Q: 

Over the past year, my organization has gone through some . . . crises. My board has not dealt with things very effectively, and in many cases, challenging situations were made worse because of their actions (or, in some cases, inactions). We’ve made it through everything, but I've just realized that my board is oblivious to how their actions have been perceived over the past year. Volunteers, community members, and staff are all talking about various complaints, but I have just realized no one is telling the board. We discussed this and it was decided I, as ED, shouldn't be in the middle, and if people have concerns, they should make formal complaints that could be addressed appropriately by the board. Any advice? 

A:

Let’s talk about the Oblivious Board. An Oblivious Board is one that’s operating without real-time feedback from its environment: the ED, staff, program users, community partners, peer organizations, etc.

This is something I see a lot in my work: a well-intentioned board made up of competent, intelligent people who genuinely care about the organization, but who, somewhere along the way, become a little too insular. You don’t have to look far to find an Oblivious Board; most boards will show signs of obliviousness at some point in their governance journey, and that’s a problem, because this creates some very concerning issues. 

Boards are constantly making complex decisions, and complex decision-making requires real-time feedback from the environment. But no matter how intelligent, experienced or credentialed your board directors are, they simply cannot make good decisions in a vacuum. So when a board does make decisions in isolation, it creates risk. Not just from poor decisions, but from the way poor decisions can become amplified.

Why? Because when you're in a leadership role, your words and actions carry weight. People pay attention to what you say and do (or don’t say and do). That’s why board members need to be both intentional about making informed decisions and have an awareness of how those decisions will be perceived. Without timely feedback, they often have neither. Not only does an Oblivious Board risk doing a lousy job, they may harm the organization, and in some cases, may fall short of fulfilling their governance role effectively.

How Does a Board Become Oblivious?

Here are a few dynamics I often see contributing to oblivious boards:

• Limited or stretched capacity - When boards are managing many different responsibilities, without adequate capacity or resources, they start to get stretched too thin. They simply don’t have the time or space to pay attention to what’s happening outside of the boardroom, much less to seek out feedback or reflect on the implications of their leadership decisions.
• Dysfunctional power dynamics - Boards are a site of power, and it’s common for boards as a whole, or influential board volunteers (i.e. Chairs), to use their power in effective and harmful ways. This can create an environment where questions, concerns or feedback is withheld for fear of reprisal, and where open, honest conversations get squashed. 
• Ego-Centric board leadership - Boards have a way of attracting ego-centric leaders, AKA power-tripping jerks. These types of leaders exert a significant influence over the board, creating those dysfunctional power dynamics. This kind of leadership is not reflective, perceptive or receptive. 
• Conflict avoidance - So many Boards have a culture of conflict avoidance. Without the capacity or infrastructure to manage hard conversations, Boards tend to ignore problems, letting them fester. When forced to confront the issue, a preference for quiet side-conversations means nothing is ever addressed openly and transparently.
• Lack of process - Many Boards don’t have systems in pace to seek out external input, or the infrastructure needed to create ongoing feedback mechanisms. And many organizations don’t have processes that support Board accountability beyond their legal requirements.

If you’re reading this list and seeing some familiar trends, then you probably don’t need me to tell you how these dynamics tend to overlap, becoming mutually-reinforcing in a highly dysfunctional way. What is definitely worth mentioning, though, is how systemic these issues are. The conventional way we approach nonprofit governance creates the container for these dynamics. So what can we do about it? 

How to Avoid Becoming an Oblivious Board

Maintain open communication with your ED

Every Board needs to build feedback mechanisms into their work. Most of the time, this happens through the ED, who is paying attention to the organization’s extended environment on a daily basis. DO NOT cut your ED out of important conversations! And make sure that the Board is regularly inviting - and welcoming! - feedback from the ED. When engaging in complex decision-making, the Board and ED should be in a partnership, co-creating solutions. But at the very least, the Board should be asking the ED questions like: Is there any context that we might be missing here? Are there any process considerations that we need to be aware of? Do you have any concerns that you haven’t shared with us? What recommendations do you have on this issue?

Embrace conflict

Boards need to develop the infrastructure and culture needed to manage conflicts openly and constructively. Resist the urge to filter information and resolve the issue quietly on the sidelines; every Board Director is entitled to all of the information available to the Board. If there is a conflict or sensitive governance issue at play, it needs to be addressed openly with the full Board present - in camera if necessary (and remember that your ED can join in camera sessions!). Strong chairing really helps with this, but external support from a facilitator or mediator can be accessed when needed. The goal is to ensure that uncomfortable conversations can be managed appropriately and transparently, so that dissension, conflict or complaints don’t get buried.

Consider perception

Whenever the Board is making a big decision, Directors should consider how that decision will be perceived outside of the Board, and where necessary, plan to communicate proactively and monitor the situation. To this end, the ED is, again, your Board’s biggest ally; leverage their expertise to anticipate, manage and respond to perception issues. Remember, ‘donors’ and ‘funders’ are not the only audience you need to be concerned about - staff, volunteers, clients and partners matter just as much!

Make time for reflection

All Boards need to be engaging in reflective practice on an ongoing basis, but at the very least, taking time once a year for a formal evaluation is a must. The annual Board ‘self-evaluation’ has become a best practice in nonprofit governance spaces, and for good reason. But too few boards apply this best practice to their work, and those that do, take the ‘self-evaluation’ a little too literally. Yes, the Board should lead their own performance evaluation, but it should not be done as an insular exercise. Boards who really want to improve their performance will seek out external input, definitely from the ED, and perhaps beyond. The annual evaluation is a perfect opportunity to build in a formal feedback mechanism for the Board.

What If You're Already in It?

If your board is already in full Oblivion Mode, and it's harming the organization, what can you do? Start with reflection. After a crisis, I often recommend taking the time to host a formal debrief session. Bring your leadership team together (with an external facilitator, if needed) to talk through what happened, what worked, where things broke down, and what lessons you’re taking forward.

Aside from that, how can you manage complaints about Board conduct? If the complaints are coming from inside the board, then the onus is on those individual Board Directors to step into their leadership role and address the concerns openly with the full board. But if the complaints are coming from staff, volunteers, or other parties external to the organization, it is absolutely the ED’s role to share those concerns with the Board, after all, keeping the board informed of risks is part of the job. I always think that a direct conversation is the best approach, but you’ll have to decide what makes sense in your context. 

An alternative would be to send an email to the Chair (perhaps copied to your Governance Committee Chair), with a clear expectation that the issue should be discussed by the full board. If you have a strained relationship with the Chair, and a direct approach isn’t feasible, you may opt to highlight the concerns in your next ED report, flagging it for discussion at the board meeting. In any case, try to take a constructive approach, focused on managing risk and building better approaches in the future. 

Bottom Line: Boards Can’t Govern in the Dark

Oblivious Boards don’t usually start out that way. Most of the time, they drift into dysfunction slowly, cut off from feedback, avoiding conflict, stuck in outdated habits. But here’s the thing: you can course-correct. And if you’re an ED witnessing this dynamic, you have an important role to play in helping your board see what they’re missing - especially if their decisions are starting to cause harm! You don’t need to fix it all on your own. But you can help name the issue, create space for reflection, and advocate for practices that bring your board back into alignment with its role and responsibilities.

Big Takeaways

• Oblivious Boards are common, but not inevitable. Most boards don’t mean to become disconnected, but without intentional practices, they can easily drift into dysfunction, missing key feedback and making decisions in a vacuum.
• Feedback isn’t just helpful, it’s a governance essential. Boards need real-time input from the ED and other perspectives to lead effectively and make sound decisions. 
• Boards need structure and courage to stay connected. It’s not enough to have good intentions. Effective governance requires clear processes and a culture that invites reflection, embraces discomfort, and values honest dialogue, even when it’s hard.