The parade has too many politicians in it.
Staff invited some. A board committee invited others. The event goes badly, and the board turns toward the CEO.
Miriam Carver and Bill Charney use this almost comic scene to expose a serious problem in The Board Member’s Playbook. The board wants one accountable executive, but its own committee has also been operating the event.[1]
I do not think accountability can survive shared command.
If the board delegates the organization to the CEO, the CEO is accountable for staff performance. A board committee may help the board govern. It should not become another supervisor, producer, purchasing office, or program team. Once it does, the board has created two lines of authority and one convenient person to blame.
The first response is to separate the facts.
Which invitations did staff authorize?
Which invitations came from the board committee?
What policy governed the event?
What authority had the board delegated?
The CEO should answer for the work under the CEO’s control. The board should answer for the actions of its committee. That is not a technical escape. It is an honest account of who decided what.
Then the board should repair the structure.
End the committee’s operating role. Rewrite its mandate so it assists the board with board work. If the board wants the CEO to produce the event within particular limits, state those limits in policy and monitor them. If the board insists on running the parade itself, it should admit that it has not delegated that work and should not hold the CEO responsible for it.
Govern for Impact’s Source Document states that the board delegates authority and accountability to one point, normally the chief executive, and that committees should not interfere with that chain.[2] The principle protects staff as much as the CEO. Employees should not have to choose between a committee member’s request and their supervisor’s instruction.
There is a human complication. Committee members may have worked hard. Correcting the structure can feel like rejecting their service. I would thank the contribution and still end the confusion. Gratitude does not require keeping a broken line of command.
The board should also examine why it entered operations. Was the policy unclear? Did members distrust staff? Did the CEO ask the committee to take over? Did the board enjoy the visible work more than the harder work of defining results? The answer may reveal a policy gap or a habit that will appear again.
The board may also owe the CEO and staff an apology. When trustees give operating directions and later criticize the result, they have used authority without accepting its cost. A plain acknowledgment can restore more trust than a new chart. State which directions were inappropriate, withdraw them, and tell staff which line of authority now governs.
Review committee charters once a year. Remove phrases such as “work with staff to manage” or “oversee the program” unless the board has deliberately retained that work. Give every staff liaison permission to route an operating request back through the CEO. Boundaries are easier to keep when the person receiving the request does not have to challenge a trustee alone.
You can test every committee with one question:
Does this group help the board do its job, or does it help staff do the CEO’s job?
BoardSource describes most committees and task forces as bodies that recommend action to the full board.[3] Their charters should state purpose, authority, term, and reporting relationship. A clear charter makes it easier to refuse operating assignments disguised as “support.”
When responsibility is divided, blame becomes easy and learning becomes rare.
A board that wants accountability must first stop competing with the person it intends to hold accountable.
Footnotes
[1] Miriam Carver and Bill Charney, The Board Member’s Playbook (Jossey-Bass, 2004), rehearsal 3.11, pages 64–67.
[2] Govern for Impact, “Policy Governance Source Document,” principles on Delegation to Management and committee discipline.
[3] BoardSource, “Board Responsibilities and Structures — FAQs”.
Additional reading
John Carver’s Boards That Make a Difference explains the accountability chain behind this distinction.
BoardSource’s The Nonprofit Board Answer Book brings that question into everyday committee and board-staff practice.