing in new members with varying views, experienced members can get upset because they feel as if they are trying to change everything. These types of boards rarely accomplish forward movement for the organization because they are unable to achieve the desired tasks. These types of boards can be avoided if there is a strong chair person or chief executive that is able to moderate the discussions of the two sides.

The next type of power distribution is Power-Sharing Boards. Power sharing boards are focused on the mission and purpose of the organization. They do not allow for any one group to dominate the board discussion. This seems like it would be the ideal setting for a board, however it too is flawed. The power sharing board can address issues ad nauseum to allow everyone to express their points. Therefore this type of board can prevent organizational growth.

The final type of power distribution is a Powerless Board. An example of why a powerless board occurs is when there has been major turnover on a board and new members are recruited. When the new members are recruited they are not given an orientation into their role as a board member. This can also occur during the foundation stage of the organization. This type of organization would be the type of power distribution you want to avoid because a powerless board fails to act. They wait around waiting for someone else to do the work.

Again, there is not a specific way in which an organization must operate, there can be benefits to each type of power distribution. The only type of power distribution I would recommend that you always avoid is the powerless board. I do not see the benefit of a group of individuals failing to act on their responsibilities. If I had to choose a type of power distribution it would be power-sharing, I would ensure that the board chair is a leader or at least the executive director is strong leader. With a strong leader in place, they can push the board to act more quickly.