“Help! My board won’t stop micromanaging me!”****

It’s probably the biggest complaint I hear from nonprofit leaders. That, or the board is entirely missing in action. I’m not sure which is worse.

A recent example? I just got an email from a reader who has been on the job for a year. The first six months was all about a financial crisis, but since then, the organization has been stable. The E.D. is ready to take on programming and grow the organization.

The board won’t let him.

He writes, “The board is not listening to me and wants me to do what they say. They keep piling work on me and I am desperate for advice.”

I know the word “micromanage” is familiar to a lot of you.

So here’s my advice.

WHAT DOES “MICROMANAGE” MEAN, REALLY?

First thing’s first. I’m not sure we’re all using the same definition of “micromanage.” Sometimes I get complaints and I think, “Well, actually, that’s what the board is supposed to do.”

So let’s start with what I think micromanage actually means – specifically when it isn’t pretty. Here are some of the telltale signs:

• Focuses on tactics rather than strategy. As in the situation above, the board piles on “tasks” rather than approving strategy and letting the ED determine the best tactics to address the strategy and approve the goals.
• Board members take meetings with program stakeholders without prior knowledge of ED (yes, it happens way too often).
• Has executive sessions without the ED and is reluctant to inform him/her of the outcome (more on why this is a bad idea.)
• Regularly deals with staff directly and provides real instructions without kicking it around with the E.D.
• A Finance Committee that just cuts budget items without input from staff leadership.
• A Board Chair that will not allow the new Development Director to reach out directly to the major donors. She has to contact them first.

So that’s what a board that micromanages actually looks like.

HOW DO ORGANIZATIONS END UP WITH BOARDS THAT MICROMANAGE?