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.