Why do co-op
boards sometimes
micromanage?
By Jean Freeman, President
Jean Freeman & Associates, LLC
Editor’s note: The author is a Fairfax, Va.-based consultant who
has experience working with cooperatives and nonprofits on
governance and other issues.
f you’ve ever served on a board of directors
or worked for a cooperative with a board of
directors, you have probably noticed there
are times when board members tend to move
away from the lofty role of oversight and into
the operational side of the organization. It happens. But why?
I believe one key reason is that the generous volunteers
who agree to serve on a co-op board often come from
successfully managing a farm or other business. These board
candidates are often identified because of their success in
business. They may have gone to school to learn how to
operate a business and they have likely spent years honing
those management skills.
But very few of us ever get any formal education in the art
of governance. Even when someone is elected or appointed
to a board, he or she is not likely to receive adequate training
in board governance. Most of us have learned good
governance through trial and error, and reading the
occasional book on the topic.
A board member’s “comfort zone” usually lies within the
world of operations and administration. A friend of mine who
has served on a cooperative board for a few years, recently
said: “Ask me to discuss the merits of purchasing a new
digital copier and I can weigh in pretty quickly. But if you
expect me to engage in a meaningful discussion about
changing the organization’s mission, I’ll have to get outside of
my comfort zone and think strategically. I certainly can’t rely
on my past experiences. It’s tough work!”
Another reason board members micromanage could be
that governance requires, by its very nature, a long-range
focus. Operational issues are frequently resolved quickly and
results can be realized right away.
But strategic issues can only be realized over time. Most
strategic plans are designed to be measured over two, three
or more years. There just isn’t the immediate gratification we
desire.
There are two extremes every board must avoid becoming:
(1) The Rubber Stamp Board and (2) The Managing Board.
If a CEO is unsure of his or her actions and frequently brings
operational issues to the board table for affirmation, the
board might find itself “forced” into managing. The opposite
can occur when a CEO moves beyond management and
begins to direct the organization, taking on the role of the
board. At this point, some boards — unsure of their own role
— begin to put their stamp of approval on whatever is
brought to the table by the CEO. Obviously, neither of these
extremes is going to be in the best interest of the co-op.
A board is micromanaging if it:
- Approves individual salaries;
- Is present for staff meetings;
- Approves the organization’s monthly checks (quite
common!);
- Decides which vendor to use;
- Contacts staff members for information (when not
specifically asked to do so) or “pumps” the staff for an
assessment of the CEO’s effectiveness.
These are just a few examples. Do any of them sound
familiar?
So, what can go wrong if the co-op board engages in
micromanaging, or managing at all?
One pitfall is that board members will use up valuable
time and energy on management and not have enough left to
do the critical job of governing. In terms of time, if your
board meets for three hours each month, that’s a total of 36
hours for the entire year. If even a few hours are misspent,
there aren’t many left to do the lofty work a co-op board
must do for its members.
A CEO who recognizes this kind of overstepping should
discuss it with the board chair in hopes that, together, a
solution will be found. If you are a board member and some
of this sounds familiar, it’s time to bring the topic of
board/staff roles to the table. It is helpful if board and staff
are regularly reminded of their roles and how to effectively
communicate with one another.
