Tag: boards

How University Boards Should be Selected and Act

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Many people do not give a lot of thought about boards, particularly university boards, until there is a crisis. But they are critical to a well-functioning organization whether situations or routine or challenging. 

A professional man in a blue suit gestures while speaking during a meeting at a conference table, with attendees seated in the background.

How people get on university boards is currently at issue in Michigan. A recent article in Bridge about whether Michigan’s governor should appoint board members for all of Michigan’s state universities. This would be similar to most other states. Currently voters in Michigan elect boards members for the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University. Given some issues at those universities such as sudden departures of presidents, and the facts that voters are not informed enough to select university board members, there is a proposal to have the governor appoint boards.

But appointed boards are not necessarily a guarantee of better boards. Some boards can exercise their role more with arrogance than competence. 

This was evident recently when more than 200 faculty, staff and students wrote a letter to the board of the university where I teach. They expressed displeasure with the direction of the university and its current president, who among other things, has never taught a class and does not seem interested in faculty perspective. The board responded by extending the president’s contract three years before it was even up for renewal.

This shows a problem of appointed boards. Candidates for university boards are often brought before the governor from the universities themselves, often with the president’s involvement. This sounds more like perpetuating a cabal than a judicious selection of a board.

In my own research on public relations capacity on corporate boards and nonprofit boards, I grounded the studies on board theory. There are essentially two schools of thought on boards. Resource Dependency Theory says that board members provide resources from outside the organization needed for survival or growth. Meanwhile, Agency Theory says the role of boards is monitoring the executive and acting in the interest of stakeholders, Often organizational boards are a blend of both, providing external resources and knowledge as well as ensuring the executive acts in accordance with stakeholder expectations.

It is clear in the example above from GVSU that the board did not monitor the executive in the interest of the stakeholders. They were more concerned with their personal relationship with the president than their professional responsibility to stakeholders.

My research focused on public relations capacity in board members of both corporations and nonprofit executives. There is, sadly, little evidence of it. Most board members are selected in accordance with Resource Dependency Theory to provide resources other than public relations. This includes an expertise in finance, law, and whatever it is the organization does.

Board members who understand that public relations is not mere publicity but all about mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders would better serve both the organization and the varied stakeholders it must serve. If board members are appointed or elected, they should have a grasp of their oversight role and that the work not for the president and institution but they oversee it to ensure it serves the taxpayers, faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders. 

The focus on relationships is more than a public relations perspective. It is essential to good leadership and management. At my institution, there was a sudden leadership change at multiple top executive positions. I was at a meeting where they introduced themselves and when they started and none had been at the university more than 18 months. I was sitting near faculty like myself who had been at the institution more than 20 or 30 years. But the new executives addressed this by having events where faculty could learn about them. They never attempted to learn about the faculty and how they had contributed to the growth of the university for so long. 

Recently the university had an event at which the current and four past presidents spoke and reflected. The oldest and longest-serving president recalled how he would walk around campus and drop in on offices on a regular basis to get to know people better, learn what they were working on, hear their ideas and concerns. I personally remember that. The culture has changed. A board, especially if a member or two is savvy to public relations, could insist that the president and executive team work harder to get to know long-serving faculty and staff and institutional history before trying to impose their new imprint on the university.

What will be important more than how board members are selected is how board members serve. Also, there needs to be a mechanism not just to select board members but to remove those who do not act in the interest of stakeholders. 

Nonprofit boards–PR vital, pay optional

~ penningink ~ 2 Comments

MiBiz reported recently that the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations and Executives (NANOE) advocates that members of nonprofit organization boards should be compensated financially and also provide more oversight to the organizations on whose boards they serve.

The MiBiz article notes that nonprofit executives in Michigan “bristle” at the notion, and with good reason. For one, pay should be optional. Of the thousands of nonprofit organizations in existence, many can not afford to pay more than an executive director or much staff, let alone board members. Also, many board members work for love of the cause or a desire to engage in some community service. The fact that they work pro bono does not mean they do not take seriously their oversight role.

But what struck me even more is that NANOE suggests there should be four specific nonprofit board roles: an “enterprise development” specialist, a mission specialist, a CPA and a lawyer. I think this roster makes sense but falls short.

My own research, published as a chapter in the book “Public Relations in the Nonprofit Sector: Theory and Practice,” is an investigation of nonprofit boards and their public relations capacity, or lack thereof. Based on an investigation of executives of Michigan nonprofit organization, the results are mixed.

While a majority (76%) said that communications with stakeholders was a role and capacity sought in board members, only 11% indicated it was the most important board member ability. Other capacities included knowledge of the organization’s cause or mission and fundraising ability. While 52% said they had at least one board member with PR education or experience, this may be due to the fact that 75% define public relations as “getting the word out.”

The good news is that PR and communications ranked high–after some of these other functions–as an important knowledge or skill set for board members to have. But there is work to be done in building understanding in the nonprofit community of what PR is in the first place–including relationship building, branding, reputation management, and strategies both internal and external.

It’s interesting to read NANOE’s idea for nonprofit boards, but it’s short-sighted to impose it on all organizations as a one-size fits all strategy. It flies in the face of tailored strategy and organizational individuality. It also runs the risk of damaging hard-won reputation and community relations. Ironically, a board member with some PR savvy would be able to offer this counsel.

Why Are There Not More PR Pros on Nonprofit Boards?

~ penningink ~ 2 Comments
I have often noticed and admired PR professionals who serve on the boards of area nonprofits. This has, as we PR people would say, a “mutual benefit.” PR pros do this as a part of their PR role of community relations. If in an agency, it’s a form of new business development because of the networking with other board members. The organization also benefits from PR counsel at the board and executive level.
But I have also noticed that a lot of nonprofit organizations do not have PR professionals on their boards. So I did what academics do: I launched a study on the subject.
The results of my study is now a chapter in a recently published book:  Routledge Research in Public Relations: Public Relations in the Nonprofit Sector. My chapter, “PR Capacity on Nonprofit Boards,” gives insight on the value of having PR professionals serve on nonprofit boards.
Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 12.11.16 PMI worked with the assistance of the Johnson Center on Philanthropy to put together a list of the executives of the nonprofits in Michigan with more than 1 staff member. Of the 704 on the list, 215 responded.  Their answers to a survey reveal that executives of nonprofit organizations do not view having a PR professional serve on a nonprofit board as a priority, but rather as “nice to have.” 
Most executives in the study claimed that they did not seek out board members with a public relations background. Additionally, nonprofit executives do not have an accurate understanding of public relations as a whole.
Specifically, while a majority (76%) said that communications with stakeholders was a role and capacity sought in board members, only 11% indicated it was the most important board member ability. While 52% said they had at least one board member with PR education or experience, this may be due to the fact that 75% define public relations as “getting the word out.”
Clearly, there is a need for more PR professionals to serve nonprofit organizations at the executive and management level. Part of that service would be to educate nonprofit management about the full role and benefit of public relations as a sophisticated effort in relationship building, with multiple publics.
A summary of the result is found below: