Executive teams need to invest more time with their charity boards, says Tesse Akpeki.

“Executives who spend more time on board-related matters are also more satisfied with board performance.” Source: Daring to Lead 2011.

At a recent conference, ‘Leading Your charity through a time of change’, Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Charity Commission, is reported to have said that trustees are too laissez-faire in their management of charities as "it’s hard to imagine how trustees can properly fulfil their duties if they aren’t party to those decisions". 

These words are underpinned by a new report from think tank New Philanthropy Capital, Stories in the Boardroom which exults trustees to take responsibility for announcing difficult decisions, such as redundancies or the closure of services.

The report says that boards are better placed than the executive team to guide charities through tough challenges and difficult decisions. 

As there needs to be balance in high expectations, an additional perspective is introduced by the latest study Daring to Lead 2011 into non-profit executive leadership. 

This study puts a spotlight on the recognition by chief executives of their own important role in helping to improve board performance and to invest their time in supporting the board in its work.  

In light of the increased attention and higher expectations of the boards, Daring to Lead 2011 found that executive time invested in working with boards is notably law. Some 16 per cent of executives spend fewer than five hours per month on board-related activity and nearly half of these executives describe themselves as spending the right amount of time. 

The largest group of executives (39 per cent) spent between five and 10 hours per month – just 6 per cent of their time overall – and half of these executives said this was the right amount of time.   

Other studies (A polished performance, NCVO) have found that executives who spend 20 per cent of their time on board-related activity have high rates of satisfaction with board performance. 

Among respondents to the Daring to Lead conversation, chief executives, at the low-end of the time investment spectrum were the least happy with the board’s performance. Overall executive satisfaction with board performance was quite low and only 38 per cent of executives were confident that their own efforts could influence their board’s performance. 

Despite decades of technical assistance to leaders promoting the value of strategic board development and engagement many executives still struggle to define the return of investment (ROI) of board-related activity, and further to understand their position of influence on that ROI.   

More robust board/chief executive working relationship it seems correlates to better board performance. This means that time invested in cultivating this partnership is mission-critical and essential for organisational sustainability. A vital question is, how best can the limited time and energy of trustee boards be focused for full effect and impact? The appropriate answer to this question needs to be found with all hands on deck.