November 17, 2011
When Boards Attack
I was talking with an Executive Director whose is beginning to feel attacked by her board. A few Board members have heard complaints from a few members and decided to investigate. They commissioned a survey which demonstrated that eighty percent of the members are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the organization. However, when the survey asked for areas needing improvement, members listed several problems, peeves, and displeasures that could be rectified. The Board’s top leadership viewed this as an indication of serious discontent and is now setting up membership focus groups to discuss how to solve this boatload of problems. Should the Executive Director be worried? You betcha. Time to dust off the résumé. Is this a hatchet job by malevolent members of the Board? It may be, but then again it could be something even more subtle and difficult to deal with.
Witch hunts are not always malevolent
There are always problems in organizations. A leader might say something impolitic or thoughtless; people may simply disagree about a decision that a leader makes. That’s just a part of life. Disgruntled people often try to spread their frustration to others by characterizing the leader in a negative light. The leader might be described as inept, out of touch, overly zealous, too liberal, too conservative. The disgruntled person will then share selected stories that demonstrate the negative label for the leader. Those labels can function like a virus. Once the virus spread and another person accepts the negative label of their leader, the infected person will begin to see the negative behavior that never seemed to bother them before.
People will find what they are looking for
This process of only choosing the examples that support a person’s conclusion is called “confirmation bias” and it is a terrible disservice to the organization. At their best, board members who fall prey to confirmation bias will make bad decisions based upon a distorted view of reality. At their worst, boards who do not prevent their own confirmation bias will conduct witch hunts, weaving together threads of picayune complaints into a noose to hang their Executive Director.
Look for confirmation bias and protect your organizatoin
All humans suffer from confirmation bias; it’s a natural brain glitch. However, we can recognize that it happens and take measures to prevent it. Here are some board practices that are meant to reduce the likelihood of confirmation bias by creating reasonable, set criteria for judging the Executive Director’s performance.
1. Describe what your Executive Director is supposed to achieve. Let the Executive Director develop a reasonable metric for measuring the achievement. If the metric seems reasonable to the Board, use that metric. For example, if the Board of a YMCA wants the children living near the river to know how to swim, let the Executive Director figure out how to measure the number of children who live near the river and what a reasonable number of those children the YMCA should to teach.
2. Place reasonable limits on your Executive Director. If the Board is worried about sloppy communications which reflects badly on the organization, it should require that the Executive Director not allow sloppy or confusing printed or online communications. Again, let the Executive Director develop a reasonable way to measure whether something is sloppy or confusing. If the Board agrees that it is a reasonable measure, the Board should use that measure.
3. Use the standards listed above as the only criteria by which the Executive Director should be evaluated. Neither fishing for problems nor ignoring problems should be acceptable.
Confirmation bias leads boards to overemphasize negatives or, conversely, ignore problems that should be addressed. As the main body that oversees the organization, the Board must have a clear, unbiased understanding of the organization so that it can make decisions that are both fair and wise.
