University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

(USC Thesis Other)

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 1

The Facilitators and Impediments to Nonprofit Boards of Directors’ Understanding Their Roles
and Responsibilities

by

Joseph V. Palazzolo

_______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Joseph V. Palazzolo
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 2
DEDICATION

To the students and young people that I have been honored to advise and guide for the last
decade and a half, thank you for inspiring me to be a better leader, mentor, and person.

To my coworkers and friends, your on-going support during this process was empowering and
uplifting. Thank you for your continued belief in my abilities and potential.

To my family, for believing in me.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and dedication of
my dissertation committee: Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Adlai Wertman, and Dr. Joseph Mosca. I
could not have asked for a better dissertation advisor than Dr. Sundt, who read through my
revisions quickly and fully while offering comments that helped to clarify this research and,
ultimately, shape this document. Dr. Wertman provided certain observations during the
dissertation proposal defense that stayed with me during the several months of writing this
dissertation. More importantly, his observations have helped me redefine my own perspective
on the nonprofit sector and, specifically, the individuals who volunteer to serve on boards of
directors. Dr. Mosca supported me as an undergraduate and graduate student and encouraged me
to pursue this doctorate. He has been and continues to be an aspirational model of personal and
professional success while maintaining his connection to humble roots. I could not have asked
for a better mentor, or friend, to guide me.
I did not know what type of culture to expect when I applied to USC Rossier’s OCL
program. What I found, however, was both awe-inspiring and motivational. Learning under
Rossier’s brilliant faculty was a pleasure and an honor. I have never been as challenged and
supported as I was during my time in this program. Specifically, working with Dr. Esther Kim
provided a rewarding and enriching experience that I did not think was possible when studying
data analysis! Dr. Kim was always ready to answer a question and provided critical support of
my work even beyond the two semesters that I spent in her classes. Dr. Cathy Krop also helped
– and calmed – me immeasurably when I switched the primary organization for my study.
The friends and collaborators who I learned with – and from – in Cohort 3 are among the
most impressive people I have ever met. It is an honor to be listed among them. #FightOn
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................8
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 10
Introduction of the Problem ............................................................................................... 10
The Carver Model of Policy Governance ........................................................................... 14
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 16
Organizational Performance Goal ...................................................................................... 19
Background of the Problem / Related Literature ................................................................ 20
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 21
Description of Stakeholder Group...................................................................................... 22
Stakeholder for the Study .................................................................................................. 24
Purpose of the Project and Project Questions ..................................................................... 24
Methodological Framework ............................................................................................... 25
Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 25
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................... 28
Historical Perspective ........................................................................................................ 28
Contemporary Beliefs on Effectiveness ............................................................................. 28
Evolving Accountability Expectations ............................................................................... 29
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 5
Optimal Qualities for Nonprofit Board Members ............................................................... 30
Challenges Faced by Nonprofit Boards of Directors .......................................................... 32
Legitimacy of Nonprofit Boards of Directors ..................................................................... 36
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ..................................... 38
Knowledge Influences ....................................................................................................... 40
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................ 47
Organizational Influences .................................................................................................. 52
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 59
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 64
Purpose of the Project and Guiding Questions ................................................................... 64
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ...................................................................... 65
Assessment of Performance Influences .............................................................................. 67
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................... 77
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 81
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 83
Role of Investigator ........................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................................ 87
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences ................................................................ 88
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences ................................................................. 97
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ......................................................... 106
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 116
CHAPTER 5 – SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION ......................... 117
Recommendations for Addressing Validated KMO Influences ........................................ 117
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 6
Structural and Self-Monitoring Solutions ......................................................................... 132
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................... 134
Limitations and Delimitations .......................................................................................... 149
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 150
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 152
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ............................................................................................. 162
Appendix B: Immediate Feedback After Board Orientation .................................................... 165
Appendix C: Feedback Survey Two Weeks After Board Orientation ...................................... 166

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 7
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Stakeholder Goals for Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International ............................... 23
Table 2: Summary of Influences on TGP’s Board of Directors ................................................. 60
Table 3: Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influencers ................. 72
Table 4: Knowledge Influences Validated and Not Validated ................................................... 88
Table 5: Summary of Validated Assumed Knowledge Influences ............................................. 96
Table 6: Motivation Influences Validated and Not Validated .................................................... 97
Table 7: Summary of Validated Assumed Motivation Influences ........................................... 105
Table 8: Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated ............................................ 106
Table 9: Summary of Validated Assumed Organizational Influences ...................................... 114
Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .................................... 119
Table 11: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ..................................... 125
Table 12: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations .................................. 128
Table 13: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .................... 136
Table 14: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Board Members ................... 138
Table 15: Required Drivers to Support Board Members’ Critical Behaviors ........................... 139
Table 16: Components of Learning for the Program ............................................................... 143
Table 17: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ................................................. 144

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................. 65
Figure 2. Sample Dashboard Data .......................................................................................... 147

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 9
ABSTRACT

In the nonprofit sector, boards of directors are vested with the legal power to manage all parts of
the organization from setting mission and vision to hiring and reviewing executive level
leadership and all aspects in between (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Given the wide latitude and deep
authority that board members are provided to manage an organization, it is critical to understand
the factors that influence their knowledge and motivation as well as the influences that the
organization, itself, may impress on the board. The purpose of this study was to understand
these influences on Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International’s board of directors by utilizing
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. This study’s assumed influences were
developed after an extensive literature review; the influences were then tested through interviews
and a document analysis. The study participants were the fraternity’s board of directors.
Findings from this research indicated that the participants were not formally trained on board-
level governance issues and that the organization, historically, places little value on boards of
directors that actively monitor performance indicators for areas of concern. The study provides
recommendations on how to bridge the gaps identified in the research to help the board operate
efficiently and effectively 100% of the time as it works towards long-term organizational
sustainability. The recommendations were developed using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) and were based on those influences that were validated by the
research.
Keywords: nonprofit, board of directors, motivation, board orientation, training

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 10
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction of the Problem
According to The Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), in
2005 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approved 50,089 organizations to operate under a tax-
exempt status. By 2015, only 32,063 of these organizations (64%) were still registered with the
IRS (NCCS, 2017). While mergers and mission achievement may lead some nonprofits to cease
operations, confusion within an organization’s board of directors regarding their specific roles
and responsibilities is a widespread problem in the sector. As they are not owned by individuals
or shareholders, nonprofit organizations vest their oversight function with boards of directors.
Traditionally, nonprofit boards are responsible for managing the executive director, exhibiting
organizational control through oversight of the budget and programming, and acting as a
guardian of the organization’s mission by ensuring that the activities of the nonprofit are aligned
to its values (Chait & Taylor, 1989; Klausner & Small, 2005; Widmer, 1993). The
organization’s executive director (along with other senior staff leaders, referred to in this
document as “executive leadership”) is typically responsible for pulling all parts of the
organization together into a whole that is acceptable to the board (Carver, 1990), defining for the
board strategic issues that are critical to the future success of the organization and recommending
action on those items (Brown & Guo, 2009; Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Taylor, Chait, & Holland,
1996), and reporting to the board on a regular basis regarding progress on achieving the
organization’s mission (Kenagay, Fox, & Vollrath, 2013).
Research suggests that board members are often unclear, or even uniformed, about their
roles and responsibilities, unsure of how to properly execute their fiduciary responsibilities, and
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 11
unclear about the roles of their organization’s executive leadership in comparison to the board’s
role (Dent, 2014; Widmer, 1993). For example, in interviews with 121 chief executive officers
of community foundations across the United States, Brown and Guo (2010) found that there
were 13 different roles and responsibilities expected of nonprofit board members. Yet a
principal failing of boards of directors was the assumption that executive leadership, if left alone
under an unsupervised organizational structure, will ensure an organization’s efficient
performance (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Nonprofit board members must know what their roles and
responsibilities are so they can guide the organization through economic, social, and staff
changes, ensure that the executive leadership stays focused on the board’s goals, and guide the
nonprofit achieve its mission.
Turbide and Laurin (2014) found that nonprofit executives placed greater value on board
members guiding the organization to achieving its mission than they did on board members
providing insight from their professional and personal experiences. This discrepancy, where
executive leaders expect board members to provide strategic guidance while board members
expect to provide informal consultancy, may create fertile ground for conflicts. Turbide and
Laurin (2014) also found that nonprofit executives had a limited understanding of a board’s role
and that the executives valued accountability – defined in their study as approving financial
statements and budgets – as a primary action for board members instead of the informal
consultancy that most board members expect to provide based on their professional expertise.
Although in the traditional, nonprofit organizational structure boards of directors delegate
the operational use of their legal power to their executive leadership, they must include
accountability measures along with this delegation (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Failing to do so can
result in fiscal crises and/or scandals that sometimes result in the death of the organization at
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 12
worst, and a loss of status, brand, and productivity at best (Hager, Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, &
Pins, 1996; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011; Turbide & Laurin, 2014). When boards of directors are
ineffective at providing the necessary oversight for an organization, the result is a weak
governance structure that can impede progress since strong governance structures are linked to
positive outcomes for an organization just as weak governance structures are linked to negative
outcomes (Turbide & Laurin, 2014). Interviews with CEOs representing 44 different nonprofit
organizations found that those organizations suffering from weak governance structures were
also in major financial distress (Turbide & Lauren, 2014). Further, Kenagay, Fox, and Vollrath
(2013) reported that nonprofit boards are increasingly being held accountable by their donors,
clients, government agencies, and the public. Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of
both the board and the executive leadership is an important element in creating a successful
governance structure that leads to strong external outcomes for a nonprofit organization.
Boards need to clearly define their roles and responsibilities because in reviewing data
from 1,341 chief executive officers surveyed in BoardSource’s 2012 Nonprofit governance index
survey for chief executives and for board chairs, Bernstein, Buse, and Slatten (2015) found that
when boards understood their unique role and specific responsibilities there was a highly
significant likelihood of their nonprofit organization achieving strong external outcomes. This
finding complements earlier research by Wells (2012) which showed that a nonprofit
organization’s credibility is directly linked to effective governance. Further, the board
understanding its role is also linked to an ability for the nonprofit to increase its funding streams,
and generate higher levels of popular support, both of which are indicators of success in the
nonprofit sector (Wells, 2012). Any uncertainty that permeates the board’s understanding of
their roles and responsibilities could lead to instability and loss of focus on the mission.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 13
However, Dent’s (2014) article reviewing the various lessons learned from reviewing
corporate governance issues surrounding nonprofit organizations found that nonprofit board
members are uncertain of their roles as well as the roles of the organization’s executive
leadership. Further, Widmer (1993), in a study of 13 human service-focused nonprofit
organizations in an unspecified city within the state of New York, found that there were
discrepancies among board members’ understanding about their exact roles and responsibilities.
This research showed that 46% of responding board members believed their responsibilities
expanded beyond those of the guardian role held by traditional nonprofit trustees while 18% of
responding board members did not believe that their responsibilities went beyond this traditional
role (Widmer, 1993). This confusion combines with a general lack of accountability for most
boards in the nonprofit sector to create fertile ground for board disengagement, organizational
disenchantment, and directional ambiguity.
When this type of accountability is not present in a nonprofit organization, board
members may not be presented with clear lines of responsibility or be held adequately
accountable for their lack of strategic leadership. Throughout the sector, nonprofit board
members face little risk for decisions that they make since lines of accountability are unclear
(Kenagay et al., 2013). However, boards that want to effectively perform their oversight and
monitoring responsibilities need to actively monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) and act
when necessary. Turbide and Laurin (2014) reported that as a response to negatively trending
KPIs most boards change their governance model by taking a more hands-on approach to daily
operations. Acting in this manner as a response to negatively trending KPIs is required for
nonprofit boards to meet stakeholders’ rising expectations of performance.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 14
The Carver Model of Policy Governance
While there are several popular governance models that nonprofit organizations may
consider using, this dissertation includes a focus on the Carver model of governance (Carver,
1990; Williams, 2010), more commonly known as “policy governance” or the “Carver model.”
Under the Carver model, boards focus on the issues that create or eliminate value for
stakeholders and determine the organization’s long-term path to success while delegating the
work of the organization to an executive leader (Block, 2014; Carver, 1990). Executive directors
like the Carver model because it provides clear definitions of their levels of autonomy,
establishes lines of authority, and details reporting responsibilities (Bradshaw et al., 2007;
Nobbie & Brudney, 2003). Unlike traditional forms of nonprofit governance that use board-level
committees to oversee and guide organizational functions, the Carver model limits board
members to focusing on long-term strategy and makes it the executive director’s responsibility to
implement that strategy (Williams, 2010).
As Block (2014) described, under the Carver model, the board creates specific “ends”
(more commonly known in the nonprofit sector as “outcomes”) that must be achieved by the
executive director. The Carver model gives the executive director wide discretion on how to
achieve those ends so long as the method by which the ends are achieved does not violate any
“executive limitations” that may be passed by the board. According to Carver (1990), executive
limitations are boundaries set by the board that limit the executive director’s choices and options
for achieving an end. For example, a board may approve an end that the organization will
increase revenue by 50% within one year. Accompanying that end may also be an executive
limitation that the executive director cannot raise existing fees to achieve the end of a 50%
revenue increase. More on this model is provided in Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 15
The Carver model also fills a knowledge gap for those board members who are unclear
about their roles and responsibilities (Block, 2014) by specifically limiting their roles to
oversight, monitoring, and evaluation. The Carver model’s focus on ends as well as the clarity
that the model provides on roles and responsibilities are often cited as its the best elements
(Bradshaw et al., 2007). However, Brudney and Nobbie (2002) found in their survey of 92
trainer-consultants who were trained by the Carver Policy Governance Academy that consultants
appear to believe the Carver model is superior even though many nonprofits have trouble fully
implementing it. In addition, there is little evidence that the Carver model maintains financial
stability for nonprofits that adopt the model (Williams, 2010). Similarly concerning is that board
members tend to think that they are performing better, overall, after adopting the Carver model
regardless of whether that is true (Nobbie & Brudney, 2003).
Williams (2010) provided a case study of a successful women’s social services
organization in the Midwest that adopted the Carver model. After adopting this model, the board
became disconnected from overseeing the organization’s day-to-day operations and less
concerned about monitoring KPIs. The board members grew distant from the organization’s
needs and passive in their oversight of the executive director. The board’s lack of oversight and
disengagement from monitoring KPIs ultimately led to a crisis where the executive director
resigned from the organization and the board suspended its use of the Carver model in favor of
reverting to a more traditional, hands-on approach to governance. In this case, the board had not
stayed well-informed on the KPIs that indicated whether the organization was healthy or
problems that were driving it further away from financial efficiency and meeting its mission.
This board’s lack of knowledge regarding the organization’s health is concerning as Hodge and
Piccolo (2011) studied 112 nonprofit organizations in Central Florida and found that board
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 16
effectiveness is negatively correlated with financial vulnerability, suggesting that ineffective
boards lead to more financially vulnerable organizations. Also concerning are the findings from
a study by Taylor, Chait, and Holland (1996) who reported that a characteristic of well-informed
board members is that they are in direct contact with a nonprofit’s constituents. This direct
communication may unsettle some executive directors by diminishing their role as the primary
source of information for the board, which is a critical element of the Carver model. Relatedly,
in a literature review for the Canadian Health Network, Bradshaw, Hayday, and Armstrong
(2007) found that common concerns under the Carver model include boards becoming less
attuned to stakeholder needs, losing diversity among board members, and diminishing innovative
problem solving that comes from the board.
Organizational Context and Mission
Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International (TGP; this is a pseudonym) is a nonprofit
entity organized under section 501(c)7 of the federal tax code. According to its website, TGP is
an international fraternal organization with over 120 chapters and colonies hosted on or near
college campuses throughout the continental United States and Canada
1
. According to its
website, the fraternity’s mission is to help each of its members progress towards lives of
excellence
2
. The fraternity’s members attempt to achieve their individual lives of excellence by
living the organization’s core values daily.
The fraternity’s constitution (2016) shows that TGP was founded in the Midwest near the
end of the 19
th
Century
3
. It was founded to cultivate fellowship, increase academic knowledge,
advance the general cause of education, and promote a greater level of cultural understanding for

1
To maintain the organization’s anonymity, the URL of its website is not cited above.
2
The actual mission of the fraternity is being paraphrased to help maintain anonymity.
3
The actual date and location of the organization’s founding are being withheld to protect anonymity.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 17
its members. TGP is governed by a 7-member board of directors that oversees the organization’s
programming and develops its strategy while also managing the fraternity’s executive leadership.
All the directors are required to be members of TGP in good standing. Board members are
dispersed throughout the country, though the fraternity maintains a central executive office
located in Tennessee. According to its website, the fraternity currently provides services to
approximately 6,000 undergraduate members and has initiated more than 100,000 members since
its founding
4
.
Within the early years of the 21
st
century, the fraternity’s board adopted the Carver model
to better define the oversight and monitoring relationships between itself and the organization’s
executive director. TGP’s board spent several months training under Miriam Carver on how to
develop effective ends while also developing limitations on the executive director’s authority to
achieve those ends. The board then spent several additional months drafting policies under this
model before fully implementing them approximately one year after their training began.
Brudney and Nobbie (2002) found that the Carver model appears to be easy to implement in
theory, but in practice it is much harder for board members and executive directors to grasp with
the greatest difficulty being the board’s sole focus on policy issues instead of day-to-day
activities. Prior board members spending too much time and effort trying to micromanage the
executive leadership in their administration of the fraternity was the very problem that TGP’s
board sought to resolve by adopting the Carver model. Soon after the Carver model was
implemented, the fraternity’s long-time executive director opted to retire, resulting in a new
executive director being hired to work under the new governance model, and the organization’s
first transition in executive leadership in more than a decade.

4
To maintain the organization’s anonymity, the URL of its website is not cited above.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 18
Just under four years later, a second leadership transition occurred when the then-
executive director separated from the organization. Reasons for this separation included
concerns regarding the organization’s financial performance as well as concerns regarding
adherence to the fraternity’s core values and the direction in which the executive director was
moving the organization – all problems for which the board of directors should have been
providing oversight and monitoring during the executive director’s employment. The Carver
model aside, the research is clear that under no organizational structure should the use of
operational power be delegated without close oversight from a fully functioning board of
directors (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). TGP’s board of directors implemented the Carver model and
provided its executive director with wide latitude to administer the organization. The critical
oversight necessary to reign in that power if the executive director strayed too far from the
board’s vision, however, was missing.
This second transition ignited months of conversation among the fraternity’s stakeholders
regarding how best to decide the organization’s strategy and how best for the board to oversee
the executive director. The culmination of this conversation was the election of a new majority
to the board of directors at TGP’s most recent biennial conference. The new board ran for office
on a platform of reforming the fraternity to better serve its members by aligning its operations
more closely with contemporary interpretations of the traditional values that have sustained the
organization and its membership for more than a century (Current board member
5
, personal
communication, February 19, 2017). The newly elected members of TGP’s board ran for
election in a crowded field of candidates, but distinguished themselves by promising to focus on
reforming the Carver model to better meet the fraternity’s oversight and monitoring needs.

5
To protect anonymity, the board member’s abbreviated name is being withheld.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 19
Organizational Performance Goal
TGP’s organizational performance goal is to ensure that 100% of operations are focused
on implementing policies and practices that sustain the organization by contributing to the
overall goals of increasing membership and revenue by July 2018. This goal was established by
the board of directors at their meeting in January 2017 (Current board member
6
, personal
communication, February 19, 2017). The primary stakeholder in achieving this organizational
goal is the fraternity’s board of directors. For this study, the stakeholder’s goal was for every
member of the fraternity’s board of directors to engage in best practices for board governance
100% of the time. Further, achieving this stakeholder goal may also strengthen the
organization’s financial results by growing net revenue while also decreasing expenses that were
increased under prior executive directors. Another indicator of success in achieving the
stakeholder goal is growth in total number of members, which should primarily occur at the
undergraduate level.
Achievement of the organizational goal will be measured by assessing whether 100% of
the fraternity’s operations are focused on implementing policies and practices that sustain the
organization by contributions to the overall goals of increasing membership and revenue. The
board will monitor the organization’s progress in achieving this goal during monthly board
conference calls and at its two in-person meetings each year. To improve its understanding of
the conditions that facilitate or impede its ability to achieve the outcomes set for it by the board,
TGP is also currently engaged in studying various areas of its operational effectiveness. TGP is
also researching how trends in higher education, the fraternity industry, and the nonprofit sector

6
To protect anonymity, the board member’s abbreviated name is being withheld.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 20
can be leveraged to position the organization for long-term sustainability (Current board
member
7
, personal communication, February 19, 2017).
Background of the Problem / Related Literature
In a review of 13 nonprofit organizations in a city within the state of New York, Widmer
(1993) found that there were discrepancies among board members regarding their understanding
of their exact roles and responsibilities. This research showed that 46% of responding board
members believed their responsibilities expanded beyond those of the guardian role held by
traditional nonprofit directors while 18% did not believe that their responsibilities went beyond
this traditional role. Misalignment between board members’ expectations of performance is
problematic for a nonprofit organization’s sustainability. An ever-changing external
environment makes it more important for internal governance structures to be efficient and
dedicated to the nonprofit’s mission (Steen-Johnsen, Eynaud, & Wijkström, 2011). Not
monitoring KPIs for the possibility of mismanagement by an executive director, pending
financial troubles, or changes in stakeholder expectations exposes a governance structure that is
too disconnected from an organization’s activities to foresee potential problems or to act when
trends indicate a need to act is necessary.
Williams (2010) found that most research shows nonprofit boards are generally not well-
prepared to adroitly manage against poorly trending KPIs. Relatedly, Klausner and Small (2005)
found that there are an increasing number of nonprofit boards that are not meeting their fiduciary
responsibilities. A board member’s fiduciary responsibilities include ensuring that the
organization is operating within the legal bounds of its authority, informing fellow board
members about material aberrations in the board’s performance, and protecting any financial

7
To protect anonymity, the board member’s abbreviated name is being withheld.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 21
assets entrusted to the care of the board (Payette, 2001). Being unprepared to meet fiduciary
responsibilities can render a board ineffective at stewarding a nonprofit towards meeting its
mission. However, boards need to ensure that they are monitoring the appropriate KPIs and only
stepping in to adjust day-to-day activities when necessary because spending greater amounts of
directors’ already scarce time on administrative tasks limits their ability to set strategy for the
organization and ultimately leads to disengagement (Chait & Taylor, 1989).
Additionally, it is critical for the executive director to deliver relevant information to the
board so that it may effectively execute its fiduciary responsibilities and develop strategic
policies. Nonprofit board members may disengage from their roles when they are denied
adequate strategic information by the organization’s executive director or are asked to work on
nonstrategic operational issues (Kenagay et al., 2013). When an ineffective governance structure
is in place, this type of disengagement may increase. A specific concern related to this type of
disengagement is the disconnect between data provided by the executive director and the board
acting on those data. Disengaged board members often accept data provided to them by
executive leadership without critical review and may even lack the knowledge, skills, and
experience needed to adequately review the data within the context of the nonprofit sector or the
organization’s industry (Greenleaf, 1974/2009).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of nonprofit board members understanding and effectively carrying out their
governance roles and responsibilities is important to solve for a variety of reasons. Widmer
(1993) found that there were discrepancies among board members regarding whether they
understood their roles and responsibilities. Additionally, Dent (2014) found that not only are
most nonprofit board members uncertain about the expectations of their positions, but they do
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 22
not have clarity regarding the roles of their organization’s executive leadership. This expectation
and role confusion is challenging when determining who is accountable for a nonprofit’s
successes and failures. Furthering the negative outcomes related to this confusion, Kenagay et
al. (2013) found that nonprofit board members face little risk for the decisions that they make
since lines of accountability are unclear.
Description of Stakeholder Group
TGP has several important stakeholder groups. Three of the fraternity’s most important
primary social stakeholders are members of its board of directors, members of its executive
office staff, and the organization’s alumni volunteers. The board of directors provides on-going
oversight of the executive director to ensure that the fraternity’s programs are designed and
implemented to meet the strategic direction set for the fraternity by the board within the context
of the organization’s values. In addition, the board meets monthly to discuss events and trends
that require board action as well as to assess the executive director’s work in achieving the
fraternity’s mission. The board also organizes a brief training session for new board members to
make sure that they understand the Carver model of governance.
The executive office staff is comprised of individuals that are paid to work for the
fraternity and is led by an executive director who, under the fraternity’s governing documents, is
also the organization’s chief executive officer
8
. The executive director manages a team of
director-level administrators, traveling staff, and on-site administrative staff members who are
not required to be members of the fraternity. The executive office staff administers the work of
the fraternity by maintaining its day-to-day activities including managing business relationships,
implementing the strategic direction provided by the board, and ensuring that members are

8
To maintain the organization’s anonymity, its governing documents are not directly cited above.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 23
adhering to the fraternity’s rules and regulations. Staff members also conduct on-site visits with
undergraduate chapters to assess their strength and continuing viability. The staff also works
with local host institutions, where applicable, to represent the fraternity’s interests over a longer
period of time.
Finally, the fraternity’s alumni volunteer corps is comprised of a wide array of volunteer
positions including local and regional advisors, alumni association and housing corporation
officers, and local fundraisers and scholarship committee members. These individuals contribute
to the fraternity by providing on-going, long-term guidance to undergraduate members on
chapter operations as well as personal growth opportunities relative to scholarly achievement,
career advancement, and professional development. The volunteers also contribute
recommendations to the board and executive office staff for program improvements that make a
meaningful difference in the membership experience for both undergraduates and alumni.
Volunteers also promote the fraternity to external audiences from an engaged stakeholder’s
viewpoint to help modify and correct the often-distorted perspective of fraternity men in
contemporary culture by sensationalized media reports. Table 1 provides a description of the
organizational mission, organizational global goal, and stakeholder goal for this study.
Table 1
Stakeholder Goals for Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International
Organizational Mission
Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International’s mission is to help its members
progress towards lives of excellence.
9

Organizational Global Goal
By July 2018, the fraternity will ensure that 100% of operations are focused on
implementing policies and practices that sustain the organization by contributing to
the overall goals of increasing membership and revenue.

9
The actual mission of the fraternity is being paraphrased to help maintain anonymity.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 24

Stakeholder Goal
By July 2018, every member of the fraternity’s board of directors will engage in
best practices for board governance 100% of the time.

Stakeholder for the Study
While all stakeholders are important to the successful operation of the fraternity and each
has a unique perspective on how to best achieve the organization’s mission and goals, the
stakeholder group that this research focused on was the board of directors. After this study is
completed, the stakeholder goal of having every member of the fraternity’s board of directors
engage in best practices for board governance will be measured by a self-assessment of the board
of directors and, more importantly, whether the outcomes achieved under their oversight allow
the board to be re-elected at the next biennial conference in August 2018. Successfully
achieving the stakeholder goal will allow the board of directors to use their professional expertise
to shepherd the organization through any situation causing concern while respecting the Carver
model’s defined roles and limitations. Internally, this may take the form of more direct oversight
of the fraternity’s finances when KPIs indicate there needs to be additional oversight of the
executive director’s expenditures. Externally, this may take the form of leading a international
response to situations that could negatively impact the organization’s long-term sustainability.
Purpose of the Project and Project Questions
The purpose of this project is to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences that facilitate or impede the board in engaging in effective
practices 100% of the time under the Carver model. This model should be developed with input
from both the board and the executive director. Historically, boards created strategy and
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 25
executive directors implemented it. Today, board members and executive directors need to
collaborate on both policy development and program implementation (Taylor et al., 1996).
The research questions guiding this study are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that facilitate or
impede TGP’s board of directors’ engaging in effective practices 100% of the time
under the Carver model of governance?
2. What are the proposed solutions to the board of directors’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs?
Methodological Framework
This study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to determine the
KMO influences on the stakeholder group. The gap analysis framework is a methodological
approach that identified the gap between the stakeholder’s desired performance and its actual
performance. This study collected data within the gap analysis framework by conducting one-
on-one interviews and an extensive document analysis. This approach generated data that were
compared against the assumed KMO influences for the board of directors. The results of this
comparison formed the basis for identifying any performance gaps that existed. Completing the
gap analysis framework required the development of solutions to help bridge and, ultimately,
close gaps that were identified through the research.
Definitions
Executive Director: A nonprofit organization’s executive director is the most senior staff
member. The board delegates certain authority to the executive director to carry out the
nonprofit’s business. The executive director reports directly to the board of directors and
manages the day-to-day affairs of the organization, often by hiring additional staff members.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 26
Executive Leadership: A nonprofit organization’s executive leadership includes its
executive director and any senior-level managers that report to the executive director. Typically,
the full executive leadership team will not report directly to the board of directors or any
individual board member. Rather, the executive leadership team will report to the executive
director who, in turn, will report to the board.
Fraternity: Fraternities are private, single-sex membership organizations governed by a
volunteer board of directors. The day-to-day activities of fraternities are carried out by paid staff
members who operate under an executive director, who works for and under the guidance of the
board of directors and is charged with implementing their strategy and vision for the
organization.
Governance: Governance is the model and methods under which a nonprofit board of
directors executes their oversight authority, engages in meeting their fiduciary responsibilities,
and provides strategic planning for the organization.
Key Performance Indicators: KPIs are the metrics that are used to measure progress.
KPIs may be used to measure progress in achieving strategic goals or they can be used by
individuals to determine if they are meeting stated, measurable expectations of performance.
Nonprofit organization: A nonprofit organization is an entity organized under section
501(c) of the IRS code.
TGP: Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity. This is a pseudonym for the actual name of the
organization being studied in this dissertation.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters beginning with this chapter, Chapter 1.
The information in Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the concepts that are the foundation for
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 27
the larger study. This chapter introduced the key stakeholder that will be analyzed and the
performance gap that is the focus of this research. Also, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework was introduced as was the organizational performance goal. Chapter 2 is comprised
of the literature review and details the current literature that helps define the scope of this study.
Chapter 2 discusses an array of topics including accountability in nonprofit organizations,
challenges faced by nonprofit boards of directors, and challenges faced by individual board
members. The methodology section of this dissertation is found in Chapter 3. This section
discusses the research methodology and discusses the assumed influences discovered by the gap
analysis framework. Chapter 4 presents the results and findings of the data collection and related
analysis. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of evidence-based solutions to address any validated
performance gaps that are identified in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 also provides an implementation
plan for these solutions. The dissertation ends with a summary of the research, key findings, and
broader implications for the stakeholder group, TGP, the fraternity industry, and the nonprofit
sector.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 28
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents current research on the characteristics and skills of effective boards.
Further, this chapter reviews the challenges that these boards encounter in executing their roles.
Following a review of the general research literature, this chapter then employs the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis model to examine the KMO influences on nonprofit boards of directors
and, specifically, TGP’s board.
Historical Perspective
Historically, nonprofit board members created a strategy and a vision, but the
implementation of that strategy and vision was left to the organization’s executive leadership
(Taylor et al., 1996). Widmer (1993) reported that nonprofit board members historically played
a trustee role by acting as a guardian of the organization’s mission and ensuring that the activities
of the nonprofit were aligned to its mission. Under this historical model of nonprofit corporate
governance, the board of directors and executive leadership would attempt to execute a strategy
that addressed the big picture issues, which were defined by the staff’s on-the-ground
experience. For the board’s on-going monitoring of the nonprofit’s success or failure, Taylor et
al. (1996) recommended that boards and executive leadership collaborate to develop a list of
approximately a dozen KPIs and that those indicators be regularly tracked and reviewed. By
following this data-driven model, boards became more concerned with issues that were critical to
the success of the organization and had clearly defined KPIs to indicate success or failure.
Contemporary Beliefs on Effectiveness
Boards play a critical oversight role for the contemporary nonprofit. Specific activities
related to effective board service include providing expert level insight when KPIs indicate
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 29
concerning trends in the organization’s ability to meet organizational goals and providing
thoughts around strategic alternatives to problem-solving during meetings (Forbes & Milliken,
1999). BoardSource’s 2015 Leading with intent: A national index of nonprofit board practices
survey of 843 nonprofit chief executive officers representing all 50 United States as well as 11
non-U.S. organizations found that boards composed of members with diverse backgrounds,
perspectives, leadership approaches, and skill sets are more likely to be considered effective and
high performing. Plus, the survey found that effective board members also raise their voices and
act as public, vocal advocates and champions for their organization (BoardSource, 2015).
Evolving Accountability Expectations
Nonprofit boards of directors are facing changing accountability expectations from
government sources, funders, and primary social stakeholders (Kenagay et al., 2013). However,
the volunteer nature of most nonprofit board service creates a unique separation between board
members and their decisions. In an article published to promote stronger oversight and
governance in the nonprofit sector, Kenagay et al. (2013) reported that since nonprofit board
members are volunteers, the typical accountability links found in the for-profit sector are often
not present. This means that nonprofit board members face little risk for their decisions and that
lines of accountability are unclear in the nonprofit sector. Dent (2014) expanded this perspective
by reporting that the lack of the type of accountability found in for-profit organizations is what
leads nonprofit boards of directors to make unwise decisions and, in worst case scenarios, leads
to leadership confusion. This complements prior research that showed some business
professionals join nonprofit boards just so they can experience some form of heightened status in
the community while not having to take on the leadership responsibility of worrying about the
organization’s economic bottom line (Bowen, 1994).
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 30
Optimal Qualities for Nonprofit Board Members
Today, serving on nonprofit boards is no longer a purely honorary appointment but,
instead, more resembles unpaid jobs with significant responsibilities for community stewardship
(Connelly, 2004). If this is the case, then identifying the optimal qualities for a board member is
an important piece of the puzzle in building a strong nonprofit organization. BoardSource’s
2015 Leading with intent: A national index of nonprofit board practices survey reported that
ideal board members are those who excel at technical tasks including compliance and financial
oversight, both of which are critical aspects of meeting a board member’s fiduciary
responsibility. The survey also reported that while these qualities are within the average board
member’s comfort zone, ideal board members also challenge themselves to expand their abilities
in performing external functions like fundraising and advocacy (BoardSource, 2015). Connelly
(2004) found that effective board members must be well-versed in their responsibilities,
diversified in their understanding of the nonprofit sector, and beyond reproach when they make
decisions on behalf of the organization. Bringing on board members with specific professional
expertise that relates to these attributes is one way to strengthen overall board health while also
broadening the professional connections that the nonprofit may be able to leverage.
Broadening professional and community connections is a key role that business leaders
should play for nonprofit organizations. Bowen (1994) found that business leaders bring several
critical attributes to nonprofit boards including their general competence, skills, and knowledge,
but that nonprofit organizations also needed business leaders to serve on their boards to tap into
their professional networks, fundraising abilities, and to bring the nonprofit heightened relevance
and awareness in the market. Rarely, if ever, should a board member seek to raise their profile
through service on a nonprofit board of directors. Rather, they should seek to enhance the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 31
nonprofit’s image and public credibility (Renz, 2010). The challenge, however, then becomes
integrating the various backgrounds of the board members into a cohesive team that is focused
on achieving the nonprofit’s mission (Kenagay et al., 2013). Finding board members with these
attributes is the first step in organizing the pieces needed to build a strong, effective board.
Boards of directors also need to work in tandem with their executive leadership to
advance the nonprofit’s mission by offering strategic guidance to the organization (Taylor et al.,
1996). This can be hard to achieve and may create awkward situations when the board members
are also employees of the organization or inside directors. In their interviews with chief
executive officers representing 44 different arts and culture-focused nonprofit organizations,
Turbide and Laurin (2014) found that nonprofits are more satisfied with the contributions of their
external board members than their internal ones. This finding suggests that nonprofits should
look outside of their organization for board leadership. In addition, executive leadership may be
at odds with board members for reasons that are beyond the board’s control. Sometimes, a
culture of being nice to one another inhibits the ability for nonprofit employees to be candid with
each other (Collins, 2005) leading to these employees being unresponsive or defensive because
they are not used to receiving the type of direct, constructive criticism that is prevalent in the
private sector and is often provided by the private sector individuals serving on the board
(Bowen, 1994).
While the business professionals on the board could modify their approach to providing
constructive criticism, a nonprofit’s executive leadership should be comfortable receiving direct
criticism of their work. Building that trust between the board and the executive leadership can
pay dividends for the staff. Boards that have a greater level of trust in their executive director
are less likely to intrude on the daily operations of the organization (Chait & Taylor, 1989). To
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 32
this point, Dikolli, Mayew, and Nanda (2014) found that longer chief executive officer tenures
were consistent with the board being more confident in the chief executive officer’s abilities than
in their actual performance for the organization. Regardless of the trust level between the
executive director and the board, today’s nonprofit board members must be ready to commit not
just to serve to the organization, but to invest time and energy into advancing the organization’s
mission (Connelly, 2004).
Challenges Faced by Nonprofit Boards of Directors
Types of Challenges
One of the most often-cited challenges for nonprofit boards of directors is confusion
about their exact role within the organization. As noted above, Widmer’s (1993) study of 13
human service-focused nonprofit organizations in a city within the state of New York found that
there were discrepancies among board members regarding their exact roles and responsibilities.
This complements Dent’s (2014) findings that most nonprofit board members are not certain of
the expectations of their positions, they do not have clarity about the roles of their nonprofit
organization’s executive leadership, and that even though, in theory, nonprofit board members
are all equal in power, most boards are operated by the most socially powerful person. Connelly
(2004) also found that many nonprofit board members are not aware of the basic responsibilities
of board service or the difficulties that such a role brings with it even after they join the board.
This level of confusion is widespread in the sector as nonprofits continue to expand to meet the
growing demand between the provision of services by public sources and what can be reasonably
purchased in the open market.
In his article, Dent (2014) also reported that experts agree that most nonprofit board
members are unaware of what is happening in their organizations and that their attendance at
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 33
board meetings is spotty at best. Again, this disconnect between board service and active
engagement creates fertile ground for confusion. Chait and Taylor (1989) reported that part of
the problem is that it is common for boards to be inundated with information that is irrelevant to
their role in setting policies and providing strategy for an organization. Bowen (1994) added that
boards are hindered by permissive members who defer any responsibility for traditional business
matters to other board members with more professional experience in the business world. This
abdication of responsibility decreases a board’s overall engagement at a time when greater board
engagement is necessary to compete for scarce resources in rapidly changing funding
environments. Nonprofit boards of directors are facing issues like corporate conversions,
closures, and bankruptcy more frequently now than ever before (Connelly, 2004).
Challenges for Individual Board Members
Aside from understanding their basic roles and responsibilities, nonprofit board members
are also challenged by the unique nonprofit environment, which is often not modeled on the
private sector. Dent (2014) reported that most corporate governance in the nonprofit sector is
much worse than that found in the private sector. This poor impression of governance helps
provide context as to why, to show legitimacy, nonprofit organizations have started to adopt
private sector language and practices (Williams, 2010). In fact, Williams (2010) found that a
closer alignment with market-based reforms is considered virtuous in the nonprofit sector based
on the assumption that such alignment improves organizational performance and maximizes
efficiency. This assumption was tested in a study of 881 nonprofit organizations registered in
New Zealand between 2008 and 2010, Reddy, Locke, and Fauzi (2013) found that introducing
certain private sector corporate governance elements into the nonprofit sector had positive
impacts on organizational performance. However, moving the organization towards private
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 34
sector practices is irrelevant if individual board members are still confused about their roles and
expectations for performance.
Klausner and Small (2005) posited that there are an increasing number of nonprofit board
members who are not meeting their fiduciary responsibilities. The article cites several factors
leading to this problem including the fact that nonprofit boards often have too many members for
each member to be effective at governing the organization. Chait and Taylor (1989) found an
additional complication to the challenge of nonprofit governance by reporting that even the most
well-intentioned board members may become too involved in the organization’s daily operations
and, by doing so, they risk losing sight of the nonprofit’s larger strategic goals. In these
scenarios, some board members may feel as though they are not being provided with the same
level of information as other members of the board who are, for better or for worse, more
engaged in the daily activities of the organization. Board members that focus on a single aspect
of their responsibilities while neglecting other aspects lead to decisions being made that are not
in the best interests of the entire organization (Connelly, 2004).
Klausner and Small (2005) observed that tensions can exist among board members when
some members excel at skills other than their primary board functions of oversight and
governance. Bowen (1994) found that private sector leaders serving on nonprofit boards may
have good intentions and be successful in the private marketplace, but they may not understand
how a nonprofit operates or how one part of a nonprofit’s operations impacts another part of the
same organization. On whether these private sector board members should pressure the
nonprofit to adopt the strategies that made them successful in their businesses, Collins (2005)
suggested that this idea is well-intentioned, but often is not the correct path for a nonprofit.
Relatedly, Greenleaf (1974/2009) reported that board members that are highly competent in a
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 35
certain skill area may suffer from an unwillingness or inability to critically examine the
assumptions that form their opinions on certain topics.
Discrepancies Between Board Member and Executive Staff Expectations
Board members and executive leadership often have different perspectives on the proper
role for a board of directors to play for a nonprofit organization. Turbide and Laurin (2014)
found that senior managers have only a basic understanding of the role that board members play
in oversight and governance. Their study showed that managers believed accountability was an
important trait for board members, while providing consultancy was not an important trait. This
conflicts with Klausner and Small’s (2005) article which reported that nonprofit board members
often provide formal and informal consultancy services rendered from their professional
experience; in other words, nonprofit board members provide the type of consultancy that
Turbide and Laurin’s (2014) executive leadership interview subjects did not think was part of the
board’s responsibilities.
Inherent in the conflict between board members and executive leadership is the debate
over who has primacy regarding organizational direction. Dent (2014) reported that, by law,
nonprofit employees, including executive leadership, are subject to the superior power of their
boards of directors. The reality of this power dynamic may generate conflict when the board and
executive leadership are at odds. However, Chait and Taylor (1989) found that boards that have
a greater level of trust in their executive director are less likely to intrude on the daily operations
of the organization, which complements Greenleaf’s (1974/2009) suggestion that board members
should not be actively participating in operational decision-making. Based on these findings and
the one-sided power structure that executive directors have in their relationship with the board,
the question then becomes how can executive directors generate greater levels of trust from their
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 36
boards of directors and thus diminish any potential intrusion into daily activities and the
accompanying confusion that comes with that intrusion? And how much leniency is too much
for the board to allow in the board-executive relationship? Dikolli et al. (2014) found that the
longer an executive director was employed by a nonprofit, the weaker and more disengaged that
organization’s board members became in executing their responsibilities. Disengagement is a
problem for the nonprofit sector as BoardSource’s 2015 Leading with intent: A national index of
nonprofit board practices survey found that engagement is a consistent concern among executive
leadership. The survey found that just 20% of chief executive officers believe that most of their
board members are engaged (BoardSource, 2015).
Legitimacy of Nonprofit Boards of Directors
Legitimacy in the Nonprofit Sector
An increasingly scarce funding environment and a growing number of external threats
have created an atmosphere in the nonprofit sector where transparent organizations can thrive
while more stoic, secluded organizations are finding it difficult to compete. Credibility in the
nonprofit sector is linked to good governance and, when a funder believes a nonprofit is credible,
there is the added benefit of a greater likelihood to obtain grant funding along with popular social
support for the nonprofit to achieve its mission (Wells, 2012). Working to obtain new funding
sources also addresses the 60% of chief executive officers who cite fundraising as an area in
desperate need of improvement for their boards of directors (BoardSource, 2015). Also, Hodge
and Piccolo (2011) found that nonprofits that are primarily funded by private philanthropy might
consider conducting a broad assessment of the effectiveness of their boards. Such an assessment
may lead to better understanding whether the board has the characteristics necessary to improve
the organization’s ability to raise funds and create long-term sustainability.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 37
Hager, Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, and Pins (1996) interviewed the leaders from 74
nonprofit organizations that closed during a 15-year period in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
They found that most respondents believed organizational legitimacy was a critical factor in
remaining open. Complementing this research is Brown and Guo’s (2010) finding that 37% of
executive leaders from community foundations across the United States believed that a critical
role for nonprofit board members is increasing the legitimacy and viability of the organization.
Legitimacy is achieved in several ways in the nonprofit sector, but two of the most prevalent
methods of are adopting private sector language and practices (Williams, 2010) and bringing
business professionals onto the board (Bowen, 1994). On adopting private sector language,
Williams (2010) found that nonprofit leaders assume that moving to private sector models will
improve organizational performance and maximize efficiency because the nonprofit sector
considers private sector language virtuous. Wells (2012) expanded on adopting private sector
models by reporting that nonprofits may opt to operate like a private company by implementing
certain forms of financial support like generating fee income. With such reforms taking hold in
the nonprofit sector, transparency in decision-making and resource allocation will becoming
greater requirements for boards to be considered effective and nonprofit’s to be considered
legitimate.
Deeply connected to the concept of board legitimacy is the idea of transparency. In the
nonprofit sector, transparency means providing public access to information regarding the
decision processes within an organization and access to KPIs regarding the organization’s health
(Hale, 2013). Increasing transparency levels is often seen as a method by which a nonprofit
organization can improve its public standing. Changes in nonprofit internal governance are often
driven by a call for better governance structures, new demands for accountability, and
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 38
transparency (Steen-Johnsen et al., 2011). Transparency is linked to accountability and, more
specifically, a nonprofit’s fidelity to its mission; that is, whether a nonprofit directs incoming
resources towards meeting its mission (Hale, 2013). Internally, an initial step in making any
nonprofit board more effective is for its members to understand the changing nature of the
nonprofit sector relative to transparency and accountability (Connelly, 2004).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) developed a conceptual framework that analyzes the gaps that
may exist between actual performance and a performance goal. Under the Clark and Estes
(2008) model, after identifying a performance gap, a review of KMO influences is conducted to
determine which influences impact performance. Krathwohl (2002) identifies four types of
knowledge and skills: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. These types of
knowledge and skills may be used to analyze the degree to which stakeholders know how to
achieve their performance goal.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that motivation influences include three indexes: the active
choice to pursue a performance goal, the level of persistence shown in pursuing a goal, and the
mental effort that one is willing to apply to achieve the goal. Additionally, Pajares (2006) found
that self-efficacy beliefs provided the foundation on which well-being, human motivation, and
personal accomplishment are constructed. Finally, organizational influences that may impact
stakeholder performance include work processes (including sub-processes), material resources
needed to achieve a goal, value chains and value streams surrounding a stakeholder, and
organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The different elements of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis that are noted above are
addressed in the sections below. These sections review the KMO needs for the board to meet
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 39
their performance goal of every member of the board of directors engaging in best practices for
board governance 100% of the time. First, the knowledge and skills that are assumed to be
influences on the stakeholder goal are discussed. The second section considers assumed
motivation influences on the stakeholder goal. Finally, organizational influences that are
assumed to impact the achievement of the stakeholder goal are reviewed. The methodology
discussed in Chapter 3 explores each of these assumed stakeholder KMO influences.
Knowledge and Skills
Examining the role of knowledge and skills in problem solving is important because the
results of this examination help form a better understanding of how individuals are influenced by
factors outside of their control. For example, Halpern (2004) reported that educated adults must
be able to counter the onslaught of propaganda that they are exposed to while also soundly
reasoning through issues and recognizing new problems that can develop. Research conducted
by Kirschner and van Merrienboer (2013) found that with the increasing methods by which
individuals can access information, it is becoming more difficult to search, find, and process
large amounts of data. This is a problem in the nonprofit sector where leaders need to sort
through large amounts of information to determine which course of action they should take to
advance their mission. Relatedly, nonprofit boards should be removed from the daily
communication among the organization’s staff and board members should not receive all the
same communication that staff receives nor should they be part of the staff’s informal
communication activity (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Intrinsically related to the need for well-
developed information processing skills is the necessity of continuous learning in a system where
situational concerns are reassessed when new information is presented (Alexander, Schallert, &
Reynolds, 2009). Developing a dynamic, iterative system of information assessment and,
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 40
ultimately, problem solving is a critical part of properly situating a nonprofit board of directors to
have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.
Knowledge Influences
The literature identifies several relevant influences that impact nonprofit boards of
directors and their self-assessment of knowledge. Krathwohl (2010) identifies four knowledge
types: declarative – factual, declarative – conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Declarative – factual knowledge includes the basic information that an individual must know to
solve problems in a certain discipline while declarative – conceptual knowledge includes the
connections between those basic elements and the larger structures that allow them to function in
the same system together. Procedural knowledge includes the basic methods of inquiry and
knowledge on how to accomplish a task, but can also include familiarity with certain skills and
techniques. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is knowing the limits and expanses of one’s own
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2010). Knowing the type of knowledge influence that may be impacting
performance is important because the type of influence dictates the type of solution and the
solutions for each knowledge type are not the same (Clark & Estes, 2008). Note that Table 2 at
the end of the chapter displays all assumed causes discussed in the following sections.
Assumed declarative knowledge influences. The board members and executive
leadership need to know and understand the roles and limitations that each has and their
responsibilities to the organization. Further, effective board members are those who know how
they are being held accountable for meeting their fiduciary and oversight responsibilities.
Board members need to know the function of the board, and their roles and limitations
vis a vis those of the executive director. Meeting the challenges of strategic governance is not
an easy task for many nonprofit boards since they are often unsure of their roles and the roles of
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 41
the organization’s executive leadership (Dent, 2014; Widmer, 1993). In their review of
interactions between nonprofit boards and their executive leadership, Kenagay et al. (2013)
found that some boards suffer because their members are not appointed for reasons of their
business expertise. Further adding to their ineffectiveness, Young’s (2011) review of the
literature found that certain boards can be plagued by issues like groupthink and conflicts of
interest, which distract from their governance roles. Combining a lack of expertise with internal
conflicts does not create an environment suitable for effective organizational oversight, let alone
strategic leadership. Since fraternity boards are held accountable by a diverse constituency
including, among others, undergraduate and alumni members, colleges and universities, and
federal and state regulators, it important for their board members and executive leadership to
understand the factual and conceptual knowledge regarding their role governing the organization.
Board members need to know how they will be held accountable to meet their fiduciary
and oversight responsibilities. To diminish the negative impacts associated with unclear lines of
accountability, nonprofit board members need to understand how they are held accountable and
to whom their performance is accounted. Further, board members need to embrace this
accountability as part of the challenge of leadership through guiding their organizations by
providing strategic direction and policy development. The lack of the type of accountability
found in the private sector is what leads nonprofit boards to make unwise decisions and foments
general confusion (Dent, 2014). Further, nonprofit board members face little risk for the
decisions that they make since lines of accountability are unclear (Kenagay et al., 2013). To
avoid making bad decisions and working in the haze of confusion, board members should be
given clear guidelines on how they will be held accountable to meet their responsibilities as the
strategic leaders of the organization. These guidelines should make it clear how accountability is
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 42
defined and how it is carried out by the board of directors and the executive leadership, if
applicable.
Board members need to know what best practices are for board effectiveness. When
considering how to improve their effectiveness, board members should model their work after
best practices in the nonprofit sector. Even though specific best practices in the sector are
usually context specific, there are certain themes that run through the scholarly literature that can
be useful for boards seeking to know what works best (Ihrke & Ford, 2017). Knowing about
best practices in the nonprofit sector includes knowledge on core operational topics like financial
accountability, board governance, and transparency (Maguire, 2016). Applying these topics in a
practical manner might include ensuring that the board members know their responsibilities,
know how to provide strategic alternatives during problem-solving sessions, and know how to
manage volunteers (Connelly, 2004; Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Groble & Brudney, 2016). While
it is important to know best practices for board effectiveness, board members must be sure that
they are not implementing best guesses that are not grounded in tested research and that, instead,
they are using data-driven models of effectiveness (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006).
Board members need to know what data and other organizational metrics they should
be reviewing, and the cadence with which that data should be reviewed. Often, in deteriorating
conditions or worst-case scenarios, board members are the last to know what is going on when
they should be the first to know (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). To ensure that they are well-positioned
to make effective decisions for the organization, board members must know which data and
metrics are relevant to the organization and how often they need to be reviewed. While the data
points that a board should ask about are usually specific to the nature of the organization and its
work, receiving timely data helps the board make stronger contributions during mission and
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 43
vision formation, determining programs for constituencies, strategic planning, and monitoring
operations (Schaffer, 2014). For board members to make effective contributions in these areas,
the data that they receive must be timely, informative, and relevant (Bumblauskas, Nold, &
Bumblauskas, 2015).
Assumed procedural knowledge influences. Effective board members need to know
how to incorporate best practices and procedures from the nonprofit sector into their
organization’s performance. In a questionnaire sent to 285 nonprofit organizations operating in
Puerto Rico with a focus on social interest and welfare in the community, Viader and Espina
(2014) found that some nonprofit boards integrate best practices and procedures from around the
sector to increase their ability to effectively meet their mission. Also, it is important for board
members to know how their executive leadership uses data to report on KPIs related to the
organization’s health and its progress in meeting its mission. Finally, board members need to
know how to engage different types of volunteers to help carry out their vision for the
organization’s success.
Board members need to know how to incorporate best practices for nonprofit
performance. There are several domains in which a board of directors should have procedural
knowledge. These are:
Board members need to know how to be an ambassador for the nonprofit. In a survey of
121 executive leaders from community foundations across the United States, Brown and Guo
(2010) found that executive leaders believed it is important for board members to be able to tell
their nonprofit’s story. Their research also indicated that 37% of executives wanted their board
members to act as ambassadors for their organizations. Renz (2010) reported that it is a core
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 44
function of a board member to engage with constituents in a way that enhances the image of the
organization and increases the organization’s credibility.
Board members need to know how to provide financial oversight for the nonprofit.
Brown and Guo (2010) also found that 43% of nonprofit executive leaders believed one of their
board’s most important roles was overseeing organizational finances. This oversight was driven
by two vehicles – a board committee tasked with monitoring the organization’s budget and a
separate committee tasked with overseeing the organization’s investments. Renz (2010)
highlighted this expectation by noting that securing essential resources and ensuring effective use
of those resources were both core functions of a nonprofit board.
Board members need to know how to provide strategic guidance and planning for the
nonprofit. One of the most important roles that board members fill for their organizations is
setting the direction and the tone for the nonprofit (Brown & Guo, 2010). Articulating the
organization’s mission and creating an inspiring vision for stakeholders are critical elements of
board leadership as is establishing policies that guide decision-making by executive leadership
(Renz, 2010). Key elements of this responsibility include working with executive leadership to
negotiate the organization’s position in ever-more complex markets and funding environments as
well as setting priorities and establishing acceptable limits to achieve those priorities.
Each of these roles adds a critical procedural element to developing an effective nonprofit
board. Kenagay et al. (2013) reported that funders and other important stakeholders are holding
boards more accountable than in the recent past and thus boards need to better train both new and
existing members in their roles and responsibilities, set specific duties for both board committees
and members, and evaluate the strength of their organizational oversight. Addressing issues of
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 45
procedural knowledge and strategic oversight can help empower a fraternity board to meet
performance expectations while also adopting best practices in the nonprofit sector.
Board members need to understand how to interpret KPIs against performance
benchmarks to evaluate organizational health. Boards should be concerned with issues critical
to the success of the organization, be driven by data and meeting specific timelines, have
measures of success that are clearly defined, and be engaged with all constituencies (Taylor et
al., 1996). Nonprofit boards must understand both how data is used by their executive leadership
and how that data tells the story of the organization to both internal and external audiences. It is
important to distinguish between receiving data that is relevant versus data that is provided for
the sake of generating a report. It is common for boards to be inundated with information that is
irrelevant to their roles in setting policies and providing strategic guidance (Chait & Taylor,
1989). Kenagay et al. (2013) reported that board members must require that executive leadership
provide information that is timely, relevant, concise, accurate, well-organized, supported by data,
and designed to inform readers on material aspects of the organization’s performance.
Understanding how executive leadership uses data to report on KPIs also begins to provide
insight into how the organization operates internally. Further, learning about these internal
operations will lead to a better knowledge of the cultural models that have developed within the
nonprofit. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) included shared interpretations of an environment,
events, what is ideal and valued, and the rules and purpose of interactions as examples of cultural
models that may be examined by leaders.
Board members need to know how to engage new volunteers and empower experienced
volunteers to both support the executive leadership and carry out the board’s vision. Since
many nonprofits are not large or sophisticated financially, they rely on volunteer support, which
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 46
complicates the governance issue as all volunteers are not motivated by the same values (Wells,
2012). Though they are voluntary leaders themselves, nonprofit board members are expected to
lead and inspire the organization’s larger volunteer base. All fraternities have a greater number
of volunteers than they have paid staff members, which is what makes this population ideal for
carrying out the board’s vision. Leaders, including board members, are the primary source of an
organization’s values and, assuming their strategies are successful, then the leadership’s values
form the foundation of the organization’s shared assumptions (Schein, 2004). Therefore it is
important for fraternities to have well-qualified leaders with an inspiring message serving on
their boards of directors. While boards need to model the outcomes that they expect from their
executive leadership (Taylor et al., 1996), they also need to model the level of programmatic
ownership and organizational caretaking that they expect from their volunteers. By targeting the
volunteer population, nonprofit board members can directly connect to the largest, most heavily
involved alumni constituency and motivate that group to work to achieve the vision and values
of the organization.
Assumed metacognitive knowledge influences. To be effective, board members must
continually assess their knowledge and skills gaps. This assessment must take place at the full
board level and when gaps are identified, the board must select appropriate strategies to address
those gaps. It is a core function of a board to regularly monitor their compliance with
governance policies, delineate their roles and responsibilities, and educate members on
effectively serving the organization (Renz, 2010). Under the Carver model, board self-
assessment is necessary to fully realize the opportunities and challenges related to board
decision-making and service (Bradshaw et al., 2007).
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 47
Board members need to continuously assess their knowledge and skills gaps and select
appropriate strategies to address those gaps. Improving a board requires intentional effort,
regular self-assessment, and educating members on effective service (BoardSource, 2015; Renz,
2010). Self-assessments should consider the roles that board members are asked to fill for an
organization and how well they are meeting those expectations. It is important for boards to
engage in periodic role-performance reviews to identify how well the directors are performing
their assigned roles and where any performance gaps exist (Bruni-Bossio, Story, & Garcea,
2016). These assessments should be driven by the board themselves, but there is also room for
additional sources to provide feedback on the board’s performance. Useful observations can also
be generated from executive leadership as well as other critical organizational stakeholders
(Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016).
Motivation Influences
Motivation is important to study because individuals are motivated to perform better
when they are engaging in tasks or activities that they enjoy or find meaningful (Eccles, 2006).
Further, understanding motivation is important because creating an environment that is
challenging, provides autonomy, and connects people socially is a strong indicator of whether a
person’s motivation will increase or decrease (Eccles, 2006). Generating these feelings in a
board member begins to meet the demands of self-efficacy theory, which is discussed below.
Goal orientation theory. Individuals are motivated and directed in their actions by the
possibility of achieving goals (Pintrich, 2003). Goal orientation is the study of why individuals
choose to engage in their chosen work (Anderman, 2006). Goal orientation theory, then, is the
set of assumptions that try to understand why individuals make the choices they make in a given
situation. Using goal orientation theory is an effective way to determine why an individual
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 48
would be motivated to serve on a nonprofit board. However, there may be different motivating
factors depending on the background of the potential board member. For example, individuals
who are members of a private organization, congregants at a religious institution, or beneficiaries
of a social services organization may be motivated to serve as a board member to achieve a
higher level of engagement. Business leaders may have many other reasons to join a nonprofit
board including a similarly deep commitment to an organization’s values, to increase their status
in the business world, or to perform a charitable act in a public way for reasons of image
management (Bowen, 1994). Understanding why board members are motivated to perform the
responsibilities of board service helps in determining where gaps in performance may exist.
In the nonprofit sector, research is still being conducted on why board members choose to
serve. Membership on a nonprofit board includes significant oversight and fiduciary
responsibilities that make the board member accountable to many constituencies. Even though
boards should not use their power in an operational manner to administer the organization’s
affairs, they are still held accountable for the use of power that they delegate (Greenleaf,
1974/2009). Chait and Taylor (1989) reported that nonprofit board members play critical roles
in a nonprofit’s success, but that those roles should not include attending to the organization’s
day-to-day activities. Instead, the active function of a nonprofit board member includes holding
policy discussions with the executive leadership and keeping informed on the organization’s
success or failure in meeting its mission (Chait & Taylor, 1989). Based on this research, board
members should not be motivated to serve with the hope of engaging in the daily activities of a
nonprofit. Rather, board members should be motivated to serve to provide strategic guidance
and visionary leadership for the organization’s future and help the organization achieve its goals.
In fact, Pintrich (2003) found that motivation is improved in group settings, including groups like
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 49
a nonprofit board of directors, by the opportunity to attain these types of goals.
Board members need to value taking an active role in monitoring the organization’s
budget, assessing executive leadership, and moving the organization closer to its mission.
Sharing a deep commitment to an organization’s values is one of the primary driving forces for
business leaders to serve on nonprofit boards of directors (Bowen, 1994). This commitment
manifests itself in the work that the board member performs in providing strategic leadership and
direction for the organization. It is important, however, for the board to keep its focus – and the
focus of board committees – on the organization’s strategy instead of diving too deeply into the
inner workings of day-to-day administrative functions (Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Taylor et al.,
1996). Well-intentioned board members that get too involved in the organization’s operations
risk losing sight of larger, more important strategic goals (Chait & Taylor, 1989).
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is an individual’s confidence that he or she can
accomplish a goal (Pajares, 2006). These elements form the core of any individual’s civic
participation, though they are especially relevant to members of nonprofit boards of directors. In
interviews with 32 members of nonprofit boards of directors, Rawlings (2012) found that 94% of
board members believed their participation in the governance structure of a nonprofit gave them
a sense of personal satisfaction. Further, 75% of the interviewees responded that their service as
a board member developed a positive self-image, empowered them as community members, and
led them to believe that their opinions were more valuable than before their board service started.
More specifically to the self-efficacy theory, Rawlings’ (2012) research found that engaged
board members are more likely to have increased feelings of self-efficacy and improved
understandings of how the institutional structures around them function. These positive
outcomes show how nonprofit board members should be confident in their abilities.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 50
Board members need to feel confident in their ability to act when KPIs indicate
negative trends that can disrupt the organization’s sustainability. The traditional role for
nonprofit boards is hierarchical with the board members making policies followed by instructing
the executive leadership on how those policies should be implemented (Bruni-Bossio et al.,
2016; Carver, 1990). This is also true in those nonprofits that utilize the Carver model, which is
based on classic management theory with a top-down perspective on governance (Bradshaw et
al., 2007; Carver, 1990). Today, board members and executive leadership need to collaborate on
both policy development and program implementation (Taylor et al., 1996). This relationship
works best when board members have faith and confidence in their executive leadership, but
reserve the right to act when KPIs indicate negative trends are impacting the organization’s
health. Under the Carver model, the executive director is given wide discretion to achieve the
ends unless the board issues a limitation on how the outcome can be achieved (Block, 2014).
However, since boards and executive leadership are not always aligned on policy creation and
implementation to advance the organization, it is important that board members feel a strong
sense of self-efficacy in their ability to act if necessary.
Board members need to feel confident that their monitoring and oversight efforts will
result in positive outcomes for the organization. As nonprofit board members are volunteers,
the typical accountability links that are found in the private sector are not present, which means
that the board members face little risk for their decisions (Kenagay et al., 2013). Related to this
lack of risk on most nonprofit boards is the reality that if the conditions become too severe for
the nonprofit, then board members can walk away from the organization without consequence
(Bowen, 1994). However, nonprofit organizations need dynamic, confident leaders on their
boards. This confidence comes from the belief that a board member’s efforts to advance the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 51
organization’s mission, oversee operations, and monitor progress will bear fruit and create
positive outcomes.
Efficacy. Bandura (2000) described efficacy as the ability to produce a certain, desired
effect or to delay an undesired effect. In a group sense, a board’s power to produce an effect is
represented through the changed or improved beliefs and feelings about the group among its
members. The members of the group may have a great deal of confidence in their collective
ability to produce the types of changes that they want to see in the world around them.
Conversely, the members of the group may also have little faith in their compatriots’ abilities to
forestall negative events from impacting the organization. How a group perceives its collective
efficacy plays a large part in motivating its members to perform at a higher level, persist through
adversity, and commit to meeting the organization’s mission (Bandura, 2000).
Board members need to feel confident in the abilities of their fellow board members to
monitor KPIs and act to correct course if necessary. As noted earlier, there are many reasons
why a business professional might choose to join a nonprofit board. By joining a nonprofit
board, the business professional is, in part, putting their faith in their fellow board members and
their abilities as much as they are expressing that they are, themselves, ready for the challenge of
board leadership. However, with a lack clear measures of success like profitability or stock
prices in the private sector (Connelly, 2004), business leaders often trust a system that is
unfamiliar to them. This unfamiliarity extends to the employees that work for the nonprofit and
who may be at odds with the board members’ values and thoughts on the vision for the
organization. There is a slight tendency for those who have opted to work in the nonprofit sector
as a career to harbor some hostility towards those who opted to work in the private sector
(Bowen, 1994). When this type of distrust may exist between the board and the staff, it is
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 52
important for board members to have faith in one another’s abilities to monitor the organization’s
KPIs and to act to course correct when necessary.
Board members need to feel confident that the executive director can achieve the
organizational goals that are set by the board. It is imperative that board members have faith
that the executive director can achieve the goals that the board sets for the organization. For
board members to achieve a level of confidence in the executive director, they often need to
become comfortable asking inconvenient questions about performance and operations (Shaffer,
2014). There are also practical benefits for the executive director after he or she receives the
trust of the board. Chait and Taylor (1989) found that when boards have a greater level of trust
in their executive director, they are less likely to intrude on daily operations. Developing this
trust and engaging in open, candid conversations may help to build the confidence that the board
needs in the executive director’s abilities to achieve organizational goals.
Organizational Influences
The knowledge and motivation factors noted above focus on the causes of performance
gaps at the individual level. Yet, contemporary organizations, including nonprofits, are complex
entities with their own cultures, behaviors, and policies. It is important to examine whether there
are any organizational barriers that may be leading to performance gaps in these entities, their
employees, and their boards of directors (Clark & Estes, 2008). Examining the influence of
cultural models and cultural settings is important because the results of such an examination can
help board and staff leaders understand how the organizational structures around them facilitate
or impede progress. Schein (2004) described culture as the shared, often unspoken learning
experiences that result in similarly shared assumptions by the members of an organization.
Subsequently, organizational climate is the combined policies, practices, routines, and
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 53
procedures that members are expected to follow based on the shared assumptions that define
culture (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Understanding these shared assumptions helps
determine whether climate and culture are pathways to progress or barriers that impede success.
Climate and culture are uniquely connected because the values and beliefs that form an
organization’s culture influence the practices, policies, and procedures that form its climate
(Schneider et al., 1996).
Cultural models. The literature notes several organizational influences relative to
cultural models that have an impact on nonprofit boards of directors. Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) identified cultural models as the normative understandings of how the world ought to
work. This understanding is shared among a group within an organization or throughout the
entire organization itself. Schein (2004) expanded on this definition in an organizational context
by noting that to know an organization’s culture, one must recognize the shared set of
assumptions that the organization’s members learned as they solved problems and internalized
new methods of operating. These shared sets of assumptions are what begin to form the
foundation of a nonprofit’s view on how the world ought to work and thus the beginning of its
cultural model.
An organization’s underlying culture is what ultimately impacts any attempt to improve
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture is deep, complex, patterned, morally neutral, and
pervasive (Schein, 2004) and thus identifying organizational influences is an important, but
difficult, element in determining the relationship between culture and performance gaps. The
assumed influences below cover a wide range of organizational functions and structures that
could lead to any number of serious performance gaps.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 54
The organization values a board of directors that monitors KPIs and acts to resolve
issues that impede optimal performance. There is a strong leadership element required of board
service, part of which may require modifying an organization’s outcomes through exerting
influence over its operations and programming based on changing conditions. For most early
stage and entrepreneurial nonprofits, culture and leadership are connected qualities as leaders
begin the acculturation process by initially starting the organization (Schein, 2004). This
complements research by Greenleaf (1974/2009) indicating that boards of directors should have
a strong sense of the nonprofit’s history. This sense diminishes over time as Dent (2014)
reported that most nonprofit board members are unaware of what is going on in within their
organizations. Without this level of awareness, board members are unable to address problems
that are revealed through closely monitoring KPIs. As cultural dysfunctions present themselves,
it is the leadership’s job to manage the organization’s evolution so that the board can act to
resolve issues that impede optimal performance, but also ensure that the nonprofit survives
(Schein, 2004).
The organization holds board members accountable for not using best practices
consistently. If nonprofit boards of directors do not implement best practices on a consistent
basis, then the entire sector runs the risk of being diminished through ineffectiveness to the point
of obscurity (Connelly, 2004). As Greenleaf (1974/2009) noted, most boards do not exercise
their authority over executive leadership unless there is a flagrant abuse of power taking place.
The free reign afforded to executive leadership without consistent, informed board oversight
often leads a nonprofit organization to revert to a weaker state of operations or, worse, closure.
External causes of closure include decreases in donor support and a decrease in desire for the
services that the nonprofit offers (Hager et al., 1996). For these reasons, it is imperative that
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 55
organizations hold board members accountable for not consistently using best practices in their
leadership roles.
The organization has clearly defined and communicated roles and expectations for
board members. The role of the board of directors is to provide strategic leadership and monitor
KPIs for indicators of organizational success or failure, but not administer daily activities, which
along with executing on the board’s vision, is the role of executive leadership (Greenleaf,
1974/2009). The traditional, top-down model of nonprofit governance is familiar to corporate
executives and small business owners as it takes a very hands-on approach to leadership and
decision-making (Carver, 1990; Grossmeier, 2007). However, before a corporate executive or
small business owner joins a nonprofit board, they should be provided clear guidance on the
roles and expectations that are expected of their service. A strong governance model should
clearly articulate board members’ roles on the board and the board’s role in the overall success or
failure of the organization (Carver, 1990). Given their position, legally, nonprofit boards are free
from many of the constraints that hinder for-profit boards (Dent, 2014). The lack of legal
constraints might serve to confuse incoming board members about the scope of their roles and
expectations. Therefore, it is important for the organization to ensure that it clearly
communicates these expectations to prospective board members and, especially, those elected to
serve on the board.
The organization has a clear method by which it measures its progress in achieving the
goals that are set for it by the board. Even though it is hard for nonprofits to measure their
impact (Greller, 2015), it is important for entities operating within the sector to come up with
their own measures and KPIs to determine whether they are meeting their mission (Connelly,
2004). This can be difficult as there may be a tension between the board members and the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 56
executive leadership when it comes to determining which KPIs best show success or failure.
Ideally, the board and executive leadership should collaborate to build a list of KPIs and then
work together to track and monitor those KPIs over time (Taylor et al., 1996). However, any
effective measurement tool for organizational results needs to assess both financial outcomes and
outcomes related to the nonprofit’s mission (Connelly, 2004). Therefore, a successful nonprofit
organization needs to have a clear method to monitor progress in achieving goals that are set for
it by the board of directors.
The organization’s structure and hierarchy are continually assessed to ensure
efficiency and higher performance levels. All aspects of a nonprofit’s structure and hierarchy
should be undergoing continual assessment, including the performance of the board
(BoardSource, 2015). Boards of directors are the only constituency within a nonprofit to have
the legal power to manage all parts of the organization even though they may delegate some of
their authority to executive leadership since not all board members take a direct role in governing
the organization (Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Klausner & Small, 2005). In reviewing a nonprofit’s
hierarchy, the concept of role-alignment should take precedence. The purpose of such reviews
should be to ensure better role-alignment, but also to assess the actual performance of the board
members through comments from their peers, the nonprofit’s executive leadership, and other
important stakeholders (Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016).
Cultural settings. The literature notes several organizational influences relative to
cultural settings that have an impact on nonprofit boards of directors. Cultural settings are those
familiar interactions between two or more individuals, over a period, that are designed to
accomplish a goal (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). These cultural settings manifest themselves
in nonprofits through the development of organizational culture and the internal processes that
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 57
drive daily activity. Culture is, in part, defined by observing what an organization’s members
worship such as routines, risk-taking, quality, innovation, etc. (Schneider et al., 1996). These
various displays of cultural settings evolve over time based on the influence from both staff and
board leadership.
The organization educates incoming board members on the mission of the organization
and the board members’ roles and expectations. A strong board orientation should focus on the
roles that board members play for the organization as it works to meet its mission. In addition,
board orientation should cover the board’s relationship to the organization’s overall performance
(Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016). Part of educating incoming board members is ensuring that they are
working with helpful and collaborative executive leadership. On occasion, organizational staff
will be apprehensive about incoming board members and any attempt to change board member
roles to be more assertive (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). It is hard for board members to understand a
nonprofit’s mission or their choices as a board when their executive leadership is unhelpful or
obstructive (Bowen, 1994). For that reason, clear guidance and training should be provided for
incoming board members on the nonprofit’s mission and their role in leading the organization.
The organization ensures that its general membership is familiar with the
organization’s corporate governance model, the scope of the board of directors’ power, and
the limitations of executive authority. There are three elements that are critical in achieving
good board governance: having an effective organizational structure, achieving effective
alignment of roles between key players relative to various organizational functions, and ensuring
ethical performance by various agents within the organization (Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016). Just
as important as fostering these elements is communicating them clearly and succinctly to the
organization’s stakeholders. In a fraternity, the largest stakeholder group is the organization’s
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 58
general membership. Without understanding how the fraternity’s corporate governance model
works and where the division of authority lies, it is difficult for members to provide the type of
support and feedback that the organization may need of them. The central nonprofit values of
collaboration and trust are intertwined with the idea of transparency (Hale, 2013) and, at its core,
transparency is what this influence focuses on.
The organization provides ample communication channels for all members to both
inform and be informed on progress related to KPIs. While the methods by which an
organization can communicate with its constituencies are rapidly changing, it is a fundamental
expectation of nonprofit supporters that their chosen nonprofit be transparent in its
communication efforts. Being transparent should foster a deeper connection between a nonprofit
and its stakeholders as well as the broader public; those nonprofit organizations that are not
transparent risk losing this important connection with their stakeholders, the public, and
constituencies that could provide higher levels of support (Hale, 2013). Additionally, when there
is a lack of formalized communication to and from nonprofit board members, there is a risk that
those board members may become passive or, worse, nonfunctioning (Thomsen, 2014). The
most well-informed board members are those who are in direct contact with the organization’s
constituents (Taylor et al., 1996). Providing ample communication channels for stakeholders is
an indicator of organizational strength.
The organization has a clear and clearly communicated mission. Nonprofits, as a
sector, are incredibly diverse; there are nearly as many nonprofits as there are missions/purposes
for nonprofits to exist (Wells, 2012). However, good board members are committed experts
dedicated to achieving their specific organization’s mission (BoardSource, 2015). Yet, if the
nonprofit’s mission is unclear, then it becomes much more difficult to lay out a path to achieving
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 59
that mission. This should not be a problem for those nonprofits operating under a traditional
corporate governance model where the board both sets the vision and mission of the organization
and then manages the organization’s resources to achieve their desired outcomes (Grossmeier,
2007). However, corporate executives serving on nonprofit boards may try to implement private
sector models that are counter to a nonprofit’s mission, values, and relationships with key
stakeholders (Alexander & Weiner, 1998). As the calls for greater clarity in mission statement
wording grow louder, it appears that nonprofits are responding to calls for greater transparency
in informal ways including discussing how spending aligns to meeting their mission (Hale,
2013). An organization that values clarity in its focus should have a clear mission statement that
can be clearly communicated to all audiences.
Conclusion
In this chapter, a literature review was conducted to provide the historical background
necessary to understand the KMO influences on nonprofit boards of directors. The literature
reviewed was related to this study’s goal of understanding what facilitates or impedes every
member of a board of directors from engaging in best practices for board governance 100% of
the time. Within the context of this goal, the knowledge literature focused on the need for board
members to know their roles and limitations as well as to know best practices for nonprofit
boards including the most desirable skill sets for board members. The motivation literature
discussed the active role that board members need to take in overseeing the organization’s
outcomes. Further, the knowledge and motivation literature described the need for board
members to embrace the challenge of accountability while also having confidence in their fellow
board members and their abilities to act when KPIs indicated the need for a course correction.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 60
This section concluded with a discussion of the assumed organizational influences on
board members. These influences included how board members need to feel comfortable
exerting influence over the nonprofit’s programming while also engaging new volunteers and
empowering experienced volunteers to carry out activities that support the board’s vision.
Additionally, the literature expressed that board members need to understand how data is used by
the staff as well as the resources available to staff to carry out their responsibilities. The
following chapter discusses these assumed needs and connects them to the research methodology
used by this study to assess and better understand their influence on nonprofit board members.
Table 2
Summary of Influences on TGP’s Board of Directors
Assumed Needs of Successful Boards of Directors General Literature
Knowledge
Declarative Board members need to know
the function of the board, and
their roles and limitations vis a
vis those of the executive
director.

(Dent, 2014; Kenagay et al., 2013;
Widmer, 1993; Young, 2011)
Declarative Board members need to know
how they will be held
accountable to meet their
fiduciary and oversight
responsibilities.

(Brown & Guo, 2010; Dent, 2014;
Kenagay et al., 2013)
Declarative Board members need to know
what best practices are for
board effectiveness.

(Connelly, 2004; Forbes & Milliken,
1999; Groble & Brudney, 2016;
Ihrke & Ford, 2017; Kalev, Dobbin,
& Kelly, 2006; Maguire, 2016)

Declarative Board members need to know
what data and other
organizational metrics they
should be reviewing, and the
cadence with which that data
should be reviewed.

(Bumblauskas et al., 2015;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Schaffer,
2014)
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 61
Procedural Board members need to know
how to incorporate best
practices for nonprofit
performance.

(Brown & Guo, 2010; Kenagay et
al., 2013; Renz, 2010; Young, 2011)
Procedural Board members need to
understand how to interpret
KPIs against performance
benchmarks to evaluate
organizational health.

(Chait & Taylor, 1989; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Kenagay et al.,
2013; Taylor et al., 1996)
Procedural Board members need to know
how to engage new volunteers
and empower experienced
volunteers to carry out the
board’s vision.

(Schein, 2004; Taylor et al., 1996;
Wells, 2012)
Metacognitive Board members need to
continuously assess their
knowledge and skills gaps and
select appropriate strategies to
address those gaps.

(BoardSource, 2015; Bruni-Bossio
et al., 2016)
Motivation
Goal Orientation Board members need to value
taking an active role in
monitoring the organization’s
budget, assessing executive
leadership, and moving the
organization closer to its
mission.

(Bowen, 1994; Chait & Taylor,
1989; Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Taylor
et al., 1996)
Self-efficacy Board members need to feel
confident in their ability to act
when KPIs indicate negative
trends that can disrupt the
organization’s sustainability.

(Block, 2014; Bradshaw et al., 2007;
Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Carver,
1990; Taylor et al., 1996)
Self-efficacy Board members need to feel
confident that their monitoring
and oversight efforts will result
in positive outcomes for the
organization.

(Bowen, 1994; Kenagay et al., 2013)
Efficacy Board members need to feel
confident in the abilities of their
(Bowen, 1994; Connelly, 2004)
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 62
fellow board members to
monitor KPIs and act to correct
course if necessary.

Efficacy Board members need to feel
confident that the executive
director can achieve the
organizational goals that are set
by the board.

(Chait & Taylor, 1989; Shaffer,
2014)
Organizational
Cultural Models The organization values a
responsive board of directors
that monitors KPIs and acts to
resolve issues that impede
optimal performance.

(Dent, 2014; Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Schein, 2004)
Cultural Models The organization holds board
members accountable for not
using best practices
consistently.

(Connelly, 2004; Greenleaf,
1974/2009; Hager et al., 1996)
Cultural Models The organization has clearly
defined and communicated
roles and expectations for board
members.

(Carver, 1990; Dent, 2014;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Grossmeier,
2007)
Cultural Models The organization has a clear
method by which it measures its
progress in achieving the goals
that are set for it by the board.

(Connelly, 2004; Greller, 2015;
Taylor et al., 1996)
Cultural Models The organization’s structure and
hierarchy are continually
assessed to ensure efficiency
and higher performance levels.

(BoardSource, 2015; Bruni-Bossio
et al., 2016; Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Klausner & Small, 2005)
Cultural Settings The organization educates
incoming board members on the
mission of the organization and
the board members’ roles and
expectations.

(Bowen, 1994; Bruni-Bossio et al.,
2016; Greenleaf, 1974/2009)
Cultural Settings The organization ensures that
the general membership is
familiar with the organization’s
(Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Hale,
2013)
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 63
corporate governance model,
the scope of the board of
directors’ power, and the
limitations of executive
authority.

Cultural Settings The organization provides
ample communication channels
for all members to both inform
and be informed on progress
related to KPIs.

(Hale, 2013; Taylor et al., 1996;
Thomsen, 2014)
Cultural Settings The organization has a clear and
clearly communicated mission.
(Alexander & Weiner, 1998;
BoardSource, 2015; Grossmeier,
2007; Hale, 2013; Wells, 2012)

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 64
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Guiding Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the KMO influences that facilitated or
impeded TGP’s board in engaging in effective practices 100% of the time. It is critical for the
nonprofit sector to understand how board members engage in best practices in governance by
monitoring organizational progress through KPI data. Organizations need to value recruiting
board members that are willing to actively monitor KPI data to identify trends that require action
or total course correction by the board. Further, organizations need to value training board
members to understand how KPI data is generated and how it reports on the nonprofit’s progress
in achieving goals.
The primary stakeholder for this study was TGP’s board of directors. TGP’s board is
comprised of seven members, but since the researcher is one of the board members, only six
members of the board were the focus for this study. The researcher’s inherent bias and personal
perspectives are discussed below. Of the remaining six members of the stakeholder group, five
of the positions are elected while the remaining position is automatically assumed by TGP’s
most recent board chairman.
The following research questions were explored in this study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that facilitate or
impede TGP’s board of directors’ engaging in effective practices 100% of the time
under the Carver model of governance?
2. What are the proposed solutions to the board of directors’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs?
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 65
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study sought to determine the KMO influences that generate a performance gap by
TGP’s board of directors. The data was gathered based on interview responses and a content
analysis of organizational documents and artifacts. The purpose in using two sources of data was
to triangulate potential answers to the research questions posed above.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework used to design this study. Influences on
the stakeholder group are shown in circles and include the KMO influences discussed in Chapter
2. The most prominent of these influences is motivation, shown on the left side of Figure 1 and
as indicated by the larger circle as compared to the knowledge and organization circles. The
primary outcomes of the stakeholders’ work are shown in squares and include goals, objectives,
and sustainability. The most prominent of these outcomes is sustainability, as the organizational
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 66
goal is to ensure that 100% of TGP’s operations are focused on implementing policies and
practices that sustain the fraternity by contributing to the overall goals of increasing membership
and revenue.
Within Figure 1, there are several critical relationships that show the connection between
the different influences and outcomes. First, the motivation influence shares a two-way arrow
with the organizational influence indicating the close, symbiotic relationship between an
individual’s motivation to serve on the board and their being inspired by the organization’s
cultural models and cultural settings. It is also true, though, that a nonprofit may be uniquely
shaped and designed by the influence of board members who are highly motivated by
organizational success. Slightly different is the relationship between the motivation and
knowledge influences, which is depicted by an arrow connecting knowledge to motivation, but
not in the reverse direction. While there may be colloquial evidence of individuals that are
inspired to learn more about an organization after joining its board of directors, this conceptual
framework did not seek to study that potential connection. The framework did, however, review
the knowledge influences that might impede or facilitate a board member’s motivation to
implement best practices in effective governance.
All the influences are connected to the outcomes of goals and objectives, though
motivation is not directly connected to objectives. Motivation first passes through goals before
connecting to objectives and goals is the only outcome that reconnects back to motivation. This
is due to the conceptual framework reviewing whether an organization’s goals can motivate
board members to implement and abide by effective practices. Knowledge and organization
connect with one-way arrows to both goals and objectives indicating their direct influence on
shaping these outcomes. All roads lead to objectives which leads to the larger organizational
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 67
goal of sustainability. As noted earlier, sustainability for TGP means achieving membership
growth and increasing revenue. The conceptual framework is designed to assume that
motivation is the largest influence in board member performance and, ultimately, that high levels
of motivation are drivers of organizational outcomes leading to long-term sustainability.
Assessment of Performance Influences
The assumed KMO influences were illuminated in Chapter 2. To recap, from a
knowledge perspective, board members need to know the function of the board, and their roles
and limitations vis a vis those of the executive director (Kenagay et al., 2013; Young, 2011).
Boards must retain the absolute power in a nonprofit, but only exercise that power if KPI data
provided by executive leadership shows an issue that needs correction (Greenleaf, 1974/2009).
Further, board members need to know how they will be held accountable to meet their fiduciary
and oversight responsibilities (Dent, 2014; Kenagay et al., 2013) as well as what best practices
are for board effectiveness (Groble & Brudney, 2016; Ihrke & Ford, 2017; Maguire, 2016).
Finally, board members need to know what data and other organizational metrics they should be
reviewing, and the cadence with which that data should be reviewed (Bumblauskas et al., 2015;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009; Schaffer, 2014).
Procedurally, an important element of board performance is their knowledge of how to
incorporate best practices for nonprofit performance (Brown & Guo, 2009; Kenagay et al., 2013;
Renz, 2010; Young, 2011). Another important procedural knowledge influence is that board
members need to understand how to interpret KPIs against performance benchmarks to evaluate
organizational health (Chait & Taylor, 1989; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Kenagay et al.,
2013; Taylor et al., 1996). The last procedural knowledge influence that this study researched
was that board members know how to engage new volunteers and empower experienced
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 68
volunteers to carry out the board’s vision (Schein, 2004; Taylor et al., 1996; Wells, 2012). This
study also researched a metacognitive knowledge influence on the board, which was that board
members need to continuously assess their knowledge and skills gaps and select appropriate
strategies to address those gaps (BoardSource, 2015; Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Renz, 2010).
The importance of knowledge influencing organizational outcomes is reflected in Figure 1 by
three one-way arrows from knowledge to the motivation influence, the goals outcome, and the
objectives outcome.
These knowledge influences connect closely to the motivation influences on the board
beginning with valuing taking an active role in monitoring the organization’s budget, assessing
executive leadership, and moving the organization closer to its mission (Bowen, 1994; Brown &
Guo, 2010; Chait & Taylor, 1989; Taylor et al., 1996). This leads to a larger conversation about
the confidence level of the board members relative to self-efficacy. Board members need to feel
confident in their ability to act when KPIs indicate negative trends that can disrupt the
organization’s sustainability (Block, 2014; Bradshaw et al., 2007; Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016;
Taylor et al., 1996). A related self-efficacy influence is that board members need to feel
confident that their monitoring and oversight efforts will result in positive outcomes for the
organization (Bowen, 1994; Kenagay et al., 2013). From a group perspective of efficacy, board
members need to feel confident in the abilities of their fellow board members to monitor KPIs
and act to correct course if necessary (Bowen, 1994; Connelly, 2004). In addition, board
members need to feel confident that the executive director can achieve the organizational goals
that are set by the board. The primary role of board member motivation is reflected in Figure 1
by a larger circle than the other two influences and two, two-way arrows pointing to the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 69
organization influence and the goals outcome as well as a one-way arrow coming from the
knowledge influence.
Many of the knowledge and motivation influences noted above rely on the board
receiving timely and relevant information, updates, and data from executive leadership. This
study reviewed several major organizational influences to determine if TGP values certain
cultural models and cultural settings that are accepted as best practices in the nonprofit sector. In
reviewing cultural models, the research included assessing how the organization must value a
board of directors that monitors KPIs and acts to resolve issues that impede optimal performance
(Dent, 2014; Schein, 2004). Related, this research reviewed whether the organization held board
members accountable for not using best practices consistently (Connelly, 2004; Greenleaf,
1974/2009; Hager et al., 1996) and if the organization has clearly defined and communicated
roles and expectations for board members (Carver, 1990; Dent, 2014; Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Grossmeier, 2007). The remaining cultural models that were assessed are whether the
organization has a clear method by which it measures its progress in achieving the goals that are
set for it by the board (Connelly, 2004; Greller, 2015; Taylor et al., 1996) and if the
organization’s structure and hierarchy are continually assessed to ensure efficiency and higher
performance levels (BoardSource, 2015; Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Klausner & Small, 2005).
This study’s research around organizational influences also focused on TGP’s cultural
settings. The research tried to determine if the organization educates incoming board members
on the mission of the organization and the board members’ roles and expectations (Bowen, 1994;
Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Relatedly, since members of the board must
come from the fraternity’s general membership, the research reviewed if the organization ensures
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 70
that the general membership is familiar with the organization’s corporate governance model, the
scope of the board of directors’ power, and the limitations of executive authority (Bruni-Bossio
et al., 2016; Hale, 2013). This study also looked at the communication that the fraternity has
with its members. Specifically, the research reviewed if the organization provides ample
communication channels for all members to both inform and be informed on progress related to
KPIs (Hale, 2013; Taylor et al., 1996; Thomsen, 2014). The final cultural setting that this study
reviewed was whether the fraternity has a clear and clearly communicated mission (Alexander &
Weiner, 1998; BoardSource, 2015; Grossmeier, 2007; Hale, 2013; Wells, 2012). The methods
by which this study attempted to validate each of these assumed influences is discussed below.
Knowledge Assessment
Table 3 below describes the eight assumed knowledge influences on nonprofit boards of
directors. Of these eight influences, four represent declarative knowledge while three represent
procedural knowledge and one represents metacognitive knowledge. All the influences were
assessed through a semi-structured interview with each of the members of the stakeholder group
(see Appendix A for the full set of interview questions) with the interviewee’s answers
triangulated through a document analysis. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted, interviews
allow for the researcher to collect information in a one-on-one setting because disconnected
observations alone cannot reveal details about behaviors, interpretations, or the feelings that the
subjects may have about the topic. Table 3 includes the specific questions that were asked to
assess the eight knowledge influences. Only one of the knowledge influences was planned to be
assessed solely through the document analysis. This procedural knowledge influence sought to
understand how the board members interpreted KPIs against performance benchmarks to
evaluate organizational health. While the researcher learned about whether this influence was
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 71
understood by the board members through interviewing them, a deeper understanding was
revealed through cross-referencing the interview responses with the organization’s historical
documents to show whether any affirmative answers were followed through in practice.
Motivation Assessment
This study assessed five assumed motivational influences on the stakeholder group. Of
these five assumed influences one focused on goal orientation, two focused on self-efficacy, and
two focused on efficacy. One-on-one interviews were used to assess these assumed influences,
though the goal orientation influence was also assessed through the document analysis. The goal
orientation influence suggests that the stakeholders need to value taking an active role in
monitoring TGP’s budget, assessing its executive leadership, and moving the fraternity closer to
achieving its mission. Using a document analysis allowed the researcher to determine whether
the board members have, historically, discussed issues related to the organization’s budget, its
executive leadership, and board discussions related to achieving the fraternity’s mission. The
document analysis helped paint a larger picture of how monitoring and the related discussions
led to previous organizational changes and whether there was any follow-through on these
conversations.
Organization Assessment
This study assessed nine different assumed organizational influences on the fraternity’s
board of directors. Each of these assumed influences focused on an essential part of operating an
efficient nonprofit organization from both a cultural model and cultural setting perspective. For
cultural models, the organizational influences researched included: valuing a board of directors
that monitors KPIs and acts to resolve issues that impede optimal performance, holding board
members accountable for not using best practices consistently, whether the organization has
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 72
clearly defined and communicated roles and expectations for board members, if the organization
has a clear method by which it measures its progress in achieving the goals that are set for it by
the board, and if the organization’s structure and hierarchy are continually assessed to ensure
efficiency and higher performance levels. For cultural settings, the research included assessing
the following organizational influences: if the organization educates incoming board members
on the mission of the organization and the board members’ roles and expectations, whether the
organization ensures that its general membership is familiar with the organization’s corporate
governance model, the scope of the board of directors’ power, and the limitations of executive
authority, if the organization provides ample communication channels for all members to both
inform and be informed on progress related to KPIs, and if the organization has a clear and
clearly communicated mission.. One-on-one interviews and a document analysis were used to
assess these influences except for one, which only used the document analysis for assessment
(see Table 3 below). This influence focused on the fraternity ensuring that its general
membership was familiar with the organization’s corporate governance model including the
scope of the board of directors’ powers and the limitations of executive authority. The document
analysis used to assess this influence reviewed the content of the information disseminated and
available to TGP’s membership regarding this topic.
Table 3
Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influencers
Assumed Needs of Successful Boards of Directors Validation Item
Knowledge
Declarative Board members need to know
the function of the board, and
their roles and limitations vis a
vis those of the executive
director.

Interview:
What are the board’s limitations in
terms of their executive oversight
authority? What role does the
executive office staff play for the
organization? What are the staff’s
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 73
limits in terms of executive
authority?

Declarative Board members need to know
how they are held accountable
to meet their fiduciary and
oversight responsibilities.

Interview:
How does the fraternity hold you
accountable to meet your fiduciary
and oversight responsibilities?
Declarative Board members need to know
what best practices are for
board effectiveness.

Interview:
With respect to governance, please
describe some best practices for
nonprofit boards.

Declarative Board members need to know
what data and other
organizational metrics they
should be reviewing, and the
cadence with which that data
should be reviewed.

Interview:
How does the executive office use
data in making programmatic
decisions?

How does the board of directors use
data in making organizational
decisions?

Procedural Board members need to know
how to incorporate best
practices for nonprofit
performance.

Interview:
With respect to governance, please
describe some best practices for
nonprofit boards.
Procedural Board members need to
understand how to interpret
KPIs against performance
benchmarks to evaluate
organizational health.
Interview:
How does the executive office use
data in making programmatic
decisions? Can you provide some
examples?

Document Analysis:
Will review documents to see if data
are reported by the executive office
staff in a timely manner and in a
method that is easily digestible for
the board members.

Procedural Board members need to know
how to engage new volunteers
and empower experienced
volunteers to carry out the
board’s vision.

Interview:
For new volunteers, how do you
engage them to carry out your vision
for the fraternity? Are there any
particularly successful examples that
you’d like to share? Switching to
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 74
more experienced, how do you
engage them to carry out your
vision? Are there any particularly
successful examples that you’d like
to share?

Metacognitive Board members need to
continuously assess their
knowledge and skills gaps and
select appropriate strategies to
address those gaps.
Interview:
How does the board, as a group,
assess itself on an on-going basis?
Do you engage in any on-going self-
assessment as a board member? If
so, can you describe this self-
assessment?
Motivation
Goal Orientation Board members need to value
taking an active role in
monitoring the organization’s
budget, assessing executive
leadership, and moving the
organization closer to its
mission.

Interview:
Please talk about how you can exert
influence over the executive office’s
daily operations and programming.
Are you comfortable exerting this
type of influence? Why or why not?

Document Analysis:
Minutes and other documents will
be reviewed to determine whether or
not TGP’s budget was discussed, in-
depth, annually prior to being passed
and how often the interim budgetary
reviews occurred. Analysis will also
look for connections between the
budget results and larger discussions
of strategy and mission alignment.

Self-efficacy Board members need to feel
confident in their ability to act
when KPIs indicate negative
trends that can disrupt the
organization’s sustainability.

Interview:
Talk about your confidence level in
enacting changes to the governance
structure. As a board member, are
you confident in your ability to
enact governance changes if or when
necessary? Why or why not?

Self-efficacy Board members need to feel
confident that their monitoring
and oversight efforts will result
in positive outcomes for the
organization.

Interview:
How does your engagement with the
executive office staff lead to positive
outcomes for the fraternity? How
are resources made available to the
staff to implement your vision?
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 75

Efficacy Board members need to feel
confident in the abilities of their
fellow board members to
monitor KPIs and act to correct
course if necessary.
Interview:
Which skill sets do you find most
desirable for individuals joining
nonprofit boards? Are you
confident in your fellow board
members’ skill sets and abilities?
Why or why not?
Efficacy Board members need to feel
confident that the executive
director can achieve the
organizational goals that are set
by the board.

Interview:
What about the executive office staff
– are you confident in their skill sets
and abilities? Why or why not?
Organizational
Cultural Models The organization values a board
of directors that monitors KPIs
and acts to resolve issues that
impede optimal performance.

Interview:
How does the board of directors use
data in making organizational
decisions? Can you provide some
examples?
Cultural Models The organization holds board
members accountable for not
using best practices
consistently.

Interview:
Does the fraternity hold board
members accountable for not
reacting to crises or significant
changes in the external
environment? If so, then can you
provide some examples?

Document Analysis:
This document analysis will attempt
to seek out artifacts of conversations
related to self-imposed board
accountability.

Cultural Models The organization has clearly
defined and communicated
roles and expectations for board
members.

Interview:
Please define your role as a board
member. Please define the
expectations of your service as a
board member.

Document Analysis:
Review any board book or similar
packet of information that details the
expectations of service on TGP’s
board of directors.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 76
Cultural Models The organization has a clear
method by which it measures its
progress in achieving the goals
that are set for it by the board.

Interview:
How does the fraternity measure its
progress in achieving the goals that
are set for it by the board of
directors?

Document Analysis:
Review minutes for discussions of
TGP measuring its progress in
achieving strategic goals set by the
board.

Cultural Models The organization’s structure and
hierarchy are continually
assessed to ensure efficiency
and higher performance levels.

Interview:
How often does the fraternity assess
its overall structure and authoritative
hierarchy for efficiency? When was
the last time you were aware of such
an assessment taking place?

Cultural Settings The organization educates
incoming board members on the
mission of the organization and
the board members’ roles and
expectations.

Interview:
When you were elected to this
board, to what extent were you
educated on the fraternity’s mission
as well as your role and expectations
in meeting the mission?

Document Analysis:
Review written policies regarding
board member roles and
expectations and search for
implementation of training or other
on-boarding programs for new board
members.

Cultural Settings The organization ensures that
the general membership is
familiar with the organization’s
corporate governance model,
the scope of the board of
directors’ power, and the
limitations of executive
authority.

Document Analysis:
Review materials provided to the
membership through the
organization’s magazine, social
media outlets, and other electronic
communication regarding this topic.

Cultural Settings The organization provides
ample communication channels
for all members to both inform
Document Analysis:
Review communication materials
related to informing the membership
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 77
and be informed on progress
related to KPIs.

on TGP’s progress on achieving its
mission and any strategic goals set
for it by the board of directors.

Cultural Settings The organization has a clear and
clearly communicated mission.
Interview:
What is the fraternity’s mission?

Document Analysis:
Review the organization’s website
and written materials for external
audiences to determine whether TGP
has a clear mission that it seeks to
achieve.

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
Two data collection strategies were used to validate the assumed influences: interviews
and a document analysis. Interviews were used to generate information regarding the research
questions directly from the stakeholder group. These responses were then cross-referenced
against information generated from the document analysis to find common themes, key words,
and phrases that may lead to a better understanding of the KMO influences on TGP’s board of
directors.
Interviews
This study utilized interviews as its primary method of data collection. Given the small
number of individual in the stakeholder group, interviewing was the best technique for data
collection because of the intensive case study nature of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Each interview occurred during a pre-planned phone call and interviewees were asked to be
available for approximately one hour to participate in the phone conversation. While the
interviews were semi-structured, they allowed for open-ended answers as dictated by each
interviewee’s responses to the questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that interviewing in
qualitative studies is more likely to be open-ended and that less structure around interview
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 78
questions assumes that the interviewees view the world in unique ways, which is certainly true of
the members of TGP’s board of directors. Semi-structured interviews were the best approach to
data collection for this research project because the six members in the stakeholder group are all
friendly with one another and are frequently in communication about issues related to the
fraternity’s governance and operational performance. That collegiality aside, the members of the
stakeholder group often have different approaches to their oversight and monitoring roles as well
as to problem-solving. Utilizing a more formal approach to the interviews would not have been
the correct approach given the friendships held among the stakeholders. A more formal
interview structure may have diminished the stakeholders’ desire and/or willingness to provide
truthful, candid answers to provocative questions.
Sampling. The primary stakeholder population of focus for this study was TGP’s board
of directors. Given the small number of stakeholders that were interviewed and since only
interviewing existing board members did not require a change in sampling strategy, there was no
plan to modify the sampling strategy to increase or decrease the pool of potential stakeholders.
TGP’s constitution (2016) indicates that the board is comprised of seven members representing
the following positions: President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Historian, Sergeant-at-
Arms, and Immediate Past President
10
. The seven individuals who comprise the board of
directors are elected to serve two-year terms on a biennial basis. TGP has two elections that take
place at the same time every other year. The first election is for the President position and the
voting for this position is held before the second election. To be eligible to run for the
Presidency, an individual must have served for at least one term on the board of directors. The
President of the board is the only position that has specific requirements and responsibilities tied

10
To maintain the organization’s anonymity, its constitution is being cited, but not listed in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 79
to TGP’s governing documents. For example, the President is responsible for managing and
advising the organization’s executive director. No other member of the board may give the
executive director a directive that the executive director is then bound to follow. The President
must also manage the monthly board conference calls as well as both of the in-person meetings
each year.
The second election is for the Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Historian, and
Sergeant-at-Arms. During this election, the voting delegates select their top five choices to serve
on the board of directors, though the votes are not cast by specific positions. To be elected, a
candidate must receive the majority of the votes eligible at the biennial conference; in the event
that not enough candidates are selected during any round of voting, the candidates with the least
votes are dropped from the next ballot. This process continues until a slate of five individuals
have been voted on by the delegates. Once they are elected, the five individuals choose among
themselves who will serve in the specific positions with the caveat that the individual garnering
the most votes has the right of first refusal to select the Vice President position. The Immediate
Past President position is not elected, but rather is an automatic appointment as noted in TGP’s
governing documents.
Further, TGP’s constitution (2016) states that the electorate is comprised by
representatives of each chapter, alumni club, former board members, winners of TGP’s highest
individual award, and the chairman of an international scholarship fund associated with the
fraternity
11
. As the primary stakeholder group is only comprised of seven members, this study
retrieved information from each current member of the board (only six of the seven board
members were interviewed because the author of this study currently serves as a member of the

11
To maintain the organization’s anonymity, its constitution is being cited, but not listed in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 80
board). In addition to the seven current board members, this study retrieved information by
conducting a content analysis of existing documents and other artifacts.
Criterion 1. To be included in the sample, individuals must be currently serving as a
member of TGP’s board of directors.
Recruitment. Participants were asked to set aside approximately one hour during the
end of summer/beginning of fall 2017. Invitations were made informally given the researcher’s
close relationship to each of the board members. However, to comply with the University of
Southern California’s institutional review board’s guidelines, formal invitations were also
created and delivered to each interview subject. Delivery occurred through electronic mail as
well as during a regular board meeting; the interviewees’ responses followed the same delivery
formats.
Instrumentation. The questions that were used are included as Appendix A and were
designed to learn more about the knowledge of the board members relative to governance.
Further, the questions tried to understand the confidence levels of the board members when faced
with decisions related to their oversight and monitoring roles. In addition, some questions
helped the researcher learn more about the cultural model in which the board operates (e.g.
whether they received timely data from executive leadership and whether that data was used by
executive leadership when they made programmatic decisions). Since these interview questions
did not necessarily seek standardized answers, the researcher relied less on drawing correlations
across the interviewees’ answers and more on summarizing, interpreting, and integrating their
responses into the overall research project (Weiss, 1994). These questions were developed after
reviewing the common themes in the literature review found in Chapter 2 and shown in Table 2.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 81
Document Analysis
This study included a document analysis that provided a comprehensive, historical view
of the assumed KMO influences on the board of directors as they tried to ensure that every
member was engaged in best practices for board governance 100% of the time. Given their static
nature and their nonreactive state relative to the research questions studied, these documents
were analyzed to provide a grounded look at these influences over the last 14 years (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection
This study used a qualitative approach to data collection and instrument design. Data for
this study was only collected through interviews and document analysis. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) noted that interviews are used in most qualitative research as the main method of data
collection; this was the case for this research as well. Document analysis is different in that it
does not intrude on the natural setting of the research environment as an interview might, but
instead focuses on the ready-made nature of data available in existing documents by providing
historical data and perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The following sections review the
methods by which the interviews and document analysis were utilized for this study and the
reasoning behind the use of each data collection method.
Interviews
Each member of TGP’s board of directors was invited to participate in an interview for
this research study. They were informed that the interviews are completely optional and that
their participation would not influence the researcher and his opinion of them in any way, shape,
or form. They were also informed that their participation would not be made public since any
reference to their specific contributions during the interviews would be anonymized. Similarly,
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 82
the participants were told that any non-participation in the interviews would not be made known
to TGP’s membership as the names of the board members would not be used in the final data
analysis. The interviews occurred via telephone and the researcher asked if an audio recording
could be made of the interviewees’ responses.
The six board members who were interviewed represent a broad cross section of TGP’s
membership. The length of their professional experiences includes individuals beginning their
careers to mid-career professionals to recently retired men. The depth of their professional
experiences includes entrepreneurs who own multi-generational family businesses to individuals
working in higher education to financial and legal professionals and men with decades of
experience in corporate environments. The board’s demographic composition includes a wide
variety of cultural backgrounds including Scandinavian, English, Italian, French, and Irish as
well as a diversity of income categories and representation from geographies across the United
States. TGP’s board members also represent a cross section of the fraternity in terms of
collegiate experiences with some members attending small, agricultural schools, other attending
private liberal arts colleges, and others attending large public universities.
Documents and Artifacts
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) said that document analysis can help a researcher better
understand data, uncover hidden meanings, and reveal new insights that may be relevant to the
research. The documents listed below provided the researcher with unbiased data to help
supplement and better define the KMO influences on TGP’s board of directors. The documents
analyzed during this study included:
• Minutes from board of director meetings beginning in August 2004 through January 2018
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 83
• Internal memos, e-mails, and correspondence outside of board meeting minutes from
August 2004 through January 2018 that specifically asked about or discussed issues
related to governance
• Audited financial results for the two fiscal years before changing to the Carver model
through the most recent fiscal year end (June 30, 2017)
• Governance Committee reports, as available (this committee operated intermittently prior
to summer/fall 2016, thus reports were inconsistent prior to that time)
• The fraternity’s Carver Model Manual
• The fraternity’s Board of Directors Conduct Manual
Data Analysis
Data generated during this investigation was analyzed in several phases and the findings
from the interviews and document analysis were captured through NVivo 11 software to more
easily assess assumed causes within the KMO framework. Initially, interview responses were
coded through NVivo 11 to find key words and phrases that were consistent throughout the
stakeholders’ responses. Likewise, NVivo 11 was also used to scan documents and artifacts for
similar key words and phrases so that the context of their use could be compared across different
iterations of the board of directors. For both interview responses and the document analysis,
common themes evident through the key words and phrases analysis were compared to the
literature reviewed in Chapter 2. The researcher called attention to any agreements or conflicts
that were found in the interviews and document analysis when compared against the literature
review, as appropriate and within the context of the data collected. Additionally, the
approximately fourteen-year scope of the document analysis allowed for assessment of each
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 84
iteration of the board of directors and their follow-through on action items related to monitoring
and oversight.
Trustworthiness of Data. The following strategies were applied to increase the
trustworthiness and validity of the research results:
1. Data was validated through triangulation. Interview responses were cross-referenced
with the data generated from the document analysis.
2. False abbreviations were used for the interview subjects to retain their anonymity and
ensure that the focus of the data analysis stayed on the interview responses and not
the interviewees themselves.
3. All electronic data was stored on a password-protected USB drive that remained in
the possession of the researcher or under lock and key in his home office.
4. Initial interpretations of interview responses were shared, individually, with the
members of the stakeholder group for their review, reflection, and to ensure accuracy.
Role of Investigator
The researcher is uniquely connected to both TGP and the stakeholder group. TGP is a
single sex, private membership-based organization where nearly all its members join one of the
fraternity’s chapters during their time enrolled as an undergraduate at one of TGP’s host
institutions. With just over 120 undergraduate colonies and chapters, TGP is a medium-sized
fraternity and thus the overall pool of potential members is smaller than some of its peers in the
fraternity industry. The researcher joined TGP nearly two decades ago and is an elected member
of the even smaller pool of stakeholders being studied in this research, serving in a primary
leadership role within the small, seven-member board of directors. While the researcher has a
leadership role on the board of directors, the other members of the board are not subordinates to
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 85
him in their roles. All members of the board maintain a friendly, collegial relationship including
the researcher; none of the remaining six members of the stakeholder group denied the request to
be interviewed for this study.
Having such close connections to the organization and stakeholder group indicated that
the researcher brought his own subjectivity to the research and that this needed to be addressed
as part of the overall research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Though the researcher’s
subjectivity could not be eliminated from the research (Maxwell, 2013), certain methods were
used to reduce his influence. To reduce his subjectivity in designing the interview questions for
his fellow board members, the researcher relied heavily on the literature to define the scope of
each question, as noted in Table 2 in Chapter 2 and displayed in Table 3. Further, the researcher
requested to record the audio from each interview. While those audio recordings were kept
confidential, they were retained in case any of the representations in the research findings were
disputed by members of the stakeholder group. Though the researcher is part of the stakeholder
group, he did not participate in the interviews as an interviewee. In addition, the current board
was elected approximately 19 months ago, which represents a small portion of the period that
document analysis reviewed. To achieve a broader understanding of the problem of practice, the
researcher conducted a document analysis with certain documents dating back to 2004.
Additional steps were taken to ensure that the researcher’s subjectivity did not influence the
outcome of the study or the interpretation of its results. Among these steps were keeping the
interviewee’s identities anonymous even when quoting their responses in the research findings
and asking permission to use any particularly controversial responses that were generated from
the interviews.
The researcher’s intent was not to promote his own, personal view of how the board of
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 86
directors should oversee the executive director, the organization’s staff, or other members of the
organization. Further, it was not the researcher’s intent to influence his fellow board members
on how to make sure every board member was engaged in best practices for board governance
100% of the time. Rather, the researcher conducted a problem-solving investigation with the
sole intent of identifying KMO-related performance gaps and improving TGP’s organizational
performance.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 87
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter reports the findings from the data collection. As stated in Chapter 1, the
purpose of this study was to understand the KMO influences needed by the board to ensure that
every member of the fraternity’s board of directors was engaging in best practices for board
governance 100% of the time. The research was specific to TGP and should not be considered
generalizable to other organizations operating in the nonprofit sector, though other single-sex
fraternal organizations and private social clubs may consider using these findings to build
research models and conceptual frameworks for their own self-assessment projects. Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was used to design this study. The research questions that
guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that facilitate or
impede TGP’s board of directors’ engaging in effective practices 100% of the time
under the Carver model of governance?
2. What are the proposed solutions to the board of directors’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs?
To answer these research questions, qualitative data was collected through semi-
structured interviews and a document analysis. The interviews occurred during September 2017
while the document analysis occurred over the course of several months during late 2017 and
early 2018. Interviews were conducted over the telephone and recorded for accuracy; all six
interviews were conducted over a four-day period.
The findings from the interviews and document analysis are presented below and
synthesized into the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework. This chapter shows how the data
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 88
either validated and invalidated the assumed KMO influences listed in Chapter 2. This study
validated data in several ways. First, interview responses regarding specific topics were cross-
referenced with the organization’s governing documents to determine whether the interviewee’s
responses were factually correct according to their own rules and regulations. Second, where
relevant, interview responses were compared to the board’s minutes and other documents
analyzed during the document analysis to determine whether certain practices were codified
within the organization’s cultural model. Third, certain requirements for performance that were
uncovered in the document analysis were compared to interview responses to determine if these
requirements were being met. Chapter 5 discusses significant findings from this analysis and
provides potential solutions to close performance gaps that were identified.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
There were eight assumed knowledge influences included in this study. Table 4 shows
that of these eight assumed influences, six were validated and two were not validated. These
influences are discussed after Table 4, below.
Table 4
Knowledge Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Not
Validated
Declarative Board members need to know the function of the
board, and their roles and limitations vis a vis
those of the executive director.

X
Declarative Board members need to know how they are held
accountable to meet their fiduciary and oversight
responsibilities.

X
Declarative Board members need to know what best practices
are for board effectiveness.

X
Declarative Board members need to know what data and
other organizational metrics they should be
X
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 89
reviewing, and the cadence with which that data
should be reviewed.

Procedural Board members need to know how to incorporate
best practices for nonprofit performance.

X
Procedural Board members need to understand how to
interpret KPIs against performance benchmarks
to evaluate organizational health.

X
Procedural Board members need to know how to engage new
volunteers and empower experienced volunteers
to carry out the board’s vision.

X
Metacognitive Board members need to continuously assess their
knowledge and skills gaps and select appropriate
strategies to address those gaps.
X

Declarative Knowledge Influences

Validated declarative knowledge influences. As shown in Table 6, all four of the
assumed declarative knowledge influences were validated. The first validated declarative
knowledge influence was that board members need to know the function of the board, and their
roles and limitations vis a vis those of the executive director. In responding to the question
designed around this influence, the interviewees each reported the limitations of the executive
director’s role and provided varying levels of depth in understanding the limitation of the board’s
role. One interviewee responded that the only limitations on the board are those that are written
in the organization’s governing documents. He said, “our only limitations are based on anything
we've documented clearly and said we did not have specific oversight,” (C. Gamma, personal
communication, September 8, 2017). Another interviewee commented that the board could do
whatever it wanted to do – or whatever it did not want to do. His specific comments were, “our
limitations are whatever limitations we want set upon ourselves,” (H. Beta, personal
communication, September 8, 2017).
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 90
Two interviewees did not directly address the topic of board limitations, but showed a
strong knowledge of the executive director’s role within the organization’s leadership structure
and how the board should take a hands-off approach to daily operations. One interviewee said:
As far as impact on day-to-day operations, I think once we give that executive director,
and the executive director passes on the limitations that he has, which means they're
limitations that the staff has, and goals that they need to meet, I think it's important as a
board to be able to step back and allow that process to take place. (K. Delta, personal
communication, September 10, 2017)
Since he is not a member of the stakeholder group that is the focus of this study, the researcher
did not interview the executive director to determine if he knows the role and limitations of the
board of directors.
The second assumed declarative knowledge influence that was validated was that board
members need to know how they are held accountable to meet their fiduciary and oversight
responsibilities. Each of the interviewees indicated that they are aware of how they are held
accountable by the organization’s membership. Every board member noted that they are held
accountable through the biennial election process. One board member commented, “People
know that if things don't go well, they're going to be a one-term person. I think that's great, I
think that's what needed to happen,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017).
Another interviewee responded in a similar fashion by stating the biennial conference where
elections take place “is the only real source of accountability,” (C. Gamma, personal
communication, September 8, 2017). Some interviewees commented that the board does not
have an internal process by which it is held accountable. Related, most interviewees said that
they are comfortable letting fellow board members know if they are not performing to
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 91
expectations. One board member commented that the board “kind of self-polices right now,”
(W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017).
The third assumed declarative knowledge influence that was validated was that board
members need to know what best practices are for board effectiveness. The interviewees each
indicated that they were aware of best practices for nonprofit boards of directors, though they
each gave different examples of effective practices for boards. One board member said the
current board “brings not only the basic skillset but more of an advanced level skillset by adding
in a specialty or adding in something that they're good at or have a ton of experience in,” (F.
Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017). Another board member added that, “You
need board members that are engaged and are passionate about what they're doing,” (R. Alpha,
personal communication, September 8, 2017). This declarative knowledge influence should not
be conflated with the procedural knowledge influence regarding knowing to incorporate best
practices into board service, which was not validated by the data. Rather, the board’s responses,
though varied and diverse, indicated that they were aware of best practices for board service.
The document analysis confirmed that this influence was valid as the organization’s Board of
Directors Conduct Manual explicitly explains several best practices for serving on TGP’s board
of directors. Included in the Board of Directors Conduct Manual are references to the board’s
role in setting short-term and long-term strategies for the fraternity as well as potentially needing
to engage in additional levels of oversight to monitor performance, as necessary
12
.
The fourth and final assumed declarative knowledge influences that was validated was
that board members need to know what data and other organizational metrics they should be
reviewing, and the cadence with which that data should be reviewed. Each board member

12
To maintain anonymity, the Board of Directors Conduct Manual is not listed in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 92
indicated an understanding that decisions should be data-driven and that the executive leadership
should be reporting those data to the board. On this topic, one interviewee said the staff must
“collect data that shows that they have executed on the vision and they have to be able to show
how they've done that satisfactorily,” (C. Gamma, personal communication, September 8, 2017).
The interviewees did not respond in any substantive manner regarding the cadence with which
data should be reviewed, though several board members noted that it must be reviewed on a
continuous or regular basis. Board minutes analyzed during the document analysis did not show
that prior iterations of the board (serving terms beginning in 2004 and ending in 2016) reviewed
KPIs with any regularity. KPIs reviewed during this twelve-year period included chapter growth
via new members joining the organization, status of accounts receivable, and the creation of new
local chapters through expansion efforts on college campuses. The minutes for the current board
of directors show that they required the creation of a monthly dashboard for the executive
director to complete and distribute before their monthly conference calls. The one-page
dashboard layout included information detailing the organization’s monthly cash flow, updates
on total new members and new initiates for the fiscal year, total number of chapter and chartered
alumni clubs, total social media engagement across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and brief
highlights of headlines in the larger fraternity and sorority industry that may be of importance to
the board’s work for TGP
13
.
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Validated procedural knowledge influences. Table 4 shows that one of the three
procedural knowledge influences were validated by the data collected and that two procedural
knowledge influences were not validated. The validated procedural knowledge influence was

13
To maintain anonymity, board meeting minutes are not included in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 93
that board members need to know how to engage new volunteers and empower experienced
volunteers to carry out the board’s vision. Each of the interviewees noted that there is a
difference between new volunteers and more experienced volunteers; the respondents each had
different approaches to engaging those volunteers. Of volunteer engagement, one board member
stated that he had “given them help in terms of whatever help they need, giving them insight,
giving them whatever,” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017) while another
board member stated, “volunteers are the grassroots that are probably the most important element
of our whole system,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017). Across all
interviews, the role of volunteers as providing critical oversight and continuity to the
undergraduate membership was noted. Also noted was that engaging experienced volunteers
requires a different approach than engaging younger volunteers. On this topic, one board
member added, “More experienced volunteers usually have an investment in it for whatever time
they spent, whether they’re on a board or served at [an international conference],” (H. Beta,
personal communication, September 8, 2017).
The document analysis also confirmed the current board’s deep commitment to engaging
volunteers when making decisions regarding the organization’s governance structure. In August
2016, minutes from the monthly board meeting note that a study group was formed to review the
board’s structure and approach to governance relative to other fraternities
14
. This study group
produced two reports, both of which were reviewed in the document analysis
15
. The first report
recommended structural changes to the board including increasing the total number of board
members by between two to four members and potentially allocating two of these additional
seats for undergraduate representatives. The second report clarified the recommendations made

14
To maintain anonymity, board meeting minutes are not included in the References section.
15
To maintain anonymity, neither of the study group’s reports are not included in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 94
in the first report and reduced the total number of new recommended board members by two
while also strongly suggesting, based on the experiences of other fraternities that were
interviewed, to not allow undergraduate members to formally serve on the board of directors.
Procedural knowledge influences not validated. In Table 4, two of the procedural
knowledge influences were not validated. The first of these influences was that board members
need to know how to incorporate best practices for nonprofit performance. While the board was
aware of their own interpretation of what best practices were for nonprofit performance, there
was no indication in their interview responses that they were actively incorporating those
practices either individually or as a group. This lack of response on whether the group was
incorporating best practices to enhance performance is indicative of a disconnect between theory
and action on the part of the board. Further, the document analysis confirmed that from 2004
through the summer of 2016 there was not a substantial effort to learn about best practices in the
nonprofit sector. The document analysis also showed that no efforts were made by prior
iterations of the board to begin implementing any practices that might be identified as best
practices in the sector according to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.
The second procedural influence that was not validated was that board members need to
understand how to interpret KPIs against performance benchmarks to evaluate organizational
health. A recurring theme during the interviews was that board members knew data was
collected on certain topics, but they were unsure of how that data was translated by executive
leadership or any member of the staff into measurable assessments of KPIs. Further, none of the
interviewees discussed how KPIs were indicative of organizational health. This lack of response
shows that board members may be aware of the data being collected, but they are not able to
easily connect that data to the goal of organizational health and sustainability. One interviewee
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 95
said, “from day one we took steps to address the lack of data driven decisions being made at the
executive office,” (F. Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017). The document
analysis confirmed that the KPIs discussed in the literature review were not reported on by the
organization’s executive leadership on a regular basis as far back as 2004 and continuing through
at least the summer of 2016, when the newly elected board required that the executive director
create a monthly dashboard to report on specific KPIs.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influences
Validated metacognitive knowledge influences. There was one metacognitive
knowledge influence that was tested for during the interviews and it was validated. The
validated metacognitive knowledge influence was that board members need to continuously
assess their knowledge and skills gaps and select appropriate strategies to address those gaps.
Though the interviews did not indicate a continuing effort on behalf of the current board to
assess their knowledge and skills gaps by any formal method, two of the interviewees did
comment that they monitor this in their own ways and on their own schedules. However, at least
one board member indicated that he did not feel comfortable telling other board members when
they are not doing a good job. This interviewee said, “I don’t usually step over into somebody
else’s area and say you’re not doing a good job,” (H. Beta, personal communication, September
8, 2017). On this type of self-assessment, another board member said, “we don't right now. I
think that we have a lot of self-reflection but I don't know that we have a mechanism that which
we actively engage in evaluation,” (F. Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017).
The document analysis confirms that TGP’s board of directors did not engage in this type
of reflection in any formal manner from the period beginning in 2004 through the last set of
board minutes reviewed for January 2018. This influence is validated, though, due to the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 96
document analysis showing that the necessary knowledge and skills discussed in Chapter 2 were
not regularly assessed by the prior iterations of boards of directors serving TGP from 2004
through 2016 and that the result of not assessing this required knowledge or the necessary skills
was weak KPIs leading to strained financial performance. These downtrends discovered in the
document analysis are what make this metacognitive influence valid. An internally-prepared
report showed that after reaching a peak of approximately $3,250,000 in 2013, TGP’s balance
decreased to just below $2,500,000 because of unchecked spending of funds held in various
reserve accounts
16
. That this spending could occur unchecked by prior iterations of TGP’s board
of directors validates the need for boards to continuously assess their knowledge and skills gaps.
Summary
The results from the data collection indicated that six of the eight knowledge influences
were validated and two of the eight influences were not validated. The validated influences are
listed in Table 5.
Table 5
Summary of Validated Assumed Knowledge Influences
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Declarative Board members need to know the function of the board, and
their roles and limitations vis a vis those of the executive
director.
X
Declarative Board members need to know how they are held accountable
to meet their fiduciary and oversight responsibilities.

X
Declarative Board members need to know what best practices are for
board effectiveness.

X
Declarative Board members need to know what data and other
organizational metrics they should be reviewing, and the
cadence with which that data should be reviewed.

X

16
To maintain anonymity, the financial history report is not included in the References section.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 97
Procedural Board members need to know how to engage new volunteers
and empower experienced volunteers to carry out the board’s
vision.

X
Metacognitive Board members need to continuously assess their knowledge
and skills gaps and select appropriate strategies to address
those gaps.
X

Reviewing the validated knowledge influences shows that the current board has a strong
level of declarative knowledge when it comes to understanding what their roles and limitations
are as well as best practices for being effective, in theory. These validated knowledge influences
also show that the board knows how they are held accountable and that they understand metrics
need to be reviewed at regular intervals. This strong level of declarative knowledge indicates
that the board believes it understands the fundamentals of board service. Additionally, the single
validated procedural influence speaks to the board members’ abilities to connect with TGP’s
volunteers to inspire and empower them to work in favor of the board’s vision. The validated
metacognitive influence indicates that strong boards are aware of the need to continuously self-
assess their performance while being mindful of any gaps that exist in their performance.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
There were five assumed motivation influences assessed during this research. Three of
the five were validated while two of the five were not validated. Table 6 shows a summary of
assumed motivation influences. Three motivational categories were used to group the findings
from this research. The three categories were: goal orientation, self-efficacy, and efficacy.
Table 6
Motivation Influences Validated and Not Validated
Motivational
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Not
Validated
Goal
Orientation
Board members need to value taking an active
role in monitoring the organization’s budget,
X
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 98
assessing executive leadership, and moving the
organization closer to its mission.
Self-efficacy Board members need to feel confident in their
ability to act when KPIs indicate negative trends
that can disrupt the organization’s sustainability.
X
Self-efficacy Board members need to feel confident that their
monitoring and oversight efforts will result in
positive outcomes for the organization.
X
Efficacy Board members need to feel confident in the
abilities of their fellow board members to monitor
KPIs and act to correct course if necessary.

X
Efficacy Board members need to feel confident that the
executive director can achieve the organizational
goals that are set by the board.
X

Goal Orientation Motivation Influences

Goal orientation motivation influences not validated. As Table 6 above shows, the
research sought to validate one goal orientation motivation influence. This influence was that
board members need to value taking an active role in monitoring the organization’s budget,
assessing executive leadership, and moving the organization closer to its mission. There are
three elements to this influence: monitoring the budget, assessing executive leadership, and
meeting the organization’s mission. The interviewees each stated that they were monitoring the
organization’s finances. These assertions were confirmed in the document analysis by reviewing
the board meeting minutes of the current board of directors. However, the document analysis
also showed that strategic conversations around monitoring the organizational budget were not a
significant part of any prior board minutes dating back to the 2004 – 2006 iteration of TGP’s
board of directors. Additionally, while the current board created an executive review committee
that generated two formal reports on the executive director’s performance, similar reports were
not created for any of the boards of directors that served from 2004 through the summer of 2016.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 99
The third element of this influence – moving the organization closer to its mission – was
the primary driver of why this influence could not be validated. Only one interviewee could,
after a few moments of consideration, recall the organization’s mission statement. Another
interviewee said, “You know, I guess I can't off the top of my head say exactly what it is,” (R.
Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017). None of the interviewees could discuss
how the fraternity specifically works to meet its mission. Further, the document analysis showed
that discussions around the organization’s mission statement were nonexistent for each of the
prior boards of directors dating back to the 2004 – 2006 term.
Self-Efficacy Motivation Influences
Validated self-efficacy motivation influences. Table 6 shows that there were two self-
efficacy motivation influences assessed during the interviews. One of these influences was
validated and it was that board members need to feel confident in their ability to act when KPIs
indicate negative trends that can disrupt the organization’s sustainability. Each of the board
members felt confident that they could act to modify any restrictions imposed by the Carver
model if KPIs indicated weakening trends. One board member said, “the answer is yes. I think
we can institute governance changes,” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017)
while another board member provided more context by saying:
In any case of an emergency, a lack of trust, a lack of seeing what we want done and in
any of those cases where there is some kind of measurable evidence of those things that
we have a reason not to trust the exec, that there is some kind of crisis that's not otherwise
covered or that we have issue with the competency or the skills of the exec, I believe we
could just step in and take over. (C. Gamma, personal communication, September 8,
2017)
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 100
Only one board member expressed a slight reservation about his confidence that the Carver
model, itself, could withstand this type of modification. He commented, “I don't know, based
upon the current governing structure, how exactly do we go about pulling the reins back on the
office, taking control of the organization for at least a temporary period of time,” (F. Sigma,
personal communication, September 11, 2017). However, the same board member was
confident that he understood the theory behind this governance structure and how it could,
technically, be modified if necessary. The document analysis backed the confidence of the
current board of directors. Many of the board meeting minutes for the current board of directors
included discussions about the organization’s long-term sustainability at the local and
international levels.
Self-efficacy motivation influences that were not validated. The self-efficacy
motivation influence that was not validated was that board members need to feel confident that
their monitoring and oversight efforts will result in positive outcomes for the organization.
While one of the board members discussed how the process of providing input, monitoring KPIs,
and overseeing operations should, theoretically, lead to positive outcomes for the fraternity, none
of the interviewees were confident that their input, monitoring, or oversight had, at the time of
the interviews, been taken with the gravity that it should have been by the former executive
director. One board member stated, “prior to this board coming on, I think it was just all
shooting from the hip,” and that, specifically, the current board and the new executive director
want to know, “What's the KPI on it? What's the ROI on it? I think that mindset, you
know…this board and this CEO are raising the bar on the whole organization to a more
professional management of everything,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8,
2017).
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 101
When reviewing this influence, it is important to remember that the interviews were
conducted during the beginning of September 2017 and a new executive director was hired at the
end of July 2017. In their responses, the board members were mostly reflecting on how the
former executive director did not value their opinions or input or heed any concerns brought by
them during their monitoring or oversight activities. Of the entire executive office team, one
board member commented, “I don’t know that the data that they’re supplied from the council,
that they pay attention to it,” (H. Beta, personal communication, September 8, 2017). Another
board member stated that the most recent former executive director:
…was trying to support something that even his staff just considered to be just sort-of an
idea. So in a situation like that, there was not data to support it to really speak of. And if
there was, they certainly weren't using it, because he didn't bring it to the meeting. (K.
Delta, personal communication, September 10, 2017)
According the interviewees, the former executive director often acted outside of the board’s
desires. The interviewees also commented that the former executive director’s mindset of
disregarding board input and oversight trickled down to the non-executive staff level, which
made it difficult for the board members to communicate with these staff members on any topic.
Another interviewee stated, “in the past, a lot of the data that was being supplied to the
headquarters, not only the headquarters ignored, so did the board members,” (H. Beta, personal
communication, September 8, 2017).
In the months following these interviews, the document analysis suggests a positive
response to the new executive director and a renewed appreciation for board member input.
Given the positive comments in the board meeting minutes, the researcher believes that if these
interviews were conducted three months later, then this motivation influence might have been
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 102
validated. However, based on the interview responses and the document analysis showing that
most of the board meeting minutes reflected meetings that occurred while former executive
directors were still in the top executive leadership position, this influence cannot be validated.
Efficacy Motivation Influences
Validated efficacy motivation influences. Table 6 shows that there were two efficacy
motivation influences assessed and validated during the interviews. The first influence was that
board members need to feel confident in the abilities of their fellow board members to monitor
KPIs and act to correct course if necessary. This influence has two components: confidence in
the abilities of fellow board members to monitor KPIs and confidence in their ability to act to
course correct. Interview responses on the first component about confidence in the abilities of
fellow board members to monitor KPIs showed that most interviewees are confident in the
abilities of most of the current board members. On this topic, one interviewee said that the
current board has “a wide variety of skill sets…bringing these different opinions, these different
experiences, I think has worked well,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017).
Several board members indicated that there were one or two members who may not fully
comprehend the scope of what the organization needs to focus on for future success. One
interviewee stated, “we are a united front and the majority of us are not undermining each other,”
(W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017).
One interviewee indicated that one or two board members were not concerned about the
long-term success of the organization, but rather they prioritized maintaining a semblance of
authority and finding ways to promote their friends to leadership positions in the fraternity.
Another interviewee responded that there might be a correlation between a board member’s
position in or out of the workforce and their ability to be an effective board member (this
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 103
research did not seek to find such correlations). He commented that there are some board
members who are, “retired and out of step and not up with technology, not up to the current
practices,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017).
The second component of this influence was confidence in board members’ ability to act
to course correct. The document analysis of the current board’s meeting minutes showed
increasing confidence in the board’s ability to take major actions to course correct when
necessary. The largest of these decisions was the separation from the most recent former
executive director before hiring the current executive director in July 2017. This increasing
confidence in their ability to act to course correct was reflected in the interview responses as
each interviewee commented that they are much more confident in the current executive director
and his plans for TGP than they were in the previous executive director. One interviewee
responded that the new executive director has, “the intelligence, he has the skill set, he has the
drive, he has the presence. He understands the organization. He understands what we want to
do, where we want to go,” and that this board member has, “complete confidence in the guy we
have now, and he's done more in the last two months than the other guys did in the last couple
years. Yeah, I think he's doing a great job,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8,
2017).
After the interviews were conducted, the executive director announced that he was
changing the fraternity’s organizational chart to both be more cost effective and better align the
services provided by the executive office to member expectations. The document analysis shows
that the current board supported this change and is supportive of the executive director making
these types of decisions, both of which further indicate the board’s confidence in acting to course
correct when necessary. Even one of the interview responses alluded to being supportive of this
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 104
type of change when one of the interviewees said that the new executive director was, “taking
responsibility, trying to understand his roles, taking accountability to the staff, trying to
understand vision so he can execute, drilling down to understand what his limitations and his
resources are, I have confidence in the immediate executive director,” (C. Gamma, personal
communication, September 8, 2017).
The second assumed efficacy motivation influence that was validated was that board
members need to feel confident that the executive director can achieve the organizational goals
that are set by the board. As previous interview quotes reported, the interviewees were
unanimous in their lack of confidence in the abilities of the former executive director to achieve
the organizational goals that they provided to him. One board member noted that the job of the
executive director is to “give us input, as in the governing board, of what are the issues right now
facing the organization that we the governing board need to know about,” (W. Tau, personal
communication, September 9, 2017). They were also unanimous in their support and excitement
regarding the current executive director and his ability to implement the strategic vision
developed by the board. One of the interviewees commented that the board:
…took the approach of starting at the top and working backwards. I feel like we
recognized that if the top guy there, the person in charge of the entire thing, can't be
trusted to make solid business decisions, then we can't expect anyone on staff to make a
solid business decision. (F. Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017)
In comparison to the most recent former executive director, one board member noted
when talking about the new executive director that, “we’re wanting to get the situation where we
can trust the executive director to follow what we set down and the direction we want to go, and
not have to find out later that the rules were not followed,” (H. Beta, personal communication,
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 105
September 8, 2017). The document analysis conducted on documents created under the current
board of directors backs these points. However, the document analysis of documents created
under different iterations of the board of directors from 2004 through the summer of 2016 do not
provide a discussion of the board’s confidence, or lack thereof, in the then-executive directors.
Summary
The results and findings indicated that three of the five motivation influences were
validated and two of the five were not validated. The validated influences are listed in Table 7.
Table 7
Summary of Validated Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivational
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Self-efficacy Board members need to feel confident in their ability to act
when KPIs indicate negative trends that can disrupt the
organization’s sustainability.
X
Efficacy Board members need to feel confident in the abilities of their
fellow board members to monitor KPIs and act to correct
course if necessary.

X
Efficacy Board members need to feel confident that the executive
director can achieve the organizational goals that are set by
the board.
X

Reviewing the motivation influences that were validated shows that the current board has
a moderate level of self-efficacy when it comes to their individual abilities to make policies that
can sustain the fraternity. The validated self-efficacy influence also shows that each board
member has strong and growing support for the new executive director and his plan to
implement the board’s vision for the organization. The board’s feelings of efficacy are
indicative of a board that is confident in its ability to govern the organization. Similarly, the
efficacy that the board members exhibited shows that they are confident in their own ability to
act to course correct in the wake of negative trending KPIs.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 106
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
There were nine assumed organizational influences assessed during this research. Of
those nine, four were validated while five could not be validated. The assumed organizational
influences were grouped into two categories: cultural models and cultural settings. Table 8
shows the breakout of which influences were validated and which influences were not validated.
Table 8
Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Organization
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Not
Validated
Cultural Models The organization values a board of directors that
monitors KPIs and acts to resolve issues that
impede optimal performance.
X
Cultural Models The organization holds board members
accountable for not using best practices
consistently.
X
Cultural Models The organization has clearly defined and
communicated roles and expectations for board
members.
X
Cultural Models The organization has a clear method by which it
measures its progress in achieving the goals that
are set for it by the board.
X
Cultural Models The organization’s structure and hierarchy are
continually assessed to ensure efficiency and
higher performance levels.
X
Cultural Settings The organization educates incoming board
members on the mission of the organization and
the board members’ roles and expectations.
X
Cultural Settings The organization ensures that the general
membership is familiar with the organization’s
corporate governance model, the scope of the
board of directors’ power, and the limitations of
executive authority.
X
Cultural Settings The organization provides ample
communication channels for all members to
X
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 107
both inform and be informed on progress related
to KPIs.
Cultural Settings The organization has a clear and clearly
communicated mission.
X

Cultural Model Organizational Influences
Validated cultural model organizational influences. Only two of the five cultural
model influences were validated by the research. The first cultural model influence that was
validated was that the organization holds board members accountable for not using best practices
consistently. This influence was validated based on both the interviews and the document
analysis. Each interviewee made it clear that the organization held board members accountable
through the biennial election process. One board member commented, “Every two years we
have pretty much an up or down vote on how we did…but really, an election is the only real
process by which we're evaluated at this point and time,” (F. Sigma, personal communication,
September 11, 2017). In other words, if the board does not adequately monitor KPIs and oversee
organizational outcomes and executive performance, then the membership will hold them
accountable by voting them out of office when they are up for re-election and/or by voting in an
entirely new slate of candidates to take over control of the board.
The document analysis backed this finding in two ways. First, the board minutes for the
current board are extremely detailed and provide the full thought processes behind board
decisions as well as each topic that is discussed by the board during the meetings. For all the
prior iterations of the board, the board minutes are not very dense nor are there standard meeting
times for board conference calls (the current board meets once each month via conference call
except for two in-person meetings each year). The level of specification in the current board’s
meeting minutes indicates a realization that they are being held accountable for prior boards’
inaction in the face of poor KPIs. To this point, a board member commented that the current
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 108
board is, “held accountable because of some things that happened [previously], where we had
some guys unexpectedly voted off the board, unexpected by the general membership, but it's one
of the first times I've ever seen the board be held accountable,” (R. Alpha, personal
communication, September 8, 2017).
The second cultural model influence validated by the research was that the organization
has clearly defined and communicated roles and expectations for board members. This influence
was validated by both the interviews and the document analysis. Each of the interviewees
provided an accurate perspective on the role of the board as per the literature review and as
stated in previous interview quotations. The interviews provided data indicating that the board
members generally understood their role as monitoring and overseeing the executive director and
executive leadership team in administering the day-to-day activities of the fraternity within the
context of their larger strategic goals for the organization. One interviewee stated that the board
is not, “completely hands off, they have to have some hands-on capabilities and that is part of
their responsibility and role as stakeholders,” (C. Gamma, personal communication, September
8, 2017).
The document analysis included the review of two recently updated manuals that the
board of directors uses to guide its action. One manual was the Board of Directors Conduct
Manual and the second was the Carver Model Manual
17
. The existence of the conduct manual
along with the organization’s Carver model manual were indicators that there were clearly
defined roles and expectations for board members. The Board of Directors Conduct Manual
provided extensive and clear communication on the organization’s expectations of board
performance while the Carver Model Manual gave clear expectations for the boundaries under

17
The exact names of these manuals are not being used to maintain the organization’s anonymity.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 109
which the board members may act in their roles as stewards of the organization’s mission. The
Carver Model Manual included nearly 20 pages of clearly communicated expectations for the
board of directors and their leadership of TGP. Among many others, some topics covered in the
Carver Model Manual include job descriptions for the board, specific principles that board
members must adhere to, the relationship between the board and the executive director, and the
expecting monitoring of the executive director.
Cultural model organizational influences that were not validated. Three of the
cultural model organizational influences were not validated by the research. The first of the
influences not to be validated was that the organization values a board of directors that monitors
KPIs and acts to resolve issues that impede optimal performance. This finding may appear to be
in contrast with what was reported in the motivation influences above. However, the key word
in this influence is “values” and that is why this organizational influence could not be validated.
It is true that the interviews with the current board members validated that they are confident in
their ability to enact governance changes as a response to crises or threats. Yet, the document
analysis does not indicate or provide any evidence that prior iterations of this board made any
efforts to modify their approach to governance to respond to any threats that were identified.
The board minutes show that there were conversations about adopting the Carver model several
years ago
18
, but there is no link between making this change and responding to negative KPIs.
For these reasons, this influence could not be validated. While the most recent board election
indicates that the organization does, in fact, value this type of monitoring and action, there was
no indication that this is a long-standing practice for TGP. The document analysis did not show
any similarly tumultuous election processes where a majority of the board turned over to a

18
To maintain anonymity, the exact year of the change to the Carver model is not being provided.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 110
different governing perspective. On the contrary, during most of the prior board elections the
same individuals were re-elected to the board even as KPIs trended negatively. Had the type of
upheaval that occurred during the 2016 election been a consistent element of TGP’s history
because of poor KPIs, then this cultural model influence may have been validated.
The second cultural model influence that was not validated was that the organization has
a clear method by which it measures its progress in achieving the goals that are set for it by the
board. The interviewees noted that while they, individually, have an idea of how goals are
measured, there is not a standard format or reporting structure for measuring progress. One
board member stated that when he questioned a prior executive director about the changes he
was making to the organization, “there was really no data that supported a lot of the changes that
they were making,” (K. Delta, personal communication, September 10, 2017). Further, the
interviewees did not identify the specific goals that the board set for the organization. The
document analysis showed that these goals are ingrained in the Carver Model Manual. It may be
an outcome of the lack of board orientation that the interviewees were not able to connect the
material in the Carver Model Manual to the organization’s overall goals.
The third and final cultural model influence that could not be validated from the research
was that the organization’s structure and hierarchy are continually assessed to ensure efficiency
and higher performance levels. Each of the interviewees unanimously agreed that a formal and
continual assessment of the organization’s structure and hierarchy are not conducted. While one
board member commented that, “I think about how I'm doing pretty much every single day,” (F.
Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017), another board member, when talking
about formally assessing the organization’s hierarchy, stated, “we really haven't really done it as
a board either, except maybe offline, but we really haven't,” (R. Alpha, personal communication,
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 111
September 8, 2017). This finding was backed by the document analysis which shows that as far
back as 2004 there were no substantive organizational assessments conducted. One board
member indicated that he conducted this type of review informally in his own time, but admitted
that his efforts did not lead to any significant assessment on which the organization could make
progressive changes.
Cultural Settings Influences
Validated cultural settings organizational influences. There were four cultural setting
organizational influences that were assessed by the research with two validated and two that
could not be validated. The first validated cultural settings influence was that the organization
ensures that the general membership is familiar with the organization’s corporate governance
model, the scope of the board of directors’ power, and the limitations of executive authority.
This influence was primarily validated based on the document analysis. The current board’s
meeting minutes often include addenda and attachments that provide updated versions of the
Carver Model Manual and the Board of Directors Conduct Manual, if changes are made to either
document during a board meeting. During the interviews, a respondent noted that the minutes
are widely distributed across the organization’s official social media channels and through
electronic messaging including e-mails sent to past board chairmen, many of whom are still
opinion leaders for the organization. One of the board members mentioned that the minutes are,
“kept very open because [the board wants] to share and be honest with every single individual
that's out there,” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017). The materials included
in the current board of directors’ minutes provide a detailed and unrestricted view of the
fraternity’s corporate governance model, the scope of the board’s power, and the limitations that
are placed on the executive leadership.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 112
The second cultural settings influence to be validated was that organization provides
ample communication channels for all members to both inform and be informed on progress
related to KPIs. The document analysis validated this influence. In addition, the various
communication channels that exist for members to access were referenced in the interviews,
though not as primary drivers of delivering data on progress relative to KPIs. Speaking about
one of the communication channels, a board member said, “through social media and what's
going on, it kind of becomes a see-all of whether you're doing a good job or a bad job, if you're
doing the right things,” (R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017). The document
analysis showed that prior iterations of the board attempted to create and promote
communication channels that were specific to the board of directors, though ultimately each of
those channels were eliminated due to a lack of updates and their being disconnected from the
larger narrative promoted by the organization.
The current board’s meeting minutes showed that an increased emphasis was placed on
the organization’s communications with its members and that the current board has provided
both year-end updates to the membership and on-going, detailed reports of issues impacting the
fraternity. One board member even commented on how the raw data that is being generated
from the current board’s efforts is being made available to the larger fraternity industry. He
commented, “every time we do assessments, we share that to benefit everyone…those
assessments are also out there for our peers to look at. If they want to see, is there a
benchmarking, they can do that,” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017). The
detail and depth of the current board’s meeting minutes are, themselves, evidence of this
influence’s validation.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 113
Cultural settings organizational influences that could not be validated. Two of the
cultural settings influences could not be validated. The first of these was that the organization
educates incoming board members on the mission of the organization and the board members’
roles and expectations. The board members unanimously agreed that they were not provided any
training or education when they were elected to the board. One board member commented, “I
was given none of that, no training, no expectations, nothing, no onboarding at all whatsoever,”
(R. Alpha, personal communication, September 8, 2017). This is confirmed by the document
analysis of board meeting minutes dating from the 2004 – 2006 term through the current board of
directors. One interviewee noted that some form of training was provided on the Carver model
approximately six months after he was elected to the board, an assertion that was confirmed by
the board’s meeting minutes. His comment was, “In January we had what we deemed as our
training for [the Carver model],” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017).
The second cultural settings influence that could not be validated was that the
organization has a clear and clearly communicated mission. Based solely on the responses
provided during the interviews, this influence could not be validated. Only one board member
could recall the fraternity’s exact mission statement, which consists of less than ten words.
When asked if he could recall the mission statement, a different board member stated, “I cannot
think of the true mission statement,” (W. Tau, personal communication, September 9, 2017)
while a third board member said:
I know the last time I looked at it, it was an amalgamation of some things that are listed
in our [guiding values], of our outreach on universities campuses, of our willingness to
contribute to society in a positive way. Blah, blah, blah. (F. Sigma, personal
communication, September 11, 2017)
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 114
When the interviewees were told what the mission statement was after they could not
remember it, some were dismissive of the statement and other responded that they had heard the
phrase a few times in the past, but that it did not seem like a good mission for the organization.
One board member stated, “I don't place much value in mission statements, by the way,” (F.
Sigma, personal communication, September 11, 2017). The document analysis confirms that
discussions around the mission statement were nonexistent for all iterations of the board of
directors reflected in the board minutes. This indicates that the mission statement is not a
primary focal point for the board when it sets the organization’s goals.
Summary
There were four assumed organizational influences that were validated through the
interviews and the document analysis. The four validated influences are shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Summary of Validated Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational
Category Assumed Influence Validated
Cultural Models The organization holds board members accountable for not
using best practices consistently.
X
Cultural Models The organization has clearly defined and communicated roles
and expectations for board members.
X
Cultural Settings The organization ensures that the general membership is
familiar with the organization’s corporate governance model,
the scope of the board of directors’ power, and the limitations
of executive authority.
X
Cultural Settings The organization provides ample communication channels for
all members to both inform and be informed on progress
related to KPIs.
X

The validated influences show that TGP’s members hold the board accountable for its
responsiveness and for adhering to the clearly defined roles and expectations of board service.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 115
Findings from the interviews and document analysis both suggest that the board’s roles and
expectations were refined and made clearer under the current board of directors and that this
information was made widely available for the membership to review. The materials that held
the more clearly defined board roles also included revised limitations on the executive director’s
authority and how the board and executive leadership are supposed to interact with one another.
These documents were distributed across social media and e-mail communication while paper
copies of several important manuals including the organization’s Carver Model Manual were
made available during an international conference that TGP hosted in January 2018.
The findings were not able to validate five of the organizational influences of this study.
The most interesting finding is that the organization does not value a board that monitors KPIs
and acts to resolve issues that impede optimal performance. Even though the current board is
confident in their ability to act in the face of negative KPIs, the document analysis did not show
any indication that prior iterations of the board had the same confidence level or that the
organization placed any value on the ability to change course when KPIs showed troubling
trends. Perhaps related to this influence not being validated were the additional influences that
could not be validated, specifically that the organization values board training, that it has a
method of measuring its progress, and that it conducts regular self-assessment. That these three
influences could not be validated shows that TGP is not comfortable with self-reflection, has
never experienced a positive self-reflection or organizational assessment, or simply does not
know that self-reflection and assessment are characteristics of an effective board.
The final assumed organizational influence that could not be validated was that the
organization had a clear and clearly communicated mission. According to the literature reviewed
in Chapter 2, TGP should have a clearly defined mission and it should be easy for the board
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 116
members to communicate that mission to stakeholders in their role as ambassadors for TGP. The
organization’s mission consists of less than ten words and thus would reasonably be considered
easy to both remember and communicate. However, only one of the interviewees could recall
the mission statement and none of the documents show any substantive conversation around the
mission statement and the board’s actions or the organization’s results. These findings indicate
that the board needs training on how to improve their ability to recall the organization’s mission
statement as well as their ability to clearly communicate that mission to other stakeholders.
Conclusion
The interviews and document analysis validated several important KMO influences that
work to both facilitate and impede TGP’s board of directors from engaging in best practices for
board governance 100% of the time. Further, the findings from the document analysis showed
that the organization has not, historically, placed a high value on training incoming board
members to be prepared for their leadership roles or for acting to change course if necessary.
Chapter 5 provides a set of recommendations for addressing these findings by building on the
validated influences and working to bridge the KMO performance gaps that were discovered by
the influences that could not be validated.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 117
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
In Chapter 4, the assumed influences were divided into KMO categories and validated or
invalidated based on the responses received from one-on-one interviews and an extensive
document analysis. This chapter follows a similar format by dividing the influences into these
categories and providing evidence-based recommendations to bridge the performance gaps that
were validated by the KMO influences reported in Chapter 4. More specifically, Chapter 5
attempts to answer this study’s second research question, “What are the proposed solutions to the
board of directors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs?” This chapter also
includes an evaluation plan to assess whether the recommended solutions are effective.
Recommendations for Addressing Validated KMO Influences
Knowledge Component Overview
There are four types of knowledge that are further divided into the three categorizations
used in this study. Those categorizations are declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). These categories are defined as follows:
1. Declarative knowledge – The factual and conceptual understanding of specific
content and the more complex knowledge of how things work together (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
2. Procedural knowledge – Understanding how to best complete a task or how to engage
in a process to achieve an end (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
3. Metacognitive knowledge – This is knowledge that an individual or a group has about
its own level of understanding regarding various processes and tasks (Clark & Estes,
2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 118
This research used these defined knowledge categories to assess whether certain knowledge
influences were present (validated) or missing (not validated) from TGP’s board of directors.
Validating the presence of certain knowledge influences and invalidating other influences is
important because it helped to craft the type of training and evaluation programs that are
recommended below to improve the board’s skill sets and improve the board’s effectiveness.
Knowledge Influences
The interviews and document analysis revealed the presence of several knowledge
influences that shape the board of directors’ understanding of their role and function within the
organization. According to Clark and Estes (2008), without declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge, it is difficult to achieve goal attainment because individuals or groups
may engage in inappropriate actions. For this study, it was important to understand which
influences exist on the board of directors so the processes impacting those influences could be
refined, improved, and made ready to train the organization’s next board of directors.
Table 10 shows the validated knowledge influences impacting TGP’s board as well as
context-specific recommendations for improving and refining these knowledge influences. Clark
and Estes (2008) reported that stakeholders need to improve their knowledge when they are
either unsure how to accomplish a goal or when they are anticipating future problems that will
need to be solved in a unique manner. Related, Rueda (2011) suggested that to understand a
stakeholder’s knowledge issues a researcher must ask what they need to know to achieve their
performance expectations and goals. For TGP, understanding performance expectations and
goals is a recurring need for both the board of directors and the organization’s executive
leadership that the recommendations below address through training and other instructional
methods.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 119
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
Yes or
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members need
to know the function
of the board, and
their roles and
limitations vis a vis
those of the
executive director.
(Declarative)
Y
Understanding the
function of the board of
directors in comparison
to that of the executive
director helps board
members form their
expectations for
executive leadership
(Anderson et al., 2001;
Brown & Guo, 2010;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Kenagay et al., 2013;
Rueda, 2011; Young,
2011).
Create a training process for
new board members so they
are provided the basic
relationship information
between the board and
executive leadership. Update
and streamline TGP’s Board
of Directors Conduct Manual
and TGP’s Carver Model
Manual to remove extraneous
commentary and repetitive
statements about performance
expectations that board
members may find confusing
and that are irrelevant to board
functions. Refine those areas
of the manuals that clearly
define the performance
expectations for both the
board of directors and
executive leadership.

Board members need
to know how they
are held accountable
to meet their
fiduciary and
oversight
responsibilities.
(Declarative)
Y
Understanding fiduciary
and oversight
requirements are within
the context of the
organization’s
expectations and the
local, state, and federal
government regulations
helps board members
know the basis for their
performance
expectations (Anderson
et al., 2001; Brown &
Guo, 2010; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Dent, 2014;
Ensure that an on-
boarding/orientation process
provides for basic education
on fiduciary and oversight
responsibilities within the
context of the nonprofit
sector. Include a section in
the Board of Directors
Conduct Manual that acts as a
job aid by covering sector-
wide best practices and
industry-wide best practices
for board performance as well
as minimum expectations
according to the local, state,
and federal jurisdictions that
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 120
Kenagay et al., 2013;
Rueda, 2011).
have authority over the
organization.

Board members need
to know what best
practices are for
board effectiveness.
(Declarative)
Y
Knowing what best
practices are for board
effectiveness helps board
members direct their
activities and thoughts
towards the most
efficient models of
performance (Anderson
et al., 2001; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Maguire,
2014; Maguire, 2016;
Rueda, 2011; Viader &
Espina, 2014).

Include a module in the on-
boarding/orientation process
that describes best practices
throughout the nonprofit
sector. The module should
include examples of boards
that adhered to best practices
and those that rejected best
practices for weaker methods.
If possible, examples should
come from TGP’s history so
they are instantly relatable to
the new board members.
Board members need
to know what data
and other
organizational
metrics they should
be reviewing, and
the cadence with
which that data
should be reviewed.
(Declarative)
Y
Knowing how executive
leadership uses data to
report on KPIs
empowers the board to
make well-informed,
strategic decisions
regarding the
organization’s needs
(Anderson et al., 2001;
Chait & Taylor, 1989;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001;
Kenagay et al., 2013;
Rueda, 2011; Taylor et
al., 1996).

Improve the existing monthly
dashboard that is distributed
to the board. The improved
dashboard should show
organizational progress in
achieving KPIs that are
relevant to the board’s vision
for the organization. The
dashboard should be
accompanied by a document
that acts as a job aid providing
the methodology behind
defining the KPIs.
Board members need
to know how to
engage new
volunteers and
empower
experienced
volunteers to carry
out the board’s
vision. (Procedural)

Y
Understanding how to
engage both new and
experienced volunteers
provides the board with
direct access to the local
opinion leaders in the
organization which helps
them implement their
vision (Anderson et al.,
2001; Carver, 1990;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011).
During the on-
boarding/orientation process,
new board members should be
trained on how interactions
with volunteers can help
promote their vision for the
organization. Specific
strategies to engage newer
volunteers should be
compared and contrasted with
strategies used to engage the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 121
organization’s more
experienced volunteers.

Board members need
to continuously
assess their
knowledge and skills
gaps and select
appropriate
strategies to address
those gaps.
(Metacognitive)

Y
Periodically reviewing
their existing knowledge
and skills will help
determine if there are
any gaps that need to be
addressed through
further training
(Anderson et al., 2001;
BoardSource, 2015;
Bradshaw et al., 2007;
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Maguire, 2014; Maguire,
2016; Rueda, 2011).
Build an internal assessment
survey that each board
member completes on
biannual basis. The survey
should be administered by the
executive director with the
resulting data distributed to
the board during one of their
monthly conference calls.

Declarative knowledge. There were four declarative knowledge influences validated by
this study. They were:
1. Board members need to know the function of the board, and their roles and
limitations vis a vis those of the executive director.
2. Board members need to know how they are held accountable to meet their fiduciary
and oversight responsibilities.
3. Board members need to know what best practices are for board effectiveness.
4. Board members need to know what data and other organizational metrics they should
be reviewing, and the cadence with which that data should be reviewed.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that knowledge gaps may be assessed, in part, by determining
whether an individual or group knows how a different individual or group achieves their
performance goals. This finding suggests that misunderstandings between the board and
executive leadership regarding their roles and functions may hinder an organization’s ability to
be successful. The recommendations to address this potential dysfunction between board
members and executive leadership include creating an on-boarding/orientation program for new
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 122
board members and refining existing policy and conduct manuals to clearly define the roles and
functions of both the board and the executive director.
Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on training programs and
determined that they were an effective method of transferring knowledge between
stakeholders. Further, the meta-analysis provided significant evidence of the benefits of training
programs for both individuals and groups while also showing that there are a series of best
practices in the field to ensure the efficacy of the program used (Aguinis & Kraiger,
2009). Utilizing an on-boarding/orientation program for new board members would be an
excellent way to ameliorate concerns that individuals bring with them to board service. For
example, Kenagay et al. (2013) found that board members can disengage from their roles if they
are denied strategic information such as the roles of the executive leadership. Further, Brown
and Guo (2010) found that board members and executive leadership often have differing
opinions on each other’s role priorities. As such, TGP’s board members and executive
leadership may benefit from specific training either after they are elected (board members) or
after they are hired (executive leadership) regarding each other’s roles, functions, and
performance expectations. To provide on-going guidance, a related recommendation is to update
and streamline the existing Board of Directors Conduct Manual and Carver Model Manual to
help provide on-going knowledge of the board’s roles and functions.
The validated declarative knowledge influences included that board members need to
know what data and other organizational metrics they should be reviewing, and the cadence with
which that data should be reviewed. Validating this influence suggested that creating a standard
monthly dashboard to present board members with critical data points may help them to better
understand the organization’s progress in achieving KPIs. The creation and distribution of a
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 123
dashboard may be a useful way to support, encourage, and cultivate declarative knowledge in
TGP’s board of directors. Bumblauskas, Nold, and Bumblauskas (2015) found that using
dashboards was an effective way to transfer data to key decision-makers, but that the data
transferred needed to be timely, relevant, and composed of real information. These findings
echo Allio (2012) who noted that while dashboards are increasingly used by corporations and
nonprofits to track data, for this job aid to be effective the dashboard must track data that is
integral to the strategy that the organization wants to achieve.
For TGP, the board of directors can often be overwhelmed by incoming data that is
irrelevant to the organization achieving its mission. Chait and Taylor (1989) found that it is
common for board members to be inundated with information and data that is irrelevant to their
roles and responsibilities while Greenleaf (1974/2009) further accentuated this point by noting
that boards of directors are a deliberative body and thus the board needs to be informed with
relevant data to save their limited time and to facilitate conversations around strategic
topics. This inundation can skew the otherwise positive cultural model that board members have
of how TGP’s executive leadership operates (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). As such, it would
be beneficial for the board members to understand the process by which raw data is received by
the executive leadership and refined into metrics that report on KPIs of organizational health and
overall performance. Refining the organization’s existing monthly dashboard could help board
members stay abreast of the organization’s progress and facilitate a healthy interaction between
board members and all staff members on topics that are directly related to the organization’s
success. However, the monthly dashboard will need to be directly linked to TGP’s strategic
goals. As Allio (2012) noted, many dashboards suffer from poor linkages with the
organization’s actual strategic goals. To address this concern, it is recommended that
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 124
Bumblauskas et al.’s (2015) approach to displaying data be used by creating a cascading display
with the higher-level KPIs leading to a review of the lower-level indicators beneath them.
Procedural knowledge. There was one procedural knowledge influence validated by
this study. The validated influence was: board members need to know how to engage new
volunteers and empower experienced volunteers to carry out the board’s vision. Anderson et al.
(2001) found that knowing how a task was completed helped to determine an individual’s
procedural knowledge while Clark and Estes (2008) reported that goal achievement is hindered
by a lack of procedural knowledge. TGP should design a training module specific to alumni
volunteer engagement to be presented during its on-boarding/orientation process for new board
members. This module should focus on how properly engaging volunteers by informing them of
our tasks are accomplished for the organization leads to achieving the board’s vision for the
fraternity.
Metacognitive knowledge. There was one metacognitive knowledge influence validated
by this study. The validated influence was: board members need to continuously assess their
knowledge and skills gaps and select appropriate strategies to address those gaps. Individuals
and groups should be aware that they have internal biases that may prevent them from
adequately assessing their performance (Krathwohl, 2002). To address this validated influence
while being cognizant of any internal biases that exist among the board members, TGP should
build an internal assessment survey that each board member completes on biannual basis. The
survey should be administered by the executive director with all resulting data anonymized and
distributed to the board for discussion during one of their monthly conference calls. The results
of these conversations should be tracked to determine whether or not there are changes made by
the board based on the survey data collected.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 125
Motivation Component Overview
Motivation is a group or individual’s willingness to work towards achieving a goal, the
drive to keep moving towards that goal once the work has started, and the level of effort that the
group or individual exerts in trying to accomplish that goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and
Estes (2008) reported that motivation is divided into three different types: active choice
(deciding whether to engage in a task), persistence (deciding whether to remain engaged in
pursuing a task), and mental effort (the energy used by a group or individual to pursue a task
through to completion). This study reviewed five different motivation influences on TGP’s
board of directors that are derived from these three motivation types. These influences fell into
the following categories: goal orientation, self-efficacy, and efficacy.
Table 11 shows the validated motivation influences on TGP’s board of directors. Table
11 also shows the context-specific recommendations for addressing those motivation
influences. For a nonprofit organization, a board of directors needs to exert mental effort to
focus on achieving its goals and priorities. TGP's board of directors are tasked with making
active choices for the organization’s health and, recently, have had to persist through changing
executive leadership to ensure stability for the organization.
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence

Validated
Yes or
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members need
to feel confident in
their ability to create
and implement the
policies needed to
sustain the
Y
Board members feel
empowered to implement
changes when they believe
they are working in the
organization’s best interest
(Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016;
Create training activities
that model how board
members can actively
suggest and generate
positive changes for the
organization.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 126
organization. (Self-
efficacy)
Chait & Taylor, 1989;
Greller, 2015; Pajares,
2006; Pintrich, 2003;
Taylor et al., 1996).

Board members need
to feel confident in the
abilities of their fellow
board members and
the executive
leadership’s ability to
meet the
organization’s goals.
(Efficacy)
Y
Individuals that believe in
the ability of their fellow
board members are better
motivated to focus on
achieving the
organization’s goals
(Bowen, 1994; Connelly,
2004; Pajares, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Develop team building
activities that model how
individual board members
and executive leadership
can use their expertise to
solve organizational
problems.

Self-Efficacy. There was one self-efficacy motivation influence validated by this study.
The validated influence was that board members need to feel confident in their ability to create
and implement the policies needed to sustain the organization. Chait and Taylor (1989) found
that board members feel empowered when they receive information that is relevant to their
authoritative position and helps to position them to make good decisions for the
organization. Further, Bruni-Bossio, Story, and Garcea (2016) found that board members are
motivated by the roles that they play in helping an organization improve its overall
performance. These findings suggested that board members will be motivated when they are
engaged in activities that model how they can actively generate positive changes for the
organization (Pintrich, 2003). This strategy may take the form of reviewing other successful
nonprofit and fraternity boards to determine which approaches to board-level work are the most
efficient in producing the best organizational outcomes.
Clark and Estes (2006) noted that individuals are often motivated by an active choice that
they make to achieve a goal, even if they did not create the goal on their own. In the nonprofit
sector, board members should be acting in the best interests of the stakeholders that they intend
to serve, though there is little in the way to hold the board accountable for acting in such a
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 127
manner (Greller, 2015). To begin moving board member actions toward achieving outcomes
that are in the best interests of their organization’s stakeholders, it is imperative that TGP’s board
is trained to understand which behaviors generate such outcomes. Far from a purely utilitarian
approach to corporate governance, providing scaffolded support during the training process to
ensure that board members are aware of their responsibilities and how achieving them positively
impacts the organization would be an ideal method of further inspiring board members’ intrinsic
motivations to serve (Pajares, 2006).
Efficacy. There was one efficacy motivation influence validated by this study. The
validated influence was that board members need to feel confident in the abilities of their fellow
board members and the executive leadership’s ability to meet the organization’s goals.
Individuals join nonprofit boards for many reasons ranging from a deep commitment to the
organization’s core values to being committed to achieving the organization’s goals (Bowen,
1994; Taylor et al., 1996). Clark and Estes (2008) noted that mental effort was a critical element
in individuals being motivated to achieve certain goal-related outcomes. For TGP’s board of
directors, being motivated by the fraternity’s overall mission and vision is a key element of board
service. As Bowen (1994) reported, some individuals are not motivated to serve on a board for
altruistic purposes and may, instead, be looking for a means of elevating their perceived status in
the organization or in the larger philanthropic community. In these situations, the individuals are
also more likely to abdicate their core responsibilities in strategic decision-making for the
organization and reject being held accountable for the organization achieving its outcomes
through actively monitoring KPIs (Bowen, 1994). To counteract such individuals from being
elected to serve on TGP’s board, the organization must ensure that its voting delegates are aware
of what motivates a prospective board member to run for election. Board members should be
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 128
motivated by issues critical to the success of the organization, analyzing data and meeting
specific timelines, monitoring clearly defined KPIs, and being engaged with all constituencies
(Taylor et al., 1996).
Organization Component Overview
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the lack of efficient work processes and effective
material resources is a leading cause of why organizational and stakeholder goals are not
achieved. These processes and resources are part of an organization’s overall cultural model,
which is based on a shared mental schema of how the world ought to operate (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). This is not to be confused with Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001)
construct around cultural settings, which include all the physical environments and interactions
between individuals in which organizational performance occurs. For an organization to
successfully meet its mission and achieve its goals, its leadership must ensure that cultural
settings reflect cultural models and that processes are designed to reinforce those beliefs. Table
12 shows the context-specific recommendations on how to addresses these organizational
influences in practice.
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence

Validated
Yes or
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
holds board members
accountable for not
using best practices
consistently. (Cultural
models)
Y
Board members will
strive to implement and
promote best practices
when the organization
holds them accountable
for not doing so
(Arshad, Bakar, Thani,
& Omar, 2013; Bowen,
Include a module during on-
boarding/orientation on how
board members are held
accountable for their
governance actions; be sure
that the organization’s
governing document include
sufficient language to connect
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 129
1994; Clark & Estes,
2008; Hale, 2013;
Kenagay et al., 2013;
Maguire, 2014).

board actions to
accountability.
The organization has
clearly defined and
communicated roles
and expectations for
board members.
(Cultural models)
Y
Organizational
leadership acts more
efficiently and
performance improves
when board members
know their role,
expectations, and
limitations (Carver,
1990; Dent, 2014;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Grossmeier, 2007).

Review governing documents
and internal policy manuals to
ensure that they clearly
delineate board member roles
and expectations as well as
any limitations on their
authority.
The organization
ensures that the
general membership
is familiar with the
organization’s
corporate governance
model, the scope of
the board of directors’
power, and the
limitations of
executive authority.
(Cultural settings)

Y
When the organization’s
key stakeholders better
understand the entity’s
governance structure
and power structures,
then the executive
leadership can better
focus on meeting
performance goals and
the board is better able
to focus on setting
strategy (Carver, 1990;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Kenagay et al., 2013;
Nobbie & Brudney,
2003).

Develop educational
programming to be delivered
by both the executive office
staff as well as local and
regional volunteers that
explains the Carver model,
which powers rest with the
board of directors, which
powers rest with the executive
director, and how power is
limited between the two
groups.
The organization
provides ample
communication
channels for all
members to both
inform and be
informed on progress
related to KPIs.
(Cultural settings)
Y
An organization’s
stakeholders feel
empowered by
informing leadership on
KPIs and being
informed about progress
in meeting
organizational goals
(BoardSource, 2015;
Bruni-Bossio et al.,
2016; Carver, 1990;
Greenleaf, 1974/2009;
Create a series of regular
check-in points that focus on
member feedback. These
check-in points should
include time set aside at
regularly scheduled
international conferences as
well as both paper and
electronic surveys so that the
greatest number of members
can be reached. These
communication channels
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 130
Hale, 2013; Young,
2011).
should also be used to report
to the membership on
progress in achieving
organizational goals through
KPI updates.

Cultural models. There were two cultural model influences validated by the research.
These two influences were:
1. The organization holds board members accountable for not using best practices
consistently.
2. The organization has clearly defined and communicated roles and expectations for
board members.
Board orientation should focus on best practices for board performance as well as their
relationship to the organization’s overall outcomes and sustainability (Bruno-Bossi et al.,
2016). These findings suggest that board members need to be educated on the crucial role that
they play in developing the cultural model for the organization. The board should be provided
training on developing the cultural model, but this training may be best delivered by a third-party
trainer/consultant. If a third-party trainer/consultant is engaged to train the board, the executive
leadership and their staff members should be involved in informing the structure and content of
the training materials (Clark & Estes, 2008). Incorporating the staff into designing the training
materials ensures that they have ownership over the outcomes generated from the board training
and will help better align the staff’s actions to the organization’s goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) recommended that organizations have a clear, easy-to-understand
vision and goals to effectively measure progress. Incorporating this level of clarity into the roles
and expectations for board members helps to provide buy-in from the incoming board members
and to reinforce affinity towards the nonprofit from existing board members. Kenagay et al.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 131
(2013) found that to meet the demands of contemporary accountability standards, boards must
train their incoming members, set specific duties for both board committees and board members,
and evaluate the board’s oversight performance. Further, in a study of 1,900 nonprofit hospitals
responding to a survey that was administered once and then again four years later, Alexander and
Weiner (1998) found that the overall success of a corporate governance model was dependent on
the presence of a supportive value context (e.g. institutional buy-in) and resources available to
support the structure. These findings suggest that TGP’s on-boarding/orientation program
should provide clarity to incoming board members on their roles and expectations to strengthen
and reinforce the organization’s governance and that resources should be made available to
ensure the best training materials possible for board orientation.
Block (2014) found that poor relationships can develop when the roles and
responsibilities of executive directors and boards of directors are unclear. In addition, Carver
(1990) reported that strong nonprofit governance models should make clear the role played by
the board in addressing common topics. Supporting these findings are Chait and Taylor (1989)
who found that it is common for boards to be inundated with information that is irrelevant to
their role in setting policies and providing strategy for an organization. This research leads to the
unfortunate finding from Dent (2014) that most nonprofit board members are not certain of the
expectations of their positions nor do they have clarity about their roles in their nonprofit. These
combined findings suggest that nonprofits operate more efficiently and that performance
improves when the organization values board members understanding their role in the
organization and being instructed on their performance expectations and power
limitations. Clark and Estes (2008) reported that faulty training processes result in barriers to
achieving organizational performance goals even for those individuals who are highly motivated
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 132
and present outstanding skills and knowledge for their positions. To defend against these
barriers forming, TGP should conduct a comprehensive review of its governing documents and
internal policy manuals. The purpose of such a review would be to ensure that the materials
clearly delineate board member roles and expectations as well as any limitations on their
authority.
Cultural settings. There were two cultural setting influences validated by the research.
These two influences were:
1. The organization ensures that the general membership is familiar with the
organization’s corporate governance model, the scope of the board of directors’
power, and the limitations of executive authority.
2. The organization provides ample communication channels for all members to both
inform and be informed on progress related to KPIs.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) reported that cultural settings are those familiar interactions
between two or more individuals, over a period, to accomplish a goal. For TGP, addressing the
first validated cultural setting influence requires that they construct interactions with their larger
membership that lead to the membership knowing what the Carver model is and how it works as
well as how the model devolves authority to the executive director and then limits the use of that
authority in specific ways. Strategies for training the board on these cultural settings are
included in the training program above and stated in Table 12.
Structural and Self-Monitoring Solutions
In addition to the solutions noted above and the board orientation recommendations that
follows in the next section, there are several other structural and self-monitoring solutions that
may be useful for TGP.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 133
Structural Solutions
TGP’s current governing documents stipulate that elections for the board of directors are
to take place once every other year at the organization’s biennial conference. An organizational-
level solution to bridge the gaps that were uncovered in this research is to stagger the elections so
that the entire board is not up for election during every single biennial conference. Staggering
elections would allow for the board to retain institutional knowledge between elections. This
solution should be paired with service terms that are longer the current two-year terms that are
noted in TGP’s governing documents. Moving from a two-year term to a four-year term would
allow for elections to continue at the biennial conference, but for only a portion of the board to
be up for election during any single conference. Also, allowing for board members to serve
longer terms would help address the inherent apprehension that most board members have
immediately after they are elected. Other approaches may include providing for a variety of
board terms from certain positions holding two-year terms, others four-year terms, others six-
year terms, and so on. Additionally, TGP should discuss if there is an interest in limiting the
number of years of continuous service for any individual board member.
Self-Monitoring Solutions
Recently, TGP added a Governance Officer and a Deputy Governance Officer as
unelected, volunteer positions. The purpose of these positions is two-fold. First, they provide a
check on the board’s authority when it makes decisions. If the board makes a decision that it is
not empowered to make under the organization’s governing documents, then the Governance
Officer may provide an opinion as to why the action was out of bounds; the Governance Officer
is not empowered to reverse any decisions made by the board. Second, these positions also act
as a confirmation of the board to make certain decisions if/when those decisions are deemed
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 134
controversial by the membership. For example, if the board decides to make a concession
regarding exchange rates for those chapters that are not located in the United States, but the
organizational membership living in the United States disagrees with the decision, then the
Governance Officer can provide an opinion that either supports or refutes the board’s action.
To heighten the board’s position in making decisions that are in demand by the
membership, TGP should consider the creation of an advisory council. The advisory council
could provide representatives from a wide number of stakeholders including alumni volunteers,
undergraduate members, student affairs administrators, business and career advisors, and parents.
In addition, diversifying the membership of the advisory council may help the board receive
feedback that it is structurally unable to receive. For example, as TGP is a single-sex
organization, it does not provide for females in its membership. However, the advisory council
would be an ideal place for female feedback to come into the organization and help calibrate the
board’s position when it needs to make an important decision.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to create
the implementation and evaluation plans below. This framework is based on Kirkpatrick’s
original Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The New World
Kirkpatrick Model is an update to the original model that clarified common misconceptions
about the original model, updated frameworks for the contemporary workplace, and added new
teachings from Dr. Kirkpatrick, Sr. (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Under the updated
model, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend that evaluation plans be drafted by
starting with an organization’s end goals and working backward. By engaging in this method of
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 135
evaluation planning, an organization will create easy-to-identify leading indicators that bridge
end goals with recommended solutions to achieve those goals. Working in reverse also allows
an organization to focus on developing solutions that assess work behaviors, identify indicators
that learning were achieved during the plan’s implementation, and observe those indicators that
show individuals are satisfied with the implementation plan. By generating organizational buy-
in when designing the implementation and evaluation plans, stronger connections between the
organizational goals and the solutions to achieve those goals are created ensuring a higher level
of success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
TGP’s mission is to help its members progress towards lives of excellence
19
. It pursues
this mission to help individuals achieve academic excellence, promote personal growth, expand
civic awareness, and work in service toward all humankind. In prior years, TGP’s board of
directors was accused of being slow to act when KPIs indicated negative and potentially
organizationally-threatening trends. As a result, the fraternity suffered both financial losses and
loss of standing among its international peers. This study examined the KMO influences that
facilitated or impeded TGP’s board of directors from engaging in best practices for board
governance 100% of the time. The proposed solution is to create various training programs and
reporting structures so that the board is fully informed when making their decisions. The board
will achieve this solution by ensuring that every member of the fraternity’s board of directors
will engage in best practices for board governance 100% of the time which will, ideally, achieve
the organizational goal of ensuring that 100% of operations are focused on implementing

19
The organization’s actual mission statement is being paraphrased to maintain anonymity.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 136
policies and practices that sustain the organization by contributing to the overall goals of
increasing membership and revenue.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 13 shows the outcomes, metrics, and methods for both internal and external
outcomes that are proposed as Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators within the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). If the methods in Table 13 are conducted,
then the metrics should show whether TGP’s board of directors is achieving or not achieving its
intended outcomes.
Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase the
transparency of
decisions behind board
actions.
The speed and distribution of
board meeting minutes to the
membership.
Widely distribute minutes from
board meetings across several
communication channels including
official, but private, social media
pages, the fraternity’s custom
member-only website, and personal
e-mail distributions.

2. Regularly report to
stakeholders on the
fraternity’s progress in
achieving its goals.
2a. The number of events that
are attended by board
members where they address
members of the fraternity and
answer member questions.

2a. Track board member travel to
fraternity events, conferences,
chapter visits, and other potential
speaking engagements.

2b. The frequency of
publications distributed to the
membership reporting on key
performance indicators
regarding the fraternity
meeting its mission and
achieving its goals.

2b. Provide a monthly e-newsletter
customized for key stakeholders
and ensure that it is also archived in
the members-only website for
future members to review.

2c. The frequency and depth
of social media updates to
2c. Track frequency and breadth of
social media updates and compare
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 137
connect with undergraduate
members, younger alumni,
and tech savvy older alumni.

to performance under prior boards
of directors.
2d. The frequency of
reporting to the membership
regarding certain areas of
concern or priority topics.
2d. Include standing agenda items
and report on the progress or
impediments related to these items
during each board meeting.
Consider appointing certain board
members as point people for the
areas of concern or priority topics.

3. Stronger financial
outcomes for the
fraternity and its
undergraduate
members.
3a. Operate within the
fraternity’s approved budget.
3a. Monitor the organizational
profit and loss statement monthly
and hold Executive Director
accountable to achieve this metric.

3b. Achieve positive financial
results without raising
undergraduate fees.

3b. Check-in at the organization’s
biennial conference to confirm that
undergraduate fees have not been
raised to balance the budget.

3c. Grow the fraternity’s
reserve account.
3c. Informal biannual check-ins to
ensure that the reserve account is
growing; formal annual reports to
show that the reserve account
achieved the board’s targeted
growth figure.

3d. Address any audit
findings.
3d. Empower the audit committee
to work with the executive director
to address any audit findings.
Conduct quarterly check-ins with
the audit committee to track
progress.

Internal Outcomes
4. Implement regular
checkups on board
action compliance
within the revised
corporate governance
structure.
The number of times that a
board decision was made
within or outside of the
bounds of the revised
corporate governance
structure.

Appoint a governance officer to
review the decisions soon after they
are made and report to the board
monthly regarding any concerns.
5. Increase speed and
efficiency of board
The board taking unanimous,
decisive action in the face of
Conduct focus groups to assess
member satisfaction with board
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 138
acting when presented
with overwhelming
evidence.

deteriorating conditions that
threaten the viability of the
organization’s existence.
actions when these threats present
themselves.
6. Improve board
member satisfaction
6a. Conduct a biannual survey
of the board to assess their
level of satisfaction.

6a. Compare biannual survey
results.

6b. Generate feedback
(positive or negative) from the
membership via online
surveys, telephone focus
groups, and other methods of
communication
6b. Compare the results of each
feedback method on a regular basis.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The primary stakeholders in this study are TGP’s board of
directors. The first critical behavior that the board must engage in is more effectively using their
monthly meeting minutes to tell the story of the organization’s progress. The monthly board
minutes are widely read and may serve as the ideal platform to inform the fraternity’s
stakeholders about why decisions were made regarding important topics. The second critical
behavior is that the board chairman must communicate with each member of the board on a
quarterly basis to assess their satisfaction. These talks will also provide an opportunity for the
chairman to identify any new or growing concerns among the board members. Table 14 includes
details regarding the specific metrics, methods, and timing for these critical behaviors.
Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Board Members
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Use the board’s
monthly meeting
minutes to explain board
decisions, actions, or
inactions and include
any supporting reports
The volume of
information
contained in
minutes as
compared to
minutes taken by
1a. The board
secretary will be
trained on how to take
high quality minutes.
1a. Training to take
place within the
first week of board
elections.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 139
as attachments to the
minutes.
prior boards of
directors.

1b. Board minutes will
be widely circulated
so that all stakeholders
can review the
direction the
organization is
moving in.

1b. The board
secretary will
circulate approved
minutes within 10
business days of
board meetings -
monthly.
2. Conduct regular
assessments regarding
board satisfaction
The overall
satisfaction rating
of individual board
members and the
board as a unit.
The board chairman
will communicate
with each board
member to assess their
satisfaction with
serving on the board.
Discussions will
take place not less
than once per
quarter.

Required drivers. TGP’s board of directors must meet the expectations of stakeholders
that are not included in their primary stakeholder group. To meet these expectations, certain
drivers will be implemented to reinforce defined activities, encourage specific actions, reward
positive outcomes, and monitor overall board performance. Table 15 shows the drivers that are
recommended to support the board’s critical behaviors.
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Board Members’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

The executive director provides a job aid to the incoming
board secretary to model how minutes should be prepared for
board meetings.

Biennially 1
The executive director provides the incoming board secretary
with a checklist indicating the scope of which information
should be included in the monthly meeting minutes.

Biennially 1
Encouraging

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 140
The board chairman mentors those board members who are
feeling disconnected or not fully engaged.

Ongoing 2
The board chairman provides coaching to board members who
are unsure of their role in the organization’s leadership.

Ongoing 2
Rewarding

Performance incentive for board secretary for proper
preparation and distribution of minutes.

Semi-
annually
1
Public acknowledgement for board secretary, such as
congratulations and thanks at semi-annual conferences, for
meeting the expectations of board minutes.

Semi-
annually
1

Monitoring

Board chairman will communicate with board members to
make sure that they are satisfied with their board service.
Quarterly 2
Board chairman will communicate with board members to find
out areas of concern or issues that might be negatively
impacting their service.
Quarterly 2

Organizational support. To ensure that TGP’s board of directors meets the
expectations of the organization’s stakeholders, board members will need to implement the
drivers noted in Table 15 above. This study recommends that the fraternity ensure that future
incoming boards are well-trained to meet these performance expectations and that, especially,
newly elected incoming board secretaries are instructed on how to prepare minutes that tell the
story behind the board’s decision-making. Further, to ensure board member satisfaction it is
recommended that the board chairman make it a point to regularly communicate with board
members outside of the formal meeting environment. These opportunities to communicate
should indicate to the board chairman whether the members of the board are satisfied in their
roles and what, if any, pending issues are ahead for the organization’s leadership as observed by
the board members.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 141
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The recommended solutions above are designed with the intent to
improve the job performance of TGP’s board of directors while also improving organizational
results. If implemented correctly, Level 2 learning should allow for the board to acquire the
critical skills, knowledge, confidence, attitude, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) needed to improve the fraternity’s outcomes. After TGP’s board of directors implements
the recommended solutions they will be well-positioned to:
1. Demonstrate the transparency efforts that are used to satisfy their stakeholders’
requests,
2. Distribute reports to their stakeholders detailing the progress that the fraternity is
making in achieving its goals,
3. Present evidence of the fraternity’s financial strength while connecting this strength
to their individual and group efforts,
4. Conduct periodic surveys reporting on board satisfaction,
5. Describe the board’s action plan that will be implemented in cases where
overwhelming evidence is presented, and
6. Interview board members to determine areas where processes can be improved.
Program. To achieve the goals in the previous section, the following training program
should be implemented by TGP’s board of directors. This program provides a cross-section of
organizational and individual improvement tools ranging from more transparent operations to
more efficient oversight of the fraternity’s daily activities to a more strategic role in leading the
organization. Providing this type of training program is in line with best practices in the
nonprofit sector where board of directors should seek out a coach to help them better understand
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 142
their role in the organization (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). While the trainees will be TGP’s board of
directors, it is not necessary that the facilitator of the training program be a member of the
organization. A non-member consultant specializing in board development and group dynamics
could be an ideal person to serve as the instructor for this training program. Internally, a staff
member with long-term experience and widespread respect among the organization may also be
an effective lead instructor, but could also be helpful as an assistant to an outside consultant.
The training program to be implemented covers an 8-hour period (480 minutes).
During the training session, the board members will be situated at the organization’s
international headquarters as it provides high quality training facilities and modern technological
capabilities at zero cost to the organization. In addition, with the staff on-site, but most of them
not directly involved in the training session itself, hosting the training session at the international
headquarters allows for the board to receive the timeliest data available and near-immediate
answers to any questions that they have regarding the board-staff relationship. A final benefit of
utilizing the international headquarters is the ability for the board to immediately begin working
to implement certain outcomes expected from the training program. For example, the board
members can sit in the organization’s boardroom and work to organize their first meeting agenda
as well as a template for the future.
Components of learning. To apply the knowledge necessary to solve organizational
problems, a learner should be able to first demonstrate their declarative knowledge of the
problem and then demonstrate their procedural knowledge. For TGP, this means that the board
of directors should be able to demonstrate their mastery of the declarative knowledge influences
that either have a high probability of being validated or were already validated and then follow
this confirmation by demonstrating their procedural knowledge influences. Given the need for
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 143
this confirmation, it is important to evaluate learning within the context of the declarative and
procedural solutions in which the board is being instructed. Related to this evaluation is the need
for the board to find value in the larger training and assessment exercise including exhibiting
confidence in their ability to apply what they have learned during the training program. To this
end, Table 16 lists both the timing and evaluation methods of these elements of learning.
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Demonstration of meeting structure through role-playing. Immediately after the
completion of the training
module.
Action planning indicating how the board members will
implement the information that they learned during the
training.
Within a two-week period
following the training session.
Knowledge check of the authority provided to the board of
directors through the organization’s governance structure.
During the training session.
Knowledge check of the authority provided to the Executive
Director through the organization’s governance structure.
During the training session.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Development of an efficient agenda indicating which topics
are worthy of larger discussion.
During the training session.
Post-test assessment survey asking board members their
level of knowledge regarding the board’s activities before
and after the training session.
At the end of the training
session.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Observation of board member engagement throughout the
training session relative to the role that board members play
in the organization.
During the training session.
Conversations regarding the value of board members to the
larger organization as well as the efficient day-to-day
operations of the fraternity.
During the training session.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 144
Follow-up survey using depersonalized questions regarding
the board member’s feelings about their role being
worthwhile.
Within six months of the
training session.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Guided conversations regarding the board members’ beliefs
on their ability to perform as expected.
Following instruction on each
module during the training
session.
Conversations related to how board members might carry out
their expected job roles once the training session ends.
During the training session.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Guided conversation related to implementing core functions
of the board covered during the training session.
During the training session.
Creation of a board-level action plan for the first 60, 90, and
180 days of service.
Within two weeks of the
training session.

Level 1: Reaction
Reactions to the Program. To ascertain if board members are fully-engaged in the
training program, a series of efficient methods of assessment will be used both during and after
the program. For example, the instructor will be prepared to observe the board members’
engagement levels as they are being trained on how to be effective in their roles. The instructor
should be extra observant during those conversations that are directly related to the core
functions of a board, specifically as it relates to TGP. Further, the instructor will be sure to
provide frequent check-ins with the board members during the training session as well as follow-
up after the session has concluded with an official satisfaction survey. Table 17 below indicates
several other methods that the instructor will use to assess reactions to the training program.
Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 145
Observation by instructor/facilitator/consultant Ongoing during the training
session.
Attendance During the training session.
Training session evaluation Two weeks after the
training session.
Relevance

Recurring check-ins with board members through discussions,
questions, and answers.
Ongoing during the training
session.
Training session evaluation Two weeks after the
training session.
Customer Satisfaction

Recurring check-ins with board members through discussions,
questions, and answers.
Ongoing during the training
session.
Training session evaluation Immediately after the
training session.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. When the training session ends,
the board members will be asked to complete a short evaluation of the program. Appendix B
shows the full evaluation tool and survey questions that will be asked of the board
members. The questions on the survey include both Level 1 and Level 2 assessments covering
engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction for Level 1 and attitude, confidence, and
procedure for Level 2.
While conducting the training session, the facilitator will make observations regarding
the board members’ engagement in the program. In addition, the facilitator will check for
relevance and customer satisfaction by allowing for recurring check-ins with the board members
through discussions and providing for a question and answer period after each training
module. Finally, recurring pulse check-ins will be conducted during the training session to be
sure that certain concepts and responsibilities are understood by the board members.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 146
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately two weeks
after the completion of the training session, TGP will administer a follow-up survey that utilizes
both open-ended and scaled questions as per the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) Blended
Evaluation approach. Appendix C shows the full evaluation tool and survey questions that will
be asked of the board members. The combination of excitement after being elected to the
fraternity’s board of directors and instruction on the critical knowledge and skills being
discussed during the training session make it important to conduct a quick follow-up to the
program. Additionally, much of the board’s work is layered in that their decisions build on
themselves. This also makes it important to assess the efficacy of the training program soon
after it is completed. The follow-up survey will assess the board members’ perspectives on the
relevance of material presented during the session (Level 1), their ability to apply the
information discussed in their work on the board (Level 2), whether they are working well
together as a team after the session (Level 3), and the early success that have been achieved
because of the training program (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of generating stronger financial outcomes for TGP and its
undergraduate members is measured by reviewing the organization’s financial results. On a
quarterly basis, executive leadership will prepare a report on the metrics listed in Table 13 for
this goal. The recommended approach to presenting the accumulated data is through an updated
version of TGP’s existing dashboard. Utilizing a dashboard provides an effective way to quickly
view specific, critical indicators of success in a manner that drives both performance and reports
on results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Information provided to directors in careful, yet
imaginative, ways will help to make board service a rewarding experience for the type of
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 147
individuals that organizations should be seeking to serve on their boards (Greenleaf, 1974/2009).
The visual representation below shows one method of showing the progress in meeting this
Level 4 leading indicator’s metrics as they are listed in Table 13. Similar dashboard components
with a focus on easy visual consumption will be created to monitor the goals for Levels 1, 2, and
3 as defined in the tables above.
Figure 2. Sample Dashboard Data

Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model was the framework
that provided the blueprint for this paper’s implementation and evaluation plans. The underlying
themes behind the Kirkpatrick Model’s four levels of training (reaction, learning, behavior,
results) have remained constant for several decades, but were also recently updated and
improved in the 2016 version of the model. Designing the evaluation and implementation plan
around this model provides a stronger likelihood that it will stand up to scrutiny, particularly the
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 148
type of emotion-based scrutiny that comes from the membership of a private membership
organization like TGP.
The evaluation and assessment program recommended for TGP may serve as a turning
point for the organization based on two key points. The first and primary point is that the drivers
of the design and structure of this data analysis and evaluation approach are the results of the
research conducted through organizing this dissertation. Creating an evaluation plan that is data-
driven and designed to report on the leading indicators revealed by the data meets the long-held,
but often overlooked expectations of TGP’s stakeholders. Long-time members of the
organization readily report on prior board and executive leadership who designed outcome
reports based on their own, personal views on which indicators were emblematic of
organizational success. The data they collected was narrow and incomplete and only focused on
those indicators that they wanted to share with the fraternity’s stakeholders, and to a limited
number of those stakeholders. By letting the results of this research guide the design of the
analysis and evaluation plan, the recommended actions above provide the type of data-driven
plan that TGP needs to bridge KMO performance gaps.
The second key point that will impact the acceptance of this data and evaluation plan is
that, as noted in previous chapters of the dissertation, the researcher currently serves on the
fraternity’s board of directors. In addition, he has been an award-winning volunteer for the
organization at the local and regional levels for 15 years. Though there is always a risk of his
personal bias informing the data and evaluation plan, this risk was mitigated through the data
analysis process in the dissertation. Further, in terms of the plan being widely accepted, the
researcher’s position on the board and access to the organization’s communication channels
allows for the plan to be disseminated to a broad audience for consumption and consideration
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 149
prior to being implemented. Having an insider analyze the results of the dissertation research
and organize those results into an actionable plan will make the members of this private
organization more comfortable with the plan and its implementation.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was limited in several ways. First, the size of the stakeholder group was small
at just seven individuals, only six of whom were interviewed and had their responses analyzed.
With such a small stakeholder group, there was a risk that the interviewees would provide
responses that they believed were more socially desirable instead of a true and honest
assessment. Second, and as noted above, the researcher brought an insider’s bias to the topic
being studied. Additionally, the research only focused on the perspective of the current board of
directors since they are the primary stakeholder group for the study. This study was limited by
not incorporating the perspectives of more stakeholder groups into its final results.
Just as the size of the stakeholder group was a limitation, the experience and role of the
stakeholder group were delimitations in this study. The members of the stakeholder group are
TGP’s ultimate decision-makers and their opinions are the ones that rule the day for the
organization. In this respect, the stakeholder group represented a purposeful sample of the
decision-makers that were the basis of this study. Further, the study was delimited by focusing
on the stakeholder group’s opinions and beliefs relative to the research questions, which were
narrowed to corporate governance issues only. International organizing groups, trade
associations, and training entities like the North American Interfraternity Conference, the
Association of Fraternity Values and Leadership, the Fraternity Executives Association, and the
Association of Fraternity Advisors will immediately be interested in the findings from this
research as elements of the research may be applicable to many of their member organizations.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 150
Other interested parties will be prior members of TGP’s board of directors and those alumni
volunteers who are engaged in and concerned about the activities of the organization’s
leadership. This study may also add value to the body of literature around nonprofit boards of
directors and their comfort-level – as groups and as individual board members – in performing
functions that are deemed essential for their organizations’ success.
Future Research
The literature reviewed for this study provided a broad review of effective nonprofit
boards of directors. The topics included most desirable skill sets for board members, how boards
can be more effective in their governance, and the optimal relationships between board members
and executive leadership. However, there is limited research on how the Carver model of
governance impacts an organization’s ability to achieve its mission. Also, while there is limited
research on the Carver model’s long-term impact on a nonprofit organization, this research is in
the form of case studies. A broader analysis of the Carver model and its overall effectiveness is
fertile ground for future research. Additionally, more research is needed that is specific to
fraternal organizations and the most effective governance models for these unique private
membership organizations.
Future research should also review the various leadership roles that exist both within a
board of directors and at the executive leadership level of a nonprofit organization. Specifically,
research could focus on the development and implementation of both strategic plans and tactical
plans from the board and staff perspectives. Consequent issues for study would include the
ability to develop these plans based on the board’s leadership style and the executive director’s
management style. Further, reviewing the success or failure of these plans within the context of
the leadership and management styles would provide further understanding as to which elements
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 151
of the organization facilitates or impedes boards from successfully carrying out their roles and
responsibilities.
This study was helped in great measure by the extensive board meeting minutes from the
current board of directors, but hindered by the weak and largely empty minutes from prior
iterations of the board. There are several tutorials available by organizations serving the
nonprofit sector on how to best take minutes for a board meeting, but more research is needed on
the impact of these suggestions and whether extensive minutes are helpful in the long-run or if
they hinder effectiveness. Related to this element of the document analysis is that TGP’s
governing manuals were recently updated and provided excellent data on roles and functions.
More research is needed on the use of these manuals in the nonprofit sector and on best practices
for forming and updating such manuals.
Finally, this study only interviewed one stakeholder group – the fraternity’s current board
of directors. Future research of this type would be advanced by interviewing past members of
the board to determine any KMO influences that formed their understanding of their roles and
functions for TGP and, subsequently, any performance gaps that resulted from those influences.
There would be additional contextual value in conducting research that attempts to understand
the executive director’s perspective on the KMO influences and any performance gaps that may
exist. Further, this type of research would be valuable to TGP and other private membership
organizations as many past board members and board chairmen retain a level of influence over
the next generation of board members. Understanding the influences behind the prior board
members’ motivations would help provide context on why they choose to encourage certain
members of the organization to run for election to the board and discourage others.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 152
Conclusion
The nonprofit sector plays a critical supporting role in a stabilized society. The sector
bridges the gap between what can be reasonable attained in the private market and what is
provided for by the public sector. Organizations like TGP offer support networks for college-
aged students, merit-based scholarships and fellowships for exceptional academic performance,
professional networking opportunities for alumni, and leadership development opportunities for
all members. However, the efficient and sustainable operations of membership organizations
like TGP can be quickly dismantled and destroyed by boards of directors who are not actively
engaged in their oversight and fiduciary responsibilities.
Training boards of directors on their roles and functions and their expectations of
interactions with the organization’s executive leadership is a strong method of ensuring that the
nonprofit is well-positioned for future success. For this study, TGP’s current board of directors
were interviewed and a document analysis was conducted that revealed several influences
forming the board’s individual and group KMO framework. The results of this research will
help TGP develop a long-term training program for implementation in time for its next board of
directors to assume leadership during the summer of 2018. Though the nature of this research
being organization-specific makes it difficult for the outcomes of this study to be generalizable to
the larger nonprofit sector, the researcher discussed some of this study’s findings with leaders in
other fraternal organizations and they were fascinated by the results. Given the similarities in
structure and purpose between all fraternities and sororities, the results of this study may be of
interest to individuals and groups in those organizations.
TGP’s board of directors are recognized as the leaders of the organization through their
election to the board, but they are also identified as role models for the membership to emulate.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 153
This recognition is not sought after by the board members, but rather it comes along with being
elected to the board of directors. For TGP’s board of directors to truly embrace the role model
recognition that is placed on them by their membership, they should work to structure a data-
driven board orientation process that develops the newly elected leaders into a strong, cohesive
board of directors. By doing so, the board will meet the challenge of leadership that is a natural
part of their board service while also living up to the lofty expectations of TGP’s members.

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 154
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Alexander, J. A., & Weiner, B. J. (1998). The adoption of corporate governance models by
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8(3), 223-242.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Allio, M. (2012). Strategic dashboards: designing and deploying them to improve
implementation. Strategy & Leadership, 40(5), 24-31.
Anderman, E. (2006). Goal Orientation Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Arshad, R., Bakar, N. A., Thani, N. Y., & Omar, N. (2013). Board composition and
accountability of non-profit organizations. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(4),
1021-1030.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bernstein, R., Buse, K., & Slatten, L. A. (2015). Nonprofit board performance: Board members’
understanding their roles and responsibilities. American Journal of Management, 15(1),
24-35.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 155
Block, S. R. (2014). Teaching a course on nonprofit boards of directors and executive leadership
using experiential learning theory and simulations. The Journal of Nonprofit Education
and Leadership, 4(1), 24-39.
BoardSource. (2015). Leading with intent: A national index of nonprofit board practices.
Retrieved from http://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Executive-
Summary_Leading-with-Intent.pdf
Bowen, W. G. (1994). When a business leader joins a nonprofit board. Harvard Business
Review, 72(5), 38-44.
Bradshaw, P., Hayday, B., & Armstrong, R. (2007). Nonprofit governance models: Problems and
prospects. Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 12(3), 1–22.
Brown, W. A., & Guo, C. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 536-546.
Brudney, J. L., & Nobbie, P. D. (2002). Training policy governance in nonprofit boards of
directors: The views of trainer-consultants. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4),
387-408.
Bruni-Bossio, V., Story, D. C., Garcea, J. (2016). Board governance in the nonprofit sector:
Role-performance relationships of directors. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector
Innovation Journal, 21(1).
Bumblauskas, D. P., Nold, H. A., & Bumblauskas, P. D. (2015). Data collection, analysis and
tracking in industry. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 17(2), 92-100.
Carver, J. (1990). Boards that make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chait, R. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1989, Jan). Charting the territory of nonprofit boards. Harvard
Business Review, 67, 44.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 156
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors. Boulder, Colorado.
Connelly, M. D. (2004). The sea change in nonprofit governance: A new universe of
opportunities and responsibilities. Inquiry – Excellus Health Plan, 41(1), 6-20.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dent, G. W., Jr. (2014). Corporate governance without shareholders: A cautionary lesson from
non-profit organizations. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39(1), 93-116.
Dikolli, S., Mayew, W. M., & Nanda, D. (2014). CEO tenure and the performance-turnover
relation. Review of Accounting Studies, 19, 281-327. doi:10.1007/s11142-013-9247-6
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding
boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. The Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 489-505.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2009). Trustees as servants. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 157
Greller, M. M. (2015). Leasehold: An institutional framework for understanding nonprofit
governance in a civil society context. Administrative Sciences, 5, 165-176.
doi:10.3390/admsci5030165
Groble, P., & Brudney, J. (2016). Going by the book: Preparing nonprofit leaders for volunteer
risk and liability through nonprofit education programs. Journal of Nonprofit Education
and Leadership, 6(4), 331-349. doi:https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2016-V6-I4-6833
Grossmeier, J. C. (2007). Adopting and implementing a policy governance model. Journal of
Healthcare Management, 52(5), 343-350.
Hager, M., Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Pins, J. (1996). Tales from the grave:
Organizations’ accounts of their own demise. The American Behavioral Scientist, 39(8),
975-994.
Hale, K. (2013). Understanding nonprofit transparency: The limits of formal regulation in the
American nonprofit sector. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 31-49.
Halpern, D. (2004). President’s column: I dare you to try this at home. APA Online, 35(2).
Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2011). Nonprofit board effectiveness, private philanthropy, and
financial vulnerability. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 520-550.
Ihrke, D. M., & Ford, M. R. (2017). Board development practices on public versus nonprofit
school boards. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 7(2), 141-152.
doi:https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2017-V7-I2-7437
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy
of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71,
589-617.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 158
Kenagay, R. T., Fox. M. A., & Vollrath, D. (2013). Enhancing nonprofit governance through
better information flow to directors. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice,
5(1), 33-43.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. G. (2013). Do learners really know what's best? Urban
legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.
Klausner, M., & Small, J. (2005, Spring). Failing to govern? Stanford Social Innovation Review,
3, 42-49.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Maguire, K. A. (2014). Best practices for nonprofits’ internal control self-assessment. Advances
in Management & Applied Economics, 4(1), 41-87.
Maguire, K. A. (2016). Nonprofit financial assessment and research service learning: Evaluating
the performance of an animal welfare nonprofit organization. Cogent Business &
Management, 3, 1-32. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1149958
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nobbie, P. D., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Testing the implementation, board performance, and
organizational effectiveness of the policy governance model in nonprofit boards of
directors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 571-595.
doi:10.1177/0899764003257460
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 159
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Payette, D. L. (2001). Fiduciary responsibility of board trustees and officers in universities and
colleges. Corporate Governance, 1(4), 12-19.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Rawlings, K. C. (2012). Examining the intrapersonal, political, and civic effects of nonprofit-
board participation. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(3), 320-356.
doi:10.2753/ATP1084-1806340301
Reddy, K., Locke, S., & Fauzi, F. (2013). Relevance of corporate governance practices in
charitable organisations: A case study of registered charities in New Zealand.
International Journal of Managerial Finance, 9(2), 110-132.
doi:10.1108/17439131311307547
Renz, D. O. (Ed.). (2010). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management
(3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Shaffer, F. (2014). What nonprofit board members don’t know can hurt them (and their
organizations). Biofeedback, 42(2), 39-41. doi:10.5298/1081-5937-42.2.08
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 160
Steen-Johnsen, K., Eynaud, P., & Wijkström, F. (2011). On civil society governance: An
emergent research field. Voluntas, 22(4), 555-565.
Taylor, B. E., Chait, R. P., & Holland, T. P. (1996). The new work of the nonprofit board.
Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 36-8, 40, 42-6.
Thach, E., & Thompson, K. J. (2007). Trading places: Examining leadership competencies
between for-profit vs. public and non-profit leaders. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 28, 356-375. doi:10.1108/ 01437730710752229
The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2017). NCCS All Registered
Nonprofits Table Wizard [Data set]. Retrieved from
http://nccsweb.urban.org/tablewiz/bmf.php.
Thomsen, S. (2014). Comparative corporate governance of non-profit organizations. European
Company and Financial Law Review, 11(1), 15-30. doi:10.1515/ecfr-2014-0015
Turbide, J. & Laurin, C. (2014). Governance in the arts and culture nonprofit sector: Vigilance or
indifference? Administrative Sciences, 4, 413-431. doi:10.3390/admsci4040413
Viader, A. M & Espina, M. I. (2014). Are not-for-profits learning from for-profit-organizations?
A look into governance. Corporate Governance, 14(1), 1-14. doi:10.1108/CG-11-2012-
0083
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wells, P. (2012). The non-profit sector and its challenges for governance. Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics, 9(2), 83-93.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 161
Widmer, C. (1993). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload on boards of directors of
nonprofit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(4),
339-356.
Williams, A. C. (2010). New and improved? A case study of nonprofit policy governance.
Human Organization, 69(3), 295-305.
Young, D. R. (2011). The prospective role of economic stakeholders in the governance of
nonprofit organizations. Voluntas, 22(4), 566-586. doi:10.1007/s11266-011-9217-1

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 162
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Opening / Welcome
Welcome [insert interviewee name]. As you know, my name is Joe Palazzolo and I am studying
the fraternity’s board of directors for my doctoral dissertation at USC. I am reviewing the
board’s governance structure and whether it provides the flexibility necessary to respond to
changing conditions both inside and outside of the fraternity as well as the board’s ability to
provide effective oversight of the executive staff. I would like to record this interview to ensure
that any of your responses which are included in my final report are precise and accurate.
Additionally, please note that the recording will be kept confidential and will only be in my
possession. May I record this interview?
Interview Questions
1. With respect to governance, please describe some best practices for nonprofit boards.
2. Which skill sets do you find most desirable for individuals joining nonprofit boards?
a. Are you confident in your fellow board members’ skill sets and abilities? Why or
why not?
b. What about the executive office staff – are you confident in their skill sets and
abilities? Why or why not?
3. What are the board’s limitations in terms of their executive oversight authority?
4. What role does the executive office staff play for the organization?
a. What are the staff’s limits in terms of executive authority?
5. Talk about your confidence level in enacting changes to the governance structure.
a. As a board member, are you confident in your ability to enact governance changes
if or when necessary?
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 163
i. Why or why not?
6. Please talk about how you can exert influence over the executive office’s daily operations
and programming.
a. Are you comfortable exerting this type of influence?
i. Why or why not?
7. How does the executive office use data in making programmatic decisions?
a. Can you provide some examples?
8. How does the board of directors use data in making organizational decisions?
a. Can you provide some examples?
9. For new volunteers, how do you engage them to carry out your vision for the fraternity?
a. Are there any particularly successful examples that you’d like to share?
10. Switching to more experienced, how do you engage them to carry out your vision?
a. Are there any particularly successful examples that you’d like to share?
11. What is the fraternity’s mission?
12. How does the fraternity hold you accountable to meet your fiduciary and oversight
responsibilities?
13. How does the board, as a group, assess itself on an on-going basis?
a. Do you engage in any on-going self-assessment as a board member? If so, can
you describe this self-assessment?
14. Does the fraternity hold board members accountable for not reacting to crises or
significant changes in the external environment?
a. If so, then can you provide some examples?
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 164
15. When you were elected to this board, were you educated on the fraternity’s mission as
well as your role and expectations in meeting the mission?
16. How does the fraternity measure its progress in achieving the goals that are set for it by
the board of directors?
17. How often does the fraternity assess its overall structure and authoritative hierarchy for
efficiency?
a. When was the last time you were aware of such an assessment taking place?
18. And finally, how does your engagement with the executive office staff lead to positive
outcomes for the fraternity?
a. How are resources made available to the staff to implement your vision?
Thank you for your time today. I appreciate your participation in this study. Are there any
additional points that I need to know about this topic before our interview ends?

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 165
Appendix B: Immediate Feedback After Board Orientation
To be administered immediately after the training session is complete.
Scale 1 - 10 (Strongly disagree to strongly agree)
1. The training session held my interest. (Level 1 - Engagement)
2. The training session was relevant to the work that I will be conducting as a board
member. (Level 1 - Relevance)
3. I am satisfied with the training session. (Level 1 - Customer Satisfaction)
4. Understanding the role that the executive office staff plays is critical to being an effective
board member. (Level 2 - Procedural Skills)
5. My role as a board member is critical in carrying out the fraternity's mission. (Level 2 -
Attitude)
6. Incoming board members should be trained to perform their jobs effectively. (Level 2 -
Attitude)
7. I am confident in my ability to carry out the duties and expectations of a board
member. (Level 2 - Confidence)
Open-Ended Questions
1. How will you use what your learned today to help craft a 60, 90, and 180-day plan of
action? (Level 2 - Procedural)
2. Explain the likelihood that you would recommend this training session to future members
of the fraternity’s board of directors. (Level 1 - Customer Satisfaction)

NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES 166
Appendix C: Feedback Survey Two Weeks After Board Orientation
To be administered within two weeks of the training session’s completion.
Scale 1 - 10 (Strongly disagree to strongly agree)
1. The information provided during the training session has been valuable to me in
completing the board’s plan of action. (Level 1)
2. I could provide more relevant and effective information during the formation of the plan
of action after the training session. (Level 2)
3. My fellow board members and I use the materials provided during the training session to
effectively execute our leadership responsibilities for the Fraternity. (Level 3)
4. I can thoroughly discuss and explain my role and responsibility as a board member.
(Level 4)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the nonprofit sector, boards of directors are vested with the legal power to manage all parts of the organization from setting mission and vision to hiring and reviewing executive level leadership and all aspects in between (Greenleaf, 1974/2009). Given the wide latitude and deep authority that board members are provided to manage an organization, it is critical to understand the factors that influence their knowledge and motivation as well as the influences that the organization, itself, may impress on the board. The purpose of this study was to understand these influences on Theta Gamma Psi Fraternity, International’s board of directors by utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. This study’s assumed influences were developed after an extensive literature review

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study

PDF

Reaching the mission through employee engagement and service orientation in a zoological setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Do no harm: an evaluation study of providing culturally competent services to African American women who are victims of domestic violence

PDF

Big-four consulting firm female senior manager engagement, retention and productivity in pursuit of the partner level

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Palazzolo, Joseph Vincent (author)

Core Title The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/10/2018

Defense Date 02/20/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Board of Directors,board orientation,Motivation,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Mosca, Joseph (committee member), Wertman, Adlai (committee member)

Creator Email joseph.v.palazzolo@gmail.com,jpalazzo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-10727

Unique identifier UC11668772

Identifier etd-PalazzoloJ-6185.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-10727 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PalazzoloJ-6185.pdf

Dmrecord 10727

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Palazzolo, Joseph Vincent

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA