Nonprofit boards are weird

I do grant writing for nonprofits, public agencies, and some research-based businesses. Many if not most nonprofits only operate through the will of a single person (usually the executive director) or small number of people, and this can remain true even in nonprofits with eight-figure budgets. In HN terms, startups don't have strong boards either, because startups only have a small number of people working at or in them.

In addition, the more people there are on a board, the less likely it is to do anything, thus leaving the executive director to run the show.

The board is often for show. Yes, the same may be true of many for-profit businesses, but the degree is much higher at nonprofits. Often, the board is there for signaling purposes: https://seliger.com/2012/03/25/why-fund-organizations-throug.... Nonprofits are more like businesses than most people realize: https://seliger.com/2012/09/02/why-nonprofits-are-more-like-....

So, as in many things in human life, there is the nominal, stated function, and the actual function. Board members are often cultivated for their ability to donate, not govern (or, sometimes, their ability to provide political cover). Volunteers are similar: https://seliger.com/2014/04/20/volunteers-nonprofits-really-....

I suspect the author of "Nonprofit Board Are Weird" knows or suspects much of this.

More like "bad nonprofit boards are weird", though there's definitely some truth to - great power, low engagement, unclear responsibility, and zero accountability. But a good board and CEO/ED will address all of these.

First and foremost, board members are volunteers. They need to be people who are invested in the organization and its mission, and would be available to help as needed. They're also consultants. The board I'm on has people with expertise in HR, finance, accounting, marketing, medicine (very useful since COVID), economics, education. All of their experience is incredibly valuable in different ways, especially since the non-profit ("medium"-sized at 1.5MM annual revenue) can't really afford those roles.

Engagement and responsibility has been a challenge for us, but we've addressed it by keeping up on best practices, which includes self-evaluation of the board and its members. As a result of that, we've invested in our onboarding process so new board members know what expectations and responsibilities are. We have various committees that focus on certain areas (e.g. finance, governance, fundraising, strategy), where board members meet outside the formal bi-monthlies to engage with staff more directly and help guide and support the organization.

Overall, I've had a great experience being a part of this org. Maybe the board I'm on is just a unicorn...

I'm on a few non-profit boards and one of the things I don't see the author mention at all or specifically is the primary directive of the board is the financials. The CEO/Director is in charge of the day to day operations. The board has very little interest in that. A non-profit will have some or most of it's money from donors and those donors want to make sure that donation is being spent effectively. And that is where a good or bad board becomes responsible.

If the money is being spent to drive the mission of the non-profit successfully no one cares. We show up for the board meeting, order sandwiches, and ask questions. And plan the next meeting.

If the money is not being spent effectively or the mission isn't being met well we ask questions, sometimes offer advice, or raise more money. Maybe staff need to be changed or a new director hired. The board does not need to know the technicalities of the non-profit it just wants it to be governed with good care.

You can't operate a non-profit the same technique as a for-profit. They are orthogonal in duties. A true non-profit has to spend almost every dollar it takes in. The board is all voluntary and there is nothing in it for them, except those sandwiches!

I think you're missing the trees for the forest, in the same way the OP describes. If you don't take interest in, and pay attention to the significant details, there's no way you can understand whether "... the money is being spent to drive the mission of the non-profit successfully...". I have served on a non-profit board and observed this problem.

The author is making some broad generalizations ("Board members often know almost nothing about the organization they have complete power over") that don't match what I've seen as a nonprofit board member.

There are certainly best practices out there, as nonprofit management is a very developed "industry" in the United States and I suspect other countries as well. I don't know why he had trouble locating this information. Identifying a capable and engaged executive committee and limiting tactical committees and projects in favor of strategic planning will go a long way to making for an effective board.

Small nonprofits will seem chaotic as there are too many things to do, (usually) no full-time staff to manage it, board members who don't participate and/or make demands that are not practical, poor financial management, launching important tasks that are never completed, and badly written bylaws at foundation that cause problems for years after they are written.