Letting Go is Hard to Do
Arthur Drache, February 01, 2007
|
| |
| A few years ago we were involved with a tricky organizational problem. The charity had been founded by a husband and wife team.Jack and Jill. They had a vision of certain types of work to be done in the third world. In the beginning, they operated out of their house, put up a lot of their own money and got donations from some friends who bought into their vision. |
| |
| Good publicity and a good cause helped the organization grow. Jack and Jill then brought onto the board several other people, chosen not because they were friends but because they had either expertise or an ability to raise funds. The organization prospered. Jack and Jill were still the dominant force on the board but over time, some of the members challenged some of their decisions. Each time a decision was taken over the opposition of Jack and Jill, the founders would mutter about a "rogue board". |
| |
| The Board members, each of whom had been personally selected by Jack and Jill talked about "good governance" and the proper role of a board of directors. |
| |
| To make a long story short, within five years of the creation of the organization there was an open fight between the founders and the board. In this particular case, the board after much agonizing, effectively removed Jack and Jill.who then went off to set up a competing organization. |
| |
| We discussed this case with aa English friend, a solicitor who did charity work. "It's the classic case of founder's syndrome", she opined. "All too often the founders see themselves as all knowing about the organization and resist change, even when those who advocate the change are the very people the founders sought out because of what they could contribute to the organization". |
| |
| The fact that our friend used the term "founder"s syndrome" is indicative of how often this sort of thing happens. |
| |
| We had a high profile example of this when the Board of the McMichael gallery in Kleinberg, Ontario went head to head with the creators of the gallery Robert and Signe McMichael over the nature of the art being collected. In this case, the McMichaels "won" through the intervention of the Ontario government which actually owned the Gallery. |
| |
| We have to say that we regularly see these kinds of problems in growing organizations which start off as a personal passion of the founder(s) and grow. The irony is that the growth is often due to the accomplishments of the founders who get full credit and are often raised to iconic stature within (and sometimes, outside) the organization. But the fact of the matter is that growth brings new challenges. in terms of fundraising, the evolution of programmes, the possible extension of the original vision and so forth. |
| |
| Founders often are used to making all decisions by themselves. Success usually suggests that the decisions were correct. But as new people are brought onboard either as board members or employees, different views have to be entertained. In many (perhaps most) cases, the founders themselves understand that and the Board will function as it should, giving direction and making policy decisions. |
| |
| But if, as and when the founders vision and the Board 's decisions clash, the stage will be set for sometimes brutal fights. These are often similar to commercial boardroom battles fought using statutory provisions and occasionally, the courts. The problem is that usually in a commercial setting customers don't much worry about such things and continue to patronize the company. |
| |
| However, the nature of charities is different. Fights within a charity are often front page, not business section, news. Indeed, the media usually hear about the fight from one side or another, but most often from the founders who have the profile to make the differences newsworthy. And an approach to the press by either side is the first step to what may be severe public scrutiny. |
| |
| The cost of such battles is often measured in dropping donations and a loss of reputation. And these kinds of battles can bring into play the CRA or provincial public trustee offices. Thus, the internecine fights which may be generated out of founder's syndrome may be disastrous. |
| |
| One never knows how it will play out. In the case of the organization founded by Jack and Jill the organization, once they left achieved growth which was quite unexpected. The fact that both the staff and the board were finally working as a coordinated team (instead of being rent by factionalism) produced very significant growth in funding and an expansion of programmes. |
| |
| The new organization set up by Jack and Jill was and is functional but is not in any way a functional competitor. |
| |
| There is little that can be done to eliminate "founders' syndrome" when an organization is just starting. Indeed, it is impossible to judge when or if it will raise its head. Obviously, a key element in any such case has to do with personalities, primarily but not solely those of the founders. In some cases, the potential battles may be obviated by board members simply quitting rather than being involved in ongoing fights. But sometimes as was the case in Jack and Jill's organizations, the board members were each committed to the goals of the organization and were not prepared to walk away.preferring to fight and, in their mind, to "save the charity from bad decisions. |
| |
| But board members and founders alike should keep the notion of possible conflicts in mind. It clearly is best for all parties to be able to come to a modus vivendi in which compromise is possible without sacrificing principles. That may require hard work, but from an organizational point of view is preferable to a public battle. But occasionally the rift may become public if neither side backs down and each side must have the stomach for the possible consequences to the goals of the organization which presumably they share. |
| |
| Whether you are a founder or a board member in such a situation, the personal stress is often very high and all out battles will take a toll, both on the organization and on the individuals. |
| |
| |