My takeout:
This is a handy article focusing on the impact your non-profit is having and whether you actually measure that impact and feature it in your strategic leadership. If you did so, would you find, as the study does, that there is a quite a gap between what you might achieve and what you are actually achieving?  
The study identifies  that the best nonprofits are able to master seven elements that constitute what the authors call “strategic leadership”:
mission, strategy, impact evaluation, insight and courage, organization and talent, funding, and board governance.
These elements work together as a system. An organization that exhibits strong performance in all seven areas becomes an “engine of impact” and is capable of achieving real impact on a scale that is adequate to current needs.
According to their analysis, more than 80 percent of nonprofits struggle in one or more of these areas. How do you rank?Filling Essential Gaps in Nonprofit Leadership

New research shows that most nonprofits fall short in important areas of performance. But stakeholders who operate at a systems level can do a lot to help solve this problem.
By William F. Meehan III & Kim Starkey Jonker Nov. 8, 2017

For nonprofits to leverage the potential of new technologies and new ideas—from mobile connectivity to randomized evaluation—everyone with a stake in the sector must work to narrow the distance between what nonprofit organizations might achieve and what they are actually achieving today.

However, our findings from a recent survey we conducted—which drew responses from more than 3,000 stakeholders in the sector, including executives, staff members, and board members at nonprofits and foundations—cast a revealing, and in some cases troubling, light on crucial performance gaps that exist in the sector.
After spending several decades researching, advising, and helping lead nonprofits, we have come to believe that the best nonprofits are able to master seven elements that constitute what we call “strategic leadership”: mission, strategy, impact evaluation, insight and courage, organization and talent, funding, and board governance. These elements work together as a system. An organization that exhibits strong performance in all seven areas becomes an “engine of impact” and is capable of achieving real impact on a scale that is adequate to current needs.
Unfortunately our survey showed that a large majority of organizations fail to meet this standard. Looking at responses from nonprofit executives, staff members, and board members, we found that very few of them represent organizations that excel in all seven areas of strategic leadership. According to our analysis, more than 80 percent of nonprofits struggle in one or more of these areas. What’s more, in three of these areas—board governance, funding, and impact evaluation—at least half of all nonprofit respondents indicated that their organization struggles to perform effectively. (Those curious about how their own organization fares in its practice of strategic leadership can use our Engine of Impact Diagnostic tool. It’s based on the same analytical framework we used to develop the survey and takes just 10 to 15 minutes.)

But while individual nonprofits have work to do, they alone can’t accomplish the sector-wide transformation that is so necessary. Much of the work of building more effective organizations needs to start, in particular, with the board members who oversee nonprofits and with the donors who sustain them financially. Consider the three areas of performance in which nonprofits are most likely to struggle. In each, influential players within the nonprofit sector can and must help nonprofits develop strategic leadership capabilities.
Board Governance: Demand High EngagementBetter governance at a board level starts with board members themselves. They need to approach their work for a nonprofit as a matter not of passive service but of active participation in the direction of that organization. (They call it a “board of directors” for a reason.) While reviewing budgets, project proposals, and strategic plans will always be a core function of a nonprofit board, those who sit on a board should demand opportunities to engage directly with “the thing itself”—the frontline activities that their organization pursues. Chris Bischof, cofounder and principal of Eastside College Preparatory School in East Palo Alto, Calif., cites this aspect of his organization as an important factor in its success. “At least half of the board members are on campus daily or weekly, tutoring or teaching after-school classes to kids or engaging in other ways. This involvement causes the board to really have their pulse on the school,” he says.
Equally important, if not more so, board members must take seriously their duty to monitor the work of their organization’s executive director or CEO. Hiring, evaluating, and setting compensation for that leader is their primary responsibility. Kathy Spahn, president and CEO of Helen Keller International (HKI), notes that the HKI board established a framework for evaluation at the very beginning of her tenure at the organization. “In advance of my start date, the board and I developed and agreed upon not only a clear and specific job description, but also mutually agreed objectives and deliverables for my first three, six, and twelve months,” Spahn explains. “Consequently, there were no surprises or speed bumps, and I was able to hit the ground running.” Nonprofit executives, for their part, need to shun the temptation to treat their board as a rubber stamp. The title of an article we wrote in 2014 says it all: “A Better Board Will Make You Better.”

Donors also have a decisive role to play in boosting the quality of board governance. In evaluating organizations to support, they should scrutinize the work of board members just as rigorously as they do the work of executive directors and other top staff members. And they should avoid funding nonprofits in which board members seem passive or disengaged, or in which the board displays a lax approach to overseeing executive performance.
Funding: Put a Premium on ImpactOf course the most direct way donors can improve nonprofit performance is through their funding efforts. Donors, we believe, must stop thinking small and start giving big. And they need to give with the aim of supporting nonprofits in a way and on a scale that will empower those organizations to achieve meaningful impact.
One impediment to effective funding is that donors are too ready to fund projects that will bring recognition—a new hospital wing, a campus building, a research center that will bear their family name. They focus too little on funding projects in which their money can do the most good. We don’t question donors’ understandable wish to earn a bit of glory for their giving. But we urge them to tap into the deeper source of satisfaction that comes with providing fuel to organizations with a proven record of making a difference in people’s lives.

We can think of no better model for donors than that of Tom White, whose largely unsung efforts to support Partners in Health (PIH) show what it means to give for impact rather than recognition. Today, PIH is an esteemed nonprofit that provides medical services to some of the world’s poorest people. It became a global health powerhouse in part because of the visionary work of its founders, including Paul Farmer, Jim Kim (who is now president of the World Bank), and Ophelia Dahl—and thanks to White, who helped launch the organization in the 1980s with a $1 million donation. White owned and ran the Boston construction company J.F. White Contracting Co., which built the Charles River Dam and Foxboro Stadium, and in PIH he saw a worthy place to direct the fruits of his success.
White continued to support PIH by systematically giving the organization roughly $50 million over a period of more than 25 years. To support PIH projects, he sold his company and many of his assets. He and his wife moved into progressively smaller houses so that they could make stretch gifts to the organization. Then, after taking steps to provide for his family financially, he set out to be as close to penniless as possible when he died. White made his last gift to PIH two weeks before his death, at the age of 90. It was for $5,000; that was all he had left.
Not all donors can be as selflessly or quietly generous as White. But his story shows that impact can be just as inspiring to philanthropists as recognition. White seized an opportunity to help fuel a high-impact organization. If more donors adopt this approach, then more nonprofits like Partners in Health will be able to flourish.

Impact Evaluation: Insist on It—and Pay for ItA chronic problem in the nonprofit sector is that very few people in the sector dispute the value of impact evaluation, yet all too few people are willing to spend money on it. That needs to change, and donors are clearly in the best position to affect the way organizations prioritize and fund efforts to evaluate nonprofit work.
For nonprofit executives, the incentives to pursue rigorous impact evaluation are mixed, at best. Many of them prefer to remain opaque about the effectiveness of their programs, because clarity on that front exposes them to unwelcome pressure for accountability. Many boards of directors, moreover, tolerate their executives’ avoidant behavior. Reinforcing this pattern is the indifference that many funders exhibit toward impact evaluation. In our survey, we asked nonprofit executives and staff members how many of their donors demand some kind of performance measurement. Only 42 percent of respondents indicated that more than half of their donors fall into that category. And crucially, a much smaller share of nonprofit respondents (11 percent) indicated that more than half of their donors are willing to pay for such evaluation work.
Yet donors are the systemically pivotal player in this area. They have the leverage to demand evaluation of the programs they fund. They also have an incentive to do so: Why should they invest their capital in a nonprofit whose work lacks empirical support? Most important, they have the means to finance evaluation efforts. If donors routinely decline to pay for impact evaluation, then improving this aspect of nonprofit performance will remain something of a lost cause. If they embrace this responsibility, however, then the nonprofit sector can end the state of gridlock in which nonprofits merely pretend to have impact and donors pretend to believe them.
Pratham, an organization that works to improve learning outcomes among children in India, has incorporated rigorous evaluation—including the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—into its work for many years. To do so, it has relied on support from donors that recognize the value of funding not just educational programs but also efforts to measure program results. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, for instance, paid for an evaluation of Pratham’s implementation of its Read India program in the states of Bihar and Uttarakhand. In fact, the foundation committed to supporting evaluation work on all of the programs it funded under its Quality Education in Developing Countries (QEDC) initiative. Other funders, including the Skoll Foundation, the US Agency for International Development, and the World Bank, have also supported Pratham’s evaluation projects.
According to Rukmini Banerji, CEO of Pratham, collaborating with funders that are willing to pay for impact evaluation works best when the two parties approach this work in the spirit of experimentation. “None of [these funders] have the view that there is a ‘silver bullet.’ This is a long-run game. From Hewlett especially, we always got the feeling that we are all learning together. Never was the evaluation for the sake of evaluation,” Banerji says.
Before nonprofit organizations can pursue impact at scale over the long term, they must earn the right to scale. They can do so only by demonstrating their ability to excel in the essential components of strategic leadership. The best nonprofits are ones that absorb this principle. But even the best nonprofits need help in living up to it.

A Good Question Can be a Game ChangerPosted by Anne Wallestad, President & CEO, BoardSource on Feb 9, 2017
One of my favorite questions to ask boards is “If your organization were founded today, what would it look like?” I love it because it leads to the board asking some other very important questions — questions that get to the heart of the organization’s existence:

• What’s our organization’s core purpose? What need or challenge are we seeking to address?
• What’s the best way — the ideal combination of programs and tactics — to achieve that purpose?
• What expertise, resources, and capacities do we need to achieve the ideal scale and reach?

I love this question because it helps leaders think broadly. It opens up new ways of thinking about their organization’s impact and work, and it creates a compelling entry point to planning and strategy.
When leaders are free from their current operating reality, they can think big about what their organization is all about. They can imagine what could — or should — be, without burden or obligation to what currently is.
And that’s the perfect starting point to another important conversation — a conversation about strategic partnerships. An open discussion about whether a partnership with another organization could unlock powerful new ways to achieve impact. An exploration of the many ways to build on complementary organizational strengths — including through structures such as joint programming, administrative consolidation, and mergers.
Talking about ways to partner with other organizations shouldn’t be scary. It should be exciting. It should be about finding creative ways to accomplish big things.
It should be about the power of possibility.
In the boardroom, just as in life, a good question can be a game changer. So ask yourself:

• What new realities might be possible for my organization with expanded resources and capacity?
• What might we be able to accomplish by working in partnership with an organization that has complementary strengths?
• What role can I play in helping to make that happen?

The English language is a joy to behold, but a beast to learn. In addition to its numerous irregularities, there's a plethora of phrases and idioms that seem to make no sense to non-native speakers.
Here are the origin stories of common phrases you might not have known; explaining these is a fun ways to connect with new people--say, at a networking event. You end up looking smart but entertaining at the same time:
1. To turn a blind eyeMeaning: To know something is true but refuse to acknowledge it
Origin: Horatio Nelson was a skilled British maritime officer who was also blind in one eye. In 1801, he led a naval attack in the Battle of Copenhagen. When his partner in the battle, Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, communicated via flags that he needed to retreat, Nelson didn't want to acknowledge it. So he turned to a fellow officer, lifted the telescope to his blind eye, and said he "didn't see any signal."
He won the battle.
2. To spill the beansMeaning: To reveal a secret
Origin: This is likely drawn from the ancient Greek process of voting, where votes were cast by placing one of two different colored beans in a vase (usually a white bean meant yes, and a black/brown one meant no). 
If someone literally spilled the beans, the election results would be revealed.
3. Straight from the horse's mouthMeaning: Getting info directly from the source
Origin: In the 1900s, savvy horse buyers could determine a horse's age by looking at its teeth. It was the most reliable way to know whether you were getting a good deal or not (as opposed to speaking with the seller).
4. To pull someone's legMeaning: To tease someone (often by lying in a joking fashion)
Origin: This has somewhat of a darker origin; thieves used to pull the legs of victims to trip them before robbing them.
5. Feeling under the weatherMeaning: To feel sick
Origin: When a sailor felt ill he often went belowdecks, and specifically under the bow (the front of the boat). The idea was to gain protection from the bad weather above (rain, lightning, swells, etc.). Thus a sick sailor was described as being "under the weather."
6. Hands downMeaning: Definitely; absolutely
Origin: In the 1800s, horse racing was an intensely popular sport. When a jockey won "hands down" it meant he was so far ahead he was able to remove his hands from the reins and still win.
7. To fly off the handleMeaning: To become enraged suddenly
Origin: In the 1800s, some poorly-made axes would literally themselves detach from handles, sending them flying. This would be not only dangerous, but very annoying for the person wielding it.
8. Sleep tightMeaning: Sleep well
Origin: This likely stems from the days when mattresses were supported by ropes. Telling someone to sleep tight meant you hoped the ropes were pulled tight, which would mean a well-supported bed for them overnight.
9. To get someone's goatMeaning: To annoy someone
Origin: Another from the world of horse racing: jockeys and others who cared for horses often put goats in stables to help horses relax and feel a sense of companionship (horses get lonely just like humans).
Competitors would remove the goat from the stables of rivals in the hopes of spooking the horse and having it lose the race.
10. To pull out all the stopsMeaning: To do everything in your power to make something succeed
Origin: The musical instrument the organ, often played in churches, has "stops" within it. Stops are knobs near the keyboard, which the player uses to select different sounds or timbres. When you pull out all the stops, it allows the organ to play to its fullest capacity (as loudly as possible).
11. Armed to the teethMeaning: to be completely ready for battle
Origin: Ever seen a pirate movie where they're carrying a gun between their teeth? When you've got weapons everywhere you can fit them on your person, the only other place to put the last one is between your teeth. 
12. To kick the bucketMeaning: Someone has died 
Origin: Another dark one: when people used to hang themselves, they'd use a bucket to get up high enough to tie the rope over a rafter; when they were ready, they'd kick the bucket to begin the strangulation process.
Interestingly, this phrase has equivalents in other languages. In Ukranian it's "to cut the oak" (that you'll need for the coffin); in German, it's "to look at radishes from below" (like our "six feet under"); and in Swedish, it's "to take the sign down" (i.e. you'd hung out a shingle for your business on the main street, and now you'd take the sign down).
13. It's raining cats and dogsMeaning: To rain very hard
This is my personal favorite. In Britain in the 1500s, houses had thatched roofs, which was really just a bunch of straw piled up on itself (no wood below). When it was cold and gray--which is at least half the year in the UK--animals like cats and small dogs would huddle in the straw of the roofs for warmth. 
When it rained particularly hard, some of these animals would slip off the straw and wash into the gutters. Thus people started to say, "It's raining cats and dogs!" to refer to particularly heavy rain.

A startup board is an unusual ecosystem where unstructured roles, personal chemistry, differing degrees of knowledge and expertise combine in a mission-critical function. Admittedly, all the real work of building a company happens outside the boardroom. But at the same time, a good board can be a force multiplier for management — and a dysfunctional board can add friction for management or even destroy an otherwise good company. (For a broader description of start-up board roles and practices, please see the following posts by Fred Wilson and Brad Feld.)
A lot has been written on the role of investor directors (where lead investors typically negotiate board positions as part of their investment), but much less is said about the role played by the independent director in venture-backed startups. Everything an investor director says is loaded — because it comes with money. That’s why having an independent director as a “lower stakes” sounding board and coach can give a founder/CEO an extra tool as they go through their journey. The best independent directors know when to be guardrails, when to push for extra performance, and when to function as empathetic listeners.
Independent directors are often brought in for their domain expertise and company-building skills. Sometimes they’re invited in just to complement the functional skills of the founder. Before a startup begins to generate significant revenue, it’s common to find small boards that are only comprised of founders and investor directors. But space for “Independents” (as independent directors are sometimes called) is often included as early as the closing of the Series A. Before making a commitment to one another, always test personal AND group chemistry because a director is likely to be sitting on the board for at least a three year term.
I’ve had the pleasure of seeing how great independent board directors can make a difference. Here are the attributes they display:

1. Real knowledge of the Business. Independent directors often go through “boot camp” to get up to speed on the company. They come in because of some unique skill, knowledge or expertise — but it is hard to bring that unique skill without context that requires getting to know the business, the market, and the people. They are “disadvantaged” relative to investor directors in that they don’t join the board after a full investment and due diligence process so the cultivation of broad industry and product knowledge comes by reading, thinking and talking about the company and its market. I recommend meeting each member of the management team to understand their perspectives, priorities and challenges. Scott Petry on the Return Path board is a great example; as the founder/CEO of Postini, he came to the job with deep knowledge of the email ecosystem but stays current by engaging directly with the market.
2. Strategic Insight. Both into company strategy and the approaches that have worked and failed over the years. An independent might have acquired this attribute from running businesses or sitting on other boards. They also might have cultivated this ability by reading about the development of some of the world’s great companies and applying in practice the strategic theories of leading business thinkers. I recall a strategy conversation with Dave Kellogg, an Independent Director on the board at Alation, in response to a strategy conversation. He exclaimed, “This is a perfect opportunity for the three plus one encapsulation strategy,” and directed us to read a blog he posted on the subject.
3. Operational Insight. That involves “doing the work” of not only reading the board book, but shaping what analyses get done and deciding on the presentation of the material. Directors need to understand what’s working and what’s not. Some of the best questions may have to wait for offline data collection and further analysis. While many independents are experienced startup CEOs, boards should also look for candidates who possess “go-to” areas of functional expertise — especially when they complement the founding team of a startup. Since most founding teams are product-oriented, many startups are looking for specific market expertise in sales, growth/marketing and business development. Karen Richardson, an amazing sales leader who now focuses on board work, was an incredible resource for Chandran Sankaran at Closed Loop Solutions, especially when it came to her understanding of sales strategy, hiring and planning.
4. Hustle. In all the critical ways. While directors aren’t full-time employees, it is still critical to “add value” in tangible ways. They should be ready to help in sourcing and closing great hires or finding prospective customers. They should also be willing to offer assistance in sourcing, negotiating and building business partnerships. Robin Josephs on the QuinStreet board is a great example of someone who does the work that keeps a board — and, therefore, a company — going strong. Whether it’s chairing the compensation committee or serving on the (never fun) audit committee.
5. Perspective. A director’s job is to help see the forest through the trees. The best directors help keep the company focused on a 12–18 month time horizon. They seek to make sure that product plans, sales and marketing plans, growth and burn rates all fit together. Matt Glickman did this at Guardian Analytics as an active chairman and helped keep the company moving ahead during a CEO transition. Many directors concentrate on sales and finance but Matt also played a pivotal part helping the company focus on product roadmap and delivery.
6. Silence and Restraint. Sadly, this needs to be said: Directors need to know what they know — and know what they don’t know. Directors aren’t there to run the company — and management level decisions should be left to management. A Director who comes across as a know-it-all will be less persuasive and less effective. Keeping focus on the most important issues is essential and any Director who drags the company into the weeds repeatedly is wasting precious time. It is up to the CEO and/or Board Chair to set the agenda because as Scott Weiss from Ironport once said, “We’ll eat what you feed us.” Getting the balance of asking good questions and letting the group find its flow can be a delicate balance — but one that is important to get right.
7. Empathy. Building a company is an extraordinarily challenging task for management — especially for the CEO. Board meetings are where truth gets spoken, which can be a primary source of CEO angst. Threading the needle between setting inspirationally high expectations for performance and providing guardrails can be really challenging. Often, investor directors who are significant shareholders point out things that aren’t going according to plan or don’t appear to make sense. A great independent that listens well and builds trust with the CEO can have conversations that are not “loaded” by coming from the source of capital and can create a safe place for founders to get input.

The right independent can add a great deal to the company and to the board. But it is important to understand what skills the board is missing and find the personal and team chemistry that lets them bring their best.

August 20, 2019; Delaware Business Times and Inside Indiana Business
There are organizations devoted to it. There are conferences focusing on it. There are endless numbers of experts on the Internet opining about it. But when it comes to nonprofit boards and board development, what do we actually mean?
As an example, an opinion piece by Jeb Banner for Inside Indiana Business discusses the benefits of board engagement. He says the single most accurate predictor of the success of a nonprofit organization is the active engagement of the board and its individual directors. He goes on to describe some of the symptoms of engaged and not-so-engaged board. Basically, it boils down to whether or not the board is “leaning in.”
He goes on to make three suggestions about how to make a board lean in. One is to have good meetings, with meaningful elements of the agenda front-loaded. Another is to be explicit about volunteer and fund development expectations. The third is to have regular evaluations of board effectiveness as a whole, and for the individual directors. But then what? What do these things help the board to actually do?
Another example comes from a piece by Madison Gerdts for the Delaware Business Times, who writes more specifically about the role of treasurer of the board. Gerdts describes the role of treasurer as being quite important for the successful and effective nonprofit organization. It is a role that requires some very specific expertise in addition to the passion for mission and desire to serve that every board director should have.
Gerdts shares 10 ideas that she would recommend for a new treasurer. These range from touching base with your predecessor to making sure you know how the IRS form 990 works. She describes the role as having significant decision-making responsibility and serving as something of a liaison between the financial management of the nonprofit and the board. But then what? What do these things actually help the treasurer of the board do?
Banner has founded two nonprofits, has served on several boards, and is the CEO of a nonprofit called Boardable, an organization that makes a software program designed to help manage boards more effectively. We might assume he knows whereof he speaks. Looking at the Boardable website, we find the phrase, “Empower your nonprofit board with the right tools so you can focus on leading, not just managing.” So, can we assume he believes the role of the board is to lead? Lead where, and who is following?
Gerdts is a CPA candidate working at Whisman Giordano, a firm that has a number of nonprofits clients. Gerdts specializes in nonprofit work so, again, we can assume that she has experience with treasurers. In her description of the role of treasurer, she uses that term—“leadership”—encouraging the treasurer to embrace that role. She suggests that the treasurer should feel good about the work they are doing to help forward the important mission of the organization.
Leadership and leading are nebulous concepts in so many ways and particularly so when applied to a nonprofit board. Writers like Gerdts and Banner seem well-intentioned, but they are not really addressing the important questions that face nonprofits and their boards. They are speaking banalities, essentially, targeted to a reader who is new to the nonprofit world. What they write does not take into consideration how differently boards engage based on the culture, age, mission, size, and location of the organization. Boards will have different roles and different ways of engaging based on each of those variables, let alone the skills that are already on the staff and do not need to be duplicated by a board director.
So, it’s good to remember the ideas these “experts” keep forwarding, but let us also take them with a grain of salt, knowing that at least partially the articles are often intended to help sell the writer’s service or product.—Rob Meiksins

Imagine this. Your gala is three weeks away, and even accounting for last-minute registrations, you are well below target. You review the list of table captains. The poorest performers? Five of your board members. Three of them aren’t even hosting a table.
You fight the urge to rant and, instead, create a short video highlighting everything the board needs to know to get the word out and increase attendance. You share it with the full board. Separately you ask the board chair to hit ‘reply all’ with an encouraging message to other trustees to recruit attendees.
Four hours later, no responses. The problem: You have a bad board. You’re not alone.
A few years back, Stanford University joined forces with BoardSource and GuideStar to survey nonprofits’ board members about their boards. The picture is startling and probably reflects some serious underreporting by participants:
Almost half (48 percent) do not believe that their fellow board members are very engaged in their work, based on the time they dedicate to their organization and their reliability in fulfilling their obligations.
What’s most surprising is the degree to which executive directors and staff leaders are in denial about the root of board problems. You might blame your board chair for not holding members accountable. You might blame the nominations committee for recruiting members who don’t care. You’re right to be angry, but you’re wrong about why.
The real problem? It’s you. Across the sector, executive directors and key leaders are not holding up their end of the bargain. It is your job — and the job of every staff member at your organization — to be in the business of stoking your board’s passion, the "pilot light."
Anyone responsible for board recruitment should identify new members who, first and foremost, are in love with the organization. Skills can be learned, but passion has to be in the DNA. Recruitment efforts must give first priority to candidates whose "pilot light" for your cause is bright. When a board member has that kind of passion, you can feel it.
You won’t hit 100 percent all the time, but most of your board members should arrive with their lights shining. Staff leaders tend to think these bright lights just magically stay bright. They don’t.
"Dim bulb" boards govern poorly; they care less. Board members check their phones at meetings while staff members are sharing successes. They focus on cutting expenses when revenue projections are off. They are responsible for more nonprofit leaders returning calls to recruiters than they will ever know.
Advertisement
How to Reignite Your Board MembersTo engage trustees, I use a simple equation when coaching executive directors, which creates a more productive partnership and equips trustees with the enthusiasm and tools they need to become real ambassadors:
The formula: Inform + Engage + Enrich = Ignite
Most board members will tell you that they are informed. But as a nonprofit leader you need to take two other critical steps to create vocal and visible ambassadors for your cause ― the kind of ambassadors whom those you serve need and deserve.
For example, last year I worked with an equine-therapy program that offers the benefit of horseback riding to kids on the autism spectrum. I gave the executive director some tough love: I told her that her fingerprints were all over her disengaged board.
Here’s how we used the formula.
Inform. The information has to "stick" ― no recitation of your board report. Instead, a PowerPoint presentation with only 13 slides, each with a single image of the horses — the real stars of the organization. On every slide, the name of the horse and its "magic power," such as one horse that is uniquely attuned to anxiety whose healing power helped transform one child. Not only are those board members informed, but now they have personal and powerful stories to tell.
Engage. The topic must tap into what board members bring to the boardroom. For example: The equine-therapy group is considering purchasing an adjacent property. The executive director wants to serve more kids, and the conversation about purchasing the property is big and strategic. So, the director framed the pros and cons to the board, asking questions like these:

• "Am I thinking about this the right way?"
• "If we don’t buy it, who might be our neighbor, and how would that affect us?"
• "If this property weren’t going on the market, would we be looking to expand?"
• "What other questions should we be asking?"
• "What additional information do we need?"

A boardroom of people with the right skills and expertise will add a lot of value to the discussion. And then, when you move forward, the trustees share ownership of the decision, which always leads to more-enthusiastic fundraising.
Enrich. Board members are leaders. Leaders have context and know trends, but they need data. For example, if you are serving kids on the autism spectrum, you need to tell trustees the extent of the problem, expected future trends, and whether the population is growing.
The executive director of the equine-therapy organization has a large network of contacts. Working with her board chair, she extended one board meeting by 30 minutes to allow time for an expert to give a 20-minute presentation with 10 minutes of Q and A. The expert also joined a social gathering afterward. Very few board members left early.
Think of your last two, three board meetings: Did you give your board a bite of any of these three elements of the formula? Were you intentional about how to use a meeting to accomplish any of these things?

“I hate my board.”
I hear it all the time, from board sharers, Executive Directors. You hate your board, really? I get it. You’re a board chair. No one will even volunteer for a committee, and you feel like you’re doing it all on yourself. Or you’re an Executive Director and you just sent out this crazy, great, program success email, and you get crickets. I get it. But I need to be honest, I’m kind of over folks complaining about their boards.
Far too often it feels like sport. When I was an Executive Director I belonged to this ED Group, and I really recommend them. Sharing best practices, giving moral support, and yes there was always time for a little bit of board bashing. I’d like us to encourage a reality check. Your board didn’t come from another planet. You built it. So reality check number one, the board you have is the board you build.
Check two, endless complaining about your board, it’s kind of not that helpful. Not to you, not to them. Reality check three, I am convinced you have better things to complain about. You don’t really hate your board. The phrase is code, it’s code for, “oh I need more resources to do this good work. I feel like this conversation is about centerpieces.” It’s time for you to take responsibility for the board you built.
It’s time for you to do something to change the dynamic. Here are three ideas, recruit with intention and strategy, wait for the right person. Help me I need board members, is neither intentional nor strategic. Number two, be sure your board members are set up to succeed. Give them information, have them practice their story telling. Make sure they understand what success looks like for their board service. Number three, feed them, and not as my friend Vu Le jokes, with hummus. I’m talking about board meetings that are engaging, enriching and in which board members understand what incredible work your organization does.
You will always have board members who are not up to the task. But look at all of them as individuals, and I’m sure you’re going to see that some of them are gems. Committed and passionate folks. Okay, I bet there are at least 10 people you know who complain about their boards. Let’s share this video with them. Let’s give them this reality check. Because if you assume you’re going to get crickets, you know what you get? You get crickets.
But if you assume you have champions around your board table, guess what? They’ll deliver for you. Your board members will be happy, you will be happy and your organization will be on the express train to thriving. Try showing your board a little love. I bet it goes a long way.

Board members are independent, but are they credible?
Yvan Allaire
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
 
By the late 2000s, the goal that boards should be made up of a majority of independent members had been achieved in almost every type of organization. While this achievement may have raised the quality of governance, it turned out that independent boards were not the panacea that some had anticipated.
Events since, in particular the financial crisis of 2008, have shocked the world of corporate governance as impeccably run corporations were cut down one after the other.
Companies, regulators and all savvy observers of governance had to admit that board members’ independence and their general management experience in industries with little in common with the firm to be overseen were an insufficient basis for high-performance governance. Boards must also have a high level of expertise and experience about the specific issues and challenges faced by the company. That’s what board credibility means.
The more complex the company, the more difficult it is for a director to be credible, as was shown in the financial sector during the years leading up to the crisis of 2008.
A board of directors is only credible to the extent that a significant number of its members are able to interact knowledgeably with management on components of performance and the multiple factors that influence performance. This type of exchange calls for a board’s deep and systemic understanding of the company’s business model.
In our day and age, board members will not become, nor remain, credible if they do not master the immense reservoir of information available on the internet to fashion their own independent sources of data.
The current, conventional, approach to board-member selection consists of drawing up a list of the different types of professional expertise that would serve the company well. The search will also include a number of (retired or still active) senior managers from diverse corporations. This process will not lead to a credible board. Actually, the weak link of that process lies in the recruitment of senior managers with experience in business sectors with little in common with the industry in which the company to be governed operates.
The selection process should begin by identifying industries with characteristics that closely track those of the industry in which the target company operates: such as, capital intensity, time horizon of investments, industrial vs. consumer markets, international scope of competition, key success factors, generic strategies. The reason for this is obvious. Executives with experience in such industries will more quickly master the essential aspects of a company operating in a “similar” industry and still qualify as “independent.” This recommendation will help reconcile the regulatory need for “independence” and the important quest for “credibility.”
That recommendation applies equally if and when a board is looking to select some new member with, say, an expertise in finance. The selection process should stress that this experience must have been acquired in an industry with comparable characteristics (as defined above) to that of the target company. There is very little transferable expertise, whether in financial management, human resources, risk management or information technology, between the retail business, a resources company, a financial institution or a firm in the aerospace industry.
If, upon joining the board, new members do not have a high level of credibility, have they committed to invest the necessary time, do they have the education and intellectual wherewithal to become credible within a reasonable period of time … and to maintain that credibility?
The quest for board diversity and “refreshment” has brought about some policies to force automatic termination of board membership. It is now the fashion to impose age limits (70, 72 or 75) and/or tenure limits (15 years on the board).
Those sorts of policies are sub-optimal, but clearly much easier to implement and less emotionally charged, than asking members to leave as a result of his/her performance evaluation. If truly seeking to raise their board’s credibility, board chairs and governance committees should evaluate all board members (whatever their age and the length of their tenure) for their specific knowledge of, and experience with, the type of business or organization they are asked to govern. That’s a tall order, but a necessary step toward more credible boards capable of creating value for all stakeholders of a corporation.
A board’s credibility is the cornerstone of effective governance. Thus, the search for, training and retention of, credible board members has become the dominant issue and inescapable challenge for corporate governance in the 21st century.

Why I think this article is important
 
What I particularly like about this article is that it acknowledges the importance of current good governance practice but goes on to point out the additional governance requirements of technology based companies specifically those in the AI and data management fields.    
 
Concerns about artificial intelligence and data management mean that companies need boards that "make ethics and the public interest strategic priorities," writes Trooper Sanders, a Rockefeller Foundation fellow. The law cannot keep up with evolution in technology, making strong ethical guidance critical for companies in cutting-edge fields.
 
To address the emerging governance issues  directors should receive thorough and ongoing training in business-related ethics, covering issues ranging from bias and privacy to best practice in fairness, transparency, and accountability. They should also be well versed in the ethical implications of their company’s products and services, including conflicts between professed values and the underlying business model
 
And to bring a richer array of perspectives to the boardroom, directors should open their ranks to include ethics experts as well as AI experts who are not computer scientists.

Here's the article:
Following the corporate corruption scandals of the early 2000s, then-Securities and Exchange Commission chairman William Donaldson said determining the company’s moral DNA “should be the foundation on which the Board builds a corporate culture based on a philosophy of high ethical standards and accountability.” Today’s crisis of confidence in technology companies, especially those controlling deep pools of data and developing and deploying artificial intelligence, not only demands more responsible engineers, entrepreneurs, and executives but more assertive boards who make ethics and the public interest strategic priorities.
The board’s roleBoard of directors’ responsibilities include hiring, firing, and holding the CEO’s feet to the fire, as well as approving and overseeing the company’s strategy and ensuring the integrity of company financials. Boards must also set a tone at the top of ethics and responsible business practices.
Recommended VideosCompanies in traditional industries such as health care and manufacturing can turn to decades of laws, regulations, and litigation for guard rails and guidance. That’s largely unavailable in new fields such as artificial intelligence. Norms and standards are still emerging; laws, regulations, and legal precedent are scarce; and pressure groups are still finding their voice and translating concerns into actionable demands. Moreover, black-letter law will likely never be able to keep pace with technological progress, stop every nefarious actor determined to wreak havoc, or account for every ethical blind spot and trapdoor. That is why it is important for AI company boards to be aggressive stewards of corporate ethics, making it a top priority alongside other concerns such as capital allocation and succession planning.
Boards should hold CEOs accountable for making ethics an organization-wide priority, subject a company’s strategy and major business decisions to ethical stress tests, and use conflicts between commercial pressures and ethical outcomes as an opportunity to innovate in the public interest’s favor. For example, directors should not take it on faith that their AI products do not exacerbate racism or sexism. Instead, board members should push management to prove that products cannot cause gender and race-based harm. They should also facilitate robust discussions about ways products could enable harm once in the hands of customers and the public and ensure plans are in place to adapt products and practices when confronted with evidence of harm.
Governance excellence on AI ethicsBoards can build their ethics and governance muscle in three ways.
First, directors should receive thorough and ongoing training in business-related ethics, covering issues ranging from bias and privacy to best practice in fairness, transparency, and accountability. They should also be well versed in the ethical implications of their company’s products and services, including conflicts between professed values and the underlying business model. Directors should also require management briefings on ethics-related litigation and concerns raised by customers, policymakers, and advocates who could have a material impact on the company’s reputation, relationship with regulators, or growth.
Second, to bring a richer array of perspectives to the boardroom, directors should open their ranks to include ethics experts as well as AI experts who are not computer scientists. For example, an AI company serving the health care sector might include specialists in privacy or health equity. A company offering human resource-related AI might bring in a leader in diversity and inclusion who has deep knowledge in both labor and civil rights law, as well as broader concerns such as bias, building inclusive workplaces, and the politics of diversity and business. This is especially important for startup boards dominated by founders and investors, where enthusiasm about the product and the pursuit of a profitable exit can cloud judgment and dampen debate. Directors can make hay about ethical concerns in the boardroom and resign if the company prefers taking the wrong path, signaling to the market that all is not well.
Finally, AI companies with significant market power or that have a business with a substantial impact on human health or civil rights should have a board ethics committee in the mold of well-functioning audit committees. Companies should set up this committee with independent directors, including at least one with expertise in ethics and technology. It should be able to seek independent technical, legal, and political advice and to probe senior management without the CEO present.
What the market will bearTechnology companies can look to the growing environmental and social impact pressure on boards in other industries for a harbinger of things to come. Earlier this year, Larry Fink, chairman of investing behemoth BlackRock, caused a stir when his annual letter to CEOs highlighted the importance of good environmental and community stewardship when the firm makes investment decisions. Fink not only called for better executive management of these matters, he called for stronger board leadership as well. “The board is essential to helping a company articulate and pursue its purpose, as well as respond to the questions that are increasingly important to its investors, its consumers, and the communities in which it operates,” he wrote. A 2018 report by the consultant firm EY’s Center for Board Matters found market demand for a more expansive approach to board governance that included “increasingly high-profile environmental and social topics, such as climate change, political spending, and lobbying, diversity and inclusiveness, health care, immigration and more.”
Whether more ethically assertive corporate governance will prevent AI from sending the wrong people to jail, denying otherwise qualified people health care and social services, or making it harder for women, people of color, and others to climb the economic ladder depends on two factors. First, management must respond to board signals and enforce high ethical standards throughout the company or face replacement. Second, customers, investors, and regulators must reward companies that demonstrate ethical excellence and punish those that do not. Ultimately, AI will become as ethical as the market demands.
Trooper Sanders is a Rockefeller Foundation fellow (@TrooperSanders). The views expressed are the author’s and do not reflect the views of The Rockefeller Foundation

The combination of hubris and aspiration, liberally sprinkled with puffery make many value sets mosh pits of self-delusion.
So there’s every chance your company values are complete bullshit. And if they are, it’s a quick ride on the slip slide to cynicism and ridicule when actions reveal them to be naked as the proverbial emperor.
Here are five signs of bullshittery to watch out for.
1. If the acronym of your values is a word – they might be bullshit.A perennial healthcare favourite uses the first letter of each value to spell “icare”, but they are far from alone turning their values into a handy mnemonic.
I’m not a fan of the approach and can’t think of a legitimate reason to tie yourself into a linguistic pretzel so your values can make a word. And sure, if you’re one of the very, very, very few for whom the values can make a word, go for it. For everyone else, it’s a red warning light.
True values aren’t hard to remember, they resonate, and they don’t need to make a word because they’re part of how you do things every day.
2. If your values are taken from the top 10 list of usual suspects – they might be bullshit.Excellence, accountability, respect, innovation, teamwork, integrity – we can almost recite them off by heart. Now if one or more of them truly inform your intention and how you go about your everyday unheroic work, and sometimes heroic work, go for it.
But if you’re choosing them because they present a shiny facade, or to appear as the organisational equivalent of a person everyone likes and universally describes as a ‘good person’, then don’t. Because all values have a dark side. Excellence can flip into an inability to finish things, accountability turns into a blame-fest and innovation an excuse to blow stuff up.
So if good values can go bad you might as well spend a bit of time and go with what’s true.
3. If your values are printed on the back of your identity badge, on a poster on the wall or on your website – they might be bullshit.I know plastering them on anything and everything that moves can seem like a good idea – everyone does it. However, I’ve noticed a phenomenon over the years – an inverse relationship between how prominently values are displayed and how true they are. And sure it’s anecdotal at best, but you’ve probably encountered the same thing.
So here’s an idea. Don’t print them on anything. Instead, make them a daily part of the conversation about your work. Not just once a year, all the time.
Learn why you should take your values off your web site. Click here.
4. If the only place your values show up in conversation is the annual staff offsite – they might be bullshit.If you’re not talking about your values they may as well be that poster on the wall.
Talk about them in the board room, in the hallways, in meetings, when you’re deciding what to do (especially then), when you’re fixing a problem, bringing new people into the organisation, over coffee in the break-room, and yes at the offsite.
Talk about them when they’re easy and when they’re pesky, inconvenient non-negotiables forcing you to find a different way of being.
And that matters more than all the others put together because…
5. If you can’t come up with everyday examples of when and where they show up, they are bullshit.So how do you make sure they aren’t?
Spend time really looking at how you do things in your organisation. When the intention of values is true it’s not hard to find examples of them in action. Focus more on helping people understand how they connect to their every day unheroic work and less on demanding they can recite the list chapter and verse.
A true intention is the foundation of any values, still, even great philosophical minds throughout history understood values will erode without constant vigilance. In other words – you are never done. There is no there. The work to uncover them is simply the beginning.
Values show up in what you do and how you do it and no magic word or poster on the wall will make a set of words meaningful if they are bullshit.