The Relationship between a BoD and Staff

Members (and some AMCers) are complaining about the lack of input/review/approval the AMC had over the Oral History Project. We were informed that it was happening, and the general timetable and expectations, but that’s it. 

This is a good time for a quick lesson on the relationship between a Board of Directors and the paid staff.

 

The BoD handles the big picture stuff. Visions, goals, general values and direction of the organization. They hire an Executive Director to “make it so.” The Board communicates their big goals to the ED and approves a budget. From there, The ED is responsible for hiring and supervising other staff to get stuff done. The Board is apprised of things, consulted when there are problems, but generally stays hands off on the details. This is a good thing—the Board comprises members who may or may not be diligent and skilled, and the turnover rate is high. 

 

If the Board doesn’t like how the ED is or isn’t getting stuff done, they replace the ED.

 

So as an illustration, let’s say the AMC has as a grand goal “make it easier for members to gather in person” and after much discussion, determines that it would be really super awesome to have physical Mensa clubhouses. The AMC would then tell the ED “we want clubhouses for members, and we’re authorizing $1,000,000 towards that goal.”

 

The ED can then decide to make one big clubhouse in the most populated city, or three smaller clubhouses in cities where the groups are wobbling. They might decide, after research, that the best way to allocate the million dollars is to rent rooms on Thursdays in 500 park districts across the country. The ED would apprise the AMC of this decision, and at this point, the AMC could say "gosh no, we want to own buildings, even if it’s only two." The ED would change course or lay out the case for renting in many cities instead of buying in one or two.

 

The AMC does NOT get consulted on furniture, which internet company to contract with, or what color the carpeting will be.

 

Back to the situation at hand—somewhere along the way, The AMC said, among other goals, “preserve our history” and "increase membership." The ED, or more likely the staff responsible for marketing and increasing membership, thought "personal anecdotes and stories are effective tools for bringing in members," heard about this history publishing company, cut a deal with them that seemed good, and made it happen. The AMC was informed of this deal in a general sense, and for whatever reason, didn’t say “gosh no!” The AMC was NOT informed of the specifics and certainly not the wording of each communication, any more than they’d be consulted on the decision to paint the clubhouse walls griege with puce accents or which direction the refrigerator door should swing.

 

What we’re learning, or at least I am, is that there needs to be some tweaking of the “hands-off; don’t micromanage” division. 

 

The next AMC meeting is going to be interesting.

Further thoughts on the Oral History Project email/postcard

Further thoughts on the Oral History Project email/postcard (which I've shared with the AMC), somewhat colored by having been the person taking the brunt of the outrage for this in several online forums:

It was an ok idea. Little effort and cost from Mensa in exchange for some good fodder for future marketing campaigns and perhaps some ego strokes for those who participate and like to see their names in print.

Members were notified about it, and how to opt out, several times and via several means. That many chose to not receive or read or remember those notices is an all-too common problem. It’s on my CommComm plate to figure out solutions to this, if possible.

For several days, while scurrying around trying to spread explanations and smooth ruffled feathers, I said that no one, AMC or Staff, had seen the actual copy that would be used on the emails/postcards. I have since been corrected on this. I presumed that no one who has a clue about Mensans would ever in a million years word something in such a phish scammy manner. I was wrong; at least one person on the staff DID see and approve that wording before it went out.

When I learned that, my jaw dropped and shattered on the floor so significantly that I’ve had no comebacks at all.

The Board of Directors and the Staff should be partners towards a common goal, and that goal (aka Strategic Plan) is determined by the Board of Directors and implemented by the Staff, under the supervision of the Exec Director.

I’m supportive of the notion that the Board should not micromanage the professional people we’ve hired to get stuff done. However, refraining from micromanaging does not mean refraining from managing completely.

The Board should have input regarding what is said and how to the members they represent. This is the reason the Communications Officer reviews every page of every Bulletin before it goes to print. There is a line between input/review and meddling/bogging down. Should I review the Bulletin? Yes. Should Tabby review every single tweet in advance? That’s ridiculous. Should Kimberly review and approve every email sent to a member? Of course not.

That said, Tabby should be expected to tell the Staff person who types the tweets “please never mention eugenics. and do throw in a picture of a cute kitten now and then." Kimberly should be expected to have input on the topics to be included in the updated onboarding emails that get sent to every new LG Officer. 

Which brings us to this fiasco—

Two things need to change in the future:

1. Someone who is on the AMC should be expected to have input and review on future projects that are intended to solicit money from members or that are intended to bring in revenue from sale or exchange of members’ information.

2. The Board should not have to wait DAYS to learn details they are expected to defend or refute to the membership, at least not without higher quality flak jackets with sequined targets on the back.