Spotting and Fixing Dysfunctional Nonprofit Boards - Alex Counts - SSIR

SSIR nous offre ici un article assez synthétique sur les écueils que les conseils d'administration d'OBNL devraient chercher à éviter, et les signes avant-coureurs qui peuvent nous mettre la puce à l'oreille. L'article ne traite quasiment pas l'enjeu démocratique de la structure des CA, ce qui consitute un angle mort majeur, mais pour le reste, il offre un petit tour d'horizon qui mérite le détour.

E xtraits :

Micromanaging, rubber stamp, and Balkanized nonprofit boards of directors are more common than not, and turning them into high-functioning governing bodies requires being on the alert for six warning signs.

...

In my 30 years of experience, I have observed three main types of unsuccessful nonprofit governing bodies:

• Rubber Stamp Board. This type of board approves whatever management proposes and often plays the role of cheerleader. These organizations tend to be run by charismatic chief executives who value their autonomy and assemble a board with the expectation that its members are compliant and mainly serve as “window dressing” to reassure external stakeholders.
• Micromanaging Board. This board takes on key management functions in addition to its proper governing role. The staff becomes disempowered and often passive (or passive-aggressive) in the face of repeated intrusions into what they rightfully expect would be their areas of authority.
• Balkanized Board. These boards consist of people who are concerned about only one part of the organization—often the program they support financially. They typically avoid trying to see how all the pieces of an organization fit together, leaving that task solely to the chief executive. The fragmentation can be dangerous when an organization's revenues shrink and priorities must be reevaluated quickly and holistically.

...

It's much easier to notice red flags early and nip problems in the bud. Here are a few examples of nascent board dysfunction and how to deal with them:

1. Misplaced Loyalty - Board members' first and highest loyalty must be to the organization and its mission.
2. Usurping Management Functions - Board members who volunteer to work alongside professional staff can amplify a nonprofit's work and gain a deeper understanding of the organization.
3. Unexamined Performance - If you serve on a board and have no idea how others view your participation, and have no means of giving feedback about the prevailing culture, expect trouble.
4. Stifled Dissent - Minority views and skepticism should be welcomed around the board table, with all members encouraged to speak their minds and vote their consciences, even if this creates tension.
5. Tolerating Misbehavior - More than once I have observed people behave unprofessionally and even unethically around a nonprofit board table in ways that I doubt those same people would ever do in a business setting. (...) Confronting these situations is challenging, but turning a blind eye only normalizes and reinforces unprofessional actions.
6. Accepting Balkanization - Board members can bolster organizations by overseeing parts of them in which they have special interest or expertise, but they should not ignore the rest of what the nonprofit does.

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/spotting_and_fixing_dysfunctional_nonprofit_boards

Commentaire importé 

Tabata Barthoulot - 6 octobre 2020 à 16:02 :
Article très intéressant (et en plus rapide à lire !). Ça soulève beaucoup de points sur la gouvernance des OBNL.
- Les trois modèles de CA qu'il soulève vient questionner la différence entre gestion et gouvernance (et la pertinence de cette séparation) : comment trouver l'équilibre entre trop se mêler des affaires internes et ne pas s'en mêler du tout ?
- Sans le dire directement, il met en lumière le poids qui pèse sur les épaules des directions générales le plus souvent. La DG est le pivot entre l'équipe de travail et le conseil d'administration, et a le plus souvent un rôle fort à jouer dans la gouvernance.
- J'apprécie particulièrement le paragraphe où il rappelle POURQUOI c'est important d'avoir des CA diversifiés. Si c'est devenu courant de vouloir afficher une certaine diversité dans les CA, l'auteur rappelle pourquoi c'est important de le faire. Et il rappelle aussi que la diversité du CA, ce n'est pas qu'une diversité de genre et ethno-culturelle.
"Lack of diversity often compounds dysfunction. Homogeneity can lead to groupthink, myopia, and a board culture that alienates people who could otherwise help improve the organization. Ethnic, racial, and gender diversity are important. It is also healthy to have a heterogeneous governing body in terms of wealth, professions, work style, expertise, political ideology, location, and religious faith (or lack thereof). Including people directly impacted by the societal problem an organization seeks to address—such as having a current or former homeless person on the governing body of a shelter—is another powerful, though sometimes difficult, strategy to diversify and improve a board."