Home Page
Gifts & Grants
Fund Raising
Managing Nonprofit Groups
Technology
Philanthropy Today
Jobs
Guide to Grants
The Nonprofit Handbook
Facts & Figures
Events
Deadlines
Current Issue
Back Issues
Directory of Services
Guide to Managing Nonprofits
Continuing-Education Guide
Fund-Raising Services Guide
Technology Guide
About The Chronicle
How to Contact Us
How to Subscribe
How to Register
Manage Your Account
How to Advertise
Press Inquiries
Feedback
Privacy Policy
User Agreement
Help
 |
|
Resolving Conflict in Nonprofit Organizations
by Marion Peters Angelica
|
Reprinted by permission of the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. |
Conflict between Board and Executive or Staff
Conflicts between the executive or other staff and the board are extremely delicate. First, a significant power imbalance exists, since the board is the executive's employer. Second, the executive is the bridge between the board and staff and must understand and represent these groups' differing viewpoints to each other. This can be very delicate and precarious.
An executive can wind up in conflict with the board in three ways: When staff conflict is brought to the board; when direct conflict exists between the executive and some or all of the board members; and when a staff person makes an end run, bypassing the executive and bringing an issue directly to the board.
|
WHERE TO OBTAIN THIS ITEM Amherst H. Wilder Foundation P.O. Box 2029 Danbury, Conn. 06813-2029 Fax: (203) 744-4270 Toll-free phone: (800) 274-6024 E-mail: books@wilder.org Web site: http://www.wilder.org To purchase this item online, choose a bookseller:
|
|
A staff conflict brought before the board can ensnare the executive, causing him or her to lose the board's confidence. To the board, the executive represents staff leadership, and is responsible for maintaining staff productivity and harmony. Given this, board members tend to regard staff conflicts brought to them as an indication of a deficiency in the executive's management skills. Board members often resent having to manage staff conflicts -- after all, they did not donate their leisure time to resolve staff battles.
Even so, the board should step in when efforts to resolve a conflict at the staff level have not succeeded. When you bring a staff conflict to the board, outline the nature of the problem and explain the process you want the board to use. If the issue requires confidentiality, explain the organization's obligation to maintain confidentiality.
Often the board chair or personnel committee assume the role of hearing and resolving staff conflicts that come before the board. If your organization's bylaws or the charters of your subcommittees authorize the personnel or executive committee to handle conflicts, activate one of these committees. If not, I suggest that you encourage the board to delegate the task to one of these two committees. There are three reasons for this. First, the use of a subcommittee gives the organization two chances for internal conflict resolution before turning to an outside agency -- first through the subcommittee, and then through the full board if necessary. Second, the use of a subcommittee contains the information about the conflict, keeping it more confidential. Finally, the use of a subcommittee frees the rest of the board to attend to the organization's other important business. ...
The subcommittee hears from all the parties and helps generate and test potential solutions. However, the subcommittee also serves as arbitrator, developing a resolution it believes is best for the organization and the parties in conflict. Depending on the bylaws or charter of the subcommittee, the decision can either stand as decided or may need to be ratified by the entire board. If the people in the conflict are still unsatisfied, they can turn to the full board for a hearing before moving on to external assistance.
One caveat: If a conflict is brought to the board and delegated to a subcommittee, all board members must understand the benefits of having a subcommittee handle the conflict. If uninvolved board members don't fully understand why it is prudent that only a few board members know the full details of the conflict, they can feel excluded. Also, the full board should be told the outcome of the conflict (not the details) and its implications for the organization.
When board and executive are in direct conflict
When an executive director is in serious direct conflict with the board, he or she usually "loses" and may resign or be fired. Occasionally the whole board resigns and the executive establishes a new board that supports him or her. In either case, the organization usually loses momentum, continuity, expertise, and leadership. Additionally, a conflict resolved in this way is likely to cost the organization money, the confidence of its staff, and its good name -- perhaps its most valuable asset.
Few such conflicts erupt suddenly. Usually they are preceded by smaller conflicts that, if not handled well, erode the confidence or trust between the board and the executive. Handling small conflicts when they occur is important because once a direct conflict breaks out between board and executive, it is extremely difficult to resolve.
When a significant conflict develops between the executive and the board, rapid action and professional help are called for. Clearly an executive cannot manage a significant conflict in which he or she is a party. Neither can the board chair. In this case an external resource is the best option. Some choices include
- A mediator
- An organizational consultant with conflict management skills
- The organization's previous board chair, executive, or similar leader with conflict management skills
I wish I could be optimistic about resolving conflicts between the executive and board. In my experience, however, neither the executive nor board leader (more frequently the board) have been eager to use a conflict resolution process. Instead the conflict quickly becomes a battle of wills and wiles. I believe nonprofit leaders hesitate to use conflict resolution processes in board-executive conflicts because people's identities are threatened and so much is at stake. The executive's livelihood, career, and professional reputation are threatened, and board members' identities as stewards with the ultimate authority in the organization are at risk. The two sides quickly become locked in a war of egos and wills.
This is precisely the type of situation where a neutral outsider can help, but nonprofit leaders need to have enough knowledge about and confidence in the conflict resolution process -- in advance of needing it -- to know that the process can only help, not hurt, their situation.
If the board and executive know about conflict resolution processes and, for the sake of the organization, are willing to try to mediate their conflict, they must first work together to select a mediator. ...
In this situation the key criterion is that the person be viewed as neutral -- someone all the parties already know and trust equally or someone previously unknown to the board and executive.
When staff makes an end run
A staff end run can have serious repercussions, as this story shows. An organization I had direct experience with had a loose sick leave policy, with no limits on the number of sick leave hours an employee could use. Instead, the director granted sick leave at her discretion. The director originally recommended and liked the latitude of this policy until a newer staff member began taking excessive numbers of sick days. Morale plummeted among the other staff, who had to cover for their "sick" colleague. The director asked the board's personnel committee to develop a clearer sick leave policy. They did this and brought their recommendation to the board for approval.
In the meantime, the staff person who overused sick leave did an end run. She knew two board members and talked them into disapproving the policy. When the board reviewed the personnel committee's work, the two members objected, citing that the proposed policy was punitive toward the staff person who had contacted them. The members of the personnel committee were frustrated, since neither of these board members had given the committee requested input while they were writing the policy. Things got personal and harsh words flew around the board table. After trying at several meetings to deal with the issue, the board -- now severely divided -- ultimately tabled the question and never picked it up again.
Subsequently, the executive director felt betrayed by her board, the board had conflicts over other issues, and staff became increasingly unhappy about covering for the "sick" person. The issue and the conflicts it generated contributed to high staff turnover and the resignation of the director.
What could the organization have done differently? Perhaps most important, both new employees and board members needed to be told during orientation that the executive director is the point person for the board of directors. In some larger organizations, staff are not allowed to communicate with board members. In smaller and more informal organizations, there is often no such restriction -- but in all cases, the policy should be to keep the executive director informed of any interactions with board members.
When an end run occurs, the executive needs to talk with the board members and the staff involved about the board-staff communications policy. A naïve staff person is easily educated, but one who is unwilling to follow protocol is another matter. Staff who understand the way executives work with the board generally make end runs when they feel the executive isn't supporting them and believe all other avenues are closed. Because end runs are risky and put them in direct conflict with the executive, a staff person has to be very desperate or angry to take the chance. In general, this means the staff person and the executive are probably involved in an unresolved conflict. It's imperative to work through the conflict that motivated the staff member to risk an end run. Such a conflict will likely require the assistance of a mediator for resolution.
It is also important to remind the staff person about expectations that he or she follow the organization's communication policy -- and to discuss the consequences of disregarding the policy. This discussion should be documented. Disciplinary action (based on the written personnel policy) may be required, but it should be used sparingly because the goal is to set a positive tone for settling the dispute, not to fuel the fire.
It's equally imperative to immediately talk with the board members who were involved in the end run -- about the substance of the concern raised by the staff member, how you are handling the conflict, and the problems created by not following existing communication policies. Don't be surprised if they are unaware of the policy or the reasons it exists.
Your first goal is to get the issue off the board table until you and the staff person have made every effort to work through the conflict. Depending on your board's policies and on their involvement in the conflict, you may then have to bring the resolution before the board for approval. Your second goal is to regain the trust of the board members involved. Honest communication is the best route to rebuilding their confidence. If your efforts to resolve the conflict fail, you should be the person to bring the conflict to the board.
Given the inevitability of conflict in nonprofits, your board members need to know how to have constructive conflicts. You are the person who must help them better understand conflict and develop ways to disagree constructively -- before serious conflicts erupt. Healthy conflict on a board can stimulate creativity and strengthen the organization. Training your board in the processes of healthy conflict is always a worthwhile investment of the organization's resources.
More information about this book appeared in The Chronicle on February 24, 2000.