I was recently working with a board of directors who came together for a weekend to develop their new strategic plan (I was the facilitator). After we had mapped out a detailed strategic plan of action for both the short and long term, the executive director informed the board that he could not start work on most of these items until after a major event that was occurring in October. This was in March.
While it is acceptable to negotiate workloads with your board, staff should use words other than “No” and “can’t”. This article studies why and how to do that.
Why staff say ‘No’
A motivated, balanced senior staff person recognizes that the organization and its plans belong to the members, who delegate their authority to a governing board/council. Once the elected leaders decide what is to take place, typically they turn to their staff leader and committee chairs to work through who will do what, and when.
So why do some executive directors (you can substitute other titles such as president, CEO, general manager, registrar, executive offer and others) say no when the board asks them to carry out work to support their decision?
Of the many possible reasons, a popular one is burnout. An over-stressed staff person often reacts emotionally to new requests or may be temporarily incapable of recognizing that it can be perceived as inappropriate to board members that staff refuse to accept new work. I found a number of great articles on stress and burnout and how to manage such conditions on the CharityVillage site.
Another likely reason to say no is that the senior staff leader knows when a proposed set of activities is larger than the resources available. It would be irresponsible to go along with a plan that you know can’t work.
And so we arrive at the point of this article: I recommend that you not use the words “No” and “Can’t” when explaining why you must speak against the decisions you board wants to make.
Instead of resisting, perhaps you should explain that current resources are insufficient to execute such decisions in a timely manner and offer to prepare a plan identifying what additional resources would allow the work to unfold in stated timeframes. If you have an immature board who declare no additional resources can be provided without thought, then you could suggest that you will develop a plan to use additional volunteer resources to allow the plan to go forward.
The wisdom here is to acknowledge that the organization’s plans are created by and belong to the board. Staff are paid to execute the plans. Too frequently, staff workloads are misaligned or unbalanced, rendering them inefficient. But more often, the work being asked for exceeds the staff capacity.
It is important that the board understand how and why staff cannot fulfil their work plans. It is equally important that board members understand the spirit of staff reluctance; that it is not a “can’t or “won’t” situation. Rather, it is a “we would like to” approach and “here is what we need from you” to do it.
This is a subtle nuance and a vital one. In the not-for-profit organization orbit, a great many volunteer directors have no concept of the amount of work and time even simple activities require of staff. And let’s admit it, some just don’t care.
To protect your reputation with your board, I propose that you address your reluctance in positive, constructive ways such as those suggested in this article.
So what if being positive doesn’t work?
You’ve acknowledged staff and board roles; you’ve explained why the current resource capacity could not support new work; you’ve offered to write a plan outlining what new resources would be required; you’ve offered to suggest activities that could be discontinued to release staff time…and still the board insists you must implement their new plans with existing resources. Now what?
Every organization’s culture is unique so there is not one surefire answer. Here are a few potential approaches:
- Conduct a work flow audit to document the amount of staff time current activities require and share it with your executive or board as a gesture to reassure them that it is not that staff is unwilling, but rather, unable to add to their workload.
- Ask for a special meeting with a small group of directors to discuss your capacity concerns. Arrive with very well documented evidence of the current work load and with specific suggestions on how to enhance capacity (noting budget impacts and potential sources of new funds if this is possible or feasible for you).
- Prepare a detailed written report containing the elements in items 1 and/or 2 above and send it to the person(s) you report to. Staff CEOs should report to the board; some specify that that happens through the chair. If you believe your chair is close-minded on this issue, copy other officers (vice chair, secretary, treasurer and/or past chair).
- Ask comparable peers for their advice, insisting on permanent confidentiality.
- Suggest that a third-party mediator, acceptable to both parties, be brought in to negotiate a solution.
A last resort should be sending a communiqué to the board chair (or other board grouping) documenting why staff are not going to be able to manage the new workload, explaining the likely consequences implementing the plan and repeating the solutions offered and not accepted. Now you are on record.
There are likely readers who survived such dilemmas; the author would like to hear about your experiences.
Paulette in President of Solution Studio Inc., a consulting practice that serves the not-for-profit association community. She can be reached at 1-877-787-7714 or Paulette@solutionstudioinc.com.
